The Chaffetz quote about doing without an iPhone so people could afford healthcare shows exactly how utterly ****ing clueless people like him are. Reminds me of HW Bush's fascination with bar code scanners at a grocery checkout. And I like HW Bush.... I could pay full retail for brand new iPhones every year for my entire family with the most expensive data plans possible over the life of a 2 year contract, and it wouldn't come close to covering ONLY my biennial MRI costs. That doesn't include anything else. All while Mr. Chaffetz has not only a cadillac govt provided healthcare plan but also a govt provided smart phone plus plan. Pound sand, douchebag.
Well folks like him are more important and add so much more value than folks like you and me. They deserve the perks but we'll always have cake!
Secretary Price on plan: "It's about patients..." soooooo, we had to allow companies write off all $17 million of some companies' CEO salary instead of the previous limit of $50k.... I may have added a little there.
Until there is a plan presented that involves dropping bombs on insurance companies headquarters and cutting out the middleman, it is a failed plan.
I've essentially resigned myself to accept that the best way to do this is to provide a public option and then a direct pay option. Take your pick. It's already morphing this way anyway, might as well just make it official. Not sure that it wouldn't be cheaper in the long run at this point.
At some point we have to answer the quesiton - is healthcare a right or a privledge? If it is a right, then we need to make sure it is accessable to 100% of the population bar none. If it it just a privledge, then it's time we treat it as such and adjust accordingly. And I'm not saying one is right and one isn't, but it's a question we're going to have to answer.
It is a right, in my opinion. Already a hospital cannot turn away an indigent care patient if they are in danger of dying. So lets keep the danger from happening and treat them with care before it gets to a death situation. Want a surgery simply for cosmetic reasons and not quality of life (sagging skin after losing 400 pounds), that is all on you.
I'm way out there on this one. I've always view being denied treatments with little to no recourse was denying one's right to life without due process. I don't expect many, if anyone, would agree here, but I am just being 100% truthful about how I see it.
But here is where we begin to split hairs. Person develops lung cancer because of years of smoking. Person who weighs 400 pounds has a heart attack. Where does the burden fall then?
Agree with this. I had RK surgery on my eyes back in 1995. I hated glasses while coaching & I can't wear contacts (my eyes are too small & beady....seriously). My glasses were covered, partially, and worked fine correcting my vision but I still chose to opt to ditch them with the surgery. I had no issues paying the full costs of that ELECTIVE surgery.
So if someone shows up at a hospital bleeding from a cut to a vein and is about to die, and has no insurance and cannot afford to pay, you kick them to the curb?
No, but that doesn't make it a right. If we want to create a system that treats it as a right, fine, but that doesn't make it one.
