Wraps Up How I Feel About the Health Care Issue

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by jfrog

How would you avoid such a situation in the future... I hear alot of complaints about our current systems, but I never hear any real solutions.

The source of the problem in this sad case and most others is a lack of money.

The life saving procedure was too expensive for the parents-- and the insurance company refused to cover the surgery until the very last minute (with the help of some negative press).


That is why the Public Option is SO important to me.

In situations like these, it will help save lives.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The source of the problem in this sad case and most others is a lack of money.

The life saving procedure was too expensive for the parents-- and the insurance company refused to cover the surgery until the very last minute (with the help of some negative press).


That is why the Public Option is SO important to me.

In situations like these, it will help save lives.

That had nothing to do about the problem. You are blaming the insurance company, but the insurance company wasn't the problem. The problem was that such a procedure was too expensive for anyone involved in that situation to really afford, even the insurance company. I know the big bad insurance companies are just plain evil, but the thing is if they payed for everything that everyone wished they would, then there wouldn't be any insurance companies very much longer...

[Jermyn Davidson]

So I refer to my 2nd post on this thread:

it's cheaper to simply let them die.


In this case, it wasn't too expensive or else the insurance company would never have budged in the first place.


If it was truly impossible, then it would have stayed impossible.


Most of the time, it's not impossible.
Insurance companies and their executives make money hand over fist.

This sad case is a reflection as to why an overhaul is needed.

Misplaced values are costing innocent lives every day, unnecessarily.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So I refer to my 2nd post on this thread:

it's cheaper to simply let them die.


In this case, it wasn't too expensive or else the insurance company would never have budged in the first place.


If it was truly impossible, then it would have stayed impossible.


Most of the time, it's not impossible.
Insurance companies and their executives make money hand over fist.

This sad case is a reflection as to why an overhaul is needed.

Misplaced values are costing innocent lives every day, unnecessarily.

The principle is impossible. While a single case may can be changed, it is impossible to apply such things in a broad way because of the expenditure. It's not that it's cheaper to let people die. It's that it would bankrupt even the most prosperous company to try and do such procedures for everyone fairly.

[nahkoe]

For y'all on my facebook..I'm not trying to be passive aggressive. If you wanna talk I'm all for that. But I don't know what to say here.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The principle is impossible. While a single case may can be changed, it is impossible to apply such things in a broad way because of the expenditure. It's not that it's cheaper to let people die. It's that it would bankrupt even the most prosperous company to try and do such procedures for everyone fairly.

So instead of government sponsored death panels, will let insurance companies make those crucial and deeply personal decisions.


They know more than the government does as to who should live and who should die. The government will never go out of business, but the insurance companies might.


So now the argument is that it is sensible and more ethical to allow those who could stand to lose profits to make life or death decisions for your dying loved ones.


At least, this is what the GOP rebel-rousers were trying to get Americans to see, I guess, this past fall with all of the senseless fear-mongering they did all around the country.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I realize there are real needs, but how do you sift through the ones that abuse it to get to those?
...

I don't think we ever will.
To help those that really need it and can't help themselves, we will carry a lot of others along who could do better if they would but don't because of a sense of entitlement.

I know of people who work but don't make enough to afford insurance but they make too much for Medicaid. How do we fix that? How do they get coverage?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't think we ever will.
To help those that really need it and can't help themselves, we will carry a lot of others along who could do better if they would but don't because of a sense of entitlement.

I know of people who work but don't make enough to afford insurance but they make too much for Medicaid. How do we fix that? How do they get coverage?

Not ideal is they don't have coverage, but it's not a huge issue unless they are are denied emergency healthcare.

[Jermyn Davidson]

They don't Sam.

They simply have faith in God and die or not have faith in God and die faster, probably suffering more too.



Same thing happens for so many would-be college kids for whom there is simply not enough financial aid for, regardless of their background (but that is for another thread).

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So instead of government sponsored death panels, will let insurance companies make those crucial and deeply personal decisions.


They know more than the government does as to who should live and who should die. The government will never go out of business, but the insurance companies might.


So now the argument is that it is sensible and more ethical to allow those who could stand to lose profits to make life or death decisions for your dying loved ones.


At least, this is what the GOP rebel-rousers were trying to get Americans to see, I guess, this past fall with all of the senseless fear-mongering they did all around the country.

I'm not republican... probably more liberal than anything, but I guess moving more toward the middle. I'm all for social programs like public health insurance and public welfare and such. I'm more for what makes us prosperous though. Because it is by prosperity that much more good can be afforded. And maybe such programs actually improve productivity for many people by relieving stress and worry (stress can cause a great many health problems also...) And maybe they actually decrease productivity by taking away motivation. I don't know. I don't know the best answer, but right now I'm for the fairest solution that makes us the most prosperous while still helping those in need some.