What About Jim Smith?

He decides not to purchase health insurance...

A lack of proper planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

We didn't have Medicare before 1964 an yet everyone got healthcare because that's the kind of people we are. They got the care they needed without forcing unconstitutional redistribution through the federal government. Imagine that.


BS. People died or were ruined finacially, or both.
 
He decides not to purchase health insurance...

A lack of proper planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

We didn't have Medicare before 1964 an yet everyone got healthcare because that's the kind of people we are. They got the care they needed without forcing unconstitutional redistribution through the federal government. Imagine that.


BS. People died or were ruined finacially, or both.

Now, it's the country that is financially ruined but just for fun, why don't you back up your statement with something approaching proof.
 
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.

Unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable. Do you really feel this way? If so, I feel sorry for you.

OK - passing that one for the moment. In my example, Jim Smith might have been able to have afforded health insurance if he had decided to rearrange his budget a little bit - after all, he did have a job. What about the person who has no job? Not having health insurance is not a choice for him - he flat cannot afford it. He isn't "choosing" anything.

What would you do with that guy when he comes up with something that requires medical treatment or he dies?

There are many charities and foundations that help with medical payments for those down on their luck... A responsible Jim should look into those...

A responsible Jim might also try fundraising in his neighborhood - perhaps a "Support Jim 5K Race" in which the proceeds would go towards his medical treatments... Look at Alex's Lemonade and all the good it is doing for cancer kids, even though Alex lost her battle...

I'm sure the hospitals would gladly setup a responsible Jim with affordable payment plans for his treatment...

Hopefully Jim is responsible....
 
As I understand it, the main objection Republicans have to "Obamacare" is, they don't want their good money being taken to support a national health care system that provides health care for others who may be unable to pay for it on their own. Republicans appear to support a system that requires everyone to pay for their own health care, rather than making it a governmental function.

OK, let's suppose Republicans have their way. Obama is out in 2012. That guy from Texas who has promised to start dismantling Obamacare "on Day 1" of his new administration, is now our President Shortly thereafter, a new, completely privatized health care system is installed. Now, everyone is responsible for purchasing their own health insurance.

Here comes Jim Smith - a healthy, 33-year-old father of three, who has a job, but who earns barely enough to support his family. He decides not to purchase health insurance because there simply is not room in the family budget for it. Besides, he is healthy and in the prime of life and figures there will be time enough to get health insurance when he is older, more in need of it and more able to afford it.

Then, one day, Jim goes in for a routine physical and learns that he has advanced prostate cancer. Immediate surgery and radiation treatments are required or he will die. Needless to say, the necessary medical services to save his life are far beyond his means.

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

The principle false dichotomy in your example is the implication that medical costs would be as high as they are now if the government was not meddling in them. They wouldn't be. I was working for a hospital the day Medicare went into effect, and from day one I witnessed the fraud and abuses of the system. And from that day medical costs began spiraling out of reach. Medicaid tripled that effect. I firmly believe that if the government had stayed out of it, it would not be in the crisis mode it is today.

The second false dichotomy is the suggestion that the ONLY way Jim Smith can get treatment is by the government providing it. First, if he can't afford insurance for his family, he shouldn't have gotten married and had kids in the first place. There was a time that responsible adults put themselves in a position to support a family before they started one. Second, as heartless as it seems, if it was his choice to go without insurance, how is that not his right to do? He assumed the risk willingly.

And third, back before the government started meddling, if he was without insurance, Jim Smith would have had his operation and treatment and received a payment schedule to pay it off, sometimes over a long period of time. If he was blessed with a good family, good friends, a good community, probably fund raisers would have been organized to help with the bills.

To give up our choices, options, and opportunities and clamor for a 'king' to save us is not the way of a free people.
 
Not even remotely comparable, but good try. LOL.

Sure it is. Government mandate. Do they have the constitutional authority or not to force a citizen to buy a product? What the product is makes no difference.

People aren't going bankrupt by the hundreds of thousands because they can't afford a car. So like I said...not even remotely comparable.

Are you purposely missing the bigger issue? The constitution is the supreme law of the land which is the measuring stick for all other federal law. Does the constitution provide for mandating that people purchase a product or face a fine if they don't for any reason including people going bankrupt? I don't think so. If you can defend your position, prove it.
 
As I understand it, the main objection Republicans have to "Obamacare" is, they don't want their good money being taken to support a national health care system that provides health care for others who may be unable to pay for it on their own. Republicans appear to support a system that requires everyone to pay for their own health care, rather than making it a governmental function.

OK, let's suppose Republicans have their way. Obama is out in 2012. That guy from Texas who has promised to start dismantling Obamacare "on Day 1" of his new administration, is now our President Shortly thereafter, a new, completely privatized health care system is installed. Now, everyone is responsible for purchasing their own health insurance.

Here comes Jim Smith - a healthy, 33-year-old father of three, who has a job, but who earns barely enough to support his family. He decides not to purchase health insurance because there simply is not room in the family budget for it. Besides, he is healthy and in the prime of life and figures there will be time enough to get health insurance when he is older, more in need of it and more able to afford it.

Then, one day, Jim goes in for a routine physical and learns that he has advanced prostate cancer. Immediate surgery and radiation treatments are required or he will die. Needless to say, the necessary medical services to save his life are far beyond his means.

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

The principle false dichotomy in your example is the implication that medical costs would be as high as they are now if the government was not meddling in them. They wouldn't be. I was working for a hospital the day Medicare went into effect, and from day one I witnessed the fraud and abuses of the system. And from that day medical costs began spiraling out of reach. Medicaid tripled that effect. I firmly believe that if the government had stayed out of it, it would not be in the crisis mode it is today.

The second false dichotomy is the suggestion that the ONLY way Jim Smith can get treatment is by the government providing it. First, if he can't afford insurance for his family, he shouldn't have gotten married and had kids in the first place. There was a time that responsible adults put themselves in a position to support a family before they started one. Second, as heartless as it seems, if it was his choice to go without insurance, how is that not his right to do? He assumed the risk willingly.

And third, back before the government started meddling, if he was without insurance, Jim Smith would have had his operation and treatment and received a payment schedule to pay it off, sometimes over a long period of time. If he was blessed with a good family, good friends, a good community, probably fund raisers would have been organized to help with the bills.

To give up our choices, options, and opportunities and clamor for a 'king' to save us is not the way of a free people.

Couldn't agree more.

HC prices started going up shortly after Medicare came into effect.

One has to wonder where prices would be today if the Govt hadn't stuck its fat nose in and let people take care of their own HC needs.

Unintended consequences yet again.
 
So people who are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, or leukemia, or brain cancer, etc...do you have any idea how much treatment and medication costs? Of course you don't otherwise you wouldn't have typed the utterly ridiculous post you just made.

No one is denied care. The question is how will it eventually get paid.

There are two issues here.

1) there is a difference between basic stabilizing care and quality care.

2) How it is paid is the issue. We are and have been paying for peoples care for years. The question is, how do we do it and make it cost less.

And Obamacare won't make it cheaper to insure millions of people as opposed to the much smaller number who actually end up in the hospital with hundreds or thousands in bills. Rarely does the government pay for those bills. They are either written off or friends and family help raise the funds to pay the bills. See the recent threads regarding one of Ron Paul's campaign workers who died in the hospital recieving care without insurance.
 
Sure it is. Government mandate. Do they have the constitutional authority or not to force a citizen to buy a product? What the product is makes no difference.

People aren't going bankrupt by the hundreds of thousands because they can't afford a car. So like I said...not even remotely comparable.

Are you purposely missing the bigger issue? The constitution is the supreme law of the land which is the measuring stick for all other federal law. Does the constitution provide for mandating that people purchase a product or face a fine if they don't for any reason including people going bankrupt? I don't think so. If you can defend your position, prove it.

Me missing the bigger issue? So when I prove that your point is ridiculous, your response is to fall back to the tired old "it's unconstitutional" argument.

Shame. I thought you were trying to discuss the issue and what is actually happening in our country. Nope, you're just like the rest of the crackpots who don't have a real argument so instead the cry about some sort of freedom that is being taken away.

Let me know when you're ready to have an adult discussion about the real issues and not made up issues that don't have any basis in todays reality.
 
No one is denied care. The question is how will it eventually get paid.

There are two issues here.

1) there is a difference between basic stabilizing care and quality care.

2) How it is paid is the issue. We are and have been paying for peoples care for years. The question is, how do we do it and make it cost less.

And Obamacare won't make it cheaper to insure millions of people as opposed to the much smaller number who actually end up in the hospital with hundreds or thousands in bills. Rarely does the government pay for those bills. They are either written off or friends and family help raise the funds to pay the bills. See the recent threads regarding one of Ron Paul's campaign workers who died in the hospital recieving care without insurance.

I agee. "Obamacare" probably won't make it cheaper. All that it really does is make it easier for more people to gain access to the shitty system we already had.

If people were really worried about making it cheaper than they would have supported the public option. Without true competition, the price of insurance will never really come down.
 
He decides not to purchase health insurance...

A lack of proper planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

We didn't have Medicare before 1964 an yet everyone got healthcare because that's the kind of people we are. They got the care they needed without forcing unconstitutional redistribution through the federal government. Imagine that.

That is so not true that one has to wonder whether you're being purposely misleading. The whole reason for Medicare was to give elderly Americans a fighting chance. Before Medicare, the elderly were literally dying in the streets.
 
People aren't going bankrupt by the hundreds of thousands because they can't afford a car. So like I said...not even remotely comparable.

Are you purposely missing the bigger issue? The constitution is the supreme law of the land which is the measuring stick for all other federal law. Does the constitution provide for mandating that people purchase a product or face a fine if they don't for any reason including people going bankrupt? I don't think so. If you can defend your position, prove it.

Me missing the bigger issue? So when I prove that your point is ridiculous, your response is to fall back to the tired old "it's unconstitutional" argument.

Shame. I thought you were trying to discuss the issue and what is actually happening in our country. Nope, you're just like the rest of the crackpots who don't have a real argument so instead the cry about some sort of freedom that is being taken away.

Let me know when you're ready to have an adult discussion about the real issues and not made up issues that don't have any basis in todays reality.

Nice try, but no cigar. We are discussing the issue. You've shown your hand by dismissing the "tired old" constitution. If the government can tell you to purchase health care and enfoce it thru fines for healthcare, what can they not force you to do. Whether having health care is a good thing or not is beside the point. They could just as easily say that you have to workout at the gym and maintain a certain government approved weight because it is good for you too. Do you honestly not understand why giving up personal responsibility for a nanny state is a bad thing? Do you really want to be a ward of the state? Do you really want to set the constitution aside when it suits your desires to be cared for by the state? I pray not.
 
He decides not to purchase health insurance...

A lack of proper planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

We didn't have Medicare before 1964 an yet everyone got healthcare because that's the kind of people we are. They got the care they needed without forcing unconstitutional redistribution through the federal government. Imagine that.

That is so not true that one has to wonder whether you're being purposely misleading. The whole reason for Medicare was to give elderly Americans a fighting chance. Before Medicare, the elderly were literally dying in the streets.

I remember going to funerals for old folks back then just like I do now. I don't remember having to dodge their bodies when I was riding my bicycle.
 
Are you purposely missing the bigger issue? The constitution is the supreme law of the land which is the measuring stick for all other federal law. Does the constitution provide for mandating that people purchase a product or face a fine if they don't for any reason including people going bankrupt? I don't think so. If you can defend your position, prove it.

Me missing the bigger issue? So when I prove that your point is ridiculous, your response is to fall back to the tired old "it's unconstitutional" argument.

Shame. I thought you were trying to discuss the issue and what is actually happening in our country. Nope, you're just like the rest of the crackpots who don't have a real argument so instead the cry about some sort of freedom that is being taken away.

Let me know when you're ready to have an adult discussion about the real issues and not made up issues that don't have any basis in todays reality.

Nice try, but no cigar. We are discussing the issue. You've shown your hand by dismissing the "tired old" constitution. If the government can tell you to purchase health care and enfoce it thru fines for healthcare, what can they not force you to do. Whether having health care is a good thing or not is beside the point. They could just as easily say that you have to workout at the gym and maintain a certain government approved weight because it is good for you too. Do you honestly not understand why giving up personal responsibility for a nanny state is a bad thing? Do you really want to be a ward of the state? Do you really want to set the constitution aside when it suits your desires to be cared for by the state? I pray not.

I get it. You're a doomsdayer. Since the government is helping to solve an issue facing our country today, you feel that now opens the door to some mythical situation that has no real basis in reality, but "it could" happen one day.

Tell me, under what scenario do you envision the purchasing of cars being mandated one day. I'd love to hear this scenario.
 
He decides not to purchase health insurance...

A lack of proper planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

We didn't have Medicare before 1964 an yet everyone got healthcare because that's the kind of people we are. They got the care they needed without forcing unconstitutional redistribution through the federal government. Imagine that.

That is so not true that one has to wonder whether you're being purposely misleading. The whole reason for Medicare was to give elderly Americans a fighting chance. Before Medicare, the elderly were literally dying in the streets.

Link? Supporting evidence? Proof of any kind?

Didn't think so. Were you even alive in the early 60s?
 
As I understand it, the main objection Republicans have to "Obamacare" is, they don't want their good money being taken to support a national health care system that provides health care for others who may be unable to pay for it on their own. Republicans appear to support a system that requires everyone to pay for their own health care, rather than making it a governmental function.

OK, let's suppose Republicans have their way. Obama is out in 2012. That guy from Texas who has promised to start dismantling Obamacare "on Day 1" of his new administration, is now our President Shortly thereafter, a new, completely privatized health care system is installed. Now, everyone is responsible for purchasing their own health insurance.

Here comes Jim Smith - a healthy, 33-year-old father of three, who has a job, but who earns barely enough to support his family. He decides not to purchase health insurance because there simply is not room in the family budget for it. Besides, he is healthy and in the prime of life and figures there will be time enough to get health insurance when he is older, more in need of it and more able to afford it.

Then, one day, Jim goes in for a routine physical and learns that he has advanced prostate cancer. Immediate surgery and radiation treatments are required or he will die. Needless to say, the necessary medical services to save his life are far beyond his means.

What would the Republicans do with Jim Smith - just let him die?
Maybe Jim Smith should have given up his cigarettes and/or beer and put that money towards health insurance. Pulling at heart strings still does not make it right for the gov't. to make it mandatory to have healthcare. Scenario. The gov't. tells me I have to buy health insurance or get fined. I can not afford the health insurance, what makes the idiots think I can afford the fine? Socialists are wrong!!!
 
Me missing the bigger issue? So when I prove that your point is ridiculous, your response is to fall back to the tired old "it's unconstitutional" argument.

Shame. I thought you were trying to discuss the issue and what is actually happening in our country. Nope, you're just like the rest of the crackpots who don't have a real argument so instead the cry about some sort of freedom that is being taken away.

Let me know when you're ready to have an adult discussion about the real issues and not made up issues that don't have any basis in todays reality.

Nice try, but no cigar. We are discussing the issue. You've shown your hand by dismissing the "tired old" constitution. If the government can tell you to purchase health care and enfoce it thru fines for healthcare, what can they not force you to do. Whether having health care is a good thing or not is beside the point. They could just as easily say that you have to workout at the gym and maintain a certain government approved weight because it is good for you too. Do you honestly not understand why giving up personal responsibility for a nanny state is a bad thing? Do you really want to be a ward of the state? Do you really want to set the constitution aside when it suits your desires to be cared for by the state? I pray not.

I get it. You're a doomsdayer. Since the government is helping to solve an issue facing our country today, you feel that now opens the door to some mythical situation that has no real basis in reality, but "it could" happen one day.

Tell me, under what scenario do you envision the purchasing of cars being mandated one day. I'd love to hear this scenario.

If you don't understand, just say so and I'll try to explain it in simpler terms.
 
Nice try, but no cigar. We are discussing the issue. You've shown your hand by dismissing the "tired old" constitution. If the government can tell you to purchase health care and enfoce it thru fines for healthcare, what can they not force you to do. Whether having health care is a good thing or not is beside the point. They could just as easily say that you have to workout at the gym and maintain a certain government approved weight because it is good for you too. Do you honestly not understand why giving up personal responsibility for a nanny state is a bad thing? Do you really want to be a ward of the state? Do you really want to set the constitution aside when it suits your desires to be cared for by the state? I pray not.

I get it. You're a doomsdayer. Since the government is helping to solve an issue facing our country today, you feel that now opens the door to some mythical situation that has no real basis in reality, but "it could" happen one day.

Tell me, under what scenario do you envision the purchasing of cars being mandated one day. I'd love to hear this scenario.

If you don't understand, just say so and I'll try to explain it in simpler terms.

I don't understand. Please explain to me in simpler terms why you are against solving a problem facing the country today based upon the fear of an absurd problem that will never actually happen one day down the road. Go ahead and break it down for me.
 
George, Republicans are against anything Democrats are successful in passing into law, even if they agreed with it. That is called Playing Politics with America's well being, and that is why most Americans polled dislike Republicans more than Democrats.
What poll? Every poll I see says otherwise. If you are a socialist you support obamacare, period.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top