New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

How much health care should those who can't pay for it get?

tsunami

Council Member
I was, essentially, wondering how much the usual conservative reaction to the ACA is a genuine difference in how much health care conservatives think people who can't afford it should be able to get, vs genuine concern about methods and/or a knee-jerk reaction to something put in place by liberals.

So, assuming that the person in question is a citizen of your country who needs some sort of medical care that they cannot afford, and they are not individually and specifically entitled to care paid for by others (eg veterans)--that is, assuming we're just talking about a random poor person who needs health care that he or she can't afford--they should get:

A. Nothing. They can just go die in a ditch.
B. Only bare-minimum emergency care (eg stopping the bleeding, setting broken bones)
C. Fairly basic, bare-bones care (eg antibiotics and insulin, but not any new, expensive drugs)
D. The basic standard of care those with money can reasonably expect, though not necessarily experimental or extraordinary-measures treatments (eg standard HMO care)
E. Anything that money can buy

Please pick one, and if you wish defend your choice. Also, any other thoughts?
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
I was, essentially, wondering how much the usual conservative reaction to the ACA is a genuine difference in how much health care conservatives think people who can't afford it should be able to get, vs genuine concern about methods and/or a knee-jerk reaction to something put in place by liberals.

So, assuming that the person in question is a citizen of your country who needs some sort of medical care that they cannot afford, and they are not individually and specifically entitled to care paid for by others (eg veterans)--that is, assuming we're just talking about a random poor person who needs health care that he or she can't afford--they should get:

A. Nothing. They can just go die in a ditch.
B. Only bare-minimum emergency care (eg stopping the bleeding, setting broken bones)
C. Fairly basic, bare-bones care (eg antibiotics and insulin, but not any new, expensive drugs)
D. The basic standard of care those with money can reasonably expect, though not necessarily experimental or extraordinary-measures treatments (eg standard HMO care)
E. Anything that money can buy

Please pick one, and if you wish defend your choice. Also, any other thoughts?
Mr. Tsunami,

Easy, C.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
NO citizen or non-citizen (evidently) were not getting health care before ObamaCare
many now will NOT be getting health care, doctors are not taking new patients and millions will owe fines for not enrolling...........

Dem/libs running from ObamaCare Law like their pants are on fire..............

they should have read the damn Bill............instead of trusting Pelosi

IRS is in charge, they will decide how much care your poor get.......................
 

Caroljo

Senator
The poor are getting insured free, or almost free. The middle class are getting screwed. How about someone make it so insurance is AFFORDABLE to all? Isn't that what Obamacare was supposed to do?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Mr. Middle,

You have to make that cost/benefits decision and have to draw the line somewhere, wot?
I actually think that employer supplied plans should be banned. Let everyone get their own plans. People below a certain income should be subsidized to some degree, gradually increasing for those who have less and less income.

The system is distorted by insurance companies and their relationships with the companies that buy policies for larger groups of people.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Those above who're farting that Americans oughta just suck it up and die, are useless to we Americans. We Americans lefter to most of the righters, don't really buy that "hatritude." There's a reason why Reagan presided over EMTALA, and it wasn't because he was some kinda RINO.
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
I actually think that employer supplied plans should be banned. Let everyone get their own plans. People below a certain income should be subsidized to some degree, gradually increasing for those who have less and less income.

The system is distorted by insurance companies and their relationships with the companies that buy policies for larger groups of people.
Mr. Middleview,

Whoa, whoa, whoa, settle down there cowboy.

Why the melt? No where was employer supplied plans even mentioned.

Jesus, dude, that's what they make chill pills for.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Mr. Middleview,

Whoa, whoa, whoa, settle down there cowboy.

Why the melt? No where was employer supplied plans even mentioned.

Jesus, dude, that's what they make chill pills for.
Employer provided plans are subsidized by tax deductions and the customers of the employer. The reductions in costs for group plans are made up for by increasing costs for the uninsured and self insured.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Employer provided plans are subsidized by tax deductions and the customers of the employer. The reductions in costs for group plans are made up for by increasing costs for the uninsured and self insured.

I'm sure the employees at your new burger joint have 100% health care paid by YOU...

NO
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Mr. Middleview,

Whoa, whoa, whoa, settle down there cowboy.

Why the melt? No where was employer supplied plans even mentioned.

Jesus, dude, that's what they make chill pills for.
Middie say's that due to just opening a burger joint and now has employees.........I'm sure he pay's 100% of their health care..........and pay's @employee $15@hr+.........

don't ya know
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
Employer provided plans are subsidized by tax deductions and the customers of the employer. The reductions in costs for group plans are made up for by increasing costs for the uninsured and self insured.
Mr. Middleview,

First, what the hell are you talking about? You sound like someone who owns a business and just found out that he's got to pay his employees benefits. What's that old adage? "What is a conservative? A liberal who just found out how much it costs to run a business."

Second, actually, employer provided health plans lessen the risk pool because it brings a large block of generally health, employed workers under an umbrilla plan. Ergo, if you lower the risk and bring more people in, the overall costs drop for everybody with that health plan.

Third, what the hell does that even have to do with this discussion. The question was what is the minimum level of care that should be provided to deadbeats.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Mr. Middleview,

First, what the hell are you talking about? You sound like someone who owns a business and just found out that he's got to pay his employees benefits. What's that old adage? "What is a conservative? A liberal who just found out how much it costs to run a business."

Second, actually, employer provided health plans lessen the risk pool because it brings a large block of generally health, employed workers under an umbrilla plan. Ergo, if you lower the risk and bring more people in, the overall costs drop for everybody with that health plan.

Third, what the hell does that even have to do with this discussion. The question was what is the minimum level of care that should be provided to deadbeats.
So anyone who has a job that doesn't pay enough to be able to afford insurance is a deadbeat?

Do you dislike the free market?
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
So anyone who has a job that doesn't pay enough to be able to afford insurance is a deadbeat?

Do you dislike the free market?
Mr. Middleview,

Wow, usually, when you lose an argument, you just keep repeating yourself, hoping to get the last word.

I've never seen you go off the deep end and post total gibberish, totally unrelated to the topic.

You must be going through some rough times.
 
I was, essentially, wondering how much the usual conservative reaction to the ACA is a genuine difference in how much health care conservatives think people who can't afford it should be able to get, vs genuine concern about methods and/or a knee-jerk reaction to something put in place by liberals.

So, assuming that the person in question is a citizen of your country who needs some sort of medical care that they cannot afford, and they are not individually and specifically entitled to care paid for by others (eg veterans)--that is, assuming we're just talking about a random poor person who needs health care that he or she can't afford--they should get:

A. Nothing. They can just go die in a ditch.
B. Only bare-minimum emergency care (eg stopping the bleeding, setting broken bones)
C. Fairly basic, bare-bones care (eg antibiotics and insulin, but not any new, expensive drugs)
D. The basic standard of care those with money can reasonably expect, though not necessarily experimental or extraordinary-measures treatments (eg standard HMO care)
E. Anything that money can buy

Please pick one, and if you wish defend your choice. Also, any other thoughts?
When you say "anything money can buy", to whose money are you referring?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Mr. Middleview,

Wow, usually, when you lose an argument, you just keep repeating yourself, hoping to get the last word.

I've never seen you go off the deep end and post total gibberish, totally unrelated to the topic.

You must be going through some rough times.
and when you lose an argument you ignore the points and attack the messenger. Sure sign of a loser.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Mr. Middleview,

When I lose an argument to you, I will take time to self reflect to see if that is true..

Care to start over, or you just going to continue to rant about how much it is costing you to pay your employees?
I didn't mention anything about my employees....maybe you should review the thread and remind yourself of what we were talking about....and while you are at it see if you can answer any of the relevant questions I posted....
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
I didn't mention anything about my employees....maybe you should review the thread and remind yourself of what we were talking about....and while you are at it see if you can answer any of the relevant questions I posted....
Mr. Middleview,

Perhaps you should. The topic was the minimum level of care for deadbeats. You started throwing out tangents about how employer sponsered health plans should be illegal, workers shouldn't expect employers to pay for their health plans, asking why I consider a deadbeat to be a deadbeat, the free market system, etc., etc. I mean, you started out all right, but as soon as it became clear you couldn't counter what I said, suddenly, it was tangent city for you, throwing out non sequiturs like they were going out of style.

And as for why I didn't respond to your irrelevent questions, as I've oft mentioned, the non sequitur is the halmark of dishonest debate, and I don't follow dishonest debate.
 
Top