Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WHY MANDATES ARE MANDATORY
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 58 (825476)
12-15-2017 9:52 AM


A Story for the Season
This isn't a story about insurance mandates but about love and commitment, with the importance of insurance the centerpiece. Read it. You won't regret it, especially at this most joyous time of year.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 3:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 6 of 58 (825513)
12-15-2017 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 11:03 AM


I, too, think the mandate wrong, as it preys upon the poorest segments of society, but I also hold access to affordable healthcare (bounded by the expanse of the national economy) an unalienable right that is the responsibility of governmental agency.
The required "how" and "fairness" is a mass of detail, but the principles of our Declaration of Independence of equality and an unalienable right to life demands affordable healthcare for all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 11:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 2:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 58 (825524)
12-15-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 2:59 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
Healthcare requires another person's labor and you don't have a right to force people to work for you.
"Force people to work for you?" Passion and accuracy needn't be adversaries.
Our economy already has numerous examples of taxes used to provide services. The most obvious example in this context is Medicare, which taxes the country as a whole to pay for healthcare for the elderly.
I also don't want the federal government involved in my healthcare. Take the DMV, Postal Service, and VAs as examples of how well they run things.
That's why the Affordable Care act relies upon insurance companies. The government's involvement is limited to setting up the legal structure, a necessary prerequisite.
I agree that everyone ought to have access to healthcare, but we already have that because hospitals don't turn people away.
That's only in an emergency that they can't turn people away. If you have a disease or illness you can't afford to treat (read Getting Married Is Better Than Dying, Right? that I posted a link to upthread), you're dead.
It's just not affordable.
People can run through their life savings treating a serious disease, then they die. Read Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich.
I think that's a systemic problem and not something that needs a federal government solution.
But it *does* need a solution. If not the federal government, who?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 4:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 58 (825586)
12-16-2017 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 4:49 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
If you have a disease or illness you can't afford to treat (read Getting Married Is Better Than Dying, Right? that I posted a link to upthread), you're dead.
I didn't get that from the article... I also don't believe it as a general statement, but I'm sure it happens.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant potentially lethal diseases, like lupus, the disease mentioned in the article.
About where you said that you didn't get from the article that death could have happened, recall that the writer only obtained healthcare by getting married. They got married, rushed to the hospital, and within a few days discovered:
quote:
I had been on the verge of kidney failure and could have died.
The average life expectancy for untreated lupus is less than five years. Lupus is just one of many dangerous diseases that strike both the insured and the uninsured.
People can run through their life savings treating a serious disease, then they die. Read Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich.
Sure, and people also spend a lot of money on newborns with congenital heart defects so they can suffer for a few months before they die.
Your point isn't apparent to me, but I just looked up newborn CHD. Congenital heart defects in newborns can range from mild to severe. The most important factor is early treatment and appropriate medical attention, and the prognosis is often very good, so I don't know why you said, "they can suffer for a few months before they die." That's one of the possibilities, but an increasingly rare one.
But proper treatment is dependent upon insurance. You have probably heard of Jimmy Kimmel's story of his newborn's CHD, and this brought increased attention to the importance of affordable insurance. Give Jimmy Kimmel Sheds Light on Health Coverage for Infants With Birth Defects a read. It describes how much worse things might have become for newborn CHD had any of the Republican versions of healthcare made it through Congress this past summer.
Medicaid is the insurer of last resort for newborn CHD. Depending on the specific CHD type, multiple operations over a period of years may be necessary, and many insurance policies carry lifetime limits, and Republican versions of the healthcare bill included Medicaid limits. But a families qualifications for Medicaid will vary over time with income, and when they make enough to be pushed off Medicaid and into the insurance market it is important that the "preexisting condition" restrictions not be in place. But the "preexisting condition" clause of the ACA was the primary factor driving mandates, which we both think are bad. What to do? I don't know.
But getting back to my original point, people with serious diseases but without insurance will live only as long as their money holds out. I shouldn't have said "then they'll die." That is a definite possibility, as was the case with the writer who married to obtain health insurance, but Medicaid is also available to the destitute. But don't we want a country where everyone has the best chance of being healthy and productive, rather than one where we perpetuate a subclass in sickly poverty that exists only because they can't afford healthcare?
The entities that make up the system.
By "entities" you mean doctor's offices, hospitals and insurance companies? Given the size of the country and the number of states with different laws, they still need a federal legal framework.
Here's an example of the problem with letting things work themselves out. When I retired I was eligible for COBRA, which means I could stay under my employer's health care plan for 18 months as long as I paid the premiums myself. But there are numerous COBRA exceptions, and I fell under one of them. If you live in or move to a state where the insurance provider does not do business, you get no COBRA benefits. Since I worked in Massachusetts (where the insurance company does do business) but lived in New Hampshire (where the insurance company does not do business), I was out of luck.
It is situations like this (and there are scores of different kinds of situations that can leave people without health insurance) that require a federal legal framework.
__Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2017 10:16 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 58 (825826)
12-18-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2017 10:16 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:
That was their choice. They also could have chosen to not get married, obtain the healthcare, and then get the bill and deal with the financial ramifications. My best friend went through medical bankrupcy, it's not that big of a deal. No insurance does not equal death, it means you're gonna have bad credit.
That's your solution? Those who can't afford insurance go bankrupt?
The healthcare industry does still have to somehow pay for the bills not paid by those who go bankrupt under your preferred system, so that raises prices for us all.
No insurance can equal death. If you're a woman, try delaying having that lump in your breast checked out because you can't afford a doctor, X-Rays, radiologist, etc. If by the time it's checked out it's spread too far, that's death. Same with many other diseases. Delay means death. Regular checkups mean problems are detected early. The statistics seem to indicate that the ACA is saving approximately 20,000 lives per year. Here's a webpage of testimonials to the ACA:
And we shouldn't focus just on saving lives but on improvements in quality of life through better health.
Here's a link about saving lives: Fact check: Has Obamacare helped save 50,000 lives? Why yes, it has
The stories about how these babies [CHD newborns] are treated, and how much money is spent on them, only for them to die anyways...
You've been misinformed. Of course some die, but the vast majority live. Perhaps your friend works in the "terminal" section of the ward.
So yeah, not having insurance doesn't mean that you'll die, it means that you'll be broke financially.
...
But it's not. You can get proper treatment without insurance. It's just too expensive and will break you financially.
...
Or they go into debt.
Well, if that's the kind of society you wish to live in, where friends and neighbors go broke when they can't afford healthcare, then all I can say is that it feels like you're putting your political philosophy ahead of the well being of your fellow man.
Sure, and I definately helped my best friend a lot when he was going through bankrupcy. But that doesn't mean I want government dictating that to and forcing that upon me.
...
Why does it have to be federal? That's the last group I'd want in charge of this.
Just because you have an aversion to government solutions doesn't mean you should have an aversion to any solution or not be open to reasonable compromise.
You didn't have any other options? Couldn't you have purchased another insurance?
Yes, of course there are other options, but that "preexisting condition" thing comes up unless you take advantage of one of the ACA plans, which didn't exist at the time. COBRA exists so that after losing their jobs people can keep their healthcare plan and network and care for preexisting conditions for a period while they adjust and make plans for some alternative, except that in reality COBRA exceptions mean it isn't really available for everyone everywhere, which is a fault only the federal government can fix.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2017 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 58 (825891)
12-18-2017 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
12-18-2017 10:49 AM


New Cat’s Eye writes:
That's not a solution, that's an issue. But the issue is not "no insurance = death".
Well, I’m glad you see it as an issue. No insurance doesn’t equal death, but it’s correlated with death.
There's still the alternative to death in the form of getting the treatments that you cannot afford.
It is not uncommon that what appears to be a minor health issue that will improve on its own is actually a potentially life threatening issue until you visit the doctor you can't afford. It’s the old familiar scenario where delay causes little problems to become big problems, and healthcare affordability plays a large role in delay.
I'm not talking about just CHD. They work in the NICU.
I was just speculating about where you got your misinformation about newborn CHD. Regardless of where your misinformation came from, you gave a very strong misimpression about the mortality rate of newborn CHD.
I don't wish it, but it is what it is.
Bobby Kennedy said, There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? It doesn’t have to be, It is what it is. Problems too big and requiring too much coordination and cooperation for numerous independent organizations like doctors, hospitals and insurance companies across many states is where national governments should step in.
Sure, I'm open, bring it on.
The single payer system proposed by Trump.
Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity of second, third and fourth paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-19-2017 10:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 32 of 58 (826052)
12-21-2017 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
12-20-2017 10:25 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
Completely off topic: Do you think that you are a bit of a narcissist?
I hope this doesn't mean you'll be making no meaningful reply to Rrhain's Message 30, which was a reply to your Message 25, which was a reply to my Message 24. I didn't reply to your Message 25 because Rrhain had already replied and done as good a job as I could have ever hoped to do, though I concede he does tend to come on a bit strong.
So I hope you answer Rrhain's points involving libertarian "every-man-for-himself"-ism, the success of national health care systems in other countries, the example of Opdivo, your sacrifice of the realities of how to provide fair and decent healthcare on the pyre of your antagonism toward government , and why government has to be part of the solution.
Don't reply to me - reply to Rrhain's Message 30. I'll join back in when it seems fitting.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix the quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2017 10:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2017 9:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2017 11:42 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 39 of 58 (826099)
12-22-2017 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2017 11:42 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:
libertarian "every-man-for-himself"-ism
So that's a strawman and not worth addressing.
No, not a strawman. It's merely an exaggeration for emphasis to put the point across forcefully.
Even if you feel the characterization unfair, the question still arises of why you so often seem to care so little for your fellow man, and often seem to make a special effort to indicate just how little you do care. We live in a society where the better off my neighbor is the better off I am. From your point of view maybe the neighbor forced to move because of health related expenses is just replaced by another neighbor and maybe you just say, "So what!", but in the broad view every time it happens the quality and vitality of our society slips down a notch.
As Rrhain said, whatever you've achieved in life you did not do by yourself. You did it as part of a community. Without that community you would have accomplished nothing. It is in your best interests, in everyone's best interests, whether you realize it or not, that that community be as strong as possible. It is high irony that you claim credit for your accomplishments while casting disdain at the very community that made them possible.
the success of national health care systems in other countries,
What about it?
You mean what about the incredibly obvious, that the example of many western democracies is that national health care systems work? We have a national health care system that works right in our own country. It's called Medicare.
your sacrifice of the realities of how to provide fair and decent healthcare on the pyre of your antagonism toward government
I just don't want the government in charge of my healthcare. But I'll pay taxes to support a national health care system. I don't want to be forced into something, tho. And I don't like the sound of single-anything. Options, not force.
This sounds promising, sort of, but I'd rather have some indication that you understand that a healthy community is a stronger more vital, more vibrant and more productive community, and that it is in the community's best interests to insure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare.
and why government has to be part of the solution.
By all means, have the government be a part of the solution. But it doesn't have to be the solution.
Medicare is a single payer system mostly subcontracted out to insurance companies. The ACA has individual markets that are run by insurance companies. I think you're the victim of fearmongering.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2017 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 40 of 58 (826103)
12-22-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
12-21-2017 11:48 AM


NoNukes writes:
NCE's politics are sometimes difficult to defend without leaving the impression that the holder of said opinions is soulless and self-centered.
I don't think it's an impression but a fact that New Cat's Eye is uncaring and self-centered. He doesn't realize that any successes he experiences are the results of opportunities presented to him by his community, and the quality of those opportunities are a reflection of the strength of his community. This is true for everyone
Every community possesses diversity. It has the smartest and the dumbest, the healthiest and the sickest, the richest and the poorest, the strongest and the weakest. We must care about the dumbest, the sickest, the poorest and the weakest because they are also part of our community, and the worse off they are the worse off is our community.
The strength of communities is why hermits leave behind caves while civilizations leave behind pyramids, Parthenons and Colosseums.
In this kind of lefty filled environment, somebody is bound to point out that exact point.
Yes. At some point one is filled with the urgent need to reach out and shake someone out of their fog, metaphorically speaking.
Perhaps that is why some of our more right leaning posters adopt a "hit and run" style where they post bombs and don't hang around for a rebuttal. NCE does not do that.
When pissed off New Cat's Eye's MO is to reply rather than ignore or run, but his replies are not better than ignoring or running. His replies can become things like "Being retarded?" and "I have no interest in discussing with that person," not to mention the incredibly self-centered, "I got a lot going on in RL and there's a couple people here who I just plainly dislike," as if no one else here has anything going on in real life or encounters people here they do not like.
We want folks to express their opinions here. I do at least. Because I want to understand the mindset that underlies those opinions. But if there really isn't much more mindset behind those positions than what a surface review suggests, I want to know that too.
Whether New Cat's Eye stays or goes is his choice. I of course would much rather he stay, but I do not think we should censor or soften our voice for fear that he, or anyone else we may disagree with, will leave. This site does seem to somehow have many more liberals than conservatives, and this can result in pile-ons, but neither can we forget the old saw about how a lie travels the world while the truth is still tying its shoes (not from Twain, by the way). In these times where our own president is making an institution of lying, when addressing his followers or fellow travelers it is important that the truth be stated as often and as strongly as possible. It is instructive that when New Cat's Eye encountered Rrhain's plain talk that in effect he *did* ignore and he *did* run.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2017 11:48 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2017 2:24 PM Percy has replied
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 42 of 58 (826172)
12-23-2017 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
12-23-2017 2:24 PM


NoNukes writes:
Your post has given me some things to think about. I wrote some quick sentences in response, but I deleted them. I probably won't get around to posting anything.
I think many people, and certainly me, often write things they never send. Well, you usually let me have it straight as you see it. Maybe I came on too strong, but I have little patience for people who don't understand that humankind didn't start making rapid advances until we developed the technology (farming) to make possible living together in large communities. Even Thoreau built his cabin using the products of civilization (often second hand), like shingles, bricks, nails, etc.
Conservatives like small government but don't recognize how much richer we are when we work together instead of dividing ourselves into little self-reliant fiefdoms. Certainly self-reliance is a good thing, but as protection against possible necessity, not as a way of life. By pooling our resources in the form of collected taxes we are capable of our greatest accomplishments, like nationwide polio vaccinations, clean environment, the interstate highway system, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, constrain the inequities and misbehaviors of capitalism, and nationwide electrification.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2017 2:24 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 01-16-2018 5:07 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 44 of 58 (827025)
01-15-2018 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 1:54 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
I don't think it's an impression but a fact that New Cat's Eye is uncaring and self-centered.
So much for Rule 10.
You don't get to express opinions that are uncaring and self-centered and then expect people to ignore that your opinions possess those qualities. It would be like not noting the ignorance in someone's claim that more massive objects fall faster. My and NoNukes comments were not out-of-the-blue ad hominem but were based precisely on things you've said. I notice you don't deny that you're uncaring and self-centered, nor do you address anything else in my detailed reply in Message 40.
Whether New Cat's Eye stays or goes is his choice.
I'll say... and ignore the personal attacks.
It would only be a personal attack if it were untrue. If you want people to say nicer things about the opinions you express here then express nicer opinions. Basically your position is that you don't care whether people can afford decent healthcare as long as you've got yours. Don't I have that right? Or am I retarded, or maybe you have no interest in discussing with me anymore, or maybe you just have a lot going on in RL right now and you plainly dislike some people here, and all this excuses your shotgun load of poorly thought out posts today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 8:54 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 46 of 58 (827066)
01-16-2018 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 8:54 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:
You don't get to express opinions that are uncaring and self-centered and then expect people to ignore that your opinions possess those qualities.
But you don't say that my position is uncaring. You say that I, personally, am uncaring.
Well, yes, of course, because that's the position you advocated.
As you explain in the rule ("Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."), opinions expressed in debate are not necessarily personally held opinons of the debater.
First, this is a serious misinterpretation of rule 10. People have the right to expect that other participants are expressing their own views, not just trolling other views to see what reactions they'll get.
Second, you've admitted in the past to advocating views you don't hold. I don't think you should do this. And doing this and then taking offense when people think you actually hold those views is even worse.
You can have the debate while leaving the person out of it - and it's better that way.
You were the one who put yourself into the debate by expressing your opinions on things involving guns, healthcare, Nazi marches, etc. There's no room for getting personal in a debate about, say, carbon dating, but in a debate about, say, healthcare then callous indifference to human suffering can't be ignored.
I notice you don't deny that you're uncaring and self-centered,
There's no need to dignify those lies with a remark.
And you made no attempt to show they're wrong, either. You can't hide the words you've written.
It would only be a personal attack if it were untrue.
They're personal attacks.
They're not personal attacks, they're just the truth.
If you want people to say nicer things about the opinions you express here then express nicer opinions.
Oh, I see. Only nice opinions are worth exploring kindly here. Hmm. Maybe I will leave then. The debates lately seem to just be getting denigrated into irrelevant pedantry anyways.
So you expect people to say nice things about your opinions that it's fine to cast people into bankruptcy for medical problems not their fault? That "very fine people" marched for Nazis in Charlottesville? That we need more guns, even as the carnage mounts?
Basically your position is that you don't care whether people can afford decent healthcare as long as you've got yours. Don't I have that right?
No, not even close.
If you don't believe that, then why did you say the things you did earlier in this thread? Just click on the "New Cat's Eye Posts Only" link and read your posts in this thread.
Or am I retarded,
No, you're tribal. If I don't agree with you then I must be taking the exact opposite position
Have fun with the strawman. I'm not going to waste my time pulling it apart.
My understanding of your positions comes from your own words. You've admitted before to expressing opinions you don't hold (which is fine when preceded with, "Let me play devil's advocate here..." or some such, but you never said that) , so you're just going to have to accept the rather inevitable consequences of your own actions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 8:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 58 (827075)
01-16-2018 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
01-16-2018 5:07 PM


Re: Left and Right Ideology
I disagree with this from the Scientific American article:
quote:
Conservatives care about those things, too, but for them, fairness means proportionalitythat people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they have put in.
I'm not a liberal, but it seems obvious that liberals believe the same thing, that hard work should be rewarded.
About this next quote, I disagree that liberals don't share this emphasis with conservatives. In fact, the importance of these things is being stressed over and over again by liberals as Trump trashes them:
quote:
He wants the left to acknowledge that the right's emphasis on laws, institutions, customs, and religion is valuable.
The only point of disagreement between liberals and some conservatives that touches on an item in this list is separation of church and state. Some conservatives don't believe in it.
I realized that NCE was conservative when I talked with him about unionism.
If he's a conservative who is anti-Trump, I've never been part of a discussion with him where he's given any hint of that, and all his positions that I've discussed with him align perfectly with Trump's views.
Perhaps he feels outnumbered here,...
As a conservative he is certainly outnumbered here, but that's no reason to act out, which he does far less than Faith but still does. His biggest sin in my view is his admitted trolling where he sometimes advocates views he doesn't hold apparently just to draw a response while wasting people's time who think he's being sincere.
Plus he may get frustrated that his views are not respected.
Do we have any respect for the view that blacks should sit in the back of the bus and be banned from the white lunch counter? No, of course not. Then why should we have any respect for his equally repugnant views about guns, healthcare and Nazis?
I tend to get feisty with conservatives but i have attempted to listen to their side of things so as to understand the political climate that we are in better.
My goal too, but to me that doesn't involve compromising inviolable principles about the equality of all people and the right of people to be safe living their lives.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 01-16-2018 5:07 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 58 (827085)
01-17-2018 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
12-21-2017 11:48 AM


NoNoukes writes:
Perhaps that is why some of our more right leaning posters adopt a "hit and run" style where they post bombs and don't hang around for a rebuttal. NCE does not do that.
NCE has now done that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2017 11:48 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 58 (827087)
01-17-2018 8:12 AM


Medicaid and Morbidity
Today's New York Times ran the article Making Medicaid a Tool for Moral Education May Let Some Die making clear that making affordable insurance more difficult to obtain does result in more deaths. Some excerpts (links included, which contain useful information):
quote:
Apparently the plan to Make America Great Again will let some Americans die.
...
Millions of Americans stand at risk of losing their health care. Many the most fragile, the least great could die as a result.
Mr. Bevin might care to glance south over the border. In 2005, Tennessee removed 170,000 people almost one in 10 Medicaid beneficiaries in the state, mainly working-age adults without children from its Medicaid program to save money. They didn’t do well.
...
Delayed care can kill. Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death among women. One of eight American women will get it. Detecting it early is critical. Specifically, the five-year relative survival rate for localized breast cancer is 98.5 percent when detected early, but only 25 percent when detected at a distant stage. Waiting for 60 days or longer to get treatment raises the risk of dying of breast cancer over five years by 85 percent.
Another study from Tennessee found that losing access to Medicaid led to delays in diagnosis, so more breast cancers were caught at a later stage. Women who lived in low-income ZIP codes were 3.3 percentage points more likely to receive a diagnosis of late-stage cancer than women living in high-income ZIP codes.
...
The problem with the latest twist in Republicans’ effort to pare the social safety net is that removing the poor’s health insurance may not just make their life more difficult.
It might kill them.
It is well known by now that health insurance saves lives. A review of recent research in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that the odds of dying for non-elderly adults are between 3 and 41 percent higher for the uninsured than for the insured.
Work by Katherine Baicker, now at the University of Chicago, with Benjamin Sommers and Arnold Epstein at Harvard found that Medicaid expansions in the past significantly reduced mortality. Their research, they concluded, suggests that 176 additional adults would need to be covered by Medicaid in order to prevent one death per year.
...
As Lawrence H. Summers, once President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, noted about the Republican tax cut passed in December, thousands would die if the tax bill were to cut the health insurance of 13 million people, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated.
These would be mostly lower-income Americans. Maybe they would be people from Kentucky the state with the most cancer deaths and the most preventable hospitalizations, 45th out of 50 in the incidence of diabetes and 47th in terms of heart disease.
Would their deaths cause America to be greater?
Bottom line: affordable health insurance saves lives.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024