A hypothetical situation

Originally posted by generalissimo
never have I heard anything more ridiculous or morally repugnant as this.

It is truly a mystery to me why in the US, still the most prosperous country on the face of the earth, people are allowed to be swindled by greedy corporations in such a disgraceful manner. Here we are talking about a man's life, his most precious possession, and all the laiss ...[text shortened]... the one presented in the OP.

Shame on you, and shame on all those who espouse similar views.

never have I heard anything more ridiculous or morally repugnant as this.
Exaggerated flattery is the sincerest form of imitation. My heartfelt thanks.

It is truly a mystery to me why in the US, still the most prosperous country on the face of the earth, people are allowed to be swindled by greedy corporations in such a disgraceful manner.
Fools. Money. Fill in the blank.

Here we are talking about a man's life, his most precious possession...
No, here we are talking about a man's most precious possession: his choice. Do you understand nothing of freedom's importance?

It defies explanation why you or uther continue mindlessly referring to vague notions of the free market when faced with questions such as the one presented in the OP.
I defy your summation of my comments as an overture related to economics, as opposed to what my intentions clearly intoned; namely, those who wish so, ought to be, free.

Shame on you, and shame on all those who espouse similar views.
Let's leave our spouses out of this.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I agree. It's the most efficient solution to provide a certain basic package taxpayer-funded, that covers conventional treatments. Private insurance can then cover whatever remains.

But it seems to me that we are not getting closer to this as a solution.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not sure whether this attitude is masochistic, misanthropic or nihilist. Sick people "ought to die"? Where do you get these kind of ideas?

I hate it when people use words above my pay grade. More emphatically, I hate it when they do so three times over. What a pain in the ass it is, opening up dictionary.com three times to figure out if I've been complimented or denigrated.

Do you, me, and the five or so other folks here a favor, will you? Call me an ass, or jerk so we can avoid unnecessary navigation to other websites. Barring that, perhaps you could improve your comprehension skills and read each post in relation to the posts to which they are responding.

I'm just saying.

Originally posted by Soothfast
picking up the tab for the slackers who refuse to get coverage.

"Slackers" is it? So say you. Just what part of the word "indigent" is it that you can't seem to grasp and apply to this subject?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I hate it when people use words above my pay grade. More emphatically, I hate it when they do so three times over. What a pain in the ass it is, opening up dictionary.com three times to figure out if I've been complimented or denigrated.

Do you, me, and the five or so other folks here a favor, will you? Call me an ass, or jerk so we can avoid unneces ...[text shortened]... and read each post in relation to the posts to which they are responding.

I'm just saying.

Well, I don't think you're a jerk or an ass, I'd have to know you better to make such judgements. In any case I apologize for my use of excessively complicated language, I was just assuming that I - as a second language speaker - wouldn't have a larger vocabulary than the average American on a chess site.

Regardless, here is your chance to clarify your earlier statement, after all, I - as a second language speaker - might have simply misunderstood the way you phrased it.

Originally posted by Soothfast
So essentially the "Live Free or Die" types around here who have private health insurance and think requiring people to get health insurance if they can afford it is "socialism" are, under the current arrangement, picking up the tab for the slackers who refuse to get coverage by way of increased premiums. Gee, you'd think they'd be upset by that.

Not only that, but effectively they're paying a lot more than they have to because the current system is so inefficient. If the US would adopt a system akin to the NHS and increase its budget by 50% (to compensate for whatever weaknesses the NHS might have) it would still mean a reduction in health care spending of a whopping 40%. But apparently not being "socialist" is worth a couple of hundred bucks per month.

Originally posted by MacSwain
"Slackers" is it? So say you. Just what part of the word "indigent" is it that you can't seem to grasp and apply to this subject?

By saying "refuse to get coverage," I'm talking about people who could afford coverage but simply refuse to pay for it. I'm not talking about those who cannot afford it. Hence: "slackers."

Originally posted by Soothfast
By saying "refuse to get coverage," I'm talking about people who could afford coverage but simply refuse to pay for it. I'm not talking about those who cannot afford it. Hence: "slackers."

Then why on earth did you make your reply to my post that indigents received care even though they could not pay? Either: you did not read my post, did not comprhend my post or your post answered a question you wished I had asked so as to introduce your viewpoint.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Then why on earth did you make your reply to my post that indigents received care even though they could not pay? Either: you did not read my post, did not comprhend my post or your post answered a question you wished I had asked so as to introduce your viewpoint.

Actually I edited that out a while ago, because I realized it didn't apply and I was really angling to get at what quackquack said. But once a post is submitted, it's hard to change the "quoted post."

Originally posted by MacSwain
Settle down and put away your tear soaked handkerchief, it's a hypothetical. Hospitals in the States have signs stating you cannot be refused treatment based on your ability to pay. (That is by law)

You should be asking, "That can't be true or the hospitals would be out of business for lack of income." Answer is: Those patients who have insurance pick ...[text shortened]... ses acquired from those who do not pay and increase their charges for those who are insured.

The law only requires hospitals to give "emergency" treatment, not any treatment. Hospitals can and do routinely refuse to treat people in non-emergency situations.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes... yes it is.

-quote-"He ought to die as he lived: free."- FreakyKBH

-misquote- Sick people "ought to die"? Where do you get these kind of ideas? -KazetNagorra

All I am asking is for you to keep it real KN

He should check into an emergency room and say he's from Mexico.
He can't be denied medical care under those circumstances.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I don't think you're a jerk or an ass, I'd have to know you better to make such judgements. In any case I apologize for my use of excessively complicated language, I was just assuming that I - as a second language speaker - wouldn't have a larger vocabulary than the average American on a chess site.

Regardless, here is your chance to clarify yo ...[text shortened]... , I - as a second language speaker - might have simply misunderstood the way you phrased it.

When I said he ought to die as freely as he sought to live, I meant that he was wedded to reaping what he had sown. If he felt that his health was such a non-issue as to eschew insurance otherwise, he undertook the obvious risks, ipso facto, he played without a net.

In football (American style) if the safety opts to blitz, this necessarily leaves either a man open or unfavorable one-on-one situations, thus leading to extreme vulnerabilities should the quarterback find the opportunity to 'squeeze one off,' so to speak. The same holds true in soccer or hockey when you pull the goalie.

What I said--- what I meant--- was that his choice has consequences he knowingly and willingly undertook. If he was committed to his ideals, he would die a free man... not linger as a ward of the state.

Now, let's say he is in a car accident. He is unconscious and is taken to the emergency room. After hours of emergency surgery he is saved. Should the cost of his care be passed on to the rest of us that do pay for insurance or should he be forced to carry a card that says "In case I am not able to choose for myself, leave me to die".

The point that I am trying to make is the analogy of the blitz, taking your chances and paying the price for them, is not always apt. There are often times, especially in emergency situations, that one do not have the choice to "die as he lived: free". EMTs do not check your insurance before saving your life.