Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans

[JohnR! 5,495]

At the root of this debate is this question-

Do people have a fundamental right to demand others pay for their care?

The law says yes. According to the law, no hospital, or medial institution, can refuse treatment to anyone based on the patient's ability to pay.

[Peikko 1,575]

-Emergency room justification: IF the emergency room bills were too high, how could it be less costly to create a system where these same poor people get free coverage with ten times the available services? Emergency room care is very very limited. As We all know Obama care demands that even birth control be provided. Even Sex Change services and ####### implants are or will be covered.

We will be like the shop owner who went from loosing money from shop lifters to allowing them to just take what they need or want.

Yet, in ALL the countries that use a universal health system the costs of care is massively lower than in the US. Want to crunch those numbers? No, you don't. All you want to do us punish those who in your opinion do not deserve to be assisted to get the health care they need. That's right, you actually want to punish them be preventing them getting access to health care. If you had your way they would die in the streets.

[Peikko 1,575]

Having experienced universal health care, I am quite ok with allowing those less fortunate than myself to get care, I don't want them to be punished just to satisfy some personal moral perspective. The price of allowing all to get access is lower than paying the price for health care in the US in the pre-affordable health care act era. MASSIVELY lower.

[Pooky 3,366]

Having experienced universal health care, I am quite ok with allowing those less fortunate than myself to get care, I don't want them to be punished just to satisfy some personal moral perspective. The price of allowing all to get access is lower than paying the price for health care in the US in the pre-affordable health care act era. MASSIVELY lower.

Not quite accurate. The vast majority of the excess costs incurred by the healthcare industry are as a result of the fractured nature of provision in this country. The price of medicines and procedures, whether for the insured or not is the major cost driver, not coverage of the uninsured.

What single payer would do is level the playing field for people's contributions to the primary level of healthcare. No more differences in premiums. No more in-network vs out-of-network. No more deductibles. No more co-pays. No more out-of-pocket maximums. Just your initial contribution and maybe a basic prescription cost (if that).

[Danno 1,228]

Having experienced universal health care, I am quite ok with allowing those less fortunate than myself to get care, I don't want them to be punished just to satisfy some personal moral perspective. The price of allowing all to get access is lower than paying the price for health care in the US in the pre-affordable health care act era. MASSIVELY lower.

Wow the last two posts are getting pretty dramatic... yeah thats what I do, wake up each morning wonder how I can snatch health care away from little kids with cancer.

As I read your last two posts, I notice something missing in your words.... you offering to pay for the things you want to give away.

Sure, sure you use terms like "I want them to have access" like it is as simple as turning on the machine or opening a door so those who want care can "access it"...

Why I don't hear ....(and this is consistent with research) is your willingness to pay lots more so they can have it. Someone is going to pay and since you are the one who feels

so passionate why don't we hear those types of words and terms? Hmmmm.

Research shows, those who think "Gov't should do more" give the least, volunteer the least, participate at much lower levels in charitable and civic causes than people who believe "Gov't should do less."

[Peikko 1,575]

Wow the last two posts are getting pretty dramatic... yeah thats what I do, wake up each morning wonder how I can snatch health care away from little kids with cancer.

As I read your last two posts, I notice something missing in your words.... you offering to pay for the things you want to give away.

Sure, sure you use terms like "I want them to have access" like it is as simple as turning on the machine or opening a door so those who want care can "access it"...

Why I don't hear ....(and this is consistent with research) is your willingness to pay lots more so they can have it. Someone is going to pay and since you are the one who feels

so passionate why don't we hear those types of words and terms? Hmmmm.

Research shows, those who think "Gov't should do more" give the least, volunteer the least, participate at much lower levels in charitable and civic causes than people who believe "Gov't should do less."

Drama in my posts? I see.

Danno, try again. I lived most of my so far working life in the UK. I paid via my taxes, just like everyone in the UK so that everyone is able to access health care. My taxes were LOWER in the UK than they are now. Women in the UK do not worry that they will have problems during pregnancy that will result in crippling debt for years to come. Old people in the UK do not spend hours on the internet buying unproven supplements for chronic pain, arthritis, eye deterioration etc. They go to the health practitioner and get affordable prescriptions for basic, proven good medication. Old people in the UK do not fear getting sick because they know they have access to health care, they are not constantly worrying whether their insurance carrier will approve the doctor recommended treatments. Young people in the UK do not resent their tax burdens - they do not clamor to only pay for their own health insurance and sucks to those who are in worse circumstances I am more than willing to participate in an inclusive welfare system. I have in the past, I do now and I will continue to do so in the future. You seem to be the one stuck in some moral dilemma as to whether it's ok to support people who do not have the means to support themselves. Not me.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not quite accurate. The vast majority of the excess costs incurred by the healthcare industry are as a result of the fractured nature of provision in this country. The price of medicines and procedures, whether for the insured or not is the major cost driver, not coverage of the uninsured.

What single payer would do is level the playing field for people's contributions to the primary level of healthcare. No more differences in premiums. No more in-network vs out-of-network. No more deductibles. No more co-pays. No more out-of-pocket maximums. Just your initial contribution and maybe a basic prescription cost (if that).

I agree. Insurance based health care is the least efficient health care model. I would get rid of it, and would support any party, or politician who wants to go that route. State based maybe the way to go. If that's the best model for the US, great.