Unfair Practices in Health Care

Hatuey said:

Well the doctor has to get the test from somewhere. Right? Who would he get it from?

Click to expand...

I order the test. The results are given to ME. I take them to my doctor.

Labs? And why would he get it from labs for the price of obviously less than $15 when companies sell it to individuals for hundreds of dollars? It seems like a huge gap between $250 and $15.

Click to expand...

The doc has nothing to do with it.

Most people would simply go to a doctor and have him do the test for $15.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean, but my doctor back home can't do the tests. If you need labwork done, you go to the hospital.

I mean it would seem to me like if hospitals could perform these tests cheaply they'd have a midway price of say $75 but not a difference of $235.

Click to expand...

They CAN perform them cheaply, and they do.

Complete Thyroid Profile (Blood) | Blood Spot - Profiles | ZRT Laboratory



Thyroid Screenings - Super Chemistry plus Thyroid Blood Testing Profile



A lab that provides the test :

Lab Test MD, Personal & Confidential Lab Testing Services.

Click to expand...

I am unsure what this proves other than the price I gave that the hospital charges for tests performed at a doctor's order is accurate. So, what you quoted confirms that is a "normal" price that labs charge. It says nothing about what the labwork actually COSTS. As you know, what something actually costs a provider and what they charge are two very different things.

My hometown hospital has a pamplet on their information counter that lists all of the labwork they will perform at a MUCH cheaper rate if you simply rip up the doctor's orders for the labwork and write your OWN order for the labwork. You have to pay right there - cash - and wait for the results. (or leave and return to pick up the results immediately after they are available). ONLY you can pick up the results. They will not send them anywhere. They will not give them to anyone else. They will not keep them around waiting days for you to pick them up. There are only certain tests they will do them for, but they are the most common tests performed. About 20 of them. The thyroid profile is one. There are different prices for different tests. Anyone can have their tests done this way. They don't ask any questions, there aren't any financial qualifiers. You pay them the amount in cash and pick up the results yourself, those are the only qualifiers.

Most people just don't know about it, is all. I wouldn't have known myself if I hadn't been standing there chatting with the information desk gal.

Truth Detector said:

This notion that Americans cannot afford the expense of insurance is false; they CHOOSE not to pay for it and now many think that they can get the Government to confiscate the wealth of others to pay for them so that they can spend it on new cars, the latest big screen TV and $100 tennis shoes.

Click to expand...

That is just blatantly false. Repeating falsehoods does not make them true.

The mean family income for a family of 3, in Maine, is about $53,000. The insurance premium quoted to me by Anthem B.C/B.S. was $2100. a month. That was one year ago and since that time Anthem has asked to be allowed to raise prices on the individual market by 16%. The above mentioned policy had a $1500 deductible and Anthem still maintains the right not to pay for the treatment of P.E.conditions

Does 50% of a person's income sound affordable to you???

Rivrat is correct on this score: in this rag tag non system, it is irrational to purchase health insurance on the individual market from the health insurance mafia. A person may as well depend on hospitals to bargain with them and give them a no interest loan, when necessary.

Singularity said:

For one, the denial of goods and services may not be directly detrimental to your health if those goods and services are not emergency services. The denial of health care is detrimental, though.

Click to expand...

So...?

Not only should we, but i'd argue that we have a moral obligation to do just that....

Click to expand...

I SEE.. a "moral obligation"...
Since when is it OK to force a version of morality onto others?
And then, what's your argument against someone forcing their morality on you?

And, you didnt answer the question:
How does your right to life trump my right to keep the fruits of my labor?

Goods and services, yes. But what about emergency services?

Click to expand...

What about "emergency goods and services" changes the situation?

Should, say, the fire department refuse to save your child trapped in a burning building if they discovered your domicile is uninsured? You see what i'm driving at. Refusing health care to those who cannot pay is akin to denying every individual who cannot afford it the right to life should they become sick, and I am not comfortable with that.

Click to expand...

You didnt answer the question:
How does your 'right' to health care trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?

Truth Detector said:

You're starting to make sense; who has taken over Goldenboy’s forum name?

Click to expand...

My views on health care are not held upon political ideology. Were various implementations such as TARP, Fannie and Freddie rescues, granting investment banks access to the discount window, 10 new monetary policy tools, zero bound federal funds rates, etc... vital to restoring confidence to the economy? Of course there are issues involved with a many of these specific policy applications, but none the less, during the month's of both December and February, there were serious fears about an all out run on the US financial system that could have brought down the world. We have moved past this point.

Without a doubt, a public option cannot exist if insurance regulations require firms to insure people with pre-existing conditions (unless of course they do not regulate the pricing mechanism). That very system is unsustainable due to the supposed tax liabilities needed by the federal government to fund the programs.

With that in mind, i strongly believe that we will get one or the other: 1.) Either insurance companies will have to issue policies to whomever (along with a cap in the pricing mechanism), or 2.) there will be a public option. Of the two things listed above, a public option combined with new regulations that allow companies to deny coverage on any or all basis is optimal. Health care demand is as inelastic as they come.

Without a public option, you will still see consumers filing bankruptcy in rather staggering numbers, thereby passing the costs to private premiums or government care. If someone does not have the $5,000 deductible needed to pay for a broken arm, either the hospital or the insurance company are going to eat the loss one way or another. Higher deductibles lead to lower premiums, and with the cost soaring at overwhelming percentages year over year, regardless of the individuals health (or use of their insurance), it is unsustainable.

When a good has such powerful demand from consumers, that 17% increases in price have little no effect on quantity demanded, the social costs in the form of dead weight loss are shifted completely to the consumer (demand) side. Price increases are inevitable. Indebtedness and poor health care outcomes are the real examples of dead weight loss, and reflect the inefficiency of the system because..... they lead to higher health care costs in the long run.

The bad risk has to shift to a large risk pool, this is the only way. People who are in poor health, lead unhealthy lifestyles, do not hedge risk (not purchasing insurance) have be moved to where the pool is the deepest. What pool is deeper than the American taxpayer?

I am not stating that all people should be shifted towards that pool, because under the right circumstances, the price mechanism will produce very little dead weight loss, at far less costs (nice ring to it huh?).

Otherwise, the costs will continue to increase and will have a direct effect on both medicare and medicaid, thereby forcing future generations to foot the bill via increased taxation, in the long run.

You want to see health care costs begin to decrease? Shift the most risky consumers of health care to the public sector. This has somewhat happened with the creation of medicare, as the elderly are a very risky demographic. When this occurs (as a whole), the government option will not have a chance to compete in terms of both price and quality, thereby providing an incentive to purchase private health care.

Goobieman said:

Since when is it OK to force a version of morality onto others?

Click to expand...

Goobieman said:

How does your 'right' to health care trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?

Click to expand...

Inconsistent much? :2wave:

Kandahar said:

Inconsistent much? :2wave:

Click to expand...

:roll:
You find inconsistency here because you do not understand the arguments presented.

Here's a hint:
The 2nd quote you provided is not a position based in morality.

AND... you're dodging the question.
But then, thats what you -always- do when we reach this level of the conversation.

Truth Detector said:

I am in my 50s, never had my tonsils out nor braces and I was entitled to Government healthcare being a military brat overseas.

::shrugs::

This notion that Americans cannot afford the expense of insurance is false; they CHOOSE not to pay for it and now many think that they can get the Government to confiscate the wealth of others to pay for them so that they can spend it on new cars, the latest big screen TV and $100 tennis shoes.

This debate should be about choice, competition and the FACT that Government can't manage their own budget let alone something as complex as the nation’s healthcare system.

Click to expand...

Our government was never meant to be this large with this many voters. This is why women and blacks were kept out of the pool for so long. Too many voters. We have nearly 50% of the population not paying income taxes, or getting full refunds and many who also get their Social Security back. We are at the point now where we have to look for cheaper ways to pay for healthcare and insurance isn't going to get it. Insurance was always a bad idea from the get go. Say it ain't so, but it be so. I can remember when the conservatives were against insurance, now it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Yakking about all the leeches on society gets us nowhere. Gotta figure out how to get people adequate HC at a reasonable cost. That's the bottom line, and we're all in this together. There is no liberty for one if it's not for all.

Goobieman said:

:roll:
You find inconsistency here because you do not understand the arguments presented.

Here's a hint:
The 2nd quote you provided is not a position based in morality.

Click to expand...

Really. Then how do YOU determine which "right" trumps the other? For that matter, how do YOU determine whether something is a "right" at all?

Not only do you CONSTANTLY try to force your morality on others, but you seem utterly incapable of understanding any argument that is NOT morality-based. The very use of the word "unfair" in the title of this thread indicates that your position is entirely based on emotion and your personal view of morality, rather than any logic.

Goobieman said:

AND... you're dodging the question.
But then, thats what you -always- do when we reach this level of the conversation.

Click to expand...

You didn't ask me a question. :2wave:

Kandahar said:

Really. Then how do YOU determine which "right" trumps the other?

Click to expand...

That's the question -I- have been asking.
Have an answer? You've only been asked a dozen times...

For that matter, how do YOU determine whether something is a "right" at all?

Click to expand...

Good question. Apply this question to health care and get back to me.

Not only do you CONSTANTLY try to force your morality on others, but you seem utterly incapable of understanding any argument that is NOT morality-based.

Click to expand...

This is -completely- unsupportable.
And, even if true, doesnt your complaint legitimatize the questions I asked?
Since when is it OK to force a version of morality onto others?
And then, what's your argument against someone forcing their morality on you?

You didn't ask me a question. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Yes, yes I did -- in fact, you quoted it.
And you ran. As usual.
Now then, rather than continue to dodge, why dont you answer the questions?

Goobieman said:

That's the question -I- have been asking.
Have an answer? You've only been asked a dozen times...


Good question. Apply this question to health care and get back to me.

Click to expand...

YOU are the one who keeps bringing up "rights" and what is "fair" and other issues tied to your personal morality. *I* am not the one making claims regarding the moral superiority of one side of this debate over the other, and as such, your question doesn't mean anything. It would, however, behoove you to answer it, since YOU are the one so concerned about these issues.

What led you to the conclusion that your personal property rights are the most important thing at stake here? And why should I be expected to agree with you?

Goobieman said:

This is -completely- unsupportable.
And, even if true, doesnt your complaint legitimatize the questions I asked?
Since when is it OK to force a version of morality onto others?

Click to expand...

Again, I make no claim that my view is any more or less moral than anyone else's. I only make the claim that my view is more practical and makes more economic sense.

Goobieman said:

And then, what's your argument against someone forcing their morality on you?

Click to expand...

In this particular case, my argument is that opposing views (such as yours) are impractical and make less economic sense than does mine. You won't find me shrieking about the immorality of your view.

Goobieman said:

Yes, yes I did -- in fact, you quoted it.
And you ran. As usual.

Click to expand...

That question was not addressed to me.

Kandahar said:

YOU are the one who keeps bringing up "rights" and what is "fair" and other issues tied to your personal morality.

Click to expand...

So... you don't have an answer to my questions.

What a shock.:roll:

When you do, please let me know.

Please note that this conversations -always- ends with me asking you these questions and you running away from them; this time will obviously not be any different.

Very good point Kandahar!

Morally, i believe in the spirit of markets.

Economically speaking, denying people coverage upon the basis of wealth has negative implications in the long run.

Imagine two scenarios: One in which a child is not given medical care, and then eventually dies.

Or....

The child is given medical care, lives, and derives the cure for AIDS.

For practical purposes, scenario three: He is given the medical care and does not do anything spectacular.

Given the three, from an economic standpoint, scenario 1 is the least appealing.

Goobieman said:

Please note that this conversations -always- ends with me asking you these questions and you running away from them; this time will obviously not be any different.

Click to expand...

:rofl

Really, so do you have an opinion on pigouvian taxation yet?

Goobieman said:

So... you don't have an answer to my questions.

Click to expand...

You can't even ****ing answer your OWN question. I answered it. My answer is that I DON'T claim that anyone else's "rights" trump your rights, as that is a total non-issue.

Now, are you going to answer my question (which is really just a restatement of your own question) or run away again:

What led you to the conclusion that your personal property rights are the most important thing at stake here? And why should I be expected to agree with you?

Click to expand...

Goldenboy219 said:

:rofl
Really, so do you have an opinion on pigouvian taxation yet?

Click to expand...

:doh

Tell you what.

I'm a nice guy. You obviously have some deep, burning desire to pontificate about pigouvian taxation. Since your ego somehow requires this to happen, and you're sure to suffer some degree of permanent emotional damage if you do not, I will take pity on you and make you a deal:

You go ahead and post whatever you want about pigouvian taxation, and I will comment.

So, bloviate to your heart's content, and let me know when you're done - I'd hate to interrupt you.

Kandahar said:

You can't even ****ing answer your OWN question. I answered it. My answer is that I DON'T claim that anyone else's "rights" trump your rights, as that is a total non-issue.

Click to expand...

But, you do -- you state that the right to health care trumps the right of those forced to pay for that health care to the fruits borne of their own labor in that the health care for those that cannot pay for it themsleves should be paid for by others

And so, you'll have to answer the question.
Or run away.
Your call.

Goobieman said:

:doh

Tell you what.

I'm a nice guy. You obviously have some deep, burning desire to pontificate about pigouvian taxation. Since your ego somehow requires this to happen, and you're sure to suffer some degree of permanent emotional damage if you do not I will take pity on you and make you a deal:

You go ahead and post whatever you want about pigouvian taxation, and I will comment.

So, bloviate to your heart's content, and let me know when you're done - I'd hate to interrupt you.

Click to expand...

Why do you not hassle the government when it alters particular purchasing patterns via taxation on one good, vs the purchasing patterns of another?

Goldenboy219 said:

Why do you not hassle the government when it alters particular purchasing patterns via taxation on one good, vs the purchasing patterns of another?

Click to expand...

Are you done already?
Because if so, I'm sorry to say you haven't given me all that much to comment on.

Goobieman said:

Are you done already?
Because if so, I'm sorry to say you haven't given me all that much to comment on.

Click to expand...

So you are perfectly content with government taxing goods to reduce quantity demanded, but are against government taxing behavior to increase quantity demanded. Sounds inconsistent to me....

Goldenboy219 said:

So you are perfectly content with government taxing goods to reduce quantity demanded, but are against government taxing behavior to increase quantity demanded. Sounds inconsistent to me....

Click to expand...

Look, I made you a deal.
You can take it, or you can leave it. Your call.

Goobieman said:

Look, I made you a deal.
You can take it, or you can leave it. Your call.

Click to expand...

I will "take it" that you are afraid to answer a question, much in the same fashion as you accuse Kandahar. Why is that? You cannot possibly answer without coming off as inconsistent maybe...

Goldenboy219 said:

I will "take it" that you are afraid to answer a question, much in the same fashion as you accuse Kandahar. Why is that? You cannot possibly answer without coming off as inconsistent maybe...

Click to expand...

Apparently you aren't REALLY interested in a conversation regarding pigouvian taxation, you just want to harass me.

How very pedestrian.

Ok then. You had your chance. Offer rescinded.

Goobieman said:

But, you do -- you state that the right to health care trumps the right of those forced to pay for that health care to the fruits borne of their own labor in that the health care for those that cannot pay for it themsleves should be paid for by others

Click to expand...

I have stated no such thing. I have no opinion on which "right" trumps which other "right." The whole subject really doesn't interest me. My position is based on which policy I think will actually WORK.

Goobieman said:

And so, you'll have to answer the question.
Or run away.
Your call.

Click to expand...

You do realize that just shrieking "You didn't answer the question" in response to my answers to your questions, doesn't magically make my answers disappear? My answers may not be the ones you were hoping for, but that is YOUR problem, not mine.

Kandahar said:

I have stated no such thing. I have no opinion on which "right" trumps which other "right."

Click to expand...

Not specifically as a direct quote, but in a defacto manner, as I described,

You DO state that the health care for those that cannot pay for it themsleves should be paid for by others. This places the 'right' to health care at a higher level of order than the right to retain the fruits borne of their own labor -- thus 'trumping' it.

The whole subject really doesn't interest me. My position is based on which policy I think will actually WORK

Click to expand...

Irrelevant -- the question I asked and the question you havent answered is the foundation for that policy; to defend the policy, you must address the question.

You do realize that just shrieking "You didn't answer the question" in response to my answers to your questions, doesn't magically make my answers disappear?

Click to expand...

You DO realize that while you may -respond- to the questions in whatever manner you wish, not all responses actually address the matter in question - and so, until your responses DO address that matter, you still havent answered the question.

That is, I have been asking you for the sum of 2+2 and you have been answeing "Orange!"

And so, you'll have to answer the question.
Or run away. Again.
Your call.

Goobieman said:

So...?

Click to expand...

Read my answer. Denying someone the right to live simply because they cannot afford it is classified as detrimental, is it not? Therefore, health care is often an emergency service. If you are, say, bit by a rattlesnake, the doctor treats you, and voila! Your life is saved. Your argument is that if you cannot afford to get the shot to save your life, the doctor shouldn't save your life. I imagine you feel the same way across the board, no? Some uninsured guy gets cancer, they can't afford to pay, what then? I say treat them, and to hell with the cost. You say let them die - a position that I find morally suspect.

Goobieman said:

I SEE.. a "moral obligation"...
Since when is it OK to force a version of morality onto others?
And then, what's your argument against someone forcing their morality on you?

Click to expand...

Let me clear up your confusion. First off, you don't 'force' morality onto others - one either acts morally or they do not. While disagreement exists regarding moral questions and they are often recalcitrant to resolution, one hardly says that morality is being forced. If you are being forced to do something, the argument can successfully be made that you are not acting out of morality, but out of something else. Addressing the subjectiveness of morality, though, you believe denial of health care is not a moral issue. Folks like me think the opposite. While there are deep and widespread moral disagreements regarding the truth or justification of moral judgments as not being absolute, there are those who believe it is relative to some group of persons. By definition, I do not 'force' morality onto you anymore than you force morality onto me. You simply act within morality or you don't, and what constitutes morality to the relativist is the basis of judgement upon the agent (ie, if he/she is acting within his/her moral beliefs).

So yes, I would say that it is a moral obligation. If you disagree, then I take it your subjective version of morality says that we must not act to save the lives of those who cannot afford it when it comes to health care, correct?

If not, explain.

Goobieman said:

You didnt answer the question:
How does your 'right' to health care trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I answered the question perfectly. If you are dying and there is something I can do to prevent it, shouldn't I do so? One can say that is acting out of a moral obligation to you. But regarding the 'fruits of your labor', do you think that it is immoral to have the government tax you for roads, police protection, and military defense? If not, what is the difference between this and being taxed for health care?