A highly biased healthcare poll

[Citizen James]

A slightly tongue in cheek poll - how should society deal with people who are willing to work but cannot afford whatever medical care they need (or should they just let people suffer and die for lack thereof)?

[Earth]

Force them to buy coverage. Barring that, fucking off.

I kid, I kid.

[phk]

If a person works hard and is honest such a situation would never happen (libertarian/fantasyland)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The first one.

[justfollowingtheelections]

If a person works hard and is honest such a situation would never happen (libertarian/fantasyland)

Hey, at least you admit it.

[phk]

If a person works hard and is honest such a situation would never happen (libertarian/fantasyland)

Hey, at least you admit it.

I just c/p'd the entire title.

[opebo]

The way the poll is phrased shows a misunderstanding of our capitalist system.  The government already 'steps in' and gives health care (and great privilege overall) to the owners.  It requires that the lower classes receive none.  My point is that the State already stipulates who shall and shall not be care for by the medical profession.

[Vepres]

Die you insignificant pests!!! Bwahahahaha...

Just kidding. Obviously nobody should be denied emergency care but government should otherwise not interfere.

[pogo stick]

If a person works hard and is honest such a situation would never happen (libertarian/fantasyland)

This poll is so retarded.

[Franzl]

Just kidding. Obviously nobody should be denied emergency care but government should otherwise not interfere.

Do you understand the problematic results of only providing emergency care?

Such as people not ever getting proper treatment for things like cancer.

Or that providing "free" treatement in hospital ERs when an "emergency" happens increases the bill for everyone else? It's not like treatment is ever really free of charge, it's just a matter of who ends up paying for it.

Preventive care would keep people from requiring "emergency care" in many cases, and would not only keep people healthier, but would also reduce overall costs.


That said, I'm still undecided myself on whether a government system is desirable, but at the very least, whether through directly public or private means, care must be universal or near-universal. Anything else seems quite dangerous to me.

[Coburn In 2012]

b or c works just fine for me.  I actually lean to c.

[John Dibble]

Shouldn't there be an option four?

"Gently usher the sick into the next world for the sake of the nation." (fascist)

You know, just saying.

[Vepres]

Just kidding. Obviously nobody should be denied emergency care but government should otherwise not interfere.

Do you understand the problematic results of only providing emergency care?

Such as people not ever getting proper treatment for things like cancer.

Or that providing "free" treatement in hospital ERs when an "emergency" happens increases the bill for everyone else? It's not like treatment is ever really free of charge, it's just a matter of who ends up paying for it.

Preventive care would keep people from requiring "emergency care" in many cases, and would not only keep people healthier, but would also reduce overall costs.


That said, I'm still undecided myself on whether a government system is desirable, but at the very least, whether through directly public or private means, care must be universal or near-universal. Anything else seems quite dangerous to me.

Of course I understand. And by the way, I include catastrophic long term disease such as cancer an emergency, if not an immediate one.

Indeed, I want near-universal coverage. I just think more regulation or a "public option" will do more harm than good.

By the way, I saw a Lou Dobbs report that showed our situation is not as bad as some say.

Of the 42 million uninsured, roughlly 30 million are already eligible for a government program (medicare, medicaid) or are young and healthy.

By the way, nobody brings this up, but illegal immigrants are a huge burden on our system.