• 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!

Healthcare cost - does it matter?

Poll question: At what point does the cost of healthcare outweigh the need for it?

  • Other.

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • $1000 per person per year.

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • $10000 per person per year.

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • $25000 per person per year.

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • $50000 per person per year.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • $100000 per person per year.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • $1000000 per person per year.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Entire GDP of our country.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • More than entire GDP of our country.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Never.

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Total voters
    13
Media_Truth said:
Most doctors would say that it's unethical to NOT treat somebody who doesn't have money to pay. Thats why they take the Hyppocratic Oath. It's all in perspective....
Click to expand...
Most doctors would accept something as payment too

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I believe its unethical for anyone using healthcare to not pay for it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you think it would be unethical for a homeless person to receive life-saving care?
 
Aristaeus said:
Do you think it would be unethical for a homeless person to receive life-saving care?
Click to expand...
Nope

Do you think it would be unethical to have that homeless person empty the thrash or find something of value to give back in exchange for saving his life?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
The Mark said:
Many discussions recently about single-payer healthcare, universal healthcare, medicare for all, ACA/Obamacare, and so on.
Much of the disagreement I see with these is that they cost too much in one way or another.

Personally, I am seriously wondering if this is a legitimate argument.

I mean, absolutely we should ensure care is not overpaid for, and money is not wasted, be it on unnecessarily complex administration of services, or anything else.
But in the end, we're talking about what is needed so that people can get healthcare services they need to stay healthy and alive, and frankly I don't know that you can seriously put a price on that - it strikes me as more a requirement, rather than an option.


In other words, we must ensure everyone in the country gets healthcare when they need it.
But HOW we do that is what we've been arguing about for...50+ years now? Off and on.


So, the poll:

At what point does the cost of healthcare outweigh the need for it?
Click to expand...

Your question is basically unanswerable because the whole thing should not be solely a cost issue. There are far too many variables in healthcare, one of the main ones being are we willing to pay for high cost life saving treatments or are we willing to let those small percentage of people die instead of doing gene therapy on them (or other high cost treatment)? As in everything in life there is a cost/benefit formula. Are we willing to just leave medicine where it is currently at or do we want to spend billions on top of billions (or even trillions) in researching advances in medicine? Do we want people to live much longer but spend more time in nursing homes? Do we want specialists that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just for their education and then pass those costs on to whoever winds up footing the bill? ETC
 
The Mark said:
One of the reasons I think we have to have a single-payer or universal healthcare system is because, in my opinion, health insurance for profit is by definition a conflict of interest.

It is extremely hard to regulate the provision of proper healthcare when doing so goes against the goal of making a profit.
You have to make every single possible improper provision of care more expensive than providing it, and frankly that would take years to hash out the details of, during which time people will get sick and die - and it will never be completed, because the options available will constantly be changing.
Click to expand...

Simplistic way of looking at things. How's the VA doing?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
How bout we tackle the problem at the source? Hospital Cartels charging 500% of what it costs them to perform procedures. When you can literally fly to europe, have a procedure done, and then fly back, and still have it cost less than what it would here, there is a problem.



The Growing Popularity of Having Surgery Overseas - The New York Times

Seems all we got to do is regulate medical fees.
Click to expand...

My wife works in a call center for a major hospital chain. She, all by herself, collects almost one million dollars per month from patients for the part that insurance does not pay. That one million dollars is just a very small drop in the bucket compared to the amount that is never collected at all. Hospitals have to charge huge markups in order to cover all of those billions that are never collected at all. If everyone paid what they owed, hospitals wouldn't have to charge 500% markups on everything.
 
trouble13 said:
Nope

Do you think it would be unethical to have that homeless person empty the thrash or find something of value to give back in exchange for saving his life?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You heartless bastard!
 
trouble13 said:
Which brings us back to my original question. What if anything should someone be provided for be asked to sacrifice. You could of saved us both some time by being honest and saying you dont believe they should pay anything.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Hmm...maybe I read too much into your original question, but I was thinking 'sacrifice' as in 'give up something they need or want to have' - I don't think something they need should be necessary, but something they want was potentially on the table.
 
Moderate Right said:
Your question is basically unanswerable because the whole thing should not be solely a cost issue. There are far too many variables in healthcare, one of the main ones being are we willing to pay for high cost life saving treatments or are we willing to let those small percentage of people die instead of doing gene therapy on them (or other high cost treatment)? As in everything in life there is a cost/benefit formula. Are we willing to just leave medicine where it is currently at or do we want to spend billions on top of billions (or even trillions) in researching advances in medicine? Do we want people to live much longer but spend more time in nursing homes? Do we want specialists that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just for their education and then pass those costs on to whoever winds up footing the bill? ETC
Click to expand...
Obviously it's not as simple as solely a cost issue - but I can't really put all the myriad involved cost-benefit decisions in a poll, so I went for a conversation starter.
 
The Mark said:
Hmm...maybe I read too much into your original question, but I was thinking 'sacrifice' as in 'give up something they need or want to have' - I don't think something they need should be necessary, but something they want was potentially on the table.
Click to expand...
That raises a good point. Is healthcare a need or a benefit that society provides?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
For almost everyone on earth, there is no point where cost of healthcare outweighs the need, until it's a cost they physically can't pay. And even that is debatable. Look how many people go into debt to get treatment, or worse. Hell, we've had people commit crimes so they can go to jail so they can get medical treatment. People will do almost anything to stay alive. Our lives are the most fundamental thing we have.

And that right there is the whole reason healthcare doesn't work as a corporate industry. Market capitalism can only work when people have some viable ability to refuse. But everyone has a body and everyone needs care. There's no other game in town. This is like if Samsung said, "buy our phone or we'll lock you in a cell until you starve to death." That's not a choice.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree.

Which is why my poll answer is "never".
 
trouble13 said:
That raises a good point. Is healthcare a need or a benefit that society provides?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Both.

It is needed, and it should be a benefit of living in a society.
 
Moderate Right said:
My wife works in a call center for a major hospital chain. She, all by herself, collects almost one million dollars per month from patients for the part that insurance does not pay. That one million dollars is just a very small drop in the bucket compared to the amount that is never collected at all. Hospitals have to charge huge markups in order to cover all of those billions that are never collected at all. If everyone paid what they owed, hospitals wouldn't have to charge 500% markups on everything.
Click to expand...

Those billions are never collected because of the markup only affecting people who can't afford insurance, which the hospitals write off and avoid paying taxes. This argument of yours doesn't work, because we are literally the only country in the world that does it. The only one. Unless you want to make some point that the majority of Americans don't pay their bills because they are deadbeats, you have to account for why billions of people don't have a problem paying a fair price for healthcare.

Also consider, how affordable insurance would be for people if the markup didn't exist. And oh, why does one person have to cover the cost of someone that didn't pay. Does it work like that in a grocery store, the guy in front of you walks out without paying so you have to pay his grocery bill? I don't think so. It's not ok to charge someone 100k on a procedure that really only costs 2k. Stop making excuses for the cartels. This is a capitalist country, and if the hospital goes out of business, capitalists will pick up their equipment for pennies on the dollar and setup another shop. Let them go out of business, which they won't because it's all a ploy to drive up medicare costs. Medicare pays based on regional average costs. If every hospital in the region is charging 100k, medicare says we'll pay you 60k. That's still a hefty profit. It's sickening how much they profit off us.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Those billions are never collected because of the markup only affecting people who can't afford insurance, which the hospitals write off and avoid paying taxes. This argument of yours doesn't work, because we are literally the only country in the world that does it. The only one. Unless you want to make some point that the majority of Americans don't pay their bills because they are deadbeats, you have to account for why billions of people don't have a problem paying a fair price for healthcare.

Also consider, how affordable insurance would be for people if the markup didn't exist. And oh, why does one person have to cover the cost of someone that didn't pay. Does it work like that in a grocery store, the guy in front of you walks out without paying so you have to pay his grocery bill? I don't think so. It's not ok to charge someone 100k on a procedure that really only costs 2k. Stop making excuses for the cartels. This is a capitalist country, and if the hospital goes out of business, capitalists will pick up their equipment for pennies on the dollar and setup another shop. Let them go out of business, which they won't because it's all a ploy to drive up medicare costs. Medicare pays based on regional average costs. If every hospital in the region is charging 100k, medicare says we'll pay you 60k. That's still a hefty profit. It's sickening how much they profit off us.
Click to expand...

For the record, I am against Obamacare, all of the Republican plans, and single payer or medicare for all. Both sides have no clue how to have a good healthcare system.
 
The Mark said:
Both.

It is needed, and it should be a benefit of living in a society.
Click to expand...
Shouldnt there be a fee for the benefit. Someone has to pay for it. Should it not be the person receiving the benefit be the one who pays for it.

And if you say no the more sucessful should accept that burden out of compassion for their fellow man. I ask to what extent should they feel obligated to provide to others.

Not all healthcare is equal in quality. What level should be paid for by others?

Is society responsible for the alcholic whp has scrosiss of the liver?

Where do you draw the line if ever?

Am i entitled to go to the dr and have every test known to man run on me at somebody elses expense because i just know i got something wrong and i want to know what so i can get it fixed for free too.

Before aca we had a pretty clear line which was the ER was the place to go for emergency treatment. Now that line has been moved to where i dont know. Cause now its an entitlement and its one that we can not afford.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
How bout we tackle the problem at the source? Hospital Cartels charging 500% of what it costs them to perform procedures. When you can literally fly to europe, have a procedure done, and then fly back, and still have it cost less than what it would here, there is a problem.



The Growing Popularity of Having Surgery Overseas - The New York Times

Seems all we got to do is regulate medical fees.
Click to expand...

Then you would definately have to fly to Europe for surgery because every Hospital here would be bankrupt.

Hospitals cost shift to pay for indigent care and the ACA is what it is today because the Federal Govt thought it could control the cost of insuring older and sicker Americans through price controls or dictating what insurance companies could charge.
 
trouble13 said:
Shouldnt there be a fee for the benefit. Someone has to pay for it. Should it not be the person receiving the benefit be the one who pays for it.

And if you say no the more sucessful should accept that burden out of compassion for their fellow man. I ask to what extent should they feel obligated to provide to others.

Not all healthcare is equal in quality. What level should be paid for by others?

Is society responsible for the alcholic whp has scrosiss of the liver?

Where do you draw the line if ever?

Am i entitled to go to the dr and have every test known to man run on me at somebody elses expense because i just know i got something wrong and i want to know what so i can get it fixed for free too.

Before aca we had a pretty clear line which was the ER was the place to go for emergency treatment. Now that line has been moved to where i dont know. Cause now its an entitlement and its one that we can not afford.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Assuming we manage to create a single-payer healthcare system, many of those questions would need to be answered during it's formation, and some might change over time.

The costs would be paid by those above a certain income level - it would be unreasonable to take money needed for food, clothing, and shelter from people to pay for healthcare.

Ideally, the available care would be sufficient to maintain health and life - however, since humans are involved, there would obviously be issues that would need worked out. So subsystems would need to be in place to address those issues.

Some of the issues you mention are in many cases only issues currently because we don't have a system that provides health maintenance care and preventative care- only addressing problems once they become significant enough.
That isn't just a problem in the US, but I think the lack of a universal healthcare system exacerbates the issue.

We have to change the collective understanding of health (although it already is to a degree) so that everyone understands how life decisions cause health issues down the road.

Long-term thinking is necessary. Humans, I sometimes think, are instinctively opposed to long term thinking.
 
The Mark said:
Assuming we manage to create a single-payer healthcare system, many of those questions would need to be answered during it's formation, and some might change over time.

The costs would be paid by those above a certain income level - it would be unreasonable to take money needed for food, clothing, and shelter from people to pay for healthcare.

Ideally, the available care would be sufficient to maintain health and life - however, since humans are involved, there would obviously be issues that would need worked out. So subsystems would need to be in place to address those issues.

Some of the issues you mention are in many cases only issues currently because we don't have a system that provides health maintenance care and preventative care- only addressing problems once they become significant enough.
That isn't just a problem in the US, but I think the lack of a universal healthcare system exacerbates the issue.

We have to change the collective understanding of health (although it already is to a degree) so that everyone understands how life decisions cause health issues down the road.

Long-term thinking is necessary. Humans, I sometimes think, are instinctively opposed to long term thinking.
Click to expand...
That long term thinking stuff that your saying is the biggest reason im against what your suggesting. Being liable for everyones healthcare is just the excuse the gov could use to regulate every aspect of our lives, all in the name of good health.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
That long term thinking stuff that your saying is the biggest reason im against what your suggesting. Being liable for everyones healthcare is just the excuse the gov could use to regulate every aspect of our lives, all in the name of good health.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Something to guard against.
Not enough of a threat to prevent me from supporting the idea of a collective healthcare system.
 
Lutherf said:
Lots of people think of health care cost in terms of hospitalization but that's not all there is to it.

I am currently working with an elderly couple. Both are showing signs of dementia. He has had a couple of strokes and is wheelchair bound. She is more or less self-sufficient but requires management of her medications and observation lest she decide to wander. He is in an assisted living facility due to mobility issues and the fact that he wanders. She has, thus far, refused assisted living. Her home care cost is in excess of $20k/mo. His care is just over $6k/mo. That care, along with medication, food and other expenses comes to more than $315k/yr. Who should pay for that?
Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:
Why is that not true for food, clothing, transportation, utilities and shelter? Why no single payer for those essential goods/services? The bottom line is that there are many needed goods/services that we expect the general public to provide for themselves and their dependents by *gasp* working to earn the funds to do so - most of the income for all but the top 20% is spent on meeting these needs.
Click to expand...

The free market will not insure them. It is not profitable for a company to insure the old or the sick. The free market cannot help these people. It's a market failure. That's why we have single payer for healthcare but not for food or clothing. The free market does not fail when it comes to goods like that.

Should we just let these people die? I think it is the responsibility of a good society (which is what govt represents) to take care of others in that society. I am happy for my tax dollars to go towards part of that $320k/yr. Of course, we should do our best to reduce that figure (which single payer does). I am sure, some day, that such a favor will be returned to either me or my loved ones.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Many discussions recently about single-payer healthcare, universal healthcare, medicare for all, ACA/Obamacare, and so on.
Much of the disagreement I see with these is that they cost too much in one way or another.

Personally, I am seriously wondering if this is a legitimate argument.

I mean, absolutely we should ensure care is not overpaid for, and money is not wasted, be it on unnecessarily complex administration of services, or anything else.
But in the end, we're talking about what is needed so that people can get healthcare services they need to stay healthy and alive, and frankly I don't know that you can seriously put a price on that - it strikes me as more a requirement, rather than an option.


In other words, we must ensure everyone in the country gets healthcare when they need it.
But HOW we do that is what we've been arguing about for...50+ years now? Off and on.


So, the poll:

At what point does the cost of healthcare outweigh the need for it?
Click to expand...

Everything has a price. Hiding the costs (or spreading them around) doesn't make them go away. No one will ever agree on the definitions of the words you've used in your post. It's not possible to define the "needs" of individuals, as a group, at least not beyond general categories of things like water, food, air, shelter. Do you need something to eat, or do you need certified organic bean sprouts grown in a mountain stream? If you ask me that question and I'm not the one paying for it, my answer will be very different than if I am paying for it.
 
Nilly said:
The free market will not insure them. It is not profitable for a company to insure the old or the sick. The free market cannot help these people. It's a market failure. That's why we have single payer for healthcare but not for food or clothing. The free market does not fail when it comes to goods like that.

Should we just let these people die? I think it is the responsibility of a good society (which is what govt represents) to take care of others in that society. I am happy for my tax dollars to go towards part of that $320k/yr. Of course, we should do our best to reduce that figure (which single payer does). I am sure, some day, that such a favor will be returned to either me or my loved ones.
Click to expand...

Can that (bolded above) be stated as "from each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free goods/services)"?
 
Mycroft said:
I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to ensure that EVERY citizen has health care...at any amount.
Click to expand...

I assume that means that you do believe that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that SOME citizens have health care, so which citizens should be treated differently (unequally?) and based on what? The poll question appears to be - does (should) that depend on the cost of that care?

If you meant that you do not believe that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that ANY citizen has health care then should we abolish all government medical care spending (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid and VA care)?
 
The Mark said:
Many discussions recently about single-payer healthcare, universal healthcare, medicare for all, ACA/Obamacare, and so on.
Much of the disagreement I see with these is that they cost too much in one way or another.
Personally, I am seriously wondering if this is a legitimate argument.
I mean, absolutely we should ensure care is not overpaid for, and money is not wasted, be it on unnecessarily complex administration of services, or anything else.
But in the end, we're talking about what is needed so that people can get healthcare services they need to stay healthy and alive, and frankly I don't know that you can seriously put a price on that - it strikes me as more a requirement, rather than an option.
In other words, we must ensure everyone in the country gets healthcare when they need it.
But HOW we do that is what we've been arguing about for...50+ years now? Off and on.
So, the poll:
At what point does the cost of healthcare outweigh the need for it?
Click to expand...

This entire thread is rather pointless as every single universal/single-payer healthcare system in the world costs dramatically less than our system yet provides full coverage for 100% of their citizens from cradle to grave and in most cases with better outcomes.

Lutherf said:
Lots of people think of health care cost in terms of hospitalization but that's not all there is to it.

I am currently working with an elderly couple. Both are showing signs of dementia. He has had a couple of strokes and is wheelchair bound. She is more or less self-sufficient but requires management of her medications and observation lest she decide to wander. He is in an assisted living facility due to mobility issues and the fact that he wanders. She has, thus far, refused assisted living. Her home care cost is in excess of $20k/mo. His care is just over $6k/mo. That care, along with medication, food and other expenses comes to more than $315k/yr. Who should pay for that?
Click to expand...

The problem is that you think that it actually costs $26k/month to take care of two elderly demented people. Someone's being taken for a ride and that really illustrates one of the worst problems with our system.

Taylor said:
Feel free to spend as much money as you'd like on your healthcare, but when you start taking from me it eventually means I can no longer spend as much money as I'd like on my own.
Click to expand...

How free you must feel paying twice as much as the rest of the 1st world for healthcare.

Taylor said:
I suppose something will be there that someone on some panel decides is "healthcare".
Click to expand...

Oooh! Death Panels! Haven't heard that nonsense in a while.


ttwtt78640 said:
The requirement that (most) hospitals give you life saving care regardless of your ability to pay.
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/
https://www.acep.org/news-media-top-banner/emtala/
Click to expand...

They're required to provide ambulatory care, as in, make sure you can walk out on your own strength, they are not required to fix all of your injuries and illnesses, and they will still send you a bill afterwards and bankrupt you for the treatment you did get. If you get a terminal but treatable disease and you don't have healthcare, you will die, the ER is not going to pick up the bill for you.

trouble13 said:
Nope

Do you think it would be unethical to have that homeless person empty the thrash or find something of value to give back in exchange for saving his life?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh there's a fun idea. Let's start some work camps where Americans who can't afford the healthcare they got can work it off with indentured servitude. How many trash buckets does one have to empty to pay off a $100k knee surgery and how will that person provide for himself and his family while he's in the work camp?
 
Last edited:
Why do people think people should be entitled to unlimited and unbound care? If you don’t eat, you will die. If you don’t drink water, you will die. If you don’t have clothes, you could die. If you don’t have shelter, you could die. Sure we provide some food assistance, but we don’t ensure they get to eat steak and lobster. Sure we have low income housing, we don’t ensure they have a mansion. I am not aware of clothing assistance, but I doubt if we do that we make sure they get Gucci? Yet all of these things are necessary for survival.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom