Let him die

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 17, 2011 11:57 PM GMT
    Which presidential candidates would let our hypothetical 30 year old healthy male without health insurance die from a catastrophic accident?
    Perry?
    Romney?
    Bachmann?
    Huntsman?
    Paul?

    www.lethimdie.com
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 12:23 AM GMT
    inB4 major flame war:

    WARNING - POTENTIAL FLAME BAIT THREAD -

    ALL TROLLS TO BATTLESTATIONS!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 12:28 AM GMT
    And in deference to the circumstances behind the original debate question, the hypothetical 30y.o. had had access to health insurance, but declined to pay into it.

    A presumption may exist that such a guy is leveraging the prospects of his youthful likelihood of good health against wages he could keep at his disposal or in his savings.

    In such a case, the question in the original debate also questions the fairness of society (or at a smaller subset, the pool of insured persons who pay their premiums) to cover the financial responsibilities of the *willfully* uninsured.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 2:07 AM GMT
    The 30 yo M was "willfully" uninsured in your eyes. In my eyes, he may have had to make a choice between paying for his immediate needs (like putting food on the table) or banking on an unforeseen catastrophe. There seems to be a demographic of citizens in the US who are not wealthy enough to purchase an individual health plan, do not receive benefits thru their employer, and are not poor enough to receive Medicaid/indigent care. The Obama HCR targets this demographic of individuals to provide improved access to health care services. What is the GOP plan to cover theses folks? The answer: Let them die!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 3:10 AM GMT
    I've been that guy at one point.

    I did not pay for insurance coverage throughout most of my 20s when I could have afforded the premiums.

    It was a conscious (and in retrospect, stupid) choice given my economic circumstances of the times. I had a choice to either pay the $300/month in premiums, and make do with even humbler living and transportation arrangements, or ditch them and live a little better.

    After seeing a co-worker walk himself backwards off of a 2nd floor of a house we were building, and later on seeing a dumbass co-worker skill-saw his femoral artery open by not practicing correct handling of his saw ... well let's just say stupidity can happen to anyone at any time.

    Both cases set them and our company back - the laborers in terms of wages consumed in medical bills that were not insured, and the company (of which I was a co-owner) losing labour and time from the projects we had a tight delivery timeline on.

    Having a right to healthcare also implies having the right to reject it - and endure the consequences of that rejection, should anything adverse occur to that person.

    This differs from the case of people who desire and need coverage, and are unable to obtain it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 3:14 AM GMT
    What would the monthly premiums be for this hypothetical 30 yr old for the policy he rejected?
    Any ideas?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 3:49 AM GMT
    I'm paying in the ballpark of $400/month for mine. I'm in my *coughlatecough* 30s.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 4:05 AM GMT
    Alphatrigger, At $400/month I suspect you've got comprehensive coverage and that if you needed to file a claim you wouldn't be shocked and disappointed.

    But I've seen too many people with policies that are "more reasonably priced" BUT actually pay almost nothing. For too many people in the US we have a marketplace that is barely above the level of outright FRAUD.

    It is sad to see someone misled into paying $100 to $200 a month for virtually useless coverage. For those folks, it would have been wiser to skip insurance and put their money toward some type of investment or skill training.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 4:37 AM GMT
    I was in Alphatrigger's 20+ shoes for a while, but being married and wanting kids, I well remember searching for Maternity coverage for my wife, its all we could afford on sometimes $5.00 an hour and for some periods down to $3.00 + an hour working construction while also going to college. Some part time work from my then wife between our children. Tough times in the early 70's (our own private 'Hoover' depression) we had a house payment and all the bills with it. We had no regular health insurance, just enough to cover a 'planned' pregnancy health issue. Dangerous yes, It all worked out, but one health problem in our mid twenties and we would have been sunk.

    If anything its harder now because the dollars really don't go as far. What a people expected to do? I our case we couldn't have rented for less than what our house payment was, now young couples cannot afford to buy a house and are stuck with large rents.

    A non profit public health insurance option would fix it all, Obama's beats nothing, but it would have been a hell of a lot better and a hell of a lot less 'contrived' if all our congressmen and senators didn't have their nose up the Insurance industries asses. That's my two cents
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2011 2:29 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidI'm paying in the ballpark of $400/month for mine. I'm in my *coughlatecough* 30s.
    You are HOW OLD?

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2011 3:22 PM GMT
    I saw that story as well and in all honesty, it was such a badly worded and overly simplified question. It ignored so many factors and sub-questions such as a catastrophic event, job circumstances, monthly insurance costs, and so on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2011 3:57 PM GMT
    So knowing that the decision was a stupid one, would you have rejected assistance if you had come down with an ailment that would have killed you without appropriate but costly medical care?

    By the way, I think your situation is not uncommon in that many times younger individuals do not recognize the true dangers behind being uninsured. This is not stupidity, but rather a misunderstanding of the potential for serious consequences which is very common.

    However, in terms of the question posed to the candidate, there is no accommodation made for youthful inexperience.

    alphatrigger saidI've been that guy at one point.

    I did not pay for insurance coverage throughout most of my 20s when I could have afforded the premiums.

    It was a conscious (and in retrospect, stupid) choice given my economic circumstances of the times. I had a choice to either pay the $300/month in premiums, and make do with even humbler living and transportation arrangements, or ditch them and live a little better.

    After seeing a co-worker walk himself backwards off of a 2nd floor of a house we were building, and later on seeing a dumbass co-worker skill-saw his femoral artery open by not practicing correct handling of his saw ... well let's just say stupidity can happen to anyone at any time.

    Both cases set them and our company back - the laborers in terms of wages consumed in medical bills that were not insured, and the company (of which I was a co-owner) losing labour and time from the projects we had a tight delivery timeline on.

    Having a right to healthcare also implies having the right to reject it - and endure the consequences of that rejection, should anything adverse occur to that person.

    This differs from the case of people who desire and need coverage, and are unable to obtain it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2011 4:09 PM GMT
    Columbusite777 saidI saw that story as well and in all honesty, it was such a badly worded and overly simplified question. It ignored so many factors and sub-questions such as a catastrophic event, job circumstances, monthly insurance costs, and so on.


    Agreed.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 19, 2011 5:02 PM GMT
    Columbusite777 saidI saw that story as well and in all honesty, it was such a badly worded and overly simplified question. It ignored so many factors and sub-questions such as a catastrophic event, job circumstances, monthly insurance costs, and so on.


    The question was.......
    A man who IS employed but has no health insurance ...... What should be done with him if he comes down with a catastrophic illness
    Simple question .... Requiring a simple answer

    EITHER ...... You let him succumb to his illness or you treat him
    That's it ......

    That question should be put to EVERY single candidate both republican and democrat because THERE lies our problem with healthcare in this country

    Healthacre should NOT be sold on the open market..... My health or your health or someone who lives in the street should be no less important than someone who makes six or seven figures in this country
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2011 1:19 AM GMT
    GQjock said
    Columbusite777 saidI saw that story as well and in all honesty, it was such a badly worded and overly simplified question. It ignored so many factors and sub-questions such as a catastrophic event, job circumstances, monthly insurance costs, and so on.


    The question was.......
    A man who IS employed but has no health insurance ...... What should be done with him if he comes down with a catastrophic illness
    Simple question .... Requiring a simple answer

    EITHER ...... You let him succumb to his illness or you treat him
    That's it ......

    That question should be put to EVERY single candidate both republican and democrat because THERE lies our problem with healthcare in this country

    Healthacre should NOT be sold on the open market..... My health or your health or someone who lives in the street should be no less important than someone who makes six or seven figures in this country


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2011 2:23 AM GMT
    The question and answer (in essence) is simple:

    "Do we, the People, have a right to basic health care?"

    Defining what constitutes "basic health care" is the thornier issue.

    I do not begrudge allocating some portion of my tax revenue or the revenues from my (supposed) company, or my dividend/share income toward programs that get people off of being hooked on sodas and bad foods and into gyms or healthier living.

    I do not begrudge the allocation of such tax revenue into a common buying pool that could negotiate the best prices for necessary pharmaceuticals and treatments.

    I do not begrudge routine checkups and other preventive lifestyle measures being conducted as a part of one's responsibility to maintain coverage.

    And I most certainly do not begrudge wealthier people the right to acquire additional co-insurance that goes beyond the public option.

    I do begrudge people who will take advantage of loopholes on the system (for no man-made system is truly perfect) to use up the wealth of the People with little remorse (Fraud, Waste, and Abuse).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2011 3:34 PM GMT
    Not sure if we're talking about the same question GQ, but the question from the republican debate was posed as follows:

    "A healthy, 30 year old, young man, has a good job, makes a good living but decides i'm not going to spend $200-$300 each month on health care because I'm healthy, I don't need it."

    The difference being that it is implied that he made a reasoned decision to accept the calculated risk of death, though he could afford to have been covered.

    To a great deal of the voting public (not always very educated), this would seem to imply he took a calculated risk and needs to deal with it.

    I personally, don't believe this situation really exists to the extent they would have you believe. Anyone who can afford health insurance and fully understands the risks of not having it, would make sure they had it.

    Even Alpha, admitted that his risk was a stupid one. In my opinion likely because he was not fully informed as a youth, or because of the pervasive belief that we are indestructible as youths. In either case it was not a well reasoned and calculated risk.

    So while I agree with your stance on healthcare, I don't believe the question shows the true nature of the problem to the average voter. I do not believe there are thousands of people choosing not to purchase healthcare even when they can afford it. When you simplify the question, the response is often as simple and sometimes not well thought out.

    Had the question been posed as you suggested in your post, I would agree that the question is simple. Also, if everyone believed as you do that the government should control healthcare, then again the answer would be simple however many do not.

    I don't need questions that show the candidates understand and can articulate their own stances, I need questions that help the average voters understand the true meaning of what the candidate is saying. In my opinion, these simplified questions are exactly what stops people from understanding real life issues.

    GQjock said
    Columbusite777 saidI saw that story as well and in all honesty, it was such a badly worded and overly simplified question. It ignored so many factors and sub-questions such as a catastrophic event, job circumstances, monthly insurance costs, and so on.


    The question was.......
    A man who IS employed but has no health insurance ...... What should be done with him if he comes down with a catastrophic illness
    Simple question .... Requiring a simple answer

    EITHER ...... You let him succumb to his illness or you treat him
    That's it ......

    That question should be put to EVERY single candidate both republican and democrat because THERE lies our problem with healthcare in this country

    Healthacre should NOT be sold on the open market..... My health or your health or someone who lives in the street should be no less important than someone who makes six or seven figures in this country