Universal health care wouldn't be that bad if...

[erowe1]

The problem is that the uninsured are charged at stupid rates. $4000 for 30 stitches and an xray, as was mentioned previously in the thread. That's not the free market.

I don't understand why you seem so gleeful about gouging and impoverishing people struggling with a health problem.

I don't understand why terrorists in guantanamo are getting better healthcare than I am.

Sean, if you want more of your own money to pay for other people's medical care, you are free to donate it to such a cause all you want. And if we eliminate income tax, you will be even more free to donate it that way than you are now because you'll have more to give (as well as more to spend on your own care). Nobody who believes in free market capitalism wants to prohibit people from freely contributing to charities like that. It's when doing that becomes compulsory that it becomes immoral.

 

[Corydoras]

Is there anyone here who believes in universal health care who is currently donating on a regular basis to medical institutions that are providing direct care to patients (and not just research), such as the Shriners Hospitals for Children?

And if not, why are you expecting your neighbors to do the same through their taxes?

 

[maverickdy]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up, because I don't feel like reading everything, but has anyone considered VA and Military hospitals? Those are the key things to be looking at when considering Universal Healthcare. Those hospitals are funded by the government and you can see exactly what it'll be like if Universal Healthcare was to hit the U.S. Nobody in the military likes the hospitals, they're run down and everything about it is decrepit. Nearly all veterans who have the money to do so, opt-out of the military hospitals and get their own doctors outside of the military hospital. What does that say to you?

 

[Corydoras]

$4000 for 30 stitches and an xray, as was mentioned previously in the thread. That's not the free market.

I agree, it's not. It's subsidized. Do you have any idea how much hospitals charge foreign nationals?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Sean, if you want more of your own money to pay for other people's medical care, you are free to donate it to such a cause all you want. And if we eliminate income tax, you will be even more free to donate it that way than you are now because you'll have more to give (as well as more to spend on your own care). Nobody who believes in free market capitalism wants to prohibit people from freely contributing to charities like that. It's when doing that becomes compulsory that it becomes immoral.

You seem to misunderstand. I want medical care for myself, and I don't think that I as a cash customer should have to pay the absolute maximum possible for every treatment. Where's the market competing for my dollars? It doesn't exist. I need to see a doctor for something I'm afraid is serious, and I think I'm going to face bankruptcy because of it. That system is not working for me. There's actually a perverse incentive for me to become a criminal, and get myself thrown in jail so that I can see a doctor without having to cash out my 401k.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up, because I don't feel like reading everything, but has anyone considered VA and Military hospitals? Those are the key things to be looking at when considering Universal Healthcare. Those hospitals are funded by the government and you can see exactly what it'll be like if Universal Healthcare was to hit the U.S. Nobody in the military likes the hospitals, they're run down and everything about it is decrepit. Nearly all veterans who have the money to do so, opt-out of the military hospitals and get their own doctors outside of the military hospital. What does that say to you?

Says to me they're better than nothing, which is exactly what I'm getting now.

 

[Corydoras]

I don't understand why terrorists in guantanamo are getting better healthcare than I am.

They aren't at liberty, like you are. The government decides what healthcare they get. For example, if they decide to go on a hunger strike, they are strapped to a chair and force-fed by tube.

Remember that when the government decides what healthcare you get, that means they get to decide what healthcare to force you to get. You know, like Edwards's plan, where you have to prove to the government that you got your annual checkup, or Hillary's fantasy that you will have to prove you're insured in order to get a job.

 

[Corydoras]

Where's the market competing for my dollars? It doesn't exist.

It isn't, because the market isn't free, it's currently subsidized.

The market is more free in fields that are currently not heavily supported by insurance and the government, such as lasik, and prices are way down. Used to be $5000 per eye, now it's $500 for both eyes.

I need to see a doctor for something I'm afraid is serious, and I think I'm going to face bankruptcy because of it. That system is not working for me. There's actually a perverse incentive for me to become a criminal, and get myself thrown in jail so that I can see a doctor without having to cash out my 401k.

You have a 401k and you want other taxpayers to subsidize it. Right.


I'm sorry you're worried about bankruptcy, but at least you will have the government cushioning the blow by allowing you to make the arrangements.

Sure, you can become a criminal and trade your liberty for healthcare. Your choice.

 

[SeanEdwards]

The bottom line problem is that healthcare is too expensive for the uninsured. I don't really care how the problem gets fixed, but I want it fixed. People should not have to choose between dying and financial ruin. Our current system is rigged to bone the uninsured. Its not a level playing field. I should get an economic advantage by being a cash customer, but I get penalized instead.

It's a fact that you can get essentially the same quality medical care in Mexico for like 10% of what you pay in the U.S. Why are the same services so much cheaper there?

 

[Corydoras]

I need to see a doctor for something I'm afraid is serious, and I think I'm going to face bankruptcy because of it.

There are much worse things in life than being bankrupt. "The system" is not designed to keep you out of bankruptcy. It appears that you did not think ahead for if you got sick, and while that is water under the bridge for you, it is still your responsibility that you did not think of it.

I think you are looking for a political solution to a personal problem. First visit a doctor and see if you need further tests. Be sure to explain to the doctor that you are extremely worried because you have no health insurance. And remember that you do not have to get tests as soon as the doctor wants. Then force yourself to look at your resources calmly.

Being a free human being includes being resourceful. If this condition is serious, this includes finding out what charities exist in your area that can help you with things like food, daily chores, and nursing-- food banks can be a great help; thinking calmly about your credit limits; finding out what the asset guidelines are for Medicaid in your state; finding out local welfare and social security disability requirements; visiting the financial office of your local hospitals to see if they have their own in-house assistance for patients with low income and assets; asking your local hospital if they have a social worker you can visit for an hour to go over your options; considering switching to a job that has health insurance; considering moving to a cheaper place before you get too sick to move; learning about bankruptcy laws in your state; asking your church for help; and doing it all fast, so that your care is not delayed any more than it has to be. Remember, too, that it might not be nearly as serious as you fear.

Yes, freedom requires you to work for it. I did it all and you can, too.

 

[Corydoras]

People should not have to choose between dying and financial ruin.

Why not? People DO do it. You just don't hear about it because, surprise, they do it all the time.

Its not a level playing field. I should get an economic advantage by being a cash customer, but I get penalized instead.

YES, YOU ARE RIGHT. And a free market should reward cash.

I think you have it backwards, though. It is not that you are getting shafted for being a paying customer, it is that the insurance companies are getting an unjust break through having so much clout.

It's a fact that you can get essentially the same quality medical care in Mexico for like 10% of what you pay in the U.S. Why are the same services so much cheaper there?

Americans are being made to pay for a lot of things, like research. (Yes, there are research studies going on that are being funded directly by patients' insurance, being charged directly to them.) There also is a huge bureaucratic structure that is being supported because so often payments are being made by the government, the patient, and an insurance company or two, which raises the cost of collection.

But patients in the UK, which has a national health service, are doing things like flying to Hungary for cheap medical care, so that they don't have to deal with rationing and so they have some choice over the treatments they receive. Government systems do not cure the problem.

 

[cjhowe]

Those that talk about how you're at the mercy of the nearest hospital in an emergency situation...have you even taken the personal responsibility to learn basic first aid?

I would be shocked to learn that half of the people that complain of this have.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Why not? People DO do it. You just don't hear about it because, surprise, they do it all the time.

The system is not working in that case. It's not delivering services adequately. And I do hear about people being financially ruined by health problems. It's the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US.

All this stuff in our society is a construct. We don't have to live in a country where medical care is scarce and exceedingly expensive. We have chosen to do so.

Personally, I think for profit insurance in general is a joke. I think I'd like to see insurance run as a co-op or some kind of non-profit basis. Insurance as a mitigator of risk fails when it excludes those most at risk.

 

[cjhowe]

The system is not working in that case. It's not delivering services adequately. And I do hear about people being financially ruined by health problems. It's the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US.

All this stuff in our society is a construct. We don't have to live in a country where medical care is scarce and exceedingly expensive. We have chosen to do so.

Personally, I think for profit insurance in general is a joke. I think I'd like to see insurance run as a co-op or some kind of non-profit basis. Insurance as a mitigator of risk fails when it excludes those most at risk.

Having this discussion with someone on the internet seems ridiculous. If one is on the internet at their home, they have not chosen between getting health services and financial ruin. They have chosen between luxury items and health services. Have they not?

 

[Corydoras]

The system is not working in that case. It's not delivering services adequately. And I do hear about people being financially ruined by health problems. It's the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US.

You really think that is something the government should fix?
By raising taxes?

 

[trispear]

That's true, but I don't see how that addresses the concern about the effective local monopoly emergency hospitals have and the fact that they could charge any price.

That's like saying landlords have a local monopoly.

I don't see how. I have the time to leisurely stroll through listings and select an apartment at the right price. I don't need to have an apartment absolutely and it wouldn't impact me longterm if I decide to sleep outside for a couple of weeks or in my car.

There are also many landlords around.

In any specific emergency timeframe, there may be 1 or a select few hospitals and I'm not going to go doctor shopping during that time.

 

[Corydoras]

If one is on the internet at their home, they have not chosen between getting health services and financial ruin. They have chosen between luxury items and health services. Have they not?

Broadband may be a luxury. I'm inclined to view the internet as a utility. For example, it is a way to find treatment options and charities that can help save money. I'm inclined to view a telephone plan as more of a luxury than the internet.

 

[Corydoras]

it wouldn't impact me longterm if I decide to sleep outside for a couple of weeks or in my car.

Nice climate you live in. Don't try it in the winter in the upper midwest or New England, where lack of shelter is a life-threatening emergency in the winter.

In any specific emergency timeframe, there may be 1 or a select few hospitals and I'm not going to go doctor shopping during that time.

Do I understand properly, you're urging government price controls?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Having this discussion with someone on the internet seems ridiculous. If one is on the internet at their home, they have not chosen between getting health services and financial ruin. They have chosen between luxury items and health services. Have they not?

You seem to enjoy adopting a cavalier attitude towards someone else's misfortune. No big deal to you if I, or the other millions of uninsured become homeless in order to pay for exorbitantly priced healthcare I guess. I suppose you think we're getting what we deserve?

 

[Corydoras]

You seem to enjoy adopting a cavalier attitude towards someone else's misfortune. No big deal to you if I, or the other millions of uninsured become homeless in order to pay for exorbitantly priced healthcare I guess. I suppose you think we're getting what we deserve?

I know you're addressing it to him, but please don't attribute attitudes to others that they may not have.

Look, bad luck happens. It happened to me and it may have happened to you. It is not the government's job to fix that.