saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,843
- 2,030
Healthcare is a highly regulated industry. Can't buy many types of hospital equipment or even do certain procedures regularly without a certificate of need.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nice try, but I ain't that guy. I'm making a valid point. A lot of the enlarged basal ganglias running around here just love to spout off about how everyone needs to pay for the services, but ignore the fact that unless you're actually going to deny them services, you've solved nothing. Medical costs will rise, and premiums will rise in kind, end of story.
Single payer is probably the best for 'Most' people within a system, but I stand by my assertion that an individual mandate is a good common ground.
I'm still waiting for compelling stats showing that unpaid care is a major source of health care inflation. I haven't seen it yet. What I've seen is that most uninsured people do pay their bills, even if they don't have all of it up front. EMTALA only requires immediate emergency care, not long term life-sustaining services.
It's not lack of insurance that's making prices go up. If anything, it's the opposite. It's our national habit of over-insuring that's driving health care inflation. There is virtually no downward price pressure from health care consumer who are 'covered' by standard group plans. In fact, they have exactly the opposite incentive. Once their deductible is met, it's entirely in their interests to seek the best, and the most expensive care they can arrange.
That's what makes the mandate doubly damning. Not only is a blatant abuse of the consumers right to refuse to purchase products they don't want, it's actually doubling down a health care financing strategy that's a proven failure.
Interesting how virtually everyone who so hates the concept are all people who claim not to be affected by it (Eg, already have insurance anyways).
I'm always sort of fascinated by these kinds of comments. You often hear similar disparaging remarks about people who are opposed to heavily progressive taxes - even while they themselves aren't wealthy. Have you ever considered that some people don't view politics from a "what's-in-it-for-me" perspective? Some of us are genuinely worried about what kind of world these policy changes will create. What kind of legacy will we be leaving our children? What kind of debt? What will life be like under a caretaker government? Will there be any room left for people who value freedom as much as security?
Still no argument that it is a right.
Just a lot of crying about how much it costs (and with merit).
Does not make it a right.
We have some medical people on this thread. Enlighten some of these posters with the survival rate of heart attack victims that have the event outside of the ICU or Emergency Room. Yet these folks will rack up huge bills living what? Less than a week?
Still no argument that it is a right.
Just a lot of crying about how much it costs (and with merit).
Does not make it a right.
It seems that Vanderbilt sees it as a right. I've witnessed it. They don't CARE about whether or not one can pay. When someone is bleeding to death, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not they can pay.
If they are eating in the hundreds of millions of uncompensated care....there is a problem.
Here's an idea: Allow people to opt out of healthcare when things will most likely be terminal. Then compute the cost of care if they had been treated and give the surviving family half.
Still no argument that it is a right.
Just a lot of crying about how much it costs (and with merit).
Does not make it a right.
It seems that Vanderbilt sees it as a right. I've witnessed it. They don't CARE about whether or not one can pay. When someone is bleeding to death, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not they can pay.
If they are eating in the hundreds of millions of uncompensated care....there is a problem.
Vanderbilt does not carry any sway in the matter of rights.
You may find it morally wrong for someone to be homless and offer them a room in your house. That does not mean the government needs to offer housing to everyone.
Many ER's in AZ have closed because they can't eat the cost of caring for the illegals who never pay dime.
Nice try, but I ain't that guy. I'm making a valid point. A lot of the enlarged basal ganglias running around here just love to spout off about how everyone needs to pay for the services, but ignore the fact that unless you're actually going to deny them services, you've solved nothing. Medical costs will rise, and premiums will rise in kind, end of story.
Single payer is probably the best for 'Most' people within a system, but I stand by my assertion that an individual mandate is a good common ground.
I'm still waiting for compelling stats showing that unpaid care is a major source of health care inflation. I haven't seen it yet. What I've seen is that most uninsured people do pay their bills, even if they don't have all of it up front. EMTALA only requires immediate emergency care, not long term life-sustaining services.
It's not lack of insurance that's making prices go up. If anything, it's the opposite. It's our national habit of over-insuring that's driving health care inflation. There is virtually no downward price pressure from health care consumer who are 'covered' by standard group plans. In fact, they have exactly the opposite incentive. Once their deductible is met, it's entirely in their interests to seek the best, and the most expensive care they can arrange.
That's what makes the mandate doubly damning. Not only is a blatant abuse of the consumers right to refuse to purchase products they don't want, it's actually doubling down a health care financing strategy that's a proven failure.
Interesting how virtually everyone who so hates the concept are all people who claim not to be affected by it (Eg, already have insurance anyways).
I'm always sort of fascinated by these kinds of comments. You often hear similar disparaging remarks about people who are opposed to heavily progressive taxes - even while they themselves aren't wealthy. Have you ever considered that some people don't view politics from a "what's-in-it-for-me" perspective? Some of us are genuinely worried about what kind of world these policy changes will create. What kind of legacy will we be leaving our children? What kind of debt? What will life be like under a caretaker government? Will there be any room left for people who value freedom as much as security?
Here is one link. If you aren't familiar, this is our teaching hospital and Level-One trauma Center in Middle Tennessee:
Vanderbilt University Medical Center - VUMC Bears Brunt of Uncompensated Care Burden
This is in Nashville, TN alone. Where does the money come from to cover this? Government? Wouldn't that mean basically....us? Feel free to dispute me.
Pretty astounding numbers, I would say. Disagree?
It seems that Vanderbilt sees it as a right. I've witnessed it. They don't CARE about whether or not one can pay. When someone is bleeding to death, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not they can pay.
If they are eating in the hundreds of millions of uncompensated care....there is a problem.
Vanderbilt does not carry any sway in the matter of rights.
You may find it morally wrong for someone to be homless and offer them a room in your house. That does not mean the government needs to offer housing to everyone.
Many ER's in AZ have closed because they can't eat the cost of caring for the illegals who never pay dime.
I'm sure that Vanderbilt is not the only reputable medical center who is having this problem. Vanderbilt treats PLENTY of gangbangers who are shot....have seen it.
So what do you recommend that we do. Just let them die? Is that what Christ would do? SO many of you are religious on here. Are you a Christian?
It seems that Vanderbilt sees it as a right. I've witnessed it. They don't CARE about whether or not one can pay. When someone is bleeding to death, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not they can pay.
If they are eating in the hundreds of millions of uncompensated care....there is a problem.
Vanderbilt does not carry any sway in the matter of rights.
You may find it morally wrong for someone to be homless and offer them a room in your house. That does not mean the government needs to offer housing to everyone.
Many ER's in AZ have closed because they can't eat the cost of caring for the illegals who never pay dime.
I'm sure that Vanderbilt is not the only reputable medical center who is having this problem. Vanderbilt treats PLENTY of gangbangers who are shot....have seen it.
So what do you recommend that we do. Just let them die? Is that what Christ would do? SO many of you are religious on here. Are you a Christian?
I'm still waiting for compelling stats showing that unpaid care is a major source of health care inflation. I haven't seen it yet. What I've seen is that most uninsured people do pay their bills, even if they don't have all of it up front. EMTALA only requires immediate emergency care, not long term life-sustaining services.
It's not lack of insurance that's making prices go up. If anything, it's the opposite. It's our national habit of over-insuring that's driving health care inflation. There is virtually no downward price pressure from health care consumer who are 'covered' by standard group plans. In fact, they have exactly the opposite incentive. Once their deductible is met, it's entirely in their interests to seek the best, and the most expensive care they can arrange.
That's what makes the mandate doubly damning. Not only is a blatant abuse of the consumers right to refuse to purchase products they don't want, it's actually doubling down a health care financing strategy that's a proven failure.
I'm always sort of fascinated by these kinds of comments. You often hear similar disparaging remarks about people who are opposed to heavily progressive taxes - even while they themselves aren't wealthy. Have you ever considered that some people don't view politics from a "what's-in-it-for-me" perspective? Some of us are genuinely worried about what kind of world these policy changes will create. What kind of legacy will we be leaving our children? What kind of debt? What will life be like under a caretaker government? Will there be any room left for people who value freedom as much as security?
Here is one link. If you aren't familiar, this is our teaching hospital and Level-One trauma Center in Middle Tennessee:
Vanderbilt University Medical Center - VUMC Bears Brunt of Uncompensated Care Burden
This is in Nashville, TN alone. Where does the money come from to cover this? Government? Wouldn't that mean basically....us? Feel free to dispute me.
Pretty astounding numbers, I would say. Disagree?
No disagreement with the numbers, but both of you are missing my point. I'm not questioning that it's a significant amount. What I am questioning is how it's affecting health care inflation. No doubt those costs are passed on, but it's overhead. And overhead is relatively static. It may make health care more expensive than it needs to be, but it doesn't account for continually rising prices.
Moreover, I'm questioning how a mandate would change things. We'll still be spending just as much to care for the indigent. (actually, probably more - insurance companies take a cut as middle men).
To me there are two separate questions at the heart of the health care debate. One, is what we do about people who can't afford health care. And the other is what to do about runaway health care inflation. Reasonable safety nets for the poor can address the first issue. But by ignoring the inflation issue, PPACA pretty much guarantees that we'll need a safety net big enough for all of us. I suspect that's the point.
I'm still waiting for compelling stats showing that unpaid care is a major source of health care inflation. I haven't seen it yet. What I've seen is that most uninsured people do pay their bills, even if they don't have all of it up front. EMTALA only requires immediate emergency care, not long term life-sustaining services.
It's not lack of insurance that's making prices go up. If anything, it's the opposite. It's our national habit of over-insuring that's driving health care inflation. There is virtually no downward price pressure from health care consumer who are 'covered' by standard group plans. In fact, they have exactly the opposite incentive. Once their deductible is met, it's entirely in their interests to seek the best, and the most expensive care they can arrange.
That's what makes the mandate doubly damning. Not only is a blatant abuse of the consumers right to refuse to purchase products they don't want, it's actually doubling down a health care financing strategy that's a proven failure.
I'm always sort of fascinated by these kinds of comments. You often hear similar disparaging remarks about people who are opposed to heavily progressive taxes - even while they themselves aren't wealthy. Have you ever considered that some people don't view politics from a "what's-in-it-for-me" perspective? Some of us are genuinely worried about what kind of world these policy changes will create. What kind of legacy will we be leaving our children? What kind of debt? What will life be like under a caretaker government? Will there be any room left for people who value freedom as much as security?
Here is one link. If you aren't familiar, this is our teaching hospital and Level-One trauma Center in Middle Tennessee:
Vanderbilt University Medical Center - VUMC Bears Brunt of Uncompensated Care Burden
This is in Nashville, TN alone. Where does the money come from to cover this? Government? Wouldn't that mean basically....us? Feel free to dispute me.
Pretty astounding numbers, I would say. Disagree?
No disagreement with the numbers, but both of you are missing my point. I'm not questioning that it's a significant amount. What I am questioning is how it's affecting health care inflation. No doubt those costs are passed on, but it's overhead. And overhead is relatively static. It may make health care more expensive than it needs to be, but it doesn't account for continually rising prices.
Moreover, I'm questioning how a mandate would change things. We'll still be spending just as much to care for the indigent. (actually, probably more - insurance companies take a cut as middle men).
I see two separate questions at the heart of the health care debate. One is what we do about people who can't afford health care. And the other is what to do about runaway health care inflation. Reasonable safety nets for the poor can address the first issue. But by ignoring the inflation issue, PPACA pretty much guarantees that we'll need a safety net big enough for all of us. I suspect that's the point.
No disagreement with the numbers, but both of you are missing my point. I'm not questioning that it's a significant amount. What I am questioning is how it's affecting health care inflation. No doubt those costs are passed on, but it's overhead. And overhead is relatively static. It may make health care more expensive than it needs to be, but it doesn't account for continually rising prices.
Moreover, I'm questioning how a mandate would change things. We'll still be spending just as much to care for the indigent. (actually, probably more - insurance companies take a cut as middle men).
I see two separate questions at the heart of the health care debate. One is what we do about people who can't afford health care. And the other is what to do about runaway health care inflation. Reasonable safety nets for the poor can address the first issue. But by ignoring the inflation issue, PPACA pretty much guarantees that we'll need a safety net big enough for all of us. I suspect that's the point.
Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
Let's be clear.....
Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
Let's be clear.....
Your healthcare is your problem. Deal with it.
Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
Let's be clear.....
Your healthcare is your problem. Deal with it.
Yeah, but no, it's not. It's everyone's problem.