If a person gets sick with a disease or disability they can't afford or not covered by insurance, who should pay for it? (elect, money)

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Not one leftie responded to my truthful statement about what Ron Paul was asked.

He was diractly asked "If a young man had the opportunity to purchase insurance, but refused to, and then had a serious accident, should he be allowed to die?" Ron Paul answered as I would have...."It's nobody elses responsibility to pay for his poor decision."

So no.....I personally wouldn't want to let him die, but HE made the decision before that to let himself die.

Once we get past feeling sorry for those who made poor decisions, the sooner we'll be back on track as a nation.

Place blame where it belongs.....

Should first responders and the ER delay any attempts at stabilizing someone who had a serious accident until they can ascertain if he carries adequate insurance?

Stabilizing someone who has had a serious accident usually involves surgery and hospitalization. It's impossible to predetermine the costs.

As an aside, dear old Ron Paul also advocated for selling all public land to the highest bidder.

I respected his predictability and consistency. Nothing more or less.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

Isn't this what Medicaid is for? If a person has exhausted his resources, then Medicaid kicks in and pays for their medical care.
I have a dear friend who was retired and had a nice nest egg for her golden years. She had a stroke which required that she have around the clock care in a facility. She has lived like this for over 10 years. Very few of us, even those who had saved and lived frugally, could afford to pay for this. Her husband was allowed to keep a fraction of their assets and their home, and once she had spent down the rest, Medicaid kicked in.
All our biggest fears should be that our healthy spouse will be made destitute taking care of us. It makes me angry that many people are on Medicaid their whole lives, yet hard working people who saved must be forced to spend everything before they can get it.

Nevada expanded their state Medicaid coverage to low-income adults, effective January 1, 2014.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

Are we living on the same planet? I couldn't buy health insurance for any price (and not that I would have been able to when I was 22 and unemployed out of college) when I tried to self-pay. Now, with a cancer diagnosis under my belt, no way in hell would anyone cover me knowing that my costs of care would be in $20,000 a year minimum for the foreseeable future. No one would cover my dad with diabetes. No one would cover my mom with high blood pressure and a few other things.

If all of my friends and family chipped in 10% for my cancer treatment, I wouldn't come CLOSE. Again, just 6 months of chemotherapy and related treatments cost almost 10x my salary. And I will be racking up major bills until I'm 5 years in remission.

Pre ACA, preexisting coverage was determined at the state level. 13 states had laws that prevented pre-existing riders to be attached to any individual healthcare insurance policy. The other states defaulted to a look back period that ranged from months to years to forever.

Not all states maintained high risk pools. Those that did, had caps on the number and conditions considered.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by T-310

Not society.

That's how it works in the third world.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by gtc08

i had 1500 in dental work done in 06. was told i had to pay 100 for it. was flat broke at the time. paid 100, never paid the rest back. i dont know who covered my other 1400, but good job to whoever did.

Probably me. The dentist charged me and his other patients $2000 for the same work you had done.
He also ran my credit card before beginning work and apologized and said he had been stiffed too many times.

[fumbling]

Originally Posted by janelle144

They why do people come to the US to get their operations? They can get them in the UK if they can wait for months on end and won't die first.

Because that's a right wing republican talking point that's been discredited by actual Britons and Canadians.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by surfman

The cost of emergency care for the uninsured is $4.7B year.

What's the source of this misinformation?

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by surfman

No, it doesn't!

Are you an American? If yes, how do you know it works?


I have clients in the UK and they ALL say their HC sucks balls.

Here are some of the more prominent single-payer myths:
Myth No. 1: Everyone has access to health care a single-payer system.
Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.
Myth No. 3: A single-payer system would save money on administrative costs.
Myth No. 4: Single-payer will provide fair and quality care for everyone.
Myth No. 5: Single-payer leaves medical decisions to patients & doctors.
Myth No. 6: Single-payer systems achieve better health outcomes.
Myth No. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing.
Myth No. 8: A single-payer system will not hamper medical research.
Myth No. 9: Single-payer will save money as patients seek care earlier.
Myth No. 10: The free market in health care has failed in the U.S.

More goodies from the Koch funded misinformation camp.

[fumbling]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

Some of us believe healthcare is a human right.

Others seem to have no issue with being the proverbial death panel and lowering the boom if one cannot pay.

Actually 90% of CD posters believe that, based on the following CD poll:

Do you see access to health care as a necessity, or luxury and privilege.

Only 10% want death panels and agonizing deaths and they are a vocal minority. Fortunately ACA prevailed and their sentiments are slowly dying.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by MIKEETC

That's how it should be.

[let them eat cake]

Except they don't eat it.

It becomes the cost of doing business which is a factor is the prices charged to everyone else.