Will You Pay More So That I MIGHT Live?

[Cecilie1200]

there is a cop who was shot in north idaho a few years ago, his family had to have a fund raiser to pay for extensive recontruction surgerory and to pay for the medical costs that his private insurance and the victims fund would not pay for. This is a prime example that our current system is flawed.

Actually it's an example that the system works fine. They raised the money privately. No one was coerced into giving for something they didnt want to. No jobs were destroyed in the process.
Sounds like a win-win to me.

so a cop that is shot in the line of duty should have to pay for part of his medical costs?

He didn't have to, because other people chose to help him. What a great system.

 

[The Rabbi]

there is a cop who was shot in north idaho a few years ago, his family had to have a fund raiser to pay for extensive recontruction surgerory and to pay for the medical costs that his private insurance and the victims fund would not pay for. This is a prime example that our current system is flawed.

Actually it's an example that the system works fine. They raised the money privately. No one was coerced into giving for something they didnt want to. No jobs were destroyed in the process.
Sounds like a win-win to me.

so a cop that is shot in the line of duty should have to pay for part of his medical costs?

Why shouldn't he?

 

[noose4]

The Scenario:

I am a 63 year old male. I'm married with grown children and grandkids. To everyone but my family, I am somewhere between a nobody and a statistic. I work at a job that is tolerable and stable enough to look forward to retiring at my full retirement age of 66, even though I could live on the Social Security that was available to me at 62. I have health coverage through my employer via private insurance.
Yea
I have just been diagnosed with a very serious condition that breaks down like this:

Without treatment I will die within 3 months. There is a treatment available which has a 100% chance of extending my life for 9 more months and a 6% chance of curing me.

The cost of the treatment is huge in both dollars and health care resources.

Here is the question for discussion:

Are YOU willing to suffer a 5% increase in your premiums so that the insurance underwriter we share can afford to give me 6 months + lottery odds at a cure?

Is it fair of me to ask you to?

yes and yes, life is precious and more important than having a few extra dollars in my pocket.

 

[noose4]

there is a cop who was shot in north idaho a few years ago, his family had to have a fund raiser to pay for extensive recontruction surgerory and to pay for the medical costs that his private insurance and the victims fund would not pay for. This is a prime example that our current system is flawed.

Actually it's an example that the system works fine. They raised the money privately. No one was coerced into giving for something they didnt want to. No jobs were destroyed in the process.
Sounds like a win-win to me.

so a cop that is shot in the line of duty should have to pay for part of his medical costs?

That is crazy and shameful.

 

[Gunny]

The Scenario:

I am a 63 year old male. I'm married with grown children and grandkids. To everyone but my family, I am somewhere between a nobody and a statistic. I work at a job that is tolerable and stable enough to look forward to retiring at my full retirement age of 66, even though I could live on the Social Security that was available to me at 62. I have health coverage through my employer via private insurance.

I have just been diagnosed with a very serious condition that breaks down like this:

Without treatment I will die within 3 months. There is a treatment available which has a 100% chance of extending my life for 9 more months and a 6% chance of curing me.

The cost of the treatment is huge in both dollars and health care resources.

Here is the question for discussion:

Are YOU willing to suffer a 5% increase in your premiums so that the insurance underwriter we share can afford to give me 6 months + lottery odds at a cure?

Is it fair of me to ask you to?

*yawn* loaded question using extremes, not norms.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Interesting way to word the problem. How about if it were a 1/10th of 1% increase.

I really don't know what to do about the medical problem. W/O any other ideas this socialized medicine thing seems worth the try.

according to many in the debates on UHC....the pro UHC people tell me .....he better get his affairs in order....you dont have long....sorry

 

[Harry Dresden]

Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.....

Does that fit this scenario?

And the classic, What Would Jesus Do?

Jesus would want people to give - generously and many, many, many of us would. But Jesus - being no big fan of 'slavery' would, I think, save a place in heaven for those who do it because they want to, not forced to by government.

Jesus....if in deed he was who he said he was....would cure the man....end of his misery....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Actually it's an example that the system works fine. They raised the money privately. No one was coerced into giving for something they didnt want to. No jobs were destroyed in the process.
Sounds like a win-win to me.

so a cop that is shot in the line of duty should have to pay for part of his medical costs?

Why shouldn't he?

should all those guys maimed in the military pay for their own injury treatment?....just askin....

 

[noose4]

Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.....

Does that fit this scenario?

And the classic, What Would Jesus Do?

Jesus would want people to give - generously and many, many, many of us would. But Jesus - being no big fan of 'slavery' would, I think, save a place in heaven for those who do it because they want to, not forced to by government.

Where did Jesus speak out against slavery?

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Doesnt sound like a guy who opposed slavery

regarding being forced by government:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matthew 22:21

 

[Alvin]

Except in Islam. Where the golden rule is: "Do unto other Muslims as you would have them do unto you. Kill everyone else."

You really don't understand Islam do you....

 

[Alvin]

My humble opinion at this point in time is that it would be unfair for me to ask the rest of you to pay, considering my age in the scenario and the odds of success,

(Of course I'm not yet 10 months into my 5th decade and I'm not dying. Don't be surprised to find me on your doorstep with my hand out if things change in 13 years.)

Have you been employed? Paid taxes? Raised a family? Are they employed? They paying taxes?

You have paid for their schools, their healthcare, the roads that you travled on, the water they drank, the very (Clean) air they breathed while they were too young to do it themselves.
Your neighbours paid for you when you were out of work, and you paid for them when they were.
UHC is the very epitomy of "What goes around comes around". And that is the way it works.

Right now, my Dad will need 24 hour care. That is very expensive. And if we had to pay for it right now out of our own pockets? - we couldn't afford it.

But he worked from the age of 14 until 65. He paid taxes. So did I. So did my siblings. All of that goes to keeping him fit and happy until the end.

One should never feel guilty about this kind of thing. You earned it. And your medical care is the equivelant of a payday.

Simple as...

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Scenario:

I am a 63 year old male. I'm married with grown children and grandkids. To everyone but my family, I am somewhere between a nobody and a statistic. I work at a job that is tolerable and stable enough to look forward to retiring at my full retirement age of 66, even though I could live on the Social Security that was available to me at 62. I have health coverage through my employer via private insurance.

I have just been diagnosed with a very serious condition that breaks down like this:

Without treatment I will die within 3 months. There is a treatment available which has a 100% chance of extending my life for 9 more months and a 6% chance of curing me.

The cost of the treatment is huge in both dollars and health care resources.

Here is the question for discussion:

Are YOU willing to suffer a 5% increase in your premiums so that the insurance underwriter we share can afford to give me 6 months + lottery odds at a cure?

Is it fair of me to ask you to?

*yawn* loaded question using extremes, not norms.

American political discussion is based on extremes these days... seems the only way to get folks off of the usual talking points is to force them, via an extreme example, to think beyond their party line and a post based on reality that requires swapping one's party hat for a thinking cap is usually too long to read.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[AVG-JOE]

so a cop that is shot in the line of duty should have to pay for part of his medical costs?

Why shouldn't he?

should all those guys maimed in the military pay for their own injury treatment?....just askin....

Reminds me of another scenario played out on NPR recently....

Kid with a serious brain injury courtesy of a trip to Iraq. His mother refuses to accept the doctors prognosis that death is imminent and proceeds to lobby both the medical community and the political community surrounding the VA Hospital System for treatment above and beyond. Low and behold he stabilizes into a living but vegetative state.

It is a long an inspiring story of one woman's courage to stand up to the system for her son.

Now she has the equipment in his room to change the feeding tube in his stomach, change his diapers and move him regularly enough to prevent bed sores.

A wife and small children for this soldier are mentioned, but only briefly.

The question I never heard asked is "What do you reckon the injured soldier wants?"

How about the rest of you?

Imagine being injured or becoming ill with a prognosis of having your mother and sister changing your diaper three times a day until further notice...

Isn't there a point at which death is preferable to life?

I wish I could ask my family, without fear of their being jailed, to give me the same dignity I was able to give my cocker spaniel when she got too old to breathe without working harder than a hooker on military pay-day on the inevitable day that my age catches up with my life-style.

 

[The Rabbi]

so a cop that is shot in the line of duty should have to pay for part of his medical costs?

Why shouldn't he?

should all those guys maimed in the military pay for their own injury treatment?....just askin....

Why not answer the first question and then we can consider the second? Just sayin'.

 

[AllieBaba]

The scenario is actually a dramatization of a story I heard on the radio where a woman in Oregon was denied a very expensive treatment for cancer because of her age and the odds of of the treatment extending her life.

She died while fighting her insurance company, which did offer to pay for assisted suicide instead since she resided in Oregon at the time of diagnosis.

Before you ask for a link, I can't provide one as it was a story I heard on the radio on NPR this morning.

there is a cop who was shot in north idaho a few years ago, his family had to have a fund raiser to pay for extensive recontruction surgerory and to pay for the medical costs that his private insurance and the victims fund would not pay for. This is a prime example that our current system is flawed.

What's flawed about that? The community came together and supported their guy of their own free will and he got his treatment.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why shouldn't he?

should all those guys maimed in the military pay for their own injury treatment?....just askin....

Why not answer the first question and then we can consider the second? Just sayin'.

unless those complaining about it want to take his place in the field....a cop in the line of duty protecting the citizenery should not have to pay for his own injury if severely injured....basically if he or she is doing a job that is considered dangerous at times,and it is for the good of the public (cops,fire)then if they get hurt doing their jobs i have no problems helping them with their care with tax dollars.....

 

[The Rabbi]

should all those guys maimed in the military pay for their own injury treatment?....just askin....

Why not answer the first question and then we can consider the second? Just sayin'.

unless those complaining about it want to take his place in the field....a cop in the line of duty protecting the citizenery should not have to pay for his own injury if severely injured....basically if he or she is doing a job that is considered dangerous at times,and it is for the good of the public (cops,fire)then if they get hurt doing their jobs i have no problems helping them with their care with tax dollars.....

How about loggers? How about convenience store clerks? Roofers? All of those are dangerous jobs that benefit the public. Why should public employees, who are protected by unions and enjoy outsize benefits compared to comparable private sector employees, be singled out for any treatment? This is especially so when they signed up for whatever the job entailed.

 

[chanel]

A cop friend with excellent insurance developed lung cancer a few years ago and was not happy with the treatment options offered to him. He decided to go to France for some experimental procedure which was not covered by insurance. He used savings to do so and is now cancer-free. This was his choice. And he was responsible enough to have money in savings to pay for something that saved his life. Insurance doesn't save lives. Sometimes the choices we make in life do. Like saving for a rainy day.

Regarding using extreme examples, check out Michelle Malkin's investigation of the NYT "Horrible Plight of John Brodniak" an Oregon man with a neurological condition that he says no one would treat.

Kristof used Brodniak’s plight to argue for universal health care, decry Brodniak’s deadly lack of insurance (even though he got Medicaid coverage in August), and lambaste doctors for refusing to treat Brodniak due to low reimbursements.

Well, OHSU confirmed for me two things:

1) OHSU is a safety-net hospital not far from where Brodniak lives. The hospital accepts all Medicaid patients and would not turn Brodniak away.

Okay, are you ready for Number 2?

2) Brodniak is a patient at OHSU — and has been a patient there for the past three weeks.

In other words, at the time Kristof’s article was published this past Sunday, Brodniak was already being treated and cared for by some of the best neurologists in the country!

Michelle Malkin » Unbelievable update: The crappiest NYTimes column on Obamacare just got crappier; Update: Kristof’s disingenuous non-response

There is always more to the story....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why not answer the first question and then we can consider the second? Just sayin'.

unless those complaining about it want to take his place in the field....a cop in the line of duty protecting the citizenery should not have to pay for his own injury if severely injured....basically if he or she is doing a job that is considered dangerous at times,and it is for the good of the public (cops,fire)then if they get hurt doing their jobs i have no problems helping them with their care with tax dollars.....

How about loggers? How about convenience store clerks? Roofers? All of those are dangerous jobs that benefit the public. Why should public employees, who are protected by unions and enjoy outsize benefits compared to comparable private sector employees, be singled out for any treatment? This is especially so when they signed up for whatever the job entailed.

many of those you mentioned have unions too.....the difference,those jobs you can always find somwone who will do it.....the cops and fire are a little more specilized in what they do and not just everyone can do,or will do it,and saving lives is a little bit different then buying a gallon of milk......i am not against those who are protecting the public and property from either the assholes of society or from a natural disaster from getting some help if hurt while doing so.........

 

[Alvin]

How about loggers? How about convenience store clerks? Roofers? All of those are dangerous jobs that benefit the public. Why should public employees, who are protected by unions and enjoy outsize benefits compared to comparable private sector employees, be singled out for any treatment? This is especially so when they signed up for whatever the job entailed.

Because they are just that; Public workers. They are not working for a profit to benifit themselves or their company, they are working for the Public, and as such their employer (i.e. YOU) should pay for their medical expences just as many private sector employers do.

Why single out public servants and make them exempt from employer based medical coverage?