On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:29:20 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote:

On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote:

Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the
duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer
that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to
state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but
these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for
your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't
they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?"

TC,
R

I sent him some money an hour ago ... he has to come up with 16K++ ...
in advance

I gotta tell you straight out - on that alone, something sounds, with the little
info thus far, well, fishy (OBROFF?).

... for the only treatment with any hope

Uh-oh...I'm not sure, but I've got a bad feeling about this...

My guess is you've got boats worth more than 16K and assume they are your god
given right ?

Well, yes, sorta - I don't know about "god-given" - but probably not because of
the reason you might think. I think it is my right to own them because I earned
the money to pay for them, to fuel and maintain and insure them, etc. And IAC,
why would the monetary value of anything I own matter in this?

I own more than 16K worth of fishing ****, I bet.

Or that you own?

This man will probably die for want of 16K

I cannot comment on this exact situation because I don't know any of the
details, but I do not believe that a hospital could legally allow a patient to
die because of money, and from a purely business standpoint, I don't believe
they would over 16K, simply because of the potential legal and "bad PR" costs
associated with doing so, even if they would otherwise be inclined to do so
(which I also don't believe they would be).

I'm willing to have my taxes raised to provide basic care for my
fellow citizens ( I'm not a tax hater. I know that I'll also have
to pay my part of things I don't agree with ... tough, it goes with
the citizenship)

I believe in a social contract, and at least partly because I can
imagine being on the need side of same, I don't bitch much about being
on the pay side.

Would I truly deprive my family to help yours, no.

Well, then, that's pretty much that - IOW, you're willing to pay, but only the
amount and under the terms YOU decide is the line between "depravation" and your
social duty. If this guy is dying, but my making your family eat cat food for a
couple of months or even years, it would save him, who suffers more?

But truly
deprived is NOT something the average tax hater even has a clue
about ... not getting a 4th flat screen is not deprived .... nobody
lobbying for insurance companies and drug companies and Wall St has a
clue what deprived means ....

Oh, no, let's not get on one of the good ol' ROFF "nobody" tracks...neither you
or I know what _everybody_ lobbying, etc. knows or has experienced.

but lots of Americans do.

And so...what?

I do NOT advocate providing everything for everybody, just a
reasonable minimum for everybody.

Tell you what - email Wayne Knight (unless he's lurking and pops up) and ask him
how many dead bodies, of those who died because they didn't have 16K upfront, he
must step over each day.

I do NOT think anybody 'deserves'
all the latest and greatest high tech care possible, if you want
"everything" pay for the extra from your own pocket. Personally, I'd
rather 'go" than have the government ( or my family) spend a million
to keep me alive another week, in a stupor.

I think any modern, rich, society ..... worthy of the name ......
should NOT have good people needlessly suffering because of bad people
lobbying to protect record profits. I DO think there should be
public hangings of Wall Street execs and lawyers ( just checking to
see if you're really reading ;-)

All of them or just the ones you want to see dangling? And if I didn't wish to
at least try to read your entire response, I'd not reply to it.

I have good insurance myself and don't think I, personally, would gain
from reform

I don't have a clue about the why in your last question ... these are
poor people, hard working ( I think they split a 14 hour day, 7 days a
week ) but still poor .... I've been poor and know that you don't
always buy with the future firmly in mind, regardless of how sensible
you are, .... if poor.

Well, it's possible that this guy had these conditions since birth (or from a
young(ish) age) and it's possible that they, like some but not all, simply
didn't bother to plan and are now suffering from that failure. I didn't know,
so I asked. I still don't know since you've not answered (if you know), and so,
I cannot and will not comment on that aspect of the situation.


Larry L ( who knows as much as he knows anything, that "there but for
fortune, go you and I" and nearly gags when people totally fail to
realize that their own good circumstances are largely, luck .... as
I've said before, a lack of imagination seems tied to the
'conservative' mindset )

I totally disagree with your latter premise. What womb one gets shot out of
might be "luck," but true success in life, at least how I define it, is most
certainly not "luck." I suppose, like most things, YMMV.

TC,
R