It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP can go to hell.

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth


If you can't afford kids don't have them.


You missed the point. As usual. They can afford them, they can't afford the costs associated with having them in a hospital.


The focus should be in bringing costs down,


That's the point.


not forcing other people to pay for your kids. Take some personal responsibility and stop assuming others will pay for you.


That's your false equivalency and hypocrisy.

You're implying that if costs are too high those who can't afford the extreme costs (associated with hospital care) should not have kids (with which I disagree) even though you agree that cost is the problem.

Figures.

To hell with those who can't afford for-profit healthcare. Got it.


No the point is very much as I stated. Don't expect others to pay for your kids.

Bringing costs down does not mean others paying for you, it means bringing the cost down.. Exactly as stated.



I get your "point."

If you can't afford it you're screwed, regardless of cost, even if it's something one needs, and the cost is inflated.

Got it.

Carry on.




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope


wow just if your young you can work kids off. Thats when you have them anyway.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Grambler


Are you implying that a woman in labor would be turned down at a hospital when in labor?


I never implied that.


So the person ccan have a child, and yes struggle to pay this debt.


They can. And they do, because of the exorbitant costs.


I know people who have paid like $5 a month for years and years on medical bills because of economic hardship, yet they have nice cars and phones, etc.


Your point? Some people take advantage. Should others suffer?


So I will turn your statement on you.

To hell with those that work hard and want to keep their own money. Got it.


This is about people not being able to afford the exorbitant costs associated with childbirth in a for-profit hospital.

Stop moving the goalposts.


What goal post am I moving?

I agree health care costs are out of hand, I just have a different solution than you.

You make it seem that if others do not pay for a poor persons child birth, that it is horribly immoral.

The fact is that I am just making it clear that although it is terrible that these costs are high, this woman could pay very small amounts back and still lead a very livable life.

Given the womans life is not in danger, why should others be forced to pay for her situation?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AboveBoard

Who is arguing that your son is not a worthwhile life?

Let me say, all of this debate aside, I am very happy for you and your son, and I hope that he thrives in life.

The problem is that you look at this in a purely emotional state and by making what you think our arguments based out of morality.

I would contend that your argument is not a moral one but a financial one.

Are you arguing that we can place no dollar value on any human life?

If thats the case, lets say we find out a person will need an entire environment and medicine regiment that will cost about 1 billion dollars a day.

Would you be the monster that said it can't be afforded? Or would you insist that the government spend this money?

And a follow up question; if the government controlled all healthcare, what choice do you think they would decide?



THIS LEGISLATION is an arguement that my son's life is not valuable enough to receive care, without which he will eventually die at a very young age.

Your hypothetical is completely unrealistic. The absolute maximum of care anyone needs is ONE patient who is on a million dollar a day regimen. No one will ever need a billion dollars a day. It is the most expensive care I've ever heard of and I'm not sure what this patient's illness is or his life expectancy.

IF the LAW of the land says that a government VALUES THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING of it's citizens and will AID them in providing healthcare, which is extraordinarily burdensome, then it will follow its values. It would find a reasonable way to accommodate this member of it's citizenry.

You are damn right I'm emotional about this. I'm seeing my son's entire future as a freaking nightmare right now, when if they'd simply fixed the bloody ACA to where it was more fair, I would not be losing sleep and praying and having to sharpen my damn peasant pitch fork to go "storm the castle" (i.e. protest legally) to save my son's life and future.

Just stop for a second and feel what you would do if legislation like this was an existential threat to someone you love more than your own heartbeat. Can you picture that? When he was born I saw the universe in his eyes staring back at me - what is the price of that?

How can you not allow emotions to be part of the discussion, Grambler. Life and death ARE emotional - one of the most emotional things we humans deal with.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grambler




If the government is to be involved it should be providing things such as HSA's and guaranteed care to extreme cases to very low income people.


so, why should the not so very low income taxpayer who can't afford their own healthcare have to pitch in so that those with lower incomes and enjoy what he cannot???



They shouldnt. My suggestion is that this would be where the debate should begin. But yes, the taking of money by force by the government should almost never be done.


and yet every despot, dictator, and king has forced taxes to be paid. but, your suggestion is that people will pay voluntarily because it's America...uh huh



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AboveBoard

And a follow up question; if the government controlled all healthcare, what choice do you think they would decide?



As this Kaiser Snapshot shows, government-controlled programs (Medicare and Medicaid) have a lower acceptance rate by Primary Care physicians, than privately owned health insurance.

SNAPSHOT: www.kff.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AboveBoard
...
And a follow up question; if the government controlled all healthcare, what choice do you think they would decide?



THAT is indeed the scariest part of a government controlled health care system.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


Ok Bro but were the problems is and where it started is when the Government acts like it their money.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

the thing you aren't getting though is that the women needs healithcare much sooner than when she goes into labor. usually, I think most often, that is an ob/gyn who also is expected to deliver the baby... the doctor who delivered my three kids along with provided the prenatal care had installments set up throughout the nine months and it had to be paid before your went into labor. what you are suggesting is adequate for SOME OF THE POOR, is really quite dangerous if complications develop during those nine months before labor...
I don't know if the senate plan is changed this but the house plan reduced the medicaid eligibility from 130% down to 100%... someone needs to come out and explain why the women in a two person household earning 16,200 is seen as more worthy to live than one with a household income of 16,241!!
the er only provides emergency care... it will slap a splint on broken bones, but it might not set them....
it might remove the ruptured appendix, but it won't provide the ongoing treatment needed to cure the infection that caused it to rupture.

and... it would cost so much more to run to the er...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AboveBoard


Ok Bro but were the problems is and where it started is when the Government acts like it their money.



I'ts "Ma'm," and the government is supposed to belong to the people for the betterment of the people. We are a collective whether people like it that way or not - and if WE don't look out for each other, and for the most vulnerable among us, then we are a crappy, immature and spoiled collective. Individual responsibility is necessary to a functioning system too, not doubting that for a minute, but without banding together, America as a nation would not exist.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Once again... who said that you can't get insurance that covers childbirth?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Reddit is your source?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AboveBoard
...
And a follow up question; if the government controlled all healthcare, what choice do you think they would decide?



THAT is indeed the scariest part of a government controlled health care system.



Why? As it is right now, our government is saying it simply wants them to not have care, i.e., it wants them to die.

Why should having a collective effort with laws in place to protect patients make "our government" any MORE evil than they already are today, right now, with this legislation.

There is no "heart" in this anti-healthcare bill. It is simply an exercise in making smaller government at the expense of the poorest and the middle class.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AboveBoard

Who is arguing that your son is not a worthwhile life?

Let me say, all of this debate aside, I am very happy for you and your son, and I hope that he thrives in life.

The problem is that you look at this in a purely emotional state and by making what you think our arguments based out of morality.

I would contend that your argument is not a moral one but a financial one.

Are you arguing that we can place no dollar value on any human life?

If thats the case, lets say we find out a person will need an entire environment and medicine regiment that will cost about 1 billion dollars a day.

Would you be the monster that said it can't be afforded? Or would you insist that the government spend this money?

And a follow up question; if the government controlled all healthcare, what choice do you think they would decide?



THIS LEGISLATION is an arguement that my son's life is not valuable enough to receive care, without which he will eventually die at a very young age.

Your hypothetical is completely unrealistic. The absolute maximum of care anyone needs is ONE patient who is on a million dollar a day regimen. No one will ever need a billion dollars a day. It is the most expensive care I've ever heard of and I'm not sure what this patient's illness is or his life expectancy.

IF the LAW of the land says that a government VALUES THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING of it's citizens and will AID them in providing healthcare, which is extraordinarily burdensome, then it will follow its values. It would find a reasonable way to accommodate this member of it's citizenry.

You are damn right I'm emotional about this. I'm seeing my son's entire future as a freaking nightmare right now, when if they'd simply fixed the bloody ACA to where it was more fair, I would not be losing sleep and praying and having to sharpen my damn peasant pitch fork to go "storm the castle" (i.e. protest legally) to save my son's life and future.

Just stop for a second and feel what you would do if legislation like this was an existential threat to someone you love more than your own heartbeat. Can you picture that? When he was born I saw the universe in his eyes staring back at me - what is the price of that?

How can you not allow emotions to be part of the discussion, Grambler. Life and death ARE emotional - one of the most emotional things we humans deal with.


So you acknowledged that at some point, it becomes necessary to say we can't spend infinite dollars on a life.

Then you are no longer arguing the principle that we can put no value on life, you are just arguing what price is reasonable.

I wonder how you are so certain your child would have died had the ACA not been there. My own sister rteciecved free care at a shriners hospital for 12 years. All of this was based on charity.

Of course you are emotional. And yet you can not see the other side of the argument.

I know lives that were destroyed because of Obamacare. I know people that lost jobs, I know people who had to close businesses.

The problem is you setup a situation where you say "This program saved my sons life, therefore it is immoral to end this program!" while ignoring lives that this program may have destroyed.

Do you feel that it is the governments role to ensure every single life be saved from any illness, no matter what the cost?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grambler




If the government is to be involved it should be providing things such as HSA's and guaranteed care to extreme cases to very low income people.


so, why should the not so very low income taxpayer who can't afford their own healthcare have to pitch in so that those with lower incomes and enjoy what he cannot???



They shouldnt. My suggestion is that this would be where the debate should begin. But yes, the taking of money by force by the government should almost never be done.


and yet every despot, dictator, and king has forced taxes to be paid. but, your suggestion is that people will pay voluntarily because it's America...uh huh


So your argument is because despots and kings force taxes, our government should act more like them?

Fail.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: dawnstar

Once again... who said that you can't get insurance that covers childbirth?



IF you have an "accidental" pregnancy, despite being careful (like my husband and I did with hour child who needs all the surgeries, etc.), then you are NOT covered for ANY part of the pregnancy. You are NOT covered for the child's prenatal care. IF you have regular insurance, you usually have a time period where you can get the child onto your plan after they are born.

I gave birth in an operating theatre with about sixteen people present in case emergency surgery was needed on the baby post-birth, or they needed to do an emergency c-section. None of that was covered. It was recommended that I stay a second night in the hospital after I gave birth but I told them I couldn't because it was all out of pocket.

It was expensive...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: dawnstar

Once again... who said that you can't get insurance that covers childbirth?



IF you have an "accidental" pregnancy, despite being careful (like my husband and I did with hour child who needs all the surgeries, etc.), then you are NOT covered for ANY part of the pregnancy. You are NOT covered for the child's prenatal care. IF you have regular insurance, you usually have a time period where you can get the child onto your plan after they are born.

I gave birth in an operating theatre with about sixteen people present in case emergency surgery was needed on the baby post-birth, or they needed to do an emergency c-section. None of that was covered. It was recommended that I stay a second night in the hospital after I gave birth but I told them I couldn't because it was all out of pocket.

It was expensive...


And yet your life went on.

This is my point.

You are really just making a financial argument that comes down to.

"I shouldn't have to pay these bills! Others should!"



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AboveBoard


Ok Bro but were the problems is and where it started is when the Government acts like it their money.



I'ts "Ma'm," and the government is supposed to belong to the people for the betterment of the people.


The government is supposed to protect our right to better ourselves, not social-engineer our society.


We are a collective whether people like it that way or not - and if WE don't look out for each other, and for the most vulnerable among us, then we are a crappy, immature and spoiled collective. Individual responsibility is necessary to a functioning system too, not doubting that for a minute, but without banding together, America as a nation would not exist.


We don't need government to do any of that, in fact federal government was *never intended* to do any of that.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AboveBoard

Who is arguing that your son is not a worthwhile life?

Let me say, all of this debate aside, I am very happy for you and your son, and I hope that he thrives in life.

The problem is that you look at this in a purely emotional state and by making what you think our arguments based out of morality.

I would contend that your argument is not a moral one but a financial one.

Are you arguing that we can place no dollar value on any human life?

If thats the case, lets say we find out a person will need an entire environment and medicine regiment that will cost about 1 billion dollars a day.

Would you be the monster that said it can't be afforded? Or would you insist that the government spend this money?

And a follow up question; if the government controlled all healthcare, what choice do you think they would decide?



THIS LEGISLATION is an arguement that my son's life is not valuable enough to receive care, without which he will eventually die at a very young age.

Your hypothetical is completely unrealistic. The absolute maximum of care anyone needs is ONE patient who is on a million dollar a day regimen. No one will ever need a billion dollars a day. It is the most expensive care I've ever heard of and I'm not sure what this patient's illness is or his life expectancy.

IF the LAW of the land says that a government VALUES THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING of it's citizens and will AID them in providing healthcare, which is extraordinarily burdensome, then it will follow its values. It would find a reasonable way to accommodate this member of it's citizenry.

You are damn right I'm emotional about this. I'm seeing my son's entire future as a freaking nightmare right now, when if they'd simply fixed the bloody ACA to where it was more fair, I would not be losing sleep and praying and having to sharpen my damn peasant pitch fork to go "storm the castle" (i.e. protest legally) to save my son's life and future.

Just stop for a second and feel what you would do if legislation like this was an existential threat to someone you love more than your own heartbeat. Can you picture that? When he was born I saw the universe in his eyes staring back at me - what is the price of that?

How can you not allow emotions to be part of the discussion, Grambler. Life and death ARE emotional - one of the most emotional things we humans deal with.


So you acknowledged that at some point, it becomes necessary to say we can't spend infinite dollars on a life.

Then you are no longer arguing the principle that we can put no value on life, you are just arguing what price is reasonable.

I wonder how you are so certain your child would have died had the ACA not been there. My own sister rteciecved free care at a shriners hospital for 12 years. All of this was based on charity.

Of course you are emotional. And yet you can not see the other side of the argument.

I know lives that were destroyed because of Obamacare. I know people that lost jobs, I know people who had to close businesses.

The problem is you setup a situation where you say "This program saved my sons life, therefore it is immoral to end this program!" while ignoring lives that this program may have destroyed.

Do you feel that it is the governments role to ensure every single life be saved from any illness, no matter what the cost?


NO - I did not acknowledge that - I simply said you were being completely unreasonable in your hypothetical.

Don't put words in my mouth and build an argument around what I didn't say, please.

I DO acknowledge that the ACA had major problems. These problems were fixable, and if we'd had people in government who were not hell bent on seeing the law destroyed, they could have been fixed with amendments. Instead, the law was sabotaged and made more expensive and worse. The GOP did that. Yay them.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Maybe people shouldn't be having kids if they need someone else to pay for them.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join