Anti-Obamacare Former Sheriff Now Begging for Money to Help Pay Medical Bills

richard-mack-1It’s no secret that most conservatives are not fans of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). In reality, millions of conservatives are actually big fans of the law considering they’re benefitting from it – they’ve just been pumped full of so much propaganda and blatant lies for the last several years that I’m convinced many of them would still oppose the law even if their lives were saved by it.


While I am indeed a supporter of the law, I am well aware that it has many flaws. The truth is, all the ACA was meant to be was a stepping stone toward true universal health care. You know, just like the vast majority of the modernized world already has. But instead of working on ways to fix it to make it even better, we’re still dealing with conservatives who are actively trying to impede and sabotage the law at every turn.

Well, in what can be seen as a true definition of irony, a somewhat well-known anti-Obamacare critic, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, has apparently created a GoFundMe campaign asking for at least $30,000 to pay his medical expenses. I say “at least” because there’s a disclaimer stating that his expenses could be much more than that.

Many of you might recall Mack was one of Cliven Bundy’s biggest supporters. He is a fanatic anti-government advocate who gave an interview last year where he said some of Bundy’s followers had discussed using women as a human shields against any government officials who might try to arrest Nevada’s infamous welfare rancher.

So, because Mack unfortunately fell victim to unexpected medical issues that have required fairly expensive treatment, and he chose not to purchase health insurance (and opposes the law that’s provided health insurance for millions of Americans), he’s now begging people online to pay these bills for him.

There goes that whole “personal responsibility” thing, huh? The fact is, a handout is a handout whether it’s from the government or an online campaign asking strangers for money.

Now, I don’t begrudge him for asking for help. And regardless of how idiotic I think his political beliefs are, I do wish him a full and speedy recovery. If you wish to help him out, follow this link to donate.


But it is truly ironic that someone who so feverishly has lived his life opposing the government (and opposed a health care law meant to provide Americans with comprehensive health insurance so they wouldn’t suffer the burden of tremendous debt if unexpected medical issues were to arise) is now begging for handouts from strangers to help pay his medical bills following an unexpected medical emergency – because he doesn’t heave health insurance.

The fact is, Mack’s story isn’t uncommon. There are millions of Americans who’ve suffered the same exact fate as he has. Unfortunately, most aren’t able to raise the tens of thousands of dollars required to get the medical treatments that they desperately need. Many Americans die too young, or live in constant pain, because they can’t afford proper medical care.

While I’m sure this entire situation won’t change Mack’s mind one bit as it relates to the Affordable Care Act, the truth is if this country had universal health care, or he had purchased health insurance, he wouldn’t have to worry about paying these enormous medical bills. And he certainly wouldn’t have had to resort to begging strangers online for money.

So, no matter what his views are about our health care system going forward, whether he likes it or not, Richard Mack has become a prime example as to why we needed the ACA and why this country needs to ultimately embrace true universal health care for all Americans.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • strayaway

    What the good Sheriff wants is to pay his medical bills. That doesn’t mean that the (un)ACA is the only possible means toward that end. Only someone with Stockholm Syndrome would believe that. On the libertarian end of the spectrum, liberty would be a partial solution. Examples: doctors who charge $50cash/office visit, cheaper imported medicine our government intercepts, a reduction of costs to introduce new medicines, and unsubsidized competition that has led to lower prices in Lasix and cosmetic surgery. New middle class taxes imposed by the (un)ACA don’t leave middle class Americans with money left over either. At the government end of the spectrum, how about the affordable state run Canada like single payer system that Vermont tried to institute but was forbidden to by (un)ACA thugs.

    Looking at the problem of medical costs from a more distant perspective, the standard of living of 90% of Americans has decreased since 1977 and at a faster rate under Obama. A higher percentage of Americans used to be able to afford medical care but sending our jobs abroad and bringing in cheaper foreign labor to drive down domestic pay has shattered our working and middle classes. There are all sorts of ways to cut medical costs and bring up the standard of living to make medical care more affordable to more. Unfortunately, the (un)ACA isn’t one of them. The (un)ACA hasn’t reduced the costs of the average American family’s medical insurance policy $1,500 a year as the president promised when he was selling it. The last thing I read was that the federal government had just scarfed up $3-4B of unassigned money to prop it up and the president keeps (unconstitutionally) making delays, sweetheart deals, and other changes in the law all to make it seem to be working.

    On the personal level, Sheriff Mack did make a mistake by not buying insurance. Again, why limit his purchase choices to (un)ACA policies? If he had a bronze plan, he still might help paying for deductibles. I missed the details of that scenario in the article. I also missed the part about how a minor national figure, probably with a Sheriff’s pension, could not afford a regular insurance policy. He made a bad choice but it is a leap to suggest that (un)ACA policies were his only recourse.

    • MEDAN1040

      By “middle class taxes” do you mean the same thing that they call penalties or fees under Romneycare in Massachusetts?

      • strayaway

        No, I was thinking more along the lines of the tanning tax or the the 2.3% (un)ACA middle class tax on medical equipment. and whatever the capital gains tax is selling one’s home.

        According to the 10th Amendment, states have a right to have medical systems. Whether Massachusetts chooses Romney care or Vermont opted for a single payer plan is none of my ( I’m not a resident) or the federal government’s business. Massachusetts can set fees as it wishes.

      • MEDAN1040

        So how much tax is being collected on any of them? As for the tax on selling one’s home, thanks to Bill Clinton very few people pay tax on the profit of a personal residence sale.
        As far as the 10th Amendment, please show where is specifically says that.
        Per
        http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/the-aca-and-the-tenth-amendment/
        “But there is another argument, similarly novel and ahistorical, that has gone relatively unnoticed ““ that the ACA violates the Tenth Amendment and related federalism principles. The argument is
        that the Tenth Amendment is a bulwark against federal overreaching in the ACA: the Tenth Amendment cabins federal power, protects state
        citizens, and protects states’ rights. This Tenth Amendment argument, like its Commerce Clause companion, lacks support in the text, history, and Supreme Court jurisprudence of the Constitution.
        Like so much of what we hear in constitutional debates today, it is an insidious attempt to shift the frames of constitutional debate and, at the end of the day, reshape the very contours of the
        Constitution.
        No amount of repetition and volume in these arguments can change the text, history, and jurisprudence of the Tenth Amendment. The
        Sixth Circuit recently recognized this in its ruling upholding the ACA against novel Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment challenges
        in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama.
        Moreover, the broader text of the Constitution confirms that the Tenth Amendment does not limit federal power. If anything, the Tenth Amendment recognizes potentially expansive federal power.
        Against the Tenth Amendment’s text, history, and jurisprudence, Tenth Amendment (and related federalism) claims against the ACA, both in
        the litigation and in the public debates, are simply breathtaking.
        In short, they are bald-faced attempts to rewrite the Tenth Amendment and give birth to an entirely new kind of federalism, one that has no support in the text, history, or practice of the Tenth Amendment.
        The Tenth Amendment arguments against the ACA, like their Commerce Clause companions, lack support in the text, history, and jurisprudence of the Constitution. They are not only novel and ahistorical; they are also insidious attempts to reshape the frames of constitutional debate and, ultimately, reshape the contours of the Constitution itself.”
        But thanks for calling it a fee in Massachusetts – laughs are always appreciated.

      • strayaway

        The tax is 2.3% on medical equipment. Since Obama promised that he wasn’t going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000, that’s a new tax on the middle class. I looked up the new (un)ACA tax on homes. It’s 3.8% of everything over $250K per individual of capital gains on primary residences. Vacation and rental homes seem to be subject to more tax however. i don’t know about farms and small businesses but a lot of rental and vacation homes are owned by middle class people.

        The Tenth Amendment is difficult to misinterpret for anyone with a 10th grade education. If a power isn’t delegated to the federal government and not allowed states, then states may fill in the gap. It follows that states such as Massachusetts and Vermont can concoct pretty much whatever sort of state health care plan that they choose. I see all sort of possibilities as did Vermont. However, there are courts that have ruled that corporations are persons and might as well rule that the emperor has a wondrous set of clothes as you pointed out. Many Republicans and almost all Democrats at the federal level would lose their raison d’être if they had to accept the 10th. at face value instead of someone’s creative interpretation.

      • MEDAN1040

        You mean like your creative interpretation?
        As for the 3.8% tax, you really need to stop blindly believing the Republican BS. Perhaps you should talk to someone who understands tax law more than you do. Here’s a good link for you to see the reality of this – http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
        So how many middle class people do you think this would affect?

      • strayaway

        Creative interpretation? No, I like my Tenth straight. Now cover your eyes and find someone’s self-serving interpretation for comfort before reading, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” I don’t know why progressives don’t get excited about this because it allows states to do things like what Vermont tried to do when it attempted to have its own AFFORDABLE single payer health care plan like any Canadian province.

        Did you even read my last post? Here, this was included in your Factcheck post and it was just what I wrote. “”Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill,” Ahern told us, “but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple).” Get it? If a middle class person has a vacation home, owns a rental unit (many do), or inherited a principle residence in San Francisco, they would be stuck paying a 3.8% tax on capitol gains to finance the (un)ACA.

      • MEDAN1040

        “No, I like my Tenth straight.”
        No, you like your 10th to conveniently agree with your biases.
        As the man who obviously knows much more about this subject than you says
        “Moreover, the broader text of the Constitution confirms that the Tenth Amendment does not limit federal power. If anything, the Tenth Amendment recognizes potentially expansive federal
        power.”
        Earlier you wrote “According to the 10th
        Amendment, states have a right to have medical systems.”
        That BS might fly on some posts – but once again I will ask “Where specifically does the 10th say that?”
        Since you won’t answer again, I’ll answer for you – It doesn’t.
        It’s purely an opinion which the shepherds throw out knowing that their flock will blindly believe anything that sounds good to them.
        Now open your eyes & stop parroting the BS you are told to blindly believe.

        Of course I read your last post. I’m enjoying the laughs provided by your parroting.
        Regarding the home sales, you pick & choose this part – “”Some home sales would see a tax
        increase under this bill,”. Which is very true but earlier I asked “By “middle class taxes” do you mean………”
        Your reply was “No, I was thinking more along the lines of ………… whatever the capital gains tax is selling one’s home.”
        So where in your pick & choose sentence does it
        say how much it MAY affect the middle class?

        What you conveniently left out is what FactCheck also says – “The first $250,000 in profit from the sale of a personal residence won’t be taxed, or the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple. The tax falls on relatively few — those with high incomes from other sources.
        The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it.
        And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married
        couple selling their home.
        However, a typical home sale would not incur any tax. In March, for example, half of all existing homes sold for $170,700 or less, according
        to the National Association of Realtors.
        Obviously, none of those sales could possibly generate a $250,000 profit, and so none would be subject to the tax.
        Thus, for the vast majority, the 3.8 percent tax won’t apply. The Tax Foundation, in a
        report released April 15, said the new tax on investment income (including real estate) “will
        hit approximately the top-earning two percent of families” when it takes effect in 2013.”
        You really should read the FactCheck article again. It makes this very clear for even those who have no understanding of tax law.

        So please continue to throw out your opinions. Laughs are always appreciated.

      • strayaway

        Wow, the actual wording and the implications of the 10th. Amendment seem to be getting under your skin. I’ll post it again because it seems to have the same effect on you as waving a silver cross in front of the demon possessed, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That’s it. anyone with a 10th grade education, without a self-serving agenda should be able to understand it.

        If the Constitution hasn’t delegated the power to Congress to create a national medical care system or forbidden states from doing so, and it hasn’t, then states have the power to create their own medical care systems as MA did and Vermont attempted to do. The Supreme Court justified the (un)ACA because it was a tax and the Constitution delegates to power to tax to Congress. I think that’s kind of loopy because a new tax can now justify any new government program and when the Tenth Amendment was still being observed, the Constitution had to be amended to allow the income tax. If the Court says corporations are people or the (un)ACA is ok because Congress can tax, then that’s where we are and the (un)ACA is the law for now.

        I enjoyed your point claiming, “the Tenth Amendment does not limit federal power. If anything, the Tenth Amendment recognizes potentially expansive federal power.” You also believe that the Emperor has a glorious set of clothes don’t you?

        Please reread the last paragraph of my previous post so I don’t have to cut and paste it. You don’t seem to have read it. I gave three example of middle class people getting stuck paying Obama’s new (un)ACA tax on routine home sales and have twice mentioned the limitation on the sale of a principle residence.

      • MEDAN1040

        WOW! No it’s not getting under my skin at all. I’m actually enjoying how you believe your opinion is worth more than the words of the writer of the article I posted. But since you later write “I enjoyed your point claiming,” – gee, anyone with a 2nd grade education could understand that is not my point – but obviously your blindfold is super glued on.
        I read the last paragraph of your previous post and am still laughing about it. Your examples (as you call them) are nothing more than guesses of what could happen. Sort of like saying that you could take off the blindfold someday too. My guess is that won’t happen – sounds like the BS brainwashed you too much. But thanks for more laughs.

      • Peach314

        The CONdumb wouldn’t know a 10th Amendment argument from a 200 proof grain alcohol.

      • strayaway

        Peachie, You can have a turn. Here is the 10th Amendment. “”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” All you have to do is point out the wording delegating the creation of a national health care plan to the federal government beyond calling it a tax not requiring an amendment. A good place to begin looking is article 1, section 8 listing powers delegated to Congress and Article 1, Section 2 listing powers delegated to presidents.

      • Peach314

        Obviously, you drink your home brew straight also. The medical equipment tax is paid by GROUPS of MDs making millions a year.

      • strayaway

        Wrong guess. According to the IRS, Obama’s medical device tax is paid by “the manufacturer or importer of a taxable medical device”. Are you going to tell us that the manufacturers and importers are going to let that tax cut into their profits or do you think it is passed on to patients? My guess is the latter.

      • MEDAN1040

        “In fact, health reform will likely benefit the medical device industry and boost its sales. By extending health coverage to a projected 27 million more Americans, or by nearly 10 percent, the Affordable Care Act will increase the demand for medical devices and the revenue of device manufacturers. As the industry notes, older patients, who use a disproportionate number of medical devices,
        already have coverage through Medicare. However, the substantial expansion of health coverage will increase the number of elective medical procedures performed on those who were previously uninsured and, in turn, the use of medical devices. A study by
        Wells Fargo Securities finds that health reform will increase device sales by 3.6 percent cumulatively through 2022. This increase, the study concludes, “will be sufficient to offset” the tax.[17]
        http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3684

      • strayaway

        I don’t like to kill the messenger but your link is from a left of center think tank. Perhaps, that is why it uses “27M more covered Americans” although not nearly that many have signed up and perhaps never will unless our borders remain porous. Setting aside, for the moment, that some of those 27M would have received medical care in emergency rooms anyway so are not new customers and that 27M is a multiple of the actual number who have enrolled, what makes you think that the manufacturers of medical equipment will just swallow the cost? More likely, those companies will just pass along this new Obama tax on to the price of their products. They aren’t gong to expand production lines for nothing.

        Another hidden cost is to health. Hospitals, for instance, have to budget and make spending decisions. If the price of medical equipment goes up 3.6% and the choice was between the newest cat scan and increasing the pay of administrators for instance, in some cases the extra 3.6% cost on medical equipment might make the difference. The majority of the American public will in instances have a lower, than otherwise, level of medical care available.

      • MEDAN1040

        “what makes you think that the manufacturers of medical equipment will just swallow the cost? ”
        Once again – A study by Wells Fargo Securities finds that health reform will increase device sales by 3.6 percent cumulatively through 2022. This increase, the study concludes, “will be sufficient to offset” the tax.[17]

      • strayaway

        Once again, it is not the nature of the corporations you now defend to swallow taxes or cut their profit margins. They most likely will raise their prices something like 3.6% on all sales including any new sales steered their way by the federal government. Here is what Medronic, one of the big producers of medical equipment had to say. “Medtronic recognized Senators Franken and Klobuchar, and Congressman Paulsen for recent efforts to introduce bipartisan-supported legislation to repeal the medical device excise tax. The tax went into effect January 1, 2013 adding a significant challenge to the medical device industry in its ability to continue to deliver innovative research and development and create jobs.” Notice that Minnesota’s two Democratic Senators opposed Obama’s tax.

      • MEDAN1040

        Hilarious. Of course Medtronic wants the tax repealed. Wow.
        “They most likely will raise their prices something like 3.6%” Most likely? You seem to enjoy guessing without anything to back you up. But I guess that scare tactic BS works on some sites you visit.

      • strayaway

        Yeah, it’s really funny to have companies move their production offshore when it becomes more profitable to produce for foreign markets than make and sell something at home. Even Senators Franken and Klochubar both Democrats from Medtronic’s home state bucked Obama on that one.

        Yes, I am guessing but given the choices, it’s a safe guess. I don’t see you volunteering to support the other option of companies reducing their profit margins. That gets CEO’s fired. It isn’t going to happen. If you want to believe in such fairy tales that’s your prerogative.

      • MEDAN1040

        Your obsession with profit margins is hilarious. Any business person understands that the bottom line is what is important. To make this clear for you – sales can increase & the bottom line can increase – even while the profit margins decrease. Business people learned that in Accounting 101.

      • Charles Vincent

        The SCOTUS decision on the aca is plain judicial activism just like the hobby lobby case and citizens United.

    • lazerhaze

      You are an idiot and a liar.

      • strayaway

        There. Let it out. Now do you feel better?

      • MEDAN1040

        Sit back & enjoy the laughs.

      • Peach314

        CONdumb heaven, people replying to Druggie Rush Buttpimple dazed mumbling.

    • Michelle Wells

      Honey, he’s scamming you and you’re falling for it!

  • MEDAN1040

    Sorry to hear of his health problems, but if he had signed up for Obamacare he wouldn’t need these hand-outs.
    “The fact is, Mack’s story isn’t uncommon. There are millions of Americans who’ve suffered the same exact fate as he has. Unfortunately, most aren’t able to raise the tens of thousands of dollars required to get the medical treatments that they desperately need. Many Americans die too young, or live in constant pain, because they can’t afford proper medical care. While I’m sure this entire situation won’t change Mack’s mind one bit as it relates to the Affordable Care Act, the truth is if this country had universal health care, or he had purchased health insurance, he wouldn’t have to worry about paying these enormous medical bills. And he certainly wouldn’t have had to resort to begging strangers online for money. So, no matter what his views are about our health care system going forward, whether he likes it or not, Richard Mack has become a prime example as to why we needed the ACA and why this country needs to ultimately embrace true universal health care for all Americans.

  • developertest03

    Actually support amongst Republicans is over the 60% threshold according to a couple of recent polls. Its their politicians that give the illusion everyone hates it. Its quite simple when you think about it, when you have millions of dollars in the bank, the idea of having some catastrophic illness and losing your life savings is not something you worry about. To them, its just more spending that could be going to building walls around Mexico, or reducing the effective tax rate of their buddies to 0%.

    • Peach314

      The right wingnuts never explained how those walls would stand in the swamps of southern Alabama, La. and Texas of course.

      • NwoDispatcher .

        so Mexicans are just going to go through boats?

  • Jim Bean

    Its interesting that after all the looting, destruction, and even murder that accompanied the Ferguson (and related protests) its the benign episode at the Bundy ranch that left such an indelible mark on the author’s mind.

    • IndependentVeteran

      Perhaps that is because the person who is the subject of the article was a very vocal supporter of Bundy. Reading comprehension is a gift that not all have, unfortunately.

      • Jim Bean

        Remind me again why we’re to outraged about that? What was the death and injury count in that event?

      • RB

        It came very close Jim Bean (the local troll), when you have militia sovereign citizen idiots taking a bead on Federal agents trying to do their jobs. It’s so typical of you conservatives to bring up something that is totally unrelated (and usually racially biased) to try and make a point. We can all see through you. The people in Ferguson, if you remember, were protesting the unjustified shooting of a person for no other reason than walking down the middle of the street. The killer cop had no knowledge of his supposed strong arm robbery that he had committed before hand. The cops need to be held accountable for being judge, jury and executioner, especially when the suspect has darker skin. That’s what the people of Ferguson were protesting.

      • Peach314

        There is video of an LA killing by cop now. The apologists need to find Death Row pen pals and devote their useless lives to loving killers.

  • Betty Gosa

    Maybe the Republicans will pay his bills . He maybe getting his pay back. For I do belive we do. And God help us .

  • Cemetery Girl

    I hope that he can get the healthcare he needs. That said, I hope in a few years that he doesn’t hold this up as an example of how he took responsibility for the expense of his healthcare himself. He isn’t paying his health bills, he’s getting strangers to do so. Personally, I won’t be sending him any money. I don’t object to my tax money helping those in need. (Heck, can I opt into something that my tax money goes to social programs instead of politician paychecks?) I’m putting money to the care of my own father right now, so none to indulge him. I doubt if a fund me would do as well for my father with terminal cancer as this man.

    • Charles Vincent

      He isn’t holding a gun on people to get it. He asked and people can decline without fear of any penalty unlike the government run ACA robbery being perpetrated on people.

      • Cemetery Girl

        True, he isn’t forcing anyone to pay for his healthcare costs. And because his name is well known enough in certain circles his needs will probably be met. (Remind me to scold my father for not making a name for himself.) This gentleman was opposed to ACA, fine. He could have opposed to insurance entirely, fine. I do not want to hear in the future how he took responsibility for his medical bills. Even though contributions are voluntary, he isn’t taking responsibility for his medical bills. Others are taking care of his medical bills.

      • Charles Vincent

        So appealing to friends for help is not responsible maybe he will pay the money back? Seriously get off you’re soap box. You all talk about being charitable and showing compassion then you ding someone for asking for charity and compassion and you ding him because he is the”enemy” for holding a different political belief. Eh lovely double standard the left and you have there.

      • MEDAN1040

        Not dinging him at all. Thanks to the sheriff for clearly showing what happens if you don’t have health insurance. Some people are forced into bankruptcy, others have to beg for hand-outs.

      • Charles Vincent

        Sure your not…

      • MEDAN1040

        As I said earlier, I’m sorry to hear of his health problems. The guy has become a prime example of what happens to people in countries without Universal Healthcare – so I thank him & wish him the best. .

      • Charles Vincent

        That assumes that healthcare only comes from government and is at the point of a gun nor is insurance the only option to pay medical costs. Your assertion is a false delimma.

      • MEDAN1040

        It doesn’t assume anything. The facts are that every other industrialized nation has Universal Healthcare. Another fact is that no one in those countries has to worry about going bankrupt due to medical bills, nor do they have to worry about asking for hand outs to pay their bills. And the results in those countries are that people life longer, less of their newborns – children – new mothers die (based on % of population), etc.. And they get these results for much less per individual than what we pay per individual. Take a look at the World Health Organization statistics, which shows how poor our health care system is. Obamacare doesn’t make us catch up to other countries yet, but it’s a step in the right direction.
        But you are correct that insurance isn’t the only option to pay for medical costs. You can drain your life savings, or beg for hand-outs. That’s called reality.

      • Charles Vincent

        “But you are correct that insurance isn’t the only option to pay for medical costs. You can drain your life savings, or beg for hand-outs. That’s called reality.”

        This is also a false delimma there are more options some better some worse. For instance a friend of mine had a flex account for routine medical things and also an insurance plan for catastrophic injury or illness both affordable and both covered his needs. This is one example. Expand your horizons.

        Yes other countries have government run health care this is an apples and oranges comparison . The aca isn’t a step in the right direction, it doesn’t even adress the issue that it was intended for which is to reduce medical costs.

      • MEDAN1040

        Where did I claim those were the only options?
        Flex accounts are great – but how many can sock away hundreds of thousands to cover an extended hospital stay? Insurance plans for certain injuries or illnesses are also great – IF you have the correct injury or illness covered.
        I agree that Universal Heathcare & our system is apples & oranges. And that is the problem. But the fact of comparing the results such as infant deaths isn’t apples & oranges. It’s more reality that people like you fail to comprehend.
        But since you don’t like Obamacare, what is the Republican option?
        I suggest you expand your horizons & look at health care coverages around the world.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well that’s the impression I get since you only mentioned two options until I pointed others out.
        Well flex accounts thanks to the ACA can only have 2500 in them and that doesn’t roll over anymore used to be 5000, furthermore I understand people can’t put 100’s of thousands away which is why I mentions catastrophic plans which my friend had that would have covered serious injury or disease, guess you missed that.

        Infant mortality rates are a moral high ground argument for one and two the USA isn’t much above the average for OEDC countries. Moreover infant mortality rat4es have zero to do with the high cost of healthcare.

        RE Obamacare have you even read the law? Because I have and it doesn’t do what you think it does I will gladly link you the full text so you can read it yourself.

      • MEDAN1040

        “Well that’s the impression I get..” Perhaps you should read what people actually say rather than trying to think about what it means.
        Besides flex accounts there ts also HSA’s – but again, how many can sock away hundreds of thousands to cover an extended hospital stay?
        And I already said this – but “guess you missed that” so once again – Insurance plans for certain injuries or illnesses are also great – IF you have the correct injury or illness covered.
        Regarding infant mortality rates – you say “USA isn’t much above the average for OEDC countries”. So to you it doesn’t matter that we are worse there?
        According to the World Health Organization we have 7 infant deaths per every 1,000 live births. Compare that to Finland, Iceland & japan at 2 per 1,000. Or France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, & Italy at 3 per 1,000. Or Australia, Austria, Belgium, Israel, Netherlands, or Spain @ 4 per 1,000.
        That’s much above average so perhaps you need to look before you throw out BS. Or does our excess in infant deaths mean nothing to you?
        And as far as you saying that our high costs (ie our healthcare system) has nothing to do with this – well it’s obvious that this subject is way over your head.
        Uh, & yes I have read the Obamacare law. Unlike you I have read it all, not just the parts you obviously have been told to read.

      • Charles Vincent

        “”Well that’s the impression I get..” Perhaps you should read what people
        actually say rather than trying to think about what it means.”

        I took what you said in context not much to think about.

        HSa’s have a yearly limit. just like flex accounts. The only difference is that hsa’s roll over and can be added to up to the limit per year again in addition to what rolled over.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account

        Again I never said anything about hundreds of thousands and again you don’t seem to understand what a catastrophic insurance plan is. if one used an HSA or flex account with this type of insurance there would be no cost of 100’s of thousands to the individual. this type of plan would also cover the extended hospital stay as well again you didn’t pay attention.

        https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/catastrophic-plans/

        Infant mortality rates have never been linked to high healthcare costs.

        “Leading causes of congenital infant mortality are malformations, sudden infant death syndrome, maternal complications during pregnancy, and accidents and unintentional injuries.[4]
        Environmental and social barriers prevent access to basic medical
        resources and thus contribute to an increasing infant mortality rate;
        99% of infant deaths occur in developing countries, and 86% of these
        deaths are due to infections, premature births, complications during delivery, and perinatal asphyxia and birth injuries.[2] Greatest percentage reduction of infant mortality occurs in countries that already have low rates of infant mortality.[5]
        Common causes are preventable with low-cost measures. In the United
        States, a primary determinant of infant mortality risk is infant birth
        weight with lower birth weights increasing the risk of infant mortality.
        The determinants of low birth weight include socio-economic,
        psychological, behavioral and environmental factors.”

        From;

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

        The rest of your “points” are either assumption or ad lapidem nonsense.

      • MEDAN1040

        “I took what you said in context not much to think about.” Thanks for admitting you aren’t thinking much.

        Gee, looks like you get much of your info from Wikipedia – a place where anyone can edit pages. Thanks for the laugh.

        “Again I never said anything about hundreds of thousands…” Exactly you prefer to continue to ignore that. Have someone read & explain to you my previous posts because there is no sense in repeating it again.

        As for your cut & paste on infant mortality rates, it includes “Environmental and social barriers prevent access to basic medical resources and thus contribute to an increasing infant mortality rate”.
        DUH – you know like not having health insurance & therefore not getting proper prenatal care.
        The countries I listed above all have universal health care. In other words their people are more important to them then the profits of stockholders & of insurance & medical companies are. Our costs which are over twice as much per person (per the World Health Organization) than Australia, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, the UK, etc are geared for corporate profits – not the well being of Americans. Thanks again for showing that this subject is way over your head.
        BTW – Obamacare includes the reduction of administrative costs. That must have been one of the parts your shepherds told you to ignore.
        And thanks for another laugh.

      • Charles Vincent

        Your simple replies don’t require any heavy thinking chief.

        “Gee, looks like you get much of your info from Wikipedia – a place where anyone can edit pages. Thanks for the laugh.”

        no i dont get all my info from there it just happens they had a good write up on it, one that’s well cited. Apparently you didn’t scroll to the bottom to see all the citations.

        “Exactly you prefer to continue to ignore that.”

        No I don’t. Catastrophic insurance would cover anything the HSA account didn’t apparently you can’t see how the two work together. number two most people only get routine medical care, i.e. checkups and such, not much but paying through a HSA OR flex account which goes toward the yearly max out of pocket and are generally not bank breaking.

        “As for your cut & paste on infant mortality rates, it includes
        “Environmental and social barriers prevent access to basic medical
        resources and thus contribute to an increasing infant mortality rate”.”

        Cut and paste or not the information is still accurate regardless and your reply is ad lapidem nonsense. Moreover you missed this little tidbit from my cut and paste,”Common causes are preventable with low-cost measures.”
        ^^^^^^^ see there “LOW COST MEASURES” preventable with very little money the other piece you missed is that 99% of the worlds Infant deaths happen in under developed countries.

        Other countries are irrelevant here just like comparing our country to other countries when talking about gun control this is also ad lapidem nonsense on your part.

        The ACA does nothing to lower the high cost of health care which is the big problem here.

      • MEDAN1040

        Typical RWW – getting his arse kicked with reality so try to change the subject – this time to gun control which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
        One more thing on subject – yes, your cut & paste definitely is accurate – you just lack the ability to comprehend what is said. And to prove that you highlight “LOW COST MEASURES” which obviously our old healthcare system did not do.
        The fact is that the repubs have bitched & moaned about Obamacare for years now but have offered no alternatives other than to go back to the old system where we pay over 2X as much per person than many other countries while we got worse results (this is easily confirmed by the World Health Organization but I’m sure facts that they provide you aren’t interested in). Other countries ARE relevant here – but thanks for the laugh showing that you don’t have the ability to understand that.
        I’ve wasted enough time with you, but I appreciate the laughs you provided. So go ahead and post again so in your brainwashed mind you can think you won here. Have a great day.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Typical RWW – getting his arse kicked with reality so try to change the
        subject – this time to gun control which has absolutely nothing to do
        with this discussion”

        Wow this is like four logical fallacy arguments rolled into one, I made a comparison that isn’t changing the subject Corky. the only reality you posited here is of the “because you said so” variety, you have offered no real facts GG nubtard.

        WRT paragraph two;

        Riddle me this how is insurance going to stop SIDS being as that it is unpredictable and the number one killer of children under 1 year of age?

        Source; http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/sleep/sids.html

        “Reducing the Risk
        A lack of answers is part of what makes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) so frightening. SIDS is the leading cause of death among infants 1 month to 1 year old, and claims the lives of about 2,500 each year in the United States. It remains unpredictable despite years of research.”

        WRT paragraph three

        Wrong the republicans did a thorough study back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s they however abandon it because they concluded the current situation would happen, in fact they utilized the individual mandate concept the Republicans researched. I have acknowledged the fact that our cost is higher you just cant see it due to cognitive dissonance and the ACA doesn’t address that problem.

        WRT paragraph four
        You can’t win an argument when you provide no verifiable facts something you failed to do this whole time. would you like your ball back before you run along home Corky?

      • MEDAN1040

        This is just too funny not to reply. And I’m not talking about the ignorance of the SIDS comment (have someone explain to you how ignorant that was, I’m not wasting my time).
        Corky., nubtard, Corky again – WOW! Are you in middle school or is that just your intelligence level?

      • Charles Vincent

        Wait I thought you said you weren’t going to reply anymore?????? and hello pot meet kettle. Stupid mouth breather if you don’t like it when people to call you names don’t call them names.

      • MEDAN1040

        “hello pot meet kettle.” “Stupid mouth breather”
        Thanks again. It’s hilarious to recall the juvenile conversations from middle school.

      • Charles Vincent

        Should I make my insults more refined like these comments from you????

        “Unlike you I have read it all, not just the parts you obviously have been told to read.”

        “Thanks again for showing that this subject is way over your head.”

        “Typical RWW”

        “you just lack the ability to comprehend what is said.”

        “but thanks for the laugh showing that you don’t have the ability to understand that.”

        And my all time favorite of yours;

        “I’ve wasted enough time with you, but I appreciate the laughs you provided. So go ahead and post again so in your brainwashed mind you can think you won here. Have a great day.”

        And yet here we are. You’re still crying like a baby over facts I provided that proved you wrong. And making even more logical fallacy arguments. Cheers mouth breather you must be the smartest kid with down syndrome.

      • MEDAN1040

        As I clearly said – “This is just too funny not to reply.” Have someone explain to you what that means.
        You mistake the tears from the laughter with crying. As far as “over facts I provided that proved you wrong.” – you poor thing, that BS works on other pages, but not here. But thanks for one of the best laughs yet.
        And then he ends with “down syndrome”.
        You just can’t hide the middle school mentality level, can you.

      • Charles Vincent

        Why are you still speaking? Oh that’s right you think you’ve added something relevant, good luck with that willful ignorance chief.

      • MEDAN1040

        “Why are you still speaking?” Because your ignorance is hilarious & I always enjoy a good laugh.

      • Charles Vincent

        Still responding despite your earlier statement hah, not only are you a moron you’re a liar as well.

      • MEDAN1040

        I see you still haven’t had someone explain to you what “This is just too funny not to reply.” means. Perhaps someone you know has a 3rd grader who can enlighten you. But thanks for another laugh.

      • Charles Vincent

        I think it’s funny you can’t keep your word. typical of a left wing troll.

      • MEDAN1040

        You are hilarious & I enjoy laughs. Sorry that you lack the ability to understand, but that’s very typical of a brainwashed right winger.
        BTW – this is a progressive page, so who is the troll? Thanks for more laughs.

      • Charles Vincent

        ad lapidem nonsense

      • Peach314

        Thus, toll roads are also “robbery” CONscum? Some must drive on them to reach work, hospitals, and other NECESSITIES. The tax increases in Florida since the lesser but smarter Bush boy are many more times the tax cuts, about 50% of which went OUT of the US to Bush family foreign friends. Want a copy of a document YOU paid to record? $1-2 a PAGE. Park near a government building YOU paid to build, $2-5 an hour. Miss the 10 day deadline on utility bills, MINIMUM $5-10 per every late payment, even if by a few minutes.

        Courthouses in the poorer counties in Florida now close at 4:00 pm, no money to stay open since JEB!ro cut revenue sharing. Who complains the loudest? CONdumbs that voted them in office! Consuela Bush cleanup up; $2.00 6 ounce sodas in Florida detention centers, at the concessions SHE owned while JEB!ro was Governor netted her 13 MILLION in profit, until the publicity forced her cheating fetid Bush butt to sale, at a large profit of course.

        Florida got a double hit, both putrid Bushes, Governor and President. Sick Rot is worse, if possible. His Port of Tampa INVESTMENT is sucking up millions a week in taxpayer money, while schools go without books, supplies and trained teachers.

        Gone are the days of Eisenhower, Ford and Dole. Today’s Pubbies live AND profit off of taxpayer money, while services went over a cliff. The potholes in State roads are living proof.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hello little libtard. funny you mention toll roads most of which are in liberal states and most of which can be avoided at any rate. the rest od your post is;

        Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.