What About Jim Smith?

[George Costanza]

I've never heard of Conservatives advocating that people die in the streets either... yet you libs dredge this tired old lie up weekly.

Read some of the posts on this thread, Soggy. More than a couple of conservatives here would let Jim Smith die, rather than participate in universal health care. After all, THEY are "responsible" for themselves, THEY can afford health insurance. Why should they care about Jim Smith.

"Ive got mine - screw you!"

So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...

I don't advocate letting people "die in the streets." Unfortunately, more than a few people here seem to feel that is OK rather than participate in our present form of health care.

 

[Dr.House]

Here's one from a partisan, but well-sourced piece regarding tort reform in particualr, one of your faves, I understand:

Annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, Amitabh Chandra, another Harvard University economist, recently told Bloomberg News. Chandra estimated the cost of jury awards at about $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion. Insurer WellPoint Inc. has also said that liability awards are not what’s driving premiums.

And a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending. Even “significant reductions” would do little to curb health-care expenses, it concluded.

A study by Bloomberg also found that the proportion of medical malpractice verdicts among the top jury awards in the U.S. declined over the last 20 years. “Of the top 25 awards so far this year, only one was a malpractice case.” Moreover, at least 30 states now cap damages in medical lawsuits.

The experience of Texas in capping damage awards is a good example. Contrary to Perry’s claims, a recent analysis by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker found that while Texas tort reforms led to a cap on pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which led to a dramatic decline in lawsuits, McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. In 2006, “Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per person enrolled in McAllen, he finds, which is almost twice the national average — although the average town resident earns only $12,000 a year. “Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.”

Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent

It seems to be doing well in Ohio, KrunchyFag:

How well does tort reform work?

Hey, wait... You live in Ohio, don't you KrunchyFag?

Btw, you rightwingnut ****, you never explained how banning pre-existing conditions would work without a mandate in place.

Looks like you're going to have to find a way, leftist hack shitstain...

 

[Mr Natural]

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.


Now what about this car question you keep dodging?

So you're going to play the stoopid game too? 10 years ago, who would have ever thought Congress would pass a law forcing Americans to purchase a product......any product.....for any reason? If they can do it with healthcare, why not something else that our nany state deems we need? I chose a car out of the air. It could just as easily be an insurance policy to pay for your funeral. You know, there are a lot of people who can't pay for those either. Expand your timy mind a little to understand the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether you think everyone has a "right" to healthcare, is it constitutional to mandate citizens purchase it or face a fine?

Take a trip to Tuscon sometime and look around at the acres and acres of junked military aircraft that we've been forced to buy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Read some of the posts on this thread, Soggy. More than a couple of conservatives here would let Jim Smith die, rather than participate in universal health care. After all, THEY are "responsible" for themselves, THEY can afford health insurance. Why should they care about Jim Smith.

"Ive got mine - screw you!"

So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...

I don't advocate letting people "die in the streets." Unfortunately, more than a few people here seem to feel that is OK rather than participate in our present form of health care.

No, no they don't.

 

[RDD_1210]

With money, of course.

LOL. Great answer. Now I know why you ignored me in the first place. You have no answer.

Ok, break down what kind of payments you would make on a 200k hospital bill? How much would you pay each month until it is paid off? Specifically how much per month?

Well, that would more than likely depend on a number of factors.... don't you think? Oh that's right...

Plug in any details you want. Make it as ideal as you want, but make it real world based and then we can have an honest conversation. What would payments look like?

 

[Dr.House]

So Charities should cover the millions of people who can't afford health insurance? That's your solution? Bwahahahahahaha! Why doesn't everyone drop their insurance then and just rely on charities picking up any and all of their medical costs. You make it seem like it's so easy and readily available. If that's your solution for 30 million plus people, **** it, let's all do it. Apparently "charities" are the perfect solution.

No, you're right... **** the charities... They all suck...

What was I thinking...

Nice straw man.

Mine was tongue in cheek...

 

[George Costanza]

Read some of the posts on this thread, Soggy. More than a couple of conservatives here would let Jim Smith die, rather than participate in universal health care. After all, THEY are "responsible" for themselves, THEY can afford health insurance. Why should they care about Jim Smith.

"Ive got mine - screw you!"

So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...

Exactly. The same argument I've made multiple times now. Either big government takes care of Jim or we want him to die. How tunnel visioned and narrow minded do you have to be to see that as the only options? (Not to mention mean spirited)

You have yet to answer the question posed in the OP. Once again: Assume the Republicans have their way and everyone is responsible for getting their own health insurance. Someone is going to die without expensive medical treatment they cannot afford and they have no health insurance.

What would you do in such a situation - just let the person die?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Now what about this car question you keep dodging?

So you're going to play the stoopid game too? 10 years ago, who would have ever thought Congress would pass a law forcing Americans to purchase a product......any product.....for any reason? If they can do it with healthcare, why not something else that our nany state deems we need? I chose a car out of the air. It could just as easily be an insurance policy to pay for your funeral. You know, there are a lot of people who can't pay for those either. Expand your timy mind a little to understand the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether you think everyone has a "right" to healthcare, is it constitutional to mandate citizens purchase it or face a fine?

Take a trip to Tuscon sometime and look around at the acres and acres of junked military aircraft that we've been forced to buy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would hope you are overstating the mean spiritedness of conservatives by including kicking puppies. I have never seen or heard of a conservative kicking a puppy. On the other hand, I see daily evidence of many of them being mean spirited, hateful, selfish and greedy, right here on this very board.

As I have said - the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "freedom over government controlled medicine." This thread ASSUMES that Republicans have had their way with health insurance. No more suffering the oppressive yoke of governmentally mandated health insurance. Now, everyone is on their own - responsible for their own destinies; just the way Good Republicans like it to be.

And now, someone is about to die because they don't have health insurance. This thread is about one, simple question: what would you Republicans do with Jim Smith in such a situation? Would you engage him in a discussion about "personal responsibility" and then just let him die? From many of the posts I read on this thread, I think that is EXACTLY what you would do.

And if that's true, it says an awful lot to me about those who would do so.

So we 'cons' have all agreed that he should get the treatment but should be expected to pay for it. And that by your definition is mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish. Most of us are willing to help out with contributions or a fund drive too.

So what do YOU do George. Do you drive him to the hospital and sign a guarantee of payment for him? What if you have to put up your car and house as collateral? Do you do that? No? Does that make you mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish? If not, why not?

So I don't want to put my own car and house at risk on Jim's behalf but I am perfectly willing to make George pay the bill. So now I am somehow NOT mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish? If not, why not?

What do I do? I will gladly participate in a health care plan that provides universal health care for everyone in this country. If that means I pay higher taxes, so be it.

How about you, Foxy? You willing to do that?

So you are too mean spirited, hateful, selfish, and greedy to pay for Jim's care unless everybody else does too? How charitable of you. I am willing to help Jim whether you help out or not. So which of us is more mean spirited?

I have already explained why anything done by the federal government is more costly, more inefficient, and more ineffective than that generally done by the private sector. But so far you won't deal with the fact that it is the high cost of federal government meddling and regulation that is a big part of why medical costs are so high. And so far you won't deal with the idea that a universal government run healthcare plan would be no different.

Is it so foreign to the liberal mind to even want to know whether healthcare costs would be far more affordable if the government was not involved? That private insurance would be far more affordable if the government was not involved?

And if healthcare is provided by the taxpayer, why not food, clothing, shelter, and transportation that are always necessary for survival while medical care only sometimes is? Why don't you more compassionate, caring, folks demand that these things be universally provided for everybody at taxpayer expense too?

So, no, I am not willing to willingly subject myself to the authority of the 'king' where my healthcare is concerned. In my opinion the less mean spirited, less hateful, less greedy, less selfish, and more compassionate path lies in a different direction.

Are you willing to consider anything OTHER than big government to address the problem?

 

[George Costanza]

So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...

I don't advocate letting people "die in the streets." Unfortunately, more than a few people here seem to feel that is OK rather than participate in our present form of health care.

No, no they don't.

Read the thread, Soggy. Yes, they do.

 

[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.


Now what about this car question you keep dodging?

So you're going to play the stoopid game too? 10 years ago, who would have ever thought Congress would pass a law forcing Americans to purchase a product......any product.....for any reason? If they can do it with healthcare, why not something else that our nany state deems we need? I chose a car out of the air. It could just as easily be an insurance policy to pay for your funeral. You know, there are a lot of people who can't pay for those either. Expand your timy mind a little to understand the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether you think everyone has a "right" to healthcare, is it constitutional to mandate citizens purchase it or face a fine?

I do understand and I say yes, it's for the general welfare and therefore constitutional. It's up to the people to make sure the big bad gubmint doesn't go places with it they don't want it to go. It's been done before, it can be done again.

 

[George Costanza]

So we 'cons' have all agreed that he should get the treatment but should be expected to pay for it. And that by your definition is mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish. Most of us are willing to help out with contributions or a fund drive too.

So what do YOU do George. Do you drive him to the hospital and sign a guarantee of payment for him? What if you have to put up your car and house as collateral? Do you do that? No? Does that make you mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish? If not, why not?

So I don't want to put my own car and house at risk on Jim's behalf but I am perfectly willing to make George pay the bill. So now I am somehow NOT mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish? If not, why not?

What do I do? I will gladly participate in a health care plan that provides universal health care for everyone in this country. If that means I pay higher taxes, so be it.

How about you, Foxy? You willing to do that?

So you are too mean spirited, hateful, selfish, and greedy to pay for Jim's care unless everybody else does too? How charitable of you. I am willing to help Jim whether you help out or not. So which of us is more mean spirited?

I have already explained why anything done by the federal government is more costly, more inefficient, and more ineffective than that generally done by the private sector. You won't deal with the fact that it is the high cost of federal government meddling and regulation that is a big part of why medical costs are so high. And you won't deal with the idea that a universal government run healthcare plan would be no different.

Is it so foreign to the liberal mind to even want to know whether healthcare costs would be far more affordable if the government was not involved? That private insurance would be far more affordable if the government was not involved?

And if healthcare is provided by the taxpayer, why not food, clothing, shelter, and transportation that are always necessary for survival while medical care only sometimes is? Why don't you more compassionate, caring, folks demand that these things be universally provided for everybody at taxpayer expense too?

So, no, I am not willing to willingly subject myself to the authority of the 'king' where my healthcare is concerned. In my opinion the less mean spirited, less hateful, less greedy, less selfish, and more compassionate path lies in a different direction.

Are you willing to consider anything OTHER than big government to address the problem?

Sounds good, Foxy. Sounds good. But it all boils down to one thing: "I've got mine - screw you!"

 

[Mr Natural]

LOL. Great answer. Now I know why you ignored me in the first place. You have no answer.

Ok, break down what kind of payments you would make on a 200k hospital bill? How much would you pay each month until it is paid off? Specifically how much per month?

Well, that would more than likely depend on a number of factors.... don't you think? Oh that's right...

Plug in any details you want. Make it as ideal as you want, but make it real world based and then we can have an honest conversation. What would payments look like?

Two-hundred thousand at 5% for 10 years is somewhere around $2100 a month.

 

[kwc57]

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?

Answered in post 12 - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/185926-what-about-jim-smith.html#post4166146

Once that was answered, the discussion turned to the legality of the federal government mandating insurance or any other good or service.

 

[RDD_1210]

Well, that would more than likely depend on a number of factors.... don't you think? Oh that's right...

Plug in any details you want. Make it as ideal as you want, but make it real world based and then we can have an honest conversation. What would payments look like?

Two-hundred thousand at 5% for 10 years is somewhere around $2100 a month.

Thanks! Now we know someone who can't afford insurance isn't going to make payments like that. I'll wait for one of the know-it-alls to chime in with their brilliant payment plan. But we all know they won't.

 

[Foxfyre]

What do I do? I will gladly participate in a health care plan that provides universal health care for everyone in this country. If that means I pay higher taxes, so be it.

How about you, Foxy? You willing to do that?

So you are too mean spirited, hateful, selfish, and greedy to pay for Jim's care unless everybody else does too? How charitable of you. I am willing to help Jim whether you help out or not. So which of us is more mean spirited?

I have already explained why anything done by the federal government is more costly, more inefficient, and more ineffective than that generally done by the private sector. You won't deal with the fact that it is the high cost of federal government meddling and regulation that is a big part of why medical costs are so high. And you won't deal with the idea that a universal government run healthcare plan would be no different.

Is it so foreign to the liberal mind to even want to know whether healthcare costs would be far more affordable if the government was not involved? That private insurance would be far more affordable if the government was not involved?

And if healthcare is provided by the taxpayer, why not food, clothing, shelter, and transportation that are always necessary for survival while medical care only sometimes is? Why don't you more compassionate, caring, folks demand that these things be universally provided for everybody at taxpayer expense too?

So, no, I am not willing to willingly subject myself to the authority of the 'king' where my healthcare is concerned. In my opinion the less mean spirited, less hateful, less greedy, less selfish, and more compassionate path lies in a different direction.

Are you willing to consider anything OTHER than big government to address the problem?

Sounds good, Foxy. Sounds good. But it all boils down to one thing: "I've got mine - screw you!"

Which is liberal-speak for "I can't rebut Foxfyre's argument so I will attack Foxfyre." Not responsive, useful or helpful George. But it seems to be all too often the liberal way. (Also that of the right wingnuts who are using talking points instead of fully understanding a concept and therefore can't defend a concept any other way.)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, that would more than likely depend on a number of factors.... don't you think? Oh that's right...

Plug in any details you want. Make it as ideal as you want, but make it real world based and then we can have an honest conversation. What would payments look like?

Two-hundred thousand at 5% for 10 years is somewhere around $2100 a month.

Yeah, ok, so? But I guess this is the part where you tell me I now have to pay.

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

Answered in post 12 - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/185926-what-about-jim-smith.html#post4166146

Once that was answered, the discussion turned to the legality of the federal government mandating insurance or any other good or service.

You hardly "answered" anything. You ignored the fact that there is a big difference in not turning someone away and just stabilizing them and actually giving them medical care.

 

[Dr.House]

Plug in any details you want. Make it as ideal as you want, but make it real world based and then we can have an honest conversation. What would payments look like?

Two-hundred thousand at 5% for 10 years is somewhere around $2100 a month.

Thanks! Now we know someone who can't afford insurance isn't going to make payments like that. I'll wait for one of the know-it-alls to chime in with their brilliant payment plan. But we all know they won't.

Already answered early on in the thread...

Plenty of suggestions, but feel free to ignore them...

 

[RDD_1210]

Plug in any details you want. Make it as ideal as you want, but make it real world based and then we can have an honest conversation. What would payments look like?

Two-hundred thousand at 5% for 10 years is somewhere around $2100 a month.

Yeah, ok, so? But I guess this is the part where you tell me I now have to pay.

So you have no plan? No smart ass comment? C'mon Soggy. All your buddies are ignoring this question, at least you didn't flat out ignore like they did. You just admitted your ignorance right up front.