• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do people without health insurance live?

Gill said:
If they can't afford private insurance, they will likely not be able to afford public insurance, even though they will be forced to buy it. Few people making too much for Medicaid, but less than $30,000. can afford to pay 5% of their take home pay for the government option insurance they will forced to buy.
Click to expand...
And if they do NOT buy insurance, thee will pay a tax penalty.
Smooth, well-thought-out solution, that.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I was wondering about that myself. These poor heathens by all rights should have not survived.
Click to expand...
Yeah, liberals are all for Darwinism, right? Survival of the fittest?
 
American said:
Yeah, liberals are all for Darwinism, right? Survival of the fittest?
Click to expand...
Isnt the purpose of government, at its very most basic level, to thwart Darwinism as it applies to humans?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
On the other hand, the rest of us are already paying for them. These people seek out healthcare, typically through the Emergency Room, and the rest of us, with health insurance, end up paying for the cost of their care through higher insurance rates already. This will hopefully stabilize this system. I would prefer to see subsidized clinics in low income neighborhoods with preventive care readily acccessible. That would ultimately be much cheaper than what we are currently doing
Click to expand...
.

Very nice, but doesn't address the fact that millions of people are living on the edge already. An additional payout of 5% of their income will likely finish them off financially.

Your argument here is called a hasty generalization. It relies upon an isolated incident to make a larger argument, without sufficient basis. Overall, union employees in skilled trades are MORE likely, not less likely, to have health insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that I was required to post a couple dozen examples, although it wouldn't be that hard if I was so inclined. And... for the record, my example did NOT involve a skilled trade did it? Why should someone in an unskilled trade like a grocery store cashier bringing home $500./month with no benefits be forced to pay union dues. What exactly does the union do for them???
 
Gill said:
Very nice, but doesn't address the fact that millions of people are living on the edge already. An additional payout of 5% of their income will likely finish them off financially.
Click to expand...

Guess they'll have to get rid of their satellite dish.

Why should someone in an unskilled trade like a grocery store cashier bringing home $500./month with no benefits be forced to pay union dues. What exactly does the union do for them???
Click to expand...

This isn't the pro-union thread. I could care less what your daughter does or doesn't do.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Guess they'll have to get rid of their satellite dish.
Click to expand...

Gotcha... the old "let them eat cake" routine, eh? I heard somewhere that libs were compassionate, guess I heard wrong.

This isn't the pro-union thread. I could care less what your daughter does or doesn't do.
Click to expand...

Then don't bring up unions again.

And my daughter only worked there a short time. She found a much better job in a non-union business.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - at least this does pinpoint who will be fined in the future for not having insurance.
Click to expand...

That seems to make you happy. :confused: I will gladly pay the fine than get raped by the gov't. I do not have traditional health insurance thanks to the state gov't f*cking up regulations so badly that it's cost prohibitive. I can afford it; I choose not to.

It's my choice to go to the doctors I want to see. I don't beg for a referral, and I don't waste time and money bothering with a GP when me or my kid needs a specialist.

I defy you or anyone to find a child better cared for than mine.

Catz Part Deux said:
You are not adequately represented on the map. ;)

My contention would be that people in the red states are more likely to be the working poor, particularly the rural poor, and that they do not have the opportunity to purchase health insurance through their employer, for a variety of reasons. For instance, people who work at Walmart in low-skills categories are usually kept at a 32-hour-per-week employment status so that Walmart can avoid the cost of providing health insurance.

The assumption by many conservatives is that the people who don't have insurance coverage aren't willing to pay for it, or are on welfare. In fact, it isn't AVAILABLE to many Americans, and it is often extremely cost-prohibitive to those who are in the category of working poor. They earn too much to qualify for state benefits, but too little to afford insurance.

These states are also, in many cases, "right to work" states, so people in the skilled trades, who would have had insurance benefits through a union in another state, instead work in small non-union shops without access to affordable healthcare benefits.
Click to expand...

Catz Part Deux said:
Guess they'll have to get rid of their satellite dish.
Click to expand...

You make an awful lot of assumptions there. I'll buy whatever the hell I want with my money, and if the gov't or anyone else doesn't like it, they can stuff it.

What I handed over to the Federal Gov't in taxes in 1998 alone could have allowed me to hire a private physician and kept him/her employed for many years. The gov't and everyone else's assumptions about uninsured are just assumptions.

And I would rather pull my eyeballs out with hot skewers than accept any form of healthcare from the gov't.
 
Gill said:
Gotcha... the old "let them eat cake" routine, eh? I heard somewhere that libs were compassionate, guess I heard wrong.
Click to expand...

Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm a lib?

Then don't bring up unions again.

And my daughter only worked there a short time. She found a much better job in a non-union business.
Click to expand...

Unions are relevant in the context of determining where the uninsured reside. They tend to live in right-to-work states. Shockers.
 
StandUpChuck said:
That seems to make you happy. :confused: I will gladly pay the fine than get raped by the gov't. I do not have traditional health insurance thanks to the state gov't f*cking up regulations so badly that it's cost prohibitive. I can afford it; I choose not to.

It's my choice to go to the doctors I want to see. I don't beg for a referral, and I don't waste time and money bothering with a GP when me or my kid needs a specialist.

I defy you or anyone to find a child better cared for than mine.
Click to expand...

In fact, the imposed fines and fees make me furious - it's one of my peeves over this whole entire healthcare debate and really rattles me.

I think it's hypocritical - at best - for those who cry out for "better healthcare for all!" [refering to those in goverment] to then deem it a finable offense NOT to want healthcare for whatever personal reasons that someone has.

I'm fine with the government offering it - with it being optional person-to-person. Key point is for the individuals to determine what's best for them, not for the government to determine what is best for the individual.

They're ending current programs of assistance and not making other efforts (such as allowing companies to cross state lines when offering care in an effort to make the market more competative - bringing down prices) and not seeking to strengthen the programs that already DO exist.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Key point is for the individuals to determine what's best for them, not for the government to determine what is best for the individual.
Click to expand...

The problem is that some individuals are choosing not to have health care, and then seeking it at emergency rooms, where the rest of us end up paying for it, anyway.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The problem is that some individuals are choosing not to have health care, and then seeking it at emergency rooms, where the rest of us end up paying for it, anyway.
Click to expand...
Simple solution:
Remove the requirement that people receive treatment regardless of the ability to pay.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The problem is that some individuals are choosing not to have health care, and then seeking it at emergency rooms, where the rest of us end up paying for it, anyway.
Click to expand...

That's a partial issue, though - which is something they're still not dealing with.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm a lib?
Click to expand...

Any one reading your posts would naturally assume you are a lib. Are you one of the libs that prefer the term "progressive."

Unions are relevant in the context of determining where the uninsured reside. They tend to live in right-to-work states. Shockers.
Click to expand...

This isn't a pro-union thread. Your attempt to link states that protect its citizens from union extortion and insurance coverage has no basis in fact.
 
Gill said:
Any one reading your posts would naturally assume you are a lib. Are you one of the libs that prefer the term "progressive."
Click to expand...

I'm a fiscally conservative moderate.

This isn't a pro-union thread. Your attempt to link states that protect its citizens from union extortion and insurance coverage has no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

Proof?
 
Goobieman said:
This then eliminates the 'problem' you described.
Click to expand...

Either way. The problem for us is that bleeding hearts will describe this as "inhumane." :shrug: And, hospitals may be unwilling to take this step due to liability concerns.

Then we're in the same rock/hard place situation.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The problem for us is that bleeding hearts will describe this as "inhumane." :shrug:
Click to expand...
They are free to give to charity, should their moral compass so dictate.

Normally, the 'bleeding hearts' are the first to argue that a moral compass cannot be forced onto others; if this is a true belief, they would then oppose forcing people to pay for the health care costs of others.
 
Health insurance is not available to me and is cost prohibitive for pay for on it's own. I pay all medical dental etc out of pocket, right now it's the cheapest form of healthcare I can get.

I just hope I continue to be healthy.

And I work.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'm a fiscally conservative moderate.



Proof?
Click to expand...

I'll wait for you to provide some proof of your claim first. Pretty cheeky of you to make a claim with no basis in fact or any kind of proof, then demand proof from everyone else.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
But you probably need one if a major health problem is discovered at your physical.
Click to expand...

Those who think they don't need insurance are either very wealthy, or have never had to pay for chemo, brain surgery, etc.....

My son has excellent insurance, a private policy, for his wife and kids. His employer covers him for free, but they want around $10K per year to extend coverage to his family. So he found a company that only wants about half that amount.

His oldest child has had 2 brain tumors, one was removeable, the other is still there.
She is now 10 years old and has had chemo since she was 7.
The policy pays 100% after the deductible of $1500 per year per person.
If it was an 80/20 plan, the 20% alone would bankrupt them.

People who think they don't need insurance are relying on the taxpayers among us to cover their medical needs. This is NOW, not after UHC....
 
windovervocalcords said:
Health insurance is not available to me and is cost prohibitive for pay for on it's own.
Click to expand...
If this is the case, then it IS available to you, you just cannot pay for it.
"Cannot pay for it" does not mean "Unavailable"

I just hope I continue to be healthy.
Click to expand...
Me too.
 
Goobieman said:
If this is the case, then it IS available to you, you just cannot pay for it.
"Cannot pay for it" does not mean "Unavailable"


Me too.
Click to expand...

I know people, with children, who say that they cannot afford it, but they seem to live well and have all the modern conveniences.
Even their uninsured kids have cell phones !!!
 
UtahBill said:
I know people, with children, who say that they cannot afford it, but they seem to live well and have all the modern conveniences.
Even their uninsured kids have cell phones !!!
Click to expand...
Its all about priorities.
If you choose cable TV and internet over health insurance, then you get what you deserve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom