The right will love this reasoning!

[Contumacious]

if a person does not want to buy insurance they should not be forced to by the government. That said, suppose a person who refuses to buy insurance has a catastrophic illness or accident. Suppose also their medical costs come in around $500k. They can't pay those costs. You don't want the government to pay the bill.

ok dingle berry here is what the government should do

1- stop allowing the ama to artificially control the amount of doctors and medical schools

2- stop allowing hospitals to control their competition

3- abolish medicaid and medicare

4- then get the government the **** out of the way

5- then the people will be able to afford healthcare

.

ignored.

Of course it was.

Reform was never the goal. Making healthcare affordable was never the goal.

.

 

[Contumacious]

THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IS NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. It is a private organization that functions similar to a union. ]

You miserable piece of shit . Learn to read:

"To start with, the American Medical Association (AMA) has had a government-granted monopoly on the healthcare system for over 100 years. It has intentionally restricted the number of doctors allowed to practice medicine so as to raise physician incomes artificially. The primary way it does this is by using the coercive power of the state to restrict the number of approved medical schools in operation. After the AMA created its Council on Medical Education in 1904, state medical boards complied with the AMA's recommendation to close down medical schools."

.

 

[ron4342]

CRACKERJAXON POSTED RON IN LARGER FONT
It is plain to everyone but you, apparently, that the market in health care has been skewed to the point that most people cannot afford it. Left alone, the health care industry would have to deliver an affordable product or go under. Duh!!!!! That has been the whole point of that thread. If a person does not have insurance they cannot afford to pay the medical bill if they have a serious illness or accident.

Again, it is obvious to everyone but you, apparently, that the demand for medical care outstrips the supply. I understand this completely. It clearly is one of the reasons health care costs are so high.

If you think those outrageous prices are caused by free market mechanics, you are a dolt. Oh!! Explain to us exactly who is setting the prices for medical services. Doctors and hospitals are free to charge anything they want. Medicare and the insurance industry can choose what they will pay but they cannot tell doctors what to charge.

Until 50 years ago, everyone could afford medical care in this country. Agreed.

Why do you think it changed? What has changed is that the free market works well when there is competition. However, what if the doctors and hospitals agree not to compete with each other? What if a doctor raises his rates and the other doctors in the area see that and choose to also raise their rates.

The worst thing about socialized medicine is that it lets dolts like you have even the tiniest say about the health care of others. I haven't called you any names or insulted you in any way, I expect the same courtesy. If you cannot control yourself go and find another thread.

Think a little. I have! You have avoided answering the question.
If a person refuses to buy insurance and suffers a severe illness or accident, who should pay the bill. You do not want the government involved. You don't expect hospitals or doctors to work for free. The patient cannot afford his medical bill. Who should pay the bill? And keep this in mind, whoever pays the bill is rewarding irresponsible behavior. Do you approve of that?

 

[ron4342]

the american medical association is not a government agency. It is a private organization that functions similar to a union. ]

you miserable piece of shit . Learn to read:

"to start with, the american medical association (ama) has had a government-granted monopoly on the healthcare system for over 100 years. It has intentionally restricted the number of doctors allowed to practice medicine so as to raise physician incomes artificially. the primary way it does this is by using the coercive power of the state to restrict the number of approved medical schools in operation. After the ama created its council on medical education in 1904, state medical boards complied with the ama's recommendation to close down medical schools."

.

ignored.

 

[ron4342]

ok dingle berry here is what the government should do

1- stop allowing the ama to artificially control the amount of doctors and medical schools

2- stop allowing hospitals to control their competition

3- abolish medicaid and medicare

4- then get the government the **** out of the way

5- then the people will be able to afford healthcare

.

ignored.

of course it was.

Reform was never the goal. Making healthcare affordable was never the goal.

.

ignored.

 

[Jarlaxle]

"Freedom is the right to choose one's own path in life. It doesn't matter that others may think their path is wrong. It only matters that the individual should decided and not the gov't." the eagle posted.

Well said. If a person does not want to buy insurance they should not be forced to by the government. That said, suppose a person who refuses to buy insurance has a catastrophic illness or accident. Suppose also their medical costs come in around $500K. They can't pay those costs. You don't want the government to pay the bill. The doctors and hospital can not stay in business if they are not paid. If the person was irresponsible and choose not to buy insurance, WHO SHOULD PAY THEIR MEDICAL BILL?
I don't want to pay for someone who refuses to take care of themselves. Aren't you, I, or anyone who pays to cover the person's cost rewarding irresponsible behavior? Do you think that is a good idea?

If they cannot pay or convince someone else to pay, they should be allowed to bleed out in the gutter.

 

[ron4342]

Whoever wants to. No one should be forced to.

You are avoiding the question. If the patient or the government doesn't pay the hospital and doctors bills, who should pay?

Why should anyone who is healthy pay the medical costs of someone who is ill?

In a decent world, doctors and hospitals would care for the poor and people of good will would actually help the process.

But we don't live in a decent world, do we?

The silly argument about hospitals giving emergency care to the poor should end. The fact that we actually had to encode common decency into law is a disgrace.

Crackerjaxon posted:
Why should anyone who is healthy pay the medical costs of someone who is ill?

Ron sez:
THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I AM MAKING! Why should irresponsible behavior be rewarded? If a person chooses not to purchase health insurance why should I be expected to bail them out if they develop a severe disease or have a terrible accident?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

CRACKERJAXON POSTED RON IN LARGER FONT
It is plain to everyone but you, apparently, that the market in health care has been skewed to the point that most people cannot afford it. Left alone, the health care industry would have to deliver an affordable product or go under. Duh!!!!! That has been the whole point of that thread. If a person does not have insurance they cannot afford to pay the medical bill if they have a serious illness or accident.

Again, it is obvious to everyone but you, apparently, that the demand for medical care outstrips the supply. I understand this completely. It clearly is one of the reasons health care costs are so high.

If you think those outrageous prices are caused by free market mechanics, you are a dolt. Oh!! Explain to us exactly who is setting the prices for medical services. Doctors and hospitals are free to charge anything they want. Medicare and the insurance industry can choose what they will pay but they cannot tell doctors what to charge.

Until 50 years ago, everyone could afford medical care in this country. Agreed.

Why do you think it changed? What has changed is that the free market works well when there is competition. However, what if the doctors and hospitals agree not to compete with each other? What if a doctor raises his rates and the other doctors in the area see that and choose to also raise their rates.

The worst thing about socialized medicine is that it lets dolts like you have even the tiniest say about the health care of others. I haven't called you any names or insulted you in any way, I expect the same courtesy. If you cannot control yourself go and find another thread.

Think a little. I have! You have avoided answering the question.
If a person refuses to buy insurance and suffers a severe illness or accident, who should pay the bill. You do not want the government involved. You don't expect hospitals or doctors to work for free. The patient cannot afford his medical bill. Who should pay the bill? And keep this in mind, whoever pays the bill is rewarding irresponsible behavior. Do you approve of that?

You are beginning to admit a glimmer of light into your thinking. You are to be commended.

Instead of whining about who should pay for poor people who need medical care, though, you should be asking what we should do to encourage competition in the health care field and bring prices back into line.

Oh, and who should pay for the indigent when they become ill? We have long had people who run charity hospitals, people who belong to churches, people of good will who believe it is their duty as human beings to help the poor.

How much are you willing to contribute?

If we break the health care cabal, prices will fall into line.

Wouldn't that be helping the poor?

 

[ron4342]

"Freedom is the right to choose one's own path in life. It doesn't matter that others may think their path is wrong. It only matters that the individual should decided and not the gov't." the eagle posted.

Well said. If a person does not want to buy insurance they should not be forced to by the government. That said, suppose a person who refuses to buy insurance has a catastrophic illness or accident. Suppose also their medical costs come in around $500K. They can't pay those costs. You don't want the government to pay the bill. The doctors and hospital can not stay in business if they are not paid. If the person was irresponsible and choose not to buy insurance, WHO SHOULD PAY THEIR MEDICAL BILL?
I don't want to pay for someone who refuses to take care of themselves. Aren't you, I, or anyone who pays to cover the person's cost rewarding irresponsible behavior? Do you think that is a good idea?

If they cannot pay or convince someone else to pay, they should be allowed to bleed out in the gutter.

Check my OP. This is exactly the point I made at the beginning of this thread.

 

[Contumacious]

[ Why should irresponsible behavior be rewarded? If a person chooses not to purchase health insurance why should I be expected to bail them out if they develop a severe disease or have a terrible accident?

Excuse me scum swallower:

In the free market, competition forces businesses to lower prices, WHY isn't that the case in healthcare?

.

 

[ron4342]

CRACKERJAXON POSTED RON IN LARGER FONT
It is plain to everyone but you, apparently, that the market in health care has been skewed to the point that most people cannot afford it. Left alone, the health care industry would have to deliver an affordable product or go under. Duh!!!!! That has been the whole point of that thread. If a person does not have insurance they cannot afford to pay the medical bill if they have a serious illness or accident.

Again, it is obvious to everyone but you, apparently, that the demand for medical care outstrips the supply. I understand this completely. It clearly is one of the reasons health care costs are so high.

If you think those outrageous prices are caused by free market mechanics, you are a dolt. Oh!! Explain to us exactly who is setting the prices for medical services. Doctors and hospitals are free to charge anything they want. Medicare and the insurance industry can choose what they will pay but they cannot tell doctors what to charge.

Until 50 years ago, everyone could afford medical care in this country. Agreed.

Why do you think it changed? What has changed is that the free market works well when there is competition. However, what if the doctors and hospitals agree not to compete with each other? What if a doctor raises his rates and the other doctors in the area see that and choose to also raise their rates.

The worst thing about socialized medicine is that it lets dolts like you have even the tiniest say about the health care of others. I haven't called you any names or insulted you in any way, I expect the same courtesy. If you cannot control yourself go and find another thread.

Think a little. I have! You have avoided answering the question.
If a person refuses to buy insurance and suffers a severe illness or accident, who should pay the bill. You do not want the government involved. You don't expect hospitals or doctors to work for free. The patient cannot afford his medical bill. Who should pay the bill? And keep this in mind, whoever pays the bill is rewarding irresponsible behavior. Do you approve of that?

You are beginning to admit a glimmer of light into your thinking. You are to be commended.

Instead of whining about who should pay for poor people who need medical care, though, you should be asking what we should do to encourage competition in the health care field and bring prices back into line.

Oh, and who should pay for the indigent when they become ill? We have long had people who run charity hospitals, people who belong to churches, people of good will who believe it is their duty as human beings to help the poor.

How much are you willing to contribute?

If we break the health care cabal, prices will fall into line.

Wouldn't that be helping the poor?

Ahhhhh .... And exactly how should we encourage competition in health care? You don't want the government getting involved. Without any leadership trying to organize a nationwide movement we would have total chaos. It would be easier to herd cats.

Oh, and as for who would be "willing to contribute," think about the fact that a person can build up a $500K medical bill under the right circumstances. We are talking about a huge number of contributions for just ONE patient. But we aren't talking about one patient, are we? And then, of course, if people were to contribute wouldn't it be reinforcing the irresponsible decision NOT to purchase medical insurance. Do you want to encourage irresponsible behavior? I don't.

 

[ron4342]

[ Why should irresponsible behavior be rewarded? If a person chooses not to purchase health insurance why should I be expected to bail them out if they develop a severe disease or have a terrible accident?

Excuse me scum swallower:

In the free market, competition forces businesses to lower prices, WHY isn't that the case in healthcare?

.

".... scum swallower"

Ron sez:
Explain to me EXACTLY why I (or anyone) should waste a second of time on a waste of life, like yourself.

 

[dblack]

You are avoiding the question. If the patient or the government doesn't pay the hospital and doctors bills, who should pay?

I'm not avoiding anything. It's the same answer to any situation where someone can't afford to pay their bills. Health care is no different.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[ Why should irresponsible behavior be rewarded? If a person chooses not to purchase health insurance why should I be expected to bail them out if they develop a severe disease or have a terrible accident?

Excuse me scum swallower:

In the free market, competition forces businesses to lower prices, WHY isn't that the case in healthcare?

.

Because there is no free market.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

CRACKERJAXON POSTED RON IN LARGER FONT
It is plain to everyone but you, apparently, that the market in health care has been skewed to the point that most people cannot afford it. Left alone, the health care industry would have to deliver an affordable product or go under. Duh!!!!! That has been the whole point of that thread. If a person does not have insurance they cannot afford to pay the medical bill if they have a serious illness or accident.

Again, it is obvious to everyone but you, apparently, that the demand for medical care outstrips the supply. I understand this completely. It clearly is one of the reasons health care costs are so high.

If you think those outrageous prices are caused by free market mechanics, you are a dolt. Oh!! Explain to us exactly who is setting the prices for medical services. Doctors and hospitals are free to charge anything they want. Medicare and the insurance industry can choose what they will pay but they cannot tell doctors what to charge.

Until 50 years ago, everyone could afford medical care in this country. Agreed.

Why do you think it changed? What has changed is that the free market works well when there is competition. However, what if the doctors and hospitals agree not to compete with each other? What if a doctor raises his rates and the other doctors in the area see that and choose to also raise their rates.

The worst thing about socialized medicine is that it lets dolts like you have even the tiniest say about the health care of others. I haven't called you any names or insulted you in any way, I expect the same courtesy. If you cannot control yourself go and find another thread.

Think a little. I have! You have avoided answering the question.
If a person refuses to buy insurance and suffers a severe illness or accident, who should pay the bill. You do not want the government involved. You don't expect hospitals or doctors to work for free. The patient cannot afford his medical bill. Who should pay the bill? And keep this in mind, whoever pays the bill is rewarding irresponsible behavior. Do you approve of that?

You are beginning to admit a glimmer of light into your thinking. You are to be commended.

Instead of whining about who should pay for poor people who need medical care, though, you should be asking what we should do to encourage competition in the health care field and bring prices back into line.

Oh, and who should pay for the indigent when they become ill? We have long had people who run charity hospitals, people who belong to churches, people of good will who believe it is their duty as human beings to help the poor.

How much are you willing to contribute?

If we break the health care cabal, prices will fall into line.

Wouldn't that be helping the poor?

Ahhhhh .... And exactly how should we encourage competition in health care? You don't want the government getting involved. Without any leadership trying to organize a nationwide movement we would have total chaos. It would be easier to herd cats.

Oh, and as for who would be "willing to contribute," think about the fact that a person can build up a $500K medical bill under the right circumstances. We are talking about a huge number of contributions for just ONE patient. But we aren't talking about one patient, are we? And then, of course, if people were to contribute wouldn't it be reinforcing the irresponsible decision NOT to purchase medical insurance. Do you want to encourage irresponsible behavior? I don't.

Lots of different ways to go. Communities could send kids to medical schools in return for working locally and charging reasonable prices for a set term, based on the way the military recruits medical personnel.

We could slap an anti-trust suit on the AMA, which might be fun. I am not against using government to ease the transition into a free markets for health care. State universities could start more medical schools and award scholarships.

By the way, those 500k medical bills would become a thing of the past if there was competition in the health care industry. Already, medical tourism is catching on.

Instead of preventing the gouging of the American people, which is exactly what Big Pharma, the members of the AMA, insurance companies, and corporate hospitals are doing, you want to continue paying those outrageous bills with other people's money.

Why not trying to do something we know will work for a change, instead of spreading the misery around?

 

[Contumacious]

[ Why should irresponsible behavior be rewarded? If a person chooses not to purchase health insurance why should I be expected to bail them out if they develop a severe disease or have a terrible accident?

Excuse me scum swallower:

In the free market, competition forces businesses to lower prices, WHY isn't that the case in healthcare?

.

Because there is no free market.

Exactly.

The Myth of Free-Market Healthcare

.

 

[ron4342]

You are beginning to admit a glimmer of light into your thinking. You are to be commended.

Instead of whining about who should pay for poor people who need medical care, though, you should be asking what we should do to encourage competition in the health care field and bring prices back into line.

Oh, and who should pay for the indigent when they become ill? We have long had people who run charity hospitals, people who belong to churches, people of good will who believe it is their duty as human beings to help the poor.

How much are you willing to contribute?

If we break the health care cabal, prices will fall into line.

Wouldn't that be helping the poor?

Ahhhhh .... And exactly how should we encourage competition in health care? You don't want the government getting involved. Without any leadership trying to organize a nationwide movement we would have total chaos. It would be easier to herd cats.

Oh, and as for who would be "willing to contribute," think about the fact that a person can build up a $500K medical bill under the right circumstances. We are talking about a huge number of contributions for just ONE patient. But we aren't talking about one patient, are we? And then, of course, if people were to contribute wouldn't it be reinforcing the irresponsible decision NOT to purchase medical insurance. Do you want to encourage irresponsible behavior? I don't.

Lots of different ways to go. Communities could send kids to medical schools in return for working locally and charging reasonable prices for a set term, based on the way the military recruits medical personnel.

We could slap an anti-trust suit on the AMA, which might be fun. I am not against using government to ease the transition into a free markets for health care. State universities could start more medical schools and award scholarships.

By the way, those 500k medical bills would become a thing of the past if there was competition in the health care industry. Already, medical tourism is catching on.

Instead of preventing the gouging of the American people, which is exactly what Big Pharma, the members of the AMA, insurance companies, and corporate hospitals are doing, you want to continue paying those outrageous bills with other people's money.

Why not trying to do something we know will work for a change, instead of spreading the misery around?

Whoa! Whoa!! Whoa up there!!! No where have I advocated continuing paying those "outrageous bills with other people's money."
I have posed a question. If a person chooses to act irresponsibly and does not purchase health insurance, why should we reward him by bailing him out if he develops a serious disease or is involved in a terrible accident? Why should we reward irresponsibile behavior?

 

[Contumacious]

I have posed a question. If a person chooses to act irresponsibly and does not purchase health insurance, why should we reward him by bailing him out if he develops a serious disease or is involved in a terrible accident? Why should we reward irresponsibile behavior?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Again maggot.

I have posed a question.

Why should we reward the irresponsible behavior which government bureaucrats have demonstrated since 1840?!?!?!?

.

.