Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

Neomalthusian · Sep 16, 2011

ARealConservative said:
My mom received her care in a teaching hospital, so she isn’t dead weight, she provided valuable practical experience

How much did the care end up costing? Not costing her, but total?

Whatever of that amount she did not personally pay was transferred to someone. Whether other patients, policyholders, taxpayers, the students in the form of tuition fees, etc. Someone shouldered the portion of the overall cost that your mom didnt pay, and it's this endless shoveling of personal costs onto the collective that conservatives tend to oppose.

OscarB63 · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
How much did the care end up costing? Not costing her, but total?

Whatever of that amount she did not personally pay was transferred to someone. Whether other patients, policyholders, taxpayers, the students in the form of tuition fees, etc. Someone shouldered the portion of the overall cost that your mom didnt pay, and it's this endless shoveling of personal costs onto the collective that conservatives tend to oppose.

even with insurance, the portion of the overall cost that you don't pay out of your pocket is still shoveled onto the collective (ie the other policy holders with your insurance company).

unless you pay cash money for every dime of your medical treatment, someone somewhere is helping to subsidize your care, either directly or indirectly.

ARealConservative · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
How much did the care end up costing? Not costing her, but total?

Whatever of that amount she did not personally pay was transferred to someone. Whether other patients, policyholders, taxpayers, the students in the form of tuition fees, etc. Someone shouldered the portion of the overall cost that your mom didnt pay, and it's this endless shoveling of personal costs onto the collective that conservatives tend to oppose.

I understand your point, but there is another consideration here

My mom did something unheard of in the health care market. She price shopped. If more people did this, we would see a drastic reduction in the price of medicine.

Red Crow · Sep 16, 2011

liblady said:
really? i'm not lazy and i don't want anything handed to me. so i guess you couold say your post was a lie, right?

If you really are that way you describe yourself then you are not a Liberal, so if I were you I change my lean to Conservative and that would be the REAL you.

BayToBay · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
That's the whole idea behind the conservative plan for the health insurance mandate. I think UHC is much more practical.

I don't feel much need to defend the Romney, Brown, The Heritage Foundation and certainly not Nixon or Bush. But, can you present a primary source that proves who supported a FEDERAL individual mandate?

Here is Moffitt's (Heritage Foundation's health care wonk) position on Massachusetts proggram. He finds it a mixed bag and recommends some parts to other states seeking to reform, not to the federal government.

The Massachusetts Health Plan An Update and Lessons for Other States

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

ARealConservative said:
Public means others can read and respond, but our conversation has nothing to do with what others said previously.

We are not in a vacuum, we are on a public forum that has been discussing "Should we allow the uninsured to die." Here are some of the related comments in this discussion:

OscarB63 said:
Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die? Hell, we should assist them. :thumbs:

tessaesque said:
I'm sorry, there is nothing in the consitution that says you have a right to medical treatment.

tessaesque said:
Medical treatment is a product. Nobody has the right to a product.

PzKfW IVe said:
"Covering everyone" means forcing people to pay for goods and services rendered to someone else.
This is nothing more than involutary servitude, a form of slavery.

OscarB63 said:
how does keeping dead weight alive help the country's well being?

PzKfW IVe said:
It places an artificial burden on limited resources, and thusly weakens the species as a whole.

Neomalthusian said:
No, I mean that we don't respect people's decision to go without insurance and we don't hold them accountable to that decision. That is our fault.

PzKfW IVe said:
It's no so much 'respecting' the decision, but holding them responsible for it.
The current state of affairs breeds irresponsibility as people can make irresponsible decisions and not have to suffer the consequences for doing so.
Once you remove the consequence from poor decision making, you eliminate the impetus to not make poor decisions.

Neomalthusian said:
this is because we hold no one accountable for the decision not to be insured

PzKfW IVe said:
Why do you think your life is worth more than someone else's 2 days in a coal mine?

They need to see a bigger picture of what people provide. My mom received her care in a teaching hospital, so she isn’t dead weight, she provided valuable practical experience

I agree! Most of the people without health insurance are working, contributing members of society. You've made my point better than I could have. Perhaps your fellow conservatives above will take note. BTW, I'm glad your Mom got the treatment she needed!

What if...? · Sep 16, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
This is, in fact, news to certain people here.

You don't GET more conservative than the Heritage Foundation. THEY thought it was a good idea, or wanted it to look that way. WAY too much deliberately deceptive comes out of that stink tank.

Perhaps they were laying a trap. Or establishing a "frame" for some other agenda.

But THEY did come up with it. And the ARE conservative. So what was wrong with it when they did?.

Have they retracted/modified their position?

RINO is a copout far too often. PR trickery. Fallacy carpet bombing.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
No, hospital care. The uninsured are treated throughout hospitals. Whatever their medical need. Not just ERs. That's "do no harm" for you.

Which does not include preventative care which puts the patient at higher risk and ultimately results in higher costs for everyone.

And they'd still hit up the ER with public coverage. ERs find answers quick, whereas clinic doctors can have long waitlists. And we could only expect as much or more of that with UHC.

Show me any country with UHC that pays more for health care than the US.

That's not why they die. People die due to injuries or medical problems. "Lack of health care" is not a cause of death.

You are mistaken. 18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

A government can only control costs by rationing in some fashion or another. If it doesn't ration, costs can float as high as they want to.

Insurance companies ration health care too, that is why 50 million people can't afford health insurance. We have less access to fully health care for all our people than any other industrialized country.

So ASSUMING we go ahead and destroy choice and socialize the whole system, the question will become about how government will ration, or how quickly it'll destroy our financial going concern trying NOT to.

What choice do those who can't afford health insurance have for full health care?

So how shall we ration? What care shall be denied, and to whom? We gotta answer this at some point. No it doesn't. We could spend all month discussing the myriad differences between the US and country x, y or z.

Hopefully not the way we have been rationing it, where only the rich have the option for receiving full health care. Talk with Bowerbird here about how well UHC works in Australia.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

RStringfield said:
I don't feel much need to defend the Romney, Brown, The Heritage Foundation and certainly not Nixon or Bush. But, can you present a primary source that proves who supported a FEDERAL individual mandate?

Here is Moffitt's (Heritage Foundation's health care wonk) position on Massachusetts proggram. He finds it a mixed bag and recommends some parts to other states seeking to reform, not to the federal government.

The Massachusetts Health Plan An Update and Lessons for Other States

What???? You say you can't defend the Heritage Foundation, and then you list them as a reference??? Please explain further what you mean please.

What if...? · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
It is noted that you are further to the right than the Heritage Foundation.

Wouldn't that mean hes coming up on the backside of the left?

tessaesque · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
Which does not include preventative care which puts the patient at higher risk and ultimately results in higher costs for everyone.

Show me any country with UHC that pays more for health care than the US.

You are mistaken. 18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

Insurance companies ration health care too, that is why 50 million people can't afford health insurance. We have less access to fully health care for all our people than any other industrialized country.

What choice do those who can't afford health insurance have for full health care?

Hopefully not the way we have been rationing it, where only the rich have the option for receiving full health care. Talk with Bowerbird here about how well UHC works in Australia.

37k people died from injuries sustained in car accidents List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

30k people die from gun shots List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3800 die from drowning

13k die from falls

2.59 million people die over all in the U.S.

So .69% of the population die theoretically because of a lack of insurance. Though it seems to me like that would be hard to prove.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

tessaesque said:
37k people died from injuries sustained in car accidents List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

30k people die from gun shots List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3800 die from drowning

13k die from falls

2.59 million people die over all in the U.S.

So .69% of the population die theoretically because of a lack of insurance. Though it seems to me like that would be hard to prove.

Is this what is supposed to be your justification for letting the working class and poor die for lack of proper medical care in the richest country in the world????

That is just sad. I hope you and your Dad are never subjected to the same fate as you wish on others.

Neomalthusian · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
Which does not include preventative care which puts the patient at higher risk and ultimately results in higher costs for everyone.

Preventive care is NOT an overall cost saver.

Show me any country with UHC that pays more for health care than the US.

I'm not arguing this, I know we pay the most. But a main reason for this is that not enough is rationed.

You are mistaken. 18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

I know people like to spin "lack of insurance" as a cause of death. It's still not. Insurancelessness is not a terminal condition.

Insurance companies ration health care too, that is why 50 million people can't afford health insurance.

You have that perfectly backwards. Rationing is not why people cannot afford it. Too little rationing is why they cannot afford it. Doing a better job of rationing would control costs (assuming a competitive market).

What choice do those who can't afford health insurance have for full health care?

None. Or at least they shouldn't. "Full health care" costs money and so does insurance. If you leave individuals alone to meet their own health care needs, they'll cost-discriminate and drive prices down. Overpriced services will perish because no one will (or can) pay for them. When you separate them from the cost of their care, they overutilize and underfund. "Who cares how much it costs, I don't have to pay it," they say.

Hopefully not the way we have been rationing it, where only the rich have the option for receiving full health care.

You dodged my question. How should we ration?

Alyssa · Sep 16, 2011

Unrelated nonsense as a justification for one's opinion hardly counts as reasonable. I haven't decided on a position concerning health care yet, but so far the "let people die, it's not my problem" crowd hasn't been too convincing.

Pinkie · Sep 16, 2011

How should we ration?

I have some thoughts about this. It's a question we had best start discussing fast, or the "default position" will be pretty bad, IMO.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
Preventive care is NOT an overall cost saver.

Greater Use Of Preventive Services In U.S. Health Care Could Save Lives At Little Or No Cost

I'm not arguing this, I know we pay the most. But a main reason for this is that not enough is rationed.

We have rationing now through unaffordable rates for a large segment of the country.

I know people like to spin "lack of insurance" as a cause of death. It's still not. Insurancelessness is not a terminal condition.

Thanks for your opinion, but I will go with the landmark research that I referenced above which states:

"The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

"Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care."

You have that perfectly backwards. Rationing is not why people cannot afford it. Too little rationing is why they cannot afford it. Doing a better job of rationing would control costs (assuming a competitive market).

Our market system has failed to keep the cost down in health insurance. That is why every other industrialized country has switched to some form of UHC.

"Full health care" costs money and so does insurance. If you leave individuals alone to meet their own health care needs, they'll cost-discriminate and drive prices down. Overpriced services will perish because no one will (or can) pay for them. When you separate them from the cost of their care, they overutilize and underfund. "Who cares how much it costs, I don't have to pay it," they say.

It is not possible to meet your own health care costs in this country, unless you are rich. We are the richest country in the word, yet the only industrialized country that says we cannot provide UHC. I don't buy for one minute that we can't do for our citizens what poorer countries do on less. Australians have a small percentage taken from their paychecks to pay for it. If you want the Cadillac of health care plans, you pay a bit more. It is not free, it is just much less costly.

How should we ration?

One of the ways private insurance companies ration currently, by deciding what procedures are less likely to produce the best results, and providing less coverage for those procedures.

winston53660 · Sep 16, 2011

Pinkie said:
I have some thoughts about this. It's a question we had best start discussing fast, or the "default position" will be pretty bad, IMO.

We already do ration. In the case of a heart transplant there are approximately 2500 transplants per year. And they are rationed out on various criteria.

Neomalthusian · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
Greater Use Of Preventive Services In U.S. Health Care Could Save Lives At Little Or No Cost

Little to no additional cost is not the same as controlling costs.

Preventive care won't magically cut health costs | Deseret News
http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/2010/Article_0810_FHCE_PreventiveCareMandates.pdf
Will Preventive Care Control Costs? - Eric M. Staib - Mises Daily

We have rationing now through unaffordable rates for a large segment of the country.

That is not at all what rationing is.

Our market system has failed to keep the cost down in health insurance.

What has failed is the practice of providing expensive care to anybody and everybody.

It is not possible to meet your own health care costs in this country, unless you are rich.

But we meet everyone's health care costs anyway, which allows prices to rise. If the stuff that people couldn't afford didn't happen, then no one would stay in business offering unaffordable services. The only thing that will ever control costs sustainably in this industry is a cash only system.

We are the richest country in the word, yet the only industrialized country that says we cannot provide UHC.

We do provide universal health care. What we don't provide is universal health insurance under a single payer. Except for the Medicare population. And we all know how that's working out financially.

I don't buy for one minute that we can't do for our citizens what poorer countries do on less. Australians have a small percentage taken from their paychecks to pay for it. If you want the Cadillac of health care plans, you pay a bit more.

That's not correct. A percentage is taken from their paychecks, and then more is taken if they don't buy more of their own private insurance. And if they don't buy private insurance after they turn 31, they start dinging you with an extra 2% per year. So we can call this "universal" health care, but the ideals of government just paying for everything don't exist anywhere.

As for it being all hunky dory in Australia, I really don't care. What's their debt to GDP? We're hurting enough financially as it is, and our unfunded liabilities are into the 50s of Trillions of dollars.

I realize I'm not being "reasonable" on this issue, but I work in the industry and I've thought about it for a long time. Cash-only is the only thing I would strongly support. The cost problem in my type of scenario would be well taken care of.

One of the ways private insurance companies ration currently, by deciding what procedures are less likely to produce the best results, and providing less coverage for those procedures.

That's a start I guess.

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
Little to no additional cost is not the same as controlling costs.

Preventive care won't magically cut health costs | Deseret News
http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/2010/Article_0810_FHCE_PreventiveCareMandates.pdf
Will Preventive Care Control Costs? - Eric M. Staib - Mises Daily

I provided you with research from the Dept of Health and you offer up 3 conservative opinions to refute them. Sorry, I prefer facts to biased opinion.

That is not at all what rationing is.

The hell it isn't.

What has failed is the practice of providing expensive care to anybody and everybody.

So you prefer to be selective about who gets care and who doesn't. I'm not surprised.

But we meet everyone's health care costs anyway, which allows prices to rise. If the stuff that people couldn't afford didn't happen, then no one would stay in business offering unaffordable services. The only thing that will ever control costs sustainably in this industry is a cash only system.

You mean except for the 18,000 that die each year because they didn't get proper medical care? No thanks. In regards to your cash only system, I don't think many can afford to set aside a few hundred thousand dollars a year to cover possible medical costs. Doctors aren't accepting chickens in lieu of payment anymore.

We do provide universal health care.

Are you talking about Medicare that the conservatives want to get rid of?

What we don't provide is universal health insurance under a single payer. Except for the Medicare population. And we all know how that's working out financially.

Yes, it is working out the same as our private health insurance. Both are unaffordable, and for the same reason. The only way to solve the underlying problem of both is UHC.

That's not correct. A percentage is taken from their paychecks, and then more is taken if they don't buy more of their own private insurance. And if they don't buy private insurance after they turn 31, they start dinging you with an extra 2% per year. So we can call this "universal" health care, but the ideals of government just paying for everything don't exist anywhere.

You are incorrect, but there is no free lunch. Everyone has to pay, but with UHC, it is more affordable, because you remove the higher overhead and unnecessary profit from the picture.

As for it being all hunky dory in Australia, I really don't care. What's their debt to GDP? We're hurting enough financially as it is, and our unfunded liabilities are into the 50s of Trillions of dollars.

You don't care that Australia, a country not as rich as the US can provide what we can't? We are not hurting financially in relation to the rest of the world. We are still the richest country in the world. If other poorer countries can charge less for health care, so can we.

I realize I'm not being "reasonable" on this issue, but I work in the industry and I've thought about it for a long time. Cash-only is the only thing I would strongly support. The cost problem in my type of scenario would be well taken care of.

I also realize you are not being reasonable on this issue. Would you accept a chicken in lieu of a paycheck in your job in this industry??? If not, your plan is not practical in the least.

Pinkie · Sep 16, 2011

winston53660 said:
We already do ration. In the case of a heart transplant there are approximately 2500 transplants per year. And they are rationed out on various criteria.

I'm thinking more of nursing care. We cannot adequately staff nursing homes for the elderly infirm we have now. What is supposed to happen in 10,20, 30 years when that population has increased 500%?

Antiderivative · Sep 17, 2011

I am sorry, but I am not reading all these pages. However, I would like to see a link that Ron Paul claimed this. I have no problem with this claim, but I want to see context.

Given our rising health care costs and limited resources, I personally wouldn't be opposed to the government stopping open heart surgery and other life savings operations for people over 80. It is unfortunate, but it is a sad part of life. Once you reach a certain age, the body starts breaking down. Using precious resources to keep someone alive for a few more years may not be worth it. Plus, you have to take into consideration the fact after life saving operations, these people will probably eat up more health care resources in the near future with existing or developing complications. I think those resources are best put to elsewhere.

This touches upon the essence of economics. How do we allocate our limited resources in the most optimal way?

winston53660 · Sep 17, 2011

Antiderivative said:
I personally wouldn't be opposed to the government stopping open heart surgery and other life savings operations for people over 80.

I can guarantee you at 80 no one is getting a heart transplant.

Using precious resources to keep someone alive for a few more years may not be worth it.

So beyond getting a heart transplant, hearts are a very limited resource, what resource is wasted if an 80 year old gets 10 more years of life from bypass surgery or a stint or what ever.

*the target goal for a heart transplant is 20 years of life.

Antiderivative · Sep 17, 2011

winston53660 said:
I can guarantee you at 80 no one is getting a heart transplant.

So beyond getting a heart transplant, hearts are a very limited resource, what resource is wasted if an 80 year old gets 10 more years of life from bypass surgery or a stint or what ever.

*the target goal for a heart transplant is 20 years of life.

I would like to see you validate your claim, but nonetheless you are simply nitpicking my statement in order to make your argument. My argument was never about open heart surgery for people over 80. It is about expensive life saving procedures the for elderly people which only prolong their lives for a couple of years. After you prolong their lives for a couple of years, then we bear the burden of the risk for more medical procedures while we keep these people alive.

Is it really the government's job to see how long they can keep you alive after a certain age?

While it is a noble endevour, we must think about how those resources would be put to better use.

winston53660 · Sep 17, 2011

Antiderivative said:
I would like to see you validate your claim,

Which claim? I happen to go to a transplant center myself.

but nonetheless you are simply nitpicking my statement in order to make your argument. My argument was never about open heart surgery for people over 80. It is about expensive life saving procedures the for elderly people which only prolong their life for a couple of years. After you prolong their life for a couple of years, then we bear the burden of the risk for more medical procedures while we keep these people alive.

Okay fair enough but it does beg the question what life saving procedures are you talking about?

I can think of one such example with a 93k drug for prostrate (or was it pancreatic cancer?) cancer that extends life on average for 4 months. However if this yields insight into better pharmacology for future generations I'm all for it.
*note you can get medicare before 65.

Is it really the government's job to see how long they can keep you alive after a certain age?

What's the cut off?

While it is a noble endevour, we must think about how those resources would be put to better use.

Noble? BS try being on this of the scaplel!

Antiderivative · Sep 17, 2011

winston53660 said:
Which claim? I happen to go to a transplant center myself.

And you are over the age of 80?

Okay fair enough but it does beg the question what life saving procedures are you talking about?

I am not talking about specifics, but I am referring to how resources are allocated.

I can think of one such example with a 93k drug for prostrate (or was it pancreatic cancer?) cancer that extends life on average for 4 months. However if this yields insight into better pharmacology for future generations I'm all for it.
*note you can get medicare before 65.

I am all for drugs that enhance and prolong your life. Your point?

What's the cut off?

Its not up to me to decide. I am just pointing out that if the government decides to spend their resources on prolonging the life of the very old, then they are not going to have those resources to spend on other things, such as preventive health for the young, education, environment, etc.

Noble? BS try being on this of the scaplel!

I am glad that your survived the scalpel. However, this discussion is not about your personal anecdotes. It is about how government allocates its limited resources.

Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

More options

Neomalthusian

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators

ARealConservative

cookies crumble

Red Crow

Holy Crap!

BayToBay

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

What if...?

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

What if...?

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Neomalthusian

Alyssa

¡Selah!

Pinkie

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

winston53660

Neomalthusian

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Pinkie

Antiderivative

winston53660

Antiderivative

winston53660

Antiderivative