[Pants-of-dog]

Capitalism works.

If you force people to buy insurance?

[wat0n]

Just as they quickly got used to Obamacare, they'd get used to universal coverage, esp. once it gets explained to them that it means they are less likely to get sick or die.

One would think so, but hasn't this been done for years if not decades now?

If they don't want to contribute, they shouldn't then whine if they need healthcare and can't get access to it without going bankrupt. Do you agree with this idea? Do you agree this attitude is immature to say the least?

[Pants-of-dog]

So people deserve to die of easily treatable diseases if they are unable to buy insurance, since their poverty mught be due to immaturity.

[wat0n]

So people deserve to die of easily treatable diseases if they are unable to buy insurance, since their poverty mught be due to immaturity.

The poor are covered by Medicaid. The refusers should be able to get insurance if they wanted, but they don't and they consciously vote for politicians who don't want to make it compulsory or expand Medicaid.

Fortunately, this has been changing these last few years but holdouts remain.

[late]

If they don't want to contribute, they shouldn't then whine if they need healthcare and can't get access to it without going bankrupt. Do you agree with this idea? Do you agree this attitude is immature to say the least?

Every sane country has some sort of national health care (there are exceptions). Even poor countries, it's the sane thing to do.

You are using economic ideas that were dead a hundred years ago. It's not sane.

[wat0n]

Every sane country has some sort of national health care (there are exceptions). Even poor countries, it's the sane thing to do.

You are using economic ideas that were dead a hundred years ago. It's not sane.

I'm not using ideas from a century ago, they are.

I want them to do as they say.

As far as I'm concerned, getting some form of insurance should be compulsory, with taxpayer-funded subsidies if necessary.

[late]

I'm not using ideas from a century ago...

Thanks for the laugh.

[wat0n]

Thanks for the laugh.

"As far as I'm concerned, getting some form of insurance should be compulsory, with taxpayer-funded subsidies if necessary."

[Pants-of-dog]

The poor are covered by Medicaid. The refusers should be able to get insurance if they wanted, but they don't and they consciously vote for politicians who don't want to make it compulsory or expand Medicaid.

Fortunately, this has been changing these last few years but holdouts remain.

Many people are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford insurance. For example, many can only afford health insurance if they also get the subsidies, but they only do so if they do their taxes and apply for the subsidies.

So if someone is in this financial bracket and forgets to fill out the paperwork, because they have ADHD (for example), should they be refused medical care?

[wat0n]

Many people are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford insurance. For example, many can only afford health insurance if they also get the subsidies, but they only do so if they do their taxes and apply for the subsidies.

So if someone is in this financial bracket and forgets to fill out the paperwork, because they have ADHD (for example), should they be refused medical care?

No, but you can't deny there are voters who reject getting insurance even if they could.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, but you can't deny there are voters who reject getting insurance even if they could.

And that should be their choice, should it not?

[wat0n]

And that should be their choice, should it not?

Sure, but if they don't contribute to the risk pool they should pay for their treatment, shouldn't they?

Even if that means taking up on debts and going bankrupt.

If you don't think so, then why should it be their choice?

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure, but if they don't contribute to the risk pool they should pay for their treatment, shouldn't they?

Even if that means taking up on debts and going bankrupt.

If you don't think so, then why should it be their choice?

Your weird moral justifications for depriving people of medical care are morally loathsome. So no, I do not agree.

It is their choice because that is how capitalism is supposed to work, and the USA is capitalist.

[wat0n]

Your weird moral justifications for depriving people of medical care are morally loathsome. So no, I do not agree.

It is their choice because that is how capitalism is supposed to work, and the USA is capitalist.

How is it morally loathsome to expect people to contribute to collective schemes?

I am not saying they shouldn't get access to healthcare. I am saying they should pay it in full if they don't want to contribute.

[Pants-of-dog]

How is it morally loathsome to expect people to contribute to collective schemes?

Because you advocate depriving people of necessary medical care as a punishment for not doing paperwork, even when the reason for their not doing paperwork is out of their control.

I am not saying they shouldn't get access to healthcare. I am saying they should pay it in full if they don't want to contribute.

Oh, so you are going to make them broke, possibly homeless, and probably unable to access medical care in the future.

No wonder the USA is so bad at stopping people from dying of easily treatable diseases.

[wat0n]

Oh, so you are going to make them broke, possibly homeless, and probably unable to access medical care in the future.

No wonder the USA is so bad at stopping people from dying of easily treatable diseases.

Sounds like an excuse to get benefits without paying for them. Is this how you conduct yourself in life?

[Pants-of-dog]

Sounds like an excuse to get benefits without paying for them. Is this how you conduct yourself in life?

You seem to be justifying denying necessary medical care by accusing sick people of being too immoral to earn the “benefits” of medical care.

Why do you think necessary medical care is a “benefit” reserved for only those whom you feel deserve it?

[late]

"As far as I'm concerned, getting some form of insurance should be compulsory, with taxpayer-funded subsidies if necessary."

Your ideology comports with the Republican effort to turn back the clock a couple hundred years..

[wat0n]

You seem to be justifying denying necessary medical care by accusing sick people of being too immoral to earn the “benefits” of medical care.

Why do you think necessary medical care is a “benefit” reserved for only those whom you feel deserve it?

The "benefit" isn't the medical care, if they need it they should still get it. The benefit is getting it for free.

Again, why should people who do not contribute to the risk pool get service for free?

Your ideology comports with the Republican effort to turn back the clock a couple hundred years..

Do Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland have a healthcare system like from a couple hundred years ago?

Note that if you're not insured (e.g. because you're a foreigner) you will be billed for any healthcare services you request in any of those countries.

[Pants-of-dog]

The "benefit" isn't the medical care, if they need it they should still get it. The benefit is getting it for free.

Again, why should people who do not contribute to the risk pool get service for free?

Because treating medical care as a commodity is inherently set up to exclude people from accessing necessary medical care, which then results in people dying of easily treatable diseases and injuries.

Not only that, preventing infectious people from getting treatment is a medical risk for the entire community.