What’s this? Hmmmm…
As a resident of Pennsylvania who has been similarly aided by Medicaid (couldn’t afford the COBRA, and had to have lifesaving emergency surgery) I can vouch that this is how it works here. You get medical assistance, backdated to your admittance to the hospital, it covers all the bills directly pertaining to that hospitalization (so long as they are submitted in a timely fashion, that anesthesiologist who didn’t bill me for six months really screwed things up for me) but not any follow-up care (not even post-surgical checkups) nor needed follow-on medication, physical therapy or other care unless you go through the normal application process and qualify. And if you’re an unmarried person with no children, you do not qualify for Medicaid in Pennsylvania unless you are disabled. Period.
This is when Carol Stream wants us to believe that she and her husband pay nearly half (and soon more than that) of their ~7 figure annual income in federal income taxes, then will revise that and say that it’s federal plus state, then revise and say that it’s federal, state and local, then revise again and say it’s federal, state, local and social security and medicare, then revise again and add in the car registration, ad infinitum.
Because by attacking you they won’t have to deal with their own fears and ignorance. They’re attacking the messenger, rather than deal with the message.
Well, many believe that the ability for the poor (and, just as importantly, those who are not poor, but just have the bad luck to get a serious illness that costs more to fix than their insurance is willing to pay) to die solely because of their lack of money reflects a weakness in the system that the free market can’t fix (private corporations being, they argue, just as bad as the government, albeit in completely different ways). Why do you believe otherwise? If I’m wrong, and you don’t, please explain.
And do you believe that private donations (that you mentioned you make, and good for you) is sufficient to cover demand? If it’s not, is this a bad thing that needs to be fixed? If so, how? If you believe that “less taxation and government regulation will = more private donation,” please explain how certain you are this will occur and what we should do if it doesn’t.
Oh, and one last question (for all those who agree with Clothahump, not just him; I don’t want to seem like I’m picking on him): the experiences of other Western countries with UHC are often brought up in these kinds of threads, and are usually dismissed. What tradeoffs do you feel they make that make their system not worth implementing? How, if at all, are those tradeoffs reflected in cite-able numbers? Why are their health care and quality of life numbers wrong or not worth considering in this debate?
Nice ignorant retort there. Developed nations have better systems and even if you call those systems socialist, the capitalist nations that have them will laugh to your face.
As charity has not been able to help all, and private insurance continues to increase prices, it is silly to ignore how others governments have been able to do a good job of offering health services to all; BTW, private industry still continues to be a part of almost all the systems used in the developed nations.
HER FATHER, you moron - haven’t you bothered to read any of the last 5 pages or so?
Ah, here we go. When we can’t argue anything else, we just resort to labeling universal health care as socialist and act as if that’s an answer. Because it’s socialism just because you say so, and socialism is de facto bad.
This ignores that government run healthcare already exists. And in fact, some of the biggest names out there talking about how horrible it is are people who benefit from it every day. John McCain, as a for instance, has been covered by government healthcare, as a military dependent, then military member, then veteran, then as a member of congress for every single day of his 72 years on the planet. He’s hitting all the media he can now talking about how government run healthcare doesn’t work, is a bad idea, puts bureaucrats between people and their doctors, but it has saved his life at least three times over, when he had cancer, and he has yet to be kicked off of his plan because he was starting to cost it too much money. It’s good enough for his wives and his children and himself, but not good enough for any of us, somehow, magically.
Talking points. Obfuscation. FUD.
Medicare’s overhead is 4-5% annually. Compare that to any private insurer, then come back and talk about the “inefficiencies” of government healthcare. Ask a senior citizen what bureaucrat they have to call before they go see their doctor. Ask a government employee who they have to call.
Meanwhile, when you have something to offer that isn’t a soundbyte or code word or dog whistle, or some platitude that amounts to “I don’t wanna pay, not gonna make me” then come back and offer it up.
Also, for the record, is it curlcoat or Carol Stream who relies on disability and/or Social Security and/or Medicare? I know that Carol Stream is on some form of disability. Are they both?
Oh, yes - in other threads curlcoat has waxed lyrical on the fact she is disabled at the tender age of 52, collects SSDI, and is not employed due to her disability. Presumably, as she is on SSDI, she also has Medicare though she might have private insurance - that her HUSBAND would be paying for if she had it. Not her.
Really quite hypocritical of her to be attacking you. I’m sure a bit of searching on her username would turn some of that up. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to do a lot of that now as I need to get ready to go to work tomorrow. It’s not a glamorous or high paying job, but it is a job and right now I need it.
A few months ago I was listening to an interview with Michael Moore, and instead of bending the truth or pulling any stupid stunts, he was actually talking from the heart and it gave me a tiny inkling of respect for him.
He said (I can’t remember the exact words) that we as a nation are OK with using tax dollars to fun police and firefighters to protect us from physical harm, so why not use taxes for hospitals and doctors to help protect us from medical harm.
I’m on the fence about UHC or single payer systems, or whatever, but of all the arguments against UHC I’m beginning to think that the argument “I work hard to pay for my health care, why should I support others?” sounds about as ridiculous as “I work hard to pay for my own private security. Why should I have to pay for police services for everybody else?”
I don’t have a political POV since I simply don’t do politics, but anyway…
I don’t know what specifically causes it, but historically when the government runs something it costs much more money than it should and offers a lesser service than a similar private enterprise does. When I worked in insurance, government administered healthcare was a nightmare, particularly the VA (which I understand has been cleaned up?) My theory is that lack of oversight causes too much money to go into private pockets and/or appointments to key jobs are based on political concerns rather than whether or not it is the right person for the job.
Run correctly, insurance is highly profitable. Due to the lack of real oversight, such as shareholders reports, the government can do pretty much whatever it wants with the money it gets, so there simply doesn’t seem to be any incentive for them to come in under budget.
Since I said nothing at all about “all poor people”, you apparently are without a clue here.
And, as I have posted many times, there are many things that those folks are doing that contribute to their spiral down to possible bankrupcy long before any health issues arise.
Which, I’m not
Which, it isn’t.
Wow, you are three for three! I am not on Medicare.
In America, politics does you!
Broomstick making up shit to support her fantasies. She seems to do that quite a bit.
Clothahump, and this is not a snide tu quoque at you, I recall the major damage to Houston from a hurricane in the fairly recent past – and that it took out your business place. I presume you had private insurance on it, but I know a lot of Federal money poured in to help recovery efforts. So two questions: 1. Where do you stand on that? 2. If you feel that government has a place in providing aid in wholesale disasters harming the lives of a great many, where do you draw the line on how many need be affected before people deserve help?
Personally, I feel that anyone needing help should get it if at all possible – but I understand that that is founded on an ethic not everyone shares. So it’s a serious question.
Oh look, another troll. Curlcoat. They must flock together.
And you complain when I make assumptions…
And?
Uh, you need to back out of fanasty land. I haven’t even addressed Guinastasia, much less “attacked” her.
I keep trying to outrun them… 
Oh look, another person whose definition of troll is anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They must flock together.
So, it’s good for her – but not for anyone else. :rolleyes:
(BTW, please don’t think I would want to deny aid to curlcoat if she truly needs it. I merely want her to want to shut her the fuck up.)