Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[Rozman]

No one has to buy life insurance.
People choose to buy it.
No one has to buy car insurance.
If you want to drive you buy it.
If you want health insurance,you buy it.
If you can't pay for it give up some of the things
that you can do without.

 

[mskafka]

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?

 

[Listening]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[mskafka]

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.

 

[syrenn]

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?

A general hospital bed..... will run you 10K a day.

ICU... depending one what your problem is, can run you upwards of 30+K a day.

 

[Listening]

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.

 

[Listening]

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.

Kinda like my idea of having a social security account that has your name on it with your money in it. You are near the end and don't qualify (like my mother stage 4 lung cancer but medicare still paid for chemo....I tried to talk her out of it....it killed her quicker than the cancer)...you can dip into the principle to pay for costs or you can pass it on to your kids.

 

[mskafka]

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.

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?

 

[dblack]

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?

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Kindly show us anywhere that Christ talked about "charity by government". Thanks.

 

[Listening]

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?

A. That is none of your business.

B. It has nothing to do with rights.

AZ has emergency rooms that are closing because of illegals. That cuts out the legitimates from access to an ER.

Next, in Phoenix, the Mayo told Medicare patients to bring their checkbooks. No longer taking medicare for routine visits......This is the same Mayo that Obama held up as the cost model he wanted to follow (and it is a good cost model). That tells you how underfunded things are and Phoenix seniors are feeling it.

In the end, Health Care is not a right. We don't want government in our health care. That some don't have it and need it is addressed in other ways. The government is not the only solution and in fact it is a pretty stupid solution.

 

[mskafka]

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.

Good post, my man. You're making me think. You have a brain, and a heart....a rare combination. I wish that I knew the answer. Clearly, a single-payer system is not popular in the US. I understand this. So if this is such a bad idea....and Obamacare is such a bad idea....PRESENT ANOTHER IDEA....ANYONE. Someone with business sense, who fully understands the health insurance system, and who isn't going to suggest that we hand a neurologist a chicken after an exam. Let's have some real answers.

And just as a side note: most of us don't go into healthcare for the money. I'm a paramedic. I sure as HELL didn't go into it for the money. But I treat everyone the same-insured, uninsured....stinky, pleasant-smelling, wealthy and poor. And I'll tell ya-the rich of the world-the puke, piss, and shit smells just as bad as everyone else's. I know, as I've smelled and worn both. So let's come up with a solution, and present it to these bozos in congress.

We have brilliant people in here. Help come up with a solution.

 

[Listening]

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.

If the government can force health care on you...what is next ?

That is the point.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Just look at numbers, it's quite logical. Leave the emotion out of it.

If there are 100 people, and 70 pay into a pool for healthcare, and 1 uses it on any given day, you have 70 people paying for that 1 guy that day. If all 100 are paying in, his bill is divided by 100 instead of 70.

An additional, though less measurable phenomenon, is that the 30 without health insurance will wait until they're very sick before seeing a doctor, and will go only when their fear for their life outweighs their fear of the bill. A $18 Z-Pack can turn into pneumonia and a week in the hospital very quickly... And again, it's those 70 guys who DO pay for him.

Inflation to some extent is going to be inevitable under any system, as new healthcare procedures become available. Your chances of receiving a treatment or procedure increase exponentially at the moment that treatment begins to exist. But that does not negate the logic of an individual mandate.

 

[percysunshine]

Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

Let's be clear.....

Your healthcare is your problem. Deal with it.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

How is YOUR healthcare EVERYONE'S problem, unless you're Typhoid Mary?