Jump to content

Discussion:2019 Novel Corona Virus (Covid19) and It's Political Ramifications #3


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Robwin said:

Thanks guys for your views, I could say I wish I had never fucking asked now 🤣 as I am probably more confused lol but yes, I get the main drift. Just to summarise if you do get free care for any reason sooner or later it does have to be repaid for either in death benefits or ones estate. Phew, think I will have a couple of pints now 😁👍

Just remember, next time you have a simple question, just ask me and I will try to give you another simple answer like the one above 🤣

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, happyone said:

Just remember, next time you have a simple question, just ask me and I will try to give you another simple answer like the one above 🤣

Lol ok will bear it in mind Hap lol, enough to drive anybody to the nearest bloody bottle hic hic hic burp 😴

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, letsdothis said:

There you go again. No one hopes anyone will die from this virus, not even
to get trump out of office. I do believe that 10s of thousands more people
died than should have.

But, this is what you said on 4/25. And, when you made this statement, the
death toll was just under 50,000.

https://camcaps.net/forums/topic/16119-discussion2019-novel-corona-virus-covid19-and-its-political-ramifications-3/?do=findComment&comment=1635860175

 

 

se if you have the ability to pay you or your insurance must pay the bill. Free treatment is only for those who do not have insurance and do not have the ability to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ridgerunner said:

You just lied again. Not one time on that whole page did I say I was glad only 50,000-60,000 people were going to die. Allido 

 

Because if you have the ability to pay you or your insurance must pay the bill. Free treatment is only for those who do not have insurance and do not have the ability to pay.

not true

WWW.INVESTOPEDIA.COM

Healthcare is expensive, but those without healthcare coverage put themselves at risk.

Contrary to popular belief, health providers are not required by law to provide medical services to individuals without insurance. Only emergency departments are legally bound to provide care.2

Access to quality primary care is critical but doctors have the right to refuse patients without insurance, or who are able to pay out-of-pocket expenses. 

Without health insurance coverage, a serious accident or a health issue that results in emergency care and/or an expensive treatment plan can result in poor credit or even bankruptcy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, letsdothis said:

But he made the same calculation, so by extension you're also
calling him a pompous asshole.

It's very simple. You are an asshole and "I Am Happy" is not. Calculations have nothing to do with that evaluation. Happy was just trying to inform, you attempt to belittle and put down people while trying to show how brilliant you are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, happyone said:

not true

WWW.INVESTOPEDIA.COM

Healthcare is expensive, but those without healthcare coverage put themselves at risk.

Contrary to popular belief, health providers are not required by law to provide medical services to individuals without insurance. Only emergency departments are legally bound to provide care.2

Access to quality primary care is critical but doctors have the right to refuse patients without insurance, or who are able to pay out-of-pocket expenses. 

Without health insurance coverage, a serious accident or a health issue that results in emergency care and/or an expensive treatment plan can result in poor credit or even bankruptcy.

But people who are able to pay out of pocket should be required to pay if they have no insurance. If they are able to pay out of pocket then they have the ability to buy health insurance. If someone is financially able to buy insurance and chooses not to do so then that is their problem. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, letsdothis said:

There you go again. No one hopes anyone will die from this virus, not even
to get trump out of office. I do believe that 10s of thousands more people
died than should have.

But, this is what you said on 4/25. And, when you made this statement, the
death toll was just under 50,000.

https://camcaps.net/forums/topic/16119-discussion2019-novel-corona-virus-covid19-and-its-political-ramifications-3/?do=findComment&comment=1635860175

 

You were untruthful about me again. No where on that whole page did I say anything about being happy that only 50,000-60,000 people were going to die. The only one who said anything close to that was Alladino, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ridgerunner said:

1. But people who are able to pay out of pocket should be required to pay if they have no insurance. 2. If they are able to pay out of pocket then they have the ability to buy health insurance. 3. If someone is financially able to buy insurance and chooses not to do so then that is their problem. 

1.That is the point---they are required to pay. -there is no free treatment (unless a hospital or doctors do it pro bono)

2. One would assume that if they can pay out of pocket they could pay for insurance.

3. Yes, but some people choose not to buy insurance, take a chance, possibly save some money, and rely on their own financial resources to pay for treatments.  Example, I do not have dental insurance and pay for all dental procedures out of my own pocket.

The problem is that a lot of states (California for example)  have mandated that people buy health insurance or pay a fine.  Sometimes it is cheaper to pay a fine than pay the premiums and gamble that you will not need to have a medical procedure. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, letsdothis said:

Well, you got one thing right, it was a simple calculation. I gave it
exactly one sentence in my post. Certainly no major endeavor. You
claimed, however, I was playing a numbers game, so I explained to
you what a simple extrapolation is.

But, this statement:

"Since the death rate is on a steady decline, an average of past deaths/day has no relevance for future projections."

Shows it must not be so simple for you. Your statement is what is
irrelevant. It makes no difference if the numbers are increasing or
decreasing. You take whatever data is available for any given time
frame and extend them, via a simple calculation, to a longer time
frame.

And what about the possibility of a second wave, now that the
country is opening back up again? And what about this fall and
winter, if the virus comes back again? The numbers won't be
decreasing in those situations.

And what about the possibility of no second wave? Plus, we know more about the virus and more about how to protect the most vulnerable. We now know that it is not too intelligent to require nursing homes to accept covid-19 positive patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, happyone said:

1.That is the point---they are required to pay. -there is no free treatment (unless a hospital or doctors do it pro bono)

2. One would assume that if they can pay out of pocket they could pay for insurance.

3. Yes, but some people choose not to buy insurance, take a chance, possibly save some money, and rely on their own financial resources to pay for treatments.  Example, I do not have dental insurance and pay for all dental procedures out of my own pocket.

The problem is that a lot of states (California for example)  have mandated that people buy health insurance or pay a fine.  Sometimes it is cheaper to pay a fine than pay the premiums and gamble that you will not need to have a medical procedure. 

If you own a home and choose not to buy home insurance should everyone else be responsible for rebuilding your home when it burns down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...