Re: BUSH IN ISREAL

"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_pSdnQbOJNSLvN7V4p2dnAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dutch"

If the "meager" income is "living in poverty" they are eligible for medicaid.

If they own anything they can sell, they're screwed.

Keep it up, Dutch ... you are getting good at it. What you say is simply not true.

So you keep saying, but the Medicaid website says it's true.


Only because you apparently do not understand what you read.

Apparently you have not read it at all. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/
"Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these groups, though, certain requirements must be met. These may include your age, whether you are pregnant, disabled, blind, or aged; your income and resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other items that can be sold for cash);"

Who am I to believe, you, or the Medicaid website?


If they have a home and a mortgage and a car (and they are not
trying to live above their "meager" income) their income is meager enough to afford medical insurance.

Either they can afford it or they can't.

If they are not living above their means, they can afford it.

If their income just covers their monthly expenses with a few bucks to spare then how are they living above their means?


If they are living above their means, they cannot pay for health care insurance ... what is it that you cannot understand? They pay for a car and a home and food and clothing and vacations and cable tv and internet access and the latest and greatest of everything and they run up their credit cards buying things that they cannot afford ... their "monthly expenses" include health care insurance, extra money for non-catastrophic health care or other events, like a car break-down, or extra school expenses and something extra for retirement.

If you cannot afford health care insurance, you have too new a car and too big a house and eat out too much and buy designer clothes and a host of other things that cost money ... it is called "living beyond your means" ... it is not that complicated to understand.

That's a possible scenario, but what about people who do none of the above and still can't afford medical insurance? Why do you assume that everyone can afford insurance? Or rather why do you assume that anyone who can't must be a fool and wastrel? Deducting a proportion of everyone's wages for medical insurance solves that problem. Nobody can foolishly ignore their health needs.

Why is so important for you to label me? What does that have to do with the issues?

I do not need to label you,

Then stop bringing it up.


You keep ignoring it.

Labels are meaningless, compartmentalizing others makes it easier for you, but it does not elucidate anything. In the context of Canadian thinking on health insurance I am considered ANTI-socialist.

you just need to acknowledge your label
yourself.

I'm not a socialist, and specifically not with respect to medical care. I oppose the Canadian view that prohibits any introduction of "second tier" medicine, although it exists anyway. I want medical insurance to be provided to all citizens, supported by taxes, and I want private alternatives available for people who want them and are willing to pay for them. Systems like that work well. System that rely purely on government do not, nor do systems that rely too heavily on private enterprise. Its not about ideology, its about results.


What do people who pay for "private alternatives" get that is not already provided by the government?

They get quicker access instead of going on a waiting list. There are clinics with MRIs, and those that do hip replacements, etc. I think this helps the system, by shortening the waiting lists.

I thought you had "universal health care?" I must have misunderstood.

I've told you repeatedly that you are misconstruing the meaning of universal health care, but you think you know everything. It means that everyone is covered by one medical insurance plan, and that plan covers all medically necessary services, and the amount each person pays is proportionate to his income, up to a maximum.

To address a silly objection you have raised before, every participant in the plan is entitled to equal access to care, within reason. Obviously if there is a top heart specialist 4000 miles away, you will not be flown across the country to see him unless there is a very good reason, you will see someone qualified in your own geographic region.

I don't think you've ever explained what you think "universal health care" means.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... but the Medicaid website says it's true. ... Either they can afford it or they can't. ... If they are living above their means, they cannot pay for health care ... If you cannot afford health care insurance, you have too new a car and too ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... Who am I to believe, you, or the Medicaid website? ... then you have enough "resources" to afford medical insurance so you do NOT ... provided by the government? ... I don't think you've ever explained what you think "universal health care" ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... one should not have to be reduced to poverty to get medical care. ... They have never been able to afford much medical insurance if any on the kinds of jobs they had. ... qualify for Medicaid everything he owns, all his assets must go first, so he can go into eligibility, i.e. "poverty". ... We have affordable medical coverage. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: (OT) Medical Issues Do Not Call Registry Violator
    ... medical bills to pay off. ... getting Medicaid to be looked into - they'll only go back 3 months. ... Like Jill, if I'm reading this correctly, I have no medical insurance ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... Medicaid. ... Right, run by the government, paid for by taxpayers. ... need medical insurance as much as the poor and the well-off. ... The insurance companies lower payouts by negotiating lower rates for ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)