Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

[Poll] Should the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act be repealed along with Obamacare?

sjinhan

By sjinhan
in The Tailgate

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
I'm talking about in your hypothetical where we don't have a fine/tax because it's possible to pay for medical services without having insurance. If there's no mandate and you choose not to have insurance, should you have to provide some proof of what you are able to pay for so the hospital knows whether to save your life or not?

Of course not. And there were signs up in ERs saying they couldn't decline treatment in life-threatening or active-labor situations LONG before Obamacare was even thought of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted

1) If hospitals are not prohibited by law to turn away people who are unlikely to pay for care, at least some hospitals will turn people away.

2) If healthy people are not helping to pay for medical costs of sick people, many sick people will be unable to pay for their own care.

I am missing something? Sorry h_h but it seems to be that simple, at least that part of it. No need to twist into pretzels about it.

If we force hospitals to provide healthcare for people who will not pay for it (1), then we will end up forcing healthy people to pay for their medical care (2). Without a structured way of doing (2), we ended up with a big freaking mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted
F it.........

Aw come on man. If you have a point to make, make it.

Some sickly people cannot afford healthcare:

  • Option 1: Don't worry about it. Screw poor sickly people.
  • Option 2a: Healthy people help pay for it in a structured, regulated way (universal coverage)
  • Option 2b: Healthy people help pay for it in a haphazard way (cost shifting)
  • Option 3: Deflect the question.

Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted

Yes, h_h, I realize my example was reductio ad absurdum and it was meant that way to at least lighten things a bit. However, even if they can't turn people away for life threatening situations no matter what that still leaves a metric ton of other major but non life threatening situations where they could deny people or refuse a payment plan if the price was too high. That is, unless they were going to guarantee payment plans no matter whether they thought you were able to pay or not...in which case the person would just get billed, then it goes to collections, and then they get hounded forever or until they are taken to court and/or have to file for bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted

Nah, I'll sit this one out.

Continue thinking that "person without insurance = scamming sheister hell-bent on the destruction of the country as we know it."

And clearly, I'm the ONLY American capable of getting care, and PAYING for it without insurance. Very impressive, if I do say so myself. The only one, out of 300 million. So I shouldn't have to reduce myself to conversing with the likes of you guys anyway. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted
Nah, I'll sit this one out.

Continue thinking that "person without insurance = scamming sheister hell-bent on the destruction of the country as we know it."

And clearly, I'm the ONLY American capable of getting care, and PAYING for it without insurance. Very impressive, if I do say so myself. The only one, out of 300 million. So I shouldn't have to reduce myself to conversing with the likes of you guys anyway. :D

Feel free to take your ball home after your tantrum.

I suspect had you contracted something other than a bruised ego, your healthcare costs would have been a lot more, in the realm of..not paying it off in your lifetime.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted
Nah, I'll sit this one out.

Continue thinking that "person without insurance = scamming sheister hell-bent on the destruction of the country as we know it."

And clearly, I'm the ONLY American capable of getting care, and PAYING for it without insurance. Very impressive, if I do say so myself. The only one, out of 300 million. So I shouldn't have to reduce myself to conversing with the likes of you guys anyway. :D

You have money and no insurance? Sounds like somebody is ripe for some good ol' taxin'. ;)

Call off the SCOTUS guys, we got him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
I guess some people do enjoy russian roulette.

Because honestly, I can't think why anyone with money would avoid some type of health insurance.

Yeah that really makes no sense to me either. I suppose I could understand the desire to save money if you've generally been healthy for a long time and have become a bit complacent. But that is very myopic; things can happen at any time for any reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted
I guess some people do enjoy russian roulette.

Because honestly, I can't think why anyone with money would avoid some type of health insurance.

Could it make shrewd financial sense in some cases? For example, maybe the cost of bankruptcy due to medical bills could sometimes be less than money saved by not paying for insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted

Let the moderators see that I asked out of this thread more than once, and from whence the instigation came. I apologize in advance.

OK.

Are you all REALLY too stupid to figure out that $150 for an office visit once a year, and a $4 prescription from Wal-Mart is cheaper than, oh, $4800 a year for something you might not need? Really. Really?!

55% of my income goes to child support. I don't "have money." But yeah, I can afford $150 once a whole lot easier than I can $400 a month. It's just common damned sense in my case.

Fine the **** out of me for using a little logic. Brilliant plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted

h_h, I think everyone here understand that part of the logic. The thing is...you're counting on only having to do one office visit a year, but things do happen and they can happen at any time. What would you do if, god forbid, you were to have something major happen where treatment would cost upwards of $50,000? I just think it is a little short sighted to plan around the assumption that you'll only have to have one $150 office visit per year indefinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enter Apotheosis

Enter Apotheosis

Posted
Posted
Let the moderators see that I asked out of this thread more than once, and from whence the instigation came. I apologize in advance.

OK.

Are you all REALLY too stupid to figure out that $150 for an office visit once a year, and a $4 prescription from Wal-Mart is cheaper than, oh, $4800 a year for something you might not need? Really. Really?!

55% of my income goes to child support. I don't "have money." But yeah, I can afford $150 once a whole lot easier than I can $400 a month. It's just common damned sense in my case.

Fine the **** out of me for using a little logic. Brilliant plan.

The problem is that one genuine emergency procedure runs the risk of completely blowing up your cost savings. That's why this debate exists at all.

I may only be 25 but if I use the last 10 years of medical expenses as a baseline, I'd wind up way in the red if I went a decade uninsured... and I'm a pretty healthy person all-in-all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted
h_h, I think everyone here understand that part of the logic. The thing is...you're counting on only having to do one office visit a year, but things do happen and they can happen at any time. What would you do if, god forbid, you were to have something major happen where treatment would cost upwards of $50,000? I just think it is a little short sighted to plan around the assumption that you'll only have to have one $150 office visit per year indefinitely.

Apparently, some people have cornered the market on myopia these days.

But..best of luck to you HH in never having anything more than $154 in medical costs per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted
I guess some people do enjoy russian roulette.

Because honestly, I can't think why anyone with money would avoid some type of health insurance.

One could always set aside the money they WOULD be paying in health insurance to pay for one's own medical bills. There's still a form of rolling the dice in if you get some really big debilitating disease that you can't afford, but its not exactly the epitome of irresponsible. Of course, this were assuming that people and insurance companies were charged the same amount for the same procedures, but I seem to recall hearing that people without insurance are billed much more than insurance companies are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
h_h, I think everyone here understand that part of the logic. The thing is...you're counting on only having to do one office visit a year, but things do happen and they can happen at any time. What would you do if, god forbid, you were to have something major happen where treatment would cost upwards of $50,000? I just think it is a little short sighted to plan around the assumption that you'll only have to have one $150 office visit per year indefinitely.

I wish the same people with this great, broad vision could see that the only thing Obamacare does for people like me is fine the **** out of me, or force me into further financial burden for something I might NOT need. Yeah. I'd love insurance. I can't afford my employer's plan. And Obama's solution is to fine me.

I'm pissed. And rightfully so.

---------- Post added June-29th-2012 at 05:33 PM ----------

Apparently, some people have cornered the market on myopia these days.

But..best of luck to you HH in never having anything more than $154 in medical costs per year.

I'm glad you can afford your employers plan. I'm envious.

But I got it. Everyone who's in a tough financial spot (in this economy? GTFO) is a short-sighted fool. Preciate the stereotype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
I wish the same people with this great, broad vision could see that the only thing Obamacare does for people like me is fine the **** out of me, or force me into further financial burden for something I might NOT need. Yeah. I'd love insurance. I can't afford my employer's plan. And Obama's solution is to fine me.
Is $400/month the only plan that your employer offers? There should be some kind of high deductible plan available that is less than $100/month. And you should be able to purchase something like that outside of your employer as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...