What About Jim Smith?

[RDD_1210]

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.

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.

Doesnt matter how much it costs. It's his responsibility. Not anyone elses.

If someone chooses to help them. Great. In fact, I encourage charity, real charity not this entitlement bullcrap. We all have trials. The idea that someone else should be responsible for fixing them or getting us through those trials is a damning lie.

The problem with this nation is that too many people are trying to pretend that their choices have no consequences and will do anything to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. There is only one person responsible for my health - me. So if I intend to maintain it, it has to occur through my own choices.

Medications and treatments wouldn't cost nearly so much if the government wasn't interfering with the costs to begin with.

LOL, of course it matters, and that right there proves you have no interest in actually listening to what the issue is.

So answer this, when you had no insurance how would you have paid off your hospital bills if you say were diagnosed with brain cancer? Are you going to rely on charity to pay $100k, $250k, $500k+ for you? I'd like to hear your honest solution to this very real world problem. Pie in the sky solutions and rhetoric don't pay bills.

 

[RDD_1210]

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

Of course not and I know where you're going with this.

The health insurance mandate is necessary to provide a pool of funds to draw from. Obviously, that means that healthy citizens who may not need it for a while would have to pay into it, too, although who's to say a healthy person might suddenly become unhealthy and then need it, too. And yeah, I'm totally down with it because I've seen from other countries' examples that it not only works, but doesn't turn them into a cesspool of totalitarianism.


Now share with the class why this is truly a bad thing.

That is socialism when you mandate it. It is voluntary socialism if everyone volunteers to pay into it. Either way it is socialism.

So the answer to my original question is. You don't understand the meaning of socialism. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

Especially when the "king" caused the problems we need to be saved from to begin with.

 

[RDD_1210]

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

Now show me someone who will never need healthcare or is immune to accidents or cancer and maybe you'd have a good point.

Why add the words "will never need"? How about they pay for healthcare when they want to or feel they might use it instead?

Great idea, too bad insurance companies were denying millions of people based upon pre-existing conditions. Next great idea?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Why would you when it's a lie?

 

[RDD_1210]

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

Especially when the "king" caused the problems we need to be saved from to begin with.

Who are you suggesting created our healthcare mess?

 

[Avatar4321]

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!!!

Nope. Doesn't matter how much you try to manipulate the argument with emotion, it will never justify Robbery.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

I can see obamaturd mandating Americans buy nothing but green cars. If he could get away with it he would. He pushed a socialist health care plan through, it is not unheard of.

If it was truly a "socialist health care plan" we'd all have health insurance guaranteed and provided through our tax dollars.

Just like every other civilized country.

If it was truly a socialist health care plan, we wouldnt be a civilized nation any more.

 

[Dr.House]

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.

Doesnt matter how much it costs. It's his responsibility. Not anyone elses.

If someone chooses to help them. Great. In fact, I encourage charity, real charity not this entitlement bullcrap. We all have trials. The idea that someone else should be responsible for fixing them or getting us through those trials is a damning lie.

The problem with this nation is that too many people are trying to pretend that their choices have no consequences and will do anything to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. There is only one person responsible for my health - me. So if I intend to maintain it, it has to occur through my own choices.

Medications and treatments wouldn't cost nearly so much if the government wasn't interfering with the costs to begin with.

LOL, of course it matters, and that right there proves you have no interest in actually listening to what the issue is.

So answer this, when you had no insurance how would you have paid off your hospital bills if you say were diagnosed with brain cancer? Are you going to rely on charity to pay $100k, $250k, $500k+ for you? I'd like to hear your honest solution to this very real world problem. Pie in the sky solutions and rhetoric don't pay bills.

Charities That Will Help Pay Medical Bills | eHow.com

Medical Debt, Medical Bills: Summary of Options to Resolve Unpaid Medical Bills

Sources of Financial Assistance - Fact Sheet | CancerCare

 

[George Costanza]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

 

[Avatar4321]

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!!!

And they say that Republicans are mean spirited. WHEREVER did that idea come from?

It came from Democrats lying.

As a Democrat, i figured youd already know that.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

I enjoy and laugh when libtards make fools of themselves....as they always do. Idiots.

 

[Dr.House]

Now show me someone who will never need healthcare or is immune to accidents or cancer and maybe you'd have a good point.

Why add the words "will never need"? How about they pay for healthcare when they want to or feel they might use it instead?

Great idea, too bad insurance companies were denying millions of people based upon pre-existing conditions. Next great idea?

That has nothing to do with what I said... In fact the vast majority of people on the right are in favor of the provision the ends denying coverage based upon pre existing conditions...

Want to try again?

 

[Foxfyre]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

Does this means you have nothing with which to rebut the arguments in favor of freedom over government controlled medicine? That's the best you can do? "Cons' are mean spirited, hateful, selfish, greedy, and kick puppies?

Is there something in the water liberals drink that requires them to think that if somebody has a different idea of compassion, they are mean spirited?

 

[Dr.House]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

You going to continue to ignore the ideas presented?

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

A hospital cannot deny them treatment. So the question is moot.

 

[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.

 

[Dr.House]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

Does this means you have nothing with which to rebut the arguments in favor of freedom over government controlled medicine? That's the best you can do? "Cons' are mean spirited, hateful, selfish, greedy, and kick puppies?

Is there something in the water liberals drink that requires them to think that if somebody has a different idea of compassion, they are mean spirited?

Apparently, unless you believe that all Americans should pay for healthcare you want all cancer patients to die a horrible painful death...

Lib Logic 101

 

[EriktheRed]

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

Of course not and I know where you're going with this.

The health insurance mandate is necessary to provide a pool of funds to draw from. Obviously, that means that healthy citizens who may not need it for a while would have to pay into it, too, although who's to say a healthy person might suddenly become unhealthy and then need it, too.

There has to be another way that doesn't infringe upon constitutional rights... Massive fraud penalities, tort reform, waste elimination and efficiency gains... Hell, even illegal immigration reform...

And you libs wonder why your ideas aren't popular with the twentysomethings....lol No more hope&change there...

And yeah, I'm totally down with it because I've seen from other countries' examples that it not only works, but doesn't turn them into a cesspool of totalitarianism.

I'll ask you: If it works so well elsewhere, which country are you planning to go to for cancer treatment if you are so diagnosed?

"Massive fraud penalities, tort reform, waste elimination and efficiency gains... Hell, even illegal immigration reform..."

^^^^^^^^
All drops in the bucket.


As for "infringing on constitutional rights", it's only absolutists like yourself and other extreme righties on here who feel that way to begin with. The idea that this is "unconstitutional" because it's not explicitly spelled out is just a cop-out for not wanting your tax $$$ to go to help other people. That it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it is our counter-argument.

And for all the examples you can give of people who probably don't deserve that help because they make stupid choices, there are plenty of others where it's no fault of their own.

Have I answered your simple questions now, smartass?

 

[EriktheRed]

In fact the vast majority of people on the right are in favor of the provision the ends denying coverage based upon pre existing conditions...

Won't work without a mandate.