<br>
<br>
<p>The same thing that would happen to a person lacking health insurance seriously injured wearing a seatbelt.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>At the moment, yes.</p>
<p>Can we also require every person in the USA to have a fitness membership? Maybe we’ll also require them to quit smoking? Quit eating fast food?</p>
<p>Change the name of the agency to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Soda?</p>
<p>Page 6…</p>
<p>If we insure everybody…we save money…</p>
<p>I know people just hear about costs…</p>
<p>There is less talk about benefits…</p>
<p>Page 6…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/the-cost-of-care-for-the-uninsured-what-do-we-spend-who-pays-and-what-would-full-coverage-add-to-medical-spending.pdf[/url]”>http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/the-cost-of-care-for-the-uninsured-what-do-we-spend-who-pays-and-what-would-full-coverage-add-to-medical-spending.pdf</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Perhaps in theory.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I want to hear about lowering costs. If you lower costs, you make healthcare more widely available regardless of the insurance (or lack thereof) scheme.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>A bit of muddying the waters. There’s insurance or care for illness or disease and then there’s the benefit aspect of it like cosmetic surgery, dental implants, viagara, orthotics, etc. There are different behaviors around the types of things that people want insurance to cover.</p>
<p>[Single-Payer</a> FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program](<a href=“http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq]Single-Payer”>FAQs - PNHP)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait. Uninsured people are turned away from ERs in New Hampshire? Because if they’re not, then you’re paying their medical bills.</p>
<p>dstark, thanks for the link. Excellent information.</p>
<p>Well, in NH the alternative to living free is dying. I think there should be more shades of grey in between, but if thats the dichotomy they choose, so be it I suppose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is true, however, if I do not wish to purchase auto insurance, I have a choice. That choice is to not buy a car. With the mandate, however, the government is saying, </p>
<p>“Hey, Future, you are required to set aside 3-4k a year (minumum, possibly more) in order to buy health insurance.” </p>
<p>Why is there no choice in this matter? (although it wouldn’t be all that wise to forgo insurance, some people still might not want it) Somehow, we’re told to save for retirement and college, but I don’t see the states/government forcing anyone to do so. If everyone saved for those things, that would benefit society as a whole, just like insurance does.</p>
<p>If you want to go to college, you pay for it. If you want healthcare, you pay for it. Why should someone else pay for it? You cant repossess healthcare, except in this film [Repo</a> Men (2010) - IMDb](<a href=“http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/]Repo”>Repo Men (2010) - IMDb)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for saying that, LasMa. That’s what I keep trying to explain to people, but it’s just not widely understood. Our tax dollars pay for the treatment of people who have no insurance, and unless and until people understand that key point, they can’t understand the whole discussion about Obamacare.</p>
<p>Agreed. That is correct. The patient will not be turned away from an emergency receiving facility , and the cost will either be covered ion part by state/county funds for the hospital or rates being raied forservices that are paid for by other patients.</p>
<p>*Posted too hastily at 7 am before my cup of coffee. The above posts clarify correctly. SOMEONE will pay, in part for these services (other is written off as bad debt). If not the patient, then the residents of the county/state or other patients via their vbills.</p>
<p>I read that these programs are off to a slow start…But I think there is potential…</p>
<p>Other states have this too…this is part of the affordable healthcare act.</p>
<p>[Pre-Existing</a> Condition Insurance Plan: California | HealthCare.gov](<a href=“http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/pre-existing-condition-insurance-plan/ca.html]Pre-Existing”>http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/pre-existing-condition-insurance-plan/ca.html)</p>
<p><a href=“http://finder.healthcare.gov/[/url]”>http://finder.healthcare.gov/</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’ve only been to the emergency room three times in my life. Once when
I was about 5 and I really don’t remember the experience - that was
when kids didn’t have to be in car seats or buckled. The other two
times were with our kids. So I don’t really have first-hand experience
with ERs outside of receiving patients from them when I worked in the
ICU and medical-surgical floors at a hospital.</p>
<p>If you live in Southern NH, and you aren’t insured, you may be better
off driving across the border to MA. NH isn’t a particularly generous
state when it comes to social services or any other services at that.
MA tends to be generous with social services and may be a more
attractive place to live if you need those services.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>NH has a special situation right now - you can google around for it
if you care to.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Last week I was driving on the highway and noticed a pickup truck
backing up on the highway in the breakdown lane. I thought that odd
and then noticed a chair (as in stuffed living-room chair) in the next
lane about a second before I passed it. The weather was bad and it was
wrapped in plastic that was blowing around which is why I didn’t see
it earlier. I hope that noone hit that thing though I wouldn’t have
been surprised if someone had. The geography of the road doesn’t
provide a lot of notice on obstructions.</p>
<p>I’m always amazed at how much of a hurry everyone is on the roads
today. They zip in and out of traffic, speed, cut people off to get
to the red light first. They have incredibly important communications
needs too because they drive while talking on their mobile phones.
Some people are so busy that they don’t have time to eat while not
driving. Of course insurance makes this all easier to do. If people
were liable for the carnage that they cause, perhaps they would be
a little more careful on the road.</p>
<p>Over at the diet/exercise thread, we had one poster with in-laws that
didn’t take care of their health. Their rationale was that doctors
could fix their problems and that they could live whatever lifestyle
they wanted to.</p>
<p>That’s called Moral Hazard.</p>
<p>
Say whaa??? So the residents of NH should drain the coffers of the neighboring state with better indigent helathcare because their taxpayers pay for it? Thats outrageous. There is a reason NH isnt generous with social services. It sounds like its because they may not collect taxes for it so cant offer it. You cant have it both ways.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, I know that you love to throw strawmen arguments around but I
didn’t say that they should. But they may well get a better outcome
with that approach.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t think that most people want it both ways. I’m not even sure
I know which ways you are talking about.</p>
<p>Some posters try to throw out the 'strawman" nonsense to deflect. Residents of NH who have no insurance and cannot pay for care should live with (or not) what they can get in their own state. They are not residents of MA, so should not cross the border to get free healthcare there. Sound familiar? Didnt realize we had such border crossers to steal healthcare within our own country.</p>
<p>
This makes no sense. People are “liable for the carnage they cause”. They should have insurance, pay for it, which should help to cover the cost of any injuries or damage they cause, and then their premium/rate may go up. If, in your fair state, a person doesn’t have insurance and hits someone and causes problems but has no money, they are in essence not liable since you can’t get blood out of a turnip, as they say. So the person with no $ and no insurance may feel they will have no consequence for the damage they cause. Except to maybe sit in jail if they are ticketed or arrested. Is that the solution?</p>