Newest Health Care Poll

[MaggieMae]

Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all.

You can start by addressing these questions:
1) WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

They don't have a great track record, I won't disagree with you. However, this legislation isn't about the government taking over. In fact all it is doing is setting guidelines for private insurance companies and providing more business for private insurance companies.

2) How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.

The cost will be accounted for in a variety of ways but one of the primary means of accounting for cost is the effective decrease it will have on the rates we will all pay over time due to less uninsured people using the healthcare system and not paying, since they will now be covered by health insurance as opposed to before.

Regarding #1, the government did have two consecutive years of a balanced budget all because "cost effective" procedures that were put in place.

 

[MaggieMae]

Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.

You're ok with that?

Not ok with it now, and wont be ok with it when it costs me even more to carry them under obamacare.

It is financialy unsustainable now, and obamacare will make it worse.....for the ones who are paying.

How do you know it's going to cost you more? The full program won't even be implemented until 2014.

 

[syrenn]

Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.

You're ok with that?

Strange, isn't it. I guess her point is that either the government pays or she pays. And when the government pays, she's paying anyway (although by an imperceivably small percentage of some tax formula as opposed to ten dollar aspirin during her hospital stay).

Noooo...i am saying the system we have now that is killing health care, is not working. That system is the one that pays for the ones who don't.

Why implement another one that is going to broaden the system to allow more into it, for more service's, that cant pay? It is financially irresponsible. It is financial suicide. So long as the money does not balance it is doomed to fail and take us down with it.

 

[MaggieMae]

No..you specifically mocked BF about his not having insurance. You spacificaly mocked him for not making enough money in life to afford it. You called him a loser even though he IS paying his bills in payments. You mocked him for not being a drain on society. You mocked his situation in life.

You mocked him for being poor.

And you should be ashamed.

And if you dont believe me...ask him.

I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system.

The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.

You were not being sarcastic...you were being a ******* ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.

How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.

He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.

How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?

He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.

And you should be very ashamed.

You completely misunderstood that entire exchange. Also, I don't see you lambasting BF for his nonstop insults.

 

[GWV5903]

I'll be happy to discuss cost, again, but like I said if we have a fundamental difference in opinion as to whether or not people should receive care even if they can not pay...well then discussing cost is pointless at that point. So that's why I asked the question of you. Once we know your answer, I would be happy to answer anything you want.

You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times. All your dodging will not change that issue. If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.

We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws. We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.

Please at least admit that the private sector has done NOTHING to bring down costs and become "cost efficient" on their own.

On that note, how would you design a working, cost efficient health care system where every class of citizen has affordable access? I'm not being snarky; it's a valid question, the answer to which seems nonexistent.

Would you have everyone living in the same housing? How about driving the same cars? Eating the same food? NO, HELL NO, we live in a social economic world, the Brown's live in a $500K home, drive a Mercedes and eat at all the fine restaurants they want.....

Now the Jones live in a $100K home, drive a Chevy and eat at McDonald's once a month, so based on your theory Obamacare, Universal or Single Provider) we should make the Brown's pay for what the Jones can not afford, does that sum it up?

The irony in all of this from the left is they want a perfect solution for a world they continuously point out as being flawed, all they want is perfection in an imperfect world.....

Dare I ask what is next on their agenda????

 

[syrenn]

You're ok with that?

Not ok with it now, and wont be ok with it when it costs me even more to carry them under obamacare.

It is financialy unsustainable now, and obamacare will make it worse.....for the ones who are paying.

How do you know it's going to cost you more? The full program won't even be implemented until 2014.

How do you know it is not going to cost more?

It is simple business. Increase the demand for goods and services and don't raise the cost to cover said goods and service's...you go bankrupt.

Increase the amount of good and services that are given away for free, the money to pay for it must come from somewhere. That money comes from the ones who are paying. The cost to those who pay will increase to cover the free good and services.

 

[syrenn]

I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system.

The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.

You were not being sarcastic...you were being a ******* ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.

How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.

He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.

How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?

He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.

And you should be very ashamed.

You completely misunderstood that entire exchange. Also, I don't see you lambasting BF for his nonstop insults.

Did i now? I think you misunderstand. I don't believe you were in the thread we speak of. He deserves the insults he gets for his mocking the poor.

 

[syrenn]

You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times. All your dodging will not change that issue. If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.

We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws. We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.

Please at least admit that the private sector has done NOTHING to bring down costs and become "cost efficient" on their own.

On that note, how would you design a working, cost efficient health care system where every class of citizen has affordable access? I'm not being snarky; it's a valid question, the answer to which seems nonexistent.

Would you have everyone living in the same housing? How about driving the same cars? Eating the same food? NO, HELL NO, we live in a social economic world, the Brown's live in a $500K home, drive a Mercedes and eat at all the fine restaurants they want.....

Now the Jones live in a $100K home, drive a Chevy and eat at McDonald's once a month, so based on your theory Obamacare, Universal or Single Provider) we should make the Brown's pay for what the Jones can not afford, does that sum it up?

The irony in all of this from the left is they want a perfect solution for a world they continuously point out as being flawed, all they want is perfection in an imperfect world.....

Dare I ask what is next on their agenda????

That about sum's it up. Except for the fact that the Jones along with the Browns would also be paying for the Johnsen's who live in public housing and get welfare and food stamps.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all.

I have, if you receive treatment you have to pay something for it. Our current system allows you to negotiate for cost, but you should pay something. Those who have NO means to make payments, the "medical system" covers such costs through "repricing". Those added uninsured costs get shifted to what everyone else will now owe. The hospital will increase their costs, using Medicare / Medicaid and private insurance to cover the loss. Doctors who used to charge $50 for a visit, for example, must now charge $80 to make up the difference for those who can not afford it. When Medicare talks about cutting back on its costs, doctors will in turn cut back on services because they are not getting paid for it. The cost of covering for the uninsured has to be paid for, otherwise they are operating under a loss.

The new Health Care law doesn't offer anything different, it's still about the shift of cost so someone else has to pay for it. This is why insurance premiums go up and Medicaid has also INCREASED in Massachusetts under THEIR government program.

Question RDD: How do you propose to control these runaway government costs, like those in Massachusetts?

Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
By Aleksandra Kulczuga - The Daily Caller


Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

Even more striking, the 2006 law has done little to ease the burden on emergency rooms, a central goal of all heath care reform plans. A report by the Boston Globe found that in the first two years of the program, the state’s ER costs actually rose by 17 percent. “They said that ER visits would drop by 75 percent, and it hasn’t been even close to that,” said State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who is currently running for governor as an Independent. “It hasn’t changed people’s habits. It hasn’t been successful at getting people to use less expensive alternatives.”

The new health Care law is PROVIDING for those who can't afford insurance, by having the Federal Government pay for it. Those who refuse to provide proof they have insurance, will have to pay a fine to the Federal Government. It's another "shift of cost shell game" to cover the uninsured, that already has existed in the private sector. Again, study Massachusetts' Heath Care system, which is the "model" for the national system. Costs DIDN'T go down, and you haven't provided any facts to a government system that has.
SOURCE: Uninsured? What the New Bill Means for You - CBS Evening News - CBS News

2) How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.

The cost will be accounted for in a variety of ways but one of the primary means of accounting for cost is the effective decrease it will have on the rates we will all pay over time due to less uninsured people using the healthcare system and not paying, since they will now be covered by health insurance as opposed to before.

Massachusetts has a government system and the costs DIDN'T go down. Where are your FACTS to back your statement on the effective "decrease on rates"?

There is also the issue of increased wait times ( I have previously mentioned ) for appointments in Boston: cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days. How should the Federal Government handle those issues? Any answers?

There are also two sides to the success of the Mass health care system.

Is Health Care Reform Working in Massachusetts? - DailyFinance

In that article, Blue Cross states that it has redefined its payment system to concentrate more on quality rather than quantity, one of the hallmark goals of Obamacare also.

And this, which explains cost overruns.

Mass. bashers take note: Health reform is working - The Boston Globe

If you read only negative articles, you'll come away with only a negative view.

 

[syrenn]

Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all.

I have, if you receive treatment you have to pay something for it. Our current system allows you to negotiate for cost, but you should pay something. Those who have NO means to make payments, the "medical system" covers such costs through "repricing". Those added uninsured costs get shifted to what everyone else will now owe. The hospital will increase their costs, using Medicare / Medicaid and private insurance to cover the loss. Doctors who used to charge $50 for a visit, for example, must now charge $80 to make up the difference for those who can not afford it. When Medicare talks about cutting back on its costs, doctors will in turn cut back on services because they are not getting paid for it. The cost of covering for the uninsured has to be paid for, otherwise they are operating under a loss.

The new Health Care law doesn't offer anything different, it's still about the shift of cost so someone else has to pay for it. This is why insurance premiums go up and Medicaid has also INCREASED in Massachusetts under THEIR government program.

Question RDD: How do you propose to control these runaway government costs, like those in Massachusetts?






The new health Care law is PROVIDING for those who can't afford insurance, by having the Federal Government pay for it. Those who refuse to provide proof they have insurance, will have to pay a fine to the Federal Government. It's another "shift of cost shell game" to cover the uninsured, that already has existed in the private sector. Again, study Massachusetts' Heath Care system, which is the "model" for the national system. Costs DIDN'T go down, and you haven't provided any facts to a government system that has.
SOURCE: Uninsured? What the New Bill Means for You - CBS Evening News - CBS News

The cost will be accounted for in a variety of ways but one of the primary means of accounting for cost is the effective decrease it will have on the rates we will all pay over time due to less uninsured people using the healthcare system and not paying, since they will now be covered by health insurance as opposed to before.

Massachusetts has a government system and the costs DIDN'T go down. Where are your FACTS to back your statement on the effective "decrease on rates"?

There is also the issue of increased wait times ( I have previously mentioned ) for appointments in Boston: cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days. How should the Federal Government handle those issues? Any answers?

There are also two sides to the success of the Mass health care system.

Is Health Care Reform Working in Massachusetts? - DailyFinance

In that article, Blue Cross states that it has redefined its payment system to concentrate more on quality rather than quantity, one of the hallmark goals of Obamacare also.

And this, which explains cost overruns.

Mass. bashers take note: Health reform is working - The Boston Globe

If you read only negative articles, you'll come away with only a negative view.

And if you only read the feel good ones you get the same results

the answer is in the middle.

 

[MaggieMae]

So again: Same shell game, different more expensive shells.

Well maybe you need to move to a country where people still just barter for goods and services and only the strong survive.

 

[MaggieMae]

You were not being sarcastic...you were being a ******* ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.

How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.

He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.

How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?

He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.

And you should be very ashamed.

Well it's not my fault you fail to see the hypocrisy in his viewpoint. Nor is it my fault that you are too ashamed to just come out and say that people who can't afford healthcare shouldn't receive it. But it's ok, I can read between the lines. Have a good weekend!

Now your excuse is hypocrisy?

Give up, you're out of your league....

Says he who thus far has contributed NOTHING substantive to the entire conversation.

 

[syrenn]

So again: Same shell game, different more expensive shells.

Well maybe you need to move to a country where people still just barter for goods and services and only the strong survive.

That seems to be working just fine here. Its called working, making money and paying your bills for goods and service's rendered.

Maybe the ones who want to live off of public funds and health care should move to canada and england.

 

[MaggieMae]

Those wait times are obviously non-emergency appointments, and even then, I think they're a stretch of someone's imagination. A friend of mine had to travel to Boston to see an eye specialist for a very rare disorder. She made the appointment through an ophthalmologist in Vermont two weeks ago, and he referred her to the specialist in Boston. Her apointment was set for the week thereafter. So that's seven days, and hers was not an imminent emergency either. I have relatives in Houston, and have never once heard them complain about long waiting periods to see their doctors whose practices are affiliated with all three top medical centers in the entire country where people from around the world go for treatment. (And we've discussed the health care issue a LOT in the past couple of years. You'd think they would have mentioned the wait factor, if it existed, but they have not.)

Just an aside. Wait time for those who are not paying a dime is a non issue. Its free.

Wait time for those of us who are paying and must wait for the heard to pass through is an issue.


How many millions will be dumped into obama care that now have no health care? How many millions will that put into and already bursting system?

Just something to think about.

I think I've already mentioned that a shortage of doctors (GPs) is becoming a problem. But I also think that more and more clinics are being established in rural communities where basic preventive treatment is performed by Physicians Assistants, who can legally do just about everything an MD can except surgery, including dispensing prescription drugs. I see shortage of medical help as a temporary problem. After all, people all over the country are looking for new vocations, and medicine is a top employer.

That said, I think you're a very narcissistic and selfish person when you say insulting things like YOU (precious YOU) will have to wait for the herd to pass through. Just who the **** made you a princess? My my my, how positively HORRIBLE it might be that YOU would have to wait in line with all the other peasants.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So again: Same shell game, different more expensive shells.

Well maybe you need to move to a country where people still just barter for goods and services and only the strong survive.

That seems to be working just fine here. Its called working, making money and paying your bills for goods and service's rendered.

Maybe the ones who want to live off of public funds and health care should move to canada and england.

Shhhhhhh! That's called "taking personal responsibility", a phrase they don't want to have mentioned here.

 

[syrenn]

Those wait times are obviously non-emergency appointments, and even then, I think they're a stretch of someone's imagination. A friend of mine had to travel to Boston to see an eye specialist for a very rare disorder. She made the appointment through an ophthalmologist in Vermont two weeks ago, and he referred her to the specialist in Boston. Her apointment was set for the week thereafter. So that's seven days, and hers was not an imminent emergency either. I have relatives in Houston, and have never once heard them complain about long waiting periods to see their doctors whose practices are affiliated with all three top medical centers in the entire country where people from around the world go for treatment. (And we've discussed the health care issue a LOT in the past couple of years. You'd think they would have mentioned the wait factor, if it existed, but they have not.)

Just an aside. Wait time for those who are not paying a dime is a non issue. Its free.

Wait time for those of us who are paying and must wait for the heard to pass through is an issue.


How many millions will be dumped into obama care that now have no health care? How many millions will that put into and already bursting system?

Just something to think about.

I think I've already mentioned that a shortage of doctors (GPs) is becoming a problem. But I also think that more and more clinics are being established in rural communities where basic preventive treatment is performed by Physicians Assistants, who can legally do just about everything an MD can except surgery, including dispensing prescription drugs. I see shortage of medical help as a temporary problem. After all, people all over the country are looking for new vocations, and medicine is a top employer.

That said, I think you're a very narcissistic and selfish person when you say insulting things like YOU (precious YOU) will have to wait for the herd to pass through. Just who the **** made you a princess? My my my, how positively HORRIBLE it might be that YOU would have to wait in line with all the other peasants.

Sorry you dont like the real life application of obamacare.

I have no problem waiting with the "peasants" as you call them. I actually like the peasants as opposed to gentry. If the peasants expect and demand the same care i do. I expect the peasants to paying the same thing that i do.

 

[MaggieMae]

The reason there is so much opposition by people over 50 is because they have been led to believe what Republicans constantly lie about, that Medicare benefits will be cut. As I've repeatedly said, that is NOT TRUE. Medicare ADVANTAGE subsidies to insurers will be cut. People can still get coverage via Medicare Advantage plans, but they will pay a higher premium for those policies out of pocket because those insurance companies will no longer be on the government dole.

Syrenn is correct, do you believe the Medicare Advantage crowd is getting a better deal on cost? Hell no, Obamacare does not address the problem. Where is the fixed income crowd going to get the difference? This is why the truth is very easy to understand, you will push (actually shove) the ones who can't afford the difference into Medicaid, is that your idea of a solution?

No one has claimed there is some easy solution, but this sure as hell is going in the wrong direction....

We drove our company to record profits this year in the home building industry thru through and honest evaluation of cost, but I know, you believe the Feds are going to do this with our Tax Dollars.....

Of course you completely miss the point. The insurance companies that pay for the added coverage fixed income people get from the Medicare Advantage insurance is subsidized FROM the general fund of Medicare. In other words, I don't have Advantage, and my $96.00 a month premium helps pay for some other granny's hearing aids. Using Syrenn's complaint in my example, why should I pay for someone else's hearing aids? If an elderly person on a fixed income can't afford increased premiums under Advantage because they will no longer be subsidized, they will still not lose any of the benefits provided by standard Medicare coverage.

Medicare wasn't set up to fill the needs of the physical defects that begin to happen to everyone as they get older: Eyes, ears, teeth. If it had, the program would have been bankrupt in less than five years. If I want new eyeglasses, I have to pay for them myself.

 

[syrenn]

The reason there is so much opposition by people over 50 is because they have been led to believe what Republicans constantly lie about, that Medicare benefits will be cut. As I've repeatedly said, that is NOT TRUE. Medicare ADVANTAGE subsidies to insurers will be cut. People can still get coverage via Medicare Advantage plans, but they will pay a higher premium for those policies out of pocket because those insurance companies will no longer be on the government dole.

Syrenn is correct, do you believe the Medicare Advantage crowd is getting a better deal on cost? Hell no, Obamacare does not address the problem. Where is the fixed income crowd going to get the difference? This is why the truth is very easy to understand, you will push (actually shove) the ones who can't afford the difference into Medicaid, is that your idea of a solution?

No one has claimed there is some easy solution, but this sure as hell is going in the wrong direction....

We drove our company to record profits this year in the home building industry thru through and honest evaluation of cost, but I know, you believe the Feds are going to do this with our Tax Dollars.....

Of course you completely miss the point. The insurance companies that pay for the added coverage fixed income people get from the Medicare Advantage insurance is subsidized FROM the general fund of Medicare. In other words, I don't have Advantage, and my $96.00 a month premium helps pay for some other granny's hearing aids. Using Syrenn's complaint in my example, why should I pay for someone else's hearing aids? If an elderly person on a fixed income can't afford increased premiums under Advantage because they will no longer be subsidized, they will still not lose any of the benefits provided by standard Medicare coverage.

You have it a bit wrong. I dont say "why should i pay for everyone one else"

I am saying if you want something pay for it. If you want to be in obamacare...then EVERYONE pay for into it. No exemptions. No free ride for anyone.

Medicare wasn't set up to fill the needs of the physical defects that begin to happen to everyone as they get older: Eyes, ears, teeth. If it had, the program would have been bankrupt in less than five years. If I want new eyeglasses, I have to pay for them myself.

Bingo...and obamacare will be bankrupt too. They are making provisions that they cannot pay for.

 

[MaggieMae]

You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times. All your dodging will not change that issue. If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.

We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws. We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.

Please at least admit that the private sector has done NOTHING to bring down costs and become "cost efficient" on their own.

On that note, how would you design a working, cost efficient health care system where every class of citizen has affordable access? I'm not being snarky; it's a valid question, the answer to which seems nonexistent.

By lowering idiot costs for one.

Cutting advertisement on every new drug that comes down the pipe to the public to ask for.
That's something you can blame on the pharmaceutical companies--private industries, last I looked.

Stop giving cut rate drugs to OTHER countries.
Again, the government doesn't sell the product to other countries; the drug companies do.

Limit government funding to only drugs that help diseases. We do not need research grants for drugs to grow hair on mens bald heads..nor do we need to fund drugs to keep their dicks up.
I'm not sure we do. Got a link? (The debate over covering Viagra under Medicare came up long before the health care bill was even introduced. It doesn't anymore.)

Limit ALL non essential surgeries. Sorry if you want that sex change you come up with the money. Sorry if you want that breast enlargement, come up with the money...ect...ect.
I don't think the health care bill includes plastic surgery, unless it involves a life-sustaining procedure. As for sex changes, I'm positive it doesn't.

Limit how much law suits can get in malpractice claims from all those involved.
That one has valid arguments from both sides. How much is it worth if a surgeon cuts off the wrong leg? $300 thousand or $3 million?

Turning away ALL non emergency patients from ER rooms!
Hospitals are now adopting tiered emergency care: Those with real emergencies and those with iffy emergencies. Frankly, though, I would much rather have someone treated for a virus that may be spread than to have even more people coughing and sneezing and puking because they didn't get medicated.

Turn away anyone who is not a legal citizen!
They can't legally (and morally) do that. "First Do No Harm" is still the first rule of medicine, foreign as that may seem to you.

A system that everyone pays for.
You mean like universal care?

How is that for a start?

Not good. You need to do a LOT more homework, hon.

 

[MaggieMae]

You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times. All your dodging will not change that issue. If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.

We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws. We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.

Please at least admit that the private sector has done NOTHING to bring down costs and become "cost efficient" on their own.

On that note, how would you design a working, cost efficient health care system where every class of citizen has affordable access? I'm not being snarky; it's a valid question, the answer to which seems nonexistent.

Would you have everyone living in the same housing? How about driving the same cars? Eating the same food? NO, HELL NO, we live in a social economic world, the Brown's live in a $500K home, drive a Mercedes and eat at all the fine restaurants they want.....

Now the Jones live in a $100K home, drive a Chevy and eat at McDonald's once a month, so based on your theory Obamacare, Universal or Single Provider) we should make the Brown's pay for what the Jones can not afford, does that sum it up?

Apples and oranges.

The irony in all of this from the left is they want a perfect solution for a world they continuously point out as being flawed, all they want is perfection in an imperfect world.....

Dare I ask what is next on their agenda????

You mean you haven't heard? They're gonna take yer guns away from ya.