Quote:I would counter that with you have been trained to think of healthcare as a privilege as most people have. More people in America are able to afford this privilege than say in the middle ages when only the wealthiest had reasonable healthcare. I argue it's not a privilege but a right that any modern society could provide.
I think at least it sounds like we agree that insurance is the big problem. At least I think that's the case. I offer to pay cash every time I go my visits are never cheaper that way at least not at my last two doctors.
I have never said, and wouldn't say that getting healthcare is a "privilege". I beg to differ when you say that it's a "right". Nowhere in The Constitution or the Declaration of Independence does it say that anyone is entitled to healthcare. One place written about rights is in the Declaration of Independence where it specifically states that we have been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sure we have been "granted" other "rights" via The Constitution, but it's important to think about how this country was founded and what the intention was.
Regarding health care and how things are done today, it's morphed into an un-controllable mess. Obamacare made it worse.
Step back and look at the fundamentals. That doctor that you are seeing whether it's at a clinic, in a hospital or in his office has paid a heavy price to be in his/her position. We saw and still see college students "unhappy" (that's the politically and board friendly way to put it) regarding their student loans. How much did these doctors put out to get through college and medical school. How high are their student loans? Should their knowledge and experience be a "right" for everyone or should they be allowed to reap the benefits of their hard work? Do we get to a point where we "force" doctors to provide their services to anyone and not receive compensation for their work? Should the government provide the compensation for people that can't pay, and if so, how much?
Quote:Reminds me of the old meme:
If you commit a crime, you have a right to a lawyer, if you can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed to you.
If you get sick, you have a right to treatment. If you can't afford treatment, tough [BAD WORD REMOVED] Bro
That's outright false. Emergency rooms all across the nation will provide care in the case of a life threatening condition, regardless of that person's ability to pay for the service or the person's legal status. Isn't it ironic though that in both cases, it applies to not only citizens of this country, but illegal aliens as well?
Quote:I have never said, and wouldn't say that getting healthcare is a "privilege". I beg to differ when you say that it's a "right". Nowhere in The Constitution or the Declaration of Independence does it say that anyone is entitled to healthcare. One place written about rights is in the Declaration of Independence where it specifically states that we have been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sure we have been "granted" other "rights" via The Constitution, but it's important to think about how this country was founded and what the intention was.
Regarding health care and how things are done today, it's morphed into an un-controllable mess. Obamacare made it worse.
Step back and look at the fundamentals. That doctor that you are seeing whether it's at a clinic, in a hospital or in his office has paid a heavy price to be in his/her position. We saw and still see college students "unhappy" (that's the politically and board friendly way to put it) regarding their student loans. How much did these doctors put out to get through college and medical school. How high are their student loans? Should their knowledge and experience be a "right" for everyone or should they be allowed to reap the benefits of their hard work? Do we get to a point where we "force" doctors to provide their services to anyone and not receive compensation for their work? Should the government provide the compensation for people that can't pay, and if so, how much?
I don't hear anyone saying doctors should not be compensated by any stretch of the imagination.
A bunch of wealthy guys that could afford healthcare at the time while writing a document that they intended to be fluid and in some cases completely replaced from time to time didn't think to explicit state healthcare as a right and instead chose very broad words? This should shock nobody. I think healthcare is essential to both life and happiness and aids greatly to liberty.
Quote:That's outright false. Emergency rooms all across the nation will provide care in the case of a life threatening condition, regardless of that person's ability to pay for the service or the person's legal status. Isn't it ironic though that in both cases, it applies to not only citizens of this country, but illegal aliens as well?
I don't think that was exactly his intended point. What you are referring to only in the case of life threatening emergencies and does help in continuing treatment. Neither does do anything about reducing the chance of these events through routine health care and management.
Quote:That's outright false. Emergency rooms all across the nation will provide care in the case of a life threatening condition, regardless of that person's ability to pay for the service or the person's legal status. Isn't it ironic though that in both cases, it applies to not only citizens of this country, but illegal aliens as well?
Have you seen a hospital bill recently? Sure, they have to accept you. Unless you are an undocumented immigrant, you still have to pay them (outrageous fees).
A friend of mine is Hypoglycemic. She was uninsured several years ago when she passed out one day and someone called an ambulance. She stayed in the hospital a couple of days, and when she got out her bills were outrageously expensive.
My wife is fortunate enough to have pretty much the best health insurance there is (Anthem Blue Cross), I remember looking at some of the amounts that the hospital was asking for from the insurance company when we had our children, and how much the insurance company paid. If we were uninsured, I probably would have had to go to the hospital from fainting myself. (And incurred more of a bill in doing so)
I think Doctors should be compensated. (My mother-in-law is an Internist, so I'm certainly pro-doctor) And I think they should be well compensated. What they do is very important. At the same time I think many of these high costs need to be mitigated. You also have high cost of medicine. Many uninsured or underinsured people forego important medical treatment because of cost. A lot of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical costs. My uninsured friend mentioned above is still uninsured (though that's changing soon, since she got married) and she refused to pretty much go to the doctor unless absolutely forced (such as when she broke her leg, or passed out and had no choice) It's not good that some people go to the doctor for every little cough, but it's also not good that people avoid necessary medical care due to fear of costs as well.
Quote:That's outright false. Emergency rooms all across the nation will provide care in the case of a life threatening condition, regardless of that person's ability to pay for the service or the person's legal status. Isn't it ironic though that in both cases, it applies to not only citizens of this country, but illegal aliens as well?
Just to be fair if you're counting the emergency rooms as providing healthcare it's not exactly a fair comparison. Sure they'll check you over and if it you're not going to die on the table they send you home and tell you to see a specialist. You won't get anywhere going to hospitals except near bankruptcy without insurance.
I don't have a problem with for profit health care system in fact I support them over government ran systems but I won't pretend we offer "free" healthcare for the uninsured via emergency rooms. That's like saying the tow truck that the city sends out to pick your car up off the highway (and then sends you the bill) is paying to fix your car.
Quote:Just to be fair if you're counting the emergency rooms as providing healthcare it's not exactly a fair comparison. Sure they'll check you over and if it you're not going to die on the table they send you home and tell you to see a specialist. You won't get anywhere going to hospitals except near bankruptcy without insurance.
I don't have a problem with for profit health care system in fact I support them over government ran systems but I won't pretend we offer "free" healthcare for the uninsured via emergency rooms. That's like saying the tow truck that the city sends out to pick your car up off the highway (and then sends you the bill) is paying to fix your car.
I'm not sure what has changed in the 10 years since I lived in Jacksonville, but the former University Hospital (now Shands IIRC) was underwritten by the City of Jacksonville, and regularly admitted indigent patients for more than emergency care. If the patient could not pay, the debt was written off.
Quote:I'm not sure what has changed in the 10 years since I lived in Jacksonville, but the former University Hospital (now Shands IIRC) was underwritten by the City of Jacksonville, and regularly admitted indigent patients for more than emergency care. If the patient could not pay, the debt was written off.
I have a family member that was an executive there. I can tell you that the debt is/was not normally written off.
I did hear stories from him of people who were illegal aliens needing emergency treatment. Shands would pay for the treatment and work with INS to get them deported. This sometimes cost the hospital tens of thousands of dollars. But they knew in the long run it probably helped them never see that person again. And they were never getting a dime anyway.
When my daughter was born, we had to go to Shands because my wife had a medical issue and that was the only hospital able to treat it. It was like being in a prison compared to when my son was born at Baptist South.
Quote:Just to be fair if you're counting the emergency rooms as providing healthcare it's not exactly a fair comparison. Sure they'll check you over and if it you're not going to die on the table they send you home and tell you to see a specialist. You won't get anywhere going to hospitals except near bankruptcy without insurance.
I don't have a problem with for profit health care system in fact I support them over government ran systems but I won't pretend we offer "free" healthcare for the uninsured via emergency rooms. That's like saying the tow truck that the city sends out to pick your car up off the highway (and then sends you the bill) is paying to fix your car.
As the guy who authorizes the write offs for my company I can tell you that much of what is billed to patients without insurance is either reduced for a "prompt payment" discount or means tested for a charity reduction if the patient complies with the process. I write off millions of dollars every year, both for inpatient and outpatient services.
And we shouldn't offer "free" health care at the ED, it's not a clinic. The services provided there are some of the most expensive per unit in the entire industry, using it for non-emergent care is part of the reason why prices in other departments are higher, someone has to subsidize the waste. What we ought to do is put a free standing 24 hour Urgent Care center within one block of every ER in the city then train the patient population to go there first for triage, treatment or referral. The operational cost would be a quarter of the cost of a hospital ED.
Quote:I'm not sure what has changed in the 10 years since I lived in Jacksonville, but the former University Hospital (now Shands IIRC) was underwritten by the City of Jacksonville, and regularly admitted indigent patients for more than emergency care. If the patient could not pay, the debt was written off.
Shands is a publicly funded hospital, their reimbursement for disproportionate share comes from local, state, and federal budgets. Everyone at every level contributes to their operations.
Quote:Shands is a publicly funded hospital, their reimbursement for disproportionate share comes from local, state, and federal budgets. Everyone at every level contributes to their operations.
When it was University Medical Center, I worked for the COJ's IT division and processed a monthly data transfer of "charity write-offs", essentially unrecoverable debts, which totaled around $50,000 per month.
Quote:I don't hear anyone saying doctors should not be compensated by any stretch of the imagination.
A bunch of wealthy guys that could afford healthcare at the time while writing a document that they intended to be fluid and in some cases completely replaced from time to time didn't think to explicit state healthcare as a right and instead chose very broad words? This should shock nobody. I think healthcare is essential to both life and happiness and aids greatly to liberty.
Again, saying that healthcare is a "right" is completely false. If it is a "right", then you are saying the people have a "right" to the services of doctors, nurses and medical facilities.
Basic rights are met under the law in the current system. A person is not denied the right to life (except in the case of abortions, but that's a whole other topic). A person is not denied liberty as long as they follow the law, and a person is not denied the
pursuit of happiness.
And just a side note. The men that wrote our founding documents were not necessarily "wealthy".
Quote:Have you seen a hospital bill recently? Sure, they have to accept you. Unless you are an undocumented immigrant, you still have to pay them (outrageous fees).
A friend of mine is Hypoglycemic. She was uninsured several years ago when she passed out one day and someone called an ambulance. She stayed in the hospital a couple of days, and when she got out her bills were outrageously expensive.
My wife is fortunate enough to have pretty much the best health insurance there is (Anthem Blue Cross), I remember looking at some of the amounts that the hospital was asking for from the insurance company when we had our children, and how much the insurance company paid. If we were uninsured, I probably would have had to go to the hospital from fainting myself. (And incurred more of a bill in doing so)
I think Doctors should be compensated. (My mother-in-law is an Internist, so I'm certainly pro-doctor) And I think they should be well compensated. What they do is very important. At the same time I think many of these high costs need to be mitigated. You also have high cost of medicine. Many uninsured or underinsured people forego important medical treatment because of cost. A lot of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical costs. My uninsured friend mentioned above is still uninsured (though that's changing soon, since she got married) and she refused to pretty much go to the doctor unless absolutely forced (such as when she broke her leg, or passed out and had no choice) It's not good that some people go to the doctor for every little cough, but it's also not good that people avoid necessary medical care due to fear of costs as well.
I have not only seen hospital bills, but also regular doctor bills (almost too often). Want to take a guess as to why those bills are as high as they are? It's pretty much due to over-regulation and liability. Throw in the cost of education to either be in the medical field, or even a technician or engineer certified to work on/develop/service medical equipment.
Then you have the fact that people will use an ER for their medical needs that don't pay any of the bill whatsoever. That cost has to be made up somehow.
Quote:Again, saying that healthcare is a "right" is completely false. If it is a "right", then you are saying the people have a "right" to the services of doctors, nurses and medical facilities.
Basic rights are met under the law in the current system. A person is not denied the right to life (except in the case of abortions, but that's a whole other topic). A person is not denied liberty as long as they follow the law, and a person is not denied the pursuit of happiness.
And just a side note. The men that wrote our founding documents were not necessarily "wealthy".
I have not only seen hospital bills, but also regular doctor bills (almost too often). Want to take a guess as to why those bills are as high as they are? It's pretty much due to over-regulation and liability. Throw in the cost of education to either be in the medical field, or even a technician or engineer certified to work on/develop/service medical equipment.
Then you have the fact that people will use an ER for their medical needs that don't pay any of the bill whatsoever. That cost has to be made up somehow.
I am not saying it is the case I am saying it should be the case. As an advanced and modern society we absolutely have the ability to make healthcare a right. That is all I am saying. Using a statement in our constitution to say it is simply false is just not a good argument. The ability to do what I am proposing was simply not realistic at the time. Maybe it's not now, I do not know for sure but I think it could be done and will fundamentally increase the standard of living for our country now and into the future. In addition the basic rights have been added onto, amended and in recent times remove for a myriad of reasons, hence why using the initial document as a measure is, in my opinion, a poor defense in this case.
And yes I do think people should have the right to services by medical professionals as well as institutions.
Quote:I am not saying it is the case I am saying it should be the case. As an advanced and modern society we absolutely have the ability to make healthcare a right. That is all I am saying. Using a statement in our constitution to say it is simply false is just not a good argument. The ability to do what I am proposing was simply not realistic at the time. Maybe it's not now, I do not know for sure but I think it could be done and will fundamentally increase the standard of living for our country now and into the future. In addition the basic rights have been added onto, amended and in recent times remove for a myriad of reasons, hence why using the initial document as a measure is, in my opinion, a poor defense in this case.
And yes I do think people should have the right to services by medical professionals as well as institutions.
People do have the right to the services of medical professionals and institutions. However, it is not and should not be free. They must pay for said services. What is going to be next. Should internet service be a "right"?
I beg to differ about the basic rights being added on to or removed. Technically speaking, the basic rights are just that. Using the original documents of the founding of our country as a baseline should absolutely be used when drafting new legislation. If drafting new legislation violates the initial documents, then it probably needs to go away.
Quote:People do have the right to the services of medical professionals and institutions. However, it is not and should not be free. They must pay for said services. What is going to be next. Should internet service be a "right"?
I beg to differ about the basic rights being added on to or removed. Technically speaking, the basic rights are just that. Using the original documents of the founding of our country as a baseline should absolutely be used when drafting new legislation. If drafting new legislation violates the initial documents, then it probably needs to go away.
The problem I, and I imagine others, have with that argument is that the same types of arguments were used in regards to so many other issues our country has had. Slavery, women's suffrage, segregation etc.. Now we have moved into healthcare, LGBT rights, and campaign finance. All things that at some point people have strummed up the founders intentions as reasons for going against these various movement. I understand where the opponents come from, I just do not agree with them. It's, at a minimum, a reasonably good debate.
Quote:The problem I, and I imagine others, have with that argument is that the same types of arguments were used in regards to so many other issues our country has had. Slavery, women's suffrage, segregation etc.. Now we have moved into healthcare, LGBT rights, and campaign finance. All things that at some point people have strummed up the founders intentions as reasons for going against these various movement. I understand where the opponents come from, I just do not agree with them. It's, at a minimum, a reasonably good debate.
You bring up many other points/topics that I suspect that we might be in agreement on, at least some of them.
However, getting back on topic for this thread, I'll throw this out there. Obamacare is a complete and udder failure.
Quote:You bring up many other points/topics that I suspect that we might be in agreement on, at least some of them.
However, getting back on topic for this thread, I'll throw this out there. Obamacare is a complete and udder failure.
Probably yes.
I am mixed on the whole thing. On one hand I, like many others were upset it did nothing to attack the real problem with healthcare costs at all the costs are the same or higher for most people that could already afford insurance and those costs will continue to increase because that's how our current medical system works. It's about making money so it will always seek to make more money. On the other hand, I like that people can't be declined for coverage for reasons they could have been before. I also like that many people that could not get coverage now can and in absurdly high numbers. Really the good things could have been done without the bad things. The problem was as always, money got involved and we have the current system that benefits only insurance carriers, pharma etc.. and to a lesser extent the poor benefiting from subsidized premiums.
Many potential solutions to the problem. Single payer, heavier more common sense regulation on the costs... I do no know what the solution is but it's clear the ACA is not the be all end all.
Quote:Probably yes.
I am mixed on the whole thing. On one hand I, like many others were upset it did nothing to attack the real problem with healthcare costs at all the costs are the same or higher for most people that could already afford insurance and those costs will continue to increase because that's how our current medical system works. It's about making money so it will always seek to make more money. On the other hand, I like that people can't be declined for coverage for reasons they could have been before. I also like that many people that could not get coverage now can and in absurdly high numbers. Really the good things could have been done without the bad things. The problem was as always, money got involved and we have the current system that benefits only insurance carriers, pharma etc.. and to a lesser extent the poor benefiting from subsidized premiums.
Many potential solutions to the problem. Single payer, heavier more common sense regulation on the costs... I do no know what the solution is but it's clear the ACA is not the be all end all.
To me it's not a "probably" yes, it's a definite "yes" as far as Obamacare being a failure. One example is the topic of this thread.
You want to "attack the costs" of health care or medication? The answer lies in the truth. The reason why medication is so expensive is because of the cost involved developing it. Part of that cost is getting by the government restrictions on it, and part of that cost is liability. Say for example a company develops a drug that cures some illness. That company not only has to pay for their research and development, but they also have to pay "the almighty government" for approval to release it to the general public.
Of course, they can't release this drug for use on the general public without obtaining some kind of insurance. Should use of said drug contribute or cause a death, then that opens up a lawsuit. The same is the situation of doctors prescribing said drug. Again, they open themselves up to litigation regarding the treatment and use of said drugs.
It drives the costs of this higher and higher.
Single payer is not the answer because there is also going to be "another payer" (taxpayers).
Heavier and/or more regulation is not the answer. That only drives costs higher.
Quote:You bring up many other points/topics that I suspect that we might be in agreement on, at least some of them.
However, getting back on topic for this thread, I'll throw this out there. Obamacare is a complete and udder failure.
Because now even more citizens suckle the government's teat?
What determines it to be a failure? Because for many that now have healthcare, I think they would say it's a success...
So please provide your basis for calling it a failure. Otherwise you are just spouting talking points.
Like everything, the ACA has done good things and has issues that exist. Calling it an "udder" failure seems to mean you either haven't thought it through, or you have a very very narrow basis for judging it.