Stay outa my pockets

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

srellim234 wrote:
You also can't have rational discussions if the dissenters come in hysterically and without respect or an intelligent presentation.
Sorry, Steve. THIS dissenter doesn't NEED an intelligent presentation.

I'm NOT SELLING ANYTHING!

And I have NO respect for Pelosi or her clowns. Nor will I.

Lie to me and steal from me, and then try to demand respect? Piss on her.

BO needs to show me WHY this makes sense. So far, he has failed to provide the necessary details.

And there's a LONG history of shouting in US politics.

Don't even THINK about condemning the dissenters in this case, when ALL they're doing is shouting... because I may just remind folks of the RNCs, where people were physically attacked by lefty dissenters.


User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 Nissan Versa SL hatch w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

I'll quote themadscientist on this one:

"Trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior doesn't work with grown-ups."

Or justify it.

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

well played sir!

User avatar
hannibal
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:38 am
Car: Red Line to Glenmont
Location: Washington DC

Post

nissangirl74 wrote:
I didn't miss the issue. I was addressing the quoted government agencies that offer FREE healthcare. The taxpayers have to pay for it, which was the OP's original point, which I agree with completely. I don't mind helping anyone who truly needs it but I'd much rather try to help someone who is putting forth a concerted effort to help themselves.
My bad then.

But I'm confused. Who gets free healthcare?? Veterans get free heathcare at VA centers I believe. Do people receiving public assistance get free, unlimited access to healthcare? I dont think so but I really dont know. If this is the case, I'd rather give people subsidized medical care instead of cash assistance without conditions.

Cash transfers are the least effective long term solution. Subsidies can have the effect of changing consumer behavior where cash transfers can be used at the recipient's discretion. Over the past decade (at least), most of our public assistance has moved away from cash transfers to programs like WIC. I'd like to see housing benefits take the same form (if they havent already).

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

hannibal wrote: Do people receiving public assistance get free, unlimited access to healthcare?
Indigent people get emergency care on your (and my) dime. People without insurance are treated as well. People who file medical bankruptcy? They're treated on our dime as well (after all is said and done).

In AZ, illegal immigrants are treated in the same E.R. as citizens, the insured, and paying customers... and that's CRAP. I know, I sound cruel, but let me illustrate a scenario for you:

Spent many a night in the ER when my wife was battling terminal cancer. Usually, these ER visits were terrifying, because of the effects of the illness, and she needed care RIGHT NOW.

However, I, as a protective husband, had to sit and endure the frustration of waiting as I watched some illegal who had cut his head open after falling off a truck bed (drunk as hell, I might add) go ahead of her in line. (This was one of many such examples.)

That guy's mere existence in that room tells me there's something fundamentally wrong with how we do things here. The fact that her suffering was lengthened (because he strolled in 30 seconds before her) makes me sick to my stomach.

So, pardon me for not being a quiet dissenter.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

^ Which is why we need to remove the law that says ERs cannot refuse anyone. Let ERs refuse people, either on a legal basis or severity basis. If it's illegal for them to be here/there, denied. If it's not an emergency and be treated more effectively and efficiently elsewhere, denied.

ERs and urgent care centers are forced to implement policies that get people out quickly that don't necessarily need to be there. The opposite should be happening in that the severity of the condition should be the determining factor of who gets treated first and how long they wait for. If you make those that don't need to be there wait for a long time, they'll end up leaving to go somewhere else. They're the ones who used the system improperly by going to the wrong place, which is part of the reason why ER costs are so high in part because of the over usage and to deter people from going. This is where insurance companies (or UH) comes in and the way it's used and the ineffectiveness of price communication in making choices, allowing the consumer to go to the ER because he/she is unaware of the price because their price is the premium paid to the insurance company.

An analogy, if you get on the wrong bus, the bus driver isn't going to cater to you and drive you out of his route to get you where you need to go or to the right bus line. He's going to refuse you and tell you the right place to go and to take a walk. If he can get you there along his route, fine, but he isn't going to cater to you. Why should the health care system cater to those who got on at the wrong stop?

With certain things dealing with illegals, I can see where some things could come into play, and Greg, you being a legal expert of sorts, correct me if I'm wrong. But if that illegal has a (potentially) life-threatening injury such as cuts to the head from falling from a truck (to use your example) where head trauma could be an issue, if the hospital refuses care, the government in which that illegal is from could come back and raise human rights issues, hospitals could be sued, etc. I understand that it's an illegal and I agree with you, but the legality of it or the foreign relations side of it I don't think allows us to refuse care, at least in such a case.

User avatar
hsckris
Posts: 1623
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:02 pm
Car: 07 V8 4runner

Post

For those who want details about the plan:

http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm


User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Great post as usual, Smocky.

It all comes down to the attorneys (the only REAL winners in these matters).

User avatar
hannibal
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:38 am
Car: Red Line to Glenmont
Location: Washington DC

Post

Emergency care is much different than a visit to the doctor.

Should paramedics check for insurance cards before transporting a car accident victim to the ER? Hell no!

And once in the ER waiting room, individuals ARE triaged, which is entirely appropriate IMO. I can understand the frustration of seeing another be treated ahead of a suffering loved one, but this cannot be the deciding factor. Two questions: how did you know the other patient's citizenship status? And second, if you were unable to afford insurance, would you find it acceptable to have your wife denied treatment? I wouldnt and I doubt you would as well. I cannot agree with the suggestion that the illegal guy with a head wound shouldnt receive care. He's just supposed to (potentially) die??

I feel the issue of illegals in the ER goes back to why these people are illegally here in the first place. But thats a different discussion.

smockers, I dont believe your assumption about the hospital and country being held liable for refusing treatment is true. I believe we choose to provide ER care to everyone in need. I support that position. I dont believe someone in a life threatening situation should be denied care. You could make the argument for denying care for a broken finger, but a head wound, no way. What about a tourist visiting from another country? Not a citizen, no SSN, do they get emergency care? Or only after verifying theyre insured or have a bank balance sufficient to cover the cost of care?

I do recognize that paying customers cover the costs incurred by the nonpaying patients. But if we can reduce these costs, I am OK with this situation. Just like my tax dollars support local schools even though I have no children. Just like my money paves roads in south GA Ive never driven on. And just I pay the salary of firemen, even though Ive never needed them to save my home.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 15983
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Becky, the Military doesn't get free health care for life until they've hit 20 years or have sustained injury and even then it's only a percentage.

Wanna talk about wasteful spending? Each Senator needs only serve 1 term to retire with 100% pay for the rest of his life, when he dies, his family gets it...err wife does. All for one term...

Sorry that went a bit off topic.

User avatar
C-Kwik
Moderator
Posts: 8070
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 9:28 pm
Car: 2013 Chevy Volt, 1991 Honda CRX DX

Post

AZhitman wrote:Indigent people get emergency care on your (and my) dime. People without insurance are treated as well. People who file medical bankruptcy? They're treated on our dime as well (after all is said and done).
Yep. So I don't see how the argument people make that they don't want to pay for these people's expenses hold water since they already do. Implementing a UH system would compartmentalize it so that anyone receiving "free" benefits would only be a burden on a single system. As it stands, they are a burden on any systems where they might be transfer the debt to (directly or indirectly). Such a circumstance could mean that people who pay for insurance/medical expenses AND use credit are likely going to be paying a larger share of the over all medical expenses for everyone else. And oif course, this is simplified, but its just to make a point.
AZhitman wrote:In AZ, illegal immigrants are treated in the same E.R. as citizens, the insured, and paying customers... and that's CRAP.
You mean, like people?
AZhitman wrote:I know, I sound cruel, but let me illustrate a scenario for you:

Spent many a night in the ER when my wife was battling terminal cancer. Usually, these ER visits were terrifying, because of the effects of the illness, and she needed care RIGHT NOW.

However, I, as a protective husband, had to sit and endure the frustration of waiting as I watched some illegal who had cut his head open after falling off a truck bed (drunk as hell, I might add) go ahead of her in line. (This was one of many such examples.)

That guy's mere existence in that room tells me there's something fundamentally wrong with how we do things here. The fact that her suffering was lengthened (because he strolled in 30 seconds before her) makes me sick to my stomach.

So, pardon me for not being a quiet dissenter.
Greg, we all can empathize with Stacey's illness and what you and your family went through. But consider that every other person that goes into an E.R., regardless of where they come from, how much money they have and if they have insurance or not, is someone's husband, wife, daughter, son, etc. The value of one's life can not be measured by how much money they make or if they can pay the bill. Consider for a moment that for whatever reason, you had no insurance, and the E.R. you went to simply rejected you. How would you feel then?

As far as the circumstance with the drunk guy who fell out of his truck, what if he were a citizen or legal resident? Its not uncommon for legal people to get drunk and receive stupid injuries (hell many don't even need to be drunk ). Stacey was surely dealt a bad hand. There's not a whole lot we could do to change the fact that bad hands get dealt. But do consider that most illegal immigrants here are likely here because they were dealt a bad hand themselves. Being born to a low-income family in a country where economic opportunities are small. So like many hard working people in the states, they are doing what they feel they need to. Perhaps to the extent that it would even some citizens to shame...
nissangirl74 wrote:We shouldn't. However, in order for any new plan to work, we must first identify the root cause of the problem. Yes, the healthcare system is broken. But why? When a system fails, it is because one of the components stops functioning correctly.
I couldn't agree with this statement more. Much like a car, we don't throw away a car because it stops running. You fix the problem. Could throwing away the car be a valid solution? Sure. But you still have to evaluate what the problems are, and if its worth fixing in relation to other options.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

C-Kwik wrote:Much like a car, we don't throw away a car because it stops running. You fix the problem.
Like the Obama-sponsored C.A.R.S. program?

Great post otherwise, Chano.

Trust me, I can see both sides, but I can only rant from one.

User avatar
szh
Posts: 15932
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

WDRacing wrote:Wanna talk about wasteful spending? Each Senator needs only serve 1 term to retire with 100% pay for the rest of his life, when he dies, his family gets it...err wife does. All for one term...
I was not aware of this!

Z

User avatar
nissangirl74
Moderator
Posts: 13910
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:15 pm
Car: 2014 Xterra Pro4X, '12 Titan 4x4, '98 240sx, '89 Pao, '77 620, '72 240Z w/RB25, '68 510, '67 WRL411, '67.5 SPL 311, '63 Bluebird, '63 NL320

Post

WDRacing wrote:Becky, the Military doesn't get free health care for life until they've hit 20 years or have sustained injury and even then it's only a percentage.

Wanna talk about wasteful spending? Each Senator needs only serve 1 term to retire with 100% pay for the rest of his life, when he dies, his family gets it...err wife does. All for one term...

Sorry that went a bit off topic.
Thanks for clearing that up. Obviously the info I had was wrong.

Your commet about the senator wasn't way off topic. We are paying for that too.
hannibal wrote:My bad then.

But I'm confused. Who gets free healthcare??
The elderly, minor children, the unemployed, pregnant women...essentially everyone who can't afford to pay for it themselves.

User avatar
C-Kwik
Moderator
Posts: 8070
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 9:28 pm
Car: 2013 Chevy Volt, 1991 Honda CRX DX

Post

AZhitman wrote:Like the Obama-sponsored C.A.R.S. program?
LOL! Though, I'm not in support of that program. Nothing wrong with trying to promote fuel economy and eco-friendly cars, but this just doesn't appear to have a strong cost-benefit ratio attached to it. Which I feel is the problem. And unfortunately for the program, it is a problem that is unlikely to be eliminated without crippling the program (ie rendering it useless). Which means scrapping the program is likely the best option.

User avatar
hannibal
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:38 am
Car: Red Line to Glenmont
Location: Washington DC

Post

nissangirl74 wrote:The elderly, minor children, the unemployed, pregnant women...essentially everyone who can't afford to pay for it themselves.
Dont think this is true. We wouldnt have any problems if everyone who needed care received it. The only issue would be paying for it, which is what we're working on now as part of extending coverage to everyone.

About senators, I just looked into this and this is what I found...

Quote »Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.[/quote]That lasts sentence seems to contradict the first, though. Other sources say something different. I dunno.

User avatar
nissangirl74
Moderator
Posts: 13910
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:15 pm
Car: 2014 Xterra Pro4X, '12 Titan 4x4, '98 240sx, '89 Pao, '77 620, '72 240Z w/RB25, '68 510, '67 WRL411, '67.5 SPL 311, '63 Bluebird, '63 NL320

Post

hannibal wrote:Dont think this is true.
I have seen it, more than once, in multiple states.

Not discounting what you know, but I have seen this personally.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

hannibal wrote:smockers, I dont believe your assumption about the hospital and country being held liable for refusing treatment is true. I believe we choose to provide ER care to everyone in need. I support that position. I dont believe someone in a life threatening situation should be denied care. You could make the argument for denying care for a broken finger, but a head wound, no way. What about a tourist visiting from another country? Not a citizen, no SSN, do they get emergency care? Or only after verifying theyre insured or have a bank balance sufficient to cover the cost of care?
Tourists are here legally though, with visas, which gives them certain rights and protections.

I didn't necessarily say being held liable, I said it could be a possibility, but that's why I referred to someone else to correct me if I was wrong.

We choose to provide ER care to anyone? Did you vote on that because I sure didn't? You contradicted yourself in your statement, making the same argument that I made earlier.

User avatar
szh
Posts: 15932
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

smockers83 wrote:Tourists are here legally though, with visas, which gives them certain rights and protections.
Hmm ... interesting issue. Whenever I have had relatives visit from overseas - (like my mother-on-law or sister, who might staty for a month or two), I make it a point of getting them health coverage. Special tourist health coverage is available.

My concern is that I'd rather have coverage rather than try to find out what to do in case of emergency, or even non-emergency health situations (for example, they have to go to a doctor for an ankle sprain or something like that)

Z

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 Nissan Versa SL hatch w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

Observation related to this issue but totally totally unrelated to moving this debate forward:

I've been watching the PGA Championship golf tournament updates on the Golf Channel. AARP is running a commercial about "some parties" trying to derail the debate with false claims about how the healthcare reform plans in Congress will impact their Medicare. The ad features various vehicles, mostly SUVs, cutting off an ambulance and forcing it down alleys and such trying to delay, derail and stop it from its mission.

Now, the observation:

In the very last scene, just behind and just to the right of the ambulance, is a beautiful gray Nissan Versa.

Go Nissan!

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

Yeah, I saw that commercial. Showing AARP as a sponsor tells me 2 things....

1. Obama came out with their support before they "announced" it I guess2. The guys at AARP who just came out and said they did not support it are liers

User avatar
hannibal
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:38 am
Car: Red Line to Glenmont
Location: Washington DC

Post

smockers83 wrote:Tourists are here legally though, with visas, which gives them certain rights and protections.

I didn't necessarily say being held liable, I said it could be a possibility, but that's why I referred to someone else to correct me if I was wrong.

We choose to provide ER care to anyone? Did you vote on that because I sure didn't? You contradicted yourself in your statement, making the same argument that I made earlier.
Good point on a visa providing some protection. But what about Canadians in the US? No visa required. But theyre here legally which I guess is the central issue. Goes back to what I mentioned earlier, and that being why people from other countries are unable to legally enter the US as easily as a Canadian.

We choose to provide ER care to everyone period. I dont think this is a law. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is not a law, but a guiding principle for lack of a better term. I feel providing life saving treatment is a similar principle. Now I gotta find the background behind that quote before someone calls me on it.

BTW, I dont see where I may have contradicted myself. We may have drawn different conclusions from the same information, but I'm not even sure where we may have done that.


Return to “Politics Etc.”