So Republicans, let me get this straight

[Camp]

Let em die....thats my motto

I don't care how evil that sentiment sounds to you when you say it.

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care. It might be my responsibility according to your morals, but not mine. Morals aren't factual. They're subjective.

Oh wait, are you talking about me paying for my kids? Oh yeah. . . no kids.

Yup, I'm sticking with my statement.

And not that that's the other alternative anyway. If something happens to your car, do you just stop driving cars? I don't think so. You pay to have it repaired. If you don't have the cash you work out a payment plan. You have other people help you. There is plenty of area between letting Obamacare stand and people dieing in the streets.

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I don't care how evil that sentiment sounds to you when you say it.

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care. It might be my responsibility according to your morals, but not mine. Morals aren't factual. They're subjective.

Oh wait, are you talking about me paying for my kids? Oh yeah. . . no kids.

Yup, I'm sticking with my statement.

And not that that's the other alternative anyway. If something happens to your car, do you just stop driving cars? I don't think so. You pay to have it repaired. If you don't have the cash you work out a payment plan. You have other people help you. There is plenty of area between letting Obamacare stand and people dieing in the streets.

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

Never said I enjoyed paying for that, either.

To keep the bleeding hearts happy, I'll concede to a willingness to drop tax dollars for those initial surgeries and that initial care that keeps those kids from flat-lining. In my perfect world, tho? You stable? You on your own. At least as far as the government's concerned. Not the job of my elected officials to demand that I pay for someone's reconstructive surgery.

And those of you that confuse voting D with being altruistic, don't get me twisted. I'm not saying I wish anyone ill or that I hope people really are on their own. I do everything in my power to help the people around me whom I care about as much and as often as I can, and, when I can, I even help people I don't know or don't care about. For purely selfish reasons, mind you. I actually get enjoyment out of making someone's day if I can. -If- I can, and -if- I want to. I don't care if you consider it a moral imperative to help -EVERYONE- and save the world. I don't, and I will never appreciate the government forcing everyone to pay into a system simply because its stated purpose is to save everyone.

 

[rightwinger]

I really don't see individuals getting real attached to being forced to purchase plans with coverages they don't need. I don't see healthy people getting real excited about paying the same rates as sick people.

Let em die....thats my motto

I don't care how evil that sentiment sounds to you when you say it.

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care. It might be my responsibility according to your morals, but not mine. Morals aren't factual. They're subjective.

Oh wait, are you talking about me paying for my kids? Oh yeah. . . no kids.

Yup, I'm sticking with my statement.

Ever hear of Medicaid? Been in place for almost 50 years

 

[Bern80]

I don't care how evil that sentiment sounds to you when you say it.

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care. It might be my responsibility according to your morals, but not mine. Morals aren't factual. They're subjective.

Oh wait, are you talking about me paying for my kids? Oh yeah. . . no kids.

Yup, I'm sticking with my statement.

And not that that's the other alternative anyway. If something happens to your car, do you just stop driving cars? I don't think so. You pay to have it repaired. If you don't have the cash you work out a payment plan. You have other people help you. There is plenty of area between letting Obamacare stand and people dieing in the streets.

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

That's what their parent's medical insurance for. Interestingly it's also why we should go back to a major medical type system. It's those cases like you list above that are exactly what insurance is supposed to be for. Not every bump, bruise and run of the mill checkup. You use it for the catastrophic.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Let em die....thats my motto

I don't care how evil that sentiment sounds to you when you say it.

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care. It might be my responsibility according to your morals, but not mine. Morals aren't factual. They're subjective.

Oh wait, are you talking about me paying for my kids? Oh yeah. . . no kids.

Yup, I'm sticking with my statement.

Ever hear of Medicaid? Been in place for almost 50 years

How is that an argument? I didn't put it there.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaining eligble for free care himself, at everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize them with or without insurance is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.

 

[dblack]

I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaine eligble for free care himself, and everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize themwith or without insurance is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.

They haven't??? I know some of them have. The concept at the core of EMTALA is the core of the problem. I can't say EMTALA itself is really an issue because it really doesn't have that much of an impact. Most doctors and hospitals treat people first, and worry about payment afterward, regardless of the law - so EMTALA is largely a non-issue. But if it's the excuse for selling us out to the insurance industry, then ******* repeal it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Let em die....thats my motto

I don't care how evil that sentiment sounds to you when you say it.

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care. It might be my responsibility according to your morals, but not mine. Morals aren't factual. They're subjective.

Oh wait, are you talking about me paying for my kids? Oh yeah. . . no kids.

Yup, I'm sticking with my statement.

Ever hear of Medicaid? Been in place for almost 50 years

Also, lemme sum up what just happened. You said let 'em die as a response to someone's criticism of Obamacare.

So I responded that it's not my responsibility to pay to keep people alive.

Then you said Medicare's been in place for over 50 years, implying that it's already been everyone's responsibility to do so.

What you also implied, however, was that there's already been a system keeping people alive for 50 years. Whether or not you realized it, your argument has devalued Obamacare by implying that it would be a second layer of government bureaucracy to cover a task that's already covered by a program that's been in place for 5 decades.

But I'm sure this is not your view and was not your intention, so I'll just say you should brush up on your debate skills.

 

[Camp]

And not that that's the other alternative anyway. If something happens to your car, do you just stop driving cars? I don't think so. You pay to have it repaired. If you don't have the cash you work out a payment plan. You have other people help you. There is plenty of area between letting Obamacare stand and people dieing in the streets.

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

That's what their parent's medical insurance for. Interestingly it's also why we should go back to a major medical type system. It's those cases like you list above that are exactly what insurance is supposed to be for. Not every bump, bruise and run of the mill checkup. You use it for the catastrophic.

I clearly said they were over 21 adults. They would not be on their parents insurance even if they had parents with insurance. The hospital would get stuck with the bill. And I'm not talking about reconstructive surgery. The cost of saving their lives and stabilizing them could easily cost a million bucks. Four people with multiple fractures and broken bones with complicated internal injuries that require intensive care and repeated surgerys for weeks or months. Perhaps one in a coma that could last for a month or more.
The hospital pays the bill. They pass it on to all who pay with insurance. The insurance pays. They pass it on to the people who pay for insurance. One way or another we all pay for the uninsured. This is the purpose of the ACA. Everyone needs to be insured and responsible for having insurance so nobody is getting a free ride.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaine eligble for free care himself, and everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize themwith or without insurance is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.

They haven't??? I know some of them have. The concept at the core of EMTALA is the core of the problem. I can't say EMTALA itself is really an issue because it really doesn't have that much of an impact. Most doctors and hospitals treat people first, and worry about payment afterward, regardless of the law - so EMTALA is largely a non-issue. But if it's the excuse for selling us out to the insurance industry, then ******* repeal it.

Sorry, dblack. I've been in the medical insurance field for 50 years. I challange you to find a surgeon who will perform a bypass operation on you and worry about getting paid later. Find an oncologist who is prepared to remove a cacerous growth on your lung, and send you a bill afterward. Find a clinic that will give you chemotherapy on credit.

It ain't going to happen, my friend. You don't have insurance, or cash, you are going to die.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaining eligble for free care himself, at everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize them with or without insurance is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.

Good try at a straw man argument, but it's transparent.

In this case the straw man choices are either buying health insurance or having everyone else pay for you.

These aren't the only options, big buddy. Truth is, I've been taken into the ER before unconscious and fucked up and uninsured. Guess what? You didn't have to pay 1 cent toward my medical bill. Why? I came out of pocket and paid that ************ myself.

Never said people should automatically be turned away. Just said people should pay for their own shit. Like I have. Like I do. As I get older and it becomes more of a risk, I'll buy some insurance. When it's worth it. Right now, fit as a fiddle. Haven't been to the doc for anything more than a checkup in over 2 years. I got more health than money at the moment and I live accordingly.

I don't need to be refused service because I pay for my shit, regardless of whether or not I pay into your bullshit system. Try a new argument and, while you're at it, get fucked for wishing ill on me just for having a different philosophical opinion. Get. Fucked.

God damn Democrats get vicious when you disagree, considering you kids are supposed to be the party of kindness and acceptance. Lol. I smell bullshit.

 

[dblack]

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

That's what their parent's medical insurance for. Interestingly it's also why we should go back to a major medical type system. It's those cases like you list above that are exactly what insurance is supposed to be for. Not every bump, bruise and run of the mill checkup. You use it for the catastrophic.

I clearly said they were over 21 adults. They would not be on their parents insurance even if they had parents with insurance. The hospital would get stuck with the bill. And I'm not talking about reconstructive surgery. The cost of saving their lives and stabilizing them could easily cost a million bucks. Four people with multiple fractures and broken bones with complicated internal injuries that require intensive care and repeated surgerys for weeks or months. Perhaps one in a coma that could last for a month or more.
The hospital pays the bill. They pass it on to all who pay with insurance. The insurance pays. They pass it on to the people who pay for insurance. One way or another we all pay for the uninsured. This is the purpose of the ACA. Everyone needs to be insured and responsible for having insurance so nobody is getting a free ride.

Responsibility is the idea of accepting the consequences of your choce. If the choice isn't yours to make, if the choice of how to deal with your health care expenses is dictated by government (in the case of ACA, requiring that you submit to corporate health insurance) then there is no responsibility, there is only following orders.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaining eligble for free care himself, at everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize them with or without insurance is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.

Good try at a straw man argument, but it's transparent.

In this case the straw man choices are either buying health insurance or having everyone else pay for you.

These aren't the only options, big buddy. Truth is, I've been taken into the ER before unconscious and fucked up and uninsured. Guess what? You didn't have to pay 1 cent toward my medical bill. Why? I came out of pocket and paid that ************ myself.

Never said people should automatically be turned away. Just said people should pay for their own shit. Like I have. Like I do. As I get older and it becomes more of a risk, I'll buy some insurance. When it's worth it. Right now, fit as a fiddle. Haven't been to the doc for anything more than a checkup in over 2 years. I got more health than money at the moment and I live accordingly.

I don't need to be refused service because I pay for my shit, regardless of whether or not I pay into your bullshit system. Try a new argument and, while you're at it, get fucked for wishing ill on me just for having a different philosophical opinion. Get. Fucked.

God damn Democrats get vicious when you disagree, considering you kids are supposed to be the party of kindness and acceptance. Lol. I smell bullshit.

Oh, Sorry, Not2B. i did not know that you could write a check for $750,000. That is how much a heart transplant starts at. It must be nice making the big bucks! However, it that does seem a little steep to you, the cost of a kidney transplant, including removal from the donor, is only arounf $600,000. A heart/lung transplant? If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Strawman? No, D. That is what I did for a living. It is called "lasering out" claims for stop loss policies issued to self insured companies. We would slap a $1,000,000 deductible on Joe Smith, who was on a waiting list for a heat/lung transplant for a company like Disney, who wanted us to cover all losses over $100,000 on their self insured policy.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I wouldn't really have a problem with Not2B's position if there were a way to identify him as having turned down the option of buying insurance, and refuse emergency treatment for him when he arrives at the hospital half dead and unconsious. Unfortunaely, he would simply opt not to avoid paying for other people's health care, while still remaining eligble for free care himself, at everyone else's expense. Of course, he could deny that, but the law requiring hospitals to treat uninsured's to stabilize them with or without insurance is not going to be changed, and not even the tea party has suggested that it should be repealed.

Good try at a straw man argument, but it's transparent.

In this case the straw man choices are either buying health insurance or having everyone else pay for you.

These aren't the only options, big buddy. Truth is, I've been taken into the ER before unconscious and fucked up and uninsured. Guess what? You didn't have to pay 1 cent toward my medical bill. Why? I came out of pocket and paid that ************ myself.

Never said people should automatically be turned away. Just said people should pay for their own shit. Like I have. Like I do. As I get older and it becomes more of a risk, I'll buy some insurance. When it's worth it. Right now, fit as a fiddle. Haven't been to the doc for anything more than a checkup in over 2 years. I got more health than money at the moment and I live accordingly.

I don't need to be refused service because I pay for my shit, regardless of whether or not I pay into your bullshit system. Try a new argument and, while you're at it, get fucked for wishing ill on me just for having a different philosophical opinion. Get. Fucked.

God damn Democrats get vicious when you disagree, considering you kids are supposed to be the party of kindness and acceptance. Lol. I smell bullshit.

Oh, Sorry, Not2B. i did not know that you could write a check for $750,000. That is how much a heart transplant starts at. It must be nice making the big bucks! However, it that does seem a little steep to you, the cost of a kidney transplant, including removal from the donor, is only arounf $600,000. A heart/lung transplant? if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

I'm realistic enough to assume that if I don't plan ahead and something that expensive and catastrophic comes up that's my fault. If it does, though, given my current health and health habits, it's gonna be at the end of some catastrophic incident as opposed to some slow developing illness. If I need an organ transplant before I'm looking at probably investing in health insurance (unless I end up in a job that offers it), it's gonna be a right now kinda situation and my placement on the list for said organ, not money, is gonna be the deciding factor in my eventual death.

Worry not, though. As an adult, I started at min wage but economically I've advanced steadily. A few more years and reasonable payments on a bill north of half a mil won't be out of my reach. By then I'll probably want health insurance, tho lol

Honestly, bottom line: If I thought my health was at all a risk or I made just a few more hundred a month right now, I'd buy health insurance right now. The thing is, for the time being I'm pretty low risk healthwise, but juggling mortgage payments and various bills. If I thought I was truly at risk of hitting an insurmountable medical bill in the next few years before I can afford to just buy the shit, I'd make the necessary adjustments now and tighten my belt. I take pride in being self sufficient.

So here, just for you. . . if I need a lung transplant before I've acquired health insurance down the road, I hope I don't get it. Happy?

 

[Camp]

That's what their parent's medical insurance for. Interestingly it's also why we should go back to a major medical type system. It's those cases like you list above that are exactly what insurance is supposed to be for. Not every bump, bruise and run of the mill checkup. You use it for the catastrophic.

I clearly said they were over 21 adults. They would not be on their parents insurance even if they had parents with insurance. The hospital would get stuck with the bill. And I'm not talking about reconstructive surgery. The cost of saving their lives and stabilizing them could easily cost a million bucks. Four people with multiple fractures and broken bones with complicated internal injuries that require intensive care and repeated surgerys for weeks or months. Perhaps one in a coma that could last for a month or more.
The hospital pays the bill. They pass it on to all who pay with insurance. The insurance pays. They pass it on to the people who pay for insurance. One way or another we all pay for the uninsured. This is the purpose of the ACA. Everyone needs to be insured and responsible for having insurance so nobody is getting a free ride.

Responsibility is the idea of accepting the consequences of your choce. If the choice isn't yours to make, if the choice of how to deal with your health care expenses is dictated by government (in the case of ACA, requiring that you submit to corporate health insurance) then there is no responsibility, there is only following orders.

How do you make a bunch of near dead young adults or teenagers whose parents don't have insurance accept the consequences of their parents or their choice not to have insurance? Are you suggesting that we just let them die? Why is health insurance different than auto insurance? Is it unfair to insist that everyone who owns a motor vehical have auto insurance?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I clearly said they were over 21 adults. They would not be on their parents insurance even if they had parents with insurance. The hospital would get stuck with the bill. And I'm not talking about reconstructive surgery. The cost of saving their lives and stabilizing them could easily cost a million bucks. Four people with multiple fractures and broken bones with complicated internal injuries that require intensive care and repeated surgerys for weeks or months. Perhaps one in a coma that could last for a month or more.
The hospital pays the bill. They pass it on to all who pay with insurance. The insurance pays. They pass it on to the people who pay for insurance. One way or another we all pay for the uninsured. This is the purpose of the ACA. Everyone needs to be insured and responsible for having insurance so nobody is getting a free ride.

Responsibility is the idea of accepting the consequences of your choce. If the choice isn't yours to make, if the choice of how to deal with your health care expenses is dictated by government (in the case of ACA, requiring that you submit to corporate health insurance) then there is no responsibility, there is only following orders.

How do you make a bunch of near dead young adults or teenagers whose parents don't have insurance accept the consequences of their parents or their choice not to have insurance? Are you suggesting that we just let them die? Why is health insurance different than auto insurance? Is it unfair to insist that everyone who owns a motor vehical have auto insurance?

I don't make them do anything. I don't make them drive. I don't make them have parents who don't buy health insurance. I'm suggesting that the government doesn't force everyone to pay for everything that we consider too evil to allow to continue, I don't care if I agree with the particulars or not. It's not my place to demand that you abide by my morals, and it's not your place to demand that I do the same.

Lastly, no, and I wish you kids would stop making that comparison so poorly. I can opt out of driving a car to avoid being penalized for not having car insurance. I can't opt out of breathing to avoid being penalized for not having health insurance, under Obamacare. Car insurance is conditional. The conditional nature of Obamacare is an illusion, as the only out option is death, which can't be considered a rational option.

Insurance-or-penalty-or-no driving

Not quite the same as

Insurance-or-penalty-or-no breathing

I'm sure you can see how the severity of the third options doesn't even compare.

 

[Camp]

Responsibility is the idea of accepting the consequences of your choce. If the choice isn't yours to make, if the choice of how to deal with your health care expenses is dictated by government (in the case of ACA, requiring that you submit to corporate health insurance) then there is no responsibility, there is only following orders.

How do you make a bunch of near dead young adults or teenagers whose parents don't have insurance accept the consequences of their parents or their choice not to have insurance? Are you suggesting that we just let them die? Why is health insurance different than auto insurance? Is it unfair to insist that everyone who owns a motor vehical have auto insurance?

I don't make them do anything. I don't make them drive. I don't make them have parents who don't buy health insurance. I'm suggesting that the government doesn't force everyone to pay for everything that we consider too evil to allow to continue, I don't care if I agree with the particulars or not. It's not my place to demand that you abide by my morals, and it's not your place to demand that I do the same.

Lastly, no, and I wish you kids would stop making that comparison so poorly. I can opt out of driving a car to avoid being penalized for not having car insurance. I can't opt out of breathing to avoid being penalized for not having health insurance, under Obamacare. Car insurance is conditional. The conditional nature of Obamacare is an illusion, as the only out option is death, which can't be considered a rational option.

Insurance-or-penalty-or-no driving

Not quite the same as

Insurance-or-penalty-or-no breathing

I'm sure you can see how the severity of the third options doesn't even compare.

I'm not sure I understand your answer as to my question about what to do when the ambulance shows up at the hospital with the injured victims and it is determined that they do not have the means to pay for treatment. It seems like you are saying that if the determination is made that they can not afford to pay, they be left on strechers until they expire.

 

[dblack]

I clearly said they were over 21 adults. They would not be on their parents insurance even if they had parents with insurance. The hospital would get stuck with the bill. And I'm not talking about reconstructive surgery. The cost of saving their lives and stabilizing them could easily cost a million bucks. Four people with multiple fractures and broken bones with complicated internal injuries that require intensive care and repeated surgerys for weeks or months. Perhaps one in a coma that could last for a month or more.
The hospital pays the bill. They pass it on to all who pay with insurance. The insurance pays. They pass it on to the people who pay for insurance. One way or another we all pay for the uninsured. This is the purpose of the ACA. Everyone needs to be insured and responsible for having insurance so nobody is getting a free ride.

Responsibility is the idea of accepting the consequences of your choce. If the choice isn't yours to make, if the choice of how to deal with your health care expenses is dictated by government (in the case of ACA, requiring that you submit to corporate health insurance) then there is no responsibility, there is only following orders.

How do you make a bunch of near dead young adults or teenagers whose parents don't have insurance accept the consequences of their parents or their choice not to have insurance? Are you suggesting that we just let them die? Why is health insurance different than auto insurance? Is it unfair to insist that everyone who owns a motor vehical have auto insurance?

It's bullshit in either case. The entire point of government is to manage the risks of living in a pluralistic society. Delegating that to private corporations is wrong.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Good try at a straw man argument, but it's transparent.

In this case the straw man choices are either buying health insurance or having everyone else pay for you.

These aren't the only options, big buddy. Truth is, I've been taken into the ER before unconscious and fucked up and uninsured. Guess what? You didn't have to pay 1 cent toward my medical bill. Why? I came out of pocket and paid that ************ myself.

Never said people should automatically be turned away. Just said people should pay for their own shit. Like I have. Like I do. As I get older and it becomes more of a risk, I'll buy some insurance. When it's worth it. Right now, fit as a fiddle. Haven't been to the doc for anything more than a checkup in over 2 years. I got more health than money at the moment and I live accordingly.

I don't need to be refused service because I pay for my shit, regardless of whether or not I pay into your bullshit system. Try a new argument and, while you're at it, get fucked for wishing ill on me just for having a different philosophical opinion. Get. Fucked.

God damn Democrats get vicious when you disagree, considering you kids are supposed to be the party of kindness and acceptance. Lol. I smell bullshit.

Oh, Sorry, Not2B. i did not know that you could write a check for $750,000. That is how much a heart transplant starts at. It must be nice making the big bucks! However, it that does seem a little steep to you, the cost of a kidney transplant, including removal from the donor, is only arounf $600,000. A heart/lung transplant? if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

I'm realistic enough to assume that if I don't plan ahead and something that expensive and catastrophic comes up that's my fault. If it does, though, given my current health and health habits, it's gonna be at the end of some catastrophic incident as opposed to some slow developing illness. If I need an organ transplant before I'm looking at probably investing in health insurance (unless I end up in a job that offers it), it's gonna be a right now kinda situation and my placement on the list for said organ, not money, is gonna be the deciding factor in my eventual death.

Worry not, though. As an adult, I started at min wage but economically I've advanced steadily. A few more years and reasonable payments on a bill north of half a mil won't be out of my reach. By then I'll probably want health insurance, tho lol

Honestly, bottom line: If I thought my health was at all a risk or I made just a few more hundred a month right now, I'd buy health insurance right now. The thing is, for the time being I'm pretty low risk healthwise, but juggling mortgage payments and various bills. If I thought I was truly at risk of hitting an insurmountable medical bill in the next few years before I can afford to just buy the shit, I'd make the necessary adjustments now and tighten my belt. I take pride in being self sufficient.

So here, just for you. . . if I need a lung transplant before I've acquired health insurance down the road, I hope I don't get it. Happy?

I appreciate your civil debate. It is unusual on these threads.

In response, however, I have to say that your solution to your health care needs is clearly out of range for 99% of of Americans. My X-wife's first husband incurred medical bills in excess of $1,200,000 from luekemia over an 18 month period. He thought that he had the flu, until he went to the doctor. He died at age 54

My X-wife stopped opening the hospital bills when they reached $1,000,000. Fortunately, he had group health insurance through his employer. The employer stopped offering it to his employees 4 years ago, because, with a company that only had 14 emplyees, he simply could not afford it any more.

 

[Bern80]

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

That's what their parent's medical insurance for. Interestingly it's also why we should go back to a major medical type system. It's those cases like you list above that are exactly what insurance is supposed to be for. Not every bump, bruise and run of the mill checkup. You use it for the catastrophic.

I clearly said they were over 21 adults. They would not be on their parents insurance even if they had parents with insurance. The hospital would get stuck with the bill. And I'm not talking about reconstructive surgery. The cost of saving their lives and stabilizing them could easily cost a million bucks. Four people with multiple fractures and broken bones with complicated internal injuries that require intensive care and repeated surgerys for weeks or months. Perhaps one in a coma that could last for a month or more.
The hospital pays the bill. They pass it on to all who pay with insurance. The insurance pays. They pass it on to the people who pay for insurance. One way or another we all pay for the uninsured. This is the purpose of the ACA. Everyone needs to be insured and responsible for having insurance so nobody is getting a free ride.

Actually 26 is now the cutoff to stay on your parents plan under Obamcare. And I love this excuse that 'we all pay for it anyway', as if that's the way it has to be. We could allow catastrophic only insurance plans, instead of Obamacare forcing people to buy coverage for everything under the sun. They could work out a payment plan for their care. They can collect money from their community. There are all kinds of options and combinations of where we don't need to force people to buy insurance. Your auto repair mechanic isn't just going to just fix your car and eat it if you can't pay for it and if we went to a system that treated health insurance more like auto insurance we would be far better off.

Your above scenario isn't even realistic. It isn't going to cost millions of dollars. Granted it could be several tens of thousands. I had cancer as a child. I was in the hosptial for seven months and through several surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy. Did I rack up a bill for my parents? You bet. But it wasn't millions of dollars and it wasn't insurmountable.