You can only go for urgent things (ie hospital visits). You can't go for minor discomforts or diagnostics without money or insurance. It's not that hard.

Perhaps you mistyped, but you wrote:

Asked and answered. It is obvious to me without needing to be said that if a person has enough money they can not only see but get a doctor to do all sorts of procedures. Maybe with this crowd I should be more explicit. (Also, see here means getting an examination or check up, not the literal process of seeing which involves photons being absorbed by your eye which you anybody can do for free if they hang around a hospital or doctors office)

http://freemedicalcamps.com/

This just isn't true. Do they not have clinics where you live? There are plenty of clinics that will either not charge you or charge you 15 bucks for basic non urgent visits. Stop just making things up.

NB4 "no TRUE doctor"

I think the regulatory difficulty of someone trained as a nurse from setting up a very basic clinic in a strip mall and charging $15 a walk in for a ten minute appointment with the capability of doctor referrals and perscribing drugs is the indicative of a lot of the problems our "free market" healthcare system has.

As usual, the poor are the ones who suffer most from this distortion.

I had already admitted I could have been wrong about this, people keep quoting a post a made a while back. Either way it doesn't matter because we were talking about situations were the medical care giver is legally obligated to provide care which doesn't involve these situations.

EDIT: And because people seem abnormally slow here today, the response of "everybody knows this" that I made to the post involving big macs was the "point" that if you have a medical emergency you can go to a hospital and they must treat you. I claimed that everybody understood this and it has nothing to do with how hard it is to see a doctor without insurance or money in a non-emergency situation.

Going to have to disagree here. This very thing is happening with increasing frequency, just not in strip malls. Check out TakeCare Clinics, the Little Clinic, the Minute Clinic, and many others. Here is a decent article on them

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/536090_4

ya it does. I just want those out there who think and say what I used to say to understand its very important to have health insurance so u dont end up like me. many people take being healthy for granted and dont prepare for being sick like myself, dont do this. make sure you got even some ghetto insurance plan because obv its better than nothing.

I have the kind of cell phone u put minutes on as u go, I obv have internetz and cable but its paid for by my landlord. I lost my job a while back and been playing low stakes poker to get by as I cant seem to get a job due to the economy and my lack of education. I went to apply for this medicaid stuff or what ever and they told me I wasnt poor enough to qualify and then the ER doctor told me I was too poor and sent me to a doctor they knew I would have to pay for out of pocket, even tho Im sick I still had to lol. atleast I still got poker

How does medicaid work? Is it just based purely on income? I know someone who is on medicaid while in law school. The thing is she has the highest net worth of anyone I go to school with (I'm certain her net worth is 6 figures and pretty sure its 7 but she has no income). Her fiance is a doctor and apparently she had inside knowledge that all the med students do this.

Im not really sure how it works but when I went to apply for it I was asked a bunch of questions like "how much do you make?" do you have proof?(pay stubs)". I told the lady since I lost my job its been hard to find work so I do odd jobs here(obv off the books) so she asked well about how much do u make on these odd jobs? I said about a couple hundred a week and she asked me to get proof that people are paying me off the books lol. I was like ya I dont think I can do that for obv reasons. then they wanted to know who I lived with and all so they can go after them i guess, idk why this is relevant im sure it is somehow tho. I was sick and upset so I kinda lashed out at the lady and said "look lady Im sick and need a lil help are u gonna ****ing stop playing twenty questions and give me help or what?" I was asked to leave and mail my documents in so I did, got a letter couple weeks later I was denied.

I'll assume most people here believe that everyone has a right to a fair trial, something provided by government with government employees (judges, people on jury duty, etc). Do you believe this is a right, given that it necessarily involves the labor of another?

Looks like you went on tilt. If you can beat low stakes NL this game is certainly winnable. Try again with a level head. Good luck.

Governments provide roads as well. As far as the 6th amendment is concerned, if you arent being threatened with long term incarceration by the government you wont get a lawyer. You wont get a lawyer if you're sued. Its not a "free" service but a basic defense of liberty.

Yes, but most people don't hold that roads are a fundamental right, but that's not really the case with a fair trial. And you can't have a trial without government employees (when you're not in AC land)

People have a fundamental right to liberty. If the government wants to take that away by putting people in jail or killing them there are some procedures that have to be followed. You're right they arent free. But the government could also do nothing.

For example I'm smoking pot in my house. If the government decides to point a gun at me, kidnap me and throw me in jail I have the right to some procedures.

My personal opinion is that people can define terms however they want. But from the perspective of natural rights I do see a big difference between the fundamental right to liberty or speech and health care.

Picture yourself on a desert island or in the middle of the woods. You'd never be thrown in jail without a trial, you'd never be arrested for speaking your mind, you wouldnt be searched unreasonably, but you wouldnt have healthcare. So in that state of nature only one of your natural rights would be violated. The oddball is healthcare not the right to procedure before incarceration.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...alth-Care-Plan


I think the political pressure UHC creates to discriminate against immigrants or exclude them from our economic system is clear.

But if these people were uninsured and had to go on Commonwealth Care, then they are not any more excluded then they were before UHC existed in Mass.

IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE IT IS WORTH IT AMIRITE?

FWIW, I'm on vacation so I don't have time to really read the whole forum for the next two weeks but I needed to pop in to mention that I was watching True Hollywood Story and a doctor made this EXACT ARGUMENT (except for the AMIRITE part). They were talking about Natasha Richardson, who died a few months ago from epidural hematoma after hitting her head while skiing. The doctor was saying that even if she had gotten medical attention she might have died anyway because they were far away from a trauma center. He was basically saying that every ski facility should have a helicopter so that everyone who gets a bump could be airlifted to a trauma center. And of course, this happened in canada, so the unwritten message is that these should be government funded universal healthcare helicopters.

Except they still have to pay for this system, and healthcare inflation in Mass has outpaced that of the rest of the nation, and so on...

Given the status quo, I'm generally in support of some type of more government-involved healthcare system emerging, but if this type of discriminatory nonsense is going to result from it then count me out.

I just shudder to think what Republicans would do, egged on by populists like O'Rielly and Dobbs (if they aren't dead ldo), if they were in power in 2021 and the UHC system were running deep in the red. Immigrants--and immigration--are the first to the chopping block when trouble starts. We've seen it before, we're seeing it right now in Europe, and we're going to see it throughout the USA.

I'm not sure what you want from us. It is possible to think that having UHC is a good idea and not have a system that allows you to sue if you die in some isolated area. Nobody else here takes your "argument" seriously. It might be a good idea for ski resorts to have helicopters.

As established elsewhere, everything you're saying about UHC applies to property rights. If you feel that there's no moral component to it, perhaps you should question why many ACists feel that there's a moral component in the "ZOMG the STATE is STEALING using FORCE!" discussion.

There isn't. We already went through this.