Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

Neomalthusian · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
You mean their decision to be greedy and not care about their fellow citizens or country's well being?

What? No, I mean that we don't respect people's decision to go without insurance and we don't hold them accountable to that decision. That is our fault.

Any of us should be allowed to take our chances and forego health insurance. Respecting this decision means not insuring them de facto after the fact.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
The most you'll demonstrate by finding Republicans that support a mandate is that there are Republicans out there who are not really conservative.

It is your opinion the Heritage foundation is not conservative?

haymarket · Sep 16, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
It places an artificial burden on limited resources, and thusly weakens the species as a whole.

That statement comes off as if it were written by a Mr. Spock type communicating about an alien race on another planet. Its almost cold enough to freeze my computer.

American · Sep 16, 2011

tessaesque said:
First of all, I'm not angry. I'm a realist.

Taxes are most certainly "stealing" when you take disporportionately from one group to benefit another, isolated group. If healthcare is too expensive then fix the problems in healthcare. Don't solve the problem by using the "rich" as a scapegoat. Every single financial problem we have...the solution is always "we've gotta tax the rich more, we gotta get it from them." They aren't an unlimited fountain of funds. You keep using them as the source of all your solutions and eventually the well's going to run dry.

Then what? How do you give more and more and more to people who are perfectly capable once you've taken everything from the top 5%?...when they're now in that pool of "poor" needing help? Where do you go then?

I'm telling you. Fix what's wrong with the system before you demand that other people act as the bandaid. Stop ignoring that the problem isn't fixed simply by taking more money from the rich. Stop acting like those of us who view it pragmatically are heartless, or afraid. We realize what none of y'all want to admit. Your stupid little idea of going after the top 5% is just as unsustainable (if not more so) than any other system or solution suggested. You're ignoring the bigger issue for the sake of continuing some sort of bull**** class warfare nonsense.

Oh they know we're not heartless, they just use that for political leverage. Taking money from you and giving it to others equals power. They are all about power.

Neomalthusian · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
It is your opinion the Heritage foundation is not conservative?

In my opinion the notion to mandate purchases of health insurance is not conservative.

PzKfW IVe · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
What? No, I mean that we don't respect people's decision to go without insurance and we don't hold them accountable to that decision. That is our fault.
Any of us should be allowed to take our chances and forego health insurance. Respecting that decision means not insuring them de facto after the fact.

It's no so much 'respecting' the decision, but holding them responsible for it.
The current state of affairs breeds irresponsibility as people can make irresponsible decisions and not have to suffer the consequences for doing so.
Once you remove the consequence from poor decision making, you eliminate the impetus to not make poor decisions.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

ARealConservative said:
read it again, you failed to comprehend a simple statement.

Let's see your proof there were 50 million rich people that couldn't afford health care 30 years ago?

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
What? No, I mean that we don't respect people's decision to go without insurance and we don't hold them accountable to that decision. That is our fault.

Any of us should be allowed to take our chances and forego health insurance. Respecting this decision means not insuring them de facto after the fact.

As the Heritage Foundation reasoned when they devised the plan, the rest of society ends up paying for those not responsible for their own health insurance.

Alyssa · Sep 16, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
Apparently you have fogotten that the statemt you responded to was....

Post 188 you give the provider the choice to treat him at risk of doing so w/o compenation, or to not treat him.
If they choose to treat someone that cannot pay, then they choose to take whatever loss that may result.

Then my first statement was correct. Human life isn't worth the value of health care, unless health care providers decide it is. I wonder if the same logic can be applied to other issues.

PzKfW IVe said:
As I said: Non sequitur.

You clearly have no clue what "non sequitur" means.

PzKfW IVe said:
See above.

Not at all.
If something is worth $100, that's a monetary evaluation. $100 is $100 wherever you go.
If something is worth 2 days labor in a coal mine, that's NOT a monetary evaluation, as there's a lot more to that than the wages earned.

And yet time, skill, and any other thing of value is exchanged for money.

PzKfW IVe said:
Why do you think your life is worth more than someone else's 2 days in a coal mine?

Red herring.

PzKfW IVe said:
No kidding -- it is -very- clear that you want to impose your version of morality of others, and force people to pay for the implementation of same. Most people like you don't admit this. Good for you.

How have I imposed anything? All I have done so far is pose a question which you have answered poorly.

PzKfW IVe said:
This has been addressed. Re-asking the questiuon will not result in a different answer.

Which, as we see, has been supported in full.

lol Not even close.

ARealConservative · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
Let's see your proof there were 50 million rich people that couldn't afford health care 30 years ago?

you are so over the top it is pathetic.

my mom couldn't afford health insurance, she just survived breast cancer surgery though.

gee, how can that possibly be?

your attempt to equate the lack of insurance with the lack of life saving treatment is so ridiculously false, I don't know where to begin.

but to compare this lack of major medical insurance with the plight of slaves, and their loss of basic rights they were granted is sickening beyond words.

Neomalthusian · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
As the Heritage Foundation reasoned when they devised the plan, the rest of society ends up paying for those not responsible for their own health insurance.

1) this is because we hold no one accountable for the decision not to be insured
2) nothing about this changes if we implement any of the liberals' ideas.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
In my opinion the notion to mandate purchases of health insurance is not conservative.

It is noted that you are further to the right than the Heritage Foundation.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

ARealConservative said:
you are so over the top it is pathetic.

my mom couldn't afford health insurance, she just survived breast cancer surgery though.

gee, how can that possibly be?

your attempt to equate the lack of insurance with the lack of life saving treatment is so ridiculously false, I don't know where to begin.

but to compare this lack of major medical insurance with the plight of slaves, and their loss of basic rights they were granted is sickening beyond words.

Who paid for it?

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
1)

this is because we hold no one accountable for the decision not to be insured

Click to expand...

2) nothing about this changes if we implement any of the liberals' ideas.

That's the whole idea behind the conservative plan for the health insurance mandate. I think UHC is much more practical.

Neomalthusian · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
That's the whole idea behind the conservative plan for the health insurance mandate. I think UHC is much more practical.

UHC doesn't really change access, since we're all already treated upon arrival. UHC doesn't control costs unless government starts seriously rationing. UHC is a great deal for those who pay least and have the worst health habits, and a terrible deal for those who pay most and live the healthiest lifestyles, so these are backwards incentives. And UHC does not allow people to decide if and how they would like to address their potential healthcare needs.

PzKfW IVe · Sep 16, 2011

evanescence said:
Then my first statement was correct. Human life isn't worth the value of health care, unless health care providers decide it is. I wonder if the same logic can be applied to other issues.

MY response makes --no judgement whatsoever-- as to the value of anyone, and as such, YOUR response regarding such does not follow from what -I- said.
And, I note, you have not in any was actually addressed my post as a response to your question.

You clearly have no clue what "non sequitur" means.

This is clearly not the case.

Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe
Why do you think your life is worth more than someone else's 2 days in a coal mine?

Click to expand...

Red herring.

ROTFL
The comparative value of life is YOUR argument. My question follows directly from YOUR premise.
So... Why do you think your life is worth more than someone else's 2 days in a coal mine?

How have I imposed anything? All I have done so far is pose a question which you have answered poorly.

The whole idea of forcing people to pay for goods and services they do not receive is an imposition of (your) morality.

Not even close.

Thanks for your opinion.
:roll:

ARealConservative · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
Who paid for it?

moot. 30 years ago, the survival rate for my moms stage of cancer was slim. she received better care, even though she is poor and uninsured.

so comparing her plight with slaves is pathetic.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
UHC doesn't really change access, since we're all already treated upon arrival.

Click to expand...

Are your comparing emergency care with full health care? If there were no difference, we wouldn't have 18,000 people dying each year due to lack of health care.

UHC doesn't control costs unless government starts seriously rationing.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does, as we have the most expensive health care of any of the industrialized nations, with the least access by all citizens.

UHC is a great deal for those who pay least and have the worst health habits, and a terrible deal for those who pay most and live the healthiest lifestyles, so these are backwards incentives. And UHC does not allow people to decide if and how they would like to address their potential healthcare needs.

Click to expand...

Look at Australia's health care system. It disproves what you are saying.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

ARealConservative said:
moot. 30 years ago, the survival rate for my moms stage of cancer was slim. she received better care, even though she is poor and uninsured.

so comparing her plight with slaves is pathetic.

What do you mean it is moot??? The whole discussion is around who pays for it. Who paid for it? Some of your fellow conservatives suggest that your mom was just dead weight and shouldn't have even received treatment, just as some of the southern states didn't believe slaves deserved to be treated as regular humans.

ARealConservative · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
What do you mean it is moot??? The whole discussion is around who pays for it. Who paid for it? Some of your fellow conservatives suggest that your mom was just dead weight and shouldn't have even received treatment, just some of the southern states didn't believe slaves deserved to be treated as regular humans.

The discussion between you and I has nothing to do with who pays for it.

Slaves were having basic human rights withheld. Slavery was going to come to an end, but it was not happening fast enough.

Poor people in this country are receiving life saving health care – so good, that rich people 30 years ago couldn’t even fathom having it that good.

So to claim the poor are not getting an improvement in health care fast enough –and we need to do something drastic like we did to rectify the plight of slaves is pathetic hyperbole.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

ARealConservative said:
The discussion between you and I has nothing to do with who pays for it.

Slaves were having basic human rights withheld. Slavery was going to come to an end, but it was not happening fast enough.

Poor people in this country are receiving life saving health care – so good, that rich people 30 years ago couldn’t even fathom having it that good.

So to claim the poor are not getting an improvement in health care fast enough –and we need to do something drastic like we did to rectify the plight of slaves is pathetic hyperbole.

This a public forum, we aren't having a private discussion. I maintain that health care is a basic human right. What do you think about some of your fellow conservative's opinions here that your Mom was just dead weight and should not have been given treatment?

Neomalthusian · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
Are your comparing emergency care with full health care?

No, hospital care. The uninsured are treated throughout hospitals. Whatever their medical need. Not just ERs. That's "do no harm" for you.

And they'd still hit up the ER with public coverage. ERs find answers quick, whereas clinic doctors can have long waitlists. And we could only expect as much or more of that with UHC.

If there were no difference, we wouldn't have 18,000 people dying each year due to lack of health care.

That's not why they die. People die due to injuries or medical problems. "Lack of health care" is not a cause of death.

Yes, it does, as we have the most expensive health care of any of the industrialized nations, with the least access by all citizens.

Ignores my point. A government can only control costs by rationing in some fashion or another. If it doesn't ration, costs can float as high as they want to.

So ASSUMING we go ahead and destroy choice and socialize the whole system, the question will become about how government will ration, or how quickly it'll destroy our financial going concern trying NOT to.

So how shall we ration? What care shall be denied, and to whom? We gotta answer this at some point.

Look at Australia's health care system. It disproves what you are saying.

No it doesn't. We could spend all month discussing the myriad differences between the US and country x, y or z.

Alyssa · Sep 16, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
MY response makes --no judgement whatsoever-- as to the value of anyone, and as such, YOUR response regarding such does not follow from what -I- said.
And, I note, you have not in any was actually addressed my post as a response to your question.

You seem to be confused. My original question WAS about a value judgment. I guess you still haven't answered the question then.

PzKfW IVe said:
This is clearly not the case.

ROTFL
The comparative value of life is YOUR argument. My question follows directly from YOUR premise.
So... Why do you think your life is worth more than someone else's 2 days in a coal mine?

repeating a red herring? lol btw, we're not talking about MY life, or a coal mine.

PzKfW IVe said:
The whole idea of forcing people to pay for goods and services they do not receive is an imposition of (your) morality.

Once again, I have imposed nothing. I -am-posing-an-ethical-question.

PzKfW IVe said:
Thanks for your opinion.
:roll:

yeah-you have a nice day now. :2wave:

ARealConservative · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
This a public forum, we aren't having a private discussion.

Public means others can read and respond, but our conversation has nothing to do with what others said previously.

I maintain that health care is a basic human right. What do you think about some of your fellow conservative's opinions here that your Mom was just dead weight and should not have been given treatment?

They need to see a bigger picture of what people provide. My mom received her care in a teaching hospital, so she isn’t dead weight, she provided valuable practical experience

PzKfW IVe · Sep 16, 2011

evanescence said:
You seem to be confused. My original question WAS about a value judgment. I guess you still haven't answered the question then.

repeating a red herring? lol btw, we're not talking about MY life, or a coal mine.

Once again, I have imposed nothing. I -am-posing-an-ethical-question.

yeah-you have a nice day now. :2wave:

You were doing so well. Not so much any more.
:yawn:

Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

Disappointed Evolutionist

Trump Grump Whisperer

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

¡Selah!

cookies crumble

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

cookies crumble

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

cookies crumble

Disappointed Evolutionist

¡Selah!

cookies crumble