Why do the CONs want to withold Medical Care from those who need it?

We pay, in France too, a private insurance that complements the public one. Mine costs 50 € a month for me, my wife and our two daughters.

I have no idea how much a US health insurance costs for a family (can anyone give me an idea ?)

 

That's just a question of point of view. Some just consider health care should be for everyone and for free, no matter if you work or not.

 

So, those who won't work are entitled to free health care and everything else I guess. That's just stupid!!!!!!!!!! Whose going to pay for it? Is it right for the government to take from those who work hard and give it to those who won't? I am sick and tired of being forced to pay the way for those who won't and don't.

 

I remember the source for your claim.

To be accurate - half of bankruptcies include some medical bills.

That does not mean that medical bills were the cause of half of bankruptcies.

This has already been pointed out to you many many many times now.

 

Don't confuse him with the facts. He might blow a fuse.

 

alatide

The problem is that you change your moniker so often no one knows what to really call you other than that indicated by your posts.

 

Well now, isn't that a nice representation of what Christ told us to do?

Oh well.

And don't flatter yourself by playing the "paragon of virtue" role. Some of the ugliest insutls I've seen on here often came from you, many times directed at your favorite president.

 

Thanks for the information ! I understand a little more how things work in the USA

 

Please, brothers and sisters, we can (we must sometimes) debate, but without aggressivity. And, for sure " a taunt calls a taunt ".

 

Here are a few pieces to the puzzle that I believe are getting overlooked:

1. Yes, hospitals must treat someone in an EMERGENCY basis. However, they only have to stabilize them. If there is a public hospital for transfer, they will then be moved.
2. Waiting until things are bad enough for an emergency room visit is more expensive than early care and preventive care.
3. Guess who pays for uninsured emergency room visits? We are already paying for the uninsured, but they don't get as good of care, and the ER is more expensive than an office visit.

4. Guess who pays for the public hospitals, where available?

Bottom line, we can do better and get better value for the dollars we are spending. And unless we find a way to insure everyone, the cost of healthcare for ALL of us will continue to skyrocket to cover those costs. That also includes the monthly premiums and what is covered.

 

We can do better.

 

If that is a requirement then perhaps you should go first with your proof that half of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

 

This study does not prove what you claim that it does.


“medically bankrupt” debtors citing illness or medical bills as a specific reason for bankruptcy; OR reporting uncovered medical bills $1000 in the past 2 years; OR who lost at least 2 weeks of work-related income due to illness/injury; OR who mortgaged a home to pay medical bills."

Uncovered medical bills of $10,000 in the past two years does would not necessarily be the cause of the bankruptcy - it would depend on what other debts are involved.

Loss of two weeks of work related income due to illness/injury would not qualify as medical expenses causing the bankruptcy. It is the loss of wages from not working that would be the cause. Medical insurance or nationalized medicine would not change this. Medical insurance and nationalized medicine would not pay for lost wages.

Mortgaging a home to pay for medical bills would not necessarily be the cause of the bankruptcy - it would depend on the reason for not paying the mortgage - job loss for instance.


"Debtors who gave no answers regarding reasons for their bankruptcy were excluded from analyses."

This would skew the results - perhaps significantly.


"We altered the 2001 criteria to include debtors who had been forced to quit work due to illness or injury."

This would certainly skew the results. One does not quit work based on whether one has medical insurance or not. Quitting work and the loss of income would be the reason for the bankruptcy.

As I said previously, I knew that I would be able to disprove your agruement with your own source.

 

????

Last year, i got flu in january, and was stopped for two weeks. The social system took in charge half my salary, and the company paid the rest of it, so that i didn't loose anything.

So Targus, you think the 4 authors of the study were oriented in their conclusion and that the time they spent on the analysis can be thrown away with a few " Or " and maybe " If " in this post ? I imagine if they came to these conclusions, there's a reason, an analysis before, some hours/weeks spent working on that, no ?

Is it so impossible/annoying to imagine it might be true ?