The right will love this reasoning!

[ogibillm]

why would us righties need to do that. the aca is already doing that. Remember the little girl that needed the heart lung transplant and kalthleen the nazi sebelious turned her back on her and a federal judge had to overturn the aca supporters decision


you guys horror stories have about as much basis in fact as wmd's in iraq. amazing how the 2 parallel each other

you know that had nothing to do with the aca, right?

 

[blackhawk]

Haven't we already heard this talking point from the far left nut job Alan Grayson?

 

[Stephanie]

this thread is an example of the voters in Democratic base...if you don't agree with their view of government, then you want people to DIE die die

they spew hate about others assuming they know what they will love...and then goes on to show admiration for a Fascist FEDERAL government who DICTATES how you should LIVE YOUR LIVES

You people should move to a communist country

 

[dblack]

and if they refuse to get coverage = let them die?

Is this what you're saying...

No. That's not I would do. How about you?

So what would you do with people who insist they don't need health insurance?

You mean what would I do in the event they needed health care and couldn't afford it? Probably whatever I could to help, as long as the person in question wasn't a complete miscreant or something. But I suspect you're missing the point.

The question isn't whether we should help those in need - obviously we should - but whether or not we should have laws dictating how we help each other. I don't think such a thing should be a matter of public policy but, instead, individual judgement.

Frankly, I find this tactic of accusing the uninsured of being 'freeloaders', or - worse yet - accusing people who don't want insurance dictated by law of endorsing 'freeloading', to be quite dishonest. Those making this claim aren't really worried about freeloading. The solutions they propose, at least as embodied in laws like EMTALA and the ACA, require that the freeloading be indulged in the form of subsidies and mandates. What they're after instead is control. What they want is to take the decision of whether or not to extend charity away from the individual and replace it with state policy.

But that's a bad idea and leads to the kinds of 'unintended consequences' we're now seeing from EMTALA. The solution to a bad law with negative side effects isn't another bad law with still more negative side effects (ACA). The solution is to re-address the law that creates the problem in the first place (EMTALA).

 

[dblack]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. Is it fair for them to refuse to buy insurance and then to expect others to pay for them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. If they can buy insurance but refuse to they should be allowed to die rather than pulling others into bankrupcy to save their sorry asses. After all, what they are doing is betting they will not have a serious accident or illness. However, when you bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If they don't want to buy insurance and they can't pay the hospital bill, let them pay with their lives. The right should really love this idea.

Ron Paul does. He said as much at the prez debates. He suggested that someone who is ill and without insurance go to a local church and ask for their charity or ask their families for help, presuming automatically that a family can help. Now doesn't that sound like great domestic policy?

Suggesting that we help each other voluntarily, rather than via state coercion, isn't that the same thing (at all) as saying 'let them die'. What Ron Paul is saying is that such decisions shouldn't be a matter of 'domestic policy'.

 

[Harry Dresden]

and if they refuse to get coverage = let them die?

Is this what you're saying...

No. That's not I would do. How about you?

So what would you do with people who insist they don't need health insurance?

make them sign a waiver saying they have the funds to pay if something happens to them.....and the cant turn you down existing condition clause does not apply to them if they sign this,......they can be turned down if they get sick and "suddenly" change their mind.....if they do change their mind later.....they need to pass a physical....IF they Dont have the funds to pay.....then i think they should be made to have it like the rest of us....

 

[Harry Dresden]

why would us righties need to do that. the aca is already doing that. Remember the little girl that needed the heart lung transplant and kalthleen the nazi sebelious turned her back on her and a federal judge had to overturn the aca supporters decision

The ACA had nothing to do with it, you lying POS!

And the girl got her lungs, at the expense of someone else in need, and they failed within hours because it was an adult lung and she was 11 years old. Normally you have to be 12 to get an adult lung. So the girl was given a second adult lung, costing a second needy person a lung. Whenever you move someone up on the list someone else must be moved down, in this case the girl cost 2 needy people their lungs.

Kathleen Sebelius at center of storm over child?s lung transplant - Brett Norman - POLITICO.com

Some experts agree that the lung allocation policy may need to be revisited; it has been for kidney and liver transplants. But they say no snap decisions should be made because of the media glare.
“Should Sebelius step in and do something? No. She doesn’t have all the facts,” said NYU bioethicist Art Caplan. Acting under pressure from a media savvy family “or the noisiest person in line” is bad policy, he added.
Transplant policy in the U.S. is made and administered by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network working with the United Network for Organ Sharing under contract with HHS. It’s inherently charged and complex because there aren’t enough organs for everyone who needs them, and people do die waiting.

While Sebelius can certainly order a policy review, as she did in a May 31 letter to the procurement network, her authority to intervene in a specific case is unclear.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) told Sebelius that “t simply takes your signature” to help this child.
Caplan said: “It isn’t clear no matter how many congressmen yell at Secretary Sebelius that she has the ability to do anything.”
Setting transplant policy is complicated. OPTN has expert committees that draft proposals and submit them for public comment. Approved policies are subject to the secretary’s discretion of enforcement or reconsideration, according to a summary of the regulations by OPTN.
The policy that the Murnaghan and their advocates are questioning is one that puts children under 12 at the bottom of the waiting list for lungs from adult donors. Young children would be first in line for lungs donated by kids their age. But far fewer of those are available.

snip/

Caplan noted one reason that may give Sebelius pause: by moving someone up the list, someone else goes down. One child saved could mean another child dies. Sebelius, he noted, “doesn’t have all the information.”

But none of this matters to the rightwing nutters. It is a handy stick with which to attack the ACA and President Obama. Matters not how illogical the attack is in the face of facts. Facts do not exist in the alternative reality of the rightwingnuts.

nice tents you throw Rocks.....i hope it got everybody....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

why would us righties need to do that. the aca is already doing that. Remember the little girl that needed the heart lung transplant and kalthleen the nazi sebelious turned her back on her and a federal judge had to overturn the aca supporters decision


you guys horror stories have about as much basis in fact as wmd's in iraq. amazing how the 2 parallel each other

What does that have to do with ObamaCare?

And, why should one patient matter more than another?

Unless they are forced to be responsible, the "righties", as you call them, will just go right on refusing to pay for own health care and demanding that the lib-rules pay for them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No. That's not I would do. How about you?

So what would you do with people who insist they don't need health insurance?

make them sign a waiver saying they have the funds to pay if something happens to them.....and the cant turn you down existing condition clause does not apply to them if they sign this,......they can be turned down if they get sick and "suddenly" change their mind.....if they do change their mind later.....they need to pass a physical....IF they Dont have the funds to pay.....then i think they should be made to have it like the rest of us....

Excellent idea.

Paying for one's own care is the whole point. If "they" have money to do that, let them prove it and go without insurance.

Only problem is, there's no way to know what their cost could add up to.

A broken leg or catastrophic illness/injury?

So do they have to have $5000 in escrow? Or $500K?

 

[Stephanie]

why would us righties need to do that. the aca is already doing that. Remember the little girl that needed the heart lung transplant and kalthleen the nazi sebelious turned her back on her and a federal judge had to overturn the aca supporters decision


you guys horror stories have about as much basis in fact as wmd's in iraq. amazing how the 2 parallel each other

What does that have to do with ObamaCare?

And, why should one patient matter more than another?

Unless they are forced to be responsible, the "righties", as you call them, will just go right on refusing to pay for own health care and demanding that the lib-rules pay for them.

you're such a hateful liar...so it's only the "righties" refusing to pay for their own health care huh?
why is it you commie control freaks think you have the right and FORCE your ideas of how it should it be on people in this FREE COUNTRY

scratch a liberal find a red blooded Fascist

 

[boilermaker55]

Ayn Rand the hero of the tea party and Paul Ryan philosophy run hand in hand.

No. That's not I would do. How about you?

So what would you do with people who insist they don't need health insurance?

You mean what would I do in the event they needed health care and couldn't afford it? Probably whatever I could to help, as long as the person in question wasn't a complete miscreant or something. But I suspect you're missing the point.

The question isn't whether we should help those in need - obviously we should - but whether or not we should have laws dictating how we help each other. I don't think such a thing should be a matter of public policy but, instead, individual judgement.

Frankly, I find this tactic of accusing the uninsured of being 'freeloaders', or - worse yet - accusing people who don't want insurance dictated by law of endorsing 'freeloading', to be quite dishonest. Those making this claim aren't really worried about freeloading. The solutions they propose, at least as embodied in laws like EMTALA and the ACA, require that the freeloading be indulged in the form of subsidies and mandates. What they're after instead is control. What they want is to take the decision of whether or not to extend charity away from the individual and replace it with state policy.

But that's a bad idea and leads to the kinds of 'unintended consequences' we're now seeing from EMTALA. The solution to a bad law with negative side effects isn't another bad law with still more negative side effects (ACA). The solution is to re-address the law that creates the problem in the first place (EMTALA).

 

[1776]

I bet you think you eating feces every night is awesome.

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. Is it fair for them to refuse to buy insurance and then to expect others to pay for them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. If they can buy insurance but refuse to they should be allowed to die rather than pulling others into bankrupcy to save their sorry asses. After all, what they are doing is betting they will not have a serious accident or illness. However, when you bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If they don't want to buy insurance and they can't pay the hospital bill, let them pay with their lives. The right should really love this idea.

 

[dblack]

Ayn Rand the hero of the tea party and Paul Ryan philosophy run hand in hand.

Were you responding to my post (which you quoted)? How does your comment relate to what I was saying?

 

[ron4342]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. ...

How about we just leave it up to the people involved to decide what to do in that case? Is letting people think for themselves an alien concept these days?

and if they refuse to get coverage = let them die?

Is this what you're saying...

Yup!!! If they don't want to purchase health insurance and if they cannot pay their medical bills why should everyone who is acting responsibly have to pay for their ignorane and stupidity? In a sense this is in line with their position on abortion. They believe that the government should do everything possible to stop abortions BUT after the baby is born they simply turn their back on it. They want nothing to do with keeping the baby fed, clothed, and sheltered. If it dies of starvation that is just to bad. The mother shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place.

 

[ron4342]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. Is it fair for them to refuse to buy insurance and then to expect others to pay for them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. If they can buy insurance but refuse to they should be allowed to die rather than pulling others into bankrupcy to save their sorry asses. After all, what they are doing is betting they will not have a serious accident or illness. However, when you bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If they don't want to buy insurance and they can't pay the hospital bill, let them pay with their lives. The right should really love this idea.

Where did THIS troll come from?

Hey, I am just taking right wing talkiing points to their logical conclusion. The right does not feel it is right to force people to buy insurance. Also the right does not believe the government should assist those who need help. Put these two together and you come up with letting people die if they refuse to invest in health insurance. Isn't this what the right wants?

 

[dblack]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. Is it fair for them to refuse to buy insurance and then to expect others to pay for them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. If they can buy insurance but refuse to they should be allowed to die rather than pulling others into bankrupcy to save their sorry asses. After all, what they are doing is betting they will not have a serious accident or illness. However, when you bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If they don't want to buy insurance and they can't pay the hospital bill, let them pay with their lives. The right should really love this idea.

Where did THIS troll come from?

Hey, I am just taking right wing talkiing points to their logical conclusion. The right does not feel it is right to force people to buy insurance. Also the right does not believe the government should assist those who need help. Put these two together and you come up with letting people die if they refuse to invest in health insurance. Isn't this what the right wants?

I'm not really sure what the 'right' wants, but your logic is faulty. There's quite a bit of leeway between the welfare state and social darwinism. We can take care of each other communally without resorting to coercion.

 

[ron4342]

Left wing projection alert!

Millions of people are not going to have healthcare next year because Healthcare.gov is a disaster. People will be dying in the streets and the left is just fine with that because it will represent Progress.

The health insurance industry got between the sick and their doctors, and many were denied treatment, denied insurance, and allowed to die.

Folks are simply suggesting that if we simply allow the dumb young to die in the street because they made stupid choices, (1) we improve the genetic pool and (2) no one gets rich at denying after care the dumb young refused to get earlier.

You understand my position perfectly, Jake.
If a person is to stupid to buy insurance and expects others to pay his/her bills they deserve to die. If you want, you can also consider this survival of the fittest. If you make stupid mistakes it is only logical that you pay for those mistakes and that others are not forced to spend their hard earned money to save their sorry ass.
Basically I am just taking the republican position to its logical conclusion.

 

[OriginalShroom]

this thread is an example of the voters in Democratic base...if you don't agree with their view of government, then you want people to DIE die die

they spew hate about others assuming they know what they will love...and then goes on to show admiration for a Fascist FEDERAL government who DICTATES how you should LIVE YOUR LIVES

You people should move to a communist country

They would rather turn this country into a Communist Country.

That way they don't have to move.

 

[Harry Dresden]

So what would you do with people who insist they don't need health insurance?

make them sign a waiver saying they have the funds to pay if something happens to them.....and the cant turn you down existing condition clause does not apply to them if they sign this,......they can be turned down if they get sick and "suddenly" change their mind.....if they do change their mind later.....they need to pass a physical....IF they Dont have the funds to pay.....then i think they should be made to have it like the rest of us....

Excellent idea.

Paying for one's own care is the whole point. If "they" have money to do that, let them prove it and go without insurance.

Only problem is, there's no way to know what their cost could add up to.

A broken leg or catastrophic illness/injury?

So do they have to have $5000 in escrow? Or $500K?

i feel if they dont want Ins.....then they have to just prove they are financially able to handle medical bills.....BUT they also have to realize that when they sign that waiver....they are saying they can "carry" their own weight.....so its up to them....if they can afford to not carry ins....then they can afford to get a policy....so its all on them....

 

[ScienceRocks]

We already pay for it either way...

Why expect insurance from the person?