Obama Care Yet Again

vailpass said:

Drama queen much?

Click to expand...

vailpass said:

I said the government can help the elderly, children, and those who are physically unable to help themselves.

In your example if the father fits these categories he is cared for. If not he is able-bodied but failed to work hard enough to care for himself. So he gets what he paid for. That is called life.

Click to expand...

vailpass said:

Health care is a basic human right. It should be readily available to everyone without regard for color, nationality or economic status.

Who the hell told you this? That is certainly not in our constitution. Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. Get your hand out of my pocket.

Click to expand...

noah way said:

That's helpful & productive.



So the father's job was outsourced to Mexico/China/India and because of the collapsed economy he is now jobless and without insurance, just like millions of other Americans. Or he's managed to find part time work without benefits. Either way he has no insurance. Now he's in desperate need of medical care but can't afford it.

Tough luck, eh?

I'll wager that you're a public sector employee, probably civil service, happily collecting health care and retirement benefits that were paid for BY TAXPAYERS.

Click to expand...

noah way said:

The right to breathe air isn't in the constitution either, so I guess you are using privileges you don't have.

Read the preamble to the constitution, it puts a lot of things into proper perspective:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Funny how that phrase is ignored by constitutional originalists when it's right there staring them in the face. They go on and on about the founders and what they meant and how it's clearly written in the constitution and then they utterly ignore the preamble - the introduction to the constitution that clearly describes the purpose for which it was written.

Click to expand...

vailpass said:

I have to laugh when people like you interpret the phrase "promote the general welfare" in our Preamble to mean "federal government hand-outs". Our framers would roll over at the thought of the size/scope of the Federal government today. They would cringe at the thought of mass amounts of able individuals depending on the federal government, refusing to do whatever is necessary to make their own way and contribute instead of deplete this great country's assetts.

Click to expand...

vailpass said:

I have to laugh when people like you interpret the phrase "promote the general welfare" in our Preamble to mean "federal government hand-outs". Our framers would roll over at the thought of the size/scope of the Federal government today. They would cringe at the thought of mass amounts of able individuals depending on the federal government, refusing to do whatever is necessary to make their own way and contribute instead of deplete this great country's assetts.

Click to expand...

mdram said:

the one thing i see stated over and over is that people die due to lack of healthcare

emergency and live saving health care is not refused.
anytime you go to an er you will be treated regardless of your health care situation

many doctors will actually work with people who do not have hc and even discount rates. people are not refused access to health care.

the untited states is not and never really has been a democray. it is a representative republic. we elect the people we think wo do what we want, when they dont, we boot em out (this is how its supposed to work)

unfortunately the masses have no idea what their senators/congressmen do. all they see is the pork brought to their districts, the benefits they get, ect ect
they see money being thrown at problems, its like putting a bandaid on a dam before it bursts.
the correct thing to do is get out of the way of business and let them do what they do, create jobs and wealth.

Click to expand...

Metroidman said:

Yes if you do something stupid like dislocate your shoulder and go to the ER, you will not be refused care. If you have cancer, you will not be given treated for it longterm because you cannot afford it if you do not have healthcare.

Click to expand...

mdram said:

the one thing i see stated over and over is that people die due to lack of healthcare

emergency and live saving health care is not refused.
anytime you go to an er you will be treated regardless of your health care situation

many doctors will actually work with people who do not have hc and even discount rates. people are not refused access to health care.

the untited states is not and never really has been a democray. it is a representative republic. we elect the people we think wo do what we want, when they dont, we boot em out (this is how its supposed to work)

unfortunately the masses have no idea what their senators/congressmen do. all they see is the pork brought to their districts, benefits they get, ect ect
they see money being thrown at problems, its like putting a bandaid on a dam before it bursts.
the correct thing to do is get out of the way of business and let them do what they do, create jobs and wealth.

Click to expand...

nlsme said:

Again, they are not required to give EMERGENCY care, only thing they are required to treat are LIFE THREATENING emergencies. People are often refused critical care. And before you say, you know someone who got care, I know people that were denied. But, to use YOUR father and cousin as an example, dont you think that IF they had FULL ACCESS to care, it would have been a little better. As in IF they were to visit the Dr on a regular basis, the cancer would have been caught sooner. Resulting on better odds of survival, AND a CHEAPER bill being passed on?

Click to expand...

nlsme said:

I ask again, would it not have been better for them, and those paying for it, if it were caught sooner?

Click to expand...

mdram said:

this is a flat out lie, i have known more then 1 person who recieved cancer treatment when they had no insurance. and before you say its just heresay
1 was my father, and 1 is my cousin.

people are not refused treatment

Click to expand...

noah way said:

You must be absolutely furious that you had to help pay for your father's treatment.

Click to expand...

nlsme said:

But, we are paying for your family. And the crackhead. Having cdls, I am betting they had a pretty decent job. How is it fair that their bill is passed along to everyone else?

Click to expand...

mdram said:

you did not pay for it directly, the hospital wrote off anything we could not pay as a loss. we did pay as much as possible.

Click to expand...

mdram said:

you did not pay for it directly, the hospital wrote off anything we could not pay as a loss. we did pay as much as possible.

Click to expand...

nlsme said:

That right off increases the costs FOR EVERYONE. And "as much as possible" heh? So you sold your house? Your car? You went broke? Because cancer treatment isnt cheap. What makes your dads "write off" better than the crackheads?

Click to expand...

mdram said:

as a matter of fact yes we did

Click to expand...