# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Woman dies in Florida due to State's refusal to expand medicaid

## Boshembechle

http://orlandoweekly.com/news/the-pe...1665144?pgno=1

How many more people will die due to the lack of access to medical care due to the supreme court's decision that states can opt out? This woman wasn't a welfare mooch. She was a working impoverished lady, doing odd jobs, that was priced out of the market for private healthcare.

----------


## James Madison

Actually, I have no idea what she died of because the article you posted spends five pages talking about nonsense. It would be nice to know what caused her death, what she was taking, and if not taking the medicine contributed to her death.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> http://orlandoweekly.com/news/the-pe...1665144?pgno=1
> 
> How many more people will die due to the lack of access to medical care due to the supreme court's decision that states can opt out? This woman wasn't a welfare mooch. She was a working impoverished lady, doing odd jobs, that was priced out of the market for private healthcare.


What is the problem with healthcare in this country, in your opinion?

What priced her out of the market, as well?

----------


## Boshembechle

> Actually, I have no idea what she died of because the article you posted spends five pages talking about nonsense. It would be nice to know what caused her death, what she was taking, and if not taking the medicine contributed to her death.


It doesn't matter what illness killed her, since her lack of care wouldn't change depending on what sickness she had. The price system locked her out of private insurance, the legislature locked her out of public care, so she was helpless and died when it was preventable.

----------


## Boshembechle

> What is the problem with healthcare in this country, in your opinion?
> 
> What priced her out of the market, as well?


The problem with healthcare in this country is that it allows for the establishment of equilibrium prices. When equilibrium is reached, the supply of a certain good (in this case insurance or medical care), is equal to demand. However, the reason why this equilibrium is reached is because people who are only able to afford BELOW the equilibrium price will not be involved in the market at all. In this particular example, Ms. Dill was not able to afford private insurance because of the equilibrium price, and was not eligible for medicaid.

----------


## oyarde

Well , no state should necessarily  have or expand Medicaid . There would need to be a way to pay for it . Raising taxes of any kind is out of the question .The amount of Medicare tax already levied on people and employers is already too large of a burden .That money is taken , but it is not there , already spent . She was 32 I see and making 9 K a year. What was she deceased from ? If I had been making 9K a yr when I was 32 , myself and all of my children would have been in risk of death as well I imagine .That does not  buy a whole helluva lot across 12 months .

----------


## James Madison

> It doesn't matter what illness killed her, since her lack of care wouldn't change depending on what sickness she had. The price system locked her out of private insurance, the legislature locked her out of public care, so she was helpless and died when it was preventable.


No, it does matter because it could be the difference between a $30 prescription and a $30,000 surgery. It also matters because her medication may not have prevented her death in the first place. That's why these things are nice to know before offering an opinion.

----------


## Boshembechle

> Well , no state should necessarily  have or expand Medicaid . There would need to be a way to pay for it . Raising taxes of any kind is out of the question .The amount of Medicare tax already levied on people and employers is already too large of a burden .That money is taken , but it is not there , already spent . She was 32 I see and making 9 K a year. What was she deceased from ? If I had been making 9K a yr when I was 32 , myself and all of my children would have been in risk of death as well I imagine .That does not  buy a whole helluva lot across 12 months .


I think there is something wrong with a system that determines whether you live a good or bad life depending on your income.

----------


## Danke

> I think there is something wrong with a system that determines whether you live a good or bad life depending on your income.


Do you think heath care is a right?  Meaning it should be paid for by the taxpayers and any procedure should be paid for by the collective for one's hospital's bills?

----------


## juleswin

> I think there is something wrong with a system that determines whether you live a good or bad life depending on your income.


And also that system that determines u live and die depending on where u live. So when you are done expanding medicare to all americans, lets go ahead and expand it to the whole world. It sucks that the woman has to die but govts have made it in such a way that medical care is no longer affordable to most americans. You gonna have to tackle the inflated price if you ever want to help people. Breakdown the monopolies, the regulations and even at that the people that still need help can be helped out by the community.

The people most responsible for her death are the people that stole the wealth of the nation to make war, the people who made healthcare so expensive that she couldn't pay for it. Those are the people I would be blaming if I were u.

----------


## Boshembechle

> Do you think heath care is a right?  Meaning it should be paid for by the taxpayers and any procedure should be paid for by the collective for one's hospital's bills?


I don't think the government should be paying for the healthcare of middle class folks (either old or young) (we should means test medicare). However, I absolutely believe the government has a duty to provide healthcare for poor people, who are cast aside so that the invisible hand can match supply and demand.

----------


## oyarde

> I think there is something wrong with a system that determines whether you live a good or bad life depending on your income.


You think people would work hard to achieve if they did not benefit from it ? I doubt it .

----------


## oyarde

> I don't think the government should be paying for the healthcare of middle class folks (either old or young) (we should means test medicare). However, I absolutely believe the government has a duty to provide healthcare for poor people, who are cast aside so that the invisible hand can match supply and demand.


I believe in private charity . There is no role for govt . With govt , it costs more and you get worse care .

----------


## Boshembechle

> I believe in private charity . There is no role for govt . With govt , it costs more and you get worse care .


Where was charity for Ms. Dill?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Where was charity for Ms. Dill?


And charity also gave $4,000 for Ms. Dill's funeral expenses.



> As recently as last October, Woolrich used online crowd-funding sources to help Dill get the medication she needed.

----------


## Boshembechle

That is not a sufficient mechanism to save poor people.

----------


## Danke

> I don't think the government should be paying for the healthcare of middle class folks (either old or young) (we should means test medicare). However, I absolutely believe the government has a duty to provide healthcare for poor people, who are cast aside so that the invisible hand can match supply and demand.


So the people that paid the most into the system should receive the least? Means testing steals from those that lived frugally and save for the future.  Punished the productive class, reward the very wealthy and give hand outs to the unproductive classes and everyone loses in the long run, which is what we are seeing now.  Except the very rich,

----------


## VIDEODROME

I am not opposed to government safety nets.  This also has a common security element.  I really wonder if neglected health can lead to many poor people becoming disease incubators.  

With that, I will say that ObamaCare does seem like a weird solution and a convoluted mess.  I'd suggest starting in a more simple way with government clinic systems to patch up low income people.  I mean really, suppose a McBurger flipper just keeps coming into work with an untreated illness?  Do we really want a ton of sick service people coming into work untreated and risking contamination and increasing the risk of getting the rest of us sick?  

I think it's in all our interest to have a public healthcare option.  IMO Canada's system makes more sense than ObamaCare.  I do have a lot of doubts about the Canadian system's ability to treat catastrophic things like Cancer, but maybe it could catch a lot of minor things early.  I suppose the only people who know this with certainty are Canadians themselves.  

I'm not sure Canada necessarily has the best model to follow anyway, but I'm in agreement with Judge Jim Gray that maybe socialized medicine even just offering modest services could help a lot of people.

----------


## Boshembechle

Good post. Too many people perish because of lack of insurance. This is precisely because of the invisible hand forming an equilibrium price. Those like Dill who cannot afford the equilibrium price are $#@! out of luck.

----------


## amy31416

I'm fortunate enough to have an in-law cousin who made a conscious decision to have yet another kid (four total now) after her husband barely recuperated from a pretty hardcore case of cancer. All are on Medicaid, 2 of the four kids are relatively sickly and they have section 8 housing while receiving over $1,000/month in food stamps. She practically brags about it, yet whines that they can't afford a house and they couldn't afford a van to cart all of them around either, so they borrowed money from grandma & grandpa.

They are semi-libertarian, believe it or not. 

Are they or are they not dragging down other people who pay for these things, who will be taxed at a higher rate to sustain them? Are they or are they not making it far more difficult for people who truly need help? Would they have had so many children if they actually had to pay for them? If Medicaid and other safety nets weren't abused by people like them, perhaps Florida would have been able to help her.

She's thinking about having another kid, for the record.

----------


## oyarde

> Where was charity for Ms. Dill?


I am a pretty charitable person . The Nation is as a whole as well . I could be more charitable  if govt.'s did not get over $4 of every $10 I make.

----------


## oyarde

> Where was charity for Ms. Dill?


Well , the govt sure as hell was not going to be able to save her. I charitable walk in clinic may have . Maybe she could not be saved .

----------


## Unregistered

> How many more people will die due to the lack of access to medical care due to the supreme court's decision that states can opt out? This woman wasn't a welfare mooch. She was a working impoverished lady, doing odd jobs, that was priced out of the market for private healthcare.


I stopped at 

 "Dill had been bumped off Medicaid because she was making too much money  an estimated $9,000 a year  and had yet to be able to afford a divorce, which might have bettered her chances."

Isn't this why most Libertarians, Ancaps, etc. OPPOSE state sanctioned marriage to begin with?????

----------


## Boshembechle

I think this situation is a good example of one of the problems of capitalism and free markets in general. The allocation of goods is based strictly on ability to pay. That is, you will not be able to buy a TV if you can't afford it at the market price. You can't afford a car if you can't afford it at market price. This market price mechanism completely locks out an entire group of people from owning goods. With all of its faults, at least other economic systems sought to abolish this market mechanism and provide people with goods no matter how much money they have.

----------


## Unregistered

> I think this situation is a good example of one of the problems of capitalism and free markets in general. The allocation of goods is based strictly on ability to pay. That is, you will not be able to buy a TV if you can't afford it at the market price. You can't afford a car if you can't afford it at market price. This market price mechanism completely locks out an entire group of people from owning goods. With all of its faults, at least other economic systems sought to abolish this market mechanism and provide people with goods no matter how much money they have.


"The allocation of goods is based strictly on ability to pay."

BY WHOM??

----------


## Boshembechle

> "The allocation of goods is based strictly on ability to pay."
> 
> BY WHOM??


The producers of the good, along with competition and consumer willingness to pay.

----------


## James Madison

> I think this situation is a good example of one of the problems of capitalism and free markets in general. The allocation of goods is based strictly on ability to pay.


No, it isn't. Having a free market simply means people are able to enter into contracts voluntarily with whomever they please, under terms that both parties agree to. A financial transaction is such an agreement, but does not require monetary payment, nor does it require payment at all. You're telling me that not a single corner pharmacy would be willing to provide her with medication at no or reduced cost? That no one is willing to get off their lazy ass and do something about it _themselves_? Not if they believe government will do the work for them. Let's also think about why medications are so expensive in the first place. Is it because government labels them a 'controlled substance' and prevents OTC sales as part of the ever-failing War on Drugs? Why is Tylenol so much cheaper than prescription painkillers?

----------


## Unregistered

> The producers of the good, along with competition and consumer willingness to pay.


You'll notice the reply from James Madison. He has more patience than me, that is for sure. I have ZERO TOLERANCE for "mandates", and your inability to distinguish crony capitalism the free market is no "consolation prize", it is downright LAZINESS on your part.  C'mon, you're surely "better than that"?????

----------


## Boshembechle

> No, it isn't. Having a free market simply means people are able to enter into contracts voluntarily with whomever they please, under terms that both parties agree to. A financial transaction is such an agreement, but does not require monetary payment, nor does it require payment at all. You're telling me that not a single corner pharmacy would be willing to provide her with medication at no or reduced cost? That no one is willing to get off their lazy ass and do something about it _themselves_? Not if they believe government will do the work for them. Let's also think about why medications are so expensive in the first place. Is it because government labels them a 'controlled substance' and prevents OTC sales as part of the ever-failing War on Drugs? Why is Tylenol so much cheaper than prescription painkillers?


That's certainly an idealistic way to look at it. The contracts are voluntary for ACTUAL transactions. But what about the people who are not making any transactions because they have no money or not enough money for a certain good. What should be done about the people who are forced out of the market for houses, cars, healthcare, and big appliances? How is them not having access to those any different than the rampant shortages experienced in other systems?

----------


## James Madison

> That's certainly an idealistic way to look at it. The contracts are voluntary for ACTUAL transactions. But what about the people who are not making any transactions because they have no money or not enough money for a certain good. What should be done about the people who are forced out of the market for houses, cars, healthcare, and big appliances? How is them not having access to those any different than the rampant shortages experienced in other systems?


I just told you. Not all transaction have to be monetary, nor do they require payment. Work out a deal with the supplier, and if he won't then go on to the next one. Don't be afraid to ask others for help or assistance. Charity is easy when you keep all that you earn. Losing half your income, not greed, is the problem, and that is created by government involvement in the market, not the market itself.

----------


## pcosmar

> It doesn't matter what illness killed her, since her lack of care wouldn't change depending on what sickness she had. The price system locked her out of private insurance, the legislature locked her out of public care, so she was helpless and died when it was preventable.


Death is not preventable.

She died because she had a heart condition.. Her life may have (or maybe not) been prolonged had she gotten good care. 
she will not get that from the government,, on either side of the aisle.

Insurance is one of the biggest contributors to *overpriced* health care.  Government welfare is another.

----------


## Unregistered

> Death is not preventable.
> 
> She died because she had a heart condition.. Her life may have (or maybe not) been prolonged had she gotten good care. 
> she will not get that from the government,, on either side of the aisle.
> 
> Insurance is one of the biggest contributors to *overpriced* health care.  Government welfare is another.


Hello Nail, meet head!

It ASTONISHES ME about how "billy bad" the "insurance companies" have been "made" out to be by "liberals". ONLY THEY DON'T SEE THE REALITY OF OBAMACARE!

----------


## Boshembechle

> Hello Nail, meet head!
> 
> It ASTONISHES ME about how "billy bad" the "insurance companies" have been "made" out to be by "liberals". ONLY THEY DON'T SEE THE REALITY OF OBAMACARE!


The scary thing is that even if healthcare was NOT overpriced due to government, there would STILL be people who couldn't afford the equilibrium price.

----------


## angelatc

Here's a thought - maybe she should have stayed with her husband.  

Freaking liberals - they would rather use her as a tool to further enslave the entire nation than hold her actual family responsible.

----------


## angelatc

> The scary thing is that even if healthcare was NOT overpriced due to government, there would STILL be people who couldn't afford the equilibrium price.


The scariest thing is that you don't have a freaking clue what money actually is. 


There will always be people who need medical care and don't get it.   Price is the only fair way of allocating goods and services, health care included.

----------


## Boshembechle

> The scariest thing is that you don't have a freaking clue what money actually is. 
> 
> 
> *There will always be people who need medical care and don't get it.   Price is the only fair way of allocating goods and services, health care included.*


I disagree. Look at k12 education if you will. We provide every child with an education and we don't use prices.

----------


## amy31416

> I disagree. Look at k12 education if you will. We provide every child with an education and we don't use prices.


Prime example of why healthcare shouldn't be in the hands of the federal gov't. 

Are you just lonely and looking for attention?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I am not opposed to government safety nets.  This also has a common security element.  I really wonder if neglected health can lead to many poor people becoming disease incubators.  
> 
> With that, I will say that ObamaCare does seem like a weird solution and a convoluted mess.  I'd suggest starting in a more simple way with government clinic systems to patch up low income people.  I mean really, suppose a McBurger flipper just keeps coming into work with an untreated illness?  Do we really want a ton of sick service people coming into work untreated and risking contamination and increasing the risk of getting the rest of us sick?  
> 
> I think it's in all our interest to have a public healthcare option.  IMO Canada's system makes more sense than ObamaCare.  I do have a lot of doubts about the Canadian system's ability to treat catastrophic things like Cancer, but maybe it could catch a lot of minor things early.  I suppose the only people who know this with certainty are Canadians themselves.  
> 
> I'm not sure Canada necessarily has the best model to follow anyway, but I'm in agreement with Judge Jim Gray that maybe socialized medicine even just offering modest services could help a lot of people.


It may be good for basic stuff, but if you have anything more than that, you will be waiting forever to get it fixed.  For example, knee problems.  The ligaments would have shriveled up and become worthless by the time your number came up.  Which is why so many Canadians have come to the U.S. for healthcare.

----------


## angelatc

> I disagree. Look at k12 education if you will. We provide every child with an education and we don't use prices.


You might not want to use that example....private schools and home schoolers outperform public schools in every single measure.   And yes, we absolutely do use price to measure against performance in education. 

That's how your beloved big government will ration healthcare.  No longer will the ability to pay be the deciding factor - it will be the ability to recover and generate income back to the state.  We won't have to worry about affording expensive medicines because the government simply wont approve them.   New technologies will cease to be developed because without the profit motive to drive it.

I think it's pretty interesting that they haven't released this woman's autopsy yet.  We don't even know why she died.  Could be a cocaine overdose....

----------


## angelatc

> I think it's in all our interest to have a public healthcare option.  IMO Canada's system makes more sense than ObamaCare.  I do have a lot of doubts about the Canadian system's ability to treat catastrophic things like Cancer, but maybe it could catch a lot of minor things early.  I suppose the only people who know this with certainty are Canadians themselves.  
> 
> .


Maybe you've forgotten where you are, but the constitution does NOT give the federal government the right to set up a government health care system.  It's fine at the state level - I think Vermont already has socialized medicine in it.

But I think that anybody here advocating for "just a little slavery" isn't really getting the liberty message.

----------


## oyarde

> You might not want to use that example....private schools and home schoolers outperform public schools in every single measure.   And yes, we absolutely do use price to measure against performance in education. 
> 
> That's how your beloved big government will ration healthcare.  No longer will the ability to pay be the deciding factor - it will be the ability to recover and generate income back to the state.  We won't have to worry about affording expensive medicines because the government simply wont approve them.   New technologies will cease to be developed because without the profit motive to drive it.
> 
> I think it's pretty interesting that they haven't released this woman's autopsy yet.  We don't even know why she died.  Could be a cocaine overdose....


Last I checked , in my state , private schools run 50 % less than the cost per student of public schools . Without even checking , I will guess that is do to salaries of administration etc . Using that as a rule of thumb , anything private is 100 % better than anything govt

----------


## Boshembechle

> Last I checked , in my state , private schools run 50 % less than the cost per student of public schools . Without even checking , I will guess that is do to salaries of administration etc . Using that as a rule of thumb , anything private is 100 % better than anything govt


But public education RESCUES poor kids who have parents that would not be able to pay the equilibrium price. Don't you guys realize that free markets, like socialist governments, also ration and deny goods and services?

----------


## angelatc

> Last I checked , in my state , private schools run 50 % less than the cost per student of public schools . Without even checking , I will guess that is do to salaries of administration etc . Using that as a rule of thumb , anything private is 100 % better than anything govt


THe public option is a trojan horse.  They use that combined with price controls to drive the private insurers out of the market.  They laid the groundwork for it with Obamacare by mandating certain coverages and limiting the discounts that young healthy people can get.      

I really can't believe that my country has been taken over by the locusts.

----------


## oyarde

> But public education RESCUES poor kids who have parents that would not be able to pay the equilibrium price. Don't you guys realize that free markets, like socialist governments, also ration and deny goods and services?


Public education is in my States Constitution , so , naturally it is not going away. There is however , no excuse for them not to be able to run them on about  the same amount of money private schools do, so , they need a 50 % budget cut . Then everyone gets a 25 % state tax reduction.

----------


## angelatc

> But public education RESCUES poor kids who have parents that would not be able to pay the equilibrium price. Don't you guys realize that free markets, like socialist governments, also ration and deny goods and services?


Of course we realize that!  We just know that the free market, while not perfect, is absolutely the best and most equitable way to ration goods and services.   

That's the part you don't get.  For some inexplicable reason,you believe that it's far better for some unelected faceless bureaucrat 1,500 miles away to decide what healthcare you should get based on HIS ability to foot your bill.

Leave me the hell out.

----------


## oyarde

> THe public option is a trojan horse.  They use that combined with price controls to drive the private insurers out of the market.  They laid the groundwork for it with Obamacare by mandating certain coverages and limiting the discounts that young healthy people can get.      
> 
> I really can't believe that my country has been taken over by the locusts.


 I cannot believe it as well ,but they number the largest percentage .

----------


## Boshembechle

> Of course we realize that!  W*e just know that the free market, while not perfect, is absolutely the best and most equitable way to ration goods and services.  * 
> 
> That's the part you don't get.  For some inexplicable reason,you believe that it's far better for some unelected faceless bureaucrat 1,500 miles away to decide what healthcare you should get based on HIS ability to foot your bill.
> 
> Leave me the hell out.


Why? What about people with little money?

----------


## oyarde

> Why? What about people with little money?


The poor will always be with us . Being poor should not be comforting . It should drive you to try and remedy it .

----------


## angelatc

> Why? What about people with little money?


What about them?  You yourself said that healthcare has to be rationed.  You're advocating killing off the sick and the elderly to save money...

And for the record, my husband had a stroke 2 years ago, We had 2 kids, no jobs, no money and no insurance. We got not one dime of help from the government - his entire bill was paid for by a Catholic charity.  We didn't have to rob anybody or enslave our friends to pay for our needs, and we will never advocate for that. Because we are not horrible people. 

We paid taxes for years and years, and when we needed hep we got nothing back from this social safety net you promite, because there will always be needy people to use up resources faster than can be generated.

You have a lot of nerve implying that I don't know what's best for my family. Absolutely everything the government touches turns into a huge corrupt pile of stinking inefficient mess.

I don't want your money, and I sure don't want to be your slave. Leave me out.

----------


## Boshembechle

> What about them?  You yourself said that healthcare has to be rationed.  You're advocating killing off the sick and the elderly to save money...
> 
> And for the record, my husband had a stroke 2 years ago, We had 2 kids, no jobs, no money and no insurance. We got not one dime of help from the government - his entire bill was paid for by a Catholic charity.  We didn't have to rob anybody or enslave our friends to pay for our needs, and we will never advocate for that. Because we are not horrible people. 
> 
> We paid taxes for years and years, and when we needed hep we got nothing back from this social safety net you promite, because there will always be needy people to use up resources faster than can be generated.
> 
> You have a lot of nerve implying that I don't know what's best for my family. Absolutely everything the government touches turns into a huge corrupt pile of stinking inefficient mess.
> 
> I don't want your money, and I sure don't want to be your slave. Leave me out.


Just curious, but who do you blame for your lack of insurance and job? Seems fairly ironic that you preach the free market, but it screwed you over apparently. And maybe some people aren't as lucky as you and can't find charity.

----------


## silverhandorder

> I think there is something wrong with a system that determines whether you live a good or bad life depending on your income.


Income is a small determining factor in how good or bad of a life you have. 

I will agree with you that some people are not born lucky while others were. Life is not fair that way and the best thing to realize is that you can not help everyone. Don't get lost in details and look at the big picture. The big picture is that you can help most people by working on a personal level to help individuals.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The problem with healthcare in this country is that it allows for the establishment of equilibrium prices. When equilibrium is reached, the supply of a certain good (in this case insurance or medical care), is equal to demand. However, the reason why this equilibrium is reached is because people who are only able to afford BELOW the equilibrium price will not be involved in the market at all. In this particular example, Ms. Dill was not able to afford private insurance because of the equilibrium price, and was not eligible for medicaid.


You ought be Fed Reserve Chairman with this response.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Just curious, but who do you blame for your lack of insurance and job? Seems fairly ironic that you preach the free market, but it screwed you over apparently. And maybe some people aren't as lucky as you and can't find charity.


What free market!?

----------


## Working Poor

So you think the biggest scam ever perpetrated on Americans would have saved her? Hummmm

----------


## pcosmar

> I disagree. Look at k12 education if you will. We provide every child with an education and we don't use prices.


You really do love socialism don't you.




There was a better quality of Education before the Government was involved in it.

Just as there was better Health Care before government got involved. And medications were available without asking permission to buy them.

the very best hospitals were not run for profit,, and crap doctors got sued out of existence.

Today Hacks and Butchers are protected by insurance (at a high cost) Charity has been replaced with Profit Motive..

Government s not the cure,, it is the disease.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Why? What about people with little money?


What happens in the natural world, absent specific government interference, is that prices drop to the means of the customer base.

The ONLY reason health care is too expensive in this country is that the government - empowered by people who believe the government has the duty to provide services - actively interferes with the normal process of price reduction, and in addition facilitates fraud on an enormous scale, which further inflates prices.

The solution that produces inexpensive, universally available health care is getting the government out of the business. There is no other solution.

----------


## angelatc

> Just curious, but who do you blame for your lack of insurance and job? Seems fairly ironic that you preach the free market, but it screwed you over apparently..




The USA isn't a free market - it is a managed economy.  The same government that created the housing bubble and is slowly regulating the auto makers offshore is entirely to blame for the lack of jobs in this country. 

The only entity that screwed me over is the government that took money out of our paychecks for 30 years but didn't have a single program available to us.




> And maybe some people aren't as lucky as you and can't find charity.


Only a liberal could look at m situation:  middle aged, out of work, stroke victim, taxpayer who got NO public assistance as "lucky." Government isn't a charity, either.

Answer my question:  You already stated that it is obvious that healthcare has to be rationed.  Who do you want to see denied services, and what criteria are you going to deny them on?  Age?  Odds of surviving?  Costs?

----------


## angelatc

> I think there is something wrong with a system that determines whether you live a good or bad life depending on your income.


And that right there sums up the difference in our philosophy.  I think that there is something wrong with people who don't want to work hard for a living.

----------


## tod evans

> Answer my question:  You already stated that it is obvious that healthcare has to be rationed. * Who do you want to see denied services, and what criteria are you going to deny them on?*  Age?  Odds of surviving?  Costs?


Income, gender and ethnicity of course....

All ya' need to do is follow the lead of every other government program throughout history....

----------


## angelatc

> Income, gender and ethnicity of course....
> 
> All ya' need to do is follow the lead of every other government program throughout history....


You forgot sickness and age.  Talk to any liberal in the past 20 years and it doesn't take long for them to voice the horrific conclusion that the best way to ration health care is to stop spending money on incurable diseases that require long term treatments and people who are too old to ever be productive again.  They hint at it with statements like, "85% of the money that is spend on health care is typically spent in the final two years of a person's life."

Well, duh!  So all "we" need to do is to take that money away from the greedy, needy sick people and give it to the younger, healthier crowd? 

".....to each, according to need."  is the screed of the so-called worker's party.  If you can no longer work for the plantation and contribute to their definition of a common good, then you have no value and will receive no rations.  Unless you're related to a party official, of course.

----------


## Lucille

> That is not a sufficient mechanism to save poor people.


Maybe the government should stop making so many people poor then.

----------


## tod evans

> Maybe the government should stop making so many people poor then.


Now, now, don'tcha know government fixes things?

It's not the benevolent governments fault people are poor...

Just a few more regulations, mandates and edicts and everything will be rainbows-n-lollipops...

----------


## milgram

At minimum, the advocacy of any "life-saving" policy or program should be accompanied by the cost in dollars per life saved annually.  Anecdote is not a synonym for data.

----------


## Lucille

> Now, now, don'tcha know government fixes things?
> 
> It's not the benevolent governments fault people are poor...
> 
> Just a few more regulations, mandates and edicts and everything will be rainbows-n-lollipops...


Socialist paradise is just a few more laws away!

----------


## tod evans

> Socialist paradise is just a few more laws away!


$#@! yeah!!!!

USA!

USA!

USA!

----------


## angelatc

> Maybe the government should stop making so many people poor then.


Yes, making more people poor is definitely NOT the way to end poverty.

----------


## Boshembechle

Getting government out does not stop the formation of equilibrium prices. So how would the large % of Americans get health insurance if they can't pay the equilibrium price for it? Because isn't the very reason why an equilibrium price emerges because it prevents people below that price from demanding the product?

----------


## Seraphim

Have you tried starting your own charity to support the health care needs of your local poor?

No? Then stfu.




> That is not a sufficient mechanism to save poor people.

----------


## Boshembechle

> Have you tried starting your own charity to support the health care needs of your local poor?
> 
> No? Then stfu.


Do you seriously think charity is rich enough to fund the healthcare of the MILLIONS of Americans who cannot afford the market prices? Do you think that is efficient? Markets, _by definition_, solve the scarcity issue by barring the poor from owning goods, in this case healthcare.

----------


## tod evans

> Do you seriously think charity is rich enough to fund the healthcare of the MILLIONS of Americans who cannot afford the market prices? Do you think that is efficient? Markets, _by definition_, solve the scarcity issue by barring the poor from owning goods, in this case healthcare.


You seem to be suffering under the delusion that a person is entitled to be cared for for free.

Either that or the delusion that "society" must provide free care.

Neither position reflects reality in the slightest.

----------


## Boshembechle

> You seem to be suffering under the delusion that a person is entitled to be cared for for free.
> 
> Either that or the delusion that "society" must provide free care.
> 
> Neither position reflects reality in the slightest.


Not for free, through taxation. Healthcare should not be left to market forces, because it would inevitably lead to a lack of access for people with limited means. And no matter how many advancements are made, as long as we allow private firms to produce healthcare and put a price on it, people like Ms. Dill will go to the grave early.

----------


## angelatc

> Getting government out does not stop the formation of equilibrium prices. So how would the large % of Americans get health insurance if they can't pay the equilibrium price for it? Because isn't the very reason why an equilibrium price emerges because it prevents people below that price from demanding the product?


I don't think you quite understand what an equilibrium price is, but I can assure you that adding a bunch of people into the system creates a bigger demand, which makes prices go up, not down.  And with the government paying the bills with debt instead of cash, there is absolutely no downward pressure on prices.  

 If we can't afford it now, how can we afford it when prices go nowhere but up?

----------


## angelatc

> Not for free, through taxation. Healthcare should not be left to market forces, because it would inevitably lead to a lack of access for people with limited means..



YOu keep saying that.  You also acknowledged that health care will have to be rationed, but just not by the consumer.  

Who do you think doesn't deserve health care?  Why do you think that people who can pay for it could be somehow less entitled than someone who can't?  Whose health care would you take away to save yourself?




> And no matter how many advancements are made, as long as we allow private firms to produce healthcare and put a price on it,


You clearly don't understand that price is a function of demand, and profit is a measure of value.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You can't afford a car if you can't afford it at market price.


You could buy a new car for about $8,000 bucks, maybe less, if not for government.

Same thing for healthcare.

There is no free market in healthcare.

----------


## Danke

> Not for free, through taxation. Healthcare should not be left to market forces, because it would inevitably lead to a lack of access for people with limited means. And no matter how many advancements are made, as long as we allow private firms to produce healthcare and put a price on it, people like Ms. Dill will go to the grave early.


"Market forces?"

Competition always drives prices down.  Government granted monopolies or regulations to drive out small business from competing increases prices.

----------


## Boshembechle

> "Market forces?"
> 
> *Competition always drives prices down.*  Government granted monopolies or regulations to drive out small business from competing increases prices.


I want prices completely out of the picture, at least for poor folks. Not a dime should be spent on the healthcare for rich/middle class people, old or young. I am in favor of abolishing medicare in its entirely and setting up a system just for old poor geezers.

----------


## amy31416

> But public education RESCUES poor kids who have parents that would not be able to pay the equilibrium price. Don't you guys realize that free markets, like socialist governments, also ration and deny goods and services?


It rescues a few, it destroys others. Some public schools, especially those in big cities, are like sending children to a cross between a prison and a daycare run by people who can't be fired, were sometimes chosen to fill quotas or just show up for the paycheck. The kids who were "rescued" were likely naturally intelligent in the first place--how many of them have been crushed in the system by being forced to attend a school with teachers who are pedophiles, drunks, apathetic or even abusive? How many of them were crushed by having classmates who are criminals?

I went to public school for quite a few years, one of them was okay--the worst we had were a few drunks who didn't give a crap. Another one was HORRIBLE and the teachers participated in the bullying. Hell, I had a 7th grade "history teacher" who had me babysit his disabled kid because his wife had to keep an appointment. I had another who would send kids out to buy her chocolate because she was going through a stressful divorce. Yet another would put on movies while he slept. Another one was so insane that she informed me (and the entire class) that I had to be adopted because I was blonde and my parents had dark hair.

And this was NOT a big city violent school, this was a run-of-the-mill place. My brother, who was an extremely good and disciplined student prior to going into the school came out the other end actively fearing school.

I got lucky with a few good teachers, but they were generally ancient and on the verge of retirement.

----------


## tod evans

> I want prices completely out of the picture, at least for poor folks. Not a dime should be spent on the healthcare for rich/middle class people, old or young. I am in favor of abolishing medicare in its entirely and setting up a system just for old poor geezers.


Well how're *you* going to pay for it?

*I* have no intention of participating....

----------


## Danke

> Another one was so insane that she informed me (and the entire class) that I had to be adopted because I was blonde and my parents had dark hair.


Don't be in denial, it will ruin your life.  At least some couple took you in.

----------


## Danke

> I want prices completely out of the picture, at least for poor folks. Not a dime should be spent on the healthcare for rich/middle class people, old or young. I am in favor of abolishing medicare in its entirely and setting up a system just for old poor geezers.


That is redistribution, penalizing those that produce, and we all know where that ends up.

----------


## Boshembechle

> That is redistribution, penalizing those that produce, and we all know where that ends up.


It is redistribution, but we ALL benefit from a healthy population. A government that protects us from foreign enemies should logically protect us from germs.

----------


## tod evans

> That is redistribution, penalizing those that produce, and we all know where that ends up.


Oh now come on Danke!

Big bro/sis just prints up funny money at will, all that needs to happen is for the presses to direct a few more pallets of hundreds to provide care for these poor needy folks....

Oh! Don't forget that we'll need several thousand new tax-ticks to bean-count this free money so no poor person gets more than they're allotted...

----------


## amy31416

> Don't be in denial, it will ruin your life.  At least some couple took you in.


I was at the age where I was actually hoping that I was adopted. My mom was pretty irked with me when I was disappointed when she told me I wasn't.

That will come back to haunt me, I'm sure.

----------


## tod evans

> It is redistribution, but we ALL benefit from a healthy population.* A government that protects us from foreign enemies should logically protect us from germs.*


Michael Bloomberg is that you?

----------


## amy31416

> It is redistribution, but we ALL benefit from a healthy population. A government that protects us from foreign enemies should logically protect us from germs.


Free hand sanitizer for all?

----------


## angelatc

> I want prices completely out of the picture, at least for poor folks. Not a dime should be spent on the healthcare for rich/middle class people, old or young. I am in favor of abolishing medicare in its entirely and setting up a system just for old poor geezers.


First: Where are you going to get the money? Or are you just going to pass a law that dictates that MDs must treat old poor people for free?

Second: What do you think will happen to prices to the people that do have to pay? They will go up - and when they do, that means more of them will fall into the "poor" category.  Which means more people not paying.  Which means more price increases for the people with money.  And the cycle repeats...

Third: Medicare's nursing home functions somewhat like that:  it's free if you are poor, or after your assets are depleted.  So what happens is that wealthy people give away all their assets before they go in, thereby making themselves poor.    Of course the state got wise to that, and they now go back for a period of years and if the assets were transferred recently, the state will take them back.  So people just make sure the assets are transferred just outside of the legal time period.

You can't ever stop people from acting in their own best interests, and nor should you try.

----------


## angelatc

> It is redistribution, but we ALL benefit from a healthy population. A government that protects us from foreign enemies should logically protect us from germs.


Uh, no.

----------


## MelissaWV

Woman nearly dies in Florida due to State's refusal to kill all bears.

Seriously, Government... stop failing us!

----------


## Boshembechle

> Woman nearly dies in Florida due to State's refusal to kill all bears.
> 
> Seriously, Government... stop failing us!


The state of Florida does not have the ability to kill all bears. It sure as hell as the ability AND the funds to provide everyone with basic medical care, so that victims like Ms. Dill don't leave behind three distraught children at such a young age.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The state of Florida does not have the ability to kill all bears. It sure as hell as the ability AND the funds to provide everyone with basic medical care, so that victims like Ms. Dill don't leave behind three distraught children at such a young age.


Where does it get the funds from?

----------


## angelatc

> The state of Florida does not have the ability to kill all bears. It sure as hell as the ability AND the funds to provide everyone with basic medical care, so that victims like Ms. Dill don't leave behind three distraught children at such a young age.


Where are these funds that you speak of?  The State of Florida is already $154 billion dollars in debt.  

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-deb...ebt-clock.html

----------


## MelissaWV

> The state of Florida does not have the ability to kill all bears. It sure as hell as the ability AND the funds to provide everyone with basic medical care, so that victims like Ms. Dill don't leave behind three distraught children at such a young age.


Curiously, 300,000 cancellation notices went out in Florida, and the plans I've seen come through work don't have particularly sound coverage options.  They also pay less per visit than plans from the same companies did in previous years.  Fellow providers that aren't quite as sturdy are closing their doors, further narrowing both the coverage and care options.  The definition of "basic" is also curious.  Birth control is "basic"?  Better healthcare for seniors (but I thought they already HAD Government healthcare for seniors... weird...)?  Maternity is "basic" (before you answer that one... ask yourself why my insurance policy has to provide it, when I will never ever ever use the benefit myself)?  

Did your irony buzzer go off when you read the article?  Her cell phone is what let people notify her family?  




> More primary care doctors, coordinated care. With millions more insured Americans on the way, the current national shortage of primary care physicians presents an ongoing challenge to access in the health-care system. The health law has begun to fund training for more primary care physicians and increased resources for community health centers. It also promotes better-coordinated care and increased payment rates for primary care doctors who accept Medicaid or work in rural areas.


Medicaid pays utter $#@!, and part of why a lot of places don't take it is the ridiculous maze of precertification and paperwork you have to jump through to prove to them that you are providing a service the patient needs and qualifies for.  The moment you accept a Medicaid patient, you become a suspect, to be interrogated by any and every agency, subject to audits for years, all for 15% of the usual and customary rate per visit.  

She had a documented heart condition.  Was she enrolled in any studies in exchange for medication?  Did she ask for help with medication costs (yes, companies do help with this, as do hospitals and clinics)?  There are a whole lot of questions the article doesn't even come near to answering.  It just accuses everyone who doesn't like the ACA of doing it because they don't like Obama.

----------


## 56ktarget

"Why is U.S. health care so much better than ours..."
said no Canadian ever...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> "Why is U.S. health care so much better than ours..."
> said no Canadian ever...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fexz8Ij-OBQ

----------


## Suzanimal

> "Why is U.S. health care so much better than ours..."
> said no Canadian ever...


My SIL has been an RN in Buffalo, NY for 30 years and a lot of her patients are Canadian. For example, last summer she was just heartbroken over a little girl who had been in a terrible car accident. She said the child almost died and the Hospital did save her life but her face was left severely disfigured. Since this wasn't considered "medically necessary" she was put on a waiting list, the parents finally gave up after over a year and sought help in the US.


The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_...ealthcare.html

----------


## Boshembechle

Canadians do not have to deal with market forces in their health system. Medical bankruptcy does not exist, and neither do equilibrium prices which, by definition, bar poor folks from getting care.

----------


## angelatc

> "Why is U.S. health care so much better than ours..."
> said no Canadian ever...


That's just a lie.

Go to New York and you will find hospitals  treating plenty of Canadians who did not get the care they wanted in their own country.

----------


## angelatc

> Canadians do not have to deal with market forces in their health system. Medical bankruptcy does not exist, and neither do equilibrium prices which, by definition, bar poor folks from getting care.


You don't understand prices.  You don't understand equilibrium.  You don't understand money.  All you understand is how to vote for  living off of the hard work of other people, and that's sad.  Especially considering you hae a son.  Not only are you teaching him that it's ok to enslave other people, you're leaving him a mountain of debt to contend with.  What a sad legacy. 

You can't avoid market forces.  And even Canadians are now paying privately for about 30% of their health care because the system can't handle the strain that the aging population is starting to put on it. http://www.canadianbusiness.com/busi...ing-in-canada/

Go to New York or Detroit, and I promise you will find plenty of Canadians who came across the border specifically to get treatment they can't get in their own country.

----------


## angelatc

> She had a documented heart condition.  Was she enrolled in any studies in exchange for medication?  Did she ask for help with medication costs (yes, companies do help with this, as do hospitals and clinics)?  There are a whole lot of questions the article doesn't even come near to answering.  It just accuses everyone who doesn't like the ACA of doing it because they don't like Obama.


If I loved my kids enough to try to stay alive I would have stayed with their father, or, if I decided I was ok with being a deadbeat thief, moved to Vermont where there is universal care already.   But that's just me.  


It is absolutely amazing that the only people who seem to have trouble surviving in this country are the pansies that were born here.

----------


## angelatc

> 5493414 Medical bankruptcy does not exist.....


You're just a typical liberal, a fountain of lies and propaganda:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...cal-bankruptcy




> Consider Canada. Our neighbor to the north features a government-run, single-payer healthcare system where private insurance is outlawed for
> procedures covered under the law. So you'd think that Canada would have a lower rate of bankruptcy than the United States, what with one big potential
> cause of bankruptcy -- the cost of health care -- absorbed by the government.
> 
> But according to researchers at the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank, bankruptcy rates are statistically the same on both sides of the
> 49th parallel. In both the United States and Canada, less than one-third of 1 percent of families file for bankruptcy each year.
> 
> Further,* even with a socialized healthcare system, some Canadians go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt**Canadian seniors -- those 55 and older -- cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency*.

----------


## juleswin

> You really do love socialism don't you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a better quality of Education before the Government was involved in it.
> 
> Just as there was better Health Care before government got involved. And medications were available without asking permission to buy them.
> 
> ...


I hate to go a bit off topic, but there is so much fail in the video you posted. For one, soldiers still run away from flying bullets, the reason why men in particular brave the front line has more to do with convincing them that they are protecting their land from foreign invaders and also the knowledge that men who survived and protected their homeland will get to bag a lot of chicks. Another example of undeducated morons lining up to die for wars can be seen with the behaviours of un schooled jihadis fighting in Syria. These morons almost never surrender even when there is overwhelming force in front of them

I am just going to touch up on this last topic and ignore the other problems with the video you posted. Conformity is not some kind of conspiracy to mold men into obedient fighting machines. It is also useful in molding an effective workforce, imagine running a business where you have 10 employees each coming to work with a different crazy design, their own ideas for greeting etc etc? do you really think that would be good for business? ofc not. Conformity is desired by way many more institutions that govt and military. 

Yes, schools mold the mind of children and I can see why governments would want to be in the business of it but if not the govt, it would be something else trying to achieve the same goals through institutions similar to the modern school systems

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Canadians do not have to deal with market forces in their health system.


Yes they do. Market forces are absolutely inescapable. The State can no more eliminate market forces than they can repeal law of gravity.

The only thing the Canadian (or any other) government can do is to pile the negative consequences of their doomed attempts to ignore market forces onto the backs of innocent people.

----------


## MelissaWV

> If I loved my kids enough to try to stay alive I would have stayed with their father, or, if I decided I was ok with being a deadbeat thief, moved to Vermont where there is universal care already.   But that's just me.  
> 
> 
> It is absolutely amazing that the only people who seem to have trouble surviving in this country are the pansies that were born here.


She had a cell phone and was going to concerts but there's no mention of what medical assistance she was on that WASN'T GOVERNMENT-PROVIDED.  *sighs*  This is the underlying story.  People have gotten to the point that, if it's not a Government program, they don't try to get help from it.  There are amazing charities that provide help with gas money, utilities, job searches, clothing for job searches, resume-building, shared computers, carpooling, bus passes, babysitting, relocation, and yeah even free/reduced divorces.  It does not sound like she was interested in pursuing any of that (or maybe she didn't know, but it comes to the same end).  It's her choice if she wants to freewheel around and work odd jobs and make just enough to survive, but she didn't make enough for the meds, and those left behind are going to live with that choice.  It has zero to do with Government at that point.

----------


## Boshembechle

> Yes they do. Market forces are absolutely inescapable. The State can no more eliminate market forces than they can repeal law of gravity.
> 
> The only thing the Canadian (or any other) government can do is to pile the negative consequences of their doomed attempts to ignore market forces onto the backs of innocent people.


How are there market forces when the price system does not exist?

----------


## euphemia

The issue is not whether people have access to health care.  Everyone has access to health care.  The issue is:  Who pays?

The article doesn't say a lot about the woman's condition, or why she was unable to buy insurance or why she was unable to pay for care.  What I think is government makes everything more expensive.  Maybe if government was not involved in the delivery of health care it might cost much less.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> How are there market forces when the price system does not exist?


Because they are not God and cannot create on whim.

What do you mean? _The cost be what it may_ we shall have that windmill?

----------


## angelatc

> How are there market forces when the price system does not exist?


If there are no prices why do we need to pay taxes? And why do my taxes keep going up?

----------


## erowe1

> http://orlandoweekly.com/news/the-pe...1665144?pgno=1
> 
> How many more people will die due to the lack of access to medical care due to the supreme court's decision that states can opt out? This woman wasn't a welfare mooch. She was a working impoverished lady, doing odd jobs, that was priced out of the market for private healthcare.


That woman didn't die because of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. She died because you personally didn't pay for her treatment. You killed her. Murderer.

----------


## Boshembechle

> That woman didn't die because of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. She died because you personally didn't pay for her treatment. You killed her. Murderer.


Bravo! This was the answer I was finally waiting for. I can remove my mask now, and convey what a garbage article that was.

----------


## Danke

> Bravo! This was the answer I was finally waiting for. I can remove my mask now, and convey what a garbage article that was.


Go ahead troll.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> How are there market forces when the price system does not exist?


A price system always exists and the costs of goods & services will always be borne by someone. Market forces cannot be escaped.
Foolishly, governments try to pretend otherwise by (among other things) foisting costs onto the backs people who did not incur them.

----------


## JohnC

> "Why is U.S. health care so much better than ours..."
> said no Canadian ever...


You're ignorant. Google it. Plenty of them hate their heath care system.

----------

