• 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!

Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

tessaesque said:
It could also mean that they, like my father, pay for the medical care out of pocket on an as-needed basis.
Click to expand...

I admit that it would be nice to have a million dollars set aside for that. For most of us, though, that's not an option.
 
tessaesque said:
That'd suck. But he'd pay as much as he could, as long as he could. There was a point over the last few years when having an insurance premium (even just on himself) would have been the difference between keeping or losing his house. He's spent less on paying full-price for medical care in 20 years than he'd spend on premiums in one.
Click to expand...

and now he's not young. no way could he pay for anything major, so in effect, WE pay for him. he would be one of those people many in this thread are talking about, the irresponsible one who didn't get insurance and now is catastrophically ill. your dad, among others, is why i think we need mandated coverage. are you insured?
 
Helix said:
I admit that it would be nice to have a million dollars set aside for that. For most of us, though, that's not an option.
Click to expand...

He's far from a millionaire. He took losses the last 3 years. He lives in a house valued at $87k (low for DFW).
 
liblady said:
and now he's not young. no way could he pay for anything major, so in effect, WE pay for him. he would be one of those people many in this thread are talking about, the irresponsible one who didn't get insurance and now is catastrophically ill.
Click to expand...

He is not irresponsible. WE are irresponsible for insuring de facto those who opt not to be insured.

your dad, among others, is why i think we need mandated coverage.
Click to expand...

No, we "need mandated coverage" because WE don't respect people's choices to be uninsured and possibly die, and we don't hold them to those choices. We ignore their choices, do what WE think is best for them, and pay the price collectively.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
and now he's not young. no way could he pay for anything major, so in effect, WE pay for him. he would be one of those people many in this thread are talking about, the irresponsible one who didn't get insurance and now is catastrophically ill. your dad, among others, is why i think we need mandated coverage. are you insured?
Click to expand...

WE haven't paid for anything for him. He's never even taken unemployment benefits. He's never been on food stamps, welfare, medicaid, or any other government program. He's paid in full for every procedure he's had done.

He is also not the type who would sit for years and years suffering from any disease that would kill him slowly with treatment. He's made it pretty damn clear he won't live that way.

So don't worry. "We" will likely never pay for my father's "irresponsibility".
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
He is not irresponsible. WE are irresponsible for insuring de facto those who opt not to be insured.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.
"We" pay for it because "we" tell health care providers that they have to treat people even when they cannot pay, and that it is OK to spread those costs to other patients. "We" pay for those people because, very literally, "we" choose to.
When you make the choice to do something, you do not get to whine about the complications that arise from that something.
 
I keep seeing people write "hospitals will treat people regardless of whether or not they have insurance or money." But ultimately if someone has a serious condition, long term treatment is out of the question. They are usually refused more expensive options and are sent home.

One of the reasons that UHC is typically a cheaper option is because of the level of preventative care. Treatment is cheaper if the condition has not been allowed to fester. By the time those who have no insurance and/or money get treatment, their conditions are either worse or untreatable. Thus, the expense often increases.
 
evanescence said:
I keep seeing people write "hospitals will treat people regardless of whether or not they have insurance or money." But ultimately if someone has a serious condition, long term treatment is out of the question. They are usually refused more expensive options and are sent home.
Click to expand...

Medical necessity sends all hospital patients home when they clear, regardless of insurance status.

One of the reasons that UHC is typically a cheaper option is because of the level of preventative care. Treatment is cheaper if the condition has not been allowed to fester.
Click to expand...

Preventive care is a cost saver for a very small minority of conditions. Overall it is absolutely not true. It raises costs. Finding one individual with a budding illness might save costs on him. Screening a thousand for that one rare condition does not save costs overall.

http://mises.org/daily/3827
 
Last edited:
evanescence said:
I keep seeing people write "hospitals will treat people regardless of whether or not they have insurance or money." But ultimately if someone has a serious condition, long term treatment is out of the question. They are usually refused more expensive options and are sent home.
Click to expand...
This -should- be the case in all situations.
Otherwise, you're forcing people to provide goods and services w/o compensation, and/or to pay for goods and services they do not receive.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
This -should- be the case in all situations.
Otherwise, you're forcing people to provide goods and services w/o compensation, and/or to pay for goods and services they do not receive.
Click to expand...

So you think basically ambulances should be equipped with a credit card machine?
 
winston53660 said:
So you think basically ambulances should be equipped with a credit card machine?
Click to expand...
Is that a question or a statement? I cannot tell, because it doesnt stem directly from anything I said.
Maybe you could show a little honesty and ask a question that doesn't suppose someting about my position.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Medical necessity sends all hospital patients home when they clear, regardless of insurance status.
Click to expand...

When they "clear," that doesn't mean they were properly treated.

Neomalthusian said:
Preventive care is a cost saver for a very small minority of conditions. Overall it is absolutely not true.
Click to expand...

That defies logic. Especially if preventative care costs are kept reasonable.

PzKfW IVe said:
This -should- be the case in all situations.
Otherwise, you're forcing people to provide goods and services w/o compensation, and/or to pay for goods and services they do not receive.
Click to expand...

So back to square one: someone cannot afford treatment: treat them or let them die?
 
evanescence said:
So back to square one: someone cannot afford treatment: treat them or let them die?
Click to expand...
You give the provider the choice to treat him at risk of doing so w/o compenation, or to not treat him.
If they choose to treat someone that cannot pay, then they choose to take whatever loss that may result.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
You give the provider the choice to treat him at risk of doing so w/o compenation, or to not treat him.
If they choose to treat someone that cannot pay, then they choose to take whatever loss that may result.
Click to expand...

So ultimately, a person's value equals their monetary value. . .
 
tessaesque said:
He's far from a millionaire. He took losses the last 3 years. He lives in a house valued at $87k (low for DFW).
Click to expand...

Then unless he's on Medicare now, he's taking a huge risk. I would get him insured as soon as possible, and I would highly recommend nursing home insurance, as well. End of life care and nursing homes / hospices can be devastatingly expensive.
 
Helix said:
Then unless he's on Medicare now, he's taking a huge risk. I would get him insured as soon as possible, and I would highly recommend nursing home insurance, as well. End of life care and nursing homes / hospices can be devastatingly expensive.
Click to expand...

He's 47. Too young for government health care and honestly, I doubt he'll take it. If my dad is disagnosed with anything short of bad knees I doubt he'll stay alive long enough to end up in a nursing home.
 
evanescence said:
When they "clear," that doesn't mean they were properly treated.
Click to expand...

You're pulling that out of your ass. People are hospitalized when it's medically necessary and discharged when it's no longer medically necessary. If you're going to allege the same doctors in hospitals discriminate on the basis of funding source, you've got some backing up to do.

That defies logic. Especially if preventative care costs are kept reasonable.
Click to expand...

I assure you it does not. Read the link.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
WE haven't paid for anything for him. He's never even taken unemployment benefits. He's never been on food stamps, welfare, medicaid, or any other government program. He's paid in full for every procedure he's had done.

He is also not the type who would sit for years and years suffering from any disease that would kill him slowly with treatment. He's made it pretty damn clear he won't live that way.

So don't worry. "We" will likely never pay for my father's "irresponsibility".
Click to expand...


really you are missing the point. say your dad has to have a bypass.......much more than he could ever pay for in his lifetime. what do you think happens when hospitals and doctors have to eat their fees? they raise their prices, insurance goes up. so yes, WE do pay.

and if you're not insured, the same thing could happen to you. do you expect to be treated if you can't pay? again, this is why we need mandated insurance.
 
tessaesque said:
He's 47. Too young for government health care and honestly, I doubt he'll take it. If my dad is disagnosed with anything short of bad knees I doubt he'll stay alive long enough to end up in a nursing home.
Click to expand...

why would you say that?
 
tessaesque said:
He's 47. Too young for government health care and honestly, I doubt he'll take it. If my dad is disagnosed with anything short of bad knees I doubt he'll stay alive long enough to end up in a nursing home.
Click to expand...

This is the last I'll nag you about it, but you must get him insured. If he's saved money so far, then stop gambling and leave the casino.
 
liblady said:
why would you say that?
Click to expand...

Because he has no intention of living with a diminished quality of life. Watching several people waste away and die in pain did quite a number on him and he doesn't want it for himself. He's made it pretty clear he won't stay around for long once things start to decline.
 
liblady said:
really you are missing the point. say your dad has to have a bypass.......much more than he could ever pay for in his lifetime. what do you think happens when hospitals and doctors have to eat their fees? they raise their prices, insurance goes up. so yes, WE do pay.

and if you're not insured, the same thing could happen to you. do you expect to be treated if you can't pay? again, this is why we need mandated insurance.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but we don't need to give congress power beyond that provided to them by the consitution to mandate the sale of a product until we look at every other option. Forcing a product on to somebody because it seems like a magical cure-all....isn't. On my MRI, the insurance paid the hospital $80. The billed price of the MRI was $700. I paid nothing. So where'd the other $620 go? On the backs of other patients? Onto the government? Out of the hospital's pockets? The system is inherently flawed. Universal coverage or mandated insurance don't fix the flaws. It's like putting a bandaid over a severed limb. You think even with insurance that my dad could cover his portion of a bypass surgery? That'd be several thousand dollars, if not several tens of thousands of dollars.
 
liblady said:
really you are missing the point. say your dad has to have a bypass.......much more than he could ever pay for in his lifetime. what do you think happens when hospitals and doctors have to eat their fees? they raise their prices, insurance goes up. so yes, WE do pay.
That's our problem. We must stop.

and if you're not insured, the same thing could happen to you. do you expect to be treated if you can't pay? again, this is why we need mandated insurance.
Click to expand...

Again, this is why we need to respect people's decisions by holding them to those decisions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom