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.
No, you don't get it at all. What Republicans objected to was the method used to provide health care, not the healthcare itself. Exactly the opposite of what you said. The issue is indeed the insurance and not the healthcare.
So you want us to forget that Republicans were also against Medicare and Medicaid?
As far as I know, the only proposal to provide health care for people that the Republicans have ever supported was Medicare Part D.
Everything else: pretend you are in favor of universal health care all you like, but you continue to oppose every mechanism yet devised or imagined to deliver it.
Our government has forced hospitals since 1986 to provide treatment to people regardless of 'citizenship, legal status or ability to pay'. So requiring insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions seems quite fair.
Not exactly. EMTALA requires hospitals to stabilize someone with a life-threatening condition or in active labor before sending them off to a "charity", e.g. government, hospital.
Not exactly. EMTALA requires hospitals to stabilize someone with a life-threatening condition or in active labor before sending them off to a "charity", e.g. government, hospital.
And if there's no "charity" who will take the patient, then what?
And if there's no "charity" who will take the patient, then what?
You just have to live in a major city that has one. My friend was in a motorcycle accident and the hospital stabilized him and then kicked him out or tried to. His mom was trying to have them treat him until another hospital would take him.
ONCE AGAIN, PEOPLE, THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION IS LIFE INSURANCE, NOT HEALTH INSURANCE OR MEDICAL TREATMENT!
Sheesh! I know some people have reading comprehension problems, but this is beyond ridiculous!
These liberal guys seem to be trying to get their masters talking points in about HEALTH insurance even when the topic isn't about that subject. Sad desperate little entitlement whores who cant even understand what LIFE insurance is.
Actually, once you accept that you should force people to buy health insurance without medical underwriting, the same exact darned arguments apply to life insurance.
After all, if a breadwinner dies their dependents may very well be pushed onto public support, so there is certainly a public interest in everyone carrying life insurance. From there all the same arguments about not doing medical underwriting and having a mandate apply just as well to life insurance as health - well-being of the survivors (or patients for health), free riding of people who don't get it and then need public support, a portion of the population being uninsurable or unable to afford insurance, etc, list is about the same as it is for health insurance. All the downsides are similar too; horribly unfair to younger, healthier people, forces citizens to buy a product from a private company, bureaucratically burdensome, expensive to implement, increases insurance prices, etc.
All said it is logically inconsistent to support one but not the other. It's not a case of slippery slope -- its the exact same list of positive and negatives, there is no meaningful difference.
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.
