Audience at Tea Party Debate Cheers Leaving Uninsured to Die

[Broomstick]

Anecdotes aside, surely this cannot be the norm, or americans wouldn't still be so adamant about treating healthcare as a commodity rather than a right.

Or maybe they've been deliberately kept ignorant and don't know any better.

Yes, it IS the norm that people in the US, even with insurance, go bankrupt due to major illness or injury. Something like 60% of the bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills. Meanwhile, the public is blasted with "We have the greatest system in the world!" by the government, the media, and quite a bit of the medical industry.

People are not always rational, and this situation is a proof of that.

[K. A. Pital]

Can we at least avoid the cheap shot of claiming that advocates of individualism and Republicans in general share the view that people should be left to die and that cheering a person's death is acceptable? Rick Perry and Ron Paul both disagreed with the audience, and Andrew Sullivan outright criticized them, and as far as I could hear it was only a few who cheered and laughed at the actual suggestion (idiots, nuts and trolls are present in any large crowd). Most of the positive reaction there was applause at the (dubious) idea that it isn't the government's job to take care of that and that instead churches should fund healthcare. I say this despite not supporting either Rick Perry or Ron Paul.

Rick Perry and Ron Paul are under public pressure to appeal to the electorate. Nobody knows what they REALLY think about people left to rot and die. And nobody will. Sometimes - very rarely! - you get politicians to actually embarass themselves by leaving the mike on and then people can hear what they REALLY think about stuff, but that is vanishingly rare a case.

Republicans don't share that view, but Tea Partiers? That loony town? God knows, I've been leaving very few comments about the Tea Party here, and mostly reading what comes up in the news. My verdict? Sociopathic fucks.

[Julhelm]

Oh, sure, it's good if you need your appendix or gall bladder out, but if you can't cancer, even with insurance, there's a very good chance you'll wind up bankrupt. There were special deals cut for states/Feds to cover people on dialysis, with hemophilia, or HIV because the private companies just wouldn't cover the real costs and the alternative was letting people simply die for lack of money. A major injury - extensive burn, quadriplegia, etc. - will likewise bankrupt you even with insurance.

That sounds absolutely ridiculous. What exactly is the point of insurance in America then, if it doesn't cover everything?

Or maybe they've been deliberately kept ignorant and don't know any better.

Yes, it IS the norm that people in the US, even with insurance, go bankrupt due to major illness or injury. Something like 60% of the bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills. Meanwhile, the public is blasted with "We have the greatest system in the world!" by the government, the media, and quite a bit of the medical industry.

People are not always rational, and this situation is a proof of that

Well I didn't realize your country is that fucked up. It sounds ludicrous TBH. So in that context what I posted before is pretty stupid.

[Eulogy]

That sounds absolutely ridiculous. What exactly is the point of insurance in America then, if it doesn't cover everything?

Money, Dear Boy! Like I said, it's a way for sociopathic monsters to get rich off the suffering and ignorance of others.

Well I didn't realize your country is that fucked up. It sounds ludicrous TBH. So in that context what I posted before is pretty stupid.

Concession accepted.

[Broomstick]

Oh, sure, it's good if you need your appendix or gall bladder out, but if you can't cancer, even with insurance, there's a very good chance you'll wind up bankrupt. There were special deals cut for states/Feds to cover people on dialysis, with hemophilia, or HIV because the private companies just wouldn't cover the real costs and the alternative was letting people simply die for lack of money. A major injury - extensive burn, quadriplegia, etc. - will likewise bankrupt you even with insurance.

That sounds absolutely ridiculous. What exactly is the point of insurance in America then, if it doesn't cover everything?

Well, people need gall bladders and appendixes out often enough, have babies often enough, have broken legs or arms often enough, that the insurance does have some utility. They just don't realize that while it's sort of adequate for those relatively minor illnesses/injuries it's pretty terrible for the big ones.

Well I didn't realize your country is that fucked up. It sounds ludicrous TBH. So in that context what I posted before is pretty stupid.

The thing is, we need to have this country realize how fucked up it is, until then there won't be real change.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, sure, it's good if you need your appendix or gall bladder out, but if you can't cancer, even with insurance, there's a very good chance you'll wind up bankrupt. There were special deals cut for states/Feds to cover people on dialysis, with hemophilia, or HIV because the private companies just wouldn't cover the real costs and the alternative was letting people simply die for lack of money. A major injury - extensive burn, quadriplegia, etc. - will likewise bankrupt you even with insurance.

That sounds absolutely ridiculous. What exactly is the point of insurance in America then, if it doesn't cover everything?

Well, people need gall bladders and appendixes out often enough, have babies often enough, have broken legs or arms often enough, that the insurance does have some utility. They just don't realize that while it's sort of adequate for those relatively minor illnesses/injuries it's pretty terrible for the big ones.

Even the relatively minor illnesses and injuries can easily be fatal without treatment, so insurance does wind up paying for a lot of life-saving medical treatment. Not too long ago, I had a family member in the hospital over injuries that would have killed them, possibly twice over, without a week or two of hospital care. Insurance covered it just fine.

What's falling down here is the system's willingness to treat the "ohmygod" cases that need really extensive hospitalization and routine, long-term treatments at or near the cutting edge of medicine- within the last 20-30 years, as opposed to the last fifty years. Surgeons fifty years ago would have known exactly what to do in the case I mentioned; they couldn't begin to treat cancer or severe burns like we do now. Which makes the fact that said cutting-edge medicine was developed in the US to such an extent all the more ironic...

Anyway, that contributes to what Broomstick would probably call the false sense of security- if you get around enough, you will know people whose insurance covered life-saving medical treatment, or medication essential to their quality of life. The fact that for the rare unfortunates who get hit harder than that, the system doesn't work... that just isn't on the radar.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Anecdotes aside, surely this cannot be the norm, or americans wouldn't still be so adamant about treating healthcare as a commodity rather than a right. Somebody obviously gets some value for money out of their health plans so at least by buying insurance you have a chance that you may get treatment compared to zero chance of treatment if you don't have one. So the guy in the OP is still a retard for chosing not to buy one if he can afford it. I'd take 20% chance over 0% chance any day.

But why should I give a shit? I live in a country with a functioning healthcare system and I'm fine with paying more tax than americans.

Most bankruptcies in the US are the direct result of medical bills. Of those, a person WITH insurance is more likely to actually go bankrupt. The reason for this is simple:

People who want health insurance are a captive audience (and this will get worse now that we are legally required to buy health insurance as of 2014). They cannot reasonably say no. Given what they think they get out of health insurance (not going bankrupt if they get sick), it is, as you say, stupid to not get insurance. This means that insurance companies can in effect charge whatever the fuck they want, and they have been increasing the price for years, to the point that the cost of a health insurance policy for a healthy family of 4 is expensive to the tune of 14,000 USD. Over a quarter of median household income.

If you have a pre-existing condition, they wont accept you. If you have something that went undiagnosed until after you got health insurance, they drop you like a sack of rotten potatoes because you had an undisclosed pre-existing condition. There are enough loopholes to permit them to get out of paying claims on anyone with a chronic condition. Co-pays and deductibles are enough to bankrupt someone on their own. And get this:

Medical bills to insurance companies are larger than the same procedure would be to someone who is not insured. Why? Because there are LOT of uninsured people who need emergency care who never pay the bill. Hospitals have to eat that cost and they compensate for this by ramping up the prices on insured patients, reasoning that they wont have to pay this out of pocket. It is no their fault. They dont really have a choice if they want to stay in the black ink. So between that and a large deductible, someone is going to be heavily in debt if they have insurance. All of that is of course before the insurance company notices that your policy number is losing them money and jack up your premiums or refuse to renew your policy in order to purge you.

So yes. It is fucking fraud on a massive scale. You can pay into a policy for years and come crunch time, they will leave you to die. They are fine for one-time expenses like a broken leg or having a baby, but for chronic or long term conditions like cancer etc... dear god.

[weemadando]

Folks are overlooking baby stuff too. A couple of years back I had an ingrown toenail that was just an annoyance.

And then it got infected and inside of a few days it had gone systemic without me noticing it until I was just about incoherent with fever and pain and ended up driving myself to an out of hours clinic to get antibiotics etc urgently.

Had I just tried to sleep it off, it would have meant hospitalisation AT TGEE VERY LEAST.

So honestly, it's not just surgery and major stuff that has life threatening implications for those unable to access treatment.

[Stark]

Its particularly amusing that in some coutnries it's illegal to refuse cover to someone on various grounds common in America, and yet the companies involved still make money.

[Eulogy]

I would just like to add that the malevolent mandatory insurance law essentially criminalizes being poor. Don't have insurance? Get fined. But you're broke, and can't pay the fine. So you get imprisoned.

Come 2014, there will be even more blood.

[Lord Zentei]

Can we at least avoid the cheap shot of claiming that advocates of individualism and Republicans in general share the view that people should be left to die and that cheering a person's death is acceptable? Rick Perry and Ron Paul both disagreed with the audience, and Andrew Sullivan outright criticized them, and as far as I could hear it was only a few who cheered and laughed at the actual suggestion (idiots, nuts and trolls are present in any large crowd). Most of the positive reaction there was applause at the (dubious) idea that it isn't the government's job to take care of that and that instead churches should fund healthcare. I say this despite not supporting either Rick Perry or Ron Paul.

Rick Perry and Ron Paul are under public pressure to appeal to the electorate. Nobody knows what they REALLY think about people left to rot and die. And nobody will. Sometimes - very rarely! - you get politicians to actually embarass themselves by leaving the mike on and then people can hear what they REALLY think about stuff, but that is vanishingly rare a case.

I think we have little choice but to tentatively, and perhaps reluctantly, give even politicians the benefit of the doubt with regards to them believing what they say. Otherwise, what use is democracy? Of course, if either of those two have any history of actually causing people to be turned away from hospitals and dying as a result, then that's different.

Republicans don't share that view, but Tea Partiers? That loony town? God knows, I've been leaving very few comments about the Tea Party here, and mostly reading what comes up in the news. My verdict? Sociopathic fucks.

Yeah, or at least a vocal minority of them is.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I would just like to add that the malevolent mandatory insurance law essentially criminalizes being poor. Don't have insurance? Get fined. But you're broke, and can't pay the fine. So you get imprisoned.

Come 2014, there will be even more blood.

Yeah, I'm dreading that, I don't have insurance because the choice for me is basically paying an insurance bill or paying my rent. Health insurance won't do me much good if I end up homeless. Ironicly Sadly, the best way to get comprehensive health coverage in the U.S. is to commit a crime that lands you in jail. There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about a guy who did just that.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would just like to add that the malevolent mandatory insurance law essentially criminalizes being poor. Don't have insurance? Get fined. But you're broke, and can't pay the fine. So you get imprisoned.

Come 2014, there will be even more blood.

Yeah, I'm dreading that, I don't have insurance because the choice for me is basically paying an insurance bill or paying my rent. Health insurance won't do me much good if I end up homeless. Ironicly Sadly, the best way to get comprehensive health coverage in the U.S. is to commit a crime that lands you in jail. There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about a guy who did just that.

I have difficulty believing they'll actually imprison people for not buying it/paying the fine as someone suggested, if only because of the number of people that would involve.

[Flagg]

The "fine" is just a tax you pay to my understanding.

[Broomstick]

They've had that system in Massachusetts for a few years now. No one goes to jail for not purchasing health insurance. Worst is they just fine you on an annual basis.

This has also caused issues with people who, just plain and simple, can't afford to purchase insurance but I've haven't followed the matter too closely, as I've been rather pre-occupied with my own family's survival.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

The "fine" is just a tax you pay to my understanding.

That does make more sense.

[Rabid]

Does this fine allow you access to a decent state-sponsored, no private-insurer-involved healthcare, or is just a punitive measure with nothing behind ? Like, basically, not only you wouldn't be covered, but you'd have to pay money to receive nothing in return ?

I'm curious.

[General Mung Beans]

Rick Perry is right: if the Republicans are going to take up the label of "pro-life" they better apply that across the board.

Good point, it sickens me that republicans are (speaking broadly of course) against abortion, yet quite happily put criminals to death, and have a rather cold view of uninsured people. I would love to sit down with one of them and ask them to explain that little nugget.

Ah because serial killers and terrorists are more valuable than fetuses. But as others have noted, this is simply a case of personal responsibility and choice ( ), if you don't decide to buy health insurance when you can afford it, you get what you get.

[Flagg]

Rick Perry is right: if the Republicans are going to take up the label of "pro-life" they better apply that across the board.

Good point, it sickens me that republicans are (speaking broadly of course) against abortion, yet quite happily put criminals to death, and have a rather cold view of uninsured people. I would love to sit down with one of them and ask them to explain that little nugget.

Ah because serial killers and terrorists are more valuable than fetuses.

Yes, actual living human beings are more valuable than fetuses. Or can you prove that fetuses are human beings?

But as others have noted, this is simply a case of personal responsibility and choice ( ), if you don't decide to buy health insurance when you can afford it, you get what you get.

How Christian of you.

[General Mung Beans]

Yes, actual living human beings are more valuable than fetuses. Or can you prove that fetuses are human beings?

That's not my point. Even a cat or a dog has far more of a right to live than Jeffrey Dahmer or Osama Bin Laden.

How Christian of you.

I actually don't agree with what Ron Paul said for that reason, but I am just noting that the interpretation presented here is quite inaccurate.

[JME2]

I'm sickened by reading that article. Absolutely sickened and disgusted.

[Flagg]

That's not my point. Even a cat or a dog has far more of a right to live than Jeffrey Dahmer or Osama Bin Laden.

Based on what criteria?

[Broomstick]

That's not my point. Even a cat or a dog has far more of a right to live than Jeffrey Dahmer or Osama Bin Laden.

Based on what criteria?

People like dogs and cats? (well, most people...)

Should I point out that it was impossible to sentence Dahmer to death because Wisconsin simply doesn't have the death penalty?

The irony in all this was that, as a convicted felon serving time, Dahmer had guaranteed access to healthcare, which law-abiding citizens do not.

[Stark]

Since he's imprisoned by the state, the state is responsible for his welfare. The irony is that in America, people don't consider the state responsible for the welfare of regular citizens.

[Flagg]

While some healthcare is better than no healthcare, prison hospitals aren't exactly ideal.

I'd also point out that alot of people liked Osama Bin Laden and even a few sickos liked Dahmer.