We're Alll Insured! Yeah!

Email Print posted by TJD 08/29/2008 09:59:05 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
According to John McCain's adviser, John Goodman, the problem with healthcare is that the Census Bureau is calculating the number of uninsured incorrectly.

First, here's the article.

For the sake of time, here's the snippet from Goodman:

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

What Goodman is referencing is the fact that emergency rooms cannot deny care to anyone.  So, in his mind, go to the emergency room and they will cure whatever ails ya.  Got cancer?  Go to the emergency room.  Got Lupus?  Go to the emergency room.  Got AIDS?  Go to the emergency room.  Then you're covered.

The fact that this is the crap they are justifying their positions with is appalling.  Lost your job?  Can't afford to keep your home?  Well, then you're a whiner.  Want health insurance for your sick kids?  Just go to the emergency room.

How can anyone - regardless of political affiliation - think this is the right attitude to have in this country?  This is basically just a "so fucking what" mentality that has been slowly killing the American Dream.

Obama/Biden '08.  There's no other way.

< Thumbs Up for Rep John Lewis Speech at DNC | BREAKING NEWS: MCSAME PICKS A WOMAN >
 Display:
We're Alll Insured! Yeah! | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
american dream = bitch and moan (none / 0)

"insurance" is a means to reduce risk (by pooling uncorrelated risk profiles together, etc.). "risk", among other things, is a measure of "uncertainty".

much of healthcare has no risk, because there is no uncertainty to it. when there is no risk left, insurance is not the right way to address the "problem".

 

american fatty fucks, engorged on their beef burgers, are taking the "risk" (i.e. "uncertainty") out of the healthcare equation.

i refuse to have my tax dollars go to pay for _predictable_ and _avoidable_ medical expenses incurred by a bunch of whiny unhealthy fucks.

 

if borat/bidet want to penalize healthy people to waste money on the unhealthy, whiny, fatty, fucks of america, all the more reason to not vote for them.

by neo on 08/29/2008 11:32:01 AM EST

What the fuck? (none / 0)

Neo, are you some kind of troll, or are you being "funny"?

by Meme Magus on 08/29/2008 12:11:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The fat fucks? (none / 0)
Yes, children do not deserve healthcare if they are overweight.

People who lose their jobs becuae their factory closed or their jobs were shipped overseas, do not deserve healthcare.

Douchebag.

Regardless, that is not the point of my post.  Whether or not you agree with universal healthcare, is not the issue.  The issue is that a CAMPAIGN ADVISER for the GOP Presidential nominee believes that everyone has healthcare if they go to the ER.  Is this the type of person that should even be discussing the issue at all?  He has no idea what he's talking about.

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 08/29/2008 01:21:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
i may be a douchebag (none / 1)

but you are even worse.

who the fuck are you to "deserve" things that require the coercion of others.

 

i suppose you also think that everyone "deserves a certain minimum amount of sex" in their lives, and men who haven't had enough can demand that random women on the streets go down on the knees and fellate them, at taxpayer expense.

 

if you are poor, you are fucked---this is a simple fact of life, not a moral judgement. you will not be able to afford the same things non-poor people do. your quality of life will be worse than that of the non-poor people.

the best way to compensate for running out of money is to save, save, save. this means living frugally and forgoing even the smallest pleasures for the sake of building up enough funds to deal with emergencies.

a factory worker who was suddenly laid off gets no pity from me because: (a) why did this person not save during their working years, (b) why did this person, who apparently did not make enough money to even save, choose to have a child or buy a home (with sub-prime mortgages).

idiots like this need to suffer. their children also need to suffer and die---we don't need these crap genes in the gene pool. 

by neo on 08/29/2008 07:38:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the tone of your post sucks (none / 0)
... but I have to say I've thought about this.

Universal health care would seem to mean that we all pay into a system that provides healthcare for everyone. And it does annoy me to think that I may have to bare the burden of paying for healthcare for a lot of grossly unhealthy people who choose to be that way by intentionally being obese and consuming huge amounts of fat, sugar, and salt, while I actually mind my health on a vegetarian diet.


Of course, I may prefer that to my current situation, which is having no health insurance at all, desperately needing a tonsilectomy I can't afford but having to pay $400 in medical bills every time I get tonsilitis, and worrying that I'm one bicycle accident away from financial ruin.

Anyway, I already experience having to pay for the negligence and stupidity of others in the form of exhorbitant car insurance premiums because of all the idiot drivers with no insurance in New Orleans.

In fact I can probably think a hundred ways in which I am forced to pay for the negligence and stupidity of others, so what's one more? It's called a society, after all, and we're all in it together. Oh, well.

by duchessnoir on 08/29/2008 03:39:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand your argument (none / 0)

But it doesn't address the big picture of medical costs in this country.  If all Americans have access to reasonably priced health care, they won't have to wait until it is an expensive emergency to get treated.  This will SAVE taxpayer dollars. 

In other words, there may be a reason that people in countries with "socialized" medicine live longer, are less obese, have lower rates of infant mortality, etc.

by desertpear on 08/29/2008 04:30:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
separation of concerns (none / 1)

thank you for the clarity in terminology.

i have waged (and will continue to do so) what seems to be a fairly hopeless battle to get people to separate the matter of "health insurance" or "universal health insurance" from "health care" or "universal health care".

i am entirely opposed to the former (for the reason i mentioned---insurance is a tool to manage risk) but have some sympathy for the latter (certain types of preventive care should be free for all citizens, and people should be given incentives to take better care of their health).

however, almost all public conversation about medicine in this country seems to be about "health insurance" and "single-payer health insurance".

 

once people get their terminology (and the underlying concepts) clear in their minds, we can talk about what it would take to reduce healthcare costs (and why these costs seem to be so unusually high in the u.s. compared to other industrialized countries, esp. when adjusted for health outcomes).

the full answer to this question should include a frank discussion of assisted suicide, reducing needless end-of-life wastage of resources, lifestyle improvements, as well as economic issues (drug costs, patents, advances in medical techniques and the recovery of these costs, doctor fees, etc.).

 

but, as long as people keep harping about health insurance (esp. not their _own_ health insurance but some vague statement about "the 50 million uninsured"), i will have to point out that it is a good thing that plenty of americans are uninsured---i am not in the least bit interested in subsidizing the filthy lifestyles of complete strangers (many of them republicans).

it is also riscible in the extreme for me to hear someone complain that they are unable to get "insurance because of a pre-existing condition"---if you have a "pre-existing" condition that will lead, with certainty, to the expenditure of resources, it is no longer a matter for _insurance_. that is like saying i need "grocery insurance" and that general tax revenue needs to pay for my "grocery insurance", or that i need "fire insurance" after my home burns down.

by neo on 08/29/2008 07:28:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What a disgusting thing to say. (none / 0)
Even if someone is ill and goes to the e.r. they are still slammed with the bill.  I should know I was recently admitted to an e.r. following a car accident and my bill came less than a month later, and I have insurance.  The full cost is not on me, but a descent portion of it is, and I will not reimbursed until everything is settled and that could be a very long time from now.  If I didn't have insurance (which was the case for almost ten years of my life) there would be no way to foot the bill.  And how about my ongoing treatment?  Can I just walk into any old e.r. for my physical therapy?  The audacity of the the GOP and their mouthpieces (neo).  If McCain wins in November I will have a brain aneurysm and have my wife drive me to an e.r..

by Meme Magus on 08/29/2008 12:31:03 PM EST

good post (none / 0)
These guys are pretty out-of-touch with Americans.  There are millions of people screwed right now because of lack of insurance and millions who are insured, but who are in debt due to high medical costs.  They will vote for a better system.  Change, in other words. 

by desertpear on 08/29/2008 04:24:23 PM EST

We're Alll Insured! Yeah! | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: