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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: dawnstar
Once again... who said that you can't get insurance that covers childbirth?
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...
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.
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.
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?