Hello again:

I addition to sGt's cogent remarks, I suggest simply listing a bunch of charity's where people CAN get help doesn't tell me that they DO get help.

Besides, in THIS great country, when a person gets sick, it's a time when they should be taken care of. Instead, we require a large percentage of them to start begging... That is DISGUSTING, plain and simple.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

I addition to sGt's cogent remarks, I suggest simply listing a bunch of charity's where people CAN get help doesn't tell me that they DO get help.

Besides, in THIS great country, when a person gets sick, it's a time when they should be taken care of. Instead, we require a large percentage of them to start begging... That is DISGUSTING, plain and simple.

---

I don't know who begs for health care, if you want health care you get health care. If you can't pay it you don't pay it. We've been round and round on this, and while it sucks that indigents and others clog up our ER's THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO WITHOUT HEALTH CARE.

Nobody has to go without health care in this country already and you all know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't know who begs for health care, if you want health care you get health care. If you can't pay it you don't pay it. We've been round and round on this, and while it sucks that indigents and others clog up our ER's THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO WITHOUT HEALTH CARE.

Nobody has to go without health care in this country already and you all know it.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I DON'T know it. You SAY people get care at the ER or from charity's, but I DON'T BELIEVE IT! If you are UNINSURED and you need an operation to cure your CANCER, you won't get it at the ER, and I don't believe that a charity is going to pay for it.

People DO die from being without health insurance in this country, and you all know it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I DON'T know it. You SAY people get care at the ER or from charity's, but I DON'T BELIEVE IT! If you are UNINSURED and you need an operation to cure your CANCER, you won't get it at the ER, and I don't believe that a charity is going to pay for it.

People DO die from being without health insurance in this country, and you all know it.

---

People die for other reasons, they don't die from "being without insurance." I read where this study that says all these thousands die from being without insurance was a myth. They used old data and many of those who died actually died with insurance that was acquired after the study period if I recall. I will post it if I can find it again, but meanwhile stop buying into every talking point... that's what you tell us to do isn't it?

Now for a nice spin on your claim...

Quote:

---

CNN reported that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health insurance and there were 2,426,264 total deaths in the U.S. last year according to the CDC.

Since 45,000 didn't have health insurance it is logical to assume that 2,381,264 had health insurance but died anyway.

So if you have health insurance be prepared to die.

We now return you to normal programming.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

CNN reported that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health insurance and there were 2,426,264 total deaths in the U.S. last year according to the CDC.

Since 45,000 didn't have health insurance it is logical to assume that 2,381,264 had health insurance but died anyway.

So if you have health insurance be prepared to die.

We now return you to normal programming. ..

---

What you have proven is death is inevitable so it is pointless to have health insurance, you will die whether you have it or not. Therefore what is this debate about, surely not the benefits of health insurance. Health insurance is a method of paying now for the costs you might incur later, but as your system works on the assumption you are healthy and employed anyway, you are not getting the cover you are actually paying for. This is because insurance is not about meeting costs or making payouts but accumulating wealth. It is about risk management, and you are the risk. Premiums will always exceed costs

So you need a different principle in operation to achieve the objective of covering the costs of illness. A social contract where you pay into a pool and the pool meets your costs when incurred. This is what has been implemented in countries with universal health care and it works well. Perhaps this pool might be administered by an insurance company for a fee, or you may have some form of additional cover, but it is definitely a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So you need a different principle in operation to achieve the objective of covering the costs of illness. A social contract where you pay into a pool and the pool meets your costs when incurred. This is what has been implemented in countries with universal health care and it works well. Perhaps this pool might be administered by an insurance company for a fee, or you may have some form of additional cover, but it is definately a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.

---

This may be the best worded argument for a universal coverage system I have ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

but it is definately a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.

---

You think the fox is guarding the hen house now? Wait until the Feds are guarding it. Unbelievable. LOL!

We now know that if the Senate bill is passed you could be put into jail if you refuse to sign on to an insurance plan.
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com
I'm guessing that penalty will not apply to illegal aliens .

I'm wondering how many in DC are thinking of this mandate as a revenue enhancement for the government. A $2000 per year "penalty" versus a $500 per month premium... this much math a lot of people can do.

Hello:

So, the new secret plot the Dems are hatching up is to put people in JAIL if they don't buy insurance, huh? Would that be BEFORE or AFTER they've seen the death panel? But, of course, if you're a Republican or white, the OTHER secret plots would have already disposed of you. Same thing if you're poor or old.

So, I wonder whose going to be left to put in jail?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

So, the new secret plot the Dems are hatching up is to put people in JAIL if they don't buy insurance, huh?

---

What secret plot? Here's the note to Sen. Ensign, it speaks for itself.

Hello again, Steve:

I can't read it. It's JIBBERISH. If I read it correctly, please explain, in ENGLISH, what the following phrase means?

"... wilful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like, may be charged... "

That sentence makes absolutely NO sense. "Pay" what, to whom, and for what isn't mentioned...

In fact, it looks like a sanction for violation of a TAX code rather than anything to do with the health care debate...

Help me out here.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

What you have proven is death is inevitable so it is pointless to have health insurance, you will die whether you have it or not. Therefore what is this debate about, surely not the benefits of health insurance. Health insurance is a method of paying now for the costs you might incur later, but as your system works on the assumption you are healthy and employed anyway, you are not getting the cover you are actually paying for. This is because insurance is not about meeting costs or making payouts but accumulating wealth. It is about risk management, and you are the risk. premiums will always exceed costs

So you need a different principle in operation to achieve the objective of covering the costs of illness. A social contract where you pay into a pool and the pool meets your costs when incurred. This is what has been implemented in countries with universal health care and it works well. Perhaps this pool might be administered by an insurance company for a fee, or you may have some form of additional cover, but it is definately a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.

---

So... we should pay according to ability, and get use according to need?

"Who is John Galt?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I can't read it. It's JIBBERISH. If I read it correctly, please explain, in ENGLISH, what the following phrase means?

"... wilful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like, may be charged... "

That sentence makes absolutely NO sense. "Pay" what, to whom, and for what isn't mentioned...

---

Do I have to do all the work for you? Follow the links in the article tom linked to...

"Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation."

Quote:

---

In fact, it looks like a sanction for violation of a TAX code rather than anything to do with the health care debate...

---

You'd be right, under the Senate plan if you don't buy insurance the IRS would enforce the penalty which COULD be imprisonment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

This may be the best worded argument for a universal coverage system I have ever seen.

---

Thank you, It helps to think outside the system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

So....we should pay according to ability, and get use according to need?

"Who is John Galt?"

---

Yes, that's the idea because you don't know when you might have the need and lack the means to pay. Serious illness often removes the means to pay at time of greatest need

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE

Most charitable organizations specialize in certain problems such as cancer. But what about physicals, shots, etc, that people need? I don't think it makes sense having all 40 million uninsured people using these places, they would run out of money in a heartbeat.

---

Sarge,

Have you ever heard of free clinics?

Pretty much every urban hospital has a free clinic system attached to it specifically to help the people we are talking about. There are also churches and other groups that run free clinics. Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies also fund free clinics throughout the country.

You are worried about these systems running out of money, but you aren't worried about the government --- which just announced that it will be operating Social Security in the red over the next two years due to high unemployment and increased retirement, and which has bankrupted Medicare and Medicaid, and which currently has a $3 Trillion budget deficit and over $50 trillion in unfunded debt (including money owed to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), and which has a deficit net worth of $-12 Trillion --- is going to run out of money?

Please explain how you can come to that conclusion logically. Do you really think that the government is BETTER at handling money than the private sector?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

I addition to sGt's cogent remarks, I suggest simply listing a bunch of charity's where people CAN get help doesn't tell me that they DO get help.

---

Now explain to me, if help is demonstrably available (by your own admission, now) but people don't take advantage of that opportunity, why it is MY problem to help them? Or any other tax-payer's problem? Or the government's problem?

These people aren't being denied the care they need. They are refusing to take that care... at least according to your own statement above that the charities ARE there but people don't use them. That's THEIR problem, not mine or any other taxpayer's.

Quote:

---

Besides, in THIS great country, when a person gets sick, it's a time when they should be taken care of. Instead, we require a large percentage of them to start begging... That is DISGUSTING, plain and simple.

Excon

---

We don't require them to beg. The charities are there for them to take advantage of without having to beg for one red cent. At WORST they have to fill out a form that is no more onerous to complete than the form they would have to fill out at their doctor's office anyway.

The help is available without the government getting involved. You know it, we know it, the American people know it... and that is why they ain't buying the crap that Obama is selling. Why you continue to buy it and try to sell it to others is beyond me.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I DON'T know it. You SAY people get care at the ER or from charity's, but I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

---

Well if Excon doesn't believe it, it must not be true. Even if it is demonstrable that it IS true.

Great argument excon. Right about on par with NK's argument that if he hasn't seen it, then the government statistics of Canada must be wrong.

Quote:

---

If you are UNINSURED and you need an operation to cure your CANCER, you won't get it at the ER, and I don't believe that a charity is going to pay for it.

---

Well, your belief is WRONG.

Quote:

---

People DO die from being without health insurance in this country, and you all know it.

Excon

---

Not because they have to... they only die in this country from "lack of health care" because they don't take advantage of what is available to them from other sources.

And how many people die in this country from lack of healthcare? How widespread is this "crisis" in our healthcare system?

I'll bet it's some very small fraction of 1%, if that many. After all, the total number of Americans without health care is 3% of the population. And not all of them, not even a large portion of them, are currently sick. And of the number that are sick, a majority are not dying and have not died. Which places the actual number at much lower than 1%.

Which does NOT constitute a widespread crisis by any stretch of the imagination.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

We don't require them to beg. The charities are there for them to take advantage of without having to beg for one red cent. At WORST they have to fill out a form that is no more onerous to complete than the form they would have to fill out at their doctor's office anyway.

The help is available without the government getting involved. You know it, we know it, the American people know it... and that is why they ain't buying the crap that Obama is selling. Why you continue to buy it and try to sell it to others is beyond me.

---

Hello again, El:

So, just ONE phone call and a form is ALL that stands in the way of getting a charity to pay some six figures worth of medical costs for an uninsured person...

Is that your story? You're sticking to that, huh? Like Barney Frank said to the dinning room table he was talking to at the time, what planet do you normally reside on?

excon

PS> Please try to read my stuff a little better. I AM pretty clear, unless of course, you WANT to twist what I say... But, as usual, I ain't going to let you get away with it...

My recognition above that there ARE charity's doesn't mean that I think ALL charity's PAY whatever any applicant asks them to, even if they fill out the FORM.. I'm STILL laughing at your suggestion that they do.