What About Jim Smith?

[AmericanFirst]

Which one are you confused about -

The definition of socialist?
or
How "Obamacare" is designed to operate?

perhaps both.

I am not confused, obamaturd is a socialist and obamacare is unconstitutional and will be a failure.

LOL, this is fun. So which part of Obamacare makes it socialist?

Making it manditory you buy health insurance or you will be fined. That is unconstitutional, period.

 

[Dr.House]

I don't understand. Please explain to me in simpler terms why you are against solving a problem facing the country today based upon the fear of an absurd problem that will never actually happen one day down the road. Go ahead and break it down for me.

So for the record, you are totally down with the government mandating the purchase of products or services under threat of penalty if you don't whether you desire or need them?

Depends on the good/service. Auto insurance mandates are ok, for example.

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

 

[AmericanFirst]

Maybe Jim Smith should have given up his cigarettes and/or beer and put that money towards health insurance. Pulling at heart strings still does not make it right for the gov't. to make it mandatory to have healthcare. Scenario. The gov't. tells me I have to buy health insurance or get fined. I can not afford the health insurance, what makes the idiots think I can afford the fine? Socialists are wrong!!!

And they say that Republicans are mean spirited. WHEREVER did that idea come from?

I am not mean spirited. But I do believe in individual responsibility. Just because Jim was irresponsible doesn't mean I should pay his way. Only you socialist idiots believe that.

 

[George Costanza]

A little reminder, folks - the issue here is: what do we do with someone who has no health insurance and will die without certain medical treatment he/she cannot afford? It is a limited point. The issue here is not whether mandatory health insurance is constitutional, a good or bad idea, or anything else.

I am asking a serious question - if Republicans have their way, there are going to be a LOT of people in Jim Smith's situation. OK, Repubs - what are you going to do with those people? Never mind the hindsight arguments about why universal health coverage is a bad idea or wrong.

What are you going to do with those people?

 

[Dr.House]

For the record, I understand why the mandate is in place for health insurance. Do I blindly now support mandates for anything and everything? Of course not, but I have a nasty habit of evaluating things on their own merit and using my brain to do a bit of critical thinking and making decisions on a case by case basis.

The problem is when the legal types waltz in and start thowing out terms like "precedence" and "stare decisis"...

How about we just don't start mandating people buy something they don't want to buy if they feel they don't need it?

In the case of insurance mandates that argument has been made many times before.

Auto insurance if for those that choose to drive on public roads, not all Americans...

Life insurance is a choice...

Flood insurance is usually bought by those who live in a flood zone...

 

[George Costanza]

Maybe Jim Smith should have given up his cigarettes and/or beer and put that money towards health insurance. Pulling at heart strings still does not make it right for the gov't. to make it mandatory to have healthcare. Scenario. The gov't. tells me I have to buy health insurance or get fined. I can not afford the health insurance, what makes the idiots think I can afford the fine? Socialists are wrong!!!

And they say that Republicans are mean spirited. WHEREVER did that idea come from?

I am not mean spirited. But I do believe in individual responsibility. Just because Jim was irresponsible doesn't mean I should pay his way. Only you socialist idiots believe that.

You are mean spirited if you think that Jim should die because, in your judgment, he was "not responsible." OK - I'll give you a break. What would you do with a Jim who had no choice whatsoever. He flat could never afford health insurance regardless of whether he felt the need to get it. What about that guy? OK for him to die too?

 

[Dr.House]

A little reminder, folks - the issue here is: what do we do with someone who has no health insurance and will die without certain medical treatment he/she cannot afford? It is a limited point. The issue here is not whether mandatory health insurance is constitutional, a good or bad idea, or anything else.

I am asking a serious question - if Republicans have their way, there are going to be a LOT of people in Jim Smith's situation. OK, Repubs - what are you going to do with those people? Never mind the hindsight arguments about why universal health coverage is a bad idea or wrong.

What are you going to do with those people?

See post #24... You must have missed it...

 

[Foxfyre]

A little reminder, folks - the issue here is: what do we do with someone who has no health insurance and will die without certain medical treatment he/she cannot afford? It is a limited point. The issue here is not whether mandatory health insurance is constitutional, a good or bad idea, or anything else.

I am asking a serious question - if Republicans have their way, there are going to be a LOT of people in Jim Smith's situation. OK, Repubs - what are you going to do with those people? Never mind the hindsight arguments about why universal health coverage is a bad idea or wrong.

What are you going to do with those people?

The short answer is that if he wants the treatment, you provide him with the treatment, but he will be expected to pay for it. If we believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, others cannot be forced to provide and pay for treatment so that he gets a free ride. If others volunteer to help out, that's great. I personally have helped out a lot of folks over the years who were in just that situation.

 

[Avatar4321]

So unless other hard working people who have had to sacrifice for what little they have pay for Jim, he is going to die? Are you familiar with the term false dichotemy?

There are more than two choices. One is he gets the medical services and he pays for them himself. You know something responsible people do. I spent a while not having insurance, do you know what happened when I got sick? I paid for the doctor myself.

I didn't look for some handout. Why would any self-respecting man do so? he chose to gamble with his health. He needs to take responsibility for his actions.

This idea that we shouldn't have to take responsibility for anything we choose is absolutely absurd.

And what responsibility does one take to ensure that his prostate remains in proper working order?

Eat right for one.

And invest in insurance.

Otherwise pay for your treatment.

 

[EriktheRed]

So for the record, you are totally down with the government mandating the purchase of products or services under threat of penalty if you don't whether you desire or need them?

Depends on the good/service. Auto insurance mandates are ok, for example.

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

Of course not and I know where you're going with this.

The health insurance mandate is necessary to provide a pool of funds to draw from. Obviously, that means that healthy citizens who may not need it for a while would have to pay into it, too, although who's to say a healthy person might suddenly become unhealthy and then need it, too. And yeah, I'm totally down with it because I've seen from other countries' examples that it not only works, but doesn't turn them into a cesspool of totalitarianism.


Now share with the class why this is truly a bad thing.

 

[Avatar4321]

So unless other hard working people who have had to sacrifice for what little they have pay for Jim, he is going to die? Are you familiar with the term false dichotemy?

There are more than two choices. One is he gets the medical services and he pays for them himself. You know something responsible people do. I spent a while not having insurance, do you know what happened when I got sick? I paid for the doctor myself.

I didn't look for some handout. Why would any self-respecting man do so? he chose to gamble with his health. He needs to take responsibility for his actions.

This idea that we shouldn't have to take responsibility for anything we choose is absolutely absurd.

Unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable. Do you really feel this way? If so, I feel sorry for you.

OK - passing that one for the moment. In my example, Jim Smith might have been able to have afforded health insurance if he had decided to rearrange his budget a little bit - after all, he did have a job. What about the person who has no job? Not having health insurance is not a choice for him - he flat cannot afford it. He isn't "choosing" anything.

What would you do with that guy when he comes up with something that requires medical treatment or he dies?

You feel sorry for me for living in reality and realizing that if I gamble with my life, I may lose? You feel sorry for me becasue I understand that the choices we make have consequences?

If he doesn't have a job, he goes out and gets one.

 

[RDD_1210]

I am not confused, obamaturd is a socialist and obamacare is unconstitutional and will be a failure.

LOL, this is fun. So which part of Obamacare makes it socialist?

Making it manditory you buy health insurance or you will be fined. That is unconstitutional, period.

I asked which part makes it socialism.

 

[Avatar4321]

What happens is he dies. Only the people with money have a right to life. Poor people don't have the same rights as people with money. It's always been that way. Money is power and those who have it are creating a class society that is more an more resembling the class society of 1800 England where debtors and their families rotted in prison.

Bullshit! No one is denied medical care.

indigant medical care - Google Search

But then admitting that fact would mean they wouldnt be able to make their false arguments.

 

[RDD_1210]

So for the record, you are totally down with the government mandating the purchase of products or services under threat of penalty if you don't whether you desire or need them?

Depends on the good/service. Auto insurance mandates are ok, for example.

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

Now show me someone who will never need healthcare or is immune to accidents or cancer and maybe you'd have a good point.

 

[AmericanFirst]

And they say that Republicans are mean spirited. WHEREVER did that idea come from?

I am not mean spirited. But I do believe in individual responsibility. Just because Jim was irresponsible doesn't mean I should pay his way. Only you socialist idiots believe that.

You are mean spirited if you think that Jim should die because, in your judgment, he was "not responsible." OK - I'll give you a break. What would you do with a Jim who had no choice whatsoever. He flat could never afford health insurance regardless of whether he felt the need to get it. What about that guy? OK for him to die too?

There is always federal prison where they get 100% free healthcare There are ways to solve the problem that libtards won't like. Like kicking out every last illegal immigrant that drains our system for starts. Investigating and solving medicare/medicaid fraud. Those two alone would do more than obamacare and would be constitutional.

 

[Avatar4321]

So unless other hard working people who have had to sacrifice for what little they have pay for Jim, he is going to die? Are you familiar with the term false dichotemy?

There are more than two choices. One is he gets the medical services and he pays for them himself. You know something responsible people do. I spent a while not having insurance, do you know what happened when I got sick? I paid for the doctor myself.

I didn't look for some handout. Why would any self-respecting man do so? he chose to gamble with his health. He needs to take responsibility for his actions.

This idea that we shouldn't have to take responsibility for anything we choose is absolutely absurd.

So people who are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, or leukemia, or brain cancer, etc...do you have any idea how much treatment and medication costs? Of course you don't otherwise you wouldn't have typed the utterly ridiculous post you just made.

Doesnt matter how much it costs. It's his responsibility. Not anyone elses.

If someone chooses to help them. Great. In fact, I encourage charity, real charity not this entitlement bullcrap. We all have trials. The idea that someone else should be responsible for fixing them or getting us through those trials is a damning lie.

The problem with this nation is that too many people are trying to pretend that their choices have no consequences and will do anything to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. There is only one person responsible for my health - me. So if I intend to maintain it, it has to occur through my own choices.

Medications and treatments wouldn't cost nearly so much if the government wasn't interfering with the costs to begin with.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Depends on the good/service. Auto insurance mandates are ok, for example.

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

Of course not and I know where you're going with this.

The health insurance mandate is necessary to provide a pool of funds to draw from. Obviously, that means that healthy citizens who may not need it for a while would have to pay into it, too, although who's to say a healthy person might suddenly become unhealthy and then need it, too. And yeah, I'm totally down with it because I've seen from other countries' examples that it not only works, but doesn't turn them into a cesspool of totalitarianism.


Now share with the class why this is truly a bad thing.

That is socialism when you mandate it. It is voluntary socialism if everyone volunteers to pay into it. Either way it is socialism.

 

[Dr.House]

Depends on the good/service. Auto insurance mandates are ok, for example.

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

Of course not and I know where you're going with this.

The health insurance mandate is necessary to provide a pool of funds to draw from. Obviously, that means that healthy citizens who may not need it for a while would have to pay into it, too, although who's to say a healthy person might suddenly become unhealthy and then need it, too.

There has to be another way that doesn't infringe upon constitutional rights... Massive fraud penalities, tort reform, waste elimination and efficiency gains... Hell, even illegal immigration reform...

And you libs wonder why your ideas aren't popular with the twentysomethings....lol No more hope&change there...

And yeah, I'm totally down with it because I've seen from other countries' examples that it not only works, but doesn't turn them into a cesspool of totalitarianism.

I'll ask you: If it works so well elsewhere, which country are you planning to go to for cancer treatment if you are so diagnosed?

 

[Avatar4321]

Only the unborn have a right to life.

Adult prostate abusers don't.

You do realize that there is a huge difference between murdering an unborn child and an adult failing to make precautions to take care of himself right?

 

[Dr.House]

Depends on the good/service. Auto insurance mandates are ok, for example.

Apples and Oranges... Auto Insurance is for those who choose to drive on public roads...

Are you down with a mandate for auto insurance for all Americans, including those that don't own a car? That's apples to apples...

Now show me someone who will never need healthcare or is immune to accidents or cancer and maybe you'd have a good point.

Why add the words "will never need"? How about they pay for healthcare when they want to or feel they might use it instead?