A quick poll take two

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

What happens when private insurance companies refuse to insure somebody?

Or when private insurance companies will insure the patient, but not for any medical problem the patient already has? (like heart disease, diabetes)

Or the private insurance company says that they will insure the patient, but it will cost the patient $1288 a month?

if the person is unhealthy and the only way they can get insurance is by paying 1288 per month. then they should pay 1288 per month.

i'm all for eliminating a life time cap, and exclusions, and not being able to deny someone coverage. But if the cost is high, then pay it if you want the insurance. or shop around or take lesser coverage.

I had to pay over 500 per month when I was unemployed for a short time. You didnt hear me bitching about it. 500 a month is cheap if something big happens and you need hospital care.

No one should get free health care. it's a service you pay for.

[Antitrust32]

okay I'll go back on no one.

i'm totally fine with needy children getting free or very cheap health care if their parents cant afford to insure them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

if the person is unhealthy and the only way they can get insurance is by paying 1288 per month. then they should pay 1288 per month.

i'm all for eliminating a life time cap, and exclusions, and not being able to deny someone coverage. But if the cost is high, then pay it if you want the insurance. or shop around or take lesser coverage.

I had to pay over 500 per month when I was unemployed for a short time. You didnt hear me bitching about it. 500 a month is cheap if something big happens and you need hospital care.

No one should get free health care. it's a service you pay for.

You make good points. Well, the problem is, what if no private company will insure you for a price that is affordable, even if you have a good job and plenty of money? (let alone make less than $40K a year)

So what if you can't afford insurance? That means you can't get health care?

I think that was the point of my poll question, which I didn't state clearly - is everyone in America entitled to get health care? Or is it only for those that make a certain income level and above?

These are serious questions. We have 60 million uninsured people in this country, and we are paying for them right now.

BTW, I just called my GP's office - an extension of the University of Kentucky Hospital system - and asked how much an office visit was for those without insurance. The answer was $193. That includes nothing but the office visit fee. I was shocked. If you can't afford insurance, you sure as heck probably can't afford $193 to walk in the door and see a doctor.

[Antitrust32]

everyone in america should be entitled to pay for their health insurance / care.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

everyone in america should be entitled to pay for their health insurance / care.

So if you can't afford insurance, and you can't afford the non-insured rates, do you think it's a general basic human right, in America, to get health care, or not?

Really, that's not the final question we should back into, that's the beginning question: is everyone in America entitled to health care, or only those of a certain income level?

That goes to basic beliefs we hold as a society of Americans, as citizens of a great nation. Then work from there.

If the answer is "only those of a certain income level are entitled to health care", then we should determine what income level that is.

Because right now, there are people with very good incomes can't afford insurance or doctors care if they have pre-existing conditions; and people below rather significant income levels can't afford insurance or health care. So right now, even an income cut minimum amount for getting health care doesn't exist.

[Antitrust32]

tough question. i guess honestly i'd say no. its not a basic human right.

but people should have the opportunity to purchase insurance, whether they get it through a job or not. There should be basic, fairly inexpensive plans that would cover emergencies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

tough question. i guess honestly i'd say no. its not a basic human right.

but people should have the opportunity to purchase insurance, whether they get it through a job or not. There should be basic, fairly inexpensive plans that would cover emergencies.

You are right, very tough questions.

If we go with "health care is not a basic human right", should we force private insurance companies to provide low cost plans to try and insure more people? Or provide free clinics (who would pay for it?) I don't see the point, if health care isn't a basic human right. What about sick people (diabetes, heart disease) - should all their non-emergent, routine care be forsaken?

Right now, that's what we have. Those that have, have health care, and those that do not, are screwed, and the rest of us are paying for their emergency-only care.

I take the view that health care, in a first world, wealthy nation like America, is a desire, indeed a right, for every citizen.

It's part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to not die when you can be readily saved, to be not be sick when a ready cure exists.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

You are right, very tough questions.

If we go with "health care is not a basic human right", should we force private insurance companies to provide low cost plans to try and insure more people? Or provide free clinics (who would pay for it?) What about sick people (diabetes, heart disease) - should all their non-emergent, routine care be forsaken?

they should go to the doctor and pay for a visit.

doctors can choose to provide pro bono work. People can provide money towards charities to help poor people with their health care.

but #1, lawyers need to get out of the heath care business so it can become much more affordable.