The gov should take the obamacare money and start opening up 24hr. gov run clinics next door to the emergency rooms most used by under or uninsureds. Staff them with Drs. from India. Got to be way cheaper.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is good enough for me...

I've never expected anyone to pay my bills.....

Depends
2022 isnt that far away. Hows our supply of Soylent Green looking.

Nice post on a subject that gets all too many upset one way or the other. There are some very pointed truths in these lines.

In the question, as it was asked to Paul, the guy "makes a good living". So, I think the question was, at the very least, hinting that the guy CHOSE not to be insured. If so, does that even matter?

Salmo, very well stated and I absolutely agree that a public option is REQUIRED to have any change in the system. You also recognized the part of Paul's argument that frustrates me. He wants to be a bad-ass and a man of "personal responsibility" yet he is too much of a pussy to come out and say, "Yeah, he made his bed." Instead, he implies that the guy SHOULD be treated and then, as if by magic, some aspect of society (churches I guess?) would come in with their checkbooks. If that was really the case, we wouldn't be in this mess. He can't have it both ways.

I'm actually kind of surprised by the compassion shown by the majority of posters. Most people seem to say that we cannot just let people die that are otherwise fixable. Some here seem to distinguish between something like accidents that require immediate care and longterm illnesses. Almost all seem to agree that accidents affecting otherwise healthy people should be treated, regardless of the patient's insurance status. If that is the case, I find it hard to believe that people don't take the next step and want to share those sort of expenses more evenly across the population. It really seems like the only way to do that IS to force people to have a plan so they are participating in covering the costs.

-AP

So how many here choose not to pay for health insurance?
But have cell phones, internet and go fishing which all cost $...
The reason some choose not to buy health insurance is the fact they know they will not be turned down for care in most cases. Let a few die and I bet others will be doing what they can to buy ins.

I choose to pay my $1185.00 a month and cut back on the entertainment dollars. Why should I pay and have the same treatment as the next guy that can pay for ins but chooses not too!

When I was young I never had insurance after I moved out of my parent's house. I even went for many years without car insurance. Considering how I lived, it was a pretty foolish thing to do, but that was how it went down. Of course all those who were/are purchasing insurance pay for those who don't. At some point insurance became important to me and I then worked only for outfits that offered it. Now, of course, everything is different. I need insurance, because I'm falling apart. Fortunately for now, I still work and have pretty good coverage. Life is a gamble at best, and I don't think the gov't has the right to remove that aspect.....even if it is the wise thing to do.

AuntyM,

Like AP pointed out, in the example question to RP, the young man made enough income to afford insurance but chose not to. That's what makes the question a pointed one for legislators debating the issue.

When I said I favor a national health care program, perhaps I should have been more clear to include the public option run by the gov't. It's beyond ludicrous that the world's most affluent nation doesn't have basic national health care. I'm not talking about unlimited health care; we can't afford that. But basic health care for all citizens roughly as I described in my post above would be fitting for a modern affluent civilization. The system we have is more about profit than about a healthy people.

Sg

Funny, isn't it, that the hypocratic oath is somehow circumvented/rationalized when it comes to "First do no harm"?

The drug R and D should be Federalized.....100%, IMO

Simple answer is that I reject the social darwinism of the Ron Paula of this world and have instead always favored a national health insurance system similar to the one enjoyed by our friends and neighbors in Canada.

Perhaps so. But I certainly don't see any better proposals coming from the leaders of either of our two political parties, both of which are beholding to the health insurance industry. I would prefer to first adopt a Canadian style system and THEN work to improve it.

The British national health care system is similar to our VA system. I'm not sure I would favor adopting that system. Instead we could start by essentially having Medicare for all.

Like the blind squirrel and nut, Aunty is right. Do you agree/understand, Timber? If so, why would you not favor such a system?

Aunty is also absolutely correct about the demonization of any real system change, with several large industries (pharma, insurance, for-profit hospitals, etc.) leading the fight against change and using the media to do so. It is frustrating to see an industry (or the govt for that matter) so easily manipulate a group of people to fight against their own best interests.

My personal choice would be for a universal payer system with payers able to choose between private or govt plan. Once in a plan, medical decisions would be determined based on the "value" of the service. Prepare for that to be demonized as "death panels" (honestly, that system already exists in private insurance industry). This would provide the skeleton of health care, similar to Canada and several other nations. The richest would STILL be able to get additional care ON TOP OR IN PLACE OF THIS because $ in hand will always get you what you want.

IMO, basic health care should be as basic a right as clean water. Unfortunately any true remedy will be labeled socialistic. We need to get out of the mind set that all things labeled socialism/socialistic/socialist are evil. There's nothing wrong with "we the people" taking care of "we the people". And where is it written that everything in Amercia must turn a profit? How is it possible that utilities survive? Unfortunately here is how the RRWJ's think:

The U.S. entitlement programs, namely Social Security and Medicare, aren't just financially bankrupt, they're "morally bankrupt." They're also funded by money stolen from hard-working, responsible Americans.

That's the conclusion of Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute.

The author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and other books, Ayn Rand is famous for espousing free markets and self-reliance. Yaron Brook, a former finance professor, shares these beliefs.

Brook believes that our society should eliminate social programs so we encourage citizens to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. He also argues that Social Security and Medicare are "theft" because the money to pay for them is stolen from those who don't believe in or need the programs.

The entitlement programs were created by elected representatives, of course--representatives who could presumably eliminate them if citizens decided they no longer wanted them. So I asked Brook whether the money to pay for the military, police, and other government programs is also stolen.

Brook said no. There is a role for government in our society, he says--protecting the people from crooks and outside attacks--so the money is being put to proper use.

But if the money for Social Security is being stolen from citizens who don't believe in it, why isn't the money to pay for the military also being stolen from pacifists who don't believe in war?

Because, says Brook, the collection and spending of the latter money is in everyone's interests and is therefore justified.

Hmmm. Social Security certainly has its problems, as does the United States as a whole. But it seems inconsistent to suggest that some money collected and spent by the government is "stolen," while other money isn't.

The question about how much emphasis our society should place on self-reliance is a different one. Many Americans still abhor the idea of Social Security, along with minimum wages, Medicare, and other programs designed to extend the wealth and benefits of America to as many Americans as possible.

Here's another option:

We've had quite an Amish community spring up in my extended neighborhood. I've got to know several of them quite well. They don't believe in insurance, and don't buy it. They also don't believe in federal assistance of any type, such as Medicaid/Medicare. They are exempt from paying into Social Security/Medicare, and they also don't get those benefits.

I've seen them rack up some pretty hefty hospital bills, with premature babies, heart surgery, etc. They will go into the hospital billing office and say, ok, we don't have insurance, we will pay cash and usually negotiate the rates down. The family and extended family pay what they can, then they announce in their church service that more money is needed, and the community pitches in. If it goes beyond the communities ability to pay, the call goes out to other Amish communities. The bill gets a write down from what insured costs are, the cash is delivered and life goes on.

That is the RWWJ answer to getting rid of all things they label entitlements. The greedy get out of having to contribute and somehow somewhere someone ELSE will step up with charity to take care of things.

Personally, I buy insurance......and pay taxes and no, people without insurance shouldn't and don't die. But there are other models out there...just sayin'

The other option is becoming Amish?

The fact that they "negotiate the rates down" is absolutely crazy for one of two reasons (probably both). They are getting cheaper rates and others are then forced to pay the difference and/or they are paying cheaper rates because the insurance industry is such a burden to the system that they are largely responsible for jacking rates.

The Amish example is a Ron Paul blow-off "the church will pay for it" answer though. That system actually DOES NOT work. Charity CAN'T cover it all.

Unfortunately many Americans are ignorant of their own history. That's especially true of our economic history. If this were not so there would be very few that would long for, much advocate, a return to the econoic system of the post-Civil War era. And make no mistake: that's exactly what today's Tea Party a.d libertarian conservatives are advocating. There was a reason for the reforms of the Progressive Era that lead to the New Deal. We would all do well to understand this history before attempting to undo those earlier reforms.

I never could understand why we think education is the government's responsibility but not health care. By any standard the current system is a mess. But many buy the B.S. spouted by the health care industry to protect the fat cats sucking us dry. Meanwhile every year our costs shoot up and the number of insured drops.