House Votes for Repeal of Health Law in Symbolic Act

[DinoDoc]

please admit that you are wrong instead of this silly/patheic attempt to defend your pov.

My PoV is that your story about your sister was meaningless to the thread and that such anecdotal stories pro and con are mere appeals to emotion and have no place in a rational debate and have stated as much from the beginning of my responses to you.

[DaShi]

Then why didn't you provide some supporting evidence of that?

[BlackCat]

My PoV is that your story about your sister was meaningless to the thread and that such anecdotal stories pro and con are mere appeals to emotion and have no place in a rational debate and have stated as much from the beginning of my responses to you.

And that's were you are wrong - my anectdotal, though true is essntial it's a question of survival or not, and in your world she hadn't survived. You seem to be in favor of a system where she could not have - I find it quite idiotic.

[Egbert]

My PoV is that your story about your sister was meaningless to the thread and that such anecdotal stories pro and con are mere appeals to emotion and have no place in a rational debate and have stated as much from the beginning of my responses to you.

That story is not only far from meaningless, it cuts to the very heart of the matter. Any economic theory must take account of things which, in some cases are arguably not strictly economic, such as human nature, values and so forth. This story illustrates that people may have altruistic impulses which value human lives over some theoretical economic optimum.

You may dismiss such altruism as mere emotion if you wish. You may go on to assert that anyone to poor to pay deserves to die. I am free to disagree with your judgement.

It might be more economically efficient to allow people to die if they can't afford healthcare, debatable. People might choose to have less preventable deaths at the expense of a bit less economic efficiency. I'd rather pay a bit more tax to subsidise health care for the poor even if that is not the best economic outcome.

Of course the economics is important because we must be able to actually pay for the healthcare subsidies. Handy to know how much it is costing us. The argument is by no means strictly economic. Economics is a means to an end. Human nature can not be ignored.

Not a meaningless emotional anecdote.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

My PoV is that your story about your sister was meaningless to the thread and that such anecdotal stories pro and con are mere appeals to emotion and have no place in a rational debate and have stated as much from the beginning of my responses to you.

what about this one - how does it work in the US for the uninsured if they have cancer?

http://www.xmms.org/qna/How_much_does_breast_cancer_treatment_cost_without _insurance-qna11046.html

about 350k for breast cancer treatment, do they get included in the statistics, or do they just die, and are left out, as from healthcare so from the stats?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

to add

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332573/ns/health-cancer/

An Associated Press estimate — based on hospital cancer deaths in 2005 gathered by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality information and other data — suggests that at least 20,000 of the nation’s 560,000 annual cancer deaths are uninsured when they die. Experts said that estimate sounds reasonable.

That’s around 4 percent of the total cancer death toll. One reason is that most fatal cancers occur in people 65 or older — an age group covered by the federal Medicare program. Another is that more than 80 percent of adults under 65 have some form of coverage, including private insurance or the Medicaid program for the poor, according to various estimates.

only 4% of total, and 15% of total do not have coverage ("and it makes sense, according to the article" )... heh... I bet that cancer only strikes the insured, if you are uninsured chances that you have cancer drop like a stone, perhaps it's better to be uninsured afterall

The study makes an even stronger statement about the role insurance plays in the timing of screenings and how that can raise the likelihood of a late-stage diagnosis, experts said.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey last year of 930 households that dealt with cancer found that more than one in four uninsured patients delayed treatment — or decided not to get it — because of the cost.

great system

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The New Deal says other wise.

LOL. You seem to argue that the primary function of government is not to create
civil order and use the New Deal as a perfect example.

I swear own goal is your middle name.

[Dinner]

Do you even know what own goal means? I ask because you're badly misusing it.

[dannubis]

what about this one - how does it work in the US for the uninsured if they have cancer?

http://www.xmms.org/qna/How_much_does_breast_cancer_treatment_cost_without _insurance-qna11046.html

about 350k for breast cancer treatment, do they get included in the statistics, or do they just die, and are left out, as from healthcare so from the stats?

This. DD is an idiot.

[Kidlicious]

Duly noted--in a capitalist system, people who can't pay for something don't get it.

Wait. I thought you advocated a capitalist system.

[giblets]

Wait. I thought you advocated a capitalist system.

He thinks the poor are worthless. Therefore capitalism is good because it doesn't waste any resources providing for worthless people

[MrFun]

Pre-existing conditions are why you need to get insurance. If you could just get insurance as soon as you get sick, all the insurance companies would go out of business. It's basically free money.

So, what does a person who has a preexisting condition do, if they are fired from their job, or lost their job from downsizing? How is that person suppose to obtain health care insurance?

It's not about "handing out wads of cash to people" - it's about people with preexisting conditions wanting to stay alive.

[MrFun]

The fact that YOU don't consider it a waste to give people healthcare doesn't mean that it isn't a waste. People want a lot of things that they don't have. If everyone wants something, giving it to everyone is NOT necessarily a good thing.

You actually think health care is a luxury, rather than something that is a basic necessity?

[OzzyKP]

what about this one - how does it work in the US for the uninsured if they have cancer?

http://www.xmms.org/qna/How_much_does_breast_cancer_treatment_cost_without _insurance-qna11046.html

about 350k for breast cancer treatment, do they get included in the statistics, or do they just die, and are left out, as from healthcare so from the stats?

Pretty amazing that even with all the uninsured we have in this country that you are still 10-20% more likely to survive cancer here than in England.

Why is that?

[Egbert]

Pretty amazing that even with all the uninsured we have in this country that you are still 10-20% more likely to survive cancer here than in England.

Why is that?

To get into those statistics you must be diagnosed AND recorded as having cancer. It may actually be due to a difference in the accuracy and validity of collecting the statistics. I tend to be rather wary, but not dismissive, of statistics. Just sayin'.