# Start Here > Guest Forum >  What is a better outcome in a Paulite's world?

## Boshembechle

Someone receiving no healthcare due to no government involvement, or someone receiving healthcare due to heavy government involvement?

----------


## erowe1

The first option is illogical and impossible. "No government involvement" can't cause someone not to get healthcare. If someone's not receiving healthcare it has to be because of the government's activity, not its inactivity.

----------


## echo1

IMHO, once up on a time, before government became involved in health care, Doctors made regular house calls.  Doctors and patients could actually have a relationship.  Bartering for the Doctors services was not uncommon.  Almost everyone had access to "health care".  The very poor often were helped out by church and other organizations.  Especially, the children.  Now that government is involved in health care, costs of skyrocketed.  Access has become difficult for many, who are now stuck with "emergency room" services, which cost 3 times the norm.

I cannot honestly think of one single benefit of government involvement in "Health Care".  Not one.  

Well, I guess if your an illegal, there is.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Someone receiving no healthcare due to no government involvement, or someone receiving healthcare due to heavy government involvement?


What is a better outcome in a troll's world?

Someone receiving no healthcare due to heavy government involvement, or someone receiving healthcare due to no government involvement?

(See? Other people can play your moronic "Do you still beat your wife?" game of rigged questions, too ...)

----------


## acptulsa

Hate to burst your bubble, erowe, but you only cost him one.

Yo, b.s.  Two of the main ways a lack of government involvement gets more people more health care is it allows the market to set the price, meaning providers _have_ to figure out how to make it affordable (and with a ton less paperwork, they usually can) and the government taxes people much less, allowing them a little of the fruits of their labor to use to pay their doctors.

Is there anything morally wrong with either of those things?

----------


## Unregistered

> Someone receiving no healthcare due to no government involvement, or someone receiving healthcare due to heavy government involvement?


Probably receiving no healthcare due to no government involvement, because if you look at how well the government runs the VA system, I'm not sure you want to actually get on their wait-list, much less "receive healthcare" that might kill you waiting for it:
hxxp://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/us/senator-va-report/
hxxp://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/06/24/phoenix-va-scandal-whistle-blower-kept-deaths-secret/11297965/
hxxp://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/05/25/va-cancer-deaths-report-delayed-care/9563359/
hxxp://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/health/veterans-dying-health-care-delays/
hxxp://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/us/phoenix-va-deaths-new-allegations/

----------


## nayjevin

Government involvement makes prices go up.  It's a result of lobbying - by the insurance companies and the medical industry.  Of course they want it to be mandatory for people to purchase insurance.  People don't care what the price of their medical care is when the insurance company is paying it.  Neither does the insurance company - if they are going to have the customers anyway at any premium price (it's mandatory!).

Cell phones and computers get cheaper and cheaper because the competition of the free market drives the prices down.  Government has little involvement.  Health care prices go up - which can only be a result of market distortion.

Also, regulations make it difficult to give away charity medical care.

----------


## Boshembechle

> The first option is illogical and impossible. *"No government involvement" can't cause someone not to get healthcare.* If someone's not receiving healthcare it has to be because of the government's activity, not its inactivity.


 What in the world? Of course no government involvement means some will not get care.

----------


## nayjevin

> What in the world? Of course no government involvement means some will not get care.


The problem of people not getting care can be handled without a centralized government plan.  In fact, it has been in the past, and it works much more efficiently.  Washington gets involved and it becomes bureaucratic and inefficient.  Lobbyists pull in all directions for special advantages and jumbled legislation results, causing people who want to help to have to spend far more time and money to jump through the hoops.  When government is not involved, all that money that goes to lawyers and lobbyists is returned to the market.  Prices go down as the incentives are realigned with reality and health care providers compete with each other to provide more service for less money.  The shortfall is taken up by non-profit organizations and churches, along with those doctors who wish to provide care at for free or at a discount alongside their for-profit practice (like Ron Paul and Rand Paul have always done.)

----------


## eduardo89

> Someone receiving no healthcare due to no government involvement, or someone receiving healthcare due to heavy government involvement?


Why would someone receive no healthcare due to no government involvement?

----------


## Unregistered

> What in the world? Of course no government involvement means some will not get care.


No it doesn't. Because we can safely assume people like yourself would step-up and pay for the healthcare needed by those. And because as we see with the VA system, GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT means some will NOT GET CARE, even when promised and told they would/will.
I personally think if the churches (all of them as a collective) and charities would step back up to the plate (some do already, but many don't) though, and focus on providing healthcare needs in the communities, issues like healthcare wouldn't be as big as they are.

The government gets bigger, as the church gets smaller. At least, that's my personal opinion.

----------


## Working Poor

> What in the world? Of course no government involvement means some will not get care.



with 100,000 people dying each year due to medical error I think having a health care plan can be just as deadly as not having one. I think more people die under the care of a doctor than not.

----------


## Boshembechle

> Why would someone receive no healthcare due to no government involvement?

----------


## erowe1

> What in the world? Of course no government involvement means some will not get care.


Please explain.

Obviously "some will not get care" is true in all scenarios. It always has been and always will be in every country, no matter what their government does or doesn't do, up until Jesus comes back.

But how does "no government involvement" cause anyone not to get care?

The only way the government could cause someone not to get care would be by doing something, not by doing nothing.

----------


## Unregistered

> [IMG]hxxps://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBdHiQ9Eg03IWlZsn-rGUdrUAcchubZz4wUz9UaHH3m5p5ng76fUUolmU[/IMG]


Charities and churches. Clearly the federal government has $$$ (through taxes, tariffs, etc.), just apparently not enough to actually provide healthcare to the veterans because we must blow up citizens overseas with drones, and leave our border wide open and provide healthcare to children of illegal aliens born here. The problem is not $, the problem is spending, laws, and stupidity in Washington DC and even locally.

If the government is already involved in healthcare, increasing the cost for many (under ObamaCare) and lowering quality (look at the VA hospitals), I don't see why getting them out, would hurt the system or lower coverage to those that need it.

The government is currently involved, more-so now than ever before, in healthcare, and people are being denied care now:
hxxp://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/02/03/obamacare-sick-children-denied-specialty-care-n1788567

----------


## jkr

> 


...is created and _CONTROLED_ by guBBermint

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

What is a better outcome?  Lazy people who steal your money, or lazy people who don't steal your money?

----------


## Unregistered

> What is a better outcome?  Lazy people who steal your money, or lazy people who don't steal your money?


Depends.
a) If you're Democrat, it's "defending the poor" and the "War on Poverty" (has worked real well, right?).
b) If you're Republican, it's bailouts for big businesses (TARP).

Also, is anybody in this thread on Twitter right now?

----------


## Boshembechle

> What is a better outcome?  Lazy people who steal your money, or lazy people who don't steal your money?


This is an insulting comment.

----------


## CaptUSA

> This is an insulting comment.


Only if you're a lazy person.   or a thief.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> This is an insulting comment.


Why is that, Holmes?

----------


## Unregistered

> Hate to burst your bubble, erowe, but you only cost him one.


Can you share something to mosquitobite (and I think Crashland) in another thread for me?

----------


## Bryan

> Someone receiving no healthcare due to no government involvement, or someone receiving healthcare due to heavy government involvement?


Boshembechle, as I have indicated before, a major issue is, where is the government getting its money? It it's by forced taxation, then I ask you this...

What if someone is not able to afford healthcare because they are taxed to pay for other peoples healthcare?

----------


## presence

Sorry Bryan.  Low troll tolerance.

----------


## osan

> Someone receiving no healthcare due to no government involvement, or someone receiving healthcare due to heavy government involvement?


False implied dichotomy.  FAIL.

There is an entire spectrum of possibilities and some people will simply not "make it", so to speak, regardless whether "government" is involved.  It is plenty involved now and the stupid bastards cannot even keep the VA running properly.  What would lead anyone to think that they can administer a nationwide system?  That's not even remotely rational.

How, pray tell, did anyone survive prior to 1933 before "government" stuck it's uninvited nose in everyone's business?  Seriously - how is it that there are any Americans left?

----------


## torchbearer

I can't afford insurance because of the taxes that are extorted from me by government.
Without government, I'd have health coverage.

----------


## torchbearer

The government is a cost to everyone, even the people who don't pay taxes.
Because of government my income is cut in half. That money is no longer able to be spent in my local economy that would provide more jobs and wealth in our communities. 
That money was robbed from us by government- and we are all poorer because of it.
Don't be a tool of the elites.

----------


## nayjevin

The problem with health coverage is price.  This simple fact gets lost when we start talking about health care plans.  Incentives should be such that price goes down.  The best way to drive down prices is market competition.  A great way to increase price is government involvement.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

Someone not receiving healthcare, easy answer.

What is a better outcome in your wold:

Someone not receiving healthcare because of heavy government involvement, or someone receiving healthcare because of no government involvement?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Charities and churches. Clearly the federal government has $$$ (through taxes, tariffs, etc.), just apparently not enough to actually provide healthcare to the veterans because we must blow up citizens overseas with drones, and leave our border wide open and provide healthcare to children of illegal aliens born here. The problem is not $, the problem is spending, laws, and stupidity in Washington DC and even locally.
> 
> If the government is already involved in healthcare, increasing the cost for many (under ObamaCare) and lowering quality (look at the VA hospitals), I don't see why getting them out, would hurt the system or lower coverage to those that need it.
> 
> The government is currently involved, more-so now than ever before, in healthcare, and people are being denied care now:
> hxxp://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/02/03/obamacare-sick-children-denied-specialty-care-n1788567


That was a good post.  Why not register on this site?  I would like to see more posts from you.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

It seems pretty obvious that federal government involvement has only created more problems.  The federal government is in debt over 17 trillion, it's bureaucracies create policies that stifle innovation and businesses/jobs, we have more people in jail than any other country even more populous than ours, our currency is becoming almost worthless (except for buying toys), etc...  Why would anyone want the federal government involved in anything that is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution that created it, if that?

----------


## euphemia

> What in the world? Of course no government involvement means some will not get care.


No, it doesn't.  Sometimes health care means taking care of yourself.

From a market standpoint, it is important for the patient to be in touch with the cost and means of his care.  If the patient doesn't know or care how much something costs, he will not care how much it costs, and may take less responsibility for his own condition.  For example, obesity is best controlled through diet and exercise, not drugs or surgery.  Diet and exercise are the patient's responsibility,

----------


## amy31416

I listen to NPR pretty regularly, and even they admit that the ACA will massively increase insurance costs across the board--even for those receiving subsidies.

----------


## acptulsa

Which certainly makes the name 'Affordable Care Act' into a very unfunny joke.

But hey.  For everyone who has to drop health insurance because the government says they don't need subsidies but they know they can't afford it, there will be another $97 in other people's money your heroes can waste and take a kickback from.  Does that make you feel better, b.s?

----------

