how-to block ads
|
Count Zero
MD2Be
Premium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to Johnny
Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine
That's a good point that I didn't even touch on. Many hospitals are REQUIRED to provide stabilizing treatment in their ERs, and when uninsured people come into the ER and leave without paying the hospital either has to get reimbursed from tax monies, or go bankrupt (as in Telfair county here in Georgia only a few months ago) and close - which worsens the healthcare situation for EVERYONE and it means that people wind up having to go to counties far away, where it may already be overcrowded, to get their care.
I guess this is what some people consider rationing? | |
Johnny
Premium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
| said by Count Zero  :That's a good point that I didn't even touch on. Many hospitals are REQUIRED to provide stabilizing treatment in their ERs, and when uninsured people come into the ER and leave without paying the hospital either has to get reimbursed from tax monies, or go bankrupt (as in Telfair county here in Georgia only a few months ago) and close - which worsens the healthcare situation for EVERYONE and it means that people wind up having to go to counties far away, where it may already be overcrowded, to get their care. I guess this is what some people consider rationing? Right. People who continue to insist that people should pay individually for healthcare are living in a dreamworld. No amount of tax-credits, tax-deductions, or tax-anything is going to make a difference if people have no money. Even the cheapest insurance can't be bought by people working at minimum wage, and they can't pay the deductibles either, which are the highest if you get the cheapest plan.
So all of these half-assed schemes that don't cover everybody are total non-starters. The reason there are 50 million uninsured isn't because these people don't want insurance; it's because they can't afford it.
McCain's ridiculous $5000 tax credit, even if you gave it to a McDonald's employee, wouldn't pay for a year's premiums plus deductible. It also does nothing to promote competition - since everyone would have the $5000, the insurers would just design plans that take it all, and subscribers still couldn't afford to see a doctor because of the deductibles. That means the insurers get the $5000 and pay out nothing.
Paying premiums so that insurers can make 30% profit is a huge waste of money - the insurers don't generate any productive work. Take that 30% and use it to actually buy health services instead of going to shareholders.
Nobody can choose whether to get health services - everyone needs them. Anybody could get cancer tomorrow. Any couple could have a premature baby this November. That's millions of dollars of debt, and loss of job in many cases due to illness. Loss of job = loss of insurance. Pay with a credit card and go bankrupt? Wups - the Republicans have made sure that you still have to pay it off by changing the bankruptcy laws.
And don't think that MediCare is going to help you. Need more than 90 days inpatient? Too bad. Need more than 120 days skilled nursing? Denied. Need non-skilled nursing home? Not covered.
So you are left with MediCaid. To get MediCaid you must have no more than $2000 in the bank and your house - nothing else. There goes the money you wanted your kids to inherit. Then you can get coverage. And anything they DO cover, they come after your estate once you die to reimburse themselves for the shitty care you got that you had to have mountains of paperwork sent in for each and every treatment to get it "authorized as a medical necessity", as if your doctor would order something that wasn't a medical necessity, and as if you would want a treatment or diagnostic test that wasn't medically necessary. So if your 30 year old children stood to inherit the house, they won't. The state will. | |
Count Five
@unsubcentral.com
thumbs down from:
Count Zero
| reply to Count Zero
said by Count Zero :That's a good point that I didn't even touch on. Many hospitals are REQUIRED to provide stabilizing treatment in their ERs, and when uninsured people come into the ER and leave without paying the hospital either has to get reimbursed from tax monies, or go bankrupt (as in Telfair county here in Georgia only a few months ago) and close - which worsens the healthcare situation for EVERYONE and it means that people wind up having to go to counties far away, where it may already be overcrowded, to get their care. I guess this is what some people consider rationing? [laughs]
Thanks for illustrating my point for me quite beautifully.
As you've just shown us, health care costs money. And if a hospital cannot get its patients to pay for their own care, it will have little choice but to go bankrupt because it cannot meet the costs associated with providing that care.
The reason why those other counties (the ones that still offer the "mandatory" ER care) then become crowded is because there's a constant demand for "free" ER services, yet there are no longer any such services available in Telfair county. Because the medical facilities that provided them were driven into bankruptcy by their doing so. Therefore, people seeking such care for free have to go somewhere else.
What you have yet to explain is just how, exactly, all this is fair to those people in the other counties. You know, the counties that now have all these people from Telfair County showing up and demanding care in their ERs.
All that's happening here is cost-shifting. That is, rather than the folks in Telfair County paying their own way, they are, instead, seeking to inflict those costs on people in other counties. And have them pick up the tab instead.
I take the position that the folks in Telfair County are responsible for meeting the costs of their own health care and are not entitled to shift those costs onto other people.
You seem to be of the opinion that Peter ought to pay Paul's emergency room bill no matter what. Well why, exactly, should Peter be asked to pay the bills of another person?
Case in point: English football hooligans and the NHS.
In case you weren't aware, the NHS in the UK operates under those exact conditions you describe: no one can be turned away and denied health care.
And in the case of English football hooligans, this is carte blanche for them to get into fights and smash the hell out of each other. Why? Because they know full well that the NHS is obliged to put them back together again (somewhat like Humpty Dumpty, if Humpty Dumpty was into vomiting through his nose and sported a BNP tattoo on his forehead).
Likewise, the folks in Telfair county have little incentive to take care of their own health if they can just show up at an ER, get health care, and have someone else foot the bill. And that they've managed to drive their local hospital into bankruptcy underscores the fact that they understand they can shift the costs of their health care onto others in a very real and meaningful way.
If you yourself are enthusiastic about footing the bills for other people, that's great. Perhaps you can band together with other like-minded folks and establish a private charity so that folks who can't meet their bills can get some help.
But I'm sure with the example you so kindly provided that you can now appreciate my lack of enthusiasm when it comes to picking up the tab for making health care "free" to other people. Because, as I'm sure you now understand, all that's actually taking place is that those costs are being shifted onto me. | |
Count Five
@unsubcentral.com
thumbs down from:
Count Zero
| reply to Johnny
said by Johnny :People who continue to insist that people should pay individually for healthcare are living in a dreamworld. Frankly, I'm beginning to suspect that anyone who continues to insist that Americans ought to pay their own way through life is "living in a dreamworld."
After all, why should I pay my own way when I can have other people pay my way for me?
What I'd like to know is: at what exact moment was it deemed mandatory that I pick up the tab for the health care of other people? Because I sure don't remember seeing that in the Constitution.
said by Johnny :No amount of tax-credits, tax-deductions, or tax-anything is going to make a difference if people have no money. And no amount of feel-good goobledygook is going to change the fact that all that socialized medicine really is is another wealth transfer program, where Peter is expected to pick up the tab for the costs that Paul incurs.
How is this fair, exactly? I've yet to hear an advocate of Socialized Medicine successfully rationalize the theft that is taking place here.
said by Johnny :Even the cheapest insurance can't be bought by people working at minimum wage, and they can't pay the deductibles either, which are the highest if you get the cheapest plan. I thought that ambition was all about not working for minimum wage.
And the reason why deductibles are so high when a plan calls for low premiums is because the insurance companies have costs to meet. This should not be a mystery.
said by Johnny :So all of these half-assed schemes that don't cover everybody are total non-starters. The reason there are 50 million uninsured isn't because these people don't want insurance; it's because they can't afford it. So if someone cannot afford something then the government has an automatic duty to step in and provide it for them?
Where, exactly, does it say that?
The point I'm trying to make here is that if you furnish people with everything, then they have little incentive to better themselves.
You seem to feel that just because someone cannot afford something, they still ought to have it anyway. Well, I disagree. The whole point to bettering yourself is to provide yourself and your family with the things you need. If you want the government to simply start handing things out, then you're removing the incentive for people to work harder and provide things for themselves through their own efforts.
I think that any country that decides that stealing from Peter to pay Paul is a legitimate way to do things is ultimately doomed. And that seems to be exactly what you're advocating here.
said by Johnny :McCain's ridiculous $5000 tax credit, even if you gave it to a McDonald's employee, wouldn't pay for a year's premiums plus deductible. It also does nothing to promote competition - since everyone would have the $5000, the insurers would just design plans that take it all, and subscribers still couldn't afford to see a doctor because of the deductibles. That means the insurers get the $5000 and pay out nothing. What leads you to believe that the government would be able to come up with a foolproof scheme of health care? All they're doing is handing out money here, so of course the system is going to get gamed.
Insurance companies don't make campaign contributions? Think again.
said by Johnny :Paying premiums so that insurers can make 30% profit is a huge waste of money - the insurers don't generate any productive work. Insurers don't do anything useful? I don't know about that one. If they don't do anything useful, why do people continue to give them money?
I'm confused as to what, exactly, the government is supposed to be doing in this scheme of yours that's so useful. The last time I looked, they weren't exactly generating anything in terms of "productive work" for Medicare, either.
said by Johnny :Take that 30% and use it to actually buy health services instead of going to shareholders. You're crediting the government with the ability to allocate resources efficiently here. When did that ever happen?
said by Johnny :Nobody can choose whether to get health services - everyone needs them. Hey, I need a place to live, too. Should I send you my rent bill?
Again, you're assuming that I am, somehow, obligated to pick up the tab for the expenses of other people. Once you tell me where it says that I'm obligated to do so, I'll do it.
Until then, you're making assertions that are entirely unsupported.
said by Johnny :Anybody could get cancer tomorrow. Any couple could have a premature baby this November. That's millions of dollars of debt, and loss of job in many cases due to illness. Which, presumably, is what motivates people to buy insurance.
I guess I don't understand how the insurance companies can still stay in business, what with their rates being so unaffordable and all.
said by Johnny :Loss of job = loss of insurance. Pay with a credit card and go bankrupt? Wups - the Republicans have made sure that you still have to pay it off by changing the bankruptcy laws. Oh, those dastardly Republicans. Perhaps they were bought off by the credit card companies?
And of course, if the Republicans were bought off by the credit card companies, perhaps we should wonder if the health care companies might (just might) throw some campaign contributions to the politicians and affect "universal health care" legislation by doing so.
Stranger things have happened.
said by Johnny :And don't think that MediCare is going to help you. Need more than 90 days inpatient? Too bad. Need more than 120 days skilled nursing? Denied. Need non-skilled nursing home? Not covered. Perhaps this is why insurance companies exist.
I think the fact that Medicare has the limitations you've listed helps to illustrate the fact that the government cannot afford to pick up the tab for everyone's health care all of the time. There is a finite amount of health care resources available. And getting the government involved is not going to change that.
Hey, I feel you, but I'm not convinced that involving the government more heavily in all of this is going to do anyone any good. All that's going to happen with such a scheme is that the politicians are going to line their own pockets, same as they always have. | |
Johnny
Premium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
| Yeah, what we have here ladies and gentlemen is an Atlas-Shrugging, Fountainheading, objectivist.
Which is fine until you consider what you have failed to realize: health care is NOT like housing or cars or any of the things you use as analogies to "what the government should provide."
If you do not have a house, you can technically live on the street. If you do not have a car you can walk.
If you do not have health coverage, somebody is going to call 911 and that starts the cash register. So the expenses WILL be generated no matter what.
Unless you are advocating a wallet biopsy on every emergency patient, and letting them die by the side of the road, then your whole idea of "everyone pays for himself" won't work for health care.
What, in your Ayn Rand world, should be done with the woman who has no money but has a premature baby at 27 weeks? Admonish her for over-extending her personal wealth? Talk about a dreamworld. Next we can admonish teens for having sex, telling them how wonderful personal responsibility is and how we aren't going to pay for their poor judgement.
Health care HAS to be paid for.
Unless, as I said, you would turn the woman in labor away, send her home to deliver there, if she had no coverage.
Would you? If not, Peter is paying Paul. | |
|
