What does this even mean? When it comes to someone that has lost their job and been diagnosed with cancer - what is your solution?

jj it means that a lot of people in your above situation are there at their own hands. my mother included yes she has cancer yes she has no insurance and yes she is about to file bankruptcy and lose her house
the thing is she is in this situation through nobodys fault but her own.
it was her bad decisions that led to this and now she will suffer the consequences.

Or, we could have a functioning system where that does not have to happen. It's all of our fault that your mom's situation happened. One of the big side effects of not having UHC are all these medical bill related bankruptcies. We can have a better system.

no its the fact that ive been telling her for 13 yrs to get insurance. she chose cable cars trips eating out all the time. she had the money it was expensive but she said whats point of getting it if i have to live like a caveman i want to enjoy life. besides nothing will happen to me.

lololololol

Or we could have just not fallen for the whole "contract with america" scam and we would all be better off.

leoslayer - But you're still saying she should be treated even though she can't afford it, right?

Declaring bankruptcy means that she isn't going to pay for all of her treatment - which means that the State is paying for it. By your logic its not enough that she loses all her belongings, she should be cut off and left to die if she can't afford it.

I'm happy to not live in that world. If that means I have to accept a flawed system - so be it.

actually she got a lot of her med bill paid by some charities. the point is her whole life she has made terrible decisions with money. always did whatever felt good and never thought about the future consequences. if she had been more fiscally responsible her whole life she would not be in this spot.
im telling you lots of people think this way they just do. then once its too late they ask why is this happening to me.

so you need to think about this when you quote all the people who are uninsured.

That's a huge part of why people want UHC. People like your mother get a ton of treatment and then file for bankruptcy and everyone who actually pays for their care foots the bill. Also, as you have pointed out, people make terrible -EV choices regarding healthcare, only helping the case.

Basically, by not having UHC you are trying to fight for people's right to do what they want with their money. If people want to go out and buy a Lexus then you want them to be able to forgo insurance to do so. However, if you're not going to be heartless enough to not treat them when they get cancer, all of your pro-liberty arguments are just for show.

its just my main argument for ppl who say nobody can get/ afford coverage.

i have tons of reasons that i am leery of it.

like i said once we have it it will be hard to get rid of if it turns out to be a nightmare

If someone is free not to buy insurance, the provider should certainly be free not to provide service. I think some charities and good natured providers would provide services, but they certainly shouldn't be required to.

If what you say is true, the conditions under which free markets are efficient do not hold. Let's have some government interference to fix this.

yes nobody forced the doctors to help. it was a combined effort of a christian medical charity, a fund raiser her church threw and the doctors deciding theyd cut some costs

yes they probably wont get the full bill and i will encourage her to try and pay them off later.

I'm not an expert on US medical law - but I'm almost 100% sure this isn't the case. My understanding is that its illegal for a hospital to refuse life saving treatments to patients just because they don't have insurance or are unlikely to be able to pay for treatment.

From my understanding every state has a law on the books that hospitals can't turn away anyone in dire need.

I, and many others, certainly disagree.

However, I think this is a reasonable position to have - so long as you say it outright. The problem is when people refuse to agree with your point but still claim its unfair to require people to have insurance.

im probably wrong but i think its for trauma and immediately life threatening. ie heart attack stroke gun shot.

im not sure cancer that would take months if not years to kill you would qualify.

Estimates ranges between 10-20 percent of every dollar spent on Medicare/Caid is fraud. My dad has worked in Medicare/Caid in Florida for a long time where the problem is huge. People use each other's cards, they resell their prescriptions, doctors double/triple charge for one appointment, etc.


Like what? What do libertarians want to force other people to do?

Italy is also going bankrupt. In an actual free market there is more competition than in a universal one. This is my opinion, so I guess we can't make any progress there. The insurance is where I want the competition. The regulations on the insurance also get passed down to the doctors and hospitals as well indirectly.

LOL.

umm...the fact that you're answering this statement:

With anecdotes(twice now) says quite a lot. Not to mention, you completely missed the analogy regarding the old ppl(it was aimed at anecdotal evidence). I guess I shouldn't be surprised with your responses.

Actually, I've had to study the issue well in depth and well beyond my own personal surroundings. Those personal surroundings include incidents I could try and cherry pick to try and say it's the norm, such as you're trying to pass off here. I recommend looking beyond your limited view sometime.

Until then, hey, believe what you want.

edit: bonus points for alluding to the US living in a meritocracy.

b

Estimates by who?


b

Live like history never existed and won't repeat itself.

b

First, please notice that you changed the wording.

Second, the NAP is all about controlling what people can and can't do. Right? From one site:

Sounds like someone wants to control other people. You can claim that its only controlling people in a way that is morally correct and necessary for society to function - but that's more or less what every group claims about the ways that they want to control people. And, it's why its ******ed to make the claim that a group is wrong just because they want to control other people in some way.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=medicare+fraud

What? How are we forcing you to do this?

You quoted other people and then said I changed my words. Government has a monopoly on violence. We give that to them voluntarily. Their job is to protect us against violence and other violations of our rights by sometimes using when necessary violence. This is the one thing you as a citizen are not allowed to do. You can not try to control other individuals with force. Neither should the government. Their entire job is to protect and serve the people.

krmont,

I quoted the sequence of the conversation. leoslayer said something and I responded to him. You quoted me and asked me a question that appeared directly related to my post - except you changed the world "control" (which both leoslayer and I had used) to "force".

Your last post is great and all* - but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote or the question you asked me.





* Note, it's not great. I was being sarcastic.