Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
General attitude from those not in favor of Obamas efforts at affordable health care is= why should my tax dollars go into paying for your health care?
Also those not in favor of some form of national healthcare are convinced that the cost of such a program would sink the country.
They also think such social programs such as national healthcare are socialist and perhaps even Communist in nature.
So ultimately without something like Obamacare yes the woman will have to spend every last dime she has to pay for her own medical expenses.
And if the medical expenses dont get all her money sooner or later the nursing homes will..
They much prefer taxing the hell out of each other to prosecute foreign military incursions within countries that do not pose a verifiable threat.
They much prefer providing free cel phone plans to mothers of multiple kids from multiple fathers.
They much prefer supply food supplement subisidies to folks who purchase a bottle of water and get the face value of the certificate in cash to go out and buy more Meth with.
They much prefer throwing money at countries like Pakistan who reward them by harbouring the worst terrorist in history.
AND to top it all off, they much prefer doing all this crap with money borrowed from China!
Affordable Health Care act? No way Jose! We'd much rather play russian roulette with our personal well being.
They cannot learn anything from their own history. The President who fostered the social Security ACt was arguably the most villified individual for that pieces of legislation at the time but would any of them get rid of that now? Have they not enjoyed the benefits of and been proud of that facility for the better part of 50 years?
Silly people with the most screwed up set of priorities one could ever imagine.
.
What if she had over 100,000 dollars in savings for retirement. Should she be forced to have to deplete every last penny of her savings due to having cancer?
If she wants to live, yes.
She has a medical condition, which is costly to treat. What's wrong with buying the treatment with her own money?
You think other strangers should all pay for that? You can think so, and you can also form some sort of shared program with those who hold the same belief, therefore sharing risks. However, it is wrong for the government to force those who are not interested in this idea to contribute. Of course they bear the risks of getting sick someday and going bankrupt too, but that's their choice and one shouldn't deprive them of such choice.
If she wants to live, yes.
She has a medical condition, which is costly to treat. What's wrong with buying the treatment with her own money?
You think other strangers should all pay for that? You can think so, and you can also form some sort of shared program with those who hold the same belief, therefore sharing risks. However, it is wrong for the government to force those who are not interested in this idea to contribute. Of course they bear the risks of getting sick someday and going bankrupt too, but that's their choice and one shouldn't deprive them of such choice.
I think the gist of the scenario was to point out that in the USA losing your job and your healthcare at the same time you are now on your own and could conceivably lose everything if medical problems arise.
If she wants to live, yes.
She has a medical condition, which is costly to treat. What's wrong with buying the treatment with her own money?
You think other strangers should all pay for that? You can think so, and you can also form some sort of shared program with those who hold the same belief, therefore sharing risks. However, it is wrong for the government to force those who are not interested in this idea to contribute. Of course they bear the risks of getting sick someday and going bankrupt too, but that's their choice and one shouldn't deprive them of such choice.
This above is the poster child statement for what has destroyed the American Healthcare system.
Thank you for putting into words the exact reasoning behind 60 years of failed attempts to rectify healthcare failure in this country.
You either continue to pay ever higher premiums through your private healthcare plan for those that are uninsured or you can choose to begin the process of distribution of risk via the government which has to take the reins due to the greed of the healthcare insurance companies.
This above is the poster child statement for what has destroyed the American Healthcare system.
Thank you for putting into words the exact reasoning behind 60 years of failed attempts to rectify healthcare failure in this country.
You either continue to pay ever higher premiums through your private healthcare plan for those that are uninsured or you can choose to begin the process of distribution of risk via the government which has to take the reins due to the greed of the healthcare insurance companies.
Tick tock, the bomb continues to count down.
I am not agains government organized healthcare system. I am just saying the government can't force those who don't want to be part of it to join. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Say if 100% of the workers are willing to participate, great, they pay and get the coverage. If 85% like the idea, good too. The remaining 15% don't have to pay and they can choose to buy private insurance.
I am not agains government organized healthcare system. I am just saying the government can't force those who don't want to be part of it to join. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Say if 100% of the workers are willing to participate, great, they pay and get the coverage. If 85% like the idea, good too. The remaining 15% don't have to pay and they can choose to buy private insurance.
Tell me what's wrong with that?
Problem with relying on insurance companies for your health care is they call the shots on whether you get it or not and what its going to cost, could be $300 a month for you or $1300 for the guy next door, also factors such as
Pre-existing conditions
Co-pays
Caps
Lose your job? lose your insurance
And any other excuse they can find to deny you coverage when you need it..
With universal health care you are covered from cradle to grave,end of story..
Problem with your opt out scenario is if you do choose to opt out who pays if you lose your insurance coverage then befall catastrophic medical problems....yeah the tax payer.
Problem with relying on insurance companies for your health care is they call the shots on whether you get it or not and what its going to cost, could be $300 a month for you or $1300 for the guy next door, also factors such as
Pre-existing conditions
Co-pays
Caps
Lose your job? lose your insurance
And any other excuse they can find to deny you coverage when you need it..
With universal health care you are covered from cradle to grave,end of story..
Problem with your opt out scenario is if you do choose to opt out who pays if you lose your insurance coverage then befall catastrophic medical problems....yeah the tax payer.
I like the idea of co-pays. Canada should adopt that. Too many patients visit the doctors when just buying some OTC for $6 will solve the problem.
Caps is probably a good idea too.
The idea is that when something is free, people tend to abuse it.
For opt-outs, the trouble is more on themselves than on taxpayers: heavy bills, bankruptcy etc. You would need to liquidate their own assets such as cars and houses before tax payers incurr any loss.
Phone around and see how many US private insurance companies would have paid for that surgery. Then come back and let us know the comparative results.
When I lived in Canada, everything was always paid for without any questions. My friend in Quebec has a home dialysis machine in his house, which runs for 9 hours every night while he sleeps, and he hasn't paid a penny out of his pocket, and is on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, for which he will also not pay a penny. When you're talking to a US insurance company, you might also ask them how much the copay would be if a patient had a home dialysis machine.
Here, by the way, is a report of what an American had to go through, just to get a US insurance company to approve $1,000 expense for a prosthetic appliance to alleviate the symptoms of the same condition for her child.
Phone around and see how many US private insurance companies would have paid for that surgery. Then come back and let us know the comparative results.
When I lived in Canada, everything was always paid for without any questions. My friend in Quebec has a home dialysis machine in his house, which runs for 9 hours every night while he sleeps, and he hasn't paid a penny out of his pocket, and is on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, for which he will also not pay a penny. When you're talking to a US insurance company, you might also ask them how much the copay would be if a patient had a home dialysis machine.
Here, by the way, is a report of what an American had to go through, just to get a US insurance company to approve $1,000 expense for a prosthetic appliance to alleviate the symptoms of the same condition for her child.
Being free doesn't mean it is the best way to do things. It simply means others are paying for it.
If you incur huge medical costs, you are supposed to pay at least part of it. Offering anything completely free is almost always a bad idea.
Phone around and see how many US private insurance companies would have paid for that surgery. Then come back and let us know the comparative results.
When I lived in Canada, everything was always paid for without any questions. My friend in Quebec has a home dialysis machine in his house, which runs for 9 hours every night while he sleeps, and he hasn't paid a penny out of his pocket, and is on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, for which he will also not pay a penny. When you're talking to a US insurance company, you might also ask them how much the copay would be if a patient had a home dialysis machine.
Here, by the way, is a report of what an American had to go through, just to get a US insurance company to approve $1,000 expense for a prosthetic appliance to alleviate the symptoms of the same condition for her child.
TBH, having better healthcare then the US isn't much of an accomplishment and we spend far too much time looking at them and being self satisfied and should instead be looking at more similar systems in Europe, East Asia, and Oceania to see what they're doing that we can learn from, or what mistakes we ought to avoid. Canadian healthcare can be a fail and still have better outcomes than the US, that doesn't mean we don't have room for improvements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
