The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Missouri says "NO" to Obama
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3709
Page 1 of 22

Author:  Taskiss [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Missouri says "NO" to Obama

Missouri prop C passed by over 70%

It calls for the state to refuse to force folks to buy health insurance. Go MO!

Author:  LadyKate [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Cool. So how many states have passed similar things so far?

Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:07 am ]
Post subject: 

This is kinda like a 'no athiest a foxhole' thing.
Everyone is against being forced to have health insurance...right up until the moment they're bleeding to death and the hospital won't treat them because they cannot pay.

Author:  Ladas [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

TheRiov wrote:
This is kinda like a 'no athiest a foxhole' thing.
Everyone is against being forced to have health insurance...right up until the moment they're bleeding to death and the hospital won't treat them because they cannot pay.

Good analogy, except the part that the hospital still has to provide life saving care regardless of ability to pay.

Author:  Screeling [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

TheRiov wrote:
This is kinda like a 'no athiest a foxhole' thing.
Everyone is against being forced to have health insurance...right up until the moment they're bleeding to death and the hospital won't treat them because they cannot pay.

Actually, EMTALA prevents hospitals from refusing to give emergency care if a patient cannot pay.

Author:  Nitefox [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

TheRiov wrote:
This is kinda like a 'no athiest a foxhole' thing.
Everyone is against being forced to have health insurance...right up until the moment they're bleeding to death and the hospital won't treat them because they cannot pay.



Swing and a miss.

Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:36 am ]
Post subject: 

not at all. I'm well aware they're not allowed to refuse care.

You just made my point for me. That care must be paid for somewhere. Better to have it 'within the system' Rather than bill customers who cannot pay and passing those costs (plus the overhead for it) on to everyone else better to have it within a system set up for this purpose.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

TheRiov wrote:
not at all. I'm well aware they're not allowed to refuse care.

You just made my point for me. That care must be paid for somewhere. Better to have it 'within the system' Rather than bill customers who cannot pay and passing those costs (plus the overhead for it) on to everyone else better to have it within a system set up for this purpose.


Better off not using force to serve individuals with no ability to pay.

Author:  Nitefox [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

TheRiov wrote:
not at all. I'm well aware they're not allowed to refuse care.

You just made my point for me. That care must be paid for somewhere. Better to have it 'within the system' Rather than bill customers who cannot pay and passing those costs (plus the overhead for it) on to everyone else better to have it within a system set up for this purpose.



Foul tip. That's strike two.

Author:  Aizle [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Nitefox wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
not at all. I'm well aware they're not allowed to refuse care.

You just made my point for me. That care must be paid for somewhere. Better to have it 'within the system' Rather than bill customers who cannot pay and passing those costs (plus the overhead for it) on to everyone else better to have it within a system set up for this purpose.



Foul tip. That's strike two.


Bull. TheRiov is completely correct. These are now unplanned costs that severly hamper a hospitals ability to budget and plan correctly and artificially inflate the overall costs of healthcare.

Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am ]
Post subject: 

I'm seeing the effects of this right now. The biggest hospital in the area just laid off 700 employees because they had over 100 million in unpaid bills last year.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am ]
Post subject: 

Right so stop forcing them to treat people.

Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:14 am ]
Post subject: 

Its easy to say that now. Harder when they're bleeding in front of you. Or should emergency care be put off until each individual can provide a bank statment and credit references proving they can pay?

Its not realistic Elmo and you know it.

Author:  Nitefox [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Aizle wrote:
Nitefox wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
not at all. I'm well aware they're not allowed to refuse care.

You just made my point for me. That care must be paid for somewhere. Better to have it 'within the system' Rather than bill customers who cannot pay and passing those costs (plus the overhead for it) on to everyone else better to have it within a system set up for this purpose.



Foul tip. That's strike two.


Bull. TheRiov is completely correct. These are now unplanned costs that severly hamper a hospitals ability to budget and plan correctly and artificially inflate the overall costs of healthcare.



Once again we see that libs and personal responsibility do not mix.

Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Nitefox wrote:
Once again we see that libs and personal responsibility do not mix.


Hardly. I'm obviously liberal. I pay taxes. I pay my bills. I dont bounce checks and I contribute to society.

One COULD argue that by asking people to pay taxes we're asking for everyone to shoulder a piece of the burden--demanding greater personal responsiblity for society on the whole rather than dismissing the whole as 'not my responsiblity'

Author:  Monte [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Elmarnieh wrote:
Right so stop forcing them to treat people.


He boldly says, before he gets cancer and gets dropped from his insurance as a result...


People are so very courageous with other people's lives, aren't they?

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

TheRiov wrote:
Its easy to say that now. Harder when they're bleeding in front of you. Or should emergency care be put off until each individual can provide a bank statment and credit references proving they can pay?

Its not realistic Elmo and you know it.


It is realistic - you just don't like it.

If they are bleeding in front of me I will try to treat them as best as I can.

If they are bleeding in front of a doctor its the doctor's decision, if they bleed in front of a hospital its the hospitals decision.

Otherwise have a consent form for indentured servitude to try to recoup costs.

Have each hospital have a charity fund that is used to pay for these people and have drives for it.

There are many many ways to handle it that you haven't even bothered to consider.

Author:  Nitefox [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

TheRiov wrote:
Nitefox wrote:
Once again we see that libs and personal responsibility do not mix.


Hardly. I'm obviously liberal. I pay taxes. I pay my bills. I dont bounce checks and I contribute to society.

One COULD argue that by asking people to pay taxes we're asking for everyone to shoulder a piece of the burden--demanding greater personal responsiblity for society on the whole rather than dismissing the whole as 'not my responsiblity'



You do it seems, but you sure do seem all on fire to let others get away from it. Don't want to be turned away from the hospital in an emergency? Get a job, take care of your money, get health insurance. Do all that and we won't have to worry about the government getting involved so they can be more worried about you know, actual constitutional things.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:22 am ]
Post subject: 

TheRiov wrote:
Hardly. I'm obviously liberal. I pay taxes. I pay my bills. I dont bounce checks and I contribute to society.

One COULD argue that by asking people to pay taxes we're asking for everyone to shoulder a piece of the burden--demanding greater personal responsiblity for society on the whole rather than dismissing the whole as 'not my responsiblity'

Except that's not what fosters personal responsibility.

As an example, take the known result of what happens when a person is wrongfully attacked in proximity to a large group of people vs. that same attack in proximity to a few individuals. The individuals are far more likely to intervene, while the people surrounded by their comfy group think "surely, someone else will do something". You are suggesting that the group mentality is better for personal responsibility, and you're wrong.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Right so stop forcing them to treat people.


He boldly says, before he gets cancer and gets dropped from his insurance as a result...


People are so very courageous with other people's lives, aren't they?


How does the Government forcing him pay for insurance stop this from happening?

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Right so stop forcing them to treat people.


He boldly says, before he gets cancer and gets dropped from his insurance as a result...


People are so very courageous with other people's lives, aren't they?


Hey you pathetic pile of genetic slop,

I'll have done to me as I do to others every day of the week. You know absolutely **** about me you donkeyball sucking pea-brained bag of smashed ****.

**** off and die. You have no motivation to make the world a better place because you're a lazy, self-absorbed, ignorant git who can't think rationally because you don't even bother to try to understand what it means. Not that your feeble grasp of any concept or term could even begin the ascent to understand of anything of importance.

Author:  Nitefox [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Right so stop forcing them to treat people.


He boldly says, before he gets cancer and gets dropped from his insurance as a result...


People are so very courageous with other people's lives, aren't they?



Says the coward who wants to force people to perform services by threat and wants to take money from people who earned it to give to people who haven't. Real brave fella you are Andy.

Author:  Aizle [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Nitefox wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Bull. TheRiov is completely correct. These are now unplanned costs that severly hamper a hospitals ability to budget and plan correctly and artificially inflate the overall costs of healthcare.



Once again we see that libs and personal responsibility do not mix.


How do you get that from my comment? It's the conservatives that are proposing that we don't **** pay for the issues that WILL and DO happen. I have yet to see one serious offering from the conservative parties that suggested that we deny emergency care from those who aren't covered. That is the ONLY way to make a non-taxpayer supported healthcare system work.

And as we all know that would never fly, the populace (rightly IMHO) would not stand for it. Beyond the moral repercussions, you'd have riots in the streets eventually that would be a far greater drain on the resources of our country and economy than any national healthcare system would be.

So basically you have two options, you can either cry and whine about how it's not fair or right or whatever, or you can man up and deal with the reality of the situation and do the best that you can. So far anything I've seen from the conservative side of the house has been crying and whining.

Author:  Nitefox [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Aizle wrote:
Nitefox wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Bull. TheRiov is completely correct. These are now unplanned costs that severly hamper a hospitals ability to budget and plan correctly and artificially inflate the overall costs of healthcare.



Once again we see that libs and personal responsibility do not mix.


How do you get that from my comment? It's the conservatives that are proposing that we don't **** pay for the issues that WILL and DO happen. I have yet to see one serious offering from the conservative parties that suggested that we deny emergency care from those who aren't covered. That is the ONLY way to make a non-taxpayer supported healthcare system work.

And as we all know that would never fly, the populace (rightly IMHO) would not stand for it. Beyond the moral repercussions, you'd have riots in the streets eventually that would be a far greater drain on the resources of our country and economy than any national healthcare system would be.

So basically you have two options, you can either cry and whine about how it's not fair or right or whatever, or you can man up and deal with the reality of the situation and do the best that you can. So far anything I've seen from the conservative side of the house has been crying and whining.



Well if we can get the right folks into office, maybe we will see a change. Doesn't mean I have to like the way things are right now, agree with them, or go along. You go ahead and be the lemming Azile. Personal responsibility...used to be a common thing. Now? Nah, let's make others pay for those that don't want to practice it.

Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Elmarnieh wrote:
Hey you pathetic pile of genetic slop,

I'll have done to me as I do to others every day of the week. You know absolutely **** about me you donkeyball sucking pea-brained bag of smashed ****.

**** off and die. You have no motivation to make the world a better place because you're a lazy, self-absorbed, ignorant git who can't think rationally because you don't even bother to try to understand what it means. Not that your feeble grasp of any concept or term could even begin the ascent to understand of anything of importance.

Holy crap, I wonder if I could get away with using that as my signature...

Page 1 of 22 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/