Newest Health Care Poll

[RDD_1210]

Then I don't understand your confusion. Their premiums will be much, much lower than if they had to buy insurance on their own. Some people WILL be income-eligible to pay nothing for the coverage, but I'd have to look it up to see what the cutoff is. It's higher than Medicaid, though. The program was never intended, and is not, "free" to all participants. Some out of pocket will be required.

Some out of pocket should be required from everyone who participate in the program. THAT is my point, no one should be exempt from payment.

So how do you treat someone who lost her job, has to raise her three kids alone, lost her home to foreclosure, is now feeding her kids on food stamps and is camped out in somebody else's spare room? Send her a bill to throw in the hat with all the other bills she's unable to pay?

Ding! Ding! Ding! If you get a logical response to this, I'll be shocked.

 

[syrenn]

Then I don't understand your confusion. Their premiums will be much, much lower than if they had to buy insurance on their own. Some people WILL be income-eligible to pay nothing for the coverage, but I'd have to look it up to see what the cutoff is. It's higher than Medicaid, though. The program was never intended, and is not, "free" to all participants. Some out of pocket will be required.

Some out of pocket should be required from everyone who participate in the program. THAT is my point, no one should be exempt from payment.

So how do you treat someone who lost her job, has to raise her three kids alone, lost her home to foreclosure, is now feeding her kids on food stamps and is camped out in somebody else's spare room? Send her a bill to throw in the hat with all the other bills she's unable to pay?

Yes.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Let me rephrase, since you like to weasel out of answering questions.

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No

Since you like asking questions, let me put it to you this way. I pay for my bills and health care. Everyone should do the same. No one else is paying my way in life. No one else is affording me quality of life.

The answer is: There is not such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

But for the Grace of God go you, then. I certainly hope you never find yourself without all the money you need for your splendidly perfect life.

That's the problem with the left. They like to build this pretty picture of a Health Care System for all, to include pre-existing conditions. However, talk about the "REALITY" of cost, like the previous post about Massachusetts and the high rising cost of a government run system, and they completely avoid wanting to address THAT issue. It's built on the whole notion of "someone else will pay for it". Well that "someone else" HAS NOT reduced the cost of Health Care, it has only done the exact opposite. So when will MaggieMay and RDD address this issue of cost that Syrenn keeps addressing? RDD_1210 is especially good at dodging this point. Do you need a reminder of these issues? Talk about your rosy "illusion" of a perfect Health Care all you want, WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
By Aleksandra Kulczuga - The Daily Caller

When Mitt Romney criticized the Obama health-care program earlier this week, leading Democrats responded by pointing out that, as governor of Massachusetts several years ago, Romney himself presided over the enactment of strikingly similar reforms. RomneyCare and ObamaCare aren’t so different, Democrats argued. If you liked one, you can’t attack the other.

Fair enough. So how is the Massachusetts health-care system these days?

Like the bill that President Obama signed on Sunday, the 2006 Massachusetts plan was sold to voters on the now-familiar promise that it would reduce costs and lower unnecessary emergency room visits. That’s not what happened.

Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

Even more striking, the 2006 law has done little to ease the burden on emergency rooms, a central goal of all heath care reform plans. A report by the Boston Globe found that in the first two years of the program, the state’s ER costs actually rose by 17 percent. “They said that ER visits would drop by 75 percent, and it hasn’t been even close to that,” said State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who is currently running for governor as an Independent. “It hasn’t changed people’s habits. It hasn’t been successful at getting people to use less expensive alternatives.”

Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb

More people are seeking care in Massachusetts hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17% over two years. This is despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. Visits to Massachusetts emergency rooms grew 7% between 2005 and 2007, to 2,469,295 visits. The estimated cost of treating those patients jumped from $826 million to $973 million.

Merritt Hawkins & Associates, “2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times,” Physician Jobs and Healthcare Employment - Merritt Hawkins & Associates

It is the state where President Obama received his law school education, where Senator Edward Kennedy has fought for a single payer system for 40 years, where Obama’s closest health care advisors, Dean David Cutler, PhD, of Harvard and Robert Blumenthal, M.D., of Massachusetts General and National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,reside, and where the nation’s first “universal health plan” was spawned and has been in operation for three years.

Yet, despite this political firepower, something seems to have gone askew. Massachusetts health costs are the highest in the land. Despite the highest concentration of physicians per capita and lowest rate of uninsured among the states (2.6%), people are having a hard time finding doctors, especially primary care practitioners but other specialists as well. Bay State residents are flocking to high-cost emergency rooms for care in unprecedented numbers. And all of this in an affluent states which is supposed to set an example for other states to follow.

The average wait times for appointments in Boston for cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days.

The average cumulative wait times for the 5 specialties just mentioned are,

Boston, 50 days

Philadelphia, 27 days

Los Angeles, 24 days

Houston, 23 days

Washington, D.C., 23 days

San Diego, 20 days

Minneapolis, 20 days

Dallas, 19 days

New York, 19 days

Denver, 15 days

Miami, 15 days

Portland, 14 days

Seattle, 14 days

Detroit, 12 days

Atlanta, 11 days

 

[RDD_1210]

Since you like asking questions, let me put it to you this way. I pay for my bills and health care. Everyone should do the same. No one else is paying my way in life. No one else is affording me quality of life.

The answer is: There is not such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

But for the Grace of God go you, then. I certainly hope you never find yourself without all the money you need for your splendidly perfect life.

That's the problem with the left. They like to build this pretty picture of a Health Care System for all, to include pre-existing conditions. However, talk about the "REALITY" of cost, like the previous post about Massachusetts and the high rising cost of a government run system, and they completely avoid wanting to address THAT issue. It's built on the whole notion of "someone else will pay for it". Well that "someone else" HAS NOT reduced the cost of Health Care, it has only done the exact opposite. So when will MaggieMay and RDD address this issue of cost that Syrenn keeps addressing? RDD_1210 is especially good at dodging this point. Do you need a reminder of these issues? Talk about your rosy "illusion" of a perfect Health Care all you want, WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

I've discussed how cost is addressed numerous times. Learn to read.

 

[syrenn]

But for the Grace of God go you, then. I certainly hope you never find yourself without all the money you need for your splendidly perfect life.

That's the problem with the left. They like to build this pretty picture of a Health Care System for all, to include pre-existing conditions. However, talk about the "REALITY" of cost, like the previous post about Massachusetts and the high rising cost of a government run system, and they completely avoid wanting to address THAT issue. It's built on the whole notion of "someone else will pay for it". Well that "someone else" HAS NOT reduced the cost of Health Care, it has only done the exact opposite. So when will MaggieMay and RDD address this issue of cost that Syrenn keeps addressing? RDD_1210 is especially good at dodging this point. Do you need a reminder of these issues? Talk about your rosy "illusion" of a perfect Health Care all you want, WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb

More people are seeking care in Massachusetts hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17% over two years. This is despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. Visits to Massachusetts emergency rooms grew 7% between 2005 and 2007, to 2,469,295 visits. The estimated cost of treating those patients jumped from $826 million to $973 million.

Merritt Hawkins & Associates, “2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times,” Physician Jobs and Healthcare Employment - Merritt Hawkins & Associates

It is the state where President Obama received his law school education, where Senator Edward Kennedy has fought for a single payer system for 40 years, where Obama’s closest health care advisors, Dean David Cutler, PhD, of Harvard and Robert Blumenthal, M.D., of Massachusetts General and National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,reside, and where the nation’s first “universal health plan” was spawned and has been in operation for three years.

Yet, despite this political firepower, something seems to have gone askew. Massachusetts health costs are the highest in the land. Despite the highest concentration of physicians per capita and lowest rate of uninsured among the states (2.6%), people are having a hard time finding doctors, especially primary care practitioners but other specialists as well. Bay State residents are flocking to high-cost emergency rooms for care in unprecedented numbers. And all of this in an affluent states which is supposed to set an example for other states to follow.

The average wait times for appointments in Boston for cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days.

The average cumulative wait times for the 5 specialties just mentioned are,

Boston, 50 days

Philadelphia, 27 days

Los Angeles, 24 days

Houston, 23 days

Washington, D.C., 23 days

San Diego, 20 days

Minneapolis, 20 days

Dallas, 19 days

New York, 19 days

Denver, 15 days

Miami, 15 days

Portland, 14 days

Seattle, 14 days

Detroit, 12 days

Atlanta, 11 days

I've discussed how cost is addressed numerous times. Learn to read.

You have addressed.. Hope and If. You have addressed pie in the sky. You have addressed nothing that is a sustainable system financially.

You have hopes for a sustainable system...If i works.

So long as there are people who do not pay into the system and expect care for nothing..it will never work.

Obamacare is the same game just different more expensive shells.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

But for the Grace of God go you, then. I certainly hope you never find yourself without all the money you need for your splendidly perfect life.

That's the problem with the left. They like to build this pretty picture of a Health Care System for all, to include pre-existing conditions. However, talk about the "REALITY" of cost, like the previous post about Massachusetts and the high rising cost of a government run system, and they completely avoid wanting to address THAT issue. It's built on the whole notion of "someone else will pay for it". Well that "someone else" HAS NOT reduced the cost of Health Care, it has only done the exact opposite. So when will MaggieMay and RDD address this issue of cost that Syrenn keeps addressing? RDD_1210 is especially good at dodging this point. Do you need a reminder of these issues? Talk about your rosy "illusion" of a perfect Health Care all you want, WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

I've discussed how cost is addressed numerous times. Learn to read.

Yes, as I have stated you pawn it off to "someone else", but you have not addressed the increases of expense that THIS Health Care plan will bring. Just your "need" to pawn off responsibility. I will state it again:


WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer. As I have already proven, such a government system will NOT reduce the COST of care in comparison to the private sector.

Will you dodge those issues yet again?

 

[RDD_1210]

That's the problem with the left. They like to build this pretty picture of a Health Care System for all, to include pre-existing conditions. However, talk about the "REALITY" of cost, like the previous post about Massachusetts and the high rising cost of a government run system, and they completely avoid wanting to address THAT issue. It's built on the whole notion of "someone else will pay for it". Well that "someone else" HAS NOT reduced the cost of Health Care, it has only done the exact opposite. So when will MaggieMay and RDD address this issue of cost that Syrenn keeps addressing? RDD_1210 is especially good at dodging this point. Do you need a reminder of these issues? Talk about your rosy "illusion" of a perfect Health Care all you want, WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

I've discussed how cost is addressed numerous times. Learn to read.

Yes, as I have stated you pawn it off to "someone else", but you have not addressed the increases of expense that THIS Health Care plan will bring. Just your "need" to pawn off responsibility. I will state it again:


WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.

Will you dodge those issues yet again?

Before we discuss this, let's see if we even need to have a discussion about this at all. Because if we disagree on the following question then there is no need to discuss any further.

If someone is completely broke and has no way of paying at all, should they still be able to receive care? Yes or no?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I've discussed how cost is addressed numerous times. Learn to read.

Yes, as I have stated you pawn it off to "someone else", but you have not addressed the increases of expense that THIS Health Care plan will bring. Just your "need" to pawn off responsibility. I will state it again:


WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.

Will you dodge those issues yet again?

Before we discuss this, let's see if we even need to have a discussion about this at all. Because if we disagree on the following question then there is no need to discuss any further.

If someone is completely broke and has no way of paying at all, should they still be able to receive care? Yes or no?

Again you say: let us promise to provide this rosy "illusion" of health care without addressing cost. Are you unable to address what I have already asked WITHOUT dodging the subject entirely? You can't make promises, if you consistently REFUSE to address the realities I have provided with COST. Do you ever buy a house without any means to pay for it, simply hand the responsibility over to the government for "someone else" to handle it?

 

[Big Fitz]

He's sticking to his hypothetical and avoiding realities like the plague. You know, the admission that his dream will never make a good reality.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes, as I have stated you pawn it off to "someone else", but you have not addressed the increases of expense that THIS Health Care plan will bring. Just your "need" to pawn off responsibility. I will state it again:


WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.

Will you dodge those issues yet again?

Before we discuss this, let's see if we even need to have a discussion about this at all. Because if we disagree on the following question then there is no need to discuss any further.

If someone is completely broke and has no way of paying at all, should they still be able to receive care? Yes or no?

Again you say: let us promise to provide this rosy "illusion" of health care without addressing cost. Are you unable to address what I have already asked WITHOUT dodging the subject entirely? You can't make promises, if you consistently REFUSE to address the realities I have provided with COST. Do you ever buy a house without any means to pay for it, simply hand the responsibility over to the government for "someone else" to handle it?

I'll be happy to discuss cost, again, but like I said if we have a fundamental difference in opinion as to whether or not people should receive care even if they can not pay...well then discussing cost is pointless at that point. So that's why I asked the question of you. Once we know your answer, I would be happy to answer anything you want.

 

[RDD_1210]

He's sticking to his hypothetical and avoiding realities like the plague. You know, the admission that his dream will never make a good reality.

Oh look who decided to show back up. Weird how you disappeared when you were shown how dumb you were being. Thanks for coming back to remind us.

 

[Big Fitz]

He's sticking to his hypothetical and avoiding realities like the plague. You know, the admission that his dream will never make a good reality.

Oh look who decided to show back up. Weird how you disappeared when you were shown how dumb you were being. Thanks for coming back to remind us.

It's called having a life. Unlike some, I have to earn a living, and not just play star trek in mommy's basement demanding more hot pockets.

You also don't debate with eggplants on topics as weighty as health insurance and medical care balanced with economic realities not fantasy desires. Kinda pointless.

 

[RDD_1210]

He's sticking to his hypothetical and avoiding realities like the plague. You know, the admission that his dream will never make a good reality.

Oh look who decided to show back up. Weird how you disappeared when you were shown how dumb you were being. Thanks for coming back to remind us.

It's called having a life. Unlike some, I have to earn a living, and not just play star trek in mommy's basement demanding more hot pockets.

You also don't debate with eggplants on topics as weighty as health insurance and medical care balanced with economic realities not fantasy desires. Kinda pointless.

Oh you were earning a living, eh? Weird because a simple search shows you were on the site and posting, PLENTY, since you were last in this thread.

Let's take a look, you posted in all of the following threads last night, this morning and this afternoon before slinking back in here.

- Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun
- Our new puppy
- Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats
- Mubarak out
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!
- WTF is a murkin ?
- Governor Brewer to sue Federal Government. It's on, bitches!
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!

Seems you found a whole bunch of free time to make those posts, but odd, no response to your bullshit being called out here.
Let's face it, you're a poor liar and aren't very bright. But keep it up, at least you're consistent.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh look who decided to show back up. Weird how you disappeared when you were shown how dumb you were being. Thanks for coming back to remind us.

It's called having a life. Unlike some, I have to earn a living, and not just play star trek in mommy's basement demanding more hot pockets.

You also don't debate with eggplants on topics as weighty as health insurance and medical care balanced with economic realities not fantasy desires. Kinda pointless.

Oh you were earning a living, eh? Weird because a simple search shows you were on the site and posting, PLENTY, since you were last in this thread.

Let's take a look, you posted in all of the following threads last night, this morning and this afternoon before slinking back in here.

- Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun
- Our new puppy
- Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats
- Mubarak out
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!
- WTF is a murkin ?
- Governor Brewer to sue Federal Government. It's on, bitches!
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!

Seems you found a whole bunch of free time to make those posts, but odd, no response to your bullshit being called out here.
Let's face it, you're a poor liar and aren't very bright. But keep it up, at least you're consistent.

Are you trying to say you know when I work and when I don't?

Keep it up laughing boy. You're working your way to a harrassment ban. Personal attacks and now stalking. Nice.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's called having a life. Unlike some, I have to earn a living, and not just play star trek in mommy's basement demanding more hot pockets.

You also don't debate with eggplants on topics as weighty as health insurance and medical care balanced with economic realities not fantasy desires. Kinda pointless.

Oh you were earning a living, eh? Weird because a simple search shows you were on the site and posting, PLENTY, since you were last in this thread.

Let's take a look, you posted in all of the following threads last night, this morning and this afternoon before slinking back in here.

- Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun
- Our new puppy
- Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats
- Mubarak out
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!
- WTF is a murkin ?
- Governor Brewer to sue Federal Government. It's on, bitches!
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!

Seems you found a whole bunch of free time to make those posts, but odd, no response to your bullshit being called out here.
Let's face it, you're a poor liar and aren't very bright. But keep it up, at least you're consistent.

Are you trying to say you know when I work and when I don't?

Keep it up laughing boy. You're working your way to a harrassment ban. Personal attacks and now stalking. Nice.

You have called me plenty of insults, so don't start crying now that I caught you in a flat out lie.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Before we discuss this, let's see if we even need to have a discussion about this at all. Because if we disagree on the following question then there is no need to discuss any further.

If someone is completely broke and has no way of paying at all, should they still be able to receive care? Yes or no?

Again you say: let us promise to provide this rosy "illusion" of health care without addressing cost. Are you unable to address what I have already asked WITHOUT dodging the subject entirely? You can't make promises, if you consistently REFUSE to address the realities I have provided with COST. Do you ever buy a house without any means to pay for it, simply hand the responsibility over to the government for "someone else" to handle it?

I'll be happy to discuss cost, again, but like I said if we have a fundamental difference in opinion as to whether or not people should receive care even if they can not pay...well then discussing cost is pointless at that point. So that's why I asked the question of you. Once we know your answer, I would be happy to answer anything you want.

You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times. All your dodging will not change that issue. If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.

We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws. We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh you were earning a living, eh? Weird because a simple search shows you were on the site and posting, PLENTY, since you were last in this thread.

Let's take a look, you posted in all of the following threads last night, this morning and this afternoon before slinking back in here.

- Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun
- Our new puppy
- Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats
- Mubarak out
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!
- WTF is a murkin ?
- Governor Brewer to sue Federal Government. It's on, bitches!
- Say It Loud! I'm Black And I'm Proud!

Seems you found a whole bunch of free time to make those posts, but odd, no response to your bullshit being called out here.
Let's face it, you're a poor liar and aren't very bright. But keep it up, at least you're consistent.

Are you trying to say you know when I work and when I don't?

Keep it up laughing boy. You're working your way to a harrassment ban. Personal attacks and now stalking. Nice.

You have called me plenty of insults, so don't start crying now that I caught you in a flat out lie.

You've caught nothing. I like how you ignore time stamps on when that happens. Yet more of your intellectual disingenuous nature on display.

 

[RDD_1210]

Are you trying to say you know when I work and when I don't?

Keep it up laughing boy. You're working your way to a harrassment ban. Personal attacks and now stalking. Nice.

You have called me plenty of insults, so don't start crying now that I caught you in a flat out lie.

You've caught nothing. I like how you ignore time stamps on when that happens. Yet more of your intellectual disingenuous nature on display.

Really??? You want me to post Time Stamps for you? I'd be happy to if thats what you want.

 

[RDD_1210]

Again you say: let us promise to provide this rosy "illusion" of health care without addressing cost. Are you unable to address what I have already asked WITHOUT dodging the subject entirely? You can't make promises, if you consistently REFUSE to address the realities I have provided with COST. Do you ever buy a house without any means to pay for it, simply hand the responsibility over to the government for "someone else" to handle it?

I'll be happy to discuss cost, again, but like I said if we have a fundamental difference in opinion as to whether or not people should receive care even if they can not pay...well then discussing cost is pointless at that point. So that's why I asked the question of you. Once we know your answer, I would be happy to answer anything you want.

You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times. All your dodging will not change that issue. If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.

We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws. We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.

Are you ignoring what I said on purpose? I told you I would be happy to talk with you about this, but I don't know your underlying position on the issue. So once we clear up your stance we can proceed, yet you don't even acknowledge what I asked. It's really a simple question, no tricks, just so I know if we are on the same page or not.

So I'll ask one last time.

If someone can not afford to pay for their healthcare at all, should they be denied the ability to receive health care?

 

[R.D.]

If someone can not afford to pay for their healthcare at all, should they be denied the ability to receive health care?

Sigh....it just doesn't happen.

And just a heads up, health care and health insurance are two separate things.