Yes I do. Just as you know that stabilization is not in *all* cases totally equivalent to the care someone would receive if they had insurance.
It is revealing when the left gets to weaseling. So by extension, you feel that anyone paying for tuna fish should get filet mignon? By your statement above, you are advocating that. Clearly tuna fish is nutritious and will sustain you. But since someone else PAID for filet mignon, then EVERYONE should have it.
It is enlightening to see the truth finally coming out.
This also *presumes* that someone without routine medical checkups happens to present themselves to the hospital at precisely the right time for treatments to be effective.
An assinine statement. You "presume" that everyone with insurance goes for routine medical checkups too. You can lead a horse to water.....
Also while the truly destitute certainly qualify for Medicare, there are still many people who fall into the "donut hole" of not meeting poverty requirements yet still not being able to afford insurance.
But they still get medical care, so your point is? Oh, I see, the filet mignon argument again. It is not a donut hole (it is a hole for some), but guess what? They still do not pay. But now they do.
Those people are the ones that can end up screwed.
And you have proof? Show me the studies that say 100% of them are screwed - and to which ones these filet mignon snappers are associated with.
Again, yes I know that there are potential charitable solutions out there, but particularly when it comes to cancer and Chemo/Radiation therapy there is a certain immediacy of starting treatments and a small window which if missed due to financial issues can never be recovered later, again as you well know.
I see. so everyone with insurance is cured, and everyone without never has a chance? Ok, that is an exageration of your statement (for effect), but that is a nice neat package you have wrapped up. And your case studies are where?
My point is that in many and in fact probably even most cases someone can present at a hospital with a life threatening condition and receive the same treatment whether they have insurance or not. But not in *all* cases.
Right, the lollipop syndrome.
The bottom line is that people do die at a measurably higher rate all other things being equal based on whether they have insurance or not. This results in 45,000 people a year that die because they don't have insurance. Again, as I'm sure you know.
Studies conclude that people who eat carrots are 100% likely to die. So we should ban carrots? You have showed no causailty, and not even a statistical relationship between insurance and death. All you have done is make a grand statement without any backup proof or taking into account the life styles of the 2 different groups (in other words, you are saying that God is punishing gays because gays have a higher incidence of AIDS than straights - as there is no way you can incorporate lifestyle choices into the equations).
But then that is what liberals do - condemn, not investigate causes.
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
This one I love the most. So when those 45k died, they asked them if they had insurance? NOPE!
The studies asked them 15 years ago if they had insurance at that time. Then they ASSUMED those people never got insurance before they died.
So much for your talking points. Got any links there MF?