This is what happens when you can't afford healthcare

Wayne the only things conserved when you give voice to an opiion are reason and facts. If you even bothered to read anything about the man's case from any source other than a "progressive" echo chamber you would know that his condition was dealt with "when the need first arose" by more than a two week course of antibiotics. He was also seen early on by a specialist in the lymphatic system, something noted just after the antibiotics course is mentioned. You would know that surgery was proposed much earlier, when it would have cost substantially less, but the man rejected that surgery because of the rist thak he would wake up castrated and having to urinate through a tube the rest of his life. Beggars, it seems, can indeed be choosers after all when we're talking about taxpayers picking up the bill. And so the man decided, not the medical profession, not the taxpayers, to wait while his scrotum grew ever larger while searching for a different option. Now, given it was the man who wanted something different, please explain to all of us why the cost of that other option shouldn't fall on his shoulders and not the taxpayers.

It wasn't that the doctors failed to find a solution for the man at all. The "problem" was that the man wasn't happy with the solutions offered and decided to look for a different solution to his problem. And after waiting an additional 3 years while looking for that solution, the problem became larger, as most problems do when they are not addressed in a timely fashion. It was the length of time the man looked for a solution that he was happier with that caused the cost to skyrocket, not a lack of access to medical care. And when all was said and done, he ended up with a 1" penis anyway, so he still didn't get the solution he was looking for while his scrotum continued to grow larger for 3 years which brought the cost of treating his problem into the hundreds of thousands of dollars range instead of the tens of thousands of dollars range.

It was ultimately the man's fault that it cost 100's of 1,000's of dollars to treat his condition, so why shouldn't he have to bear that cost himself? Why should the taxpayers of Nevada and the rest of the Union (feds provide half of Medicaid funds after all) be responsible for funding that huge cost as a result of decisions that the man made? Shouldn't we have the right to say no to him when he was offered a solution that would have cost all of us a lot less three years ago and he turned that solution down and chose instead to seek a better solution for the next 3 years while his problem continued to grow both in size and expense to treat?

There is a basic flaw in the "progressive" logic. Health care is a service which must be paid for, not a right which one enjoys. No one has a natural right to the services of another without paying for those services, that is slavery and involuntary servitude, something that is prohibited by our Constitution. Doctors and surgeons may elect to reduce their charges or donate their services, but as a society we do not have a right to compel them to accept an amount that is less than what they feel is proper for the services they render or to tell them that they will render services for absolutely no compensation.

Printsmith wrote: Seems rather, shall we say, hypocritical for CV to demand a source from Fred while attempting to dodge providing one for his own blatantly absurd assertion, doesn't it?

Conservative Voice wrote: And can you show my quote where I -- as you claim -- demanded a source from Fred?

Still waiting.

PrintSmith wrote: There is a basic flaw in the "progressive" logic. Health care is a service which must be paid for, not a right which one enjoys. No one has a natural right to the services of another without paying for those services, that is slavery and involuntary servitude, something that is prohibited by our Constitution. Doctors and surgeons may elect to reduce their charges or donate their services, but as a society we do not have a right to compel them to accept an amount that is less than what they feel is proper for the services they render or to tell them that they will render services for absolutely no compensation.

What a strawman this is. Nobody has EVER proposed that healthcare professionals do their job for free. Do you consider all police volunteers? Firefighters? When attempting to score points by flinging feces, you dilute your overall point and render the whole post moot.

towermonkey wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: There is a basic flaw in the "progressive" logic. Health care is a service which must be paid for, not a right which one enjoys. No one has a natural right to the services of another without paying for those services, that is slavery and involuntary servitude, something that is prohibited by our Constitution. Doctors and surgeons may elect to reduce their charges or donate their services, but as a society we do not have a right to compel them to accept an amount that is less than what they feel is proper for the services they render or to tell them that they will render services for absolutely no compensation.

What a strawman this is. Nobody has EVER proposed that healthcare professionals do their job for free. Do you consider all police volunteers? Firefighters? When attempt to score points by flinging feces, you dilute your overall point and render the whole post moot.

\


But I hate to see a good right-wing rant go to waste... What?... Ir's fact-free, and not based on reality?... Since when has that stopped them?

Walter L Newton wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote: Well, my first source is the link I posted. My second source is the fact that he has a 100+ pound scrotum. I suppose you consider giving him a bunch of antibiotics that didn't work "treatment." I don't. And yes, I should have used the word "properly" as in "If this had been dealt with properly" it wouldn't cost so much now. It would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove them, so he just adapted. Now, they have to do something and guess who picks up the tab? That's what's really absurd to me.

And can you show my quote where I -- as you claim -- demanded a source from Fred?

PS, you might be a lot happier if you quit making personal insults every time you try to make a point with anybody. It really makes you look petty. It's a hard habit to break, but I have faith in you, buddy.

Interesting... you

1) Quote an article that has much of the actual detail of the case missing.
2) Using the article that is missing many of the facts you state " dealt with when the need first arose"
3) When you are shown that your quoted article was constructed to present one ideological point of view, sans all the facts...
4) You move the target.

Wayne... you've been a journalist for over 30 years... you know better.

Actually that says much about current journalism, start with an agenda and proceed from there. Details? Not important.
He could have had the exact same issues in a single payer system.

Nice try guys. I'm posting on a local message board as a poster. I have never claimed I'm posting as a journalist. It has nothing to do with journalism. Your personal posts aren't a news story that you've written. And Walter has no real idea how long I've been a journalist so he should shut his pie hole about it since he was way off anyway. His analysis was also off the mark.

Conservative Voice wrote: Nice try guys. I'm posting on a local message board as a poster. It has nothing to do with journalism. Your personal posts aren't a news story that you've written. And Walter has no real idea how long I've been a journalist so he should shut his pie hole about it. His analysis was also off the mark.

Then I guess the resume is phony...

***** started at ******* * as a news writer in 1983. Over the next three decades, he held various positions in the **** newsroom including producer, senior producer, planning editor, assignment editor and assignment manager.

***********************************************

And... "His analysis was also off the mark." Explain why Wayne?

Walter, I've reported you for violating the Terms of Service regarding the posting of personal identifiable information. You have no right to post information about anyone's employer on this forum. I would think you'd know better and I would ask you to remove it.

You may not be aware but personal information regarding employment was used against a number of posters on Pinecam and harassment letters were sent to their employers as a result. Posting personal employment information is a giant NO NO.

And yes, I've held the same job for 30 years. It doesn't mean that's when I became a journalist.

Conservative Voice wrote: Walter, I've reported you for violating the Terms of Service regarding the posting of personal identifiable information. You have no right to post information about anyone's employer on this forum. I would think you'd know better and I would ask you to remove it.

You may not be aware but personal information regarding employment was used against a number of posters on Pinecam and harassment letters were sent to their employers as a result. Posting personal employment information is a giant NO NO.

And yes, I've held the same job for 30 years. It doesn't mean that's when I became a journalist.

Yea... whatever... public info... you're not the Masked News Person or anything.

Try again... And... "His analysis was also off the mark." Explain why Wayne?

Walter.... Really bad form. You may choose to make your own information public, but you do not have the right to make that choice for others.

The info you found may be public information, the link to a poster here, not so much.