Thread: Health Care in the USA

Originally Posted by slt5103

LX is right on this one. Health care is expensive! Although, when was the last time you saw a family doctor having to pay off a CT Scan machine. Regular, family doctors visits should not cost as much as they do. The only reason they are, is because insurance companies will pay for it. They are not paying off any equipment, because any equipment they need is offered at the specialist office (which insurances will and SHOULD cover) they refer patients too. Blood work is sent off to be processed else where. This too shouldn't be that expensive, because how many people need blood work... A LOT! The only reason it is, is because insurance companies will pay those ridiculous costs. Anytime a middle man is involved, prices will go up; it's a fact.

P.S.- LX, I'm loving the TI

Do not forget the debts a lot of doctors have because of studies, rent on the location, staff they have to pay etc etc.

Buisiness is always more expensive than it seems.

Re: Insurance would be cheaper without government interference.

Maybe. But healthcare would not be cheaper if we continue to treat the uninsured.

The problem does not lie in the insurance industry itself. The real core of the problem lies in the uninsured. Uninsured people will wait until they are on the verge of death to go and see a doctor. Then they go to the ER room, get treated at a price many many times more expensive than if they had just gone to a general practitioner to treat their illness. And THEN, they abscond and don't pay their bills. Why? Because they can't pay the enormous cost. The hospital send the collection agency, the poor person either cannot be found, used a fake name, doesn't have any assets to collect, etc.

Point being, those without insurance who use the ER rooms when they are on the verge of death, get treated and then don't pay the bill cause the hospital to raise its rates for everyone else in order to recuperate those costs. End result: higher health care bills, and by extension, higher insurance premiums.

How to solve the problem:
Well, one way would be to refuse service without payment up front. Essentially dooming the poor to a painful and slow death. Well, they got their liberty, but they did not get their life, which is also one of the inalienable rights. Hmmm, life...liberty... I think they would choose life. But apparently their opinions don't count so...moving on.

The other option is to provide everyone health insurance or health care. Force them to have health insurance so they will go see a doctor when they are sick rather than going to the ER room.



Re: Aliens. Yes, definitely a problem if we start offering free health care. However, I personally would rather address that problem through better border control. There wouldn't be an illegal alien problem if we kept them out of the country to begin with.... Thus, I think of it as a separate, although connected problem. But one that needs to be addressed through other means, not through the health care system.

Health care is NOT a right. It is a marketable service, but it is not a right.

Health care cannot be a right and it does not meet the requirements of a right. Health care requires the consent of others. Rights do not demand upon, nor infringe upon, the rights of others.

No one has a right to health care. But all of us do have a right to care for our health.

Originally Posted by honedright

Health care is NOT a right. It is a marketable service, but it is not a right.

Health care cannot be a right and it does not meet the requirements of a right. Health care requires the consent of others. Rights do not demand upon, nor infringe upon, the rights of others.

No one has a right to health care. But all of us do have a right to care for our health.

Just making sure, but you would doom those without the ability to pay for healthcare to death?

For example, a newborn on his way home gets into a horrible car accident. He is severely injured and would otherwise die if left untreated. His parents have insurance, but don't have the ability to pay for his health care. He is not on their policy because his parent's insurance did not enroll him as he is a newborn or because the insurance company messed up. Thus, the choices are to allow him to be treated in the ER room for free, or he must die.

Not going to say your wrong or anything, just making sure your view is consistent.

Originally Posted by Leighton

Just making sure, but you would doom those without the ability to pay for healthcare to death?

For example, a newborn on his way home gets into a horrible car accident. He is severely injured and would otherwise die if left untreated. His parents have insurance, but don't have the ability to pay for his health care. He is not on their policy because his parent's insurance did not enroll him as he is a newborn or because the insurance company messed up. Thus, the choices are to allow him to be treated in the ER room for free, or he must die.

Not going to say your wrong or anything, just making sure your view is consistent.

Any physician that would refuse to treat a dying infant, especially on the basis of inability to pay, would not only be breaking the law and his oath to medicine, but he'd also be sued so badly that his great-great grandchildren would be born poor.

If the parents screwed up and forgot to enroll the infant (stupid mistake?), why couldn't they sign a "promise to pay" agreement with the hospital and then pay off their obligation just like any other? Why should the public have to financially amend the mistakes of others?

If the screw up was the insurance companies, I'd imagine there would be some recourse there.

Originally Posted by honedright

Any physician that would refuse to treat a dying infant, especially on the basis of inability to pay, would not only be breaking the law and his oath to medicine, but he'd also be sued so badly that his great-great grandchildren would be born poor.

If the parents screwed up and forgot to enroll the infant (stupid mistake), why couldn't they sign a "promise to pay" agreement with the hospital and then pay off their obligation just like any other?

If the screw up was the insurance companies, I'd imagine there would be some recourse there.

So healthcare is not a right, but the ER is? But isn't the ER part of healthcare? Where is the line drawn? Would it matter if it was a child and the parents had no healthcare? If the baby was an adult?

Originally Posted by Leighton

So healthcare is not a right, but the ER is? But isn't the ER part of healthcare? Where is the line drawn? Would it matter if it was a child and the parents had no healthcare? If the baby was an adult?

No, the ER is not a right. The ER and it's staff treat by their consent. They decide whether or not they will treat you. Fortunately most health care providers are humanitarians, and they take an oath to treat. They also know that a failure to treat will most likely result in a lawsuit.

The person treated still bears a financial obligation to those that saved him (or her).

Never would happen.

1)If the child was born in the hospital (s)he would have had care billed to the insurance company already and would already be on the policy. All policies are required

2) The hospital is required to treat in this situation by law.

3) Medical personnel feel morally bound to treat in this kind of situation regardless of payor class.

bad example

better example

11 year old type 1 diabetic runs away from the orphanage and is living on the street. Is only able to get treatment in the ER because of inability to pay. The ER staff (being the humanitarians they are) periodically supply insulin and diabetic supplies, but the child has no regular follow up (no money/insurance to get into a Dr's office) so the control is marginal - enough to stay out of the hospital, but not good enough to prevent eventual kidney failure, heart attack, stroke, loss of vision or loss of limb.

there you go - use that one

Originally Posted by Pyment

better example

11 year old type 1 diabetic runs away from the orphanage and is living on the street. Is only able to get treatment in the ER because of inability to pay. The ER staff (being the humanitarians they are) periodically supply insulin and diabetic supplies, but the child has no regular follow up (no money/insurance to get into a Dr's office) so the control is marginal - enough to stay out of the hospital, but not good enough to prevent eventual kidney failure, heart attack, stroke, loss of vision or loss of limb.

there you go - use that one

There are always the extreme exceptions. But cutting to the chase - I don't believe that there are any social problems that are just "one cause, one effect." Wouldn't that be nice. More likely all social problems have very intricate, multitudinous causes, leading to many effects. But I don't believe any social problem(s) can be remedied by continually adding on to the problems, which I believe is exactly what a national/ socialized health care system would do.

In the example above, a problem child, we must find ways to address those individuals. Realizing too, sad as it may be, that some are just going to fall through the cracks. But shall we dumb down the entire class because we have a few slow students? Or do we find a way to bring the slow students up to speed so that the entire class will excel? I think the later is best.