Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some creationist social Darwinian)   The American Family Association says there is a very simple way to reduce healthcare costs: If you can't pay, hospitals should not have to treat you   (afa.net) divider line 412
    More: Obvious, American Family Association, Americans, family association, health savings account, needy  
•       •       •

5365 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2012 at 2:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



412 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-24 06:23:00 PM  

Harry_Seldon: helping people live healthier lives,


The right reads "helping" as "FORCING AT GUNPOINT WHILE STOMPING ON BABIES". Our forefathers fought and died for their freedom liberties to eat a sandwich made out of only cheese and fried chicken.
 
2012-06-24 06:24:42 PM  

Harry_Seldon: mrshowrules: Fireman service use to be free market also.

a) you could refuse to put out a fire if the owner couldn't pay

This is done in areas where people dont pay their taxes or fees for fire service.

As a set of policy recommendations, there are workable components to this type of solution. I am in favor of most health insurance covering only catastrophic medical loss, and the remainder covered by HSA with government subsidies where needed.

That doesn't mean we can't have single payer. It also doesn't relieve the necessity for how to get medical costs down through helping people live healthier lives, and reducing poverty, and it's attendant cost's on human health.


some hybrid version of private and public system is probably best

investor.co.uk

Private to drive up costs and deny benefits and public involvement so tax payers can pay for the sickest/poorest people. That way the private systems doesn't have to worry about the fallout.
 
2012-06-24 06:25:58 PM  

Virtuoso80: I'm also for keeping religion out of our laws (on the deepest level we do run into a problem with that because our laws are partially based on Judeo-Christian values)...


Sometimes the values of religions tend to overlap with other religions or perhaps universal values, so generally they would be more likely to stay(Theft, murder, arson, rape, and DUI as basic examples).

Some laws actually directly reflect specific religious viewpoints, or attempt to exclude them(Abortion and marriage are two I can think of right now).
 
2012-06-24 06:28:58 PM  

KiplingKat872: Karac: Friction8r: KiplingKat872: Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.

Has the state requested Federal help?

Of course, and the sickening bureaucracy is working at a Snail's Pace. Hell, the Air Force Academy is in the range of one fire, and Peterson AFB is right nearby, and C-131tankers are up in Cheyenne Wyoming, and they're not even going to be dispatched until late tomorrow at earliest...

Well on the one hand, you can make that claim. On the other hand, I've got this lovely little citation, from two weeks ago, with such nuggets as "federal agencies have made approximately 4,500 firefighters available to aid in efforts to suppress and contain the fires", "Yesterday, the Forest Service announced the agency has mobilized eight additional aircraft to its firefighting fleet ", and "FEMA has provided Fire Management Assistance Grants to states with active large fires".

Oh, so massive Republican lie.

Why am I not surprised.


Next: Obama takes over state response in fighting fires and violates the 10th Amendment for doing so so impeach him for intruding in the states' business when he wasn't even requested.
 
2012-06-24 06:29:33 PM  
Sixth, allow individuals the same tax break employers get. If employers can offer employees health care as a tax-free benefit, individuals should be able to get an equivalent tax break for buying their own insurance.

After all, employers don't buy auto insurance for their employees. Why on earth should they be buying health insurance for them? The only reason is that government in all its wisdom offers them a tax break for offering health insurance it does not offer for auto insurance.

Let's get employers out of the health-care-providing business and let them give the money they spend on premiums to their employees in the form of raises. I flat out guarantee you that employees who are spending their own money will be more frugal about the choice of insurance products than their employers are.


And this is why people need to know something about history. We should have got the NHS out of WW2 rather than the rat's nest we have.
 
2012-06-24 06:29:54 PM  
Works for child care and elder care as well.

You just put granny out on an ice flow and put the unwanted new borns out on a hillside for the wolves.

Once again, a conservative Stink Tank proves my thesis that humans are lousy liars. They just give you a photographic negative of the truth, which is, of course, just the truth reversed black and white.

This pro-family group is against everything that is good for families, such as health care, social welfare, education, equality rights, etc. and for everything that hurts families, such as union-busting, militarism, "free-enterprise" corporations running amuck, gun control and the death penalty for everything conceivable. Starve them, beat them, rob them, rape 'em, knock 'em down and trample on them--it's the family values that conservatives know and love!
 
2012-06-24 06:38:32 PM  

baka-san: I was using "jackass" for the author.

ANd to answer your question, once stable and no longer in immediate life threatening danger, The PT's in your question can be moved from a "Profit" hospital to a "non profit" hospital.


And who pays for it after they get moved to the non-profit hospital?


The system we have now- for profit hospitals doing highly profitable procedures to make lots of $$$ while sending anyone that will hurt their bottom line to non profit hospitals where they can get basic care before sending them out only to repeat the process all over again with the next relapse in their illness.

And non-profit hospitals don't treat patients for free...

And non-profit hospitals have to charge paying/insured patients a %$#load of money to make up for the other patients they see who will never pay.

And the Federal Government has to give billions to hospitals nationwide to keep them afloat as they try and work this unworkable system.

The patients suffer, the hospital struggles, the insured pay more and the government is left holding the bag at then end anyway because the whole house of cards will collapse without them.

GREAT system we've got going there...
 
2012-06-24 06:39:37 PM  

Virtuoso80: demaL-demaL-yeH: Virtuoso80: tWell, that's up to them. I don't agree with it, and I wouldn't give my money to a hospital that did that, but they can do and not do business with who they want. If most people don't like their policies, they will lose a ton of business another hospital that does things differently.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the profound stupidity of that comment.

/Read the link.
//Seriously.

Given that you think I make profoundly stupid comments, you might want to help me out. What specifically do you find stupid about it?

/Yes, I'm reading the link.


You're reading the link that tells you that a huge proportion of the population does not have a choice when it comes to hospitals or medical care, that gives evidence of hospitals in monopoly positions, yet you talk about patients choosing a different hospital. Heck, Appendix C even lists counties without hospitals with their populations. And you don't get how your post was profoundly stupid?

/You're staking claim to a full section of Palin-American territory, aren't you?
 
2012-06-24 06:44:51 PM  

MyRandomName: WTF Indeed: [j.wigflip.com image 607x654]

Jesus never told his followers to look to government to do their charity work for them. I think you missed a big part of that whole voluntary charity thing.


But the religious right have no problem forcing other "christian values" on the public useing the government, why stop with charity?
 
2012-06-24 06:46:30 PM  
Before the federal government decided to get involved with Medicare (Johnson) and EMTALA (Reagan), the County Hospitals took care of the poor people. But...the federal government always thinks they can do better. At best, they can do about the same at 10X the cost.

Now, the Socialist Obama has a plan to take care of everybody and save us billions (billions I say!).

Step 1: Spend a trillion dollars.
Step 2. Wait, wut?
 
2012-06-24 06:47:24 PM  

cchris_39: Before the federal government decided to get involved with Medicare (Johnson) and EMTALA (Reagan), the County Hospitals took care of the poor people.


No they didn't.
 
2012-06-24 06:48:59 PM  

cchris_39: Before the federal government decided to get involved with Medicare (Johnson) and EMTALA (Reagan), the County Hospitals took care of the poor people. But...the federal government always thinks they can do better. At best, they can do about the same at 10X the cost.

Now, the Socialist Obama has a plan to take care of everybody and save us billions (billions I say!).

Step 1: Spend a trillion dollars.
Step 2. Wait, wut?


You care to cite source that proves hospitals treated people for free?
 
2012-06-24 06:50:16 PM  

Mugato:

Alright but I've found that people are much louder when they speak up against healthcare than they are about the obscene amounts of money we spend on other things, most of which have nothing to do with the well being of our own citizens.


Well, I think some people are yelling about the things they're being told to yell about, even if they don't really know why. Unfortunate, but true.

But it's also it's a matter of perspective. I think you're looking at it with the perspective of help = good, and I look at it from the Economic perspective of efficiency.

Example: If we have some farmland, and the way we're using it is feeding 1 million people, and I think I have a way of using that same land that will feed 2 million people, then I'm looking at that and seeing 1 million people starving needlessly. Not good! Then, I see someone like you saying, "why are we yelling so loud about farm programs? They feed one million people, isn't that good? At least it's helping people, right?" No, not if it's an incredibly inefficient use of resources.

So, if I believe that, can you see from my perspective why I might be really upset about it? Same thing with healthcare - I see our healthcare program as inefficient, and I see toms of people suffering needlessly from that. Remember, Economics is all about trade-offs, and you can't look at any one resource usage in a vacuum and say 'it's being spent of something good, therefore it's a good idea.'
 
2012-06-24 06:50:30 PM  
I love the "golden agers" who keep calling back to a glorious past...

...that didn't exist.
 
2012-06-24 06:51:00 PM  
Finally, a "conservative" who actually says what he believes... poor people should just die... fark all that christian bs about caring for the infirmed... I got mine, your death sounds like a you problem. I fervently disagree with him, but at least he isn't one of the yutzes who preached against hillarycare, and now against obamacare with the line "we can do better" even though they have no intention of doing anything at all.
 
2012-06-24 06:52:24 PM  

Mugato: These people

who don't donate to charity are worse than Cobra and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. combined.

FTFY

BTW, how much did you give to charity last year?
 
2012-06-24 06:54:11 PM  

Kome: paygun: Kome: That's the adjective you have a problem with? By definition, if it will change how things are done, it can accurately be described as challenging the status quo.

You really believe that for-profit insurance companies managing our healthcare is change? How?

Probably because I've read the entire lengthy document put out on the Affordable Care Act and have a slightly better idea of what it actually is.


The supreme court is really going to have egg on their face when they rule on the mandate and it turns out it doesn't even exist.

I have to say though, pre-emptive history revision before something even happens goes way above the level of dedication I'm used to seeing around here. So you've got that going for you.
 
2012-06-24 06:54:13 PM  
"Jesus, please cure me of my leprosy."

"What kind of coverage do you have?"
 
2012-06-24 06:54:32 PM  

Virtuoso80: Mugato:

Alright but I've found that people are much louder when they speak up against healthcare than they are about the obscene amounts of money we spend on other things, most of which have nothing to do with the well being of our own citizens.

Well, I think some people are yelling about the things they're being told to yell about, even if they don't really know why. Unfortunate, but true.

But it's also it's a matter of perspective. I think you're looking at it with the perspective of help = good, and I look at it from the Economic perspective of efficiency.

Example: If we have some farmland, and the way we're using it is feeding 1 million people, and I think I have a way of using that same land that will feed 2 million people, then I'm looking at that and seeing 1 million people starving needlessly. Not good! Then, I see someone like you saying, "why are we yelling so loud about farm programs? They feed one million people, isn't that good? At least it's helping people, right?" No, not if it's an incredibly inefficient use of resources.

So, if I believe that, can you see from my perspective why I might be really upset about it? Same thing with healthcare - I see our healthcare program as inefficient, and I see toms of people suffering needlessly from that. Remember, Economics is all about trade-offs, and you can't look at any one resource usage in a vacuum and say 'it's being spent of something good, therefore it's a good idea.'


Then we should should reshape it to make it help more people (which is difficult since any attempt at shaping the system to help more people is seen as "soshiluzms"), not eliminate it.
 
2012-06-24 06:55:51 PM  

the_falling_duck: Sixth, allow individuals the same tax break employers get. If employers can offer employees health care as a tax-free benefit, individuals should be able to get an equivalent tax break for buying their own insurance.

After all, employers don't buy auto insurance for their employees. Why on earth should they be buying health insurance for them? The only reason is that government in all its wisdom offers them a tax break for offering health insurance it does not offer for auto insurance.

Let's get employers out of the health-care-providing business and let them give the money they spend on premiums to their employees in the form of raises. I flat out guarantee you that employees who are spending their own money will be more frugal about the choice of insurance products than their employers are.

And this is why people need to know something about history. We should have got the NHS out of WW2 rather than the rat's nest we have.


This.
 
2012-06-24 06:58:56 PM  
Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores. It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame."

Then Abraham said, "Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in the same way, bad things. Aww, fark it, you got the skrillaz, we'll get you all hooked up, dawg."
 
2012-06-24 06:59:17 PM  
This is utter horseshiat. It's posturing and hateful.

Government-administered health care works fine for our soldiers and our veterans and our government reps. Each of one of those vicious teatard congressmen and those mercenary Senators, and the governors and the retired defense contractors, are all receiving gold-plate health care, and if you call them out on their hypocrisy they shrug and say "what, you expect me to not take it? It's there for me, I'd be a fool not to". But they want to convince everyone else that the system doesn't work, that it's irretrievably broken, and that the only way it will ever work is for those people to take their chickens and their quilts and their bales of hay to the doctor, and try to pay with those commodities.

Liars, farking liars... Church charity and private charity have never been able to deal with more than a minuscule amount of the need, and the way "Christians" are acting these days, they would flay the person alive that dared to ask their congregation for anything at all. "Go die, sinner" the smug assholes will yell, and they'll snicker and giggle at how they've gotten some revenge on the poor and the sluts and the n*ggers who all deserve to suffer and die.

I had a broken neck in 1969, living in KKK-land (North Carolina). Sure, the hospital accepted me as an emergency patient, but then they dumped me in the pauper's ward until my unemployed mother could beg and scrounge enough cash ($5000) to meet the neurosurgeon's fee. It took two weeks, of me lying in bed in my own filth, the nurses clucking their tongues at me in contempt, refusing to clean me up until I screamed. But the bones in my neck were all shattered, and so I couldn't get up out of bed and go to them and shame them into giving me the care that they'd give a dog in the pound. No church would help, since my mother was an unrepentant atheist. No charity would touch me, because my mother was a divorcee (and thus automatically a "slut").
 
2012-06-24 07:04:41 PM  

cchris_39: Before the federal government decided to get involved with Medicare (Johnson) and EMTALA (Reagan), the County Hospitals took care of the poor people. But...the federal government always thinks they can do better. At best, they can do about the same at 10X the cost.

Now, the Socialist Obama has a plan to take care of everybody and save us billions (billions I say!).

Step 1: Spend a trillion dollars.
Step 2. Wait, wut?


Those county hospitals were established by the Federal government. Specifically the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 which gave many counties their first ever treatment facilities. If it weren't for the Federal government, many of the red counties would never have been able to afford treatment facilities. These treatment facilities were required by Federal law to give a "reasonable volume" of low cost/free care per year for a period of 20 years.
 
2012-06-24 07:05:57 PM  

Virtuoso80:
Well, I think some people are yelling about the things they're being told to yell about, even if they don't really know why. Unfortunate, but true.

But it's also it's a matter of perspective. I think you're looking at it with the perspective of help = good, and I look at it from the Economic perspective of efficiency.

Example: If we have some farmland, and the way we're using it is feeding 1 million people, and I think I have a way of using that same land that will feed 2 million people, then I'm looking at that and seeing 1 million people starving needlessly. Not good! Then, I see someone like you saying, "why are we yelling so loud about farm programs? They feed one million people, isn't that good? At least it's helping people, right?" No, not if it's an incredibly inefficient use of resources.

So, if I believe that, can you see from my perspective why I might be really upset about it? Same thing with healthcare - I see our healthcare program as inefficient, and I see toms of people suffering needlessly from that. Remember, Economics is all about trade-offs, and you can't look at any one resource usage in a vacuum and say 'it's being spent of something good, therefore it's a good idea.'


Efficiency? The rest of the industrialized world spends less than we do, covers everybody, and most of those countries have healthier citizens and better health outcomes than ours. (Reminder: You proposed that charity substitute for some form of organized national health care.)

And do please explain to me how having a sicker population at double the cost is in any way a better allocation of economic resources.

How much would you trade for your (child's) life? Because the biggest flaw of the current system is that it forces people to make that choice and the prices (and their ridiculous rate of increase) reflect this reality.
 
2012-06-24 07:06:56 PM  

Huggermugger: This is utter horseshiat. It's posturing and hateful.

Government-administered health care works fine for our soldiers and our veterans and our government reps. Each of one of those vicious teatard congressmen and those mercenary Senators, and the governors and the retired defense contractors, are all receiving gold-plate health care, and if you call them out on their hypocrisy they shrug and say "what, you expect me to not take it? It's there for me, I'd be a fool not to". But they want to convince everyone else that the system doesn't work, that it's irretrievably broken, and that the only way it will ever work is for those people to take their chickens and their quilts and their bales of hay to the doctor, and try to pay with those commodities.

Liars, farking liars... Church charity and private charity have never been able to deal with more than a minuscule amount of the need, and the way "Christians" are acting these days, they would flay the person alive that dared to ask their congregation for anything at all. "Go die, sinner" the smug assholes will yell, and they'll snicker and giggle at how they've gotten some revenge on the poor and the sluts and the n*ggers who all deserve to suffer and die.

I had a broken neck in 1969, living in KKK-land (North Carolina). Sure, the hospital accepted me as an emergency patient, but then they dumped me in the pauper's ward until my unemployed mother could beg and scrounge enough cash ($5000) to meet the neurosurgeon's fee. It took two weeks, of me lying in bed in my own filth, the nurses clucking their tongues at me in contempt, refusing to clean me up until I screamed. But the bones in my neck were all shattered, and so I couldn't get up out of bed and go to them and shame them into giving me the care that they'd give a dog in the pound. No church would help, since my mother was an unrepentant atheist. No charity would touch me, because my mother was a divorcee (and thus automatically a "slut").


This can't be true. This has to be a lie. Because according to TFA Americans are the most generous people in the world and charities will always be there to help those in need.
 
2012-06-24 07:07:30 PM  

KiplingKat872: Virtuoso80: Mugato:

Alright but I've found that people are much louder when they speak up against healthcare than they are about the obscene amounts of money we spend on other things, most of which have nothing to do with the well being of our own citizens.

Well, I think some people are yelling about the things they're being told to yell about, even if they don't really know why. Unfortunate, but true.

But it's also it's a matter of perspective. I think you're looking at it with the perspective of help = good, and I look at it from the Economic perspective of efficiency.

Example: If we have some farmland, and the way we're using it is feeding 1 million people, and I think I have a way of using that same land that will feed 2 million people, then I'm looking at that and seeing 1 million people starving needlessly. Not good! Then, I see someone like you saying, "why are we yelling so loud about farm programs? They feed one million people, isn't that good? At least it's helping people, right?" No, not if it's an incredibly inefficient use of resources.

So, if I believe that, can you see from my perspective why I might be really upset about it? Same thing with healthcare - I see our healthcare program as inefficient, and I see toms of people suffering needlessly from that. Remember, Economics is all about trade-offs, and you can't look at any one resource usage in a vacuum and say 'it's being spent of something good, therefore it's a good idea.'

Then we should should reshape it to make it help more people (which is difficult since any attempt at shaping the system to help more people is seen as "soshiluzms"), not eliminate it.


People are talking about eliminating socialized healthcare, or aspects of Government involvement in health care, not health care in general. Has anyone suggested forcibly closing all hospitals, pharmacies, and arresting and executing every doctor in the country? Health care is provided to people by other people, not by Governments.
 
2012-06-24 07:07:59 PM  

Doc Lee: cchris_39: Before the federal government decided to get involved with Medicare (Johnson) and EMTALA (Reagan), the County Hospitals took care of the poor people. But...the federal government always thinks they can do better. At best, they can do about the same at 10X the cost.

Now, the Socialist Obama has a plan to take care of everybody and save us billions (billions I say!).

Step 1: Spend a trillion dollars.
Step 2. Wait, wut?

Those county hospitals were established by the Federal government. Specifically the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 which gave many counties their first ever treatment facilities. If it weren't for the Federal government, many of the red counties would never have been able to afford treatment facilities. These treatment facilities were required by Federal law to give a "reasonable volume" of low cost/free care per year for a period of 20 years.


I did not know that. Thanks for the info.
 
2012-06-24 07:17:25 PM  
Yes, religion often offers free health care to the poor. Just ask this guy.

petersaintclair.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-24 07:24:30 PM  

Virtuoso80: KiplingKat872: Virtuoso80: Mugato:

Alright but I've found that people are much louder when they speak up against healthcare than they are about the obscene amounts of money we spend on other things, most of which have nothing to do with the well being of our own citizens.

Well, I think some people are yelling about the things they're being told to yell about, even if they don't really know why. Unfortunate, but true.

But it's also it's a matter of perspective. I think you're looking at it with the perspective of help = good, and I look at it from the Economic perspective of efficiency.

Example: If we have some farmland, and the way we're using it is feeding 1 million people, and I think I have a way of using that same land that will feed 2 million people, then I'm looking at that and seeing 1 million people starving needlessly. Not good! Then, I see someone like you saying, "why are we yelling so loud about farm programs? They feed one million people, isn't that good? At least it's helping people, right?" No, not if it's an incredibly inefficient use of resources.

So, if I believe that, can you see from my perspective why I might be really upset about it? Same thing with healthcare - I see our healthcare program as inefficient, and I see toms of people suffering needlessly from that. Remember, Economics is all about trade-offs, and you can't look at any one resource usage in a vacuum and say 'it's being spent of something good, therefore it's a good idea.'

Then we should should reshape it to make it help more people (which is difficult since any attempt at shaping the system to help more people is seen as "soshiluzms"), not eliminate it.

People are talking about eliminating socialized healthcare, or aspects of Government involvement in health care, not health care in general. Has anyone suggested forcibly closing all hospitals, pharmacies, and arresting and executing every doctor in the country? Health care is provided to people by other people, not by Governments.


Oh stop it. You know that private charities have no way of covering the health care costs (especially as out of control as they are in the U.S.) of hundreds of millions of people who rely on employer provided health insurance and medicare/medicaid. Your proposal would have killed my mother when my sister was born during the recession of the 1970's when the family was struggling, and my father when he was diagnosed with lung cancer and a heart condition months after being laid off his last job.

His medicare allowed us to transfer him to a hospice for the last ten days of his life for excellent care with no out of pocket costs to my mother.

So screw making people pay the insane costs of healthcare on their own with the promise that private charities can pick up the slack. We know they can't.
 
2012-06-24 07:27:39 PM  

KiplingKat872: Virtuoso80: KiplingKat872: Virtuoso80: Mugato:

Alright but I've found that people are much louder when they speak up against healthcare than they are about the obscene amounts of money we spend on other things, most of which have nothing to do with the well being of our own citizens.

Well, I think some people are yelling about the things they're being told to yell about, even if they don't really know why. Unfortunate, but true.

But it's also it's a matter of perspective. I think you're looking at it with the perspective of help = good, and I look at it from the Economic perspective of efficiency.

Example: If we have some farmland, and the way we're using it is feeding 1 million people, and I think I have a way of using that same land that will feed 2 million people, then I'm looking at that and seeing 1 million people starving needlessly. Not good! Then, I see someone like you saying, "why are we yelling so loud about farm programs? They feed one million people, isn't that good? At least it's helping people, right?" No, not if it's an incredibly inefficient use of resources.

So, if I believe that, can you see from my perspective why I might be really upset about it? Same thing with healthcare - I see our healthcare program as inefficient, and I see toms of people suffering needlessly from that. Remember, Economics is all about trade-offs, and you can't look at any one resource usage in a vacuum and say 'it's being spent of something good, therefore it's a good idea.'

Then we should should reshape it to make it help more people (which is difficult since any attempt at shaping the system to help more people is seen as "soshiluzms"), not eliminate it.

People are talking about eliminating socialized healthcare, or aspects of Government involvement in health care, not health care in general. Has anyone suggested forcibly closing all hospitals, pharmacies, and arresting and executing every doctor in the country? Health care is provided to people by other people, not by Governments.

Oh stop it. You know that private charities have no way of covering the health care costs (especially as out of control as they are in the U.S.) of hundreds of millions of people who rely on employer provided health insurance and medicare/medicaid. Your proposal would have killed my mother when my sister was born during the recession of the 1970's when the family was struggling, and my father when he was diagnosed with lung cancer and a heart condition months after being laid off his last job.

His medicare allowed us to transfer him to a hospice for the last ten days of his life for excellent care with no out of pocket costs to my mother.

So screw making people pay the insane costs of healthcare on their own with the promise that private charities can pick up the slack. We know they can't.


Let me clarify that, my Dad was diagnosed with cancer in 1997, and after battling it for 12 years succumbed in 2009.

And if it had not have had those 12 years.
 
2012-06-24 07:29:27 PM  
"Had not been for medicare, we would not have had..."

Sorry.
 
2012-06-24 07:31:28 PM  
Money: the only thing that really matters.
 
2012-06-24 07:37:25 PM  

Friction8r: KiplingKat872: Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.

Has the state requested Federal help?

Of course, and the sickening bureaucracy is working at a Snail's Pace. Hell, the Air Force Academy is in the range of one fire, and Peterson AFB is right nearby, and C-131tankers are up in Cheyenne Wyoming, and they're not even going to be dispatched until late tomorrow at earliest...


That's not very bootstrappy of Colorado. Calling the Federal gubmint to help you is socialism. Colorado should fend for itself. Why should someone in another state have to spend his or her hard earned money to support Colorado? They have their own problems to worry about. Come on Colorado. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
 
2012-06-24 07:40:50 PM  

KiplingKat872: cchris_39: Before the federal government decided to get involved with Medicare (Johnson) and EMTALA (Reagan), the County Hospitals took care of the poor people. But...the federal government always thinks they can do better. At best, they can do about the same at 10X the cost.

Now, the Socialist Obama has a plan to take care of everybody and save us billions (billions I say!).

Step 1: Spend a trillion dollars.
Step 2. Wait, wut?

You care to cite source that proves hospitals treated people for free?


Sure back in the 1940s my Grandma had her kidney removed and there was no bill. Grandpa was a broommaker so there would have been no money to pay it anyway.

Maybe not the state of the art care everyone would be "entitled" to today, but she lived to be 96.
 
2012-06-24 07:40:52 PM  

Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.


Yeah, why isn't he out there with a fire hose god damn it!!! Colorado won't forget that he didn't even send water... of course, envelopes leak....
 
2012-06-24 07:41:50 PM  

Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.


What the fark are you on about? What does any of this have to do with fires in Colorado? I watched the entire top of the Santa Catalina's burn off outside Tucson a few years ago, and you know what? No one blamed the President for not doing enough. Fires happen. Blame years of poor forest management, or whatever, but this boner you nut jobs have for getting some guy out of office is ridiculous. Are you also blaming Obama because of your tiny dick, or your ugly wife? Is every single thing that goes wrong in the world some guy's fault just because he scares you a little? Jesus, you're a sad little person.
 
2012-06-24 07:44:00 PM  

KiplingKat872: All libertarians need to move to Somalia to see their ideal government in action.


My partner is training a guy from Somalia to be a truck driver... based on what he's told me about the guy and where he comes from, all those libritarians and 'small gubment' conservatives would be crying in 5 minutes and begging to be flown home in 10. Want to cry about taxes being theft at gun point? Go there and see what that's really like!
 
2012-06-24 07:44:53 PM  

cchris_39: KiplingKat872: cchris_39: Before the federal government decided to get involved with Medicare (Johnson) and EMTALA (Reagan), the County Hospitals took care of the poor people. But...the federal government always thinks they can do better. At best, they can do about the same at 10X the cost.

Now, the Socialist Obama has a plan to take care of everybody and save us billions (billions I say!).

Step 1: Spend a trillion dollars.
Step 2. Wait, wut?

You care to cite source that proves hospitals treated people for free?

Sure back in the 1940s my Grandma had her kidney removed and there was no bill. Grandpa was a broommaker so there would have been no money to pay it anyway.

Maybe not the state of the art care everyone would be "entitled" to today, but she lived to be 96.


Doc Lee's post dealt with this.
 
2012-06-24 07:47:19 PM  
Dear Brian Fischer,

May you be sodomized by a randy pack of rabid bears (the 4-legged kind), right after you find out your wife is leaving you for another woman and that your children are in fact liberal atheists.


Sincerely,

Me.
 
2012-06-24 07:48:34 PM  

cchris_39: Maybe not the state of the art care everyone would be "entitled" to today, but she lived to be 96.


Actually, at the time it was the "state of the art" care provided by the 1946 federal Hill-Burton act which modernized and built several hundred hospitals across the country which, to this day, are still obligated to provide free or reduced care to low-income families.

Damn that "Socialist Obama".... he's up to his hijinks with that magical time machine again, I see.

If you're going to lie through your rotting teeth, try coming up with something that can't be so plainly exposed with a simple Google search for "free reduced health care", jackass. The very first result mentions the act and then it's a simple matter of reading the Wiki article.
 
2012-06-24 07:51:09 PM  

randomjsa: KiplingKat872: How many good a faithful church goers write a 50$ check to the Salvation Army the same year they buy another gas guzzling SUV they don't need, or another massive flat screen TV?

I do hope you're not implying that the conservatives are somehow less likely or willing to give to charity than the liberals are because the opposite is true.

But I'm sure the same 20-30 year old liberals without health insurance because 'the government (ie, somebody besides me) should have to pay for that'... While they spend two or three times the cost of a health care premium on entertainment each month... Would be so willing to give up some of that entertainment cash to feed the poor and down trodden that liberals are so very concerned about.


Conservatives (like romney) giving money to their church as tithes is the only reason they can say they give more to charity. If you take away the money spent paying for their minister's vacations.. i mean 'missionary trips', or the money used by churches to cover up child abuse, building obscene staues of christ and the like, they don't give more. People like you just like to lump in membership dues as charity to put a spin on 'charitable' giving.
 
2012-06-24 07:51:11 PM  

Splinshints: cchris_39: Maybe not the state of the art care everyone would be "entitled" to today, but she lived to be 96.

Actually, at the time it was the "state of the art" care provided by the 1946 federal Hill-Burton act which modernized and built several hundred hospitals across the country which, to this day, are still obligated to provide free or reduced care to low-income families.

Damn that "Socialist Obama".... he's up to his hijinks with that magical time machine again, I see.

If you're going to lie through your rotting teeth, try coming up with something that can't be so plainly exposed with a simple Google search for "free reduced health care", jackass. The very first result mentions the act and then it's a simple matter of reading the Wiki article.


To be fair, he may not have known why his grandmother recieved free care and assumed that it was the hospital's choice.
 
2012-06-24 08:00:46 PM  
Antisocial Personality Disorder

Diagnosis

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the
7. person into conflict with society.

There may be persistent irritability as an associated feature.

Link

/Republicans are against socialism because collectively they have ASPD.
 
2012-06-24 08:02:39 PM  

cchris_39: Before the federal government decided to get involved with Medicare (Johnson) and EMTALA (Reagan), the County Hospitals took care of the poor people. But...the federal government always thinks they can do better. At best, they can do about the same at 10X the cost.

Now, the Socialist Obama has a plan to take care of everybody and save us billions (billions I say!).

Step 1: Spend a trillion dollars.
Step 2. Wait, wut?


He's not a socialist, dummy. I wish he was.
 
2012-06-24 08:03:51 PM  
Whoops! There should be only six items.
 
2012-06-24 08:09:26 PM  

KiplingKat872: To be fair, he may not have known why his grandmother recieved free care and assumed that it was the hospital's choice.


Maybe, but given the general gist of his posts, I don't think he really deserves the benefit of the doubt on this. It seems pretty clear that his real point here is "OBAMA BAD"
 
2012-06-24 08:11:32 PM  

Corporate Self: So what happens someone does not have insurance, but is injured by someone at no fault of their own? Who pays then?


The hospital. Emergency room care falls under a separate requirement that's been in place for several decades that's unrelated to the HCR laws. The cost is defrayed via a change in the price for people that do pay.

Obviously, this only applies to fixing acute problems, not longer-term issues, which you have to pay for yourself either directly or through insurance. Basically, the cast on your broken arm while it heals is free, the physical therapy to get back up to strength is not.

That's how it stands currently, and how it will stand if HCR is struck down as well. Basically what I'm saying here is that your hypothetical case has fark-all to do with what the thread is discussing.
 
2012-06-24 08:17:05 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Corporate Self: So what happens someone does not have insurance, but is injured by someone at no fault of their own? Who pays then?

The hospital. Emergency room care falls under a separate requirement that's been in place for several decades that's unrelated to the HCR laws. The cost is defrayed via a change in the price for people that do pay.

Obviously, this only applies to fixing acute problems, not longer-term issues, which you have to pay for yourself either directly or through insurance. Basically, the cast on your broken arm while it heals is free, the physical therapy to get back up to strength is not.

That's how it stands currently, and how it will stand if HCR is struck down as well. Basically what I'm saying here is that your hypothetical case has fark-all to do with what the thread is discussing.


ya but the stupid article is about denying emergency care also
 
2012-06-24 08:28:49 PM  

PacManDreaming: How does the Right always seem to miss thing like this in the Bible?


Just because they own books doesn't mean they can read. And beyond that you're dissonating their cognates.
 
2012-06-24 08:31:10 PM  
Most hospitals were started by Christians or Christian organizations, and will find a way to offer care to the indigent whether the federal government is standing over them with a cudgel or not. The American people, because of the spirit of Christianity, are the most generous people on earth, which they prove time after time when disasters hit anywhere in the world. Let's not insult our own people by saying they are not generous and compassionate enough to help the needy with medical care.

blog.eternalvigilance.me
 
Displayed 50 of 412 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report