Newest Health Care Poll

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

I know YOU are already ignoring my questions I've addressed on purpose! You will dodge answering any questions that stands contrary to your position.


According to Federal law: If someone comes into the ER he/she is automatically provided with a room. Everyone has the right to a medical exam to determine the condition of a patient, NO ONE can be turned away based on no insurance. If a person is turned away from an illness that is life threatening, that's grounds for a lawsuit. Any bill that does arise can be negotiated, yes they HAVE to pay something. Your excuse of simply brushing off the costs issue simply doesn't work, THAT kind of system will eventually collapse on itself into providing lower quality of care for everyone, Massachusetts has already PROVEN that. You are simply blinded by "ideology" . . . over the reality of cost.


Looking at our current Federal Budget: the Social Security Program with Medicare/Medicaid make up 40.9% of the Federal budget, compared to the discretionary defense budget of 20.5%. These figures are without the additional budget costs of including a Federal Government Health Care mandate. If Massachusetts is any indicator, our Federal Budget will skyrocket with no concrete solutions on handling such "problems" a government healthcare system brings (COST, increased ER cost, and increase wait times).
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


Will you continue on with these games of yours? Do you have the capability of answering my questions, or are you simply motivated by blind ideology, that you can not handle someone addressing legitimate issues?

You can start by addressing these questions:
1) WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?
You haven't 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.


2) 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.

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

I know YOU are already ignoring my questions I've addressed on purpose! You will dodge answering any questions that stands contrary to your position.


According to Federal law: If someone comes into the ER he/she is automatically provided with a room. Everyone has a the right for a medical exam to determine the condition of a patient, NO ONE can be turned away based on no insurance. If a person is turned away from an illness that is life threatening, that's grounds for a lawsuit. Any bill that does arise can be negotiated, yes they HAVE to pay something. Your excuse of simply brushing off the costs issue simply doesn't work, THAT kind of system will eventually collapse on itself into providing lower quality of care for everyone, Massachusetts has already PROVEN that. You are simply blinded by "ideology" . . . over the reality of cost.

I am fully aware that if someone comes in to an ER she/he is automatically treated, regardless of ability to pay. That's not what I asked you.

I asked your opinion on whether or not you think people should be treated, even if they can not pay no matter what. Pick a choice

A) Yes, people should receive the treatment they need, even if they can't pay for it
B) No, people should only be treated if they can afford the treatment they are receiving.

Please don't waste your time and talk about anything else until you answer the question that you've avoided repeatedly now. I can't properly answer your questions until you've answered mine.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

I know YOU are already ignoring my questions I've addressed on purpose! You will dodge answering any questions that stands contrary to your position.


According to Federal law: If someone comes into the ER he/she is automatically provided with a room. Everyone has a the right for a medical exam to determine the condition of a patient, NO ONE can be turned away based on no insurance. If a person is turned away from an illness that is life threatening, that's grounds for a lawsuit. Any bill that does arise can be negotiated, yes they HAVE to pay something. Your excuse of simply brushing off the costs issue simply doesn't work, THAT kind of system will eventually collapse on itself into providing lower quality of care for everyone, Massachusetts has already PROVEN that. You are simply blinded by "ideology" . . . over the reality of cost.

I am fully aware that if someone comes in to an ER she/he is automatically treated, regardless of ability to pay. That's not what I asked you.

I asked your opinion on whether or not you think people should be treated, even if they can not pay no matter what. Pick a choice

A) Yes, people should receive the treatment they need, even if they can't pay for it
B) No, people should only be treated if they can afford the treatment they are receiving.

Please don't waste your time and talk about anything else until you answer the question that you've avoided repeatedly now. I can't properly answer your questions until you've answered mine.

I have answer the question. They HAVE to pay something for the treatment that they receive. Continue to dodge my questions, that will only prove to further my position and your inability to defend your argument.

 

[RDD_1210]

I know YOU are already ignoring my questions I've addressed on purpose! You will dodge answering any questions that stands contrary to your position.


According to Federal law: If someone comes into the ER he/she is automatically provided with a room. Everyone has a the right for a medical exam to determine the condition of a patient, NO ONE can be turned away based on no insurance. If a person is turned away from an illness that is life threatening, that's grounds for a lawsuit. Any bill that does arise can be negotiated, yes they HAVE to pay something. Your excuse of simply brushing off the costs issue simply doesn't work, THAT kind of system will eventually collapse on itself into providing lower quality of care for everyone, Massachusetts has already PROVEN that. You are simply blinded by "ideology" . . . over the reality of cost.

I am fully aware that if someone comes in to an ER she/he is automatically treated, regardless of ability to pay. That's not what I asked you.

I asked your opinion on whether or not you think people should be treated, even if they can not pay no matter what. Pick a choice

A) Yes, people should receive the treatment they need, even if they can't pay for it
B) No, people should only be treated if they can afford the treatment they are receiving.

Please don't waste your time and talk about anything else until you answer the question that you've avoided repeatedly now. I can't properly answer your questions until you've answered mine.

I have answer the question. They HAVE to pay something for the treatment that they receive. Continue to dodge my questions, that will only prove to further my position.

What if they can't pay anything or only a minute fraction of the total bill? Then what?

 

[syrenn]

A) Yes, people should receive the treatment they need, even if they can't pay for it
B) No, people should only be treated if they can afford the treatment they are receiving.

AGAIN... the answer is they already receive care they cannot pay for now.

And per your obamacare....they will receive the same care and MORE that they cant pay for.

Should and should not's are a straw man.


There is no difference. Same thing different more expensive shells.

 

[syrenn]

I am fully aware that if someone comes in to an ER she/he is automatically treated, regardless of ability to pay. That's not what I asked you.

I asked your opinion on whether or not you think people should be treated, even if they can not pay no matter what. Pick a choice

A) Yes, people should receive the treatment they need, even if they can't pay for it
B) No, people should only be treated if they can afford the treatment they are receiving.

Please don't waste your time and talk about anything else until you answer the question that you've avoided repeatedly now. I can't properly answer your questions until you've answered mine.

I have answer the question. They HAVE to pay something for the treatment that they receive. Continue to dodge my questions, that will only prove to further my position.

What if they can't pay anything or only a minute fraction of the total bill? Then what?

Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.

 

[RDD_1210]

I have answer the question. They HAVE to pay something for the treatment that they receive. Continue to dodge my questions, that will only prove to further my position.

What if they can't pay anything or only a minute fraction of the total bill? Then what?

Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.

You're ok with that?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I am fully aware that if someone comes in to an ER she/he is automatically treated, regardless of ability to pay. That's not what I asked you.

I asked your opinion on whether or not you think people should be treated, even if they can not pay no matter what. Pick a choice

A) Yes, people should receive the treatment they need, even if they can't pay for it
B) No, people should only be treated if they can afford the treatment they are receiving.

Please don't waste your time and talk about anything else until you answer the question that you've avoided repeatedly now. I can't properly answer your questions until you've answered mine.

I have answer the question. They HAVE to pay something for the treatment that they receive. Continue to dodge my questions, that will only prove to further my position.

What if they can't pay anything or only a minute fraction of the total bill? Then what?

You CONTINUE to dodge my legitimate issues. You don't want to address concerns if their position stands contrary to your "ideology". Answer my issues I have brought before you, and we will discuss further YOUR additional questions.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all.

You can start by addressing these questions:
1) WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?

They don't have a great track record, I won't disagree with you. However, this legislation isn't about the government taking over. In fact all it is doing is setting guidelines for private insurance companies and providing more business for private insurance companies.

2) 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.

The cost will be accounted for in a variety of ways but one of the primary means of accounting for cost is the effective decrease it will have on the rates we will all pay over time due to less uninsured people using the healthcare system and not paying, since they will now be covered by health insurance as opposed to before.

 

[syrenn]

What if they can't pay anything or only a minute fraction of the total bill? Then what?

Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.

You're ok with that?

Not ok with it now, and wont be ok with it when it costs me even more to carry them under obamacare.

It is financialy unsustainable now, and obamacare will make it worse.....for the ones who are paying.

 

[RDD_1210]

Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.

You're ok with that?

Not ok with it now, and wont be ok with it when it costs me even more to carry them under obamacare.

It is financialy unsustainable now, and obamacare will make it worse.....for the ones who are paying.

So you think that if you can't afford to pay, you shouldn't be able to get care?

 

[syrenn]

You're ok with that?

Not ok with it now, and wont be ok with it when it costs me even more to carry them under obamacare.

It is financialy unsustainable now, and obamacare will make it worse.....for the ones who are paying.

So you think that if you can't afford to pay, you shouldn't be able to get care?

It doesn't matte what i think or want. It is happing now. Under obamacare it will happen again. Just more people will be abusing the finances of others.

Same game different more expensive shells.


So again...how about i send you my medical bill and you can write a check.

 

[RDD_1210]

Not ok with it now, and wont be ok with it when it costs me even more to carry them under obamacare.

It is financialy unsustainable now, and obamacare will make it worse.....for the ones who are paying.

So you think that if you can't afford to pay, you shouldn't be able to get care?

It doesn't matte what i think or want. It is happing now. Under obamacare it will happen again. Just more people will be abusing the finances of others.

Same game different more expensive shells.


So again...how about i send you my medical bill and you can write a check.

Again, for some reason you refuse to tell us your thoughts. Are you ashamed or something?

 

[syrenn]

So you think that if you can't afford to pay, you shouldn't be able to get care?

It doesn't matte what i think or want. It is happing now. Under obamacare it will happen again. Just more people will be abusing the finances of others.

Same game different more expensive shells.


So again...how about i send you my medical bill and you can write a check.

Again, for some reason you refuse to tell us your thoughts. Are you ashamed or something?

Not all. You on the other hand should be ashamed for mocking the very people you claim you want to help.

 

[RDD_1210]

It doesn't matte what i think or want. It is happing now. Under obamacare it will happen again. Just more people will be abusing the finances of others.

Same game different more expensive shells.


So again...how about i send you my medical bill and you can write a check.

Again, for some reason you refuse to tell us your thoughts. Are you ashamed or something?

Not all. You on the other hand should be ashamed for mocking the very people you claim you want to help.

I mock stupidity, nothing more.

 

[syrenn]

Again, for some reason you refuse to tell us your thoughts. Are you ashamed or something?

Not all. You on the other hand should be ashamed for mocking the very people you claim you want to help.

I mock stupidity, nothing more.

You mock the very people you claim to want to help. And you should be ashamed.

 

[RDD_1210]

Not all. You on the other hand should be ashamed for mocking the very people you claim you want to help.

I mock stupidity, nothing more.

You mock the very people you claim to want to help. And you should be ashamed.

Not at all. I mock idiots of all walks of life.

 

[GWV5903]

I mock stupidity, nothing more.

You mock the very people you claim to want to help. And you should be ashamed.

Not at all. I mock idiots of all walks of life.

Hell, you don't even deny it....

 

[RDD_1210]

You mock the very people you claim to want to help. And you should be ashamed.

Not at all. I mock idiots of all walks of life.

Hell, you don't even deny it....

Mocking all sorts of idiots? Of course not.

 

[syrenn]

Not at all. I mock idiots of all walks of life.

Hell, you don't even deny it....

Mocking all sorts of idiots? Of course not.

No..you specifically mocked BF about his not having insurance. You spacificaly mocked him for not making enough money in life to afford it. You called him a loser even though he IS paying his bills in payments. You mocked him for not being a drain on society. You mocked his situation in life.

You mocked him for being poor.

And you should be ashamed.

And if you dont believe me...ask him.