What About Jim Smith?

[RDD_1210]

Weird how it gets eerily quiet when you start asking for specifics.

I gave you some specifics. Now YOU reciprocate with some specifics. You did? Which post?

1. How much less would healthcare cost without government meddling and interference? Don't know. You tell me. How much would it cost without insurance companies serving as a needless middle man?

2. How much would private charities help out Jim? This was established already. At best it would cover up to 60% if he sought out their help before treatment.

3. Is Jim not to be held in any way accountable for not including healthcare insurance in his budget? Yup. Ask Avatar why didn't have insurance for a period. Contrary to what you might believe, people aren't always moochers when they go without insurance. And if you feel Jim should be held accountable for his bills, maybe you can give us an idea how he or someone like him would pay off the money that charity doesn't cover.

4. How much are YOU personally willing to help out Jim? I already help out Jim through higher insurance premiums when he shows up at the ER and can't pay. I'll also help Jim by supporting Universal health care and happily paying in to the system. I'll also help Jim by agreeing to do my part and pay in to the shitty system we have now and help offset the costs for everyone. And if I happen to be related to Jim or be friends with him I'd help him pay the costs directly.

5. Do you honestly believe that government that usually absorbs half to two-thirds of every tax dollar collected into the bureaucracy can provide healthcare more inexpensively than can a St. Judes that depends on charitable contributions but uses them ALL for healthcare delivery? St. Judes doesn't treat the entire nation. Insurance companies control the healthcare industry. Insurance companies that are designed to make a profit by taking money out of the system to cover overhead and make a profit for their shareholders. Shift that burden to the government and the need to make a profit is wiped out. Sure the government is inefficient but look at the amount of money that people pay in to private insurance that gets put towards patient care.

6. If private insurance and medical fees were affordable, would you rather take care of those yourself at a lower cost than what taxes, fees, regulations, and mandates will cost you if the government does it? Would you like to have a choice?Choice is always good. Hence why I wanted to see a public option. Let people choose want they want. What we have now isn't choice. It's a monopoly by private companies supported by the government.

Answered your questions in red even though I don't think I ever saw a post from you with the specific plan I was looking for.

 

[kwc57]

I don't advocate letting people "die in the streets." Unfortunately, more than a few people here seem to feel that is OK rather than participate in our present form of health care.

No, no they don't.

Read the thread, Soggy. Yes, they do.

Please link to these posts as I read the thread and never saw a single person advocating letting people die in the streets.

 

[kwc57]

A little reminder, folks - the issue here is: what do we do with someone who has no health insurance and will die without certain medical treatment he/she cannot afford? It is a limited point. The issue here is not whether mandatory health insurance is constitutional, a good or bad idea, or anything else.

I am asking a serious question - if Republicans have their way, there are going to be a LOT of people in Jim Smith's situation. OK, Repubs - what are you going to do with those people? Never mind the hindsight arguments about why universal health coverage is a bad idea or wrong.

What are you going to do with those people?

Answered in post 12 - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/185926-what-about-jim-smith.html#post4166146

Once that was answered, the discussion turned to the legality of the federal government mandating insurance or any other good or service.

You hardly "answered" anything. You ignored the fact that there is a big difference in not turning someone away and just stabilizing them and actually giving them medical care.

You're a little slow on the uptake aren't you? Quit reading what you want to see and start paying attention.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, no they don't.

Read the thread, Soggy. Yes, they do.

Please link to these posts as I read the thread and never saw a single person advocating letting people die in the streets.

Exactly. It takes either a severe reading dysfunction or really selective proof texting to make a case that anybody wishes Jim any harm.

There are those who think Jim should be held accountable for the choices he makes, however, and that it is wrong for the government to force others to take over Jim's responsibility re healthcare as much as it is wrong for the government to force others to pick up the pieces for irresponsible choices Jim makes about food, housing, clothing, transportation or anything else.

And not ONE of the liberal on this thread seems to see voluntary giving as a reasonable solution for anything; most especially when it is THEM who are asked to give.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So unless other hard working people who have had to sacrifice for what little they have pay for Jim, he is going to die? Are you familiar with the term false dichotemy?

There are more than two choices. One is he gets the medical services and he pays for them himself. You know something responsible people do. I spent a while not having insurance, do you know what happened when I got sick? I paid for the doctor myself.

I didn't look for some handout. Why would any self-respecting man do so? he chose to gamble with his health. He needs to take responsibility for his actions.

This idea that we shouldn't have to take responsibility for anything we choose is absolutely absurd.

You mean you would expect Jim to make a choice between basic healthcare and HBO and Showtime?

That's horrible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Weird how it gets eerily quiet when you start asking for specifics.

I gave you some specifics. Now YOU reciprocate with some specifics. You did? Which post?

1. How much less would healthcare cost without government meddling and interference? Don't know. You tell me. How much would it cost without insurance companies serving as a needless middle man?

2. How much would private charities help out Jim? This was established already. At best it would cover up to 60% if he sought out their help before treatment.

3. Is Jim not to be held in any way accountable for not including healthcare insurance in his budget? Yup. Ask Avatar why didn't have insurance for a period. Contrary to what you might believe, people aren't always moochers when they go without insurance. And if you feel Jim should be held accountable for his bills, maybe you can give us an idea how he or someone like him would pay off the money that charity doesn't cover.

4. How much are YOU personally willing to help out Jim? I already help out Jim through higher insurance premiums when he shows up at the ER and can't pay. I'll also help Jim by supporting Universal health care and happily paying in to the system. I'll also help Jim by agreeing to do my part and pay in to the shitty system we have now and help offset the costs for everyone. And if I happen to be related to Jim or be friends with him I'd help him pay the costs directly.

5. Do you honestly believe that government that usually absorbs half to two-thirds of every tax dollar collected into the bureaucracy can provide healthcare more inexpensively than can a St. Judes that depends on charitable contributions but uses them ALL for healthcare delivery? St. Judes doesn't treat the entire nation. Insurance companies control the healthcare industry. Insurance companies that are designed to make a profit by taking money out of the system to cover overhead and make a profit for their shareholders. Shift that burden to the government and the need to make a profit is wiped out. Sure the government is inefficient but look at the amount of money that people pay in to private insurance that gets put towards patient care.

6. If private insurance and medical fees were affordable, would you rather take care of those yourself at a lower cost than what taxes, fees, regulations, and mandates will cost you if the government does it? Would you like to have a choice?Choice is always good. Hence why I wanted to see a public option. Let people choose want they want. What we have now isn't choice. It's a monopoly by private companies supported by the government.

Answered your questions in red even though I don't think I ever saw a post from you with the specific plan I was looking for.

It is there and I'm not going to go back and look for it. For a time, my job was helping people come up with a plan to pay off their hospital bills. It doesn't matter how much or how little they are able to pay; it DOES matter that people are held responsible for the bills they owe. That is a powerful incentive to make sure you DO include health insurance in the family budget.

As for the rest of it, you don't have much in the way of specifics either. You don't have a clue how much charity will pay. (For many of the St. Jude's kids it is 100%.) You don't have a clue what other resources a person or his family might have. You aren't willing to help out Jim one thin dime but you're willing for the government to take whatever it wants from you and everybody?

One of the most stifling effects on generosity and charity is a government program. Once the government takes it over, our little pittance of a contribution seems silly. Yet Americans are the most compassionate, generous people on earth. Get the government out of it, and the American people will take care of the Jim's of the world over and above what Jim is able to do for himself. And Jim will be much more likely to do for himself.

Right now I have EVERY choice. I can choose more expensive insurance, cheaper insurance, or no insurance. I like that choice and the government wants to take it away from me.

 

[Mr Natural]

So you're going to play the stoopid game too? 10 years ago, who would have ever thought Congress would pass a law forcing Americans to purchase a product......any product.....for any reason? If they can do it with healthcare, why not something else that our nany state deems we need? I chose a car out of the air. It could just as easily be an insurance policy to pay for your funeral. You know, there are a lot of people who can't pay for those either. Expand your timy mind a little to understand the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether you think everyone has a "right" to healthcare, is it constitutional to mandate citizens purchase it or face a fine?

Take a trip to Tuscon sometime and look around at the acres and acres of junked military aircraft that we've been forced to buy.

Did junior high let out early today? Does your mom know you're using her computer?

Are insults all you can come up with when faced with the truth?


Asshole!

 

[RDD_1210]

Answered in post 12 - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/185926-what-about-jim-smith.html#post4166146

Once that was answered, the discussion turned to the legality of the federal government mandating insurance or any other good or service.

You hardly "answered" anything. You ignored the fact that there is a big difference in not turning someone away and just stabilizing them and actually giving them medical care.

You're a little slow on the uptake aren't you? Quit reading what you want to see and start paying attention.

Your "answer" was linking to a Google search result. You're kind of forcing me to "read what I want" no? Otherwise you would have linked directly to what you want us to read.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Take a trip to Tuscon sometime and look around at the acres and acres of junked military aircraft that we've been forced to buy.

This is the truth? More like the rantings of a first class Goober.

 

[RDD_1210]

I gave you some specifics. Now YOU reciprocate with some specifics. You did? Which post?

1. How much less would healthcare cost without government meddling and interference? Don't know. You tell me. How much would it cost without insurance companies serving as a needless middle man?

2. How much would private charities help out Jim? This was established already. At best it would cover up to 60% if he sought out their help before treatment.

3. Is Jim not to be held in any way accountable for not including healthcare insurance in his budget? Yup. Ask Avatar why didn't have insurance for a period. Contrary to what you might believe, people aren't always moochers when they go without insurance. And if you feel Jim should be held accountable for his bills, maybe you can give us an idea how he or someone like him would pay off the money that charity doesn't cover.

4. How much are YOU personally willing to help out Jim? I already help out Jim through higher insurance premiums when he shows up at the ER and can't pay. I'll also help Jim by supporting Universal health care and happily paying in to the system. I'll also help Jim by agreeing to do my part and pay in to the shitty system we have now and help offset the costs for everyone. And if I happen to be related to Jim or be friends with him I'd help him pay the costs directly.

5. Do you honestly believe that government that usually absorbs half to two-thirds of every tax dollar collected into the bureaucracy can provide healthcare more inexpensively than can a St. Judes that depends on charitable contributions but uses them ALL for healthcare delivery? St. Judes doesn't treat the entire nation. Insurance companies control the healthcare industry. Insurance companies that are designed to make a profit by taking money out of the system to cover overhead and make a profit for their shareholders. Shift that burden to the government and the need to make a profit is wiped out. Sure the government is inefficient but look at the amount of money that people pay in to private insurance that gets put towards patient care.

6. If private insurance and medical fees were affordable, would you rather take care of those yourself at a lower cost than what taxes, fees, regulations, and mandates will cost you if the government does it? Would you like to have a choice?Choice is always good. Hence why I wanted to see a public option. Let people choose want they want. What we have now isn't choice. It's a monopoly by private companies supported by the government.

Answered your questions in red even though I don't think I ever saw a post from you with the specific plan I was looking for.

It is there and I'm not going to go back and look for it. For a time, my job was helping people come up with a plan to pay off their hospital bills. It doesn't matter how much or how little they are able to pay; it DOES matter that people are held responsible for the bills they owe. That is a powerful incentive to make sure you DO include health insurance in the family budget.

As for the rest of it, you don't have much in the way of specifics either. You don't have a clue how much charity will pay. (For many of the St. Jude's kids it is 100%.) You don't have a clue what other resources a person or his family might have. You aren't willing to help out Jim one thin dime but you're willing for the government to take whatever it wants from you and everybody?

One of the most stifling effects on generosity and charity is a government program. Once the government takes it over, our little pittance of a contribution seems silly. Yet Americans are the most compassionate, generous people on earth. Get the government out of it, and the American people will take care of the Jim's of the world over and above what Jim is able to do for himself. And Jim will be much more likely to do for himself.

Right now I have EVERY choice. I can choose more expensive insurance, cheaper insurance, or no insurance. I like that choice and the government wants to take it away from me.

Next time before you respond, you should actually read what I wrote. It actually helps.

 

[Foxfyre]

Take a trip to Tuscon sometime and look around at the acres and acres of junked military aircraft that we've been forced to buy.

Did junior high let out early today? Does your mom know you're using her computer?

Are insults all you can come up with when faced with the truth?


Asshole!

And all that junked military aircraft gives you confidence that the government is the best entity to run a universal healthcare system? Perhaps you could extrapolate into the point you hoped to make with that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What would the Republicans do with Jim Smith - just let him die?

Yes, he’s to be made an example of – a disincentive (or incentive, however one may look at it) as to not preparing sufficiently in life to be able to afford insurance or the needed medical care.

Of course, in the conservative Utopia there is no welfare – the children would be taken from the surviving spouse and distributed to private, non-profit entities according to age or perhaps sent to live with relatives; the surviving spouse would more than likely end up a prostitute, in prison, or dead.

Conservatives believe humans are motivated only by fear and greed – the former fearfully toiling for the benefit of the latter.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So unless other hard working people who have had to sacrifice for what little they have pay for Jim, he is going to die? Are you familiar with the term false dichotemy?

There are more than two choices. One is he gets the medical services and he pays for them himself. You know something responsible people do. I spent a while not having insurance, do you know what happened when I got sick? I paid for the doctor myself.

I didn't look for some handout. Why would any self-respecting man do so? he chose to gamble with his health. He needs to take responsibility for his actions.

This idea that we shouldn't have to take responsibility for anything we choose is absolutely absurd.

Once "Obamacare" has been repealed there is no way for a person with such a diagnosis to get health care, and even if there was the cost would be extreme.

But I won't even go with the argument as to what happens to his three kids and his widow, obviously callous conservatives don't care. Selfish disregard for others is disgusting.

 

[George Costanza]

Weird how it gets eerily quiet when you start asking for specifics.

I gave you some specifics. Now YOU reciprocate with some specifics.

1. How much less would healthcare cost without government meddling and interference?

2. How much would private charities help out Jim?

3. Is Jim not to be held in any way accountable for not including healthcare insurance in his budget?

4. How much are YOU personally willing to help out Jim?

5. Do you honestly believe that government that usually absorbs half to two-thirds of every tax dollar collected into the bureaucracy can provide healthcare more inexpensively than can a St. Judes that depends on charitable contributions but uses them ALL for healthcare delivery?

6. If private insurance and medical fees were affordable, would you rather take care of those yourself at a lower cost than what taxes, fees, regulations, and mandates will cost you if the government does it? Would you like to have a choice?

This appears somewhat disingenuous, Foxy. "Less expensive" health insurance means NOTHING to someone who cannot afford it, no matter how cheap it is. And "less expensive" for whom?, while we are at it.

You just don't want your tax dollar going to help someone else whom you feel should be hellping himself. And if you don't feel quite that way personally, I can guaran-damn-tee you there are all kinds of Republicans who do - many of them have so much as said so on this very thread.

 

[George Costanza]

And not ONE of the liberal on this thread seems to see voluntary giving as a reasonable solution for anything; most especially when it is THEM who are asked to give.

The liberals are not on trial on this thread - the Republicans are. This is a thread that asks the rhetorical question of conservatives, if your wishes came true, and Obamacare no longer existed, what would you do with someone who was about to die for lack of medical care they could not afford because they had no health insurance?

 

[Foxfyre]

Weird how it gets eerily quiet when you start asking for specifics.

I gave you some specifics. Now YOU reciprocate with some specifics.

1. How much less would healthcare cost without government meddling and interference?

2. How much would private charities help out Jim?

3. Is Jim not to be held in any way accountable for not including healthcare insurance in his budget?

4. How much are YOU personally willing to help out Jim?

5. Do you honestly believe that government that usually absorbs half to two-thirds of every tax dollar collected into the bureaucracy can provide healthcare more inexpensively than can a St. Judes that depends on charitable contributions but uses them ALL for healthcare delivery?

6. If private insurance and medical fees were affordable, would you rather take care of those yourself at a lower cost than what taxes, fees, regulations, and mandates will cost you if the government does it? Would you like to have a choice?

This appears somewhat disingenuous, Foxy. "Less expensive" health insurance means NOTHING to someone who cannot afford it, no matter how cheap it is. And "less expensive" for whom?, while we are at it.

You just don't want your tax dollar going to help someone else whom you feel should be hellping himself. And if you don't feel quite that way personally, I can guaran-damn-tee you there are all kinds of Republicans who do - many of them have so much as said so on this very thread.

There are just as many liberals who object to the way government spends money on the behalf of others as there are Republicans so please remove the toxic element from this discussion that you seem determined to insert into it. It is irrelevent to the debate.

But you're right that I don't want my tax dollars going to another individual because the minute you give the federal government the ability and power to pick winners and losers, you begin to erode the very freedoms that many risked much blood and treasure to give us and that the Constitution intended to protect. Such power corrupts both those in government and those who are the recipients of government largesse and it is the people themselves who will suffer the worst effects of that.

The most important rule of sound economics is to look beyond the immediate effect of economic policy and consider all the ramifications of the policy in all directions; backwards, sideways, and forward. Who would have thought that the innocent little social security program intended to provide a little something for the elderly would have mushroomed into the enormous, unsustainable albatross that it has become? Ditto for Medicare. And all other entitlement programs that create more dependents than they help people achieve self reliance.

Despite your rather hateful expressed opinions of Republicans and conservatives, those of us in that group do not wish any harm to come to your "Jim Smith" or anybody else. But we also know that big government cannot fix all that hurts, provide all that everybody needs, or set right all that is broken. We see compassion as putting together social contract and systems that are sustainable, that don't drain the lifeblood out of the economy, and that accomplish the higher goals.

And we are very big on personal liberties which of necessity must include the right to be stupid or irresponsible as much as the right to strive to reach for the brass ring.

Unless you are willing to dig into your own pocket and give of your own resources to help out "Jim", you have no standing to demand that everybody be put on the hook to help out "Jim" so that you are relieved of that responsibility. Again compassion is not using other people's money to absolve your own guilt.

From the first of the thread, I said the compassionate thing is to get Jim treatment and then work out how he will pay his bill to the best of his ability. And if friends, family, neighbors, the entire community want to help him out, and if the government stays out of it, that usually happens, that is all good.

A system in which nobody is expected to take responsibility for himself/herself is certain to produce many unintended negative consequences.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But I won't even go with the argument as to what happens to his three kids and his widow, obviously callous conservatives don't care. Selfish disregard for others is disgusting.

According to conservative Utopian dogma there would be a ‘difficult transition period’ when indeed many would suffer greatly. Conservatives never say how long this period will last or how many people will suffer, but once the transition is complete and we move from ‘state dependency’ to ‘self sufficiency,’ a Utopia will manifest.

Conservatives envision a kind of ‘Nineteenth Century Utopia’ typical of reactionaries where 21st Century versions of ‘landed gentry’ employ itinerate laborers receiving a blend of in-kind and monetary compensation – free of any sort of wage or labor regulations, of course. Everyone would return to large, multi-generational homes where the young family members would care for the sick and old, so Medicare and Social Security will no longer be needed.

The poor would then be the ‘truly poor,’ making up a tiny percentage of the overall population – so small in fact they can be cared for by religious and other non-profit entities funded by tithes and charitable donations alone.

The above would merely be weird and pathetic except for the fact that many who believe this nonsense now occupy much if the House and still other such believers are running for president.

 

[Claudette]

I'm not interested in paying for anybodys anything.

If George and all like minded have no problem and want to help their fellow man they should start their own charity.

Let em Open their wallets. Whip out their checkbooks and have at it.

Of course due to all the freeloaders in America they will be broke in no time but what the hey. They will feel oh so good about themselves.

But you already do pay for others. Way before Obama was ever elected.

Only because I have no choice in the matter RD.

 

[Claudette]

But I won't even go with the argument as to what happens to his three kids and his widow, obviously callous conservatives don't care. Selfish disregard for others is disgusting.

According to conservative Utopian dogma there would be a ‘difficult transition period’ when indeed many would suffer greatly. Conservatives never say how long this period will last or how many people will suffer, but once the transition is complete and we move from ‘state dependency’ to ‘self sufficiency,’ a Utopia will manifest.

Conservatives envision a kind of ‘Nineteenth Century Utopia’ typical of reactionaries where 21st Century versions of ‘landed gentry’ employ itinerate laborers receiving a blend of in-kind and monetary compensation – free of any sort of wage or labor regulations, of course. Everyone would return to large, multi-generational homes where the young family members would care for the sick and old, so Medicare and Social Security will no longer be needed.

The poor would then be the ‘truly poor,’ making up a tiny percentage of the overall population – so small in fact they can be cared for by religious and other non-profit entities funded by tithes and charitable donations alone.

The above would merely be weird and pathetic except for the fact that many who believe this nonsense now occupy much if the House and still other such believers are running for president.

Apparantly you have no problem taking other peoples money to fund your idea of Utopia. That appears to be A O K with you.

If you and all likeminded want to fund your Utopia, well be my guest. Use your money not everybody elses.

I, on the other hand, have no wish to fund anybodys anything.

I pick the charities I give to. I don't need you or the Govts help at all in that department.

 

[Claudette]

I'm not interested in paying for anybodys anything.

If George and all like minded have no problem and want to help their fellow man they should start their own charity.

Let em Open their wallets. Whip out their checkbooks and have at it.

Of course due to all the freeloaders in America they will be broke in no time but what the hey. They will feel oh so good about themselves.

"Are there no prisons, no workhouses?"

Ebineezer Scrooge, "A Chirstmas Carol" by Charles Dickens

What drivel.

Start your own charity George. Put your money where your mouth is and lets see how long your charity stay solvent.

Oh Yeah and thanks for deciding how everyone in America needs to fund your idea of Utopia.