"Middle Class Americans" behind Healthcare protests

[squishyx]

Great squish - you want to lower the healthcare of 250 million people in the USA. I love liberals.

Great SC - Since I know you are the spin mode, before you go off on a tangent I don't agree with your assessment. However if you assumed that your premise is true; you are totally hand waving over the fact that the bottom 50 million must have atrocious healthcare to drag down the average of all 250 million. And if (and again I don't think it is) that's the case I have no problem lowering my healthcare a bit to compensate.

Edited August 8, 2009 by squishyx

[SC Devs Fan]

You really think we can afford to give those without healthcare the absolute best health care that Donald Trump has and be able to finance it? If I PM you my address can you PLEASE send me what you are smoking?

And of those 50 million Americans how many choose not to have healthcare so they can drive nicer cars, live in better houses and go to Disneyland every year? How many of these don't do what they can to be in better shape, not drinking or smoking and exercing? How many had children with the knowledge they couldn't afford to have them or pay for the basic needs of that child? Of those 50M, how many could afford it yet choose not to? I don't know, and I don't know of any studies that answer that. And of those 50M, what is atrocious about their healthcare, that they cannot afford their prescriptions or get preventative care? NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES IS DENIED URGENT CARE - NO ONE. The healthcare isn't the best but it is not atrocious. Just like everything in life, you get what you pay for - and if you pay nothing you shouldn't get the best.

[squishyx]

You really think we can afford to give those without healthcare the absolute best health care that Donald Trump has and be able to finance it? If I PM you my address can you PLEASE send me what you are smoking?

Yawn, never said this but continue trying to make up my argument, thats the "SC pattern", rather then talk about the subject at hand keep pulling strawmans to argue about.

And of those 50 million Americans how many choose not to have healthcare so they can drive nicer cars, live in better houses and go to Disneyland every year? How many of these don't do what they can to be in better shape, not drinking or smoking and exercing? How many had children with the knowledge they couldn't afford to have them or pay for the basic needs of that child? Of those 50M, how many could afford it yet choose not to? I don't know, and I don't know of any studies that answer that. And of those 50M, what is atrocious about their healthcare, that they cannot afford their prescriptions or get preventative care? NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES IS DENIED URGENT CARE - NO ONE. The healthcare isn't the best but it is not atrocious. Just like everything in life, you get what you pay for - and if you pay nothing you shouldn't get the best.

Emergency care is not healthcare.

And thats the point, people shouldn't even get the choice between healthcare and a nicer car, everyone should have the same health coverage. My kid shouldn't jump the line on a transplant list for a liver because I make millions of dollars while little Timmy in the slums on Detroit can't because his parents don't make enough to register him at 40 different hospital transplant lists. My kids shouldn't have yearly checkups when someone elses kid can't. I don't believe we should be measuring the value of human life with money, and yet that is exactly what we are doing when it comes to health care. Everyone should have the same coverage, and then we can work as a group to improve that coverage, not pretend that those 50 million who can't afford it are just degenerates. I think its funny that you classify them as that and then admit in the same paragraph you don't have anything to back it up, I guess that makes it easier to live with yourself to think they just want to feed off the system.

You are right, there probably aren't many studies out there that ask people "hey can you afford healthcare but choose to buy a nicer car with bigger rims instead?" but this site does have some interesting facts that I hope atleast put some doubt in your head that the majority of the uninsured are a bunch of freeloaders.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families

[SC Devs Fan]

Well squish since those below the poverty level qualify for medicaid then the percentage who aren't covered have to come from the working poor. Duh. And if you are making more then 50,000 and cannot afford health insurance then what are you doing with your money? As for your yawn, I never said it you did in the post above - that everyone should have equal healthcare.

As for the liver transplant on rich Timmy vs. the ghetto kid, too bad, so sad, life isn't fair - your parents should have taught you that early in life, sorry to be the one that informs you of that fact. Why are we stopping at healthcare in the US - shouldn't everyone on the planet be able to come to the USA and get free healthcare? Does a child in Ethiopia deserve worse healthcare then little Timmy? Aren't all of their lives equal, or does your indignation only apply to American born children?

Your argument is always the same - everyone deserves equal healthcare, the rich have to pay for it because the middle class can't but gee I'd be happy to help if only I could, but I can't so I'll spend your dollars. Of course getting everyone covered will save lives and money - so will feeding all the hungry, putting roofs over the heads of the homeless and giving away free medicine to everyone. When the reform is I want what you have and I want you to pay for it then I am not on board with ehalthcare reform - that is not the same thing as saying I don't believe everyone should be covered.

Glad you return fresh from your vacation at Obama camp. Maybe we should be paying for vacations for everyone too since everyone is created equally in God's eyes, it's unfair only the rich can take adequate vacations.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

I have no problem lowering my healthcare a bit to compensate.

Go right ahead, but don't expect me to volunteer to downgrade the quality of my healthcare to compensate for some freeloading c@cksuckers who want to live in a nanny state and get free handouts from the government because the slothsome POS are too lazy to work.

You're willing to downgrade, have at it. I'm not, I hate freeloaders, get off your ass and get a fvcking job and with the money you earn get healthcare, don't go spending it on bling and BS, you can do that after you have paid your dues and obligations.

Half the problem is that the people who "can't afford" it have their priorities wrong, it's as simple as that.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Neutral Zone Trap

[devilsadvoc8]

I'll split from the lefties on this, while I think health care reform is a big issue, I won't go so far as to to say that only the rich have adequate healthcare. In general is healthcare the type of thing that should be given out based on how much money you have? At that point you are intrinsically valuing peoples lives more if they have money then those who do not. If you think it should have an impact, then you will probably never understand those who don't and vice versa.

Lots of things get done like this. You make more money you get nicer things. Quite a simple equation. Its been this way for oh, say thousands of years.

Substitute "shelter" for healthcare in your sentence above. Shelter seems to be an important. Try again with food. For what "needs" do we expect the government to supply and to what level at the expense of the wealthy?

Consider Maslow's hierachy of needs (link). This is a well known theory which ranks an individuals needs and portrays them on different levels according to their importance to survival. Look at the first level. Healthcare isn't there. Sex is. Perhaps the government should subsidize and provide sex for everyone. Healthcare is on the second level. In all honesty this is not the end all of all analyses but I offer it up as a measure to use to help interpret the "urgency" of passing a bill RIGHT now, even though it frankly sucks.

[squishyx]

Well squish since those below the poverty level qualify for medicaid then the percentage who aren't covered have to come from the working poor. Duh. And if you are making more then 50,000 and cannot afford health insurance then what are you doing with your money? As for your yawn, I never said it you did in the post above - that everyone should have equal healthcare.

As for the liver transplant on rich Timmy vs. the ghetto kid, too bad, so sad, life isn't fair - your parents should have taught you that early in life, sorry to be the one that informs you of that fact. Why are we stopping at healthcare in the US - shouldn't everyone on the planet be able to come to the USA and get free healthcare? Does a child in Ethiopia deserve worse healthcare then little Timmy? Aren't all of their lives equal, or does your indignation only apply to American born children?

Your argument is always the same - everyone deserves equal healthcare, the rich have to pay for it because the middle class can't but gee I'd be happy to help if only I could, but I can't so I'll spend your dollars. Of course getting everyone covered will save lives and money - so will feeding all the hungry, putting roofs over the heads of the homeless and giving away free medicine to everyone. When the reform is I want what you have and I want you to pay for it then I am not on board with ehalthcare reform - that is not the same thing as saying I don't believe everyone should be covered.

Glad you return fresh from your vacation at Obama camp. Maybe we should be paying for vacations for everyone too since everyone is created equally in God's eyes, it's unfair only the rich can take adequate vacations.

You don't need a vacation to live, you do need healthcare. But keep making your strawman arguments.

And you are right, it doesn't stop with American born citizens, however we as a country can start there and work our way out globally. I really don't see what makes someone born in America better then someone born in England or Ethopia or China. I wish people thought more globally rather then at a self level but whatever another generation or two and maybe we can start addressing world problems as for now I'll settle for country wide.

I never said we couldn't tax the middle class to pay for healthcare, I said it wouldn't do anything positive and potentially could have negative effects on the economy in general so I wouldn't do it. Taxing the rich has negative benefits too, but in their case the pros outweigh the cons. I'd be fine with a token tax raise if that's what it takes to get quality health care reform.

Go right ahead, but don't expect me to volunteer to downgrade the quality of my healthcare to compensate for some freeloading c@cksuckers who want to live in a nanny state and get free handouts from the government because the slothsome POS are too lazy to work.

You're willing to downgrade, have at it. I'm not, I hate freeloaders, get off your ass and get a fvcking job and with the money you earn get healthcare, don't go spending it on bling and BS, you can do that after you have paid your dues and obligations.

Half the problem is that the people who "can't afford" it have their priorities wrong, it's as simple as that.

Can you please site me a study of some kind that shows that 50% of people lacking healthcare have their priorities wrong? or is that just your own personal opinion?

[squishyx]

Lots of things get done like this. You make more money you get nicer things. Quite a simple equation. Its been this way for oh, say thousands of years.

Substitute "shelter" for healthcare in your sentence above. Shelter seems to be an important. Try again with food. For what "needs" do we expect the government to supply and to what level at the expense of the wealthy?

I don't consider shelter to be on the same level as healthcare in that sense. I do believe everyone needs a roof with certain amenities, heat, hotwater, electricity etc but people don't need mansions to live. People do need general healthcare though, the study I linked above said 18,000 in this country die every year that otherwise wouldn't had they had adequate healthcare. Is there a similar study that shows a significant amount of people who die from not having mansions?

I already said that being rich entitles you to certain things, i have no qualms or issues with that, i don't believe in a utopian state where everyone is 100% equal, I think healthcare falls right in line with things like food. That and giving everyone a nice house doesn't help the economy, giving everyone quality heathcare does.

Edited August 9, 2009 by squishyx

[Neutral Zone Trap]

Can you please site me a study of some kind that shows that 50% of people lacking healthcare have their priorities wrong? or is that just your own personal opinion?

I can't "site" anything really, but I may be able to cite something for you

[squishyx]

I can't "site" anything really, but I may be able to cite something for you

touch

[GA Devil]

The population of this country is roughly 300 million. There are roughly 50 million who don't have health care (of those 50 million there are two types-those who legitimaley can't afford it and those who chose NOT pay for coverage because they want those $3000 rims. But that's another story) Back to my main point, 50 million is one 6th of the population, that is hardly a "majority" your math sucks

* having health care qualifies as good health care, the alternative is no health care.

You conveniently neglected to mention those who do have medical insurance but get dropped for a myriad of specious reasons. Are you truly covered if you can be dropped for virtually any reason? You also neglected the large number of people who do have coverage but also go into bankruptcy from all the deductiables and such they are responsible for. To be sick and/or injured in this country, and come out of it in relatively decent financial shape, you have to have scads of money.

[RowdyFan42]

You conveniently neglected to mention those who do have medical insurance but get dropped for a myriad of specious reasons. Are you truly covered if you can be dropped for virtually any reason? You also neglected the large number of people who do have coverage but also go into bankruptcy from all the deductiables and such they are responsible for. To be sick and/or injured in this country, and come out of it in relatively decent financial shape, you have to have scads of money.

+1

[devilsadvoc8]

You conveniently neglected to mention those who do have medical insurance but get dropped for a myriad of specious reasons. Are you truly covered if you can be dropped for virtually any reason? You also neglected the large number of people who do have coverage but also go into bankruptcy from all the deductiables and such they are responsible for. To be sick and/or injured in this country, and come out of it in relatively decent financial shape, you have to have scads of money.

People also go into bankruptcy over credit card bills and mortgage payments and sometimes child support. People go bankrupt all the time. Your point?

As for your last sentence, what is that based on? Is there any reality to it? It seems to be a fairly broad brush statement that certainly drives your agenda but just because you say it, doesn't make it true. If you want to overhaul something at great expense to the entire nation, it should be done for the right reasons

[GA Devil]

People also go into bankruptcy over credit card bills and mortgage payments and sometimes child support. People go bankrupt all the time. Your point?

As for your last sentence, what is that based on? Is there any reality to it? It seems to be a fairly broad brush statement that certainly drives your agenda but just because you say it, doesn't make it true. If you want to overhaul something at great expense to the entire nation, it should be done for the right reasons

So, what I hear you saying is, "If you can't afford to get sick or injured, then don't do it." Comparing credit card and mortgage bankruptcies to medical bankruptcies just isn't comparing apples to apples especially since people who take on the former debts do so at their own discretion where as cancer patients don't push a cart down the isle say "Oooh, I've just got to have that."

And really, if you haven't already heard many stories of financial hardship brought on by health or injury you haven't been paying attention. Plus, I'm sure if you did just a modicum of research on the subject you'd be able to find the numbers you're looking for from a whole host of studies.

[SC Devs Fan]

There are many stories of people who go into bankrupcy for various reasons - medical bills, poor investments, single mothers who get boned on child support, run of the mill overspending - and I would agree that to go into it because of medical bills is tragic. The current set up with medicare isn't a net that prevents this - medicare expires and doesn't cover long term care, you lose coverage after 100 days then before being placed on medicaid (welfare) the government has the right to seize your assets including property and eqiuty sold last 3 years (that might even be 5) to cover your tab, so when you look at long term healthcare - which ranges from 3 to 6000 a month - solutions will not be easy. Someone has to pay for it, a nursing home won't accept someone without payment, and you know the only solution that is going to be offered is the wealthy pay for it while the medical facilities and providers take a discount on their fees. As our population ages and these concers play out even more you have to realize how much of a problem and expense this is going to be.

For short term catastrophic injuries that lead to debt, well, that picture is also difficult. But if you have to declare bankrupcy as a trade off for not having insurance but someone else paying the tab for your bill, well, declare bankrupcy. It isn't then end of the world. Sure it makes things more difficult as you get older but you can repair your financial profile over time. Again, you can not expect to be given something like free healthcare and give nothing in return.

[GA Devil]

There are many stories of people who go into bankrupcy for various reasons - medical bills, poor investments, single mothers who get boned on child support, run of the mill overspending - and I would agree that to go into it because of medical bills is tragic. The current set up with medicare isn't a net that prevents this - medicare expires and doesn't cover long term care, you lose coverage after 100 days then before being placed on medicaid (welfare) the government has the right to seize your assets including property and eqiuty sold last 3 years (that might even be 5) to cover your tab, so when you look at long term healthcare - which ranges from 3 to 6000 a month - solutions will not be easy. Someone has to pay for it, a nursing home won't accept someone without payment, and you know the only solution that is going to be offered is the wealthy pay for it while the medical facilities and providers take a discount on their fees. As our population ages and these concers play out even more you have to realize how much of a problem and expense this is going to be.

For short term catastrophic injuries that lead to debt, well, that picture is also difficult. But if you have to declare bankrupcy as a trade off for not having insurance but someone else paying the tab for your bill, well, declare bankrupcy. It isn't then end of the world. Sure it makes things more difficult as you get older but you can repair your financial profile over time. Again, you can not expect to be given something like free healthcare and give nothing in return.

And what about those who are/were covered but dropped on technicalities?

[SC Devs Fan]

As someone who has a preexisting condition and can't change my plan - BCBS - because of it I understand how unfair that is first hand. I think there are valid reasons for an insurance company to drop someone - becoming obese, starting smoking, doing drugs, things that would have stopped you from getting insurance in the first place - but I think that for years legislators - red and blue - have allowed insurance companies to drop people for little to no reason, including being late on a payment. To me it isn't an issue of what party is at fault at allowing this to happen as both have - both parties are controlled more by the insurance companies then the people they were elected to represent, and it goes without saying that isn't true of all politicians, but unfortunately it is true for most of the ones with the power to do anything about it.

[GA Devil]

As someone who has a preexisting condition and can't change my plan - BCBS - because of it I understand how unfair that is first hand. I think there are valid reasons for an insurance company to drop someone - becoming obese, starting smoking, doing drugs, things that would have stopped you from getting insurance in the first place - but I think that for years legislators - red and blue - have allowed insurance companies to drop people for little to no reason, including being late on a payment. To me it isn't an issue of what party is at fault at allowing this to happen as both have - both parties are controlled more by the insurance companies then the people they were elected to represent, and it goes without saying that isn't true of all politicians, but unfortunately it is true for most of the ones with the power to do anything about it.

You sound like a Kucinich or Paul or Sanders man to me.

I kid, I kid.

[SC Devs Fan]

For some reason, Myrtle Beach got the republican and democratic debates last year. I couldn't score one for the democratic - they gave the tickets out to supporters and churches - but thankfully I got one to the republican because they were sold to the public. For the forst 1/2 I was surprised how articulate Paul was and actually I was leaning towards him, then in a span of about 3 minutes I watched him implode. It was quite amazing!

For the record, if I had my druthers Romney would be our current President.

[GA Devil]

For the record, if I had my druthers Romney would be our current President.

**Shudder**

[SC Devs Fan]

**Shudder**

I get the feeling had I listed any of the republicans the response would have been the same

[GA Devil]

True, true. But Rommer's got a special place in my heart for reasons I won't go into here. A co-worker was all about Fred!, and he was near palatable. I will also freely admit that I was becoming more comfortable with McCain as the campaign wore on. That's even after selecting whack-a-doo as his running mate and doing his best Frank Durbin impersination with the economy. "There's nothing to see here."

edit: Or is that Frank Drebin?

Edited August 10, 2009 by GA Devil

[devilsadvoc8]

So, what I hear you saying is, "If you can't afford to get sick or injured, then don't do it." Comparing credit card and mortgage bankruptcies to medical bankruptcies just isn't comparing apples to apples especially since people who take on the former debts do so at their own discretion where as cancer patients don't push a cart down the isle say "Oooh, I've just got to have that."

And really, if you haven't already heard many stories of financial hardship brought on by health or injury you haven't been paying attention. Plus, I'm sure if you did just a modicum of research on the subject you'd be able to find the numbers you're looking for from a whole host of studies.

And what I hear you saying is, "because I said so". Please spare me/us the anecdotal evidence and show me where you need to have "scads of money" to survive health issues? And no, I won't go do the "modicum of research" because I didn't make the ridiculous statement. It is a common groundrule for this forum and many others that if you make a statement you are responsible for sourcing it, not those who challenge it. I think your statement is just opinion, which is fine, not fact.

PS I would say that the majority of tobacco related illnesses IS voluntary, a lot of obesity as well. No source just plain old common sense. A bunch of HIV related cases are also due to carelessness or just plain old disregard for safe sex techniques. So yes, I can point to many instances where the 'victim' might as well have walked down the aisle and chose "lung cancer".

[GA Devil]

And what I hear you saying is, "because I said so". Please spare me/us the anecdotal evidence and show me where you need to have "scads of money" to survive health issues? And no, I won't go do the "modicum of research" because I didn't make the ridiculous statement. It is a common groundrule for this forum and many others that if you make a statement you are responsible for sourcing it, not those who challenge it. I think your statement is just opinion, which is fine, not fact.

PS I would say that the majority of tobacco related illnesses IS voluntary, a lot of obesity as well. No source just plain old common sense. A bunch of HIV related cases are also due to carelessness or just plain old disregard for safe sex techniques. So yes, I can point to many instances where the 'victim' might as well have walked down the aisle and chose "lung cancer".

Wow, histrionic much? Here's what you should have been looking for instead of the nearest soapbox:

About half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005.

How many bankruptcies are there total in the U.S.?

Hmmm, care to take back your "ridiculous statement" comment?

http://www.healthpaconline.net/health-care-statistics-in-the-united-states.htm

[devilsadvoc8]

Wow, histrionic much? Here's what you should have been looking for instead of the nearest soapbox:

About half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005.

How many bankruptcies are there total in the U.S.?

Hmmm, care to take back your "ridiculous statement" comment?

http://www.healthpaconline.net/health-care-statistics-in-the-united-states.htm

Perfect! Too bad a complete miss. No I don't take it back

1) the reference you gave wasn't a real citation. Just referenced Health Affairs Journal 2005. Did you find said study? Did you read the study or just find some sentence in google that fit your needs?

2) If it is was the same study that Don referred to a month or two ago, I showed that that 50% was an egregious interpretation of the study