Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER.
In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
Have you seen what shows up in ER's? A good deal of what shows up is NOT an emergency. And in my opinion they should be turned away.
It would be more efficient for the government to open low cost hospitals and clinics. Require doctors that are still paying off their loans to man them for free.
So then would not seem prudent that the best cost cutting solution would be on that allows people to pay docotors and hospitals directly?
I mean how should it be funded? Through taxes or should everyone be responsible for the cost of their own medical needs?
Everyone should be responsible for their own costs, but if you can't afford it you shouldn't be turned away. Agree?
Agreed. So then the question becomes how those people that can't pay, pay....if at all. One option is to agree as a society that there are always going to be people that can't pay for the medical care they require and as a compassionate society we agree that part of our tax dollars are going to be used to pay for those people.
Or we really, really make people responsible for their own costs. That requires a little elaboration. Of course no one plans to get sick or break something that requires medical attention. At the same time we all conciously or otherwise are aware that the possibility exists that it could happen and it has to be paid for. Thus there isn't any excuse for a person to not plan financially for such an event. Ideally you should be free to plan for that however you see fit. Set aside a savings account just for health care costs, get an insurance plan, whatever. The other thing we could agree on as a society is that your health care costs are your responsibility and a failure to plan for them on your part doesnt' let you off the hook just because you don't have the money. Maybe instead of 2000 pages of legislation we make a few minor tweaks that make people MORE responsible rather than less. We deregulate the insurance industry to they have the ability to offer a wider variety of plans and we make illegal to skip out on your medical costs. If you didnt plan and now need to work out some type of payment plan with the hospital so be it. Or maybe some type of new insurance plan arises that you can buy after you get sick. of course it will be extremely expensive and you might be paying permiums for the rest of your life for just one major illness, but again you knew the possibilities and didn't take the appropriate precautionary measures and these are the consequences.
Everyone should be responsible for their own costs, but if you can't afford it you shouldn't be turned away. Agree?
Agreed. So then the question becomes how those people that can't pay, pay....if at all. One option is to agree as a society that there are always going to be people that can't pay for the medical care they require and as a compassionate society we agree that part of our tax dollars are going to be used to pay for those people.
Or we really, really make people responsible for their own costs. That requires a little elaboration. Of course no one plans to get sick or break something that requires medical attention. At the same time we all conciously or otherwise are aware that the possibility exists that it could happen and it has to be paid for. Thus there isn't any excuse for a person to not plan financially for such an event. Ideally you should be free to plan for that however you see fit. Set aside a savings account just for health care costs, get an insurance plan, whatever. The other thing we could agree on as a society is that your health care costs are your responsibility and a failure to plan for them on your part doesnt' let you off the hook just because you don't have the money. Maybe instead of 2000 pages of legislation we make a few minor tweaks that make people MORE responsible rather than less. We deregulate the insurance industry to they have the ability to offer a wider variety of plans and we make illegal to skip out on your medical costs. If you didnt plan and now need to work out some type of payment plan with the hospital so be it. Or maybe some type of new insurance plan arises that you can buy after you get sick. of course it will be extremely expensive and you might be paying permiums for the rest of your life for just one major illness, but again you knew the possibilities and didn't take the appropriate precautionary measures and these are the consequences.
The problem is we have sooo many people who just can't pay no matter what fines or threats you make. Medical bankruptcy is a HUGE problem in this country. Those people literally can not pay and that cost is then passed along to everyone else who can pay. However this increased cost forces more people to drop their coverage which adds more people in to the system who show up at Hospitals and can't afford coverage, which in turn continues to raise the rates for all of us and the cycle continues to repeat itself.
So you can make not paying illegal, or try and say we should put people on payment plans but the reality of that is neither of those options are going to lower the costs for the rest of us. You can't squeeze blood from a stone and if people don't have money, they won't pay...we will.
So how do we minimize the amount we have to pay.
1) We require that everyone have insurance so that people who can afford it are paying their fair share which also helps these ridiculous costing ER visits to be minimized
2) We subsidize the cost of people who can't pay their own way by helping them buy private insurance which which will keep people healthier and away from expensive ER's
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER.
In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
I understand the premise but why subsidize their insurance? Why give them an insurance plan at all? That just seems like an extra step to me. If they can't pay for it, they can't pay for it. The distinction between an inability to pay the actual cost of the ER or to pay insurance premiums is irrelevent. So if we do agree to just pay for these people it would seem pointless to have them be on insurance at all and we should just accept that a portion of our tax dollars are going to be used by government to pay the ER directly for those that can't pay for it.
But that's a completely inefficient way of paying for their costs. It ends up costing all of us WAAAAAY more for multiple reasons.
1 - ER's are VERY expensive. You don't have a chance to shop around for costs when you are faced with going to an ER and thus their is no reason to keep costs down for them.
2 - If someone goes to an ER it's probably because their condition has got so bad that they are being forced to finally seek treatment. This means that the condition is much worse then it was if they had it treated when the problem first arose. This means that the problem will now require more attention and in all likelihood more expensive tests, equipment and medicine.
3 - ER's are only there to stabilize, not for long term treatment. If you have no insurance and show up at an ER for a condition that you have that has gotten out of control, they will stabilize you (for alot of $$, see above) and send you out again. This doesn't mean you are healed and are likely to end up right back in the ER again, and the cycle continues.
So to avoid all of this, if people had basic insurance coverage from the start, they could see a doctor to get the care they need before it gets out of control and they end up in the ER. This care would be much cheaper and would actually improve the overall quality of life of these people while keeping the costs down for the rest of us who like it or not are helping to pay for everyone who can't afford their own healthcare costs.
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER.
In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
Have you seen what shows up in ER's? A good deal of what shows up is NOT an emergency. And in my opinion they should be turned away.
It would be more efficient for the government to open low cost hospitals and clinics. Require doctors that are still paying off their loans to man them for free.
Yeah, you're right, alot of ER patients shouldn't be there, but they have nowhere else to go because they have no insurance. That's why if they had insurance from the beginning they can seek care with their personal doctor and avoid the ER all-together. That improves the quality of their life, while reducing the costs for the rest of us.
I understand the premise but why subsidize their insurance? Why give them an insurance plan at all? That just seems like an extra step to me. If they can't pay for it, they can't pay for it. The distinction between an inability to pay the actual cost of the ER or to pay insurance premiums is irrelevent. So if we do agree to just pay for these people it would seem pointless to have them be on insurance at all and we should just accept that a portion of our tax dollars are going to be used by government to pay the ER directly for those that can't pay for it.
But that's a completely inefficient way of paying for their costs. It ends up costing all of us WAAAAAY more for multiple reasons.
1 - ER's are VERY expensive. You don't have a chance to shop around for costs when you are faced with going to an ER and thus their is no reason to keep costs down for them.
2 - If someone goes to an ER it's probably because their condition has got so bad that they are being forced to finally seek treatment. This means that the condition is much worse then it was if they had it treated when the problem first arose. This means that the problem will now require more attention and in all likelihood more expensive tests, equipment and medicine.
3 - ER's are only there to stabilize, not for long term treatment. If you have no insurance and show up at an ER for a condition that you have that has gotten out of control, they will stabilize you (for alot of $$, see above) and send you out again. This doesn't mean you are healed and are likely to end up right back in the ER again, and the cycle continues.
So to avoid all of this, if people had basic insurance coverage from the start, they could see a doctor to get the care they need before it gets out of control and they end up in the ER. This care would be much cheaper and would actually improve the overall quality of life of these people while keeping the costs down for the rest of us who like it or not are helping to pay for everyone who can't afford their own healthcare costs.
Might have to explain that a little more. If we subsidize inurance for all these people, government/us pays for it. If we just pay for their medical costs government/us pays for it. I would think paying for insurance would be the more expensive of the two options.
What is your life worth, Bern80?
Out with it, lad , tell us exactly what it's worth.
Is it worth every cent you have?
Even if it leaves you bankrupted?
My guess is that to you it is.
That, FYI, is why normal market considerations are meaningless when it comes to health care issues and policies.
When was the last time you shopped around for heart by pass surgery?
I seldom try to answer questions that really have no answer, Bern.That's kind of my point in asking the question ed (which you didn't answer)? The fact that you didn't answer it proves my point.
Cost controlling solutions, even ones that proclaim to control costs like Obamacare, are irrelevant if what people really think is that health care is too valuable to put any price tag on.
As you may recall I continue to post that the current reform to HC won't work, and that the problem is not one that requires a DEMAND side solution.
Ifg anything our HC problems come from the Supply Side since no matter how much money we put into HC the prices will rise to capture that money without much adding to the overall amount of HC we get.
That's why the question should your health care be publicly funded or privately funded by you needs to be answered first. None of you libs seem to want to fess up.
The solution will NOT be found by messing with funding ALONE.
On that we agree.
And my post to you was my attempt to show you WHY that kind of solution will NOT WORK.
Have you seen what shows up in ER's? A good deal of what shows up is NOT an emergency. And in my opinion they should be turned away.
It would be more efficient for the government to open low cost hospitals and clinics. Require doctors that are still paying off their loans to man them for free.
Yeah, you're right, alot of ER patients shouldn't be there, but they have nowhere else to go because they have no insurance. That's why if they had insurance from the beginning they can seek care with their personal doctor and avoid the ER all-together. That improves the quality of their life, while reducing the costs for the rest of us.
So take care of people from birth to death is what you are saying to "save money" To bad so sad. Life sucks. Pay your way in life.
No, giving free insurance for life does not decrease the cost to the rest of us. It increases it.
Why should i pocket the cost of "improving the quality of life" for anyone? That is something people need to do for themselves.
The problem is we have sooo many people who just can't pay no matter what fines or threats you make. Medical bankruptcy is a HUGE problem in this country. Those people literally can not pay and that cost is then passed along to everyone else who can pay. However this increased cost forces more people to drop their coverage which adds more people in to the system who show up at Hospitals and can't afford coverage, which in turn continues to raise the rates for all of us and the cycle continues to repeat itself.
So you can make not paying illegal, or try and say we should put people on payment plans but the reality of that is neither of those options are going to lower the costs for the rest of us. You can't squeeze blood from a stone and if people don't have money, they won't pay...we will.
So how do we minimize the amount we have to pay.
1) We require that everyone have insurance so that people who can afford it are paying their fair share which also helps these ridiculous costing ER visits to be minimized
The problem is we have sooo many people who just can't pay no matter what fines or threats you make. Medical bankruptcy is a HUGE problem in this country. Those people literally can not pay and that cost is then passed along to everyone else who can pay. However this increased cost forces more people to drop their coverage which adds more people in to the system who show up at Hospitals and can't afford coverage, which in turn continues to raise the rates for all of us and the cycle continues to repeat itself.
So you can make not paying illegal, or try and say we should put people on payment plans but the reality of that is neither of those options are going to lower the costs for the rest of us. You can't squeeze blood from a stone and if people don't have money, they won't pay...we will.
So how do we minimize the amount we have to pay.
1) We require that everyone have insurance so that people who can afford it are paying their fair share which also helps these ridiculous costing ER visits to be minimized
Except you can't constitutionally do that. And you have to look at the indirect costs as well of that. What new department are we going to need to set up that arbitrarilly decides whether you can afford insurance or not? People who don't have insurance fall into many categories. Peope that don't have it because they can't afford it, people that don't have it because they are paying their medical costs some other way, and people that don't have it, can afford it, but choose not to. There just aren't that many people in that last group. Play this out for a second. The insurance mandate goes into effect. 1) How will government establish who doesn't have insurance? 2) Let's say they clear that hurdle and they see you don't have insurance. How are they going to figure WHY you don't have insurance and thus whether to tax you for not having it? They only way I can see that happening is IF you could afford insurance and IF you had to go to the doctor and IF you couldn't pay for services. That's a lot of ifs. What I'm saying is in theory the costs for all of us go down with a mandate but I'm willing to bet the beauracracy needed to enforce it is going to cost about has much as we would save. So not only can you add unconstitutional to the reasons we shouldn't have such a mandate, you can also add ultimately irrelevent.
The problem is we have sooo many people who just can't pay no matter what fines or threats you make. Medical bankruptcy is a HUGE problem in this country. Those people literally can not pay and that cost is then passed along to everyone else who can pay. However this increased cost forces more people to drop their coverage which adds more people in to the system who show up at Hospitals and can't afford coverage, which in turn continues to raise the rates for all of us and the cycle continues to repeat itself.
So you can make not paying illegal, or try and say we should put people on payment plans but the reality of that is neither of those options are going to lower the costs for the rest of us. You can't squeeze blood from a stone and if people don't have money, they won't pay...we will.
So how do we minimize the amount we have to pay.
1) We require that everyone have insurance so that people who can afford it are paying their fair share which also helps these ridiculous costing ER visits to be minimized
Except you can't constitutionally do that. And you have to look at the indirect costs as well of that. What new department are we going to need to set up that arbitrarilly decides whether you can afford insurance or not? People who don't have insurance fall into many categories. Peope that don't have it because they can't afford it, people that don't have it because they are paying their medical costs some other way, and people that don't have it, can afford it, but choose not to. There just aren't that many people in that last group. Play this out for a second. The insurance mandate goes into effect. 1) How will government establish who doesn't have insurance? 2) Let's say they clear that hurdle and they see you don't have insurance. How are they going to figure WHY you don't have insurance and thus whether to tax you for not having it? They only way I can see that happening is IF you could afford insurance and IF you had to go to the doctor and IF you couldn't pay for services. That's a lot of ifs. What I'm saying is in theory the costs for all of us go down with a mandate but I'm willing to bet the beauracracy needed to enforce it is going to cost about has much as we would save. So not only can you add unconstitutional to the reasons we shouldn't have such a mandate, you can also add ultimately irrelevent.
Government is FAR from efficient, I known this, but to be able to determine eligibility for insurance subsidies is simply based upon your income. EVERYONE will be taxed/fined who doesn't have insurance, only difference is that the people who truly can not afford the full cost on their own will receive those subsidies. They will prove their need through their income which they are already reporting annually.
Except you can't constitutionally do that. And you have to look at the indirect costs as well of that. What new department are we going to need to set up that arbitrarilly decides whether you can afford insurance or not? People who don't have insurance fall into many categories. Peope that don't have it because they can't afford it, people that don't have it because they are paying their medical costs some other way, and people that don't have it, can afford it, but choose not to. There just aren't that many people in that last group. Play this out for a second. The insurance mandate goes into effect. 1) How will government establish who doesn't have insurance? 2) Let's say they clear that hurdle and they see you don't have insurance. How are they going to figure WHY you don't have insurance and thus whether to tax you for not having it? They only way I can see that happening is IF you could afford insurance and IF you had to go to the doctor and IF you couldn't pay for services. That's a lot of ifs. What I'm saying is in theory the costs for all of us go down with a mandate but I'm willing to bet the beauracracy needed to enforce it is going to cost about has much as we would save. So not only can you add unconstitutional to the reasons we shouldn't have such a mandate, you can also add ultimately irrelevent.
Government is FAR from efficient, I known this, but to be able to determine eligibility for insurance subsidies is simply based upon your income. EVERYONE will be taxed/fined who doesn't have insurance, only difference is that the people who truly can not afford the full cost on their own will receive those subsidies. They will prove their need through their income which they are already reporting annually.
Which means on top of being unconstitutional government now gets to tell YOU how much income is enough to afford what they say you have to buy. Am I really the only way that finds that rather absurd and borderline tyrannical?
The person that went to the ER.
If they have ins, the ins pays the lion share.
If not they can set up a payment plan.
What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?
I know someone that pays a hopital $50 a month for hip replacement.
Stop whining, life aint fair, and no amount of you digging and digging for excuses will give the left a pass on taking more of my independence from me.
Yeah, you're right, alot of ER patients shouldn't be there, but they have nowhere else to go because they have no insurance. That's why if they had insurance from the beginning they can seek care with their personal doctor and avoid the ER all-together. That improves the quality of their life, while reducing the costs for the rest of us.
So take care of people from birth to death is what you are saying to "save money" To bad so sad. Life sucks. Pay your way in life.
No, giving free insurance for life does not decrease the cost to the rest of us. It increases it.
Why should i pocket the cost of "improving the quality of life" for anyone? That is something people need to do for themselves.
Huh? You said yourself earlier that someone has to pay for these peoples care. Which is true. Someone being the rest of us who do pay for insurance. This plan not only improves the quality of life for these people but it keeps our costs down because we are deciding how to pay instead of letting them decide how.
Or are you saying that if you can't afford healthcare then you are shit out luck and should just suffer??
So should anyone who wants subsidized health insurance be able to just ask for it and get it without question? How should standards be determined?
The problem is we have sooo many people who just can't pay no matter what fines or threats you make. Medical bankruptcy is a HUGE problem in this country. Those people literally can not pay and that cost is then passed along to everyone else who can pay. However this increased cost forces more people to drop their coverage which adds more people in to the system who show up at Hospitals and can't afford coverage, which in turn continues to raise the rates for all of us and the cycle continues to repeat itself.
So you can make not paying illegal, or try and say we should put people on payment plans but the reality of that is neither of those options are going to lower the costs for the rest of us. You can't squeeze blood from a stone and if people don't have money, they won't pay...we will.
So how do we minimize the amount we have to pay.
1) We require that everyone have insurance so that people who can afford it are paying their fair share which also helps these ridiculous costing ER visits to be minimized
Except you can't constitutionally do that. And you have to look at the indirect costs as well of that. What new department are we going to need to set up that arbitrarilly decides whether you can afford insurance or not? People who don't have insurance fall into many categories. Peope that don't have it because they can't afford it, people that don't have it because they are paying their medical costs some other way, and people that don't have it, can afford it, but choose not to. There just aren't that many people in that last group. Play this out for a second. The insurance mandate goes into effect. 1) How will government establish who doesn't have insurance? 2) Let's say they clear that hurdle and they see you don't have insurance. How are they going to figure WHY you don't have insurance and thus whether to tax you for not having it? They only way I can see that happening is IF you could afford insurance and IF you had to go to the doctor and IF you couldn't pay for services. That's a lot of ifs. What I'm saying is in theory the costs for all of us go down with a mandate but I'm willing to bet the beauracracy needed to enforce it is going to cost about has much as we would save. So not only can you add unconstitutional to the reasons we shouldn't have such a mandate, you can also add ultimately irrelevent.
Government is FAR from efficient, I known this, but to be able to determine eligibility for insurance subsidies is simply based upon your income. EVERYONE will be taxed/fined who doesn't have insurance, only difference is that the people who truly can not afford the full cost on their own will receive those subsidies. They will prove their need through their income which they are already reporting annually.
RDD seems to have a very good bead on this issue.
An uninsured person is less likely to seek help early, hence the condition progresses and finally, fearing for his/her life, they show up in the ER. The cost is of course much higher by this point. Since the person couldn't afford health insurance, they can't afford the bill, period - Or maybe they die from their condition after running up the bill. Whether they do or not, and whether you feel a moral empathy for them or not, the point is that the bill goes unpaid and gets subsidized by paying customers, or the taxpayer. That's just the way it is, no spouting about personal accountability and whatnot is going to change that.
We should have a single payer system. Private insurance products can still exist, even non-participant HC facilities, like they have in Canada, but everyone should have access to care. That's the only way the overall costs will go down. Requiring everyone to have private insurance is a start. It's not the direction I'd have liked to see it go, but it's all the political climate would allow for.
Except you can't constitutionally do that. And you have to look at the indirect costs as well of that. What new department are we going to need to set up that arbitrarilly decides whether you can afford insurance or not? People who don't have insurance fall into many categories. Peope that don't have it because they can't afford it, people that don't have it because they are paying their medical costs some other way, and people that don't have it, can afford it, but choose not to. There just aren't that many people in that last group. Play this out for a second. The insurance mandate goes into effect. 1) How will government establish who doesn't have insurance? 2) Let's say they clear that hurdle and they see you don't have insurance. How are they going to figure WHY you don't have insurance and thus whether to tax you for not having it? They only way I can see that happening is IF you could afford insurance and IF you had to go to the doctor and IF you couldn't pay for services. That's a lot of ifs. What I'm saying is in theory the costs for all of us go down with a mandate but I'm willing to bet the beauracracy needed to enforce it is going to cost about has much as we would save. So not only can you add unconstitutional to the reasons we shouldn't have such a mandate, you can also add ultimately irrelevent.
Government is FAR from efficient, I known this, but to be able to determine eligibility for insurance subsidies is simply based upon your income. EVERYONE will be taxed/fined who doesn't have insurance, only difference is that the people who truly can not afford the full cost on their own will receive those subsidies. They will prove their need through their income which they are already reporting annually.
In my opinion, just as i am a proponent of flat tax, in your scenario....No..everyone should pay the same thing and no subsidies.
You want to make it efficient. Charge everyone the same thing. Easy.
So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?
