• 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?

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

    Votes: 13 46.4%

  • The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • The doctor’s other patients foot the bill for the goods/services I received

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • The taxpayers foot the bill for the goods/services I received

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Total voters
    28
Goobieman said:
:rofl
Your -entire stance- on the issue is such a claim, as your own post proves.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, I have NEVER drawn morality into the health care debate, as it's too subjective and people end up talking past each other. I focus on economic arguments, as economics apply equally to everyone regardless of their personal values.

Goobieman said:
I ask again:
Who the hell are YOU?
Click to expand...

Someone who is much more intelligent than you, and who has no desire to go round and round with you on this issue again, with you dodging every question asked of you. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Cassandra said:
I am trying to work with your semantics. Life ain't fair...
Click to expand...
... but you're willing to tell us what actions are dictated by your version of 'fair' - specifically, that it is unfair to deny people healt care services because they cannot pay, and that it IS fair to force other to pay for it.

Since you have that definition, you should be able to tell me HOW it IS fair to force someone to pay for goods and services provided to someone else.

And, how does "life is not fair" not negate any argument that it is fair to deny someone health care services becaue they cannot pay for them, and therefore they should not be denied care?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
No it isn't, I have NEVER drawn morality into the health care debate....
Click to expand...
You didn't read what I said:

...-you- have no issue assuming that -you- have some standing to define for the rest of us our responsibilities...
Click to expand...

You then did -exactly- that.

Someone who is much more intelligent than you...
Click to expand...
:rofl
If that's the best you got, you are, in context, NO one.

...and who has no desire to go round and round with you on this issue again, with you dodging every question asked of you
Click to expand...
Funny you shoud say that, given that every time we have this conversation, it end with YOU running away from MY questions.

That WOULD explain your lack of desire...
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
You didn't read what I said:



You then did -exactly- that.
Click to expand...

I didn't say people had no right to define responsibilities for others. That is, in essence, what government is all about. I said that your definition of "fair" differs from mine, so that should not be the basis on which one defines those responsibilities.

Try to keep up. ;)
 
Kandahar said:
I didn't say people had no right to define responsibilities for others. That is, in essence, what government is all about. I said that your definition of "fair" differs from mine, so that should not be the basis on which one defines those responsibilities.
Try to keep up.
Click to expand...
Speaking of not keeping up...

I didn't say a thing about fairness or developing a position regarding same, I aksed you who YOU were to define responsibilities for others -- that is, why YOUR opinions and decisions regarding who is responsible for what carries any weight whatsoever.

Your response was laughable, at best.
In fact, it was a fair bit more pathetic than I expected, if you can believe that.
 
Goobieman said:
Speaking of not keeping up...

I didn't say a thing about fairness or developing a position regarding same, I aksed you who YOU were to define responsibilities for others -- that is, why YOUR opinions and decisions regarding who is responsible for what carries any weight whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Because my policies are practical whereas yours are not, and my policies make economic sense whereas yours do not. See, I can win this argument without invoking the "That's not fair!" crutch. But again, I have no desire to get involved in another of your no-debate debates, so once again I'll just let our policies speak for themselves:

Under my preferred system, everyone would be required to take care of themselves by buying a health care plan of their choice, and those who couldn't afford it would be subsidized by the government. Hospitals would get paid, everyone would get treated, and the only people who would be subsidized by the taxpayers were those who couldn't afford insurance.

Under your preferred system, hospitals would be allowed to reject ER patients (including those who had insurance) if the hospital could not determine their ability to pay at the time, allowing them to die on the sidewalk in front of the hospital instead.
Click to expand...

I'll leave it up to the other viewers of this thread to decide for themselves which of those policies is more practical and economic. ;)
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Because my policies are practical whereas yours are not....
Click to expand...
Now THAT is what I expected -- "because I'm better than you!!"

:roll:

Fact of the matter is, you have no place to tell anyone what their responsibilities are, just like, as you argue, you have no place to tell anyone what is fair.

But, you'll try to do both, just the same.

Again, I have no desire to get involved in another of your no-debate debates...
Click to expand...
... because, as I said, every time you do, you have to run away from the questions you cannot answer.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Fact of the matter is, you have no place to tell anyone what their responsibilities are,
Click to expand...

That is what government is all about. If you don't like it, there's always the no-government paradise that is Somalia. :2wave:

Goobieman said:
just as you have no place to tell anyone what is fair.
Click to expand...

I don't do that. As I said, I do not invoke subjective standards of "fairness" in the health care debate; I focus on more objective measures like economics. On the rare instances when I ever invoke "fairness" at all (such as the war on drugs), it is almost always just a secondary point to some main economic or sociological point that I'm making.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
That is what government is all about. If you don't like it, there's always the no-government paradise that is Somalia.]
Click to expand...
I'll take this as your admission that you -know- you have no place to tell others what their responsibilities are.

Now, aren't you glad you brought that up?

:rofl

Run along now.
 
Goobieman said:
I'll take this as your admission that you -know- you have no place to tell others what their responsibilities are.
Click to expand...

Virtually everything the government does boils down to telling others what their responsibilities are.
 
Last edited:
Cassandra said:
So than you support the concept, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
Click to expand...
LMFAO

No. Way. In. Hell.

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.
Click to expand...
I don't care about charity, that's up to the hospital. That's not forced on them by the government. I'm all for charity.

However, that's not what it was. The blood test only cost $15. They charge insurance companies more because they CAN. Insurance always gets charged more. There's overhead for the hospitals/doctors to even have to DEAL with insurance agencies. They have to pay someone to deal with them, to take care of the paperwork. They charge them more, because they'll pay more.

The difference was that *I* order the blood test myself as opposed to using a doctor's orders. Then, the results were given to ME. Even if you have insurance, you could do it that way. ANYONE could do it that way. They just don't bother to tell people with insurance about because that's where they make bank.

Get rid of insurance, and you get rid of the high costs. The **** doesn't cost anywhere NEAR as much as they charge. Government involvement and insurance companies are the problem. But unfortunately, some fools still seem to think that adding more of both is going to magically "fix" things. :roll:

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.
Click to expand...
Had nothing to do with any sliding scale since my income amount wasn't even taken into consideration. I could have been a millionaire and it wouldn't have mattered.
 
Threat of lawsuits and over regulation of healthcare are big contributors to high cost, but a lot of it comes from all the medical breakthroughs, costly procedures, expensive machinery, private rooms, state of the art everything. Do you know how much an MRI machine costs? Do you know about kidney dialysis that is given to anyone in end stage renal failure in the U.S. no matter if they are a citizen, are compliant with their treatment regimen, lift one finger to help themselves. I could go on and on...
 
Goobieman said:
Why do you think people should receive goods and services for free?
Click to expand...

I chose it because of your words in the poll - 'I cannot pay', under the assumption that I am sick and the doctor can provide a service to 'get me well'. Now, should I get services for free? No. But if someone cannot afford the service, why should they be denied? I mean, this is someone's life, after all. If I am in need of emergency medical services and those services are too expensive for me to pay for, I should not be left to die. No one should. I think that, say, someone who has cancer should not be denied treatment because he/she cannot afford it. In addition to being unfair, there's something immoral about the whole deal. Refusing to treatment because they cannot pay? I think that's the least fair of all your options, which is why I chose it.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
LMFAO

No. Way. In. Hell.


I don't care about charity, that's up to the hospital. That's not forced on them by the government. I'm all for charity.

However, that's not what it was. The blood test only cost $15. They charge insurance companies more because they CAN. Insurance always gets charged more. There's overhead for the hospitals/doctors to even have to DEAL with insurance agencies. They have to pay someone to deal with them, to take care of the paperwork. They charge them more, because they'll pay more.
Click to expand...
Based on the info you have provided, you probably received subsidized care based on cost shifting.. The hospital/clinic gave you a charitable discount and charged others more.(on the basis of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need")..others were charged more whether they liked it or not. I don't call that charity because no one freely donated to subsidize your care. The actual term for it is cost shifting -and that is what U.S. H.C. is all about.
 
Cassandra said:
Based on the info you have provided, you probably received subsidized care based on cost shifting.. The hospital/clinic gave you a charitable discount and charged others more.(on the basis of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need")..others were charged more whether they liked it or not. I don't call that charity because no one freely donated to subsidize your care. The actual term for it is cost shifting -and that is what U.S. H.C. is all about.
Click to expand...

Yeah, weird that everyone who comes to that hospital can get the same deal, eh? Little brochure on the counter and everything. I wonder why they would do that if the test actually cost so much more? *ponders*

And also weird that they didn't care what my salary was. Funny that. I guess they would "cost shift" for anyone. No matter how much money they have. How's that work again? From each according to ability? To each according to need? They neither assessed my ability, nor my need. Odd.

And actually, I freely donate to that hospital to help subsidize the care of others.

So no, it's not charity, it's not cost shifting. It's charging people the ACTUAL cost instead of raping insurance companies (and those who pay premiums) for 10x the actual cost.

Get rid of insurance, get rid of high costs.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Yeah, weird that everyone who comes to that hospital can get the same deal, eh? Little brochure on the counter and everything. I wonder why they would do that if the test actually cost so much more? *ponders*

And also weird that they didn't care what my salary was. Funny that. I guess they would "cost shift" for anyone. No matter how much money they have. How's that work again? From each according to ability? To each according to need? They neither assessed my ability, nor my need. Odd.

And actually, I freely donate to that hospital to help subsidize the care of others.

So no, it's not charity, it's not cost shifting. It's charging people the ACTUAL cost instead of raping insurance companies (and those who pay premiums) for 10x the actual cost.

Get rid of insurance, get rid of high costs.
Click to expand...

If your theory is correct (that the actual value of the procedure is only $15 or so), why on earth do you think an insurance company would COVER it if they were being charged hundreds of dollars?
 
$250? What were you being tested for? Ebola?
 
rivrrat said:
Thyroid profile. I have to have it done every three months.
Click to expand...

Do you know the name of the test? Or who makes it? Not that I'm doubting your story. Just that they aren't all priced the same way and I think your doctor might have confused you. Some thyroid blood tests do cost $250 and some are really dirt cheap. $29 dirt cheap.
 
Cassandra said:
Then, you support changing current policy to allow hospitals and doctors to deny life saving care to the uninsured?
Click to expand...

Of course. Doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, and other medical product / service providers are not your slaves! They must be allowed to operate voluntarily, exchanging value for value with their customers, like any other business.


Cassandra said:
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?
Click to expand...

I said voluntary charity (i.e. no government involvement).
 
Hatuey said:
Do you know the name of the test? Or who makes it? Not that I'm doubting your story. Just that they aren't all priced the same way and I think your doctor might have confused you. Some thyroid blood tests do cost $250 and some are really dirt cheap. $29 dirt cheap.
Click to expand...

It's called a Thyroid Profile. It tests T3, T4, and TSH hormone levels.

And I know it doesn't cost $250 truly. That's just what they charge people who don't know any better than to order the test themselves without using a doctor's orders.

The Thyroid Profile is done repetitively to test my thyroid hormone levels. But, in addition to that, for my first test, they also tested me for Hashimoto's Disease - which was an additional cost.
 
Goobieman said:
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
Click to expand...

I couldn't decide between the third and fourth for a while. it seems very logical to me that the third option is as arbitrary as the fourth but with a more concentrated penalty, as someone stated; however, the doctor could reasonably decide to make up the lost money by raising his rates, and since his other patients are voluntarily soliciting his goods/services, it seems more fair this way than to charge all taxpayers.

so I picked the third but I regret it. :) I may change my mind again soon though.

when I look at the poll results I think maybe the definition of "fair" has changed since I last checked? :rofl
 
Alex Libman said:
I said voluntary charity (i.e. no government involvement).
Click to expand...

The gov't part of the equation is irrelevant. Whether gov't takes more money from some people than others to redistribute health care dollars OR the hospital does it by charging some people more than others for the same procedure, it is NOT VOLUNTARY.
 
Cassandra said:
The gov't part of the equation is irrelevant. Whether gov't takes more money from some people than others to redistribute health care dollars OR the hospital does it by charging some people more than others for the same procedure, it is NOT VOLUNTARY.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, as it stands, people who are self-employed, self-insuring are subsidizing corporate employees who receive an untaxed benefit.
 
rivrrat said:
Yeah, weird that everyone who comes to that hospital can get the same deal, eh? Little brochure on the counter and everything. I wonder why they would do that if the test actually cost so much more? *ponders*


Get rid of insurance, get rid of high costs.
Click to expand...
I would not count on it.

Whatever the situation with your lab test, I can assure you that you will not receive a break on the cost of medical care just because you are uninsured. My husband's $3500. colonoscopy was not a "special deal" because we are self-pay. Nor my kid's $175. one month supply of Advair ($30. in Canada). I'd wager that Anthem pays half as much to the hospital for a colonoscopy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom