Clinton won the Presidency today and I am sad.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's a GD corporate product like anything else.

IT's not a freggin right.

Why not? What's wrong with caring for the sick because they need it and not because they can afford it?

Why don't you read the EMTLA ?

How does the EMTLA cover basic health care when it applies to emergencies only? Plus you just got done saying we need to dismantle Medicare, so how exactly would the EMTLA work without that? You are being hypocritical right now.

There sure is HYPOCRISY here by those that IGNORE just how BIG GOVERNMENT universal 'healthcare' is.

But hey 'liberals' know 'best'!

a reply to: neo96capita.
Most countries with universal healthcare pay less in GDp per capita for healthcare than America, but if you enjoy being ripped off by companies and big pharma. Who profiteer of Americas healthcare system. That's your choice. The rest of the world pays much less for pharmaceutical drugs than Americans, who have become the cash cow for the health industry.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Yeah well this is the US of A with over 300 million people living in it. Which by the way is larger than most European countries singluarly, and combined or close to.

Different demographics.

Different socioeconomics.

Different political systems. Different legislative process's.

Different EVERYTHING.

And don't forget currency values are not even comparable.

People are trying to literally compare apples to oranges.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Esoterotica
I do so enjoy watching Neo play devils advocate. I find it hard to believe he takes pride in the fact he has to pay for basic quality of life necessities.

Keep worshipping that golden cow bro, don't let the little humans get in the way of your Corporate Utopia.

Sure don't worship at the alter of statolatry now do I?

Unlike others that want that super duper 'wonderful' universal healthcare.

Without a thought or care in the world. How it would REALLY be 'paid' for.

UHC is coming, Neo, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

The country you wish to live in doesn't exist. Perhaps you could start your own anarchist society, because true Liberalism or Conservatism is not what you want. You want anarchy.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's a GD corporate product like anything else.

IT's not a freggin right.

Why not? What's wrong with caring for the sick because they need it and not because they can afford it?

Why don't you read the EMTLA ?

How does the EMTLA cover basic health care when it applies to emergencies only? Plus you just got done saying we need to dismantle Medicare, so how exactly would the EMTLA work without that? You are being hypocritical right now.

There sure is HYPOCRISY here by those that IGNORE just how BIG GOVERNMENT universal 'healthcare' is.

But hey 'liberals' know 'best'!

I don't see how that is an adequate answer to the questions I asked.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's a GD corporate product like anything else.

IT's not a freggin right.

Why not? What's wrong with caring for the sick because they need it and not because they can afford it?

Why don't you read the EMTLA ?

EMTALA and Cancer

What if you crawl into an ER dying of cancer? EMTALA would require a screening and stabilization, which might include chemotherapy. But once the cancer was knocked back a bit, the hospital could discharge you without any commitment to further care, even if they knew the cancer would come back unless treatment continued. You read that right – no EMTALA obligation until the cancer was almost killing you again. Before you accuse me of making things up, read the case: Diaz v. North Carolina, 628 S.E.2d 1 (2006). In October of 2000, Diaz began experiencing sore throat, nausea, vomiting, bleeding gums, and increasing lethargy, which were later diagnosed as symptoms of acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL). Doctors at Moses Cone Memorial Hospital in Greensboro, North Carolina treated petitioner beginning on or about 21 October 2000. Chemotherapy treatments commenced shortly thereafter and continued intermittently until July of 2002. Diaz was an undocumented alien and therefore didn’t qualify for North Carolina Medicaid. The hospital refused to continue chemo without payment, despite EMTALA. The legal argument? The cancer was no longer an “emergency:” At the time of his initial treatment in the emergency room, there is no dispute petitioner presented with an emergency medical condition. However, soon after his admission to the facility, petitioner’s condition dramatically improved. During petitioner’s chemotherapy treatments, his condition was stable and, therefore, he was no longer entitled to Medicaid coverage. Even though the testimony agreed that without this chemo, Diaz “would have eventually regressed into a state of an emergency medical condition.” The court sent him away without treatment, but said that once he was nearly dead again, he could get emergency care under EMTALA. EMTALA is a poor excuse for a safety net.

The EMTALA only covers emergency treatment and not ongoing necessary treatment. That is why Trumps promise to not let you die in the street is beyond meaningless as a replacement for the ACA's protections.

a reply to: neo96

I don't disagree, & it's obviously a very complicated beast that the government may or may not be too corrupt/competent enough to handle. I'm very against for profit healthcare/insurance & would support anything to take power & money away from the corporations that control our lives. Healthcare really isn't a huge issue to me though, I'd prefer death to life anyways.

a reply to: neo96

NEO. It is the cost structure that is broken. Put our costs in line with other countries with universal healthcare and then the ACA would not cost the government much at all. I pay a much higher percent of my income for healthcare than any of the people who live in countries with socialized healthcare pay for theirs. The Trump plan will make it go even higher if I can even get health insurance once his plan is in place.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's a GD corporate product like anything else.

IT's not a freggin right.

Why not? What's wrong with caring for the sick because they need it and not because they can afford it?

Nothing wrong with that, it was already happening before Obama care. What is wrong is when the government forces you to purchase a service or product.

a reply to: introvert

Scariest thing in the whole thread.

People like this are REAL

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

IS that the Same Europe with the debt crisis because they are under the delusion the state exists to provide for the material WANTS of the masses.

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't.

Basic healthcare is a material want of the masses?

Just because alot of people want it doesn't mean you should force EVERYONE to get it.

I am so tired of other people trying to decide whats best for me.

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's a GD corporate product like anything else.

IT's not a freggin right.

Why not? What's wrong with caring for the sick because they need it and not because they can afford it?

Nothing wrong with that, it was already happening before Obama care. What is wrong is when the government forces you to purchase a service or product.

I certainly don't agree with that aspect of Obamacare either, but UHC wouldn't have that condition.

originally posted by: ilikebooze

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

IS that the Same Europe with the debt crisis because they are under the delusion the state exists to provide for the material WANTS of the masses.

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't.

Basic healthcare is a material want of the masses?

Just because alot of people want it doesn't mean you should force EVERYONE to get it.

I am so tired of other people trying to decide whats best for me.

Well you do know that you don't have to use it even if you have it right? But in any case, are you going to honestly sit there and tell me you've NEVER been to the doctors for an illness or injury and just toughed out every malady you've had?

a reply to: ilikebooze

So the people that just use the ER and skip the bill, crippling the hospital, is a better idea?

If it's the difference in the hospital being put out of business, verses everyone requiring to be covered and contribute, would anyone in their right mind not go with option 2? No. Only idiots with really special arguements like 'they never get sick'.

So here we are.

When this countries is over $18 trillion dollars in DEBT with a bunch of half assed programs that can't pay for themselves.

People absolutely WANT another helping of STUPID.

As it stands right now just between medicare,and medicaid that accounts for over 100 million people at a cost of over $1 trillion per YEAR.

Triple that number that that will add over 3 trillion per YEAR just on healthcare. On top of the trillions it is currently spending on 'other' THINGS.

I guess the state will magically pull out of it's snip.

I had no idea so many people wanted to live in a debtors prison.

Indentured servitude.

No matter what they promise beforehand, the actual expenditures after the election will always be more for endless debt and war coffers and less for the people.

Theres been this trend, haven't you noticed?

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Many people will vote for the winning candidate so they can be part of the winning group. This is a flawed approach, giving liars and deceivers a better chance.

That is the whole reason behind the primaries being split up like they are, it is a ploy that is exploited. They use evidence from the first round of voting to try to get people to vote for the winner. Endorsements are another way of steering votes.

Half the population will vote for who they feel is the winner, we are conditioned from very young to pick who we think will win something to follow. This isn't hidden information, you can find it on the net. It is a normal way of doing things in this country and even around the world. Most people are followers.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: ilikebooze

So the people that just use the ER and skip the bill, crippling the hospital, is a better idea?

If it's the difference in the hospital being put out of business, verses everyone requiring to be covered and contribute, would anyone in their right mind not go with option 2? No. Only idiots with really special arguements like 'they never get sick'.

Have you ever seen a hospital bill? At 50$ an aspirin and 75$ for a bedpan, 10 grand a night for a room, i hardly think they are in any danger of going out of business.

a reply to: imjack

Damn what's it like to live in a world that's only black and white?

So I either pay for UHC out the ass, in ACA's case I get fined for not having it, or I'm a scumbag with no intention ever pay for the bills I owe...Makes sense..

Some people like to just pay for what they owe and for services provided as opposed to paying into the potential for service.

I have no insurance. In 2015 I went to an urgent care clinic once for a sickness. It was $100 dollars for the doctors visit and $70 for meds. The LOWEST ACA would give me was $145 a month for crap level insurance.

How does it make sense for me to pay almost more than what I've paid all year in a single month and then X 12?

Oh right, because I'M responsible for Johnny Two Fingers medical expenses as well....

a reply to: ilikebooze

That is where the real problem lays.

The only function of health insurance is to pay the hospital BILLS.

When they RIP people off like that. That is where the real 'injustice' is.

Hell I was charged over $1000 bucks for a single broken finger.