Answer the Question

From YT: Susan Grigsby's brother Steve died a painful death fighting for care as an uninsured American. Susan watched, horrified, as the GOP Presidential Candidates on CNN's Tea Party Debate stood silent when the the audience cheered for the idea that we as a society should just let an uninsured man die. Now Susan wants an answer from each and every GOP candidate.
bobknight33says...

Come on Netrunner. Yea another bull crap video from my beloved colleague

You saw the debate the questions was IF the GUY HAD the money and chose NOT to buy insurance and got seriously sick should we the people give him free care.

That would not happen. He would get care and a big fat bill. Sure his health care options would be diminished and he might die. Then again he might live but go bankrupt paying the medical bills.

But that's why you buy insurance.

Now for this persons plight. He lost his job then 7 years discovered he had cancer. WTF. Are we saying he could not find a job in 7 years? Even a basic job with insurance? Insurance or not sounds like he probably would have died anyway.

He got fair treatment but the cancer was too much to overcome.

Government should not be in the Health care business.

NetRunnersays...

>> ^bobknight33:

You saw the debate the questions was IF the GUY HAD the money and chose NOT to buy insurance and got seriously sick should we the people give him free care.
That would not happen. He would get care and a big fat bill. Sure his health care options would be diminished and he might die. Then again he might live but go bankrupt paying the medical bills.
But that's why you buy insurance.


It's also why "Obamacare" mandates buying health insurance, so people won't wind up dead from their own hubris, or at least if they forego insurance and then get seriously ill without being able to cover their own treatment, then the rest of us won't be in the position of having to choose between letting him die, or figuring out some ad hoc way to pay for saving him.

>> ^bobknight33:
Now for this persons plight. He lost his job then 7 years discovered he had cancer. WTF. Are we saying he could not find a job in 7 years? Even a basic job with insurance? Insurance or not sounds like he probably would have died anyway.


I take it you don't know any unemployed people in their 50's. It's awfully rough to find a job at that age, even when the economy is booming. There are plenty of people of all ages who struggle to get a job that provides health insurance at all, let alone health insurance that's worth a damn.

Again, health care reform tries to solve this issue too with the exchanges and subsidies, though we've still got a couple years before those come into effect.

bobknight33says...

If you desire for the previous company or the Government to pick up insurance during a period of time after getting laid off or fired is one thing. That would be a kind thing to do.
To be able to fill the gap for 6 months or a year then may be I would be OK with that. Even though its wrong, I could go along with that.

But if you can't find a job in a year than you are lazy bastard who is not willing to do what ever to takes to find employment. I moved 4 times for 4 new jobs. There is only a few of us per state. So When I need another job it means moving. It sucks but that life. If you do not want to pack up and move for a job why should we the people carry you? There are Millions of jobs available and you only need 1. Just one and only 1

bareboards2says...

@bobknight33 The question I always ask when the question of health care insurance comes up is -- It seems to be okay to pay thousands of dollars in health care premiums, a portion of which is going to the shareholders and huge CEO salaries. But change the label to a "tax" and suddenly the blood pressure goes up?

It's ridiculous to be so pleased to pay for unnecessary profits and salaries (huge because those CEOs work to increase the companies profits.)

It is probably too late to do national health care insurance. Too many wealthy and vested interests. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of nationalizing businesses at this late stage. Perhaps we have missed that boat. A damn shame.

All over a "label."

NetRunnersays...

>> ^bobknight33:

But if you can't find a job in a year than you are lazy bastard who is not willing to do what ever to takes to find employment. I moved 4 times for 4 new jobs. There is only a few of us per state. So When I need another job it means moving. It sucks but that life.
...
There are Millions of jobs available and you only need 1. Just one and only 1


I think it's a stretch to imply that anyone who wants a job can find one, especially right now. Even for low-wage positions, there's almost 100 applicants for each opening.

A lot of people also need to not just find any job they can get their hands on, but need to find a job that makes enough for them to be able to provide for their family. Hell, they might also need a job that lets them live up to their obligations to creditors. I know that if I got fired tomorrow, I couldn't just go work a minimum wage job and never need assistance from anyone.

Also, due to the nature of the housing crisis, a lot of people are underwater on their mortgage. In case you're unclear on what that means, it means even after someone sold their house, they'd still owe money to pay off the mortgage, and not just a trivial amount either. That's making people a lot less mobile than they usually are.

Also, since we're talking about someone who's getting on in years, they're going to have a lot of trouble getting an entry-level position when there are so many young people looking for jobs too. They're going to have a hard time finding a high-level position, because there aren't a lot of those to be found even in good times, and in bad times the competition is going to be fierce.

Which is all a long way of saying, it's very easy, especially now, for someone to wind up involuntarily unemployed for more than a year.

>> ^bobknight33:
If you do not want to pack up and move for a job why should we the people carry you?


Well this seems to be the fundamental moral difference between you and I. I think that people who stumble need to be helped back up.

You seem to assume everyone who falls down is just trying to scam people into carrying their weight for them. Further, you think that sort of thing should matter when you see someone else fall down.

People who've lost their way so badly that they want to be carried all the time need even more help than those who just want a little help to get back on their feet. They aren't wicked sinners who need to be punished, they're lost souls who need to be rehabilitated.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More