3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Give it a few minutes and birddog will tell you how if we don't insure every last individual within our borders then we'll be stacking our dead in the street at gun point. Or at least endangering the "well heeled" with the Plague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Give it a few minutes and birddog will tell you how if we don't insure every last individual within our borders then we'll be stacking our dead in the street at gun point. Or atleast the .0034% of them described in this article... who did receive healthcare... and were not held at gun point... I'm still waiting for his explaination as to how insurance = care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Oh, good grief... You're speaking about .0034% of the uninsured population, if we're to believe your 50 million figure... 50 million is a little south of 1/6 the us population. the 1700 is an example and a small subset of that group located in appalachia. Oh, good grief... You're speaking about .0034% of the uninsured population, if we're to believe your 50 million figure... 50 million is a little south of 1/6 the us population. the 1700 is an example and a small subset of that group located in appalachia. No, you stated that Obamacare was an extension of Medicaid and I asked you who would pay for it. Does it not matter? so you accept that there is no where near universal access to health care in the us? Or atleast the .0034% of them described in this article... who did receive healthcare... and were not held at gun point... I'm still waiting for his explaination as to how insurance = care. it doesn't. but lack of insurance makes it very likely that the healthcare needs of the uninsured will not be fully addressed as we have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) 50 million is a little south of 1/6 the us population. the 1700 is an example and a small subset of that group located in appalachia. So stop claiming that 50 million have no access to healthcare, and using as your example 1700 people that clearly do have access to healthcare. it doesn't. but lack of insurance makes it very likely that the healthcare needs of the uninsured will not be fully addressed as we have seen. No, no it doesn't at all. Lack of personal responsibility, proor decision making, and a lack of education makes it very likely that the healthcare needs of the uninsured will not be fully addressed. Universal healthcare only creates shortages which means that the healthcare needs of most everyone wiull not be fully addressed. Edited February 25, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 50 million is a little south of 1/6 the us population. the 1700 is an example and a small subset of that group located in appalachia. 50 million is a little south of 1/6 the us population. the 1700 is an example and a small subset of that group located in appalachia. so you accept that there is no where near universal access to health care in the us? it doesn't. but lack of insurance makes it very likely that the healthcare needs of the uninsured will not be fully addressed as we have seen. Can anyone walk into a hospital and be treated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Can anyone walk into a hospital and be treated? any idea what an er visit for chest pain costs an uninsured pt even if the cause is not cardiac? $10k would be getting off relatively cheap. might that bill put a crimp in even your budget for a while? if you were making $15/hour and had no insurance do you think you might consider waiting it out to see if it went away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 any idea what an er visit for chest pain costs an uninsured pt even if the cause is not cardiac? $10k would be getting off relatively cheap. might that bill put a crimp in even your budget for a while? if you were making $15/hour and had no insurance do you think you might consider waiting it out to see if it went away? No, you were confusing health care and health insurance when you asked me this question: "so you accept that there is no where near universal access to health care in the us?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 you'd be wrong. there are about 50 million uninsured americans. they aren't eligible for medicaid these people represent a very few. it's an inconvenient truth but one that the ACA will begin to address. LOL! You apparently bought your lib leaders' baseless claim that "50 million" people are uninsured. The real number is closer to 12 million who are uninsured through no fault of their own, and represents those with pre-exisiting conditions who are denied coverage. But even then, they can go bankrupt and go on Medicaid, if they spend so much on medical care that they can't afford to live (which isn't always the case). The rest of the uninsured are illegals, those who choose not to buy health insurance, people between jobs, and children who are eligible for Medicaid. So for 4% of the population, we need to drive the country into bankruptcy (considering how splendidly Barry's pre-existing health insurance plan went)? Look, I believe emergent medical care is a right. But medical care isn't supposed to be free or even cheap. Not when you don't take proper care of yourself, expect the latest and greatest, and sue when things go wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 No, you were confusing health care and health insurance when you asked me this question: "so you accept that there is no where near universal access to health care in the us?" when access is 10k and you don't have anywhere near that for a potentially life threatening symptom, they become the same. stop being obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 when access is 10k and you don't have anywhere near that for a potentially life threatening symptom, they become the same. stop being obtuse. People use hospitals all the time for free medical visits. Again, don't confuse insurance with care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 LOL! You apparently bought your lib leaders' baseless claim that "50 million" people are uninsured. The real number is closer to 12 million who are uninsured through no fault of their own, and represents those with pre-exisiting conditions who are denied coverage. But even then, they can go bankrupt and go on Medicaid, if they spend so much on medical care that they can't afford to live (which isn't always the case). The rest of the uninsured are illegals, those who choose not to buy health insurance, people between jobs, and children who are eligible for Medicaid. So for 4% of the population, we need to drive the country into bankruptcy (considering how splendidly Barry's pre-existing health insurance plan went)? Look, I believe emergent medical care is a right. But medical care isn't supposed to be free or even cheap. Not when you don't take proper care of yourself, expect the latest and greatest, and sue when things go wrong. http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm while these numbers are from 2005, they don't support your contention. 21% are foreign born noncitizens. that leaves 40 million americans the great majority are low earners who can't afford average premiums of 12K/year. people between jobs get sick, too. and your willing to write off 12 million people that are denied coverage for preexisting conditions? nevermind, rhetorical question. got any citations to support your numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 http://aspe.hhs.gov/...d-cps/index.htm while these numbers are from 2005, they don't support your contention. 21% are foreign born noncitizens. that leaves 40 million americans the great majority are low earners who can't afford average premiums of 12K/year. people between jobs get sick, too. and your willing to write off 12 million people that are denied coverage for preexisting conditions? nevermind, rhetorical question. got any citations to support your numbers? What I said about the number of uninsured through no fault of their own (although I'll admit a child not being signed-up for Medicaid by his/her parent isn't his/her fault) is all right in that link. But here is a link for you: http://factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/ And what about this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/02/22/government-study-finds-obama-care-leaves-thirty-million-uninsured/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 What I said about the number of uninsured through no fault of their own (although I'll admit a child not being signed-up for Medicaid by his/her parent isn't his/her fault) is all right in that link. But here is a link for you: http://factcheck.org...real-uninsured/ And what about this: http://www.forbes.co...lion-uninsured/ factcheck concluded that the evidence didn't support fred thompson's contention that 1/2 the 45 million reported uninsured were that way by choice. it also points out that by "choice" isn't really accurate as many categorized as such can't afford the premiums - which were considerably lower when the article was written than now.the forbes article subtracts those who are illegal immigrants and those who qualify for some form of govt assistance from the total of the uninsured before the aca takes effect. then adds them back in to come up with the 30 million remaining uninsured estimated after it takes effect. " dishonest" would desrribe that analysis charitably.as i said, the number of uninsured is debated. it's still a big number, whichever groups numbers you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Give it a few minutes and birddog will tell you how if we don't insure every last individual within our borders then we'll be stacking our dead in the street at gun point. I fail to see what the problem is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 factcheck concluded that the evidence didn't support fred thompson's contention that 1/2 the 45 million reported uninsured were that way by choice. it also points out that by "choice" isn't really accurate as many categorized as such can't afford the premiums - which were considerably lower when the article was written than now.the forbes article subtracts those who are illegal immigrants and those who qualify for some form of govt assistance from the total of the uninsured before the aca takes effect. then adds them back in to come up with the 30 million remaining uninsured estimated after it takes effect. " dishonest" would desrribe that analysis charitably.as i said, the number of uninsured is debated. it's still a big number, whichever groups numbers you believe. The term "choice" is semantics. Illegals, children, and people between jobs don't "choose" to be uninsured, per se. And you'd be amazed at what people can truly afford, when you strip away the things they pay for that they want but don't need, unlike like health care which people should want but B word and moan when they need it and have to pay for it. And anyone can go to a doctor and pay out of pocket, while emergent care is rarely, if ever, denied to those who need it. Why this necessitated destroying the current system, and in the process adding another massive entitlement that will destroy the country, is a question for the ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) In fact, in response to the program’s bankruptcy, Gary Cohen (the director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at HHS) offered the Washington Post a statement that seems likely to stand as the unofficial motto of Obamacare as the law is rolled out in the coming years: “What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run.”. Hehe. My new signature. Now, understand quotes from this board in 2009, from Magox, Doc, etc., could just as easily have sufficed. However, now? Now we have the very people who are responsible for the abortion that is HHS...TELLING the idiots, in no uncertain terms, that they are idiots. Thus it's now signature material. Edit: I just have to hope that modifying my sig doesn't f up my account for another 3 months. Obamacare = faith. It was/is/will be merely an article of faith for its supporters. Nothing more. It's not a solution to anything. In fact it's a giant cause of large and granular problems, and what's better? It "scales"... ...problems. (Ahem, problems which I am all to willing to solve, "for a nominal fee"...) Obamacare = Global Warming. It's about belief and feeling, not about thought and serious, intellectual discourse. Edited February 26, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Hehe. My new signature. Now, understand quotes from this board in 2009, from Magox, Doc, etc., could just as easily have sufficed. However, now? Now we have the very people who are responsible for the abortion that is HHS...TELLING the idiots, in no uncertain terms, that they are idiots. Thus it's now signature material. Edit: I just have to hope that modifying my sig doesn't f up my account for another 3 months. Obamacare = faith. It was/is/will be merely an article of faith for its supporters. Nothing more. It's not a solution to anything. In fact it's a giant cause of large and granular problems, and what's better? It "scales"... ...problems. (Ahem, problems which I am all to willing to solve, "for a nominal fee"...) Obamacare = Global Warming. It's about belief and feeling, not about thought and serious, intellectual discourse. Yeah, but just wait until they tweak it. That will fix everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Yeah, but just wait until they tweak it. That will fix everything. Hehehe...surest indicator of design flaw(s)? When the word "tweak" is used in the first phase of the rollout. This isn't true for every stack, but for almost everything? Yup! Ideally, tweaking is what you do at the end, and most often used as shorthand for "crap, we need another week". You hear that at the beginning? Ouch. All you can hope for: you weren't part of the decision that brought "the guys who say tweak" in. I can't help it, I think this would be funny(not that SNL could do it right): Arthur: Who are you? Guy of Tweak: We are the guys who say..... "Tweak"! Arthur: (horrified) No! Not the guys who say "Tweak"! Guy of Tweak: The same. Other Guy of Tweak: Who are we? Guy of Tweak: We are the keepers of the sacred words: "Tweak", "Single Payer", and "Meaningful Use"! Other Guy of Tweak: "Meaningful USE!" Arthur: (to Bedevere) Those who hear them seldom live to tell the tale! Guy of Tweak: The guys who say "Tweak" demand..... a sacrifice! Arthur: Guys of Tweak, we are but simple business owners and executives who seek a reasonable way to ensure that our workers and their families are healthy, and therefore, focused on their work. Christ, this used to only be a problem for whatsername, you know, HR lady. Now, it's affecting every damn decision we make, and our investors, bankers, customers and suppliers make. Guys of Tweak: Tweak! Tweak! Tweak! Tweak! Tweak! Tweak! Tweak! Tweak! Tweak! Bedevere: No! Noooo! Aaaugh! No! Guy of Tweak: We shall say "Tweak" to you... if you do not appease us. You should do the rest of it. I am sure you can figure out something to replace "we want...a shrubbery". Just think of some abusurd thing that the government requires of you that has nothing to do with the care process. Edited February 27, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Or at least endangering the "well heeled" with the Plague. this reuters financial writer http://finance.yahoo.com/news/analysis-jumbo-mortgages-back-far-212528722.html finds the term descriptive as well...probably a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 this reuters financial writer http://finance.yahoo...-212528722.html finds the term descriptive as well...probably a liberal. Not in the mood to fight this battle. Been up for the last 48 hours at the premier cardiovascular center in the world. My dad, who has worked almost every day in his life since he was out of knickers (that's an indication of his age) and is "well heeled" revels in work. He doesn't need to for the sake of money. At the age of 87 he had heart surgery today. He's very capable of continuing to work at what he loves for another decade, as long as that aorta valve repalacement and those stents perform. He'll not be tossed aside for your "end of life" compromises so that f'n slackers can steal his rightful healthcare. I'm not looking at this as anectodal, so choose your response carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts