Here’s an excellent argument against Obummerkare and no-charge medical care

Burn baby, burn

Methamphetamine addicts screwing up – burn treatment (at taxpayer’s expense) $130,000 per wuzzle-head.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “Here’s an excellent argument against Obummerkare and no-charge medical care

  1. anon

    So even though we don’t officially have socialized medicine yet, we effectively have socialized medicine since people without insurance still get treatment but just don’t pay.

  2. AJ

    Anon, that’s just not true. If you have a heart attack they’ll take care of you, but if you need cancer treatment: you’re not getting any until you’re on the verge of dropping dead, then you can be admitted on an emegency basis and medicaid will take over for you. Perhaps, that not always the case, especially if you’re an illegal alien, but even nonprofit hospitals are not charitable organizations. How do they get away with it — illegals, that is? Can you say New World Order and the intentional destruction of America.
    I can’t understand why anyone would use meth. Several years of use will destroy your organs — it is literally suicide. The stuff makes heroine look like a health supplement.

    • AJ, when I was a wee lad, I and my peers watched kids just a few years older than us die horribly from meth and that kept us far, far away from the scourge (and for those it didn’t, it killed). That it’s back now I attribute to a synapse in generational memory. As they say, there are no old junkies.

  3. Yes, anon, but in the current model there’s no government middleman to drive up costs and politicize treatment.

  4. dogwalker

    Quick answer to this and a number of other drug-related problems – legalize it. Tax it to pay for treatment.

  5. JRH

    So this is pretty funny: your headline rails against Obamacare and no-charge medical care, though of course a desire to get rid of no-charge medical care is exactly the reason for Obamacare’s individual mandate that you are so fond of describing as Stalinist tyranny.

  6. JRH

    Also, let’s not forget that the law mandating hospitals offer emergency care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay was signed by Reagan. Broken clocks and whatnot.

    • Yes, JRH, but it’s wrong the rest of the time, as Reagan was on this issue. The result of that law has resulted in inner city types using the emergency room for treatment for colds and flu and they travel there by ambulance – also free, by law. Want to contain medical costs? Start here, then move on to unnecessary doctor visits. The NYT reported on a study some years back that, adjusted for age, population and illness, Minnesota’s Medicaid/Medicare costs wer just 40% of Florida’s and the Minnesotans received better treatment – explanation (again, according to the Times) less frequent visits to hospitals and doctors. Do you remember when Congress passed a $10 co-pay for Medicare doctor visits? It was expected to save billions, not because the measly ten bucks would add up but because it would discourage old, bored folks in Florida from seeing six different doctors a day just to stay amused. AARP raised such a ruckus that Congress had to break off its vacation and return to Washington to repeal it – and that was the last we heard of meaningful cost control for medicine.

  7. DollarBill

    JRH: Once again, you’ve nailed the essential illogic that lies at the heart of the Tea Party iignoramuses’ attack on Obamacare. Good work!