Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
As I already noted and you ignored is that you already pay for the healthcare of those lazy people and as someone else noted it costs you more than if they were in a proper healthcare system.
|
Yes. but I am willing to pay that extra cost as a benefit of sending the signal that the "payment" is not an entitlement. When a person is treated for an emergency and cannot pay, he still is given a bill; the message is that he SHOULD pay. We thus preserve the correct view: that his health care is not a right, not somethign he's due merely by virtue of his existence.
Quote:
|
Besides that though the fact is most of the people going bankrupt due to health related costs are employed people.
|
Once again, I would support a system that limited its benefits to the employed.
Quote:
Imagine Bricker as a new attorney opening up his own law firm. Bricker, the hard working but not yet rich attorney, has a heart attack and needs bypass surgery. Bricker's health insurer refuses to pay because Bricker was treated for acne years ago.
Bricker now goes bankrupt because he cannot pay the medical bills. The courts liquidate Bricker's house and other stuff. Since Bricker is laid up recovering he cannot work.
|
Bricker's debate partner uncritically cites anecdotes from an advocacy group, and ignores the fact that federal law already prohibits the denial of coverage for any pre-existing condition for which no treatment has been sought for six months prior to the application.
So the "Ohh, scary!" acne story is pure bunk. Bricker still has a heart attack from the stress of dealing with dishonest debate tactics from others, but fortunately his high-schol acne plays no part in his coverage.
[/quote]