• 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
The Mark

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
34,949
Reaction score
12,349
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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?
 
Damnit, the poll didn't work, could a mod please set up the following?

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

Poll options (10):
Other.
$1000 per person per year.
$10000 per person per year.
$25000 per person per year.
$50000 per person per year.
$100000 per person per year.
$1000000 per person per year.
Entire GDP of our country.
More than entire GDP of our country.
Never.
 
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...
With that question in mind is it fair to garnish people's assets to pay for said services as much as possible or should they pay nothing for something so important that the taxpayers are being demanded of to pay for it. How much of a sacral ice should the poor be expected to make to help pay for something they can't afford?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
With that question in mind is it fair to garnish people's assets to pay for said services as much as possible or should they pay nothing for something so important that the taxpayers are being demanded of to pay for it. How much of a sacral ice should the poor be expected to make to help pay for something they can't afford?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Incomes over some arbitrarily decided cutoff should be taxed at percentages yet to be determined, to ensure funding is available for this hypothetical single-payer system.
The option for higher percentage taxes on higher income levels is also there.

Obviously, we shouldn't take money from people who can't afford to have it taken.
 
I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to ensure that EVERY citizen has health care...at any amount.
 
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...

Our government pays more per capita than almost any other rich nation. On top we pay more privately than any rich country. This indicates that probably other countries pay less than would be best and that we have organized our public coverage poorly.
 
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...

Does the cost of HC need to include massive administrative overhead, CYA tests just to say a headache was not a brain tumor, MRI imaging to say a tummy ache was not cancer or X-rays to say a jammed toe was or was not broken? Much of what drives up the end cost of "care" is not necessary but done to pad the pockets of greedy folks or to avoid the 1 in 100K chance that a more serious aliment is not diagnosed on the first visit. Even non-profit care facilities do this simply because they can.
 
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?
 
The Mark said:
Incomes over some arbitrarily decided cutoff should be taxed at percentages yet to be determined, to ensure funding is available for this hypothetical single-payer system.
The option for higher percentage taxes on higher income levels is also there.

Obviously, we shouldn't take money from people who can't afford to have it taken.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Why, "people who can afford it", of course. ;)
 
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.
 
One of the questions is how much for how long?

Meaning should $1 million be spent to extend the life of one person for 1 year. When that money could have been used to improve the health of 40 other people (better nutrition, fixed broken bones etc)

Or should in the name of caution when going to the doctor for a check, he orders 5 different scans from top to bottom despite no health issues mentioned to the doctor.
 
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...
On the other hand, if you need it at some point, the healthcare will be there.
 
The Mark said:
On the other hand, if you need it at some point, the healthcare will be there.
Click to expand...
I suppose something will be there that someone on some panel decides is "healthcare".
 
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...
None of those things are so vastly expensive when a crisis occurs that they can end up with an individual in obscene amounts of debt.

Nor are the out-of-pocket costs so high in many cases that people often avoid utilizing the system until their issues are significant.
 
The Mark said:
Incomes over some arbitrarily decided cutoff should be taxed at percentages yet to be determined, to ensure funding is available for this hypothetical single-payer system.
The option for higher percentage taxes on higher income levels is also there.

Obviously, we shouldn't take money from people who can't afford to have it taken.
Click to expand...
The question im posing is how important is healthcare. In value relative to those who need it but claim they cant afford it. What sacrafices are reasonable to require from them if any?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Taylor said:
I suppose something will be there that someone on some panel decides is "healthcare".
Click to expand...
There would need to be some form of that - I personally would question the need to provide cosmetic surgery to an individual, except for reconstructive purposes in the case of disease or accident.

And any such system would have to have some guidelines for determining what care options are viable, to determine which should be offered to participants.
 
trouble13 said:
The question im posing is how important is healthcare. In value relative to those who need it but claim they cant afford it. What sacrafices are reasonable to require from them if any?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Minimal. Although, depending on the system implemented (if any), it might not even be a question - in the case of 'single payer' or 'universal healthcare', the tax system would tax people above a certain income level, and the healthcare system would provide healthcare to everyone.

So it would effectively be zero cost for people under a certain income level.

Which I think personally is the best solution, but the implementation is going to be one hell of an argument.

Edit: I'm not sure how viable checking people's purchase habits to ensure they aren't wasting money that could buy healthcare is - leaving aside that we're a consume-based economy, and the more consumers the better from the perspective of those selling things and services, it would require some significant bureaucratic organization to check what everyone was up to in order to make such a judgement.
 
The Mark said:
None of those things are so vastly expensive when a crisis occurs that they can end up with an individual in obscene amounts of debt.

Nor are the out-of-pocket costs so high in many cases that people often avoid utilizing the system until their issues are significant.
Click to expand...

Not so, if a tree falls on my house or even worse my tool shed (my means of making an income) then I am screwed unless I had great credit or a pile of cash to replace that structure and its contents. Why should breaking a leg or getting disease be any different?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so, if a tree falls on my house or even worse my tool shed (my means of making an income) then I am screwed unless I had great credit or a pile of cash to replace that structure and its contents. Why should breaking a leg or getting disease be any different?
Click to expand...
Insurance to cover that possibility exists.

A significant healthcare crisis would cost far more.

The issue currently is that the majority of the country is barely able to handle a $1000 unexpected cost (which healthcare issues would be very likely to exceed), and health insurance costs more than many can afford per month.
Either the cost of health insurance has to go down significantly (without reducing the coverage, and in some cases increasing it), or the income of everyone has to increase significantly so that they can afford the current costs.
 
The Mark said:
Insurance to cover that possibility exists.

A significant healthcare crisis would cost far more.

The issue currently is that the majority of the country is barely able to handle a $1000 unexpected cost (which healthcare issues would be very likely to exceed), and health insurance costs more than many can afford per month.
Either the cost of health insurance has to go down significantly (without reducing the coverage, and in some cases increasing it), or the income of everyone has to increase significantly so that they can afford the current costs.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that insurance to cover structures and their contents would be affordable (to those with low incomes) and have a reasonable (below $1K?) deductible? Again, why no call for universal (heavily subsidized?) property (or income) insurance?
 
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...

Certainly not the taxpayers outside of what Medicare covers as both likely paid into the program throughout their lives and are now entitled to it.
The rest should be on their dime. For the female to stay in the home at 20k a month aid, I don't know too many who could afford such a cost for any length of time on their own without additional insurance and even at that, it would be very expensive.

In my area, Central Ohio, assisted living runs around 5,000 to 6,000 a month and there are degrees of assistance. They are nothing like a nursing home. They have a dining room where all members can come for breakfast, lunch and dinner.and if you can't make it to the dining room, your meals are delivered to your room. There's an ice cream parlor, beauty salon, barber shop, pet groomers, There are plots of earth for the gardener and several activities planned each week for the residents. There's a shuttle service 24 hours to take someone shopping, doctor's appointments etc.

Whatever happened to the children taking care of their parents? When your parents become ill it use to be the kids stepped up to be their caregivers. Hubby and I both took care of our parents and our children learned it was the right thing to do. Daughter and son both have made it perfectly clear if we find ourselves in a situation where we can not do for ourselves, they surely will.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why do you think that insurance to cover structures and their contents would be affordable (to those with low incomes) and have a reasonable (below $1K?) deductible? Again, why no call for universal (heavily subsidized?) property (or income) insurance?
Click to expand...

Because property/structure insurance is not necessary for the health and alive-ness of people.

You can in theory recover from a monetary loss - but recovering your health may be harder (and depending on the specifics, not even possible), and death is permanent (currently, anyway).
 
The Mark said:
Because property/structure insurance is not necessary for the health and alive-ness of people.

You can in theory recover from a monetary loss - but recovering your health may be harder (and depending on the specifics, not even possible), and death is permanent (currently, anyway).
Click to expand...

What does EMTALA do again? I like your clever use of in theory I could recover from losing my tools which are the the source of my income.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What does EMTALA do again? I like your clever use of in theory I could recover from losing my tools which are the the source of my income.
Click to expand...
Well of course it's in theory - there's no surety in this world.

What's EMTALA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom