Would Mr. Collison have lived or died under obamacare?

[Magox]

Does it justify denying care?

Another one bites the ???

 

you've been bamboozled by the Obamapropaganda

[ExiledInIllinois]

There is where you constantly live in dreamland. Can't buy food? The state will give you food stamps. Can't afford health care? Go the a state-run hospital. The state can help in most every dire situation. But oh, no. Let's add another federal entitlement. Let's strip some more freedoms from the people.

 

And to imply that promoting self-reliability and self-accountability equates to wanting to "simply let them die" is a perfect example of why it's not a stretch to believe your ability to think peaked at age 8.

 

What freedoms are they stripping? We have more freedoms now than any other time in out history.

[The Big Cat]

There is where you constantly live in dreamland. Can't buy food? The state will give you food stamps. Can't afford health care? Go the a state-run hospital. The state can help in most every dire situation. But oh, no. Let's add another federal entitlement. Let's strip some more freedoms from the people.

 

And to imply that promoting self-reliability and self-accountability equates to wanting to "simply let them die" is a perfect example of why it's not a stretch to believe your ability to think peaked at age 8.

 

My implication of allowing death was as stupid as your assumption that I advocate health care as a right. But nice try.

 

How about my friend who's always had a job, always saves and spends his money wisely, but slipped in the shower (in your city, might I add), shattered his back (he's now a half inch shorter), went into a pain-induced seizure, passed out, and woke up in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Now, because he was unconscious through most of the affair (he had the wherewithall to call 911 before passing out a second time), they took him to one of the city's more expensive hospitals because it was a half mile closer than the state sponsored one.

 

The result? Two years later (late 2008) he declared bankrupcy because his medical bills totaled well over $100,000, a cost he simply couldn't afford, WITH INSURANCE.

 

You preach that self-reliability and accountablity are the answer(s), then accuse me of not being able to think.

 

Don't believe me about any of this? His name is Jason, PM me and I'll send you his number, you're welcome to give him a call.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The bigger question is: should he have lived or died under ANY health care system? There's no right to "not die", and that's a hell of a lot of work sunk into avoiding the unavoidable.

 

You want to fix health care? Start by realizing that death is inevitable.

 

Try selling this BS to a seven year... Oh wait by your own admission, you are a seven year old. Jk, no need to take umbrage!

 

But really, yes death is inevitable... At one time it was around 40, now it has been pushed back two fold to almost 80. There is nothing wrong with a hell of a lot of work... Seems to have doubled life expectancy.

 

This is just a plain lazy statement by you Tom, I would think you would be better than that.

[DC Tom]

My implication of allowing death was as stupid as your assumption that I advocate health care as a right. But nice try.

 

How about my friend who's always had a job, always saves and spends his money wisely, but slipped in the shower (in your city, might I add), shattered his back (he's now a half inch shorter), went into a pain-induced seizure, passed out, and woke up in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Now, because he was unconscious through most of the affair (he had the wherewithall to call 911 before passing out a second time), they took him to one of the city's more expensive hospitals because it was a half mile closer than the state sponsored one.

 

The result? Two years later (late 2008) he declared bankrupcy because his medical bills totaled well over $100,000, a cost he simply couldn't afford, WITH INSURANCE.

 

You preach that self-reliability and accountablity are the answer(s), then accuse me of not being able to think.

 

Don't believe me about any of this? His name is Jason, PM me and I'll send you his number, you're welcome to give him a call.

 

Maybe the klutz should have invested in a bath mat, hmm?

[DC Tom]

Try selling this BS to a seven year... Oh wait by your own admission, you are a seven year old. Jk, no need to take umbrage!

 

But really, yes death is inevitable... At one time it was around 40, now it has been pushed back two fold to almost 80. There is nothing wrong with a hell of a lot of work... Seems to have doubled life expectancy.

 

This is just a plain lazy statement by you Tom, I would think you would be better than that.

 

It's a realistic statement. For the record: when I enter my twentieth hour of a liver transplant and they can't control the bleeding, it's time to let me go. One person consuming that many resources is patently ridiculous.

[erynthered]

It's a realistic statement. For the record: when I enter my twentieth hour of a liver transplant and they can't control the bleeding, it's time to let me go. One person consuming that many resources is patently ridiculous.

 

 

That was my thought too, Tom.

[The Big Cat]

Maybe the klutz should have invested in a bath mat, hmm?

 

Hahaha, it wasn't his place.

[Adam]

Does being unable to afford it justify denying you a car? A house? Food? A TV?

 

This is probably where you try to convince me that health care is a right.

I consider it more of a right than the social security/retirement entitlement is. The conservatives were right about that one, and I think the liberals were right about this one. Unfortunately, both sides care postly about being right on everything.....

[The Big Cat]

It's a realistic statement. For the record: when I enter my twentieth hour of a liver transplant and they can't control the bleeding, it's time to let me go. One person consuming that many resources is patently ridiculous.

 

My father received a liver in 1991. I was seven. I'm glad he didn't feel this way, although I don't think I ever got any of the details, or could say for certain he had this kind of complication.

[Adam]

It's a realistic statement. For the record: when I enter my twentieth hour of a liver transplant and they can't control the bleeding, it's time to let me go. One person consuming that many resources is patently ridiculous.

Try telling that to a doctor who is trying to save somebody's life.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Another one bites the ???

 

you've been bamboozled by the Obamapropaganda

 

 

You've been busy on the washington post's pages.

[DC Tom]

Try telling that to a doctor who is trying to save somebody's life.

 

Ironically, you just illustrated my point.

[IDBillzFan]

My implication of allowing death was as stupid as your assumption that I advocate health care as a right. But nice try.

 

How about my friend who's always had a job, always saves and spends his money wisely, but slipped in the shower (in your city, might I add), shattered his back (he's now a half inch shorter), went into a pain-induced seizure, passed out, and woke up in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Now, because he was unconscious through most of the affair (he had the wherewithall to call 911 before passing out a second time), they took him to one of the city's more expensive hospitals because it was a half mile closer than the state sponsored one.

 

The result? Two years later (late 2008) he declared bankrupcy because his medical bills totaled well over $100,000, a cost he simply couldn't afford, WITH INSURANCE.

 

You preach that self-reliability and accountablity are the answer(s), then accuse me of not being able to think.

 

Don't believe me about any of this? His name is Jason, PM me and I'll send you his number, you're welcome to give him a call.

Where you go wrong, and most liberals go wrong, is that you keep citing these relatively isolated examples of someone done wrong by insurance and feel that the way to fix this is to make everyone who ISN'T done wrong by their insurance sacrifice what they have and like to account for the smaller majority who won't. While admittedly this is a talking point, it's a valid one: You don't screw up something that works for 85% of the people because it doesn't work for 15% of the people. That's stupid.

 

In fact, the only thing MORE stupid than that is thinking that the freaking government is the answer to fixing this mess. Virtually nothing the government is doing right now is going fix your friend's fate. BUT...how about if they passed some legislation that would help people like your friend avoid bankruptcy by granting special leniency on his medical debt WITHOUT subjecting a majority of the country to buy something they may not want. What if there was a little slush fun available to help people like your friends get their debt paid off? What if there were any one of a million freaking ideas that would help your friend without dragging the rest of the country into the craphole with him because of one slippery event?

 

But no. Let's not focus on the specific issues that face a relatively SMALL percentage of Americans. Let's instead subject a majority of Americans to yet another government entitlement program that will drag us down even farther than we are today. Because that would be historic, wouldn't it?

 

And kudos to your friend for taking personal responsibility and filing for bankruptcy.

[The Big Cat]

Where you go wrong, and most liberals go wrong, is that you keep citing these relatively isolated examples of someone done wrong by insurance and feel that the way to fix this is to make everyone who ISN'T done wrong by their insurance sacrifice what they have and like to account for the smaller majority who won't. While admittedly this is a talking point, it's a valid one: You don't screw up something that works for 85% of the people because it doesn't work for 15% of the people. That's stupid.

 

In fact, the only thing MORE stupid than that is thinking that the freaking government is the answer to fixing this mess. Virtually nothing the government is doing right now is going fix your friend's fate. BUT...how about if they passed some legislation that would help people like your friend avoid bankruptcy by granting special leniency on his medical debt WITHOUT subjecting a majority of the country to buy something they may not want. What if there was a little slush fun available to help people like your friends get their debt paid off? What if there were any one of a million freaking ideas that would help your friend without dragging the rest of the country into the craphole with him because of one slippery event?

 

But no. Let's not focus on the specific issues that face a relatively SMALL percentage of Americans. Let's instead subject a majority of Americans to yet another government entitlement program that will drag us down even farther than we are today. Because that would be historic, wouldn't it?

 

And kudos to your friend for taking personal responsibility and filing for bankruptcy.

 

let's be clear about something: I'm a social liberal and a fiscal surrenderist.

 

But don't let that stop you from giving me my perspective.

 

I never once said that entitlement was the answer. But NO ONE should go bankrupt because of medical bills. There must be more stringent requirements on insurance companies to provide money to the customers who pay for it. You're right, the fed gov shouldn't bend over for the minority (although when have they ever followed THAT principle?) but insurance companies are set up so that the 85% who don't need money ante up for those that do and the insurance guys don't go broke in the process. How they can legally justify not paying back their customers is a downright crime.

[Adam]

Ironically, you just illustrated my point.

Please clarify- it seemed like you were saying it was a waste of resources. Or were you saying that statement is ridiculous?

[IDBillzFan]

let's be clear about something: I'm a social liberal and a fiscal surrenderist.

 

But don't let that stop you from giving me my perspective.

 

I never once said that entitlement was the answer. But NO ONE should go bankrupt because of medical bills. There must be more stringent requirements on insurance companies to provide money to the customers who pay for it. You're right, the fed gov shouldn't bend over for the minority (although when have they ever followed THAT principle?) but insurance companies are set up so that the 85% who don't need money ante up for those that do and the insurance guys don't go broke in the process. How they can legally justify not paying back their customers is a downright crime.

Hey, this is great. We both agree that a government-run insurance option is a bad idea and that the government should, instead, focus on areas where health care falls short for a small group of people without hurting the larger group which is happy with it's current care. Great to hear that.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

let's be clear about something: I'm a social liberal and a fiscal surrenderist.

 

But don't let that stop you from giving me my perspective.

 

I never once said that entitlement was the answer. But NO ONE should go bankrupt because of medical bills. There must be more stringent requirements on insurance companies to provide money to the customers who pay for it. You're right, the fed gov shouldn't bend over for the minority (although when have they ever followed THAT principle?) but insurance companies are set up so that the 85% who don't need money ante up for those that do and the insurance guys don't go broke in the process. How they can legally justify not paying back their customers is a downright crime.

 

 

Again, the Japanese sytem might be the best of all worlds. Private insurers competing to carry people on a mandatory basis with cost controls imposed on healthcare providers by the government. Better than the UK's single-payer system, with less governmental (and tax) overhead.

[Adam]

Again, the Japanese sytem might be the best of all worlds. Private insurers competing to carry people on a mandatory basis with cost controls imposed on healthcare providers by the government. Better than the UK's single-payer system, with less governmental (and tax) overhead.

Something that people will have to learn to accept is that a perfect system is not feasible and that the idea should be to have a good system, not score a political win. Unfortunately, that won't happen anytime soon

[DC Tom]

Please clarify- it seemed like you were saying it was a waste of resources. Or were you saying that statement is ridiculous?

 

Although I did say that it was a waste of resources, that wasn't my point:

 

You want to fix health care? Start by realizing that death is inevitable.

 

Try telling that to a doctor who is trying to save somebody's life.