• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unfair Practices in Health Care

What is the least fair outcome of this, and why?


  • Total voters
    28

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Assume that:
I am sick. I go to the doctor. The doctor provides goods/services.
I do not have insurance and I cannot pay for the goods/services provided.

What is the least fair outcome of this, and why?
- I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay
- The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided
- The doctor’s other patients foot the bill for the goods/services I received
- The taxpayers foot the bill for the goods/services I received
 
It would probably have to be the second or third, I went with third since the second is an unsustainable situation (aggregate over the population and doctors couldn't afford to stay in business).

The other patients alone footing the bill is a bit more unfair than all the tax payers as the number of patients is lower than the number of tax payers and it's just as arbitrary. Mind you, this is how we currently run things. Doctors do treat people without insurance and the inability to pay. Everyone with insurance picks up the slack via their premiums and the inflated prices hospitals and doctors charge insurance companies. If everyone had to pay out of pocket, chances are most health care costs would dramatically decrease.
 
If everyone had to pay out of pocket, chances are most health care costs would dramatically decrease.
Been saying this for years...
 
I would go with the fourth one. As I've told people so many times, this Health Care bill in the Congress right now isn't somehow going to make health care magically free. In the end, the taxpayers (mostly the rich, thanks to another beautiful liberal principal of "earn more, pay more to us!") will just be paying for someone and all the rest of the happy people get free health care.
 
Assume that:
I am sick. I go to the doctor. The doctor provides goods/services.
I do not have insurance and I cannot pay for the goods/services provided.

What is the least fair outcome of this, and why?

I voted for the first choice:

- I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay

That seems the least fair to me. Folks go to the doctor generally because they are sick, or there is some sort of a health emergency. Telling an individual that he/she won't be treated simply because they're unable to pay seems unreasonable to me.
 
It would probably have to be the second or third, I went with third since the second is an unsustainable situation (aggregate over the population and doctors couldn't afford to stay in business).

The other patients alone footing the bill is a bit more unfair than all the tax payers as the number of patients is lower than the number of tax payers and it's just as arbitrary. Mind you, this is how we currently run things. Doctors do treat people without insurance and the inability to pay. Everyone with insurance picks up the slack via their premiums and the inflated prices hospitals and doctors charge insurance companies. If everyone had to pay out of pocket, chances are most health care costs would dramatically decrease.

My thoughts exactly.
 
I went with the third. I don't see the first as unfair. If I had to rank them from worst to best however the first would be the worst in my opinion. While it's fair that you don't pay you don't receive it's not in the best interest of public health.

I choose the third over the second as the second doesn't really happen. The doctor just charges other patients to make up the difference.

I choose the third over the fourth because the third puts all of the costs of the freeloaders on those who do the responsible thing and pay. Moving it to taxpayers at least can move a portion to those who currently do not pay.
 
Assume that:
I am sick. I go to the doctor. The doctor provides goods/services.
I do not have insurance and I cannot pay for the goods/services provided.

What is the least fair outcome of this, and why?
- I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay
- The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided
- The doctor’s other patients foot the bill for the goods/services I received
- The taxpayers foot the bill for the goods/services I received

Where is the option,"none of the above / incomplete data"??

How about this scenario: I am sick I go to the doctor. The doctor provides a service , say a cardiac stent. Patient A has the same procedure. He works for Lockeed and has an excellent insurance plan. The administrators have already reduced the payment for a cardiac stent to $8,000. That is very tight for the hospital's bottom line so anyone who is self-pay the charge is $37,000. for the same procedure. Patient B is self-employed. Through her taxes, she pays for patient A's health insurance, yet because she is not in a large group plan, health insurance costs for patient B are double that of patient A and anything she pays 'out of pocket' will be considerably more expensive....$29,000 more, in this case. (recently heard these numbers, so it is not invented)

That is the starting point to even begin to judge the situation in the U.S.
 
I went for the third.

If the doctor raised my rates and the rates of others to help pay for others who needed medical attention, I would have no problem with it. This does not make it the best solution, but it is thinking outside the box. It is also allowing the private sector to fix it's own problems.

I think that would beat a government option any day.
 
Where is the option,"none of the above / incomplete data"??

How about this scenario: I am sick I go to the doctor. The doctor provides a service , say a cardiac stent. Patient A has the same procedure. He works for Lockeed and has an excellent insurance plan. The administrators have already reduced the payment for a cardiac stent to $8,000. That is very tight for the hospital's bottom line so anyone who is self-pay the charge is $37,000. for the same procedure. Patient B is self-employed. Through her taxes, she pays for patient A's health insurance, yet because she is not in a large group plan, health insurance costs for patient B are double that of patient A and anything she pays 'out of pocket' will be considerably more expensive....$29,000 more, in this case. (recently heard these numbers, so it is not invented)

That is the starting point to even begin to judge the situation in the U.S.

Weird, because every time I have gone to the doctor, my out of pocket expenses were less if I am uninsured. Most recently, a blood test I needed would have cost an insurance company $250. Since I was uninsured, they charged me $15.

Funny that they would charge insurance companies an exorbitant amount, eh? Kinda goes right along with what Ikari stated and I agreed with wholeheartedly. Get rid of insurance and you get rid of high costs.
 
Weird, because every time I have gone to the doctor, my out of pocket expenses were less if I am uninsured. Most recently, a blood test I needed would have cost an insurance company $250. Since I was uninsured, they charged me $15.

Funny that they would charge insurance companies an exorbitant amount, eh? Kinda goes right along with what Ikari stated and I agreed with wholeheartedly. Get rid of insurance and you get rid of high costs.

How do you propose to get rid of insurance? The only feasible solution I can think of is for the government to encourage people to get high-deductible plans. For example, the plan I have right now doesn't cover any of my expenses until I pay $1500 out of pocket...then it covers everything beyond that. I think that would be good for reducing overall costs, if more people had a plan like that (although I wish it at least covered preventative care).

I'm not sure how easy it would be to transition though. I suppose the government could temporarily give tax breaks to people with these kind of plans, while taxing high-cost / low-deductible plans as regular income.
 
There is no natural positive right to health care. You want it - you pay for it, or persuade a voluntary charity to help you, but using government force to get your way is theft!
 
Weird, because every time I have gone to the doctor, my out of pocket expenses were less if I am uninsured. Most recently, a blood test I needed would have cost an insurance company $250. Since I was uninsured, they charged me $15.

Funny that they would charge insurance companies an exorbitant amount, eh? Kinda goes right along with what Ikari stated and I agreed with wholeheartedly. Get rid of insurance and you get rid of high costs.

So than you support the concept, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

You received charity care. My local clinic will charge slightly less for an office visit if you pay them on the day of your appointment. Other than that, hospitals sometimes arrange charity care discounts. Insurers with large pools -corporate accounts ,for example, always negotiate favorable pricing. If you are not in a large insurance pool and do not meet the standard deemed "low income", you will be taken to the cleaners. It is a sliding scale with the middle income, self-employed person paying the maximum possible.
 
There is no natural positive right to health care. You want it - you pay for it, or persuade a voluntary charity to help you, but using government force to get your way is theft!

Then, you support changing current policy to allow hospitals and doctors to deny life saving care to the uninsured?
 
There is no natural positive right to health care. You want it - you pay for it, or persuade a voluntary charity to help you, but using government force to get your way is theft!

Rivrrat's charity care was made possible by the fact that a lot of other people were charged a whole lot more for a blood test. I wonder how many of them volunteered to subsidize charity care?
 
Where is the option,"none of the above / incomplete data"??
You have 4 to choose from, and so 'none of the above' doesnt apply, unless you find all of them are equally fair.
Not sure how you need more data.

How about this scenario....
Feel free to open yout own topic.
 
You have 4 to choose from, and so 'none of the above' doesnt apply, unless you find all of them are equally fair.
Not sure how you need more data.
I think my meaning was fairly clear: that it is not possible to make the judgment
w/o knowing many more of the extenuating circumstances.

I gave an example of some possible extenuating circumstances. Here is another scenario: You go to the doctor. You are uninsured. You have no job and no money. You are sick with a highly communicable virus. Which of your options seem "unfair", now?
 
I think my meaning was fairly clear: that it is not possible to make the judgment w/o knowing many more of the extenuating circumstances.
Seems that other have made that judgement.
Why can't you?
 
I gave an example of some possible extenuating circumstances. Here is another scenario: You go to the doctor. You are uninsured. You have no job and no money. You are sick with a highly communicable virus. Which of your options seem "unfair", now?

How does that affect which of the four poll options you'd choose? Because the disease is "communicable"? Has nothing to do with the question.
 
How does that affect which of the four poll options you'd choose? Because the disease is "communicable"? Has nothing to do with the question.
I smell someone looking to dodge...
 
Looking for those that chose:

I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay

Save one, I havent seen any of them explain their response...?
 
Last edited:
I voted for the first choice:
That seems the least fair to me. Folks go to the doctor generally because they are sick, or there is some sort of a health emergency. Telling an individual that he/she won't be treated simply because they're unable to pay seems unreasonable to me.
Why do you think people should receive goods and services for free?
 
There is no fair or good outcome with the scenario offered. In a nutshell you have offered the whole moral/ethical dilemma of the healthcare debate.

The problem is, if said patient does not have access to a primary care provider, then problem escalates and they land in the emergency room and a more deteriorated medical situation requiring more expensive intervention, which is also paid for by the taxpayer.

Clinic visits and preventative care are much, much cheaper than ER visits and hospitalization.
 
There is no fair or good outcome with the scenario offered. In a nutshell you have offered the whole moral/ethical dilemma of the healthcare debate.
Did I? Oh, how -ever- did that happen?
:mrgreen:

The problem is, if said patient does not have access to a primary care provider, then problem escalates and they land in the emergency room and a more deteriorated medical situation requiring more expensive intervention, which is also paid for by the taxpayer.
That doesnt create a different problem, that's the same problem (and the same choices) shifted further down the line.
 
Why do you think people should receive goods and services for free?

Given the extenuating circumstance I described, the answer is: for the good of the country.
 
Back
Top Bottom