# New Study: 45,000 die in U.S every year from lack of healthcare **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 18, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616 "2009-09-18T17:30:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/181 "2009-09-24T02:15:08Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > That’s nice. What does that have to do with my situation? I don’t know, we were talking about UHC, not everything is entirely about you. You’re the one who asked about the Canadian tax burden. Let me remind you, since you have the memory span of a hyperactive ferret: > [@curlcoat](#): > > I have no idea what the tax burden in those countries is, do you? Nor do I know that they don’t have people “dying in the street” from preventable problems. So you want to know about the tax burden, but then you don’t, because it doesn’t fit your idea of reality. And you don’t know if there are people dying in the street, except apparently you do know. Because you know everything. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Canada has had a nationwide UHC since the 1960’s but they eased into it over several decades, unlike what is happening here. You shouldn’t post about things you know nothing about. The first UHC in Canada was implemented in Saskatchewan in 1962. Nationwide UHC came into effect in 1966. Hardly decades of easing in. > [@curlcoat](#): > > There was nothing about me being healthy in what you quoted, so I don’t know where you are getting that idea. I have been chronically ill since my teens and the health care I get is to merely ease the affects, it doesn’t actually treat anything. If I had no money, then I’d be suffering more from those affects. Actually, as I do know as I just yesterday decided to not buy one of the prescriptions because it was going to cost $60, even with insurance. Because, you know, we aren’t rich… Your situation must have gotten worse, why else were you once able to work and now you cannot? Regardless, let us pretend that you never got married and now, as you are suffering away in your martyr-like fashion, you fall on the stairs and break you leg. Are you just going to suffer through that as well? Are you just one of those people who thinks nothing bad can ever happen to you? In your last arguement about this you claimed that you could easily lay you hands on $20,000 in case of a medical necessity. But you can’t come up with $60 to improve your life? Your budgeting skills must be pretty bad. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/182 "2009-09-24T02:18:06Z")
Further ignorance would be the repeated claim that the public option, which is all that is even on the table, would be put into place for the purpose of providing free insurance for people whose “only contribution” to society is having had children. That’s not what the public option is about, that’s not how the public option would work, it’s confusing I know, but trying even a little tiny bit to understand what’s being proposed before arguing about it all over the internet might be a reasonable idea. Unless, of course, you’re a troll. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/183 "2009-09-24T05:40:00Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Uh, babe? You brought it up unprovoked in the thread about that schizophrenic woman who ate her baby. Then you broke it up unprovoked in this thread. That’s twice, and it hasn’t been that long, so you will likely bring it up again. I have never brought it up, only responded to you when you lied about it. It’s you who can’t let it go. Prove me wrong by dropping it now, if you can. And you say that _I’m_ the one that has to have the last word and can’t let something go. FWIW, I don’t remember the woman who ate her baby thread, but it wasn’t “unprovoked” this time, it was an example of how you say you’ll never email me again, and then proceed to do just that. Anyway, **kaylasdad** says we shouldn’t discuss PMs here - are you mature enough to not get the last word on that? 😃 > [@](#): > > Still not great at reading, are ya? I never said a mod closed it to prevent you from getting the last word. A mod closed it because it was resurrected by people who didn’t want you to have the last word, even if that last word was from two months before. You inspire that kind of love. All you are doing is proving that I have no burning desire to have the last word. > [@](#): > > No, it’s because you are cruel and deliberately unpleasant to people you deem worthy of your scorn, and evince no compassion or empathy whatsoever. Oh please. You have acted like a complete bitch to me since day one, and you are saying that I am cruel and deliberately unpleasant? And you obviously have no compassion or empathy unless it happens to push your personal button, that being the baybee button. If I were at all sensitive maybe I’d be crying my eyes out like **torie** over some of the things you’ve assumed and accused me of. > [@](#): > > How many times have you bragged about how fiscally responsible you are, how careful, how thrifty? If you are those things, as you claim, and you have the income you claim, then poverty due to UHC should not be a real or pressing concern for you. You are being inconsistent. Being concerned about yet another multi billion dollar government program that will be paid for mainly by taxpayers isn’t planning ahead? Not wanting to lose even more money to taxes isn’t being careful and thrifty? The possibility that my husband might get laid off again isn’t a pressing concern? Again, a current salary is just that - current. If he stays employed, at that salary, for the next seven years until he can retire, we should be OK - do you think it responsible of me to assume that will happen? > [@](#): > > All you see is grasping hands, not humans in need. Even someone like torie, who is busting her ass to get off government assistance permanently earns nothing but your vitriol and scorn. No one can win with you. I don’t know why I bother to try. Nor do I since your mind is so closed - I guess I bore easily. Anyway, I see those grasping hands IRL almost every day here. Such as the “homeless disabled” man who begs near here - homeless, yet very clean, hair always cut, wearing better clothes than I usually do. Disabled, yet able to walk over a mile between his two favorite places to beg. And no, he isn’t a newly homeless; he’s been out there for almost ten years. Or the woman I know on SSDI since she was in a car wreck as a teen, who has been going to school for the past five or so years and trying to “find herself” as an artist - she knows that as long as she is going to school, the government won’t bug her about getting a job. Or the 14 year old daughter of a friend, who got assistance when she had a baby, even tho she was still living with her parents. The thing is, you assume that people like **torie** are “busting their asses to get off assistance” and it’s all OK with you that she get it since she has children. Which is one of the reasons why we have so many children on assistance - in general, people no longer have a problem with babies being born to teens, to people who cannot afford to raise them, to people who are obviously unsuited. Somehow, all pregnancies are looked at as “blessings” and all babies “gifts”, and the realities of raising children are played down or just ignored. So people like **torie** see nothing wrong with blithering into life and having children when they don’t have an education and/or a decent job and/or any assets. And God forbid anyone point out how irresponsible that is, or have a problem paying taxes to support it. > [@](#): > > You think you’re acting like an adult? SNORT. I know you’ll never believe me. All this personal, bitchy slap-fighting between us is to distract from the fact that I asked you for CONCRETE CITES, which you can provide, that you will be made poor by UHC. Put up or shut up. I asked you what you wanted me to cite and you didn’t say, because you know there is no real way to do that. If I tell you what our take home is and what our bills are, you won’t believe it, but I am certainly not going to scan in pay stubs and bills. I’m also sure that you know that there is no way that I can _cite_ possible taxes since that would depend on what plan ends up being enacted. Of course, you assured us that only those make over 350K are going to be taxed, so I guess I have nothing to worry about! :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/184 "2009-09-24T06:00:10Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I asked you what you wanted me to cite and you didn’t say, because you know there is no real way to do that. If I tell you what our take home is and what our bills are, you won’t believe it, but I am certainly not going to scan in pay stubs and bills. I’m also sure that you know that there is no way that I can _cite_ possible taxes since that would depend on what plan ends up being enacted. Of course, you assured us that only those make over 350K are going to be taxed, so I guess I have nothing to worry about! :dubious: Would _any_ of these plans affect you? Your bills are an irrelevant side issue to this discussion if none of the plans being considered would raise your taxes. You’ve invested an enormous amount of time posting on these boards, complaining about how you’ll be taxed out of house and home. Yet you refuse to do any research whatsoever to establish how much you might be screwed by those evil democrats in Congress, so you can do some financial planning to mitigate it. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/185 "2009-09-24T06:17:13Z")
> [@pbbth](#): > > To sell your house and take that money and move to TX sounds like it would more than double your current savings AND cut back on your taxes and your husband’s work can be done there just like it can in CA. Uh, OK, that would be provided there was a job available to him AND that we could actually sell our house. Both are a bit iffy these days, eh? Still haven’t heard why you all think we should go without so that others can have what they want. > [@Blalron](#): > > Still waiting for a cite that shows that any of the bills going through Congress will increase curlcoat’s tax burden. > > You’re a very persistant poster, curlcoat, but I promise that as long as you keep posting to this thread, I will keep asking. I’m prepared to keep asking you for a cite until hell freezes over, or the mods lock this thread down. Whatever comes first. Maybe you should read what I’ve already posted, at least twice, on the subject? > [@Blalron](#): > > Looks like you could use a public health insurance option which negotiates lower drug prices. 😃 Not at all sure that the drug lobby in this country would agree to lower prices on drugs that don’t have a generic. > [@](#): > > I admire you sticking to your princples though. You really do have the courage of your convictions, being willing to suffer so Big Pharma can make bigger profits. I didn’t buy the drug - how is that helping “Big Pharma”? > [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Damn, I must have missed the bill that was promising to ram UHC through as a national policy. You don’t do any justice to your arguments when you have no idea what the issues are. Do you? You do realize that nothing is cut and dried about all of this and it appears to be impossible to get a straight story on what they are doing? At least, I haven’t been able to find a reliable cite on the current plan AND how they plan to enact it. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/186 "2009-09-24T06:34:42Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Maybe you should read what I’ve already posted, at least twice, on the subject? I admit that I only quickly skimmed over your posts, looking for anything that would be an actual link. You cited UK wait times, but that didn’t address my question. Maybe I missed it. > [@](#): > > Not at all sure that the drug lobby in this country would agree to lower prices on drugs that don’t have a generic. I admit the drug lobby is a force to be reckoned with, but if Congress had balls they could allow the Public Option and Medicare to negotiate, just like the Veterans Health Administration does (their drug costs are much lower than Medicare’s). ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/187 "2009-09-24T06:42:14Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Later… > Uh-huh… You’ve never heard of traveling on business? Except for the Vancouver and Victoria ones - those I did as a part of a high school marching band. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > curlcoat spent $50,000 on her dog’s chemo but can’t afford $60 for her own prescription? WTF? Your fixation on money is interesting. Yes, I spent that money, back when I was working, on something that was extremely important to me. Used to replace our vehicles when they went over 100,000 miles too. Now, over five years later, we don’t have that kind of money. > [@TheScogg](#): > > **Curlcoat** , you and your ilk absolutely sicken me. Do you not realize that us poor people are the reason wealthier people such as yourself are able to afford the lavish lifestyles you do? Um, no. What do you do that makes wealthy people able to afford a lavish lifestyle? Which has nothing to do with me, since I am neither wealthy nor live a lavish lifestyle. > [@](#): > > Basically, my point is : How dare you call me a freeloader for wanting a fraction of the same health care you get. I don’t have a giant savings account. I don’t have a yacht I can sell if I get sick. I work as hard as you do (trust me, I do) and yet I can’t even have something as basic as first world health care?!? All because you’re too stingy to part with another 2% of your hundreds of thousands of dollars? You need to quit believing the hype from folks like **Rubystreak** and focus on facts. I have no yacht, giant savings account nor hundreds of thousands of dollars. I worked like you for many years (how old are you anyway?) without healthcare, then I worked my way up to a job with healthcare. Why do you think you should just leap frog over that and demand that I pay so you are covered? What makes you think you have the right to demand that I help support you? This is what I don’t get. > [@](#): > > I give 30 effing % of my measly 8/hour paycheck to the government every week Welcome to the real world of taxation! Sounds like you have really high state taxes to be paying that percent out of $8 an hour. > [@](#): > > Because I deserve to be poor and unhealthy if I fail to secure a Fortune 500 CEO position straight out of Harvard? Don’t be ridiculous. I have only a high school education and never made more than $16 an hour (after 20+ years in my industry), yet I’ve had insurance for the past 25+ years. You hardly need to be a Harvard graduate CEO to have insurance. > [@](#): > > You do realize that you wouldn’t be well off if everybody so oh so enlightened and intelligent and successful as you are, don’t you? You do realize we need ditchdiggers in this society and the deserve to live too, right? That doesn’t make any sense to me. :dubious: > [@](#): > > Their are so many “unskilled” laborers out there absolutely busting their collective butts to keep this country running smoothly (sanitation workers, builders, farm workers, and many more). People that are absolutely putting in 100% every day so everyone else can live in one of the best countries in the world. How dare you call them a freeloader because they don’t want to spend 20 years of their wages on an unfortunate accident. Huh. “Sanitation workers” as in garbage men? Here, they have insurance. Farm workers in this state have their own insurance _company_. I have no experience with builders. Anyway, reform in the insurance laws would take care of quite a bit of that, which would be far less expensive than the government running anything. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/188 "2009-09-24T06:45:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Do you? You do realize that nothing is cut and dried about all of this and it appears to be impossible to get a straight story on what they are doing? At least, I haven’t been able to find a reliable cite on the current plan AND how they plan to enact it. I’ll give you some places you can look for information. [http://thomas.loc.gov/](http://thomas.loc.gov/) Contains all the texts (and summaries) of the various bills under consideration. I’d recommend just sticking with the bills that have passed the committees. The single payer “medicare for all” program doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of passing, so I think it’s safe to ignore it. [http://www.cbo.gov/](http://www.cbo.gov/) The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has posted analysis of the financial impact of the plans. If you’re willing to take the time to research, you may be able to alleviate some of your financial anxiety. As far as I’ve been able to tell, nearly all the expenses are paid for through the universal mandate, and eliminating the wasteful medicare advantage program. ---
**Author:** ![E72521](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dbc845/32.png) [@E72521](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E72521)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/189 "2009-09-24T09:52:12Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Huh. “Sanitation workers” as in garbage men? Here, they have insurance. Farm workers in this state have their own insurance _company_. I have no experience with builders. Anyway, reform in the insurance laws would take care of quite a bit of that, which would be far less expensive than the government running anything. What’s your take SSDI reform? I hear that there’s a few upper-middle class folks that spent hours and hours typing pages and pages, while they draw off the government teet. Why can’t these people work from home doing legal or medical transcription, rather than sucking it off the taxpayer? I hate it when people expect something for nothing. Socialist pigs. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/190 "2009-09-24T13:27:11Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > And you say that _I’m_ the one that has to have the last word and can’t let something go. FWIW, I don’t remember the woman who ate her baby thread, but it wasn’t “unprovoked” this time, it was an example of how you say you’ll never email me again, and then proceed to do just that. I have never PMed you again. Posting to a thread =/= PMing. I posted a link to the woman who ate her baby thread, to point out that you were lying when you said you only revealed the contents of PMs once. This is the second time. So, whenever you stop lying, we can stop talking about it. I didn’t want to talk about it in the first place. > [@](#): > > Oh please. You have acted like a complete bitch to me since day one, This is false. I started out having a factual debate with you about why it’s a bad idea to put the babies of welfare recipients into orphanages. It started out pleasant enough, but when you refused to read my cites and clung to your distorted views in the face of all evidence to the contrary, it got negative. Big surprise. > [@](#): > > And you obviously have no compassion or empathy unless it happens to push your personal button, that being the baybee button. Again, this is false. I have compassion for sick people who need medical care who can’t afford it. I have compassion for animals without homes. I have compassion for people with mental illnesses, like you. I’ve defended you in several threads from charges of trolling and being a whore, even though I dislike you intensely. So, cram your mischaracterizations of me up your ass. I don’t have so much compassion for you that I can’t say that. Also, let’s talk about your deliberate misspelling of the word “baybee.” Am I supposed to feel bad, or dumb, or foolish for caring about the welfare of babies? Yeah, I care about babies. You should too, even if you personally dislike them. It’s enlightened self-interest. You claim you want to get people off welfare, break the cycle of poverty, have everyone be a taxpayer. Well, if you don’t provide proper nutrition, medical care, education to babies, they will grow up to be people who require taxpayer support. Thus, my position of caring about the baaaayybbeeeees is much more logical and rational than your “fuck 'em” attitude, which is at odds with your stated goal of a completely welfare-free society. > [@](#): > > The thing is, you assume that people like **torie** are “busting their asses to get off assistance” and it’s all OK with you that she get it since she has children. Wow, wrong AGAIN. It’s not OK with me since she has children. It would be OK with me whether or not she had children. She’s working to better herself so she can get off government benefits for good, and make more money so she can pay higher taxes. The fact that she has children is irrelevant to my feeling that people can and should avail themselves of government programs when they qualify for them, especially if they are taking steps to ensure that their situation is temporary. The difference between you and me is that I am not presumptuous enough or rude enough to tell other people what to do with their uteruses, and I don’t think the government has any place doing so either. We’ve had this conversation before. > [@](#): > > I asked you what you wanted me to cite and you didn’t say, because you know there is no real way to do that. Wrong once again. I did tell you what I wanted you to cite: what will the tax levy be on you if UHC passes? You can research the bills that have the best chance of passing Congress. Find out what the taxation rate will be on your income bracket. I cannot do this for you because I can’t possibly know what your income is. The report back to the class, and tell us how much it will increase, and why that amount will cause you to become destitute. This requires only a small amount of personal disclosure, if any, and some time and effort on research on your part. Most people like being informed before they pop off at the mouth about issues. You might enjoy trying it out. > [@](#): > > I’m also sure that you know that there is no way that I can _cite_ possible taxes since that would depend on what plan ends up being enacted. Of course, you assured us that only those make over 350K are going to be taxed, so I guess I have nothing to worry about! :dubious: There is not much variation between plans re: the taxation to pay for it. If you did a little research, you’d see that. ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/191 "2009-09-24T14:15:19Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Uh, OK, that would be provided there was a job available to him AND that we could actually sell our house. Both are a bit iffy these days, eh? So your response to a valid way to reduce your taxes and increase your savings is, “Well, we probably wouldn’t be able to do it anyway”? Would you consider mentioning to your husband that this could be an option for you and see if he might be willing to send out some resumes to the Dallas area or are you attached to Orange County for other reasons? It seems to me that if your concern is really and truly that you are afraid you are not going to have enough money to retire that this is an excellent solution. If money is your only concern I don’t see why you would immediately reject the idea out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/192 "2009-09-24T15:00:59Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Still haven’t heard why you all think we should go without so that others can have what they want. **Wrong.** You are wrong that you will have to ‘go without’, and you are wrong if you think that this has not been pointed out to you many times (with citations). ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/193 "2009-09-24T21:03:02Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > I don’t know, we were talking about UHC, not everything is entirely about you. I was referring to you saying that your parents are middle class, aren’t in danger of losing their house and support a UHC. Those things have nothing to do with my situation, which is what the previous post was about. > [@](#): > > So you want to know about the tax burden, but then you don’t, because it doesn’t fit your idea of reality. And you don’t know if there are people dying in the street, except apparently you do know. Because you know everything. None of this applies to anything I said. > [@](#): > > You shouldn’t post about things you know nothing about. The first UHC in Canada was implemented in Saskatchewan in 1962. Nationwide UHC came into effect in 1966. Hardly decades of easing in. According to [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada), the idea of government subsidized healthcare started in the 18th century in Canada. > [@](#): > > Your situation must have gotten worse, why else were you once able to work and now you cannot? Regardless, let us pretend that you never got married and now, as you are suffering away in your martyr-like fashion, you fall on the stairs and break you leg. Are you just going to suffer through that as well? Are you just one of those people who thinks nothing bad can ever happen to you? Are you of the opinion that if a woman isn’t married, she cannot possibly take care of herself? If I had not remarried between husband #1 and now - a space of 30 years - I’d have made some arrangements for health care. > [@](#): > > In your last arguement about this you claimed that you could easily lay you hands on $20,000 in case of a medical necessity. But you can’t come up with $60 to improve your life? Your budgeting skills must be pretty bad. I am not going to take money out of our retirement just to pay for one prescription. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > Further ignorance would be the repeated claim that the public option, which is all that is even on the table, would be put into place for the purpose of providing free insurance for people whose “only contribution” to society is having had children. That’s not what the public option is about, that’s not how the public option would work, it’s confusing I know, but trying even a little tiny bit to understand what’s being proposed before arguing about it all over the internet might be a reasonable idea. > > Unless, of course, you’re a troll. If I’d said that, yes that would be ignorant, but of course I didn’t. > [@Blalron](#): > > I admit that I only quickly skimmed over your posts, looking for anything that would be an actual link. You cited UK wait times, but that didn’t address my question. Maybe I missed it. OK. You skim my posts, yet you claim I haven’t answered any questions? How does that work? > [@](#): > > I admit the drug lobby is a force to be reckoned with, but if Congress had balls they could allow the Public Option and Medicare to negotiate, just like the Veterans Health Administration does (their drug costs are much lower than Medicare’s). Do you expect that the government will grow balls if we get that public option? Seeing as how they haven’t done so with Medicare or Medicaid, I’m not seeing it as likely. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/194 "2009-09-24T21:35:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > According to [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada), the idea of government subsidized healthcare started in the 18th century in Canada. Well, now that you are including the _idea_ of government subsidized healthcare, that has been around in the US since at least 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt [included it in his platform](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29617)when he ran for president: > [@](#): > > The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use So, since we have had many decades in which to become accustomed to the idea of UHC, you must agree it should be no great leap to finally implement it. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/195 "2009-09-25T03:30:05Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > According to [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada), the idea of government subsidized healthcare started in the 18th century in Canada. I’d kinda like to see something other than a Wiki entry. [Hey, your words, not mine. Remember?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10757492&postcount=149) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/196 "2009-09-25T04:17:50Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > For the most part, those other things are children, which they shouldn’t be having if they can’t afford insurance. Please kill yourself. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/197 "2009-09-25T04:31:37Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I’ll give you some places you can look for information. > > [http://thomas.loc.gov/](http://thomas.loc.gov/) I have started wading thru the link on this site and right off I’m wondering how the drafters of this bill expect private insurance companies to stay afloat under all those regulations. The one that stands out is - “In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.” If I understand this, they will require all private insurance companies to rebate to insureds every year they don’t pay out as much as some limit that will be established. What happens in the years when the insurance companies pay out a lot more? Will they be allowed to keep reserves? The no preexist sounds good on the surface, but coupled with “affordable coverage” I wonder how that is going to work. I’ve only read thru the first couple-three pages, but it begins to look like there will be no completely private insurance companies left as they will need government subsidies to be able to afford, say, those with cancer who sign up and pay only “affordable” premiums. > [@](#): > > [http://www.cbo.gov/](http://www.cbo.gov/) I wasn’t able to find anything on this link - I did a couple of searches but didn’t find anything like what was on the first link. > [@](#): > > If you’re willing to take the time to research, you may be able to alleviate some of your financial anxiety. As far as I’ve been able to tell, nearly all the expenses are paid for through the universal mandate, and eliminating the wasteful medicare advantage program. Universal mandate? You mean the taxes they plan to get from the rich? I cannot see that being enough to cover full coverage at low rates for everyone in the country. > [@E72521](#): > > What’s your take SSDI reform? I hear that there’s a few upper-middle class folks that spent hours and hours typing pages and pages, while they draw off the government teet. Why can’t these people work from home doing legal or medical transcription, rather than sucking it off the taxpayer? I hate it when people expect something for nothing. Socialist pigs. I imagine people who can spend hours typing could make some money doing something like transcribing from home. However, someone who could type for eight hours a day, five days a week wouldn’t qualify for SSDI. > [@pbbth](#): > > So your response to a valid way to reduce your taxes and increase your savings is, “Well, we probably wouldn’t be able to do it anyway”? Would you consider mentioning to your husband that this could be an option for you and see if he might be willing to send out some resumes to the Dallas area or are you attached to Orange County for other reasons? It seems to me that if your concern is really and truly that you are afraid you are not going to have enough money to retire that this is an excellent solution. If money is your only concern I don’t see why you would immediately reject the idea out of hand. I don’t see this as a valid way for the two reasons I gave you (ability or lack thereof to sell our house in this market, and the fact there are no jobs currently available in his specialty in Dallas). There is also the fact (AGAIN) that if we move to an area with a lower cost of living, he will also make a lower salary, so there would be little impact on our finances, other than the cost of moving interstate. > [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > You are wrong that you will have to ‘go without’, and you are wrong if you think that this has not been pointed out to you many times (with citations). Sigh. The cites have to do with a bill being considered now, that doesn’t appear to be on it’s way to passing, so there is no way at this time to know if it will only be the rich folks who are taxed. Given how much it will cost to enact that bill, I have trouble believing that taxes from just those making $350K+ would be enough anyway. It also appears that there will be far fewer, if any, private insurance companies left, meaning even more people will have to buy the government sponsored coverage, meaning those rich folks taxes aren’t going to stretch far enough. It amazes me that no body seems to understand how much no-preexist will cost. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/198 "2009-09-25T06:56:59Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I have never PMed you again. Posting to a thread =/= PMing. I posted a link to the woman who ate her baby thread, to point out that you were lying when you said you only revealed the contents of PMs once. This is the second time. So, whenever you stop lying, we can stop talking about it. I didn’t want to talk about it in the first place. When did you post the link to the woman who ate her baby thread? Anyway, I wasn’t talking about just PMs, I was using that as an example of the many times you’ve said you aren’t going to respond to me - and then do anyway. > [@](#): > > This is false. I started out having a factual debate with you about why it’s a bad idea to put the babies of welfare recipients into orphanages. It started out pleasant enough, but when you refused to read my cites and clung to your distorted views in the face of all evidence to the contrary, it got negative. Big surprise. Uh, no. You were appalled that I would even suggest such a thing and started off by calling me a monster (or some such thing, I don’t even remember any more). I see no reason to be rude to someone who isn’t being rude to me, and indeed tend to be far less of it than you and a few others do towards me. Simply because you don’t agree with my opinions. You on the other hand miss very few chances to make up all sorts of interesting things about me. > [@](#): > > Again, this is false. I have compassion for sick people who need medical care who can’t afford it. I have compassion for animals without homes. I have compassion for people with mental illnesses, like you. I’ve defended you in several threads from charges of trolling and being a whore, even though I dislike you intensely. So, cram your mischaracterizations of me up your ass. I don’t have so much compassion for you that I can’t say that. Well. If defending me means you say I’m not a troll but I am “cracked out”, full of “pathological” fear and have only my dogs to talk to all day, as well as repeating your lies about my husband and my views, I wonder what you mean by compassion. > [@](#): > > Also, let’s talk about your deliberate misspelling of the word “baybee.” Am I supposed to feel bad, or dumb, or foolish for caring about the welfare of babies? To the detriment of all others? Yes. Don’t worry tho, you aren’t alone, there are quite a few mommies like you out there. Such as in the school zone speed limit thread - apparently there are those who feel that there is nothing wrong with issuing very expensive tickets for going one mile over the speed limit, as long as it “saves one single, solitary child from being run over” to quote **Jettboy**. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I care about babies. You should too, even if you personally dislike them. It’s enlightened self-interest. You claim you want to get people off welfare, break the cycle of poverty, have everyone be a taxpayer. Well, if you don’t provide proper nutrition, medical care, education to babies, they will grow up to be people who require taxpayer support. Thus, my position of caring about the baaaayybbeeeees is much more logical and rational than your “fuck 'em” attitude, which is at odds with your stated goal of a completely welfare-free society. As long as people are paid to have children, there will be a portion of society that will choose to live off of that. How can you not see that handing people money and goods so they can raise children hasn’t just created generations of people who view that as a viable life plan? Decades of governments and charities showering parents with everything they need to raise their kids hasn’t reduced the number of children born and raised on welfare. If _you_ really cared about babies, you’d look past your knee jerk reactions and see these things. > [@](#): > > Wow, wrong AGAIN. It’s not OK with me since she has children. It would be OK with me whether or not she had children. Most likely, she wouldn’t get anything if she didn’t have children. > [@](#): > > She’s working to better herself so she can get off government benefits for good, and make more money so she can pay higher taxes. This is my point, that you accept this whole heartedly, that simply because **torie** says she is working towards getting off assistance, that she actually is and she will. She also said that her boys are going to grow up to be important to society, simply because they are her boys - how realistic do you think her plans to get off assistance are in the face of that? She can spin you this tale and you believe it - because? You ignore the strikes against her - because? > [@](#): > > The difference between you and me is that I am not presumptuous enough or rude enough to tell other people what to do with their uteruses, and I don’t think the government has any place doing so either. We’ve had this conversation before. I am not presumptuous or rude enough to go about telling people that because I decided to have a child they need to support me. And I certainly am not presumptuous or rude enough to go about telling people that they are required to consider important only what I consider important. > [@](#): > > Wrong once again. I did tell you what I wanted you to cite: what will the tax levy be on you if UHC passes? You can research the bills that have the best chance of passing Congress. Find out what the taxation rate will be on your income bracket. I cannot do this for you because I can’t possibly know what your income is. Are you serious? You don’t miss a chance to shout that out. > [@](#): > > The report back to the class, and tell us how much it will increase, and why that amount will cause you to become destitute. This requires only a small amount of personal disclosure, if any, and some time and effort on research on your part. Apparently, you are completely unaware of the number of variables that would have to be considered. Lets pretend that the bill that was in **Blalron’s** link passes. If they require that insurance companies take everyone no matter what health issues they might have, yet somehow only charge these folks “affordable” premiums, how many cancer patients, premies and heart transplants do you think it will take to burn thru the taxes from the over 350K crowd? Where will the money come from then? It also appears that most if not all private insurance companies are going to be forced out of business with all the restrictions the bill will put on them. Since our income is higher than a goodly number of folks in the country, what will they consider to be “affordable” for our premium if we have to get government coverage? We currently only pay half of the premium now since my husband’s employer pays the other half. Factor in the possibility that my husband may not be able to stay employed the whole time until he retires and/or some disaster, or just “regular” stuff like needing to replace a refrigerator. Our mortgage is almost 50% of our take home income, that doesn’t leave all that much in the way of leftover money after utilities, gas, insurance, and storage for a travel trailer that I haven’t been able to get rid of. You know? Planning ahead? Trying to cover all bases? That stuff? We already pay out a lot of money to support other people in various ways, when do we get to say enough already? We already pay to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide medical care to a portion of society - are we to believe this healthcare bill will be the last time you all want to dip into us? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/199 "2009-09-25T09:16:49Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Apparently, you are completely unaware of the number of variables that would have to be considered. Lets pretend that the bill that was in **Blalron’s** link passes. If they require that insurance companies take everyone no matter what health issues they might have, yet somehow only charge these folks “affordable” premiums, how many cancer patients, premies and heart transplants do you think it will take to burn thru the taxes from the over 350K crowd? Where will the money come from then? You don’t understand what you’re talking about. Insurance companies will get young people into the system because of the mandate. Young people are insurance company gold because they have to have coverage and aren’t usually sick. So the 30+ million new accounts will take the sting away from the insurance companies having to give access to people with pre-existing conditions. Taxes only come into the equation when poor people, you know, the people you think are stupid, worthless scum, need insurance and can’t afford it. The final bill, if it includes a public option, will be required to have the public option be self-funding. That is to say that it will have to pay for it’s services with premiums, just like a conventional insurance company. Except, much, much more efficient. > [@](#): > > It also appears that most if not all private insurance companies are going to be forced out of business with all the restrictions the bill will put on them. There is no reason to think that. Many countries with stronger restrictions than we are going to put on the insurance industry still have private insurance. > [@](#): > > Since our income is higher than a goodly number of folks in the country, what will they consider to be “affordable” for our premium if we have to get government coverage? We currently only pay half of the premium now since my husband’s employer pays the other half. It will cost you less, because part of the point is to make it so that it doesn’t increase at 3x inflation. > [@](#): > > Factor in the possibility that my husband may not be able to stay employed the whole time until he retires and/or some disaster, or just “regular” stuff like needing to replace a refrigerator. Our mortgage is almost 50% of our take home income, that doesn’t leave all that much in the way of leftover money after utilities, gas, insurance, and storage for a travel trailer that I haven’t been able to get rid of. I don’t care about your situation. But the portability offered by the plan will be good for you if your idiot husband (I assume the man can’t be that smart since he married a completely useless sack of weasel-jizz like yourself) loses his job he can keep his coverage. This is to help you. You don’t understand that, but you will be better off. This is to make your life better, and because you’re too stupid to reason you are raging about it. > [@](#): > > You know? Planning ahead? Trying to cover all bases? That stuff? We already pay out a lot of money to support other people in various ways, when do we get to say enough already? We already pay to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide medical care to a portion of society - are we to believe this healthcare bill will be the last time you all want to dip into us? You aren’t going to pay any more. Because you don’t make enough to trigger the tax increases. You may have to pay more if you have an exceptionally expensive health plan, but it won’t be much. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616/200 "2009-09-25T11:43:24Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > When did you post the link to the woman who ate her baby thread? Anyway, I wasn’t talking about just PMs, I was using that as an example of the many times you’ve said you aren’t going to respond to me - and then do anyway. In a reply to kaylasdad. I shouldn’t respond to you because you are a waste of time and I think you’re mentally ill. But I’m bored and I don’t want you to get the last word. > [@](#): > > Uh, no. You were appalled that I would even suggest such a thing and started off by calling me a monster (or some such thing, I don’t even remember any more). Cite? > [@](#): > > Well. If defending me means you say I’m not a troll but I am “cracked out”, full of “pathological” fear and have only my dogs to talk to all day, as well as repeating your lies about my husband and my views, I wonder what you mean by compassion. I don’t have to love you and kiss your ass to show compassion. I feel sorry for you because you are so fearful it makes you immune to facts, and so full of hate that you can’t even see clear to your own best financial interest. > [@](#): > > To the detriment of all others? Yes. No, I’m sorry, not to the detriment of all others. You tend to see detriment to yourself where there is none, and sometimes even where there could be benefit for you, which is part of your pathology. > [@](#): > > As long as people are paid to have children, there will be a portion of society that will choose to live off of that. This is why people think you are a troll. It has been PROVEN to you that women are not paid to have children. PROVEN. With cites. But you keep saying it as if it were true, seeing detriment to yourself where there is only enlightened self-interest in breaking the cycle of poverty. > [@](#): > > Decades of governments and charities showering parents with everything they need to raise their kids hasn’t reduced the number of children born and raised on welfare. If _you_ really cared about babies, you’d look past your knee jerk reactions and see these things. The birth rate in the US is down. Fact. Teen pregnancy trends are overall down from previous decades. Fact. Women on welfare tend to have fewer children for their age cohort than women who aren’t. Fact. All of these things have been proven to you in other threads, with cites, but it has no effect. Again, this is where accusations of trolling come in, because those who debate you are required to make and prove the same points over and over again, but it doesn’t matter. The counter is reset back to zero with every new thread, and you are still spouting the same falsehoods as the last time. > [@](#): > > This is my point, that you accept this whole heartedly, that simply because **torie** says she is working towards getting off assistance, that she actually is and she will. She also said that her boys are going to grow up to be important to society, simply because they are her boys - how realistic do you think her plans to get off assistance are in the face of that? She can spin you this tale and you believe it - because? You ignore the strikes against her - because? torie tells her personal story and you think she’s a liar - because? I have no reason to belittle her or cast aspersions on her story, because the FACTS back her up-- most people who are on welfare do not stay on it for life, or even long-term. She’s not even on welfare, she’s just getting Medicaid temporarily. Her plan to uplift herself sounds both realistic and reasonable. Why the hell would I need to crap all over her as you have? I think she’s doing the best she can. You are too evil-minded to give credit where it’s due, and even people who are trying to do right thing get shit from you. Hence, accusations that you have no compassion. > [@](#): > > I am not presumptuous or rude enough to go about telling people that because I decided to have a child they need to support me. And I certainly am not presumptuous or rude enough to go about telling people that they are required to consider important only what I consider important. The government has these programs for a reason. They tax and redistribute that money to many different programs, some of which you avail yourself of that torie doesn’t use. Taxpayers subsidize your husband’s employer-based health care too, did you know that? But you’re OK with that hand out. We ALL get hand outs. We all partake of public funds. I’d rather torie’s kid get good medical care as a child than have him wind up with a long-term medical problem that will cost the taxpayers much more money in the future. Has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a baaaaaaaybeeeee. I’d feel the same about an adult. > [@](#): > > Are you serious? You don’t miss a chance to shout that out. “Six figures” is hardly a concrete number upon which to base tax calculations. > [@](#): > > Apparently, you are completely unaware of the number of variables that would have to be considered. No, what’s apparent is that a) once again, you’d rather spend pages and pages making excuses for why you won’t do research. Honestly, I think it’s because you don’t know how and would rather argue and complain than do some work to prove your point. Or maybe you’re just not bright enough to use Google?; b) you don’t really understand how UHC works. Expanding the number of people in the risk pools makes insurance CHEAPER, esp. since many of the uninsured who will be added are young people who just don’t usually buy insurance, who will now have to. I see Lobohan made a similar point. > [@](#): > > It also appears that most if not all private insurance companies are going to be forced out of business with all the restrictions the bill will put on them. Cite? I am serious. You need to find an unbiased cite, because the other countries with so-called “socialist medicine” still have private insurers. > [@](#): > > Factor in the possibility that my husband may not be able to stay employed the whole time until he retires and/or some disaster, or just “regular” stuff like needing to replace a refrigerator. Our mortgage is almost 50% of our take home income, that doesn’t leave all that much in the way of leftover money after utilities, gas, insurance, and storage for a travel trailer that I haven’t been able to get rid of. At least under UHC you would know that, if your husband lost his job, you would both remain insured. The cost of your medications would go down. You couldn’t lose your coverage for a period due to his unemployment and then be denied coverage later because of your pre-existing condition. There is a lot of benefit in this for both of you if you could only see past your fear and prejudices to the facts. Do some research. Try to set aside your biases and really do some reading. A lot of what you are saying is just not fact-based. This is why you come off pathological and/or trolling: how many people have to tell you that what you’re saying is fiction before you get off your ass and do some reading? Why do you cling to falsehoods rather than admit that maybe you were wrong about something? It seems to me and a lot of others that you hold your prejudices more dearly than you hold the truth, or even your own best interest. That’s really sad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-45-000-die-in-u-s-every-year-from-lack-of-healthcare/510616.md?page=11)