Let's debunk one of liberals' belief — healthcare should be a fundamental right

I like it. Good idea.

 

The entire point is everyone contributes, therefore everyone benefits.

So you believe it's fairer that healthcare is so expensive to a point of being unregulated, that everyone is forced to take out ridiculously expensive private health insurance, whereby these private health insurance providers are making outrageous profits off the backs of the sick?

Having a system whereby every wage and salary earner contibutes something to UHC indeed forces private health insurance providers to regulate themselves to remain competitive.

 

It's a government solution to a government problem. The problem is - hospitals, by law, can't deny patients any care. The solution? More government, by forcing everyone to pay for care they don't need. Here's how to solution is a further problem.

1) what is covered becomes beauracratic mess. Who determines what shall be covered? It means that my taxes will be for selective care (abortion, maybe even sex-changes: it's healthcare).
2) It means that men like my grandfather, a self-sufficient man who didn't see a doctor his entire adult-life until he was retired, because he knew the basics, would be screwed. He even gave himself stints when he broke a bone. Hard-ass man, I probably couldn't do all he could, but I sure as hell wouldn't tell him he owes his share for when I pussied out and went to the doc.
3) It means that those who see the doctor incessantly (hypochondriac?) will do it for free. There is no natural market-penalty for going to the doctor for w/e.
4) Constitution.

In reality, you're fixing a government problem by creating more government. The real solution? Those who don't get healthcare, who would (under now old system) be "freeloaders." The solution? More like an HMO. People who can't provide immediate payment or proof of insurance can only get 'free' care at HMOs, or something of the like. Forward them the bill later, and recoup a reasonable amount (doesn't need to be the whole thing), but if they didn't have insurance, offer them a way out by a low-end plan they pay into that is only good for HMOs.

What article would you interpret otherwise?

 

Makes sense. Not that im opposed to it, but you would then support the early state-sponsored church system then? In example, Maryland supported the Catholic Church, VA suppoted the Anglican Church, (I think it was) Delaware didn't support any... And extend that line of thinking to all the states?

Would be great, but we'd have to drop that whole federal string pulling, where the feds tax people and then offer the states $ if they do what the feds want.

 

Why is it that whenever conservatives are faced with a real problem which they know can be realistically solved, but whose solution they don't like, it all boils down to the same, tired old excuse-the Constitution?

 

Because the constitution is the set of rules to which the states agreed when they formed their compact between themselves and instituted the general government. For the general government to exercise powers beyond those allowed would be a breach of this agreement and an unwarranted violation of the liberties of the people of the several states.

 

This merely reflects a lack of knowledge as to what "Rights" are. An inalienable Right is that which inherent in the individual and that which they can do for themself without infringing upon the Rights of Others. For example we have a Right to Freedom of Speech but we don't have a Right to expect anyone to listen.

This is a bogus argument on several counts.

First of all no one goes bankrupt over the costs of routine office visits to the doctor. We don't require "insurance" to pay for these visits to prevent bankruptcy and the use of insurance for these visits increases the cost of healthcare by 20% (based upon my personal knowledge where the clinic I go to will discount the cost of the visit by 20% if I pay cash at the time services are provided).

Next is the fact that a person that opposes government health care doesn't have to be opposed to taxation. They can be opposed to the fact that the US Constitution does not delegate any authority to the federal government to provide for the "general Welfare of the People" but instead states the Congress has authority to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" and the States are NOT the People when referred to in the Constitution.

They can also oppose it because the government hasn't come up with a reasonable plan for providing these services. How many advocates of a "single-payer" system would support "apportioned" taxation (i.e. a tax per person) to pay for this "government" insurance? We're looking at the ACA costing between $5000-$7000 per person so would the advocates of a "single-payer" system support a flat $5000-$7000 per person tax being imposed or are they only advocates if someone else pays for their insurance? I've found few people that are really willing to have their federal taxes increased by $5000-$7000 per year.

 

Why would it have to be "single payer care"? Look at hybrid systems implemented elsewhere - one needs to be insured, but can choose a private company or government insurance.
Taxation wouldn't be per head, but in proportion to the income bracket.

Btw, how come you guys are happily paying for the 'emergency treatment' of uninsured freeloaders, instead of making insurance obligatory?

 

Why should health insurance be different than buying a car? A person doesn't "pay less" for a new car because they don't earn as much money. It can also be noted that "income" isn't a criteria related to wealth. A person with a high income can actually have less net wealth than a low income earner and a person with zero income can have tens of millions of dollars in personal wealth.

I don't know of anyone that's happy with this and the only reason it occurs is because Congress mandates it. Do we want the same idiots that mandate "emergency treatment" of uninsured freeloaders defining a national healthcare system? The problem with the "government" definition of health insurance is that the government dictates the most expensive health insurance coverage. When reviewing the costs of health insurance prior to the ACA being past it was the costs of Medicare that were the problem, not private insurance. The problem is government insurance and that is an inescapable fact.

 

Why would anyone complain about mandatory health insurance if everyone pays considerably less, as the result of taking the profit margin (the insurance companies), out of the equation, for the same quality of care? I really don't understand the logic behind the objections; conservatives say they don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare, so why don't they object to paying taxes to use the roads and fill their cars with gas?

 

I am not familiar with how the US system works, but I would guess that private insurers cherrypick the profitable clients and leave the problematic ones for the government to take care of.
This isn't quite what's meant by "universal health care", if you look at how it's done in other countries.

Access to health services is one of the measurements for a country's degree of advancement in civilisation - isn't it odd that one of the wealthiest should rank near the bottom in the Western world, despite having signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

 

And in the face of a totally broken system all we hear from the right-wing are cries of "communism" and "theft" in defence of it. Why the defensiveness?

 

Indeed!

 

There are a few fundamental problems with this argument.

First of all, as noted previously, my personal health clinic will discount the price of services by 20% on the spot if I pay cash at the time the services are provided. If we want to reduce the cost of health care the first thing we should do is eliminate "insurance" for all reasonable expendatures related to health care. Routine office visits should never be paid for with insurance, period. It always costs more to have insurance pay for services than it does to pay cash regardless of whether it's private or public insurance.

Next it the fact that the profit margin for insurance companies is relatively small and more than a few are not-for-profit insurance companies. Blue Cross and Blue Shield were initially not-for-profit but the tax laws have changed over time so that isn't universally true anymore but many of the associated insurance companies to this day under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield banner are still not-for profit enterprises. If there are health insurance providers that are "not-for-profit" then there isn't any "profit" to be saved.

Next is the fact that the US government, based upon it's existing health care programs, does not provide the same "quality of care" as private insurance. Over 90% of private clinics will NOT accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients in the State of Washington. I don't know the statistics overall but with 90% of private clinics won't accept "government insurance" then the people are not getting the same quality of care.

This is, of course, related to the fact that Medicare and medicaid, on the average, pay 90% or less than the cost of services provided. This isn't the "billing cost" but instead it's the cost of the actual expendatures by the providers. This creates a new "cost" problem because a primary care physician can't afford to properly treat a Medicare or Medicaid patient. All they have time to do is see the patient for a few moments and they refer them to a higher paid specialist. The higher paid special can afford to see them because they can bill the goverment at four or five times the amount that a primary care physician would be paid. Private insurance actually pays enough so that the primary care physician can treat the patient without the high costs of "specialists" in the vast majority of cases.

 

This is the scarey part. With all the high tech medical science available in the USA, it appears it is rationed. Those able to afford health insurance get better treatment to those who are on government sponsored programmes.

I ring my family doctor's practice to make an appointment, and a time is set. I get treated but my doctor wouldn't know if I'm being treated as a Medicare patient or a privately insured patient, so the treatment is the same. After consultation, I hand over my Medicare card to the receptionist, sign the docket and walk out. No money changes hands. If I'm a privately insured patient, I'll either accept a bill which I can pay within a few weeks or pay upfront. I then need to go to my insurance provider for a reimbursement or part reimbursement.

Where things change a bit is that Medicare patients are normally admitted to public hospitals. Privately insured patients are either admitted to public hospitals or private hospitals depending on the procedure, but treatment is the same.

Some years ago my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Within 10 days of diagnosis, he was in a private hospital as a Medicare patient. His referred specialist works out of a private hospital so the operation was done there. This cost him nothing. Even follow up treatment cost him nothing.

That was about 12 years ago, father is fully cured, but once a year he sees the same specialist for a thorough checkup, also covered under Medicare.

 

First off, I wish the man the best, mate.

Ok... So... The United States is very similar, EXCEPT. The old man is diagnosed with cancer. It took 2 months to get an appointment with a specialist. During this time he was unable to work. As such, he loses his insurance.

Now, he exclaims at the desk how is out tens of thousands of dollars and could have covered all the expenses had he simply had his money.

He learns he is eligible for a government program which retains his health coverage. He applies, is accepted and must pay $400 per month.

By now his condition has worsened so much, largely due to stress that the treatment puts him near death. The hospital releases him onto the street and then utterly forgets about him. No follow up appointments occur.

He rides a taxi home.

3 months later he receives a series of bills totaling $23,563 with some entries appearing to be recorded twice. A teddy bear given to him by a doctor costs $500 because the bear was used in a medical way as an "emotional comforting device". A doctor came by and stared at him once for $453 dollars. Other entries make no sense whatsoever and appear to be added after the fact for the sole purpose of running up the bill.

He takes a few months to pay the bill, after which phone calls begin coming in night and day harassing and upsetting him, leaving recordings, and ridiculing him on the phone.

He finally pays back the bills when the cancer reappears. Now the insurance company refuses to cover anything due to a pre-existing condition clause on his contract. He then dies leaving more unpaid bills and the phone calls begin pouring into his sons, wife and other recipients of his estate demanding that they pay off his bills.

That is life in the US, mate. There are a million stories just like this one.

 

Thanks for your kind words He'll be 80 years of age in 12 days and fit as a Mallee bull. He was a bricklayer before retirement (retired at 70 by the way) and spent a lot of his work time out in the sun and working shirtless. His specialist during one of his visits, picked up a couple of sunspots on his back which may or may not become melanomas (Australia "leads" the world in skin cancer problems), made an appointment for him to have them burnt off, covered under Medicare.

I'm sorry to read about your father's woes. Had he been a Medicare patient in Australia, this wouldn't have happened.

 

My whole premise is that profit-motivated business should have no part in the delivery of healthcare. Especially insurance companies who have zero interest in patient welfare, and exist for the sole purpose of making money-and saving it by presenting as many obstacles and small-print clauses and conditions as humanly possible.
Our medics all go to the same medical schools; they all receive the same training and qualifications. They can then choose to practise in the NHS or privately, or both areas.
When I worked as a cytologist at my local hospital our medical director routinely performed surgery both in the private and public sector. I'm sure he spent just as much time operating in both, rather than watching the clock and his fees.
I can understand how difficult this must be to grasp in a nation where the dollar is God, you charge by the aspirin and making lots of green stuff seemingly trumps all other considerations.

 

This could have happened anywhere... it's one of the issues which make health care so expensive, specially when doctors bill directly to the insurance, without the patient even knowing what they charge for.

 

If you want private companies out of healthcare system completely, how 'bout begin with forcing them to found NHS NOT?

There, ziiiiip, shut your mouth good and proper.

 

Then by your standard, private colleges shouldn't be in the business of education - schools like Harvard, Yale, etc shouldn't exist as an alternative to public colleges simply because they are private entities?

 

Absolute nonsense; we're talking about healthcare and not education. A an expensive education, or a free one isn't going to kill you or affect your health. A healthcare system which relies on insurance companies refusing to recognise a pre-existing condition because it costs too much to insure, most certainly can. And does.

 

This is one of the stupidest posts I've seen in a while. The standard snakestretcher was using was that maximizing profit was inconsistent with trying to give clients the best healthcare. Is Spacecricket saying Harvard and Yale are trying to maximize profits on the students they accept?

Private institutions of learning may be interested in balancing the books and even in turning a small profit, but they aren't listed on the NYC in competition with other investment opportunities.

 

Do you want to translate this for me? What does 'begin with forcing them to found NHS NOT' mean in English?

 

Did our nation or did it not sign the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If it did then by decency and our intent we agree with that document as a nation correct?

In that health care is a right our nation therefore said it was a fundamental human right and should act on that fact, this debate is pointless our government and every government even China and the Russians agreed to that.

My only issue is what is basic adequete health care for all I would argue at a minimum alleviating suffering, healing medical conditions that are life threatening with accepted and known therapies and making sure end of life is merciful with good pain management or other freely chosen measures is sufficient. This is not rocket science you have an accident, illness, chronic medical problem or disease that can be communicable to others its better to treat them then not. You realize how fast some plagues are and that willingness to seek care early is generally key to containment a poor person gets something we don't get care and spread it around assuming and hoping it "gets better".

Lastly forget America what kind of species are we an ape, monkey, elephant and many other mammels care for each other and feel sad when one is harmed or dying and suffering save OUR species some people could care less.