Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,080 posts, read 10,642,680 times
Reputation: 9714

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nezlie View Post
The ACA (Obamacare) goes into effect Jan 1, 2014.... about 2 and a half months from now. At that time, adults and children that have health insurance purchased through the exchanges can start using it.

Prior to that time, uninsured people have just shown up at the Emergency Rooms in hospitals for treatment of illness or injuries, etc. We have been paying for that in the higher costs that these places charge. It's passed along.

My question is primarily for those that are against Obamacare. Do you think that uninsured people should also be turned away from Emergency Rooms since we have to pay for their care?
There will still be uninsured people showing up at the ER to get medical care. The ACA doesn't change that. The only thing it actually does is make it easier for the hospitals and insurance companies to make a profit and make it harder for the average middle class American to keep food on the table and the lights turned on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
No one should ever go without access to health care. In my opinion (and a growing number of Americans') it's a basic human right. The conservative stance on this issue is helping doom their party because they espouse a world where only the wealthy should have access to health care. That's just not the way a majority of Americans feel about the subject. You'll hear a lot of conservative rhetoric about how most Americans don't like the ACA. A vast majority of the people who "don't like the ACA" do so because they feel that it does not go far enough in giving us the true goal: single payer. I defend the ACA tooth and nail but you could still technically lump me into the "don't like" category because of that fact.
So you don't like it but you still defend it? There's a word for people who praise something that they don't like. That word is "hypocrite". The ACA is a terrible piece of legislation that needs to go away. When Americans asked for healthcare reform, nobody envisioned the ACA. What they were actually asking for was a system that would control the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. What they got was a law that not only encourages those costs to skyrocket, but ensures that a staggering number of middle class Americans are involved in the giant ponzi scheme - mostly as the source of funds and very rarely as the recipients of any true benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:02 AM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,224,460 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
But it gives more people access to it.
Access was never a problem, the cost was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Houston
5,993 posts, read 3,714,476 times
Reputation: 4160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
So you don't like it but you still defend it? There's a word for people who praise something that they don't like. That word is "hypocrite". The ACA is a terrible piece of legislation that needs to go away. When Americans asked for healthcare reform, nobody envisioned the ACA. What they were actually asking for was a system that would control the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. What they got was a law that not only encourages those costs to skyrocket, but ensures that a staggering number of middle class Americans are involved in the giant ponzi scheme - mostly as the source of funds and very rarely as the recipients of any true benefit.
I gave the reason why I defend it. It's a step that no one was willing to take. Don't like it? Then support single payer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Houston
5,993 posts, read 3,714,476 times
Reputation: 4160
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Access was never a problem, the cost was.
Are you kidding??? Access has been a huge problem in the last couple of decades. That's why they enacted the EMTALA. It's not much but it's better than letting people die because they can't afford treatment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:07 AM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,224,460 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
I gave the reason why I defend it. It's a step that no one was willing to take. Don't like it? Then support single payer.
Single payer doesn't change the cost of healthcare either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:07 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 18,994,110 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezlie View Post
The ACA (Obamacare) goes into effect Jan 1, 2014.... about 2 and a half months from now. At that time, adults and children that have health insurance purchased through the exchanges can start using it.

Prior to that time, uninsured people have just shown up at the Emergency Rooms in hospitals for treatment of illness or injuries, etc. We have been paying for that in the higher costs that these places charge. It's passed along.

My question is primarily for those that are against Obamacare. Do you think that uninsured people should also be turned away from Emergency Rooms since we have to pay for their care?
No.

But since the leftie claims of ER abuse is at the root of obamacare, I fully expect ER's to turn people away for non emergency situations.....because they now will have all the coverage that they need.

If a 27 year old shows up at the ER with a life threatening injury or illness, who hasn't bought a policy OR hasn't paid the "tax", they should be turned away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,080 posts, read 10,642,680 times
Reputation: 9714
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
I gave the reason why I defend it. It's a step that no one was willing to take. Don't like it? Then support single payer.
There is a reason that no one was willing to take it. It was a step that shouldn't have been taken in the first place. Your reason for defending it doesn't change the fact that you are defending something which you know is flawed in the first place. I don't support the ACA, nor do I support single payer. Neither are needed in order to control the costs of medical care, they are both just different approaches to wealth redistribution on a grand scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:09 AM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,224,460 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
Are you kidding??? Access has been a huge problem in the last couple of decades. That's why they enacted the EMTALA. It's not much but it's better than letting people die because they can't afford treatment.
I repeat, access wasn't the problem, the cost of healthcare was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:09 AM
 
13,675 posts, read 8,959,473 times
Reputation: 10385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
There used to be Charity Hospitals that took charity cases.

Leftists passed a law in the early 1990's forcing private hospitals to take in the indigent and deadbeats and forcing those WITH insurance (or just those who paid their bills) to pay for them.

Now we have out of control health care costs.

Let's see, who caused this problem? Even a leftist should be able to figure that out.

But.....besides that...... the leeches will be back in the ER seeking their 'free' care as soon as they neglect to pay their deductible and copays at the doctors' offices.

Within a couple years, no doctors will see patients with Obamacare insurance.

The problem isn't the system. The problem is the leeches.
Are you speaking of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of April 1986, signed into law by President Reagan? At the time Congress had a Democrat House and a Republican Senate? (note that the Senate was won by the Democrats in November 1986, the mid-year elections).

I sorta think you are.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA): what it is and what it means for physicians
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 08:10 AM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,509,240 times
Reputation: 6392
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
That was actually Reagan in 1986.

I recall it being implemented in FL in the early 1990's.

But.... your post illustrates why Republicans should NEVER sign legislation that Dems support.

So long as there are people who get a free ride, the system can't work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top