Requiring health insurance is a enforcing conservative values

[ElmerMudd]

I find healthcare more important than sewers and roads. If you are dead you tend not to crap or drive as much.

I believe in the free market but it does not work for healtcare. In the free market you eliminate risk and increase profits. With healtcare that does not work.

You are an idiot. Without proper sanitation you have cities full of diseased people. Commerce is dead without adequate roads. The free market works fine with health care regardless of the push you and your cohorts are willing to force on everyone else in order to line the pockets of again a few who believe they have the right to deny others freedom of choice.

*ELMER* is advocating a FREE RIDE for those that won't exercise the Resonsibility of seeking care of their own accord, and wants Government to do it by Legislative FIAT at the point of a gun.

He totally dismisses the point that with Liberty comes responsibility. (And the DUTY of every citizen). *HE* Rather intends to Force servitude unto others By others.

I hear alot of Bulshxx rhetoric but you do not take responsibility of what the real world is like. There are people who will not take responsibility for themselves.

They have a heart attack what do you do with them.

There are people like you who talk a big game but what do we do with you when you have a heart attack and you have no money to pay?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Nobody stops you all from getting together, pooling your money and helping whomever you please.

Great. Would YOU kick in? No?

Well guess what - that's why the government has to step in and FORCE the "I don't give a **** if you die or get sick," selfish assholes in this country to participate.

In order to take care of the "I'm entitled to the money you work for" selfish assholes?

Let's see. Who gets more sympathy? The people who are selfish with the products of their own labor, or the people who are selfish with the products of OTHER people's labor? That's a tough one.

Lemme say it again. I got mine, go get your own.

No problem but never except me or my government to give you any subsidzed healthcare.

You have a car accident and insurance will not cover all of your care and you don't have the money the plug is pulled.

I feel you would be a hypocrite to accept medicare; take care of yourself.

 

[Dr Gregg]

I believe you have no idea what "conservative" means.

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

YOu're kidding right? Like their stance on homosexual marriage and abortion isn't telling others what's best for them?

 

[Dr Gregg]

No. Being responsible for ones own health care means that you pay for it yourself without government intrusion into your life.

Except we don't live in a utopia where everybody is responsible, that's a big issue. I feel many times conservatives want to act like the world is a utopia and its just unrealistic. another example would be that if there was no regulation on companies they would do the right thing, but history has told us otherwise

 

[Dr Gregg]

"Taking responsibility for his own situation" in the context of health insurance, is conservative code for: "I've got mine. Screw you."

Actually that is not a 'conservative code'.

The truth is, I don't give a **** if you die.

Or get sick.

Or can't pay for it.

I am not your keeper, nor am i responsible for your problems.

The trouble with you big government stooges is you think everyone is responsible for other people, to the point of being forced to do it. I don't think so, neither did the founders of this nation.

Nobody stops you all from getting together, pooling your money and helping whomever you please.

The problem is, you yokels use the system created to run the nation to feed your lame assed Robinhood fantasies and make everyone else pay for things they don't want and don't agree too.

And I am not a 'conservative' and care nothing for such labels anyway.

we are a social species that take care of our own. Or are supposed to. Thanks for showing what I already knew, heartless, greedy bastards that just care about themselves and not others

 

[Dr Gregg]

Here's another utopic idea conservatives tend to have. You don't have a job or a low paying one, you are solely a lazy, irresponsible bum. Forget the fact there are not enough jobs for people, not enough high paying jobs that people can afford to live on, and really unemployment never has been 0%

 

[ElmerMudd]

Well said Dr. Greg.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Requiring health insurance forces people to be responsible for their own health care.

No. Requiring Health Insurance forces people to pay for the health care of others.

We're always paid for the health care of others. Or do you think when people without insurance show up to the ER that they're just treated for free?

So the solution is to make it easier for them to freeload off of us even more? Good plan.

 

[Some Guy]

Requiring people to have health insurance is not a conservative ideal; just having health insurance is a conservative ideal.

I believe having health insurance is the smart thing to do. I also believe that not drinking alcohol, not smoking, not eating fast food and not participating in extreme sports are smart things to do, but it doesn't mean i'd advocate forcing people to participate or not participate in such activities.

A big problem with requiring people to have health insurance is that it sets a frightening precedent. The reason behind a mandate is that you're trying to pool everyone's money together so everyone can be insured. If you're successful in that, what's going to stop it from going further? If everyone is paying for everyone else, the next step is to outlaw certain high cholesterol or high fat foods. Personally, i don't see any difference between legislating the mandate for health insurance as any different than legislating the mandate to eat a certain amount of vegetables and fruits per day.

 

[ElmerMudd]

No. Requiring Health Insurance forces people to pay for the health care of others.

We're always paid for the health care of others. Or do you think when people without insurance show up to the ER that they're just treated for free?

So the solution is to make it easier for them to freeload off of us even more? Good plan.

No, the solution is minimize those who we all have to pay for and lower the costs of taking care of them.

Let me take a real world situation and you tell me how we should take care of it.

A woman shows up in the emergency room with a serious hear attack. She need s immediate attention and with ICU after care the bill is estimated to be $100,000.

She lives pay check to pay check and does not have insurance.

Does the hospital treat her? If so who pays for it?

 

[Gunny]

Requiring health insurance forces people to be responsible for their own health care.

If someone does not have health insurance the rest of us pay their bills. We pay their bills through health care providers increasing the costs to those who can pay. Many times the government pays the bill of those who do not pay using our tax dollars.

People who choose not to have health care insurance cannot choose not to get sick.

If an individual does not have health care coverage the rest of us will end up paying their costs one way or another.

To enforce personal accountability for health care costs we have two choices.
1. Mandate health care insurance
2. Do not treat individuals who cannot pay.

I believe in personal accountability and I believe in option 1 to make people accountable. for their health care.

Epic fail. Try again moron.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Requiring health insurance forces people to be responsible for their own health care.

If someone does not have health insurance the rest of us pay their bills. We pay their bills through health care providers increasing the costs to those who can pay. Many times the government pays the bill of those who do not pay using our tax dollars.

People who choose not to have health care insurance cannot choose not to get sick.

If an individual does not have health care coverage the rest of us will end up paying their costs one way or another.

To enforce personal accountability for health care costs we have two choices.
1. Mandate health care insurance
2. Do not treat individuals who cannot pay.

I believe in personal accountability and I believe in option 1 to make people accountable. for their health care.

Epic fail. Try again moron.

Such a shining example of a hack.Can't even argue any claims, you make statement, must be true. ANd you call other's morons

 

[ElmerMudd]

Requiring health insurance forces people to be responsible for their own health care.

If someone does not have health insurance the rest of us pay their bills. We pay their bills through health care providers increasing the costs to those who can pay. Many times the government pays the bill of those who do not pay using our tax dollars.

People who choose not to have health care insurance cannot choose not to get sick.

If an individual does not have health care coverage the rest of us will end up paying their costs one way or another.

To enforce personal accountability for health care costs we have two choices.
1. Mandate health care insurance
2. Do not treat individuals who cannot pay.

I believe in personal accountability and I believe in option 1 to make people accountable. for their health care.

Epic fail. Try again moron.

Back up your comments.

What do we do with people who cannot pay?
Solutions not bombasdic words. You are acting like the Republican congress.
Provide solutions not just criticism.

Right now it is costing billions. It is not right in front of our face like the Obama healthcare bill would do. Never the less we are all paying big time.
To believe we are not paying now and would start paying when the Obama pplans goes into affect is beyond stupid.

Solutions to real worl situations not just simplistic rhetoric.

 

[hyakku]

We're always paid for the health care of others. Or do you think when people without insurance show up to the ER that they're just treated for free?

So the solution is to make it easier for them to freeload off of us even more? Good plan.

No, the solution is minimize those who we all have to pay for and lower the costs of taking care of them.

Let me take a real world situation and you tell me how we should take care of it.

A woman shows up in the emergency room with a serious hear attack. She need s immediate attention and with ICU after care the bill is estimated to be $100,000.

She lives pay check to pay check and does not have insurance.

Does the hospital treat her? If so who pays for it?

I find that after my own investigations, and a review of this thread and some of your salient points, I would have to agree.

I won't comment on those blatantly ignoring facts, but to the conservatives that presented good solutions or alternatives, thanks, they have provided food for thought.

To briefly weigh in on this issue, I agree that minimizing the costs of taking care of the uninsured is the best we can do in our system in order to provide the most freedom and justice. I mean this in terms of commutable, equitable and moral justice.

Equitable justice will be achieved by causing all people to possess health insurance, spreading overall risk equally between consumers. This is the best we can hope to achieve in present society, as there are no possible measures to individually assess each person and prescribe them health care based on their individual health habits (i.e., diet, exercise habits, etc.). Therefore, the most equitable thing to do is to ascribe the same chance of contracting a disease, getting harmed in an accident, etc. to all citizens.

In terms of commutable justice, by spreading the overall risk between the entire population it ensures that every actor will act in a way that will ensure the survival of the status quo because they equally benefit from cheaper, more accesible health care, only provided because of the mitigated risk of the uninsured.

In terms of moral justice, its very hard to argue this point. In my point of view, ensuring them all reduces the chance of moral hazards and helps to ensure moral justice, but there is never a fully enforceable form of that.

In short, by maintaining our private health care system while requiring a federal mandate will continue to allow the free market to work in a limited fashion while also ensuring that justice is served to the American populace.

If there were ways to ensure that taxpayers didn't have to pay for those who CHOSE (not couldn't afford) to pay for health insurance, then it would be fair to say that a mandate is infringing on liberty. But if a person who chooses not to get health insurance gets sick, and can't pay for the subsequent bill (which they may have been able to afford with insurance) or get help to pay for it, then the taxpayer must pay. Since this cannot be avoided, we must lower the costs and mitigate risks, so I agree.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I believe you have no idea what "conservative" means.

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

In theory that sounds good.

In the real world it does not work.

Your neighbor chooses not to buy healthcare. He has a heart attack. He rund up $300,000 in bills. He has no savings.

Who pays for it?

You've been paying for it for years. As well as all the illegal wetbacks' medical bills along with their food stamps and education. Ain't heard you ***** and whine about any of that.

 

[ElmerMudd]

So the solution is to make it easier for them to freeload off of us even more? Good plan.

No, the solution is minimize those who we all have to pay for and lower the costs of taking care of them.

Let me take a real world situation and you tell me how we should take care of it.

A woman shows up in the emergency room with a serious hear attack. She need s immediate attention and with ICU after care the bill is estimated to be $100,000.

She lives pay check to pay check and does not have insurance.

Does the hospital treat her? If so who pays for it?

I find that after my own investigations, and a review of this thread and some of your salient points, I would have to agree.

I won't comment on those blatantly ignoring facts, but to the conservatives that presented good solutions or alternatives, thanks, they have provided food for thought.

To briefly weigh in on this issue, I agree that minimizing the costs of taking care of the uninsured is the best we can do in our system in order to provide the most freedom and justice. I mean this in terms of commutable, equitable and moral justice.

Equitable justice will be achieved by causing all people to possess health insurance, spreading overall risk equally between consumers. This is the best we can hope to achieve in present society, as there are no possible measures to individually assess each person and prescribe them health care based on their individual health habits (i.e., diet, exercise habits, etc.). Therefore, the most equitable thing to do is to ascribe the same chance of contracting a disease, getting harmed in an accident, etc. to all citizens.

In terms of commutable justice, by spreading the overall risk between the entire population it ensures that every actor will act in a way that will ensure the survival of the status quo because they equally benefit from cheaper, more accesible health care, only provided because of the mitigated risk of the uninsured.

In terms of moral justice, its very hard to argue this point. In my point of view, ensuring them all reduces the chance of moral hazards and helps to ensure moral justice, but there is never a fully enforceable form of that.

In short, by maintaining our private health care system while requiring a federal mandate will continue to allow the free market to work in a limited fashion while also ensuring that justice is served to the American populace.

If there were ways to ensure that taxpayers didn't have to pay for those who CHOSE (not couldn't afford) to pay for health insurance, then it would be fair to say that a mandate is infringing on liberty. But if a person who chooses not to get health insurance gets sick, and can't pay for the subsequent bill (which they may have been able to afford with insurance) or get help to pay for it, then the taxpayer must pay. Since this cannot be avoided, we must lower the costs and mitigate risks, so I agree.

You articulated what I was trying to say better than I could.

 

[drsmith1072]

I believe you have no idea what "conservative" means.

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

Is that why conservatives are all about telling other people what they have to do with their lives and their bodies?

"You can't marry because that upsets ME"

"You can't have an abortion no matter what because I disagree with it."

"You can't smoke weed because I don't like it."

(paraphrasing, NOT ACTUAL QUOTES)

Wasn't it a bunch of conservatives who got involved in a family dispute between terry schiavo's husband and parents and tried to pass legislation to intervene??

Seems to me that conservatives seem to make a habit of presuming to know what's best for others.

 

[drsmith1072]

If the government did not provide sewers people would start crapping all over your yard and it would become your business.
You would have to make decisions. Do you start shooting everyone who craps on my yard, do you clean up the crap or do you agree to pay some taxes so you and everyone else does not have to crap on your yard.
The point is:
At the end of the day what others do will affect you. As a human it is impossible to be an isolationist in the 21st century in the USA.

And there we have demonstrated the basic leftist inability to differentiate between "running the system" and "lame-assed Robin Hood fantasies". The only way in which your desire to charge everyone else for your health care resembles community sewage provisions would be the smell.

What do you think is happening now when the uninsured need healthcare? We all pay for it through our taxes reimbursing hospitals and healthcare providers or through higher healtcare costs to cover those who do not pay.
Our society will not turn away people who need healthcare.

We are already paying for the healthcare for those who cannot afford it. The current program is trying to fix the broken system.

You are one of those who said do nothing while we are being milked by those who cannot afford healthcare and the insurance companies.

Are you so dumb you do not realize what is going on.

Oh am sure that they realize it, however, it does not suit their argument so they ignore that fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are an idiot. Without proper sanitation you have cities full of diseased people. Commerce is dead without adequate roads. The free market works fine with health care regardless of the push you and your cohorts are willing to force on everyone else in order to line the pockets of again a few who believe they have the right to deny others freedom of choice.

*ELMER* is advocating a FREE RIDE for those that won't exercise the Resonsibility of seeking care of their own accord, and wants Government to do it by Legislative FIAT at the point of a gun.

He totally dismisses the point that with Liberty comes responsibility. (And the DUTY of every citizen). *HE* Rather intends to Force servitude unto others By others.

I hear alot of Bulshxx rhetoric but you do not take responsibility of what the real world is like. There are people who will not take responsibility for themselves.

They have a heart attack what do you do with them.

There are people like you who talk a big game but what do we do with you when you have a heart attack and you have no money to pay?

That's already been explained. The fact that you won't listen isn't our problem.
In fact unreimbursed expenses are a very small part of health care costs. Much bigger is the influence of gov't programs like Medicare. Removing responsibility from people will not make them more responsible, but less. It will not reduce health care costs but increase them.
As usual, programs designed to "help people" actually do the opposite.

 

[Claudette]

I must say that I get rather tired of being forced to assume the responsibility for those who can't or won't take care of themselves. You know. The folks who kinda sorta forgot to get a job. The folks who produce children at no expense to themselves whatsoever. You know the folks I'm talking about. The folks who aren't worried about HC. Why should they when we the taxpayers are being forced to take care of them. There is no incentive for them to to anything. After all. Its a free ride for them and they aren't in the least concerned for those of us who provide the money for their free ride.

In the founders day these folks would either have found the means to take care of themselves or they would have continued to live in poverty or quite possibly died. The ball was in their court and it was up to them.

I kinda like that idea.