Do we let people die who do not have health insurance

[Doc1]

The point is we all sit here arguing with one another and in reality, no one lets another die, unless of course they murdered them. I don't like obamacare and don't like this piece of shit they have put together. Although I did not like or agree with the individual mandate as an individual I understand why the insurance companies demanded it.
You cannot insure everyone with pre x unless there is a mix of healthy people. If I hadn't have already seen in the past the mismanagement of high risk pools that went down the tubes I might be all for that today, I am not.

We will have to see how this pans out because I cannot see it going anywhere in present form.

Conservatives advocate for personal accountability, which I agree with.
Why would they not be for a mandate that holds people accountable for their healthcare.

Seriously? The thing about freedom is that it isn't always pretty. Where do you draw the line at Governmental Regulation?

 

[Doc1]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

My wife told me if Trump wins again in 2020 to put a pillow over her head and end it for her

Trump would like to eliminate everyone who does not support him. One strategy is to make living in a Trump America intolerable.

Prove it. You people are completely unstable.

 

[ElmerMudd]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

Presumably we are talking about the IPAB here, a board of 15 un-elected bureaucrats who will decide the criteria for who gets access to what care, and even who is denied care. The IPAB is not yet in effect, but the ACA has provisions for that to happen. I think that's how many other countries with some form of Single Payer are holding down the costs of health care, or at least one way of doing it. Do we want to go down that road?

Every private or public insurance has individuals who decide what will be covered and what will not. ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care.
Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA.

"ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care."

This is not true, the ACA does in fact create the IPAB which would in fact control access to health care in terms of determining who gets what treatment. What went on before that is irrelevant, the current GOP HC proposal does not do that.

"Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA"

Really? Tell me about it, what care that is mandated by the ACA will be eliminated by the GOP Senate proposal? And don't you think you oughta wait and see what the final version is before you complain about it? I don't think we'll see Ryan or McConnell telling us we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Trumpcare allows the private insurance companies to cover what they want. Each insurance company has the equivalent of an IPAB that makes decisions. ACA mandated private insurance companies provide certain coverage's.
Every insurance public and private make determinations on who is covered and what is covered. Medicare and medicaid have always been more generous on who and what is covered. Unfortunately, as a result they lose lots of money.
Do you really think Trumpcare will cover more people and more services at the same or less money than ACA? Dream on

 

[ElmerMudd]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

My wife told me if Trump wins again in 2020 to put a pillow over her head and end it for her

Trump would like to eliminate everyone who does not support him. One strategy is to make living in a Trump America intolerable.

Prove it. You people are completely unstable.

Let's start with Comey as proof Trump wants to get rid of those who do not support him. Trump is a shallow, ego-centric son of a bitch who likes people who like him and does not like people who do not like him. Trump has no depth or character and does not judge others on character.

 

[HenryBHough]

Perhaps we need a British style NHS so it wouldn't be a question of ability to pay. Only a question of how long one can survive on a waiting list.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The point is we all sit here arguing with one another and in reality, no one lets another die, unless of course they murdered them. I don't like obamacare and don't like this piece of shit they have put together. Although I did not like or agree with the individual mandate as an individual I understand why the insurance companies demanded it.
You cannot insure everyone with pre x unless there is a mix of healthy people. If I hadn't have already seen in the past the mismanagement of high risk pools that went down the tubes I might be all for that today, I am not.

We will have to see how this pans out because I cannot see it going anywhere in present form.

Conservatives advocate for personal accountability, which I agree with.
Why would they not be for a mandate that holds people accountable for their healthcare.

Seriously? The thing about freedom is that it isn't always pretty. Where do you draw the line at Governmental Regulation?

The choice is mandate healthcare or do not mandate and let people die who choose not to insure themselves.
I vote for mandate health insurance. We mandate automobile insurance.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Perhaps we need a British style NHS so it wouldn't be a question of ability to pay. Only a question of how long one can survive on a waiting list.

No healthcare system is perfect. I feel we need to provide a healthcare program that is good as possible for all citizens. Currently we provide the very best health system for those with money and one that is equivalent of third world healthcare for those without money.

 

[MaryL]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

Yet the insurance companies seem to sneak away from their responsibilities. My mother died from cancer Kaiser let slip until hours before her death . Obama care or Trump, do we really WANT accountants deciding what's good for us?

 

[ElmerMudd]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

Yet the insurance companies seem to sneak away from their responsibilities. My mother died from cancer Kaiser let slip until hours before her death . Obama care or Trump, do we really WANT accountants deciding what's good for us?

Public or private, accountants will be involved. I believe in free market; capitalism. But I am not sure it works for healthcare. A free market healthcare system has more accountants involved.
I am a business consultant. I mainly work with companies that manufacture product. I see what they do to be profitable and be more profitable. The same strategies result in a healthcare that is profitable but does not meet the needs of all citizens.

 

[MaryL]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

Yet the insurance companies seem to sneak away from their responsibilities. My mother died from cancer Kaiser let slip until hours before her death . Obama care or Trump, do we really WANT accountants deciding what's good for us?

Public or private, accountants will be involved. I believe in free market; capitalism. But I am not sure it works for healthcare. A free market healthcare system has more accountants involved.
I am a business consultant. I mainly work with companies that manufacture product. I see what they do to be profitable and be more profitable. The same strategies result in a healthcare that is profitable but does not meet the needs of all citizens.

Thanks. Profits I understand. But do we want a health care system based on income? There has to be a middle ground here.

 

[task0778]

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

Presumably we are talking about the IPAB here, a board of 15 un-elected bureaucrats who will decide the criteria for who gets access to what care, and even who is denied care. The IPAB is not yet in effect, but the ACA has provisions for that to happen. I think that's how many other countries with some form of Single Payer are holding down the costs of health care, or at least one way of doing it. Do we want to go down that road?

Every private or public insurance has individuals who decide what will be covered and what will not. ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care.
Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA.

"ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care."

This is not true, the ACA does in fact create the IPAB which would in fact control access to health care in terms of determining who gets what treatment. What went on before that is irrelevant, the current GOP HC proposal does not do that.

"Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA"

Really? Tell me about it, what care that is mandated by the ACA will be eliminated by the GOP Senate proposal? And don't you think you oughta wait and see what the final version is before you complain about it? I don't think we'll see Ryan or McConnell telling us we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Trumpcare allows the private insurance companies to cover what they want. Each insurance company has the equivalent of an IPAB that makes decisions. ACA mandated private insurance companies provide certain coverage's.
Every insurance public and private make determinations on who is covered and what is covered. Medicare and medicaid have always been more generous on who and what is covered. Unfortunately, as a result they lose lots of money.
Do you really think Trumpcare will cover more people and more services at the same or less money than ACA? Dream on

The Senate HCI proposal requires insurers to provide both guaranteed issue and pre-existing conditions, same as the ACA. Which is one big reason why so many insurers are dropping out of the exchanges, you can't make money with both of these requirements in effect. So, insurance companies do NOT get to decide who gets covered for what under the Senate plan.

I suspect that as it stands now the GOP HC Bill will provide fewer people with coverage for less money than the ACA does. Seems to me what has to happen is some sort of high risk pool either at the state or federal level. I can't see any other way to do it.

 

[tycho1572]

This nonsense about people dying is just the latest BS the left wing media is selling to their uneducated followers.
They know their base isn't smart enough to question anything they say.

 

[Political Junky]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

That's how private insurance works., idiot.

 

[Geaux4it]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

Indeed

-Geaux

 

[ElmerMudd]

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

Presumably we are talking about the IPAB here, a board of 15 un-elected bureaucrats who will decide the criteria for who gets access to what care, and even who is denied care. The IPAB is not yet in effect, but the ACA has provisions for that to happen. I think that's how many other countries with some form of Single Payer are holding down the costs of health care, or at least one way of doing it. Do we want to go down that road?

Every private or public insurance has individuals who decide what will be covered and what will not. ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care.
Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA.

"ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care."

This is not true, the ACA does in fact create the IPAB which would in fact control access to health care in terms of determining who gets what treatment. What went on before that is irrelevant, the current GOP HC proposal does not do that.

"Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA"

Really? Tell me about it, what care that is mandated by the ACA will be eliminated by the GOP Senate proposal? And don't you think you oughta wait and see what the final version is before you complain about it? I don't think we'll see Ryan or McConnell telling us we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Trumpcare allows the private insurance companies to cover what they want. Each insurance company has the equivalent of an IPAB that makes decisions. ACA mandated private insurance companies provide certain coverage's.
Every insurance public and private make determinations on who is covered and what is covered. Medicare and medicaid have always been more generous on who and what is covered. Unfortunately, as a result they lose lots of money.
Do you really think Trumpcare will cover more people and more services at the same or less money than ACA? Dream on

The Senate HCI proposal requires insurers to provide both guaranteed issue and pre-existing conditions, same as the ACA. Which is one big reason why so many insurers are dropping out of the exchanges, you can't make money with both of these requirements in effect. So, insurance companies do NOT get to decide who gets covered for what under the Senate plan.

I suspect that as it stands now the GOP HC Bill will provide fewer people with coverage for less money than the ACA does. Seems to me what has to happen is some sort of high risk pool either at the state or federal level. I can't see any other way to do it.

The other option is a single payer program. It has many faults but it does provide universal coverage.
I feel healthcare is a right not a privilege. The problem , as with all government programs, is how do you instill personal responsibility and minimize abuse.

 

[ElmerMudd]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

That's how private insurance works., idiot.

Insurance involves a group of people sharing in risk.
Irresponsible IDIOTS like you do not buy insurance then you have a major health crisis we all pay for it. That is not how insurance works, that is what happens when insurance is not mandated, IDIOT.

 

[task0778]

Presumably we are talking about the IPAB here, a board of 15 un-elected bureaucrats who will decide the criteria for who gets access to what care, and even who is denied care. The IPAB is not yet in effect, but the ACA has provisions for that to happen. I think that's how many other countries with some form of Single Payer are holding down the costs of health care, or at least one way of doing it. Do we want to go down that road?

Every private or public insurance has individuals who decide what will be covered and what will not. ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care.
Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA.

"ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care."

This is not true, the ACA does in fact create the IPAB which would in fact control access to health care in terms of determining who gets what treatment. What went on before that is irrelevant, the current GOP HC proposal does not do that.

"Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA"

Really? Tell me about it, what care that is mandated by the ACA will be eliminated by the GOP Senate proposal? And don't you think you oughta wait and see what the final version is before you complain about it? I don't think we'll see Ryan or McConnell telling us we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Trumpcare allows the private insurance companies to cover what they want. Each insurance company has the equivalent of an IPAB that makes decisions. ACA mandated private insurance companies provide certain coverage's.
Every insurance public and private make determinations on who is covered and what is covered. Medicare and medicaid have always been more generous on who and what is covered. Unfortunately, as a result they lose lots of money.
Do you really think Trumpcare will cover more people and more services at the same or less money than ACA? Dream on

The Senate HCI proposal requires insurers to provide both guaranteed issue and pre-existing conditions, same as the ACA. Which is one big reason why so many insurers are dropping out of the exchanges, you can't make money with both of these requirements in effect. So, insurance companies do NOT get to decide who gets covered for what under the Senate plan.

I suspect that as it stands now the GOP HC Bill will provide fewer people with coverage for less money than the ACA does. Seems to me what has to happen is some sort of high risk pool either at the state or federal level. I can't see any other way to do it.

The other option is a single payer program. It has many faults but it does provide universal coverage.
I feel healthcare is a right not a privilege. The problem , as with all government programs, is how do you instill personal responsibility and minimize abuse.

I do not believe healthcare is a right nor a privilege, and I do not believe a single payer system is the only other option. Instead, we've got to develop a better healthcare delivery system and a better healthcare insurance model that works for as many people as possible. Unfortunately we've got too many people in Washington fighting with each other instead of doing what's best for the country.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Every private or public insurance has individuals who decide what will be covered and what will not. ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care.
Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA.

"ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care."

This is not true, the ACA does in fact create the IPAB which would in fact control access to health care in terms of determining who gets what treatment. What went on before that is irrelevant, the current GOP HC proposal does not do that.

"Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA"

Really? Tell me about it, what care that is mandated by the ACA will be eliminated by the GOP Senate proposal? And don't you think you oughta wait and see what the final version is before you complain about it? I don't think we'll see Ryan or McConnell telling us we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Trumpcare allows the private insurance companies to cover what they want. Each insurance company has the equivalent of an IPAB that makes decisions. ACA mandated private insurance companies provide certain coverage's.
Every insurance public and private make determinations on who is covered and what is covered. Medicare and medicaid have always been more generous on who and what is covered. Unfortunately, as a result they lose lots of money.
Do you really think Trumpcare will cover more people and more services at the same or less money than ACA? Dream on

The Senate HCI proposal requires insurers to provide both guaranteed issue and pre-existing conditions, same as the ACA. Which is one big reason why so many insurers are dropping out of the exchanges, you can't make money with both of these requirements in effect. So, insurance companies do NOT get to decide who gets covered for what under the Senate plan.

I suspect that as it stands now the GOP HC Bill will provide fewer people with coverage for less money than the ACA does. Seems to me what has to happen is some sort of high risk pool either at the state or federal level. I can't see any other way to do it.

The other option is a single payer program. It has many faults but it does provide universal coverage.
I feel healthcare is a right not a privilege. The problem , as with all government programs, is how do you instill personal responsibility and minimize abuse.

I do not believe healthcare is a right nor a privilege, and I do not believe a single payer system is the only other option. Instead, we've got to develop a better healthcare delivery system and a better healthcare insurance model that works for as many people as possible. Unfortunately we've got too many people in Washington fighting with each other instead of doing what's best for the country.

I agree the people in Washington are part of the problem, not the answer.

 

[HenryBHough]

I was kinda looking forward to the mandate part of Obamacare lingering on. Y'see, I have concocted this very good-for-you sauce and was looking forward to a government mandate that everybody buy at least one bottle a week or pay a fine for not doing so. Sort of sauce for the goose....sauce for................

 

[RodISHI]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

That's how private insurance works., idiot.

Insurance involves a group of people sharing in risk.
Irresponsible IDIOTS like you do not buy insurance then you have a major health crisis we all pay for it. That is not how insurance works, that is what happens when insurance is not mandated, IDIOT.

Mandated insurance doesn't mean squat other than there are people in an office (an insurance company employee) determining whether in their opinion or not you are entitled to health care while they comfortably collect a paycheck and you can go to hell as far as they are concern in many cases.