Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured?

[Badger]

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The Democrats shut down every grocery store and restaurant that does not offer substantial discounts on caviar, foie gras, halibut, King crab, etc. and then complain that it is too expensive for the poor to buy food.

I'm just here to point out that most conventional treatments to cancer require prescription drugs and laboratory work.

Carry on.

Yes, chemotherapy drugs and Adderall are both equally vital for all people to have access to, and the lab work of cancer patients and healthy 25-year olds are both equally vital.

The question isn't whether or not they're equally vital, but that they are both in their own ways vital. Speaking as someone with a pretty extreme case of ADHD and frankly could not do my job without my medication and just be a productive tax-paying citizen comma it is pretty damn vital to me, as his health insurance to subsidize its costs

Why the hell should all items be equally vital in healthcare before they are subsidized? That makes zero sense. If they are vital, make them financially available. Why the frick is this such an impossible concept for anyone on the American hard right to embrace? Genuine question.

[Badger]

As a male, I can guarantee that I will never need pregnancy services.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the insurance plan. "Never" is consistent with "likely never." It all falls under the umbrella of subsidizing the medical costs of others. Females can't get prostate cancer but are still subsidizing the medical costs for males who get it.

That ought not to be the case either. If you want a safety net for life-threatening medical conditions, then advocate that, but do not call it "insurance".

As an aside, I think women have considerably more control over whether they get pregnant than men do over getting prostate cancer. Fire insurance would be a lot more expensive if the insurance companies had to sell half of their policies to arsonists.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not how I meant it. =P I'll rephrase. The reason insurance works is because you a pay for services you will likely never or rarely use, thus subsidizing the costs for those who do need them.

I do not do so out of my own beneficence though; I do so to guard myself against the unlikely possibility that I will fall victim to the same misfortune.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's a rather loaded question. Death by tumor is very much torture and chemotherapy can save your life. Regardless, your logic applies to any kind of medical coverage at all. Any possible treatment could hypothetically be passed over voluntarily, and thus why should it be part of a medical insurance plan?[/quote]

The point is it should be my choice whether or not to have such insurance, and what goods and services it should ensure. Obviously that would be an extreme minority viewpoint that would not prevail in a free-market for health care. Other, less life-threatening conditions would have a greater degree of consumer choice and discretion over coverage.
[/quote]

Your arguments in this thread were awfully s***** to begin with, and then you just had to screw the pooch and compare childbirth two arson, didn't you?