Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
I blame Jojan for not giving these people the money for their treatment. How many people are you going to let die?
|
Touche!
Smiling....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey
FACT: Preventative medical care is key, and the ER does not provide it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Judging from the posts by so many on this thread, health insurance does nothing to help with being able to obtain medical treatment that might prevent death. All of you that believe this, get rid of your insurance or Medicare! You will save $$$$ and still have the same advantage as if you did have insurance.
|
Do you not have a Food Stamp program?
Yes, you do, and yet according to slanted liberal studies you still have thousands of hungry children and then now we have the new thing of "food insecurity."
Can you not identify and grasp the central concept here?
You have people with health care coverage, yet they refuse to take advantage of it, just like you have people with food/nutrition coverage (in the form of Food Stamps) who refuse to take advantage of that, and you have literally thousands of other government or funded programs that engage in things preventative, and yet people refuse to take advantage of them.
If someone receiving Food Stamps refuses to feed their children, what makes you think they'll take them to receive medical care, and not just any medical care, but
preventative medical care?
And by the way, how many people covered by Medicaid died of "preventable" diseases? How many on Medicare? How many with health care coverage?
You Liberals just don't understand the reality, which is that you can lead an horse to water, but you cannot make the horse drink.
Also, I would point out that no Americans have health insurance. Not one. Not one stinking person in the US has health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The idea is to have everyone get their own private insurance, aka pay for it themselves. However, that seems to be opposed by most people here.
|
Uh, they refuse to pay for it themselves.
There is nothing barring anyone from obtaining health care coverage. It is a matter of choice for most people. Some people would rather have cable TV than health insurance.
By the way, did you analyze the Opportunity Costs here?
You're forcing people to pay for insurance. Note that those monies cannot be taxed and end up as Sales Tax revenue for the State, nor can they be used to consume goods and services.
In plain English, your economy will take a further hit for that, resulting in more job losses.
Congratulations on your brilliance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
If you think making people get their own private insurance is charity, then we have a differing opinon on the definition of charity.
I see it more like giving the hungry man a fishing pole to catch his own fish, rather than giving him a fish every day.
|
But you're not giving an hungry man a fishing pole. You're beating the man over the head with the fishing pole and forcing him to take it, even though he neither needs nor wants the fishing pole, perhaps because he already has crab boxes to catch crab with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
No one argues insurance makes people immortal.
No one is blaming anyone. People who didn't have insurance, and not enough money, decided to not seek preventive screenings like colonoscopy, simply because it was so expensive.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out the point of this thread is that over 26,000 people died an early, preventable death because they did not have health insurance and could not afford treatment.
|
Neither of you has met the burden of proof.
In order to prove you case, the first thing -- and I'll give you a lesser burden -- is that you must prove with a preponderance of the evidence
that those people would have sought medical treatment if they had been insured.
You see, there are many people who have coverage, but they don't go to the doctor when they become ill for whatever reason. They often make 1001 excuses why they can't go to the doctor, or put it off for any number of reasons. Often they don't even know they are ill.
Then you have to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that their condition would have been detected. Hindsight is 20/20. It's really easy to look at people after they die and figure out what they had, but that doesn't mean it would have been detected during life.
You must also demonstrate that the cause of death as listed was actually the true cause of death.
Just look at the number of people who died of HIV, but the death certificate says "pneumonia." So you're going to see "pneumonia" and scream that their death was preventable, when in fact pneumonia was not the true cause of death.
You're also falsely assuming that medicine is science -- it is not. Just because the field of medicine uses the Scientific Method occasionally doesn't make medicine a science. Science is universal, meaning that something is true always and forever.
Four people with the same bacterial infection, you prescribe 500 mg Ampicillin and what are the results? 2 people live, one person's condition rapidly deteriorates and one dies.
That is not science. Science says all 4 should live, but that wasn't the case. So you also have to prove that even if they had health care, and they went for treatment, and it was discovered, that they treatment plan would have been effective.
Precisely because medicine is not a science, you cannot automatically assume that Treatment = Cure.
Just because people undergo treatment, does not mean they will survive.
Also, the article claims only that they did not have "health insurance" (snicker -- since no one in America has health insurance). What your article does not say is whether or not they had access to health care and treatment. There are many who do not have an health care coverage plan, yet have access to treatment -- I'm once such person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Nah, I am pretty much done here, having repeated the same points many times only to see them hit a brick wall.
|
You mean the same "talking points?" That is your failure. Try arguing from facts, instead of biased propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The discussion was always about preventive medicine, which the uninsured did not have access to...
|
But you have repeatedly failed to prove that, despite having been called on it.
Just because someone doesn't have "health insurance" (snicker) it doesn't logically follow, nor is it necessarily true, that they do not have access to health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
...., it was never about preventing people falling off ladders, and any one who thinks it might have been about falling off ladders is either not getting it, or simply playing games.
|
You also failed to prove those people would have sought medical treatment, had they been covered by an health plan.
In the future, try using unbiased studies that are founded on seeking the truth, instead of spreading disinformation and propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I realize not everyone is as well off as myself, and I don't mind paying my taxes, as long as I believe the money goes into forming a more perfect Union, and I believe it does in this case.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|
You might want to have a REDO FROM START in 9th Grade Grammar. I can't imagine you scored higher than a "D" or "F" in the class.
in Order to form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence
promote the general Welfare
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
"...in Order to form a more perfect Union..." is what?
A prepositional phrase.
If we look at the remainder...
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence
promote the general Welfare
...we can clearly see that "establishing Justice," "insuring Tranquility" and "providing for common defence" does what, exactly?
...Promotes the general Welfare....
...and by promoting the general Welfare through the establishment of Justice, the insurance of Tranquility and the common defence we do what exactly?
...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Does everyone understand that?
The three basic concepts are Justice, Peace and Security.
Those three concepts are what promote the general Welfare.
It would just kill you to go read the committee meeting notes and the letters by Morris, probably because Truth would just burst your little fantasy bubble.
Still spanking...
Mircea
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.
