[One Degree]

Yes, you did.
You can claim you said this and that, but what you said was. "Nobody in America dies or will die because of poor health care." And then you basically said, "The poor get good health care from Medicaid but the working poor don't because they earn too little to afford private insurance and too much to qualify for Medicaid."

Right there you admitted that the working poor do die from poor health care.

It doesn't matter if it is unfair or fair, the question we were arguing was 'do some Americans die because they get poor health care'. You said no, we said yes, they do.
.

That kind of depends on how you define poor health care. People on Medicaid get free dental and vision care which many working people can not afford. I am sure someone in the US may have died from not getting dental care, but it is not something that happens so often we should make national decisions on it. People without medical insurance may end up bankrupt but they will still be treated.
So perhaps you should tell me who these people are who are dying from poor health care first.

Edit: @Steve_American
Actually, I don’t remember ever saying no one dies from lack of health care. Could you post that please.

[Steve_American]

@One Degree
[Special Olympian wrote] "What are you talking about? Not being able to afford regular medical check ups or care for when symptoms those check ups could have prevented is killing people.
Reagan was the one who put the mentally ill on the streets, hope that helps."[/quote]

You replied.

Nonsense. Our poorest qualify for Medicaid. It covers more than millions of working and retired people can afford. I would love to have free dental and vision. I would love to have free transportation. We now have the PACE program for those who can’t live by themselves. 3 people in my building of 20 have entered it. It is like living in a luxury hotel from what they have come back to tell us. They are responsible for nothing. Everything is provided.
Liberals pushed it, it is silly to suggest conservatives would start such a push.

Edit: @SpecialOlympian
I should have clarified. PACE is only for those who qualify for Medicaid.

It is right there.
However, I can see now that I reacted more to the "Nonsense" part and skimmed over the working poor part.

What Special Olympian said was not 'nonsense'. You admitted as much in your second sentence. That is what I was reacting to.
.

[One Degree]

@One Degree
[Special Olympian wrote] "What are you talking about? Not being able to afford regular medical check ups or care for when symptoms those check ups could have prevented is killing people.
Reagan was the one who put the mentally ill on the streets, hope that helps."

You replied.

It is right there.
However, I can see now that I reacted more to the "Nonsense" part and skimmed over the working poor part.

What Special Olympian said was not 'nonsense'. You admitted as much in your second sentence. That is what I was reacting to.
.[/quote]

I believe it is ‘nonsense’ because such statements are intended to give the impression many people are dying because they are being denied healthcare due to poverty. The poor have known how to avoid this for decades. They go to an emergency room that can not refuse them. This drives up health care costs for the rest of us but it does not cause them to die.

[Steve_American]

I believe it is ‘nonsense’ because such statements are intended to give the impression many people are dying because they are being denied healthcare due to poverty. The poor have known how to avoid this for decades. They go to an emergency room that can not refuse them. This drives up health care costs for the rest of us but it does not cause them to die.

1] It is not nonsense because she didn't say the poorest Americans are the ones doing the dying. She just claimed that some Americans are dying because they can't afford healthcare. This is true and, therefore, not nonsense.

2] Also, the emergency room does not provided *all* needed healthcare. It only provides acute care. Care for a chronic condition like cancer, high blood pressure or diabetes is not provided by an emergency room. Those conditions kill a lot of people every year.
.

[One Degree]

1] It is not nonsense because she didn't say the poorest Americans are the ones doing the dying. She just claimed that some Americans are dying because they can't afford healthcare. This is true and, therefore, not nonsense.

2] Also, the emergency room does not provided *all* needed healthcare. It only provides acute care. Care for a chronic condition like cancer, high blood pressure or diabetes is not provided by an emergency room. Those conditions kill a lot of people every year.
.

Again, I believe this is misleading. The only ways you could not receive treatment are...
1. You have assets and don’t wish to spend them on your healthcare. Otherwise, if you spend your assets you qualify for Medicaid and your treatment will be paid for. This is what huge number of seniors do for their final care.
2. You have mental problems that prevent you from applying for assistance.

I don’t see how either of these should be taken into consideration in national health care policy unless that policy is to force people to do things they don’t want to.

[Steve_American]

Again, I believe this is misleading. The only ways you could not receive treatment are...
1. You have assets and don’t wish to spend them on your healthcare. Otherwise, if you spend your assets you qualify for Medicaid and your treatment will be paid for. This is what huge number of seniors do for their final care.
2. You have mental problems that prevent you from applying for assistance.

I don’t see how either of these should be taken into consideration in national health care policy unless that policy is to force people to do things they don’t want to.

#1 So, you think that after 40 years of flat real wages the working poor have assets to liquidate and then they would qualify for Medicaid.
I think that their wage income is too high to qualify.
You are quite ignorant.

[One Degree]

#1 So, you think that after 40 years of flat real wages the working poor have assets to liquidate and then they would qualify for Medicaid.
I think that their wage income is too high to qualify.
You are quite ignorant.

No, your reasoning is faulty because it does not consider what really happens in real life. If you are working and have a life threatening illness then that justifies you quitting your job and qualifying for Medicaid. Your argument also eliminates the reality that if you are working then it is very likely you have insurance. Once you actually look at the reality of people in these situations, you see they may suffer economically but they always have an option for health care. They are not dying because of lack of income. It is possible they could do so by their own free choice however.
I think you might be surprised also at how generous employers and coworkers often are to those with serious illness. I was absolutely amazed at how generous Walgreens and my wife’s coworkers were when she battled cancer. Just one example was they paid her full salary as long as she was capable of making a 5 minute appearance.

[Pants-of-dog]

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26353 ... nce-deadly

Abstract

About 28 million Americans are currently uninsured, and millions more could lose coverage under policy reforms proposed in Congress. At the same time, a growing number of policy leaders have called for going beyond the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to a single-payer national health insurance system that would cover every American. These policy debates lend particular salience to studies evaluating the health effects of insurance coverage. In 2002, an Institute of Medicine review concluded that lack of insurance increases mortality, but several relevant studies have appeared since that time. This article summarizes current evidence concerning the relationship of insurance and mortality. The evidence strengthens confidence in the Institute of Medicine's conclusion that health insurance saves lives: The odds of dying among the insured relative to the uninsured is 0.71 to 0.97.

So, kack of insurance does lead to more deaths in the USA, and a single payer public health care system would save lives.

[One Degree]

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2635326/relationship-health-insurance-mortality-lack-insurance-deadly

Abstract

About 28 million Americans are currently uninsured, and millions more could lose coverage under policy reforms proposed in Congress. At the same time, a growing number of policy leaders have called for going beyond the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to a single-payer national health insurance system that would cover every American. These policy debates lend particular salience to studies evaluating the health effects of insurance coverage. In 2002, an Institute of Medicine review concluded that lack of insurance increases mortality, but several relevant studies have appeared since that time. This article summarizes current evidence concerning the relationship of insurance and mortality. The evidence strengthens confidence in the Institute of Medicine's conclusion that health insurance saves lives: The odds of dying among the insured relative to the uninsured is 0.71 to 0.97.

So, kack of insurance does lead to more deaths in the USA, and a single payer public health care system would save lives.

Even if I accept this as not being biased, it does not eliminate the deaths are the result of personal choices as I have already described. People, like myself who understand insurance is legalized gambling, are likely to accept their death rather than liquidate their children’s minor inheritance. The uninsured are often very independent people who are willing to take their chances. Insurance is a terrible ‘bet’ for young healthy people. This is why people really push government required health care. Intelligent young people would never pay for it otherwise.
So, many of those uninsured who died got a bad ‘hand of cards’ on their gamble but the odds were still with them being better off without paying for insurance.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, maybe the USA should become a developed country and get public helath care so that people do not need to gamble with their health.

[hartmut]

Well, maybe the USA should become a developed country and get public helath care so that people do not need to gamble with their health.

Similar can be said about crime and justice.
In this aspect US is a pre modern society in international comparison also.
Jeff Rosen, district attorney from California, contemplates that:

[One Degree]

Well, maybe the USA should become a developed country and get public helath care so that people do not need to gamble with their health.

Why should we force people to pay for health care they don’t want? I can support (non federal) government health care, but not if it forces people to participate. What is so terrible about giving them a choice?

[Pants-of-dog]

Why should we force people to pay for health care they don’t want? I can support (non federal) government health care, but not if it forces people to participate. What is so terrible about giving them a choice?

What choice are you talking about?

The choice to die from poverty?

[One Degree]

What choice are you talking about?

The choice to die from poverty?

If I decide not to buy insurance and am refused treatment and die, how is that your decision to make?
This is just part of the ‘liberal moral superiority’ mantra. This can only be justified by believing you are capable of knowing what is ‘right’for me, than I am.
Ofcourse, as I already said the real reason is young people won’t pay for it if given a choice. The moral superiority is just the excuse to force them to.

[Pants-of-dog]

If I decide not to buy insurance and am refused treatment and die, how is that your decision to make?

So the freedom or choice you keep talking about is the freedom or choice to make mistakes that are so stupid that you die.

This is just part of the ‘liberal moral superiority’ mantra. This can only be justified by believing you are capable of knowing what is ‘right’for me, than I am.
Ofcourse, as I already said the real reason is young people won’t pay for it if given a choice. The moral superiority is just the excuse to force them to.

Insulting others by accusing them if false moral superiority and of using this false moral superiority to force others to do something is not an argument.

You apparently think you are morally superior to these people.

[SolarCross]

You are against free choice even if the choices are smart choices, it is simply convenient for you that necessarily some people will make bad choices as it lets you disguise your nefarious motives with false sanctimony.

[One Degree]

So the freedom or choice you keep talking about is the freedom or choice to make mistakes that are so stupid that you die.



Insulting others by accusing them if false moral superiorit;y; and of using this false moral superiority to force others to do something is not an argument.

You apparently think you are morally superior to these people.

This is a very telling comment. I spit up my beer laughing.
So, your ‘moral superiority’ is not false?
What is the purpose of having choices that don’t require both good and bad consequences? Ofcourse you should be allowed to suffer the consequences of your choices.

[Pants-of-dog]

So neither of you responded to the actual argument.

Cool.

[Steve_American]

Pants-of-dog wrote:
What choice are you talking about?

The choice to die from poverty?

If I decide not to buy insurance and am refused treatment and die, how is that your decision to make?
This is just part of the ‘liberal moral superiority’ mantra. This can only be justified by believing you are capable of knowing what is ‘right’for me, than I am.
Ofcourse, as I already said the real reason is young people won’t pay for it if given a choice. The moral superiority is just the excuse to force them to.

One Degree, if many of the ones dying are children that makes your argument kind of heartless. Doesn't it? Or do you think that parental rights are so absolute that they can literally play Russian Roulette with their children's lives?

You do understand that MMT claims that all dollars are IOUs and as such are destroyed as soon as they are deposited into the US Gov. bank acc. at the Fed. Res., right? And so, all spending is with newly created dollars.
If the tax system was progressive enough then almost all those working poor families who want to gamble with their children's lives would not be paying taxes anyway. Except cigarette and booze taxes. And, Soc. Sec. FICA taxes. They might even being getting "earned income tax credits" or some such.
To me, the economy is structured such that dollars flow from the poor to the rich. Having the Gov. take dollars from the rich and give them to the poor is just allowing the system to keep going forever. Without this to counter the upward flow of dollars sooner or later the rich have so much of the dollars that the poor can't live and you get revolutions.
America does not have empty land in the West that the poor can get for free to live on. That ended officially in 1890.
.

[One Degree]

Pants-of-dog wrote:
What choice are you talking about?

The choice to die from poverty?


One Degree, if many of the ones dying are children that makes your argument kind of heartless. Doesn't it? Or do you think that parental rights are so absolute that they can literally play Russian Roulette with their children's lives?

You do understand that MMT claims that all dollars are IOUs and as such are destroyed as soon as they are deposited into the US Gov. bank acc. at the Fed. Res., right? And so, all spending is with newly created dollars.
If the tax system was progressive enough then almost all those working poor families who want to gamble with their children's lives would not be paying taxes anyway. Except cigarette and booze taxes. And, Soc. Sec. FICA taxes. They might even being getting "earned income tax credits" or some such.
To me, the economy is structured such that dollars flow from the poor to the rich. Having the Gov. take dollars from the rich and give them to the poor is just allowing the system to keep going forever. Without this to counter the upward flow of dollars sooner or later the rich have so much of the dollars that the poor can't live and you get revolutions.
America does not have empty land in the West that the poor can get for free to live on. That ended officially in 1890.
.

Your argument is one of moral superiority. You insinuate you know better than parents what is best for their children and those who disagree are the ignorant. You then throw in economics as if you can pay these people for letting you make their decisions. Once you eliminate the possibility of your own superiority, there is no argument left. Because if you believe we are equal then you can not judge these parents.
There is some necessity for moral superiority of the majority, but the further you remove it from the community the more unfair it becomes.

Edit: To explain it another way, we have become obsessed with the importance of the individual. This has resulted in the individual’s longevity becoming more important than his happiness. What difference does it make if you live 60 or 80 years if you are not happy? We need to understand communities of accepted values, even if we think they are harmful to individuals, provide a more harmonious life for that individual. Our life is short no matter what we do. Let people enjoy it.
We should not be concentrating on forcing individuals to be ‘better’, but on providing communities where they are happy and will naturally become better.