so now that the government can mandate that we buy something . . .

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You're telling me you were born at home, never had a vaccination, never had a childhood disease, never had a broken bone or sprain or anything that required a trip to a doctor? Really?

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it is statistically unlikely.

All of those could have EASILY been paid for as needed.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I'm curious how they can know for certain that they will never be injured in an accident, or be exposed to an infectious disease, or discover that they have some sort of a congenital condition.

They don't *know*. They suspect, and on average they are correct.

Quote

Or could it just possibly be that they have "other priorities", and plan to fuck over the doctors, nurses, hospitals, and people like me who actually pay for insurance, and stick us with the bill, should they ever need medical care?

Or they really think they are invincible.

Either way the ACA requires these people who don't want or don't need insurance to buy it to make it work... And so far they are not buying into it.

[DanG 1]

Quote

You do not need insurance to own a car. You do not need insurance to drive the car on your own property. You only need insurance if your actions might hurt others on the open road.

Which is why the car analogy is limited. There is no analogous "private property" where you can operate your body without potentially damaging it, and thereby burdening society when we have to pay to fix you.

Quote

No, even before I was in the military I did not need expensive medical care.

Ah, so it's changed from "I didn't need medical care," to "I didn't need expensive medical care." And so what. Hindsight is 20/20. I haven't needed my car insurance for years (knock on wood), and haven't needed it for decades to pay for someone else's car. But I might need it tomorrow, that's why it's called insurance.

- Dan G

[DrewEckhardt 0]

DaVinci

Quote

You're telling me you were born at home, never had a vaccination, never had a childhood disease, never had a broken bone or sprain or anything that required a trip to a doctor? Really?

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it is statistically unlikely.

All of those could have EASILY been paid for as needed.

A broken bone with a few complications can run $100,000 at the insurance company's negotiated rates.

Most people don't have several times that (the flat $12,000 per day paid by the insurance company for a shared hospital room becomes over $24K without their discount) in their savings account.

[yoink 321]

DaVinci

Quote

You're telling me you were born at home, never had a vaccination, never had a childhood disease, never had a broken bone or sprain or anything that required a trip to a doctor? Really?

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it is statistically unlikely.

All of those could have EASILY been paid for as needed.

I'm not convinced you have any idea of the real costs of medical care in the US.

A number of years ago in Perris a group of UK student skydivers came visiting. Being from the UK, and being students, some of these guys didn't have the appropriate level of health insurance.

Sure enough, after a long day of jumping and partying one of them got hurt - being pushed over in a portapotty if memory serves (although I might be wrong on that). Either way, it necessitated an ambulance, a CT scan and a stay overnight in the hospital - probably just to sober up but it wasn't a big injury... A bump on the head and a sprain I think. You'd think being so minor that the costs would be trivial.

They gave him a bill for TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars - which of course he had no chance of paying. He had the option of just getting on a flight home. US citizens don't.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Either way the ACA requires these people who don't want or don't need insurance to buy it ...

Some time back in this thread (post 117) I responded to Kennedy, and asked the following question. He never responded, which suggests he had perhaps not really thought through the implications of his position on the matter. Perhaps you can do better:

"So, which do you find least offensive (given that there are no perfect options)?
1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP).
2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!
3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so.

Which one would be your preference?"

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[normiss 620]

The DZ to nearest trauma hospital chopper ride can easily go over $20,000 US.
So much for your credit the rest of your life.
Tough getting loans, insurance rates will be higher, might be tough to rent a place much less buy one....
I'm not saying this is the right way, just that it is the way.

[yoink 321]

Yup - just pointing out to DaVinci that supposing 'simple' injuries and ailments = 'easily affordable' is not necessarily the same.

That's why I have insurance.

[kallend 1,621]

DaVinci

Quote

You're telling me you were born at home, never had a vaccination, never had a childhood disease, never had a broken bone or sprain or anything that required a trip to a doctor? Really?

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it is statistically unlikely.

All of those could have EASILY been paid for as needed.

That's what Mary Brown thought.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Either way the ACA requires these people who don't want or don't need insurance to buy it ...

Some time back in this thread (post 117) I responded to Kennedy, and asked the following question. He never responded, which suggests he had perhaps not really thought through the implications of his position on the matter. Perhaps you can do better:

"So, which do you find least offensive (given that there are no perfect options)?
1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP).
2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!
3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so.

Which one would be your preference?"

Don

Remarkable how a straightforward question causes all the right wing types to disappear. To tough a question for y'all?

I hope everybody has a fun and safe Christmas, and that no-one ends up needing that health insurance they thought they didn't need.

Best wishes to all!

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 1,621]

GeorgiaDon

***

Quote

Either way the ACA requires these people who don't want or don't need insurance to buy it ...

Some time back in this thread (post 117) I responded to Kennedy, and asked the following question. He never responded, which suggests he had perhaps not really thought through the implications of his position on the matter. Perhaps you can do better:

"So, which do you find least offensive (given that there are no perfect options)?
1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP).
2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!
3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so.

Which one would be your preference?"

Don

Remarkable how a straightforward question causes all the right wing types to disappear. To tough a question for y'all?

I hope everybody has a fun and safe Christmas, and that no-one ends up needing that health insurance they thought they didn't need.

Best wishes to all!

Don

We know the right prefers option 1, because that's exactly what their plaintiff (Mary Brown) in the ACA lawsuit did. She stiffed her doctors (and indirectly, the rest of us) for her medical bills.

Apparently the average cost of the deadbeats like the GOP's Mary Brown to those of us responsible enough to have insurance, amounts around $1,000 per year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

John
The ACA debate is no longer about the cost of HC

Please, try and catch up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,621]

rushmc

John
The ACA debate is no longer about the cost of HC

Please, try and catch up

Translation - you have no response to Don's question.

Have a nice Christmas.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***John
The ACA debate is no longer about the cost of HC

Please, try and catch up

Translation - you have no response to Don's question.

Have a nice Christmas.

Again, the ACA is not about the cost of HC
Please try and catch up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Skyrad 0]

In the UK the government has mandated that all employed people must purchase a pension plan.... Well you can't steal it from someone if they don't have one now can you.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 1,621]

rushmc

******John
The ACA debate is no longer about the cost of HC

Please, try and catch up

Translation - you have no response to Don's question.

Have a nice Christmas.

Again, the ACA is not about the cost of HC
Please try and catch up

Translation - rushmc STILL has no response to Don's question so resorts to PA.

Have a nice Christmas.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PiLFy 0]

Hi Don,

I usually don't post in this forum. Too many people here love to argue for argument's sake. Respectfully:

1) "Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP)."

The bills get shifted to the State & Fed Govt.s. They don't like that. It makes them have to give back some of the monies they've stolen. Much better for them to pervert a noble notion of Equality, & shift the costs to the masses.

The overwhelming majority of so-called Invincibles require either no health care, or not much. That same large demographic sees their financial prospects greatly diminished due to the continued importation of H1Bs & illegal immigrants. A lot of young people are wasting on the vine because of abusive Govt. policies. Those same corrupt systems are now telling these kids that they have to pay even more of their too few dollars to fund health care for those much farther up the food chain. Those Kids are (rightfully, IMHO) saying FU2.

2) "Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated."

They'd never get away w/it. That pesky ole Second Amendment would enable the wronged to defend their rights.

"This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people."

Imprisoning people for months/years when treatment is readily available would bring up that pesky SA clause, again. There are lots of asymptomatic people spreading illness before realizing, or simply not caring if, they're infecting others. Incidentally, the highest rate of TB infection in the Western world is in the UK, specifically in London. Their universal health care doesn't protect them while they import thousands from Third World pie holes who cough their filth all over whoever is around them.

"But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!"

Yes you will, especially when mass unrest erupts.

3) "Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so."

You might be very surprised to see how fast $500K could be burned through. People w/o insurance pay the highest rates for all of health care, by far. If you were a 1%er, you might be able to take that gamble. It would be much better for you to have your thieving buddies up on the Hill simply push through the ACA. Then, you could keep all that money you stole.

The ACA is most definitely about the cost of health care. There is NOTHING noble about its intentions, only the chaff...

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Which is why the car analogy is limited. There is no analogous "private property" where you can operate your body without potentially damaging it, and thereby burdening society when we have to pay to fix you.

Then maybe your side should quit using the car insurance analogy?

Quote

Ah, so it's changed from "I didn't need medical care," to "I didn't need expensive medical care." And so what. Hindsight is 20/20.

Yes, I bought aspirin and some OTC meds at times. All of which were easily paid for out of my pocket.

Would you support the federal govt mandating you to buy an AR15 to stand watch? The fact is once you permit the Govt to make you buy products from companies, you have opened up a flood gate.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I'm not convinced you have any idea of the real costs of medical care in the US.

I'm not convinced you have any idea of the real costs of medical care in the US. What you know about is the cost being charged based on not being able to compare and shop for prices.

[DaVinci 0]

GeorgiaDon

***

Quote

Either way the ACA requires these people who don't want or don't need insurance to buy it ...

Some time back in this thread (post 117) I responded to Kennedy, and asked the following question. He never responded, which suggests he had perhaps not really thought through the implications of his position on the matter. Perhaps you can do better:

"So, which do you find least offensive (given that there are no perfect options)?
1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP).
2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!
3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so.

Which one would be your preference?"

Don

Remarkable how a straightforward question causes all the right wing types to disappear. To tough a question for y'all?

I hope everybody has a fun and safe Christmas, and that no-one ends up needing that health insurance they thought they didn't need.

Best wishes to all!

Don

Some of us have lives to live, jobs, and holidays.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP).
2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!
3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so.

Which one would be your preference?"

Your example is flawed. You present ONLY the options you want to be considered, and yet there are other options available.

You are missing the:
1. Allow insurance companies to compete across State lines. This will increase competition and increased competition leads to lower prices.

2. Have a published billed rate for services. So the individual can shop around. You would not go to a car dealer and just walk in and buy a car without looking at a price... Why should your medical care be different?

So your question was incomplete.... Might be why people didn't bother to answer it.

[rushmc 18]

DaVinci

Quote

1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP).
2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!
3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so.

Which one would be your preference?"

Your example is flawed. You present ONLY the options you want to be considered, and yet there are other options available.

You are missing the:
1. Allow insurance companies to compete across State lines. This will increase competition and increased competition leads to lower prices.

2. Have a published billed rate for services. So the individual can shop around. You would not go to a car dealer and just walk in and buy a car without looking at a price... Why should your medical care be different?

So your question was incomplete.... Might be why people didn't bother to answer it.

Not only was it flawed, it was leading

I got an ACLU survey in the mail late last week that did the same thing

I checked no boxes and wrote all over it. They will get the answers they wanted from it. No doubt about it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,621]

DaVinci

Quote

1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP).
2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!
3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so.

Which one would be your preference?"

Your example is flawed. You present ONLY the options you want to be considered, and yet there are other options available.

You are missing the:
1. Allow insurance companies to compete across State lines. This will increase competition and increased competition leads to lower prices.

2. Have a published billed rate for services. So the individual can shop around. You would not go to a car dealer and just walk in and buy a car without looking at a price... Why should your medical care be different?

So your question was incomplete.... Might be why people didn't bother to answer it.

Explain how either of these would address the issue of freeloaders like Mary Brown?

You did NOT address Don's questions at all, just a lame attempt at diversion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

DaVinci

Quote

1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP).
2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers!
3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so.

Which one would be your preference?"

Your example is flawed. You present ONLY the options you want to be considered, and yet there are other options available.

You are missing the:
1. Allow insurance companies to compete across State lines. This will increase competition and increased competition leads to lower prices.

2. Have a published billed rate for services. So the individual can shop around. You would not go to a car dealer and just walk in and buy a car without looking at a price... Why should your medical care be different?

So your question was incomplete.... Might be why people didn't bother to answer it.

Neither of these are precluded by presented options 1 and 3. Both may (and imo, probably) lower the costs of uninsured care or insurance premiums, but don't change Don's question one bit.

Unless you want to try to argue for door #2, the third world reality, you have only the choices of everyone is covered, or the covered+taxpayers have to cover the deadbeats. Kallend keeps mentioning that lady because it's fairly glaring proof that these are the two scenarios.

There's also no question that ER care costs tremendously more than regular clinic visits, so overall we pay extra for leaving that as the only option for the uninsured.

[rushmc 18]

Given all choices I would keep what we had
While not perfect, all who needed ER services got them

And many times others paid for it
But
ACA will not change this
The only thing the ACA is changing is prices and options available

And neither of these changes are a positive no matter how you look at it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln