Quote:
Originally Posted by GBBob
If you want to promote a society where if you can't pay then you don't get treated, then so be it, but I hope that never happens. There are a lot of legitimate discussions you can have on funding and whether the haves should be supporting the have nots, but as a human being I don't know how you could turn your head to someone in need, regardless of their ability to pay. Of course there are abusers and there are parts of the health care system that are corrupt and rotten, but I don't know how the supposed leading country in the World can have health care based on an ability to pay.
|
There should be SOME safety net, yes, but unfortunately whenever the government does get involved and subsidizes a given industry, the abuse expands. There's no way to effectively distinguish those who cannot pay (the whole amount) versus those who don't WANT to pay the amount.
Riot made me laugh saying "Now people can pay for insurance." Oh yeah? You mean the subsidized cost. It always costs the taxpayers more and more, and to give the needy more means to give the productive less.
I wonder how many people who support ObamaCare would be charged up about it if we added one minor change:
If you've EVER bought a pack of cigarettes (which will now be tracked with your ID) you are exempted from treatment for the following conditions: lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, peripheral artery disease, coronary artery disease, and whatever other smoking related illnesses where a valid causal or statistical link can be verified.
That would certainly keep costs way down.
Because, like it or not, it's not the Wall Street Bankers and stock brokers buying the majority of those cigarettes. Go to a casino and look at who's doing the majority of the smoking, with the costs of their treatment to be passed on to you at a later date.