Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Those people would be alive if they had had insurance. Not everyone can afford $3000 for colonoscopy.
|
You still haven't proven that, and you're still lying as usual.
The number of Americans with health insurance is ZERO.
Many Americans with health care coverage -- and that is what it is not "insurance" still die of what you call "preventable diseases."
You haven't prove those people would have sought care, even if they had an health care coverage plan.
And Medicine is not a Science. No such thing as a "preventable" illness or disease, since so many die of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
For the most part it has to do with preventive care...
|
So, you're saying Americans need health care coverage to keep from becoming obese? How exactly does that work, given than so many Americans with health care coverage are obese?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
For example, colonoscopy is expensive, but saves lives because it can detect cancers while they are still in curable early stages.
|
It saves some lives, not 100% of all lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA
I never said it was TRUE. That is a different matter/different thread. If we are going to address the OP in this thread and take it as fact (if you can disprove the fact that is another matter) then we need to address that fact specfically.
|
I am addresssing the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA
If 26,000 people were died due to access to health care because of lack of coverage, that is an appalling number.
|
It's 0.0083% of the population.
How is that appalling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA
So can we just discuss the point that 26,100 people died due to lack of healthcare?
|
Sure, we can discuss that just as soon as you prove that:
1] They would have sought medical treatment if they had health care coverage; and
2] That in seeking treatment, their condition would have been discovered; and
3] Since Medicine is not a Science, that they would have lived, and
4] That they would not have died of something else (since many have more than one disease or illness); and
5] You'll need to prove that the cause of death is the exact cause and not a factor, ie in cases where the cause of death is listed as pneumonia, when in fact it was HIV
As soon as you clear that up, we can get on with the discussion, unless your plan is to do nothing but rant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You are saying the same thing, yet accuse me of spinning something? Of course the reason of any bankcrupsy if the inability to pay bills. I am simply saying that in most cases the bills happen to be medical bills.
Some people just disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Not lies, but facts. 62% of all bankruptcies in US are because of medical bills.
|
State specifically, in no uncertain terms,
exactly how Obamacare will prevent that.
Because it won't prevent it, and in fact, it would actually increase the number of bankruptcies.
Which brings us back to the whole point of how much money should you spend on one person in a life-time for health care?
$1 Million per person per life-time? That works out to $13,350 per year for someone living to the age of 75, and would cost you $312 TRILLION and you ain't got that kind of money. If you do, then state in no uncertain terms where the money will come from, and do not use vague, ambiguous and nebulous terms like "taxing the rich."
Show your math. All of it, especially seeing how you will have to tax the rich to pay for Social Security, assuming you still want Social Security.
$500,000 per person per life-time? That comes to $156 TRILLION and works out to $6,700 per year for 75 years, per person. You ain't got that money either.
$250,000 per person per lifetime? That comes to $78 TRILLION and works out to $3,500 per year per person. You ain't got that kind of money either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
At least we have a high rate of health insurance coverage...
|
No, you don't. There are no Americans with "health insurance."
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Buying health insurance on the free market can be expensive for ordinary Americans...
|
Not true, because no one in the US can purchase health insurance. What you are purchasing is health coverage, which is not the same thing.
Maybe I should quote the definition of insurance from Black's yet again:
Black's:
Insurance is a contract whereby for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specific subject by specified perils.
What's the total loss for an insurance company on a $500,000 Life Insurance policy? $500,000. Nothing difficult about that.
What's the total loss for an insurance company on a $250,000 home-loss and $500,000 liability for an Home Insurance policy? That's easy: $750,000
What's the loss for an insurance company for a $30,000 auto, $25,000 in liability and $50,000 in property damage for an Auto Insurance policy? Doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar or "you-Harvard" to figure out that it is $105,000.
What's the loss for an insurance company for an health care plan?
You don't know. Neither does anyone else.
Insurance is about knowing ahead of time what the total damages are, and then assessing risk in order to obtain assets to cover the losses that are known in advance.
One of these things is not like the others....
You guys figure it out yet?
I'll put it another way, since the lot of you have such a difficult time with this. If your auto insurance was like an health care plan, none of you would be driving, because none of you could afford the cost of coverage. Likewise, none of you would ever own a home, because you would never be able to afford the cost of coverage.
Why can you afford auto insurance and home/renter's insurance and life insurance? Because the amount of loss is known in advance, and risk is assessed to offset costs.
The fact that health insurance does not exist in the United States, is one reason why you pay so much for health coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
and if they have pre-existing conditions unaffordable.
|
That isn't true either.
There are high risk drivers that can get auto insurance. The bottom line is that people with pre-existing conditions do not want to pay their fair share. They want everyone else to pay their costs for them, and they are too selfish to realize that no one has any money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Won't being able to switch jobs start your own business without fear of losing health insurance increase our freedom rather than decrease it?
|
You don't need Obamacare for that. What I'm hearing is that you insisted that your employer sponsor your health plan coverage, but you didn't have the courage or self-discipline to do the right thing, and you want the government to force you to do something that you should be doing yourself anyway.
You are responsible for your own health, not your employer, not the government and not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
a small quote:
Democrats will confine the unfortunate to many forms of deprivation, but not deprivation of basic medical care. Republicans will. The GOP is the only mainstream political party in the advanced world to hold this stance.
|
And basic medical care is defined as what, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I don't think health care should be a privilege depending on one's job.
|
And yet in the greatest of ironies, you refused to take responsibility for your own health plans, and instead sloughed that responsibility off on your employer, and then when you decided you no longer liked how your employer is handling your health care, you want the government to step in and take responsibility for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Eh. False choice. Health insurance is (for many) much more expensive than cable TV.
|
Then they can share an house or apartment with others to save money. They can cut down on their expenses.
There are many things they can do, they simply choose not do to them, and instead demand everyone else pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
You go to great lengths with your dissertation to justify selfishness and lack of compassion.
|
On the contrary. There's nothing selfish or apathetic about Reality™. This is another classic Life-Boat™ scenario.
100 people on a sinking ship; one life-boat that holds only 8 people. Conservatives will select people based on merit, perhaps 9-10 if their are children, and while 90 people will die, at least 10 will live.
Then we have Liberals who would try to cram all 100 people onto the life-boat with the end result being that everyone dies.
And
everyone dying is advantageous and beneficial how, exactly?
I'll sit back and wait while you all tap dance around for answers.
So, again, how exactly is Obamacare going to prevent medical bankruptcies?
How exactly is Obamacare going to prevent people from dying of "preventable" illnesses?
Mircea