Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

[maquiscat]

Actually, AFAIK, most hospitals would not treat a woman for such long term illnesses/conditions. Emergency care to get them stabilized, yes, but after that they are sent home. So short of a doctor working pro bono she won't get treated for cancer just by walking into a hospital. They'lol treat a broken arm before they would consider treating cancer.

 

[maquiscat]

Someone shows up at a hospital with no insurance and not a dime to their name. They are having a heart attack. Are you honestly saying that they will be turned out into the street?

They would not get turned away. That is an immediate life threading situation.

Another individual shows up in an ER. They have cancer. They don't have insurance and they don't have a dime to their name. Do you think they will go without treatment?

While they might not turn her away, right away, she will not, in most cases, receive treatment for her cancer. At best she will get treated to alleviate any current symptoms, such as nausea, or vomiting, or pain. ER's don't do long term care, only emergency care, hence the name emergency room.

 

[WCH]

Who? Drug dealers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Over half the country doesn't work .Is it going to come out of their welfare check?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I fully admit that I don't know how such a situation would be resolved. I rather doubt that she's get the full $200K full treatment as most insured would be within their rights to expect (as this person hasn't 'put into the communal pot' as it were), but I do believe that she'd get treatment to alleviate her suffering / pain, at least. That would be the minimal humane thing to do.



It is, and it isn't.

It's one thing for someone who's been paying their entire lives into medical insurance and then expecting the needed medical care, vs. someone who's not paid anything into medical care, and expecting the same. The bottom line is that you get what you pay for (or in this case what you've paid in).

Not acknowledging this difference, not acknowledging that this difference exists and is significant, seems to be the expectation of many.



This may sound rather unfair and bleak to you, however, some innovative doctors in have come up with a way to provide similar to concierge level of care at discount prices.

Wichita group proposes new statewide health care cooperative

Wichita's Leading Direct Primary Care Practice

So quality full coverage care at reasonable prices doesn't sound bad in the least to me. Hell, I'd sign up for it.

If someone can't afford the $50 / month for joining this cooperative, I don't see a problem with the government subsidizing this level of payment for that person. This, coupled with a catastrophic health insurance plan would seem to do to the trick.

I'm particularly drawn as to the reasonable pricing Atlas MD has managed with their care providers and medical testing partners. I'd much rather support something like this, something that is proven to work, rather than government miss-managed single payer healthcare.

So, no, it's not wanting to deny anyone the quality healthcare for anyone, as is often (and falsely) claimed, it's the demands on the public treasury that's the driving concern, at least with me it is.

1. Actually someone with cancer that is uninsured will get chemo and any life saving surgeries they need. It would be unconscionable to give them palliative care alone and thus condemn them to certain death. That is why we don't do that. Usually hospitals will do everything they can to get that individual signed up for Medicaid so that the provider can be reimbursed, but they will get treated either way and either way that cost gets passed on to everyone else. Which is the point, whether you want to call it a right or not, no one will be denied necessary health care, and by virtue of living and working in this country, we all end up paying for it one way or the other.

2. The problem with having a parallel system for healthcare for the poor is that it would end up being far more expensive than just to extend some publicly funded coverage to them. Reason being is that a parallel system works fine in a major city where you can have a public hospital that sees the poor and uninsured. However, for smaller cities, small towns, and rural areas, it gets really inefficient to have a parallel health system when you are just not treating that many people in that area.

3. Concierge care is great for someone looking for an alternative to their overworked GP. You are talking about routine health care for those cooperatives though. That is but a tiny fraction of overall health spending. For example, last August I was struck by a car while I was at a stop light while riding my road bike. I came around in ICU a few hours later. In just those few hours, I racked up exponentially more in medical bills than I had in a life time of routine care (I was insured of course). Look at an EOB next time you go to your GP. The visit wont be but a couple of hundred dollars. If they do a lot of lab work, it might be a total of 300 or 400 dollars. So when you are young and healthy, routine healthcare a year might run you a few hundred dollars (this is why high deductible plans coupled with HSAs make a lot of financial sense for young people). As you get older, the routine care is still maybe just 2k a year or so. Compare this to a day in ICU where you will be billed 40k to 60k (if they don't have to do much). Cancer treatments are 30k to 75k a month. The cost of a major surgery will be 50k minimum and as high as 200k. There will never be cooperatives for those services, but that is what accounts for the vast majority of health care spending in this country. Come on, why do you think Medicare costs us so much money? It's not because its bloated and inefficient, its because seniors often need a lot major healthcare and that healthcare is extraordinarily expensive.

 

[Mach]

While they might not turn her away, right away, she will not, in most cases, receive treatment for her cancer. At best she will get treated to alleviate any current symptoms, such as nausea, or vomiting, or pain. ER's don't do long term care, only emergency care, hence the name emergency room.

There is a lot more than just the ER, but it's good you point that out, because I was falling into the "ER everything" remark as well.
https://www.livestrong.org/we-can-h...sistance/health-care-assistance-for-uninsured

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Taking into consideration that our "Rights" as US Citizens are all well documented in the Constitution of which "Healthcare" is not listed.

So I would assume you're asking people for their opinion as to whether or not healthcare should be a Right?!

IMO; other than a joint state/federal funded, well regulated 'Emergency Safety Net'; I would say NO!

Why you ask? Well, because 'Government Healthcare' would be extremely inefficient, unimaginably wasteful, immensely expensive, outrageously bureaucratic and totally completely corrupt!

Dear God 'Please' Keep Government Out Of Our Doctors Offices and Hospitals!

You realize that Medicare and Medicaid are already the two largest socialized medicine programs on earth.

 

[maquiscat]

So call it a right, call it whatever you want to call it, but for all intents and purposes, everyone in this country will get necessary healthcare even if they cannot pay for it.

Short of being on a system like Medicare/Medicaid, no they won't. Those programs, BTW, also require you pay premiums, as I have sisters who are on those programs. One of them has spinal issues from a car accident. Right now the system that labels her as "disabled" is trying to get her off that status. Without that status, she will no longer qualify for Medicare/Medicaid. Without those programs she can no longer receive treatments for her back, which include therapy, TENS/EMS, men's and other services and procedures. Sure, if her pain gets excessive, she can go to the ER, and they can treat her symptoms for what she is going through right then, but they won't do the other procedures. And she cannot work most jobs due to her back not allowing her to stand or walk for long periods of time. So no, people will not always get the necessary care they need. Unless you are classifying her therapy and other treatmeants as not necessary.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Actually, AFAIK, most hospitals would not treat a woman for such long term illnesses/conditions. Emergency care to get them stabilized, yes, but after that they are sent home. So short of a doctor working pro bono she won't get treated for cancer just by walking into a hospital. They'lol treat a broken arm before they would consider treating cancer.

Actually, what they do is transfer you to a University hospital and there they would try to sign you up for Medicaid. Usually they can because if someone has cancer they are often too sick to work and thus would qualify. Most hospitals have entire departments dedicated to signing up patients like that for Medicaid. So we pay for it one way or the other.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Short of being on a system like Medicare/Medicaid, no they won't. Those programs, BTW, also require you pay premiums, as I have sisters who are on those programs. One of them has spinal issues from a car accident. Right now the system that labels her as "disabled" is trying to get her off that status. Without that status, she will no longer qualify for Medicare/Medicaid. Without those programs she can no longer receive treatments for her back, which include therapy, TENS/EMS, men's and other services and procedures. Sure, if her pain gets excessive, she can go to the ER, and they can treat her symptoms for what she is going through right then, but they won't do the other procedures. And she cannot work most jobs due to her back not allowing her to stand or walk for long periods of time. So no, people will not always get the necessary care they need. Unless you are classifying her therapy and other treatmeants as not necessary.

I assure you that your sister would find that Humana or BCBS would be every bit as difficult to deal with as Medicaid if not more difficult as they would try to get out of paying for anything like that they could.

Plus, I am not sure what your complaint is. You are a self identified libertarian. If you guys got your way, there would be no Medicaid or Disability, so what would your sister do then?

 

[maquiscat]

I assure you that your sister would find that Humana or BCBS would be every bit as difficult to deal with as Medicaid if not more difficult as they would try to get out of paying for anything like that they could.

Which is you strawmaning again. Well maybe more red herring. The difficulty of any given system, government run or private run, is irrelavant to the point made. Can you show me where she would get the necessary care she needs sans insurance/ability to pay?

 

[Empirica]

You realize that Medicare and Medicaid are already the two largest socialized medicine programs on earth.

Yep, and everything I said earlier about "Government Healthcare" is true about both of them.

And they are both failing miserably and in financial distress, which proves my point!

And people are actually suggesting we put the whole country on it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Which is you strawmaning again. Well maybe more red herring. The difficulty of any given system, government run or private run, is irrelavant to the point made. Can you show me where she would get the necessary care she needs sans insurance/ability to pay?

That is the point, she will get life saving care one way or the other. They are going to sign her up for medicaid if at all possible. Why do you think we have Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP? It's because we are not a nation of sociopaths and don't want people going without needed healthcare. If half the country would get it through their thick heads the healthcare is not like any other sector of the economy, then the system would be a more complete safetynet.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yep, and everything I said earlier about "Government Healthcare" is true about both of them.

And they are both failing miserably and in financial distress, which proves my point!

And people are actually suggesting we put the whole country on it.

They are not in financial distress because they are inefficient and a waste a bunch of money. They are in financial distress because healthcare for seniors is extraordinarily expensive and many people that are on Medicaid are on it because they have chronic conditions like cancer and are too sick to work and thus Medicaid is paying for their extraordinarily expensive treatments.

Lets say we do away with Medicare entirely. What do you think Humana would charge a year for health coverage for a 70 year old man with a history of heart disease? What do you do figure the premiums would be? 30k a year? Maybe 40k a year? Maybe more. Humana has to protect themselves on that one. Pretty good odds of him needing heart surgery and thats easily going to be a 50k to 150k, plus he is old so he has a good chance of getting cancer, and thus the treatments would be 30k to 75k a month. Of course every year he got older, the premiums would have to increase substantially due to the higher risk he presented.

That in a nutshell is why Medicare is such an expensive program.

 

[Winston]

Over half the country doesn't work .Is it going to come out of their welfare check?

Seniors already paid FICA taxes on their SSC checks. Unemployment checks financed by company funds are considered wages and subject to FICA. Disability checks as far as I know, are not subject to FICA. However, you have to take into account, that people on unemployment and disability, are also on Medicaid. With the creation of a single-payer system, Medicaid is rolled into said single-payer system. So, it looks like you're already paying for your loafers and indolents anyway, through Medicaid, why not make it easier on everyone and go single-payer?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Taking into consideration that our "Rights" as US Citizens are all well documented in the Constitution of which "Healthcare" is not listed.

So I would assume you're asking people for their opinion as to whether or not healthcare should be a Right?!

IMO; other than a joint state/federal funded, well regulated 'Emergency Safety Net'; I would say NO!

Why you ask? Well, because 'Government Healthcare' would be extremely inefficient, unimaginably wasteful, immensely expensive, outrageously bureaucratic and totally completely corrupt!(

The only problem being that no empircal evidence backs up your histrionics; in fact, it disproves it.

Norway, Japan, Germany, Canada, etc... none of them are like that.

 

[maquiscat]

That is the point, she will get life saving care one way or the other. They are going to sign her up for medicaid if at all possible. Why do you think we have Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP? It's because we are not a nation of sociopaths and don't want people going without needed healthcare. If half the country would get it through their thick heads the healthcare is not like any other sector of the economy, then the system would be a more complete safetynet.

No,you said necessary care earlier. Do you think that her therapy and such are not necessary then?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No,you said necessary care earlier. Do you think that her therapy and such are not necessary then?

Yes I think physical therapy is necessary health care, but at that point it is starting to get a little bit subjective.

Since you are a libertarian, are you against the idea of safety-nets like Medicaid?

 

[Empirica]

They are not in financial distress because they are inefficient and a waste a bunch of money.

No one on earth is more wasteful and inefficient than the US Government.

Why? Cause it's not their money and there's lots of it so they figure no one will miss it or even notice.

Have you never heard reports about government paying $300 each for hammers?

Or $800 each for plastic toilet seats? Or 50 million dollars to build a civilian gas station for the Iraqis.

And this inefficiency, waste and corruption goes on every single day in every single government agency and program.

They are in financial distress because healthcare for seniors is extraordinarily expensive and many people that are on Medicaid are on it because they have chronic conditions like cancer and are too sick to work and thus Medicaid is paying for their extraordinarily expensive treatments.

So could we possibly infer from the reasons you provided here that the Government failed to foresee these problems and badly miscalculated the resources necessary to cover such cases?

Lets say we do away with Medicare entirely. What do you think Humana would charge a year for health coverage for a 70 year old man with a history of heart disease? What do you do figure the premiums would be? 30k a year? Maybe 40k a year? Maybe more. Humana has to protect themselves on that one. Pretty good odds of him needing heart surgery and thats easily going to be a 50k to 150k, plus he is old so he has a good chance of getting cancer, and thus the treatments would be 30k to 75k a month. Of course every year he got older, the premiums would have to increase substantially due to the higher risk he presented.

That in a nutshell is why Medicare is such an expensive program.

Quite a mess, isn't it? And people actually want to lock the entire population into this system which will grow and worsen exponentially with time and increasing numbers.

You people need to accept the reality that government is the worst solution to any problem and nothing is free that's worth having.

 

[Empirica]

The only problem being that no empircal evidence backs up your histrionics; in fact, it disproves it.

Norway, Japan, Germany, Canada, etc... none of them are like that.

The EU nations have no where near the populations as the numbers here in the United States!

Regardless; their over-taxed people and overburdened economies are bleeding Euros mercilessly.

As the EU marches blindly into economic armageddon, government assures them every things fine.

Greece requires regular euro dollars from other Union members to stay afloat but will likely fold first.

Like dominoes Spain will probably follow Greece, but on a positive note the Brits wised up and bailed.

Canada might very possibly get out ok because they're more intuitive than Europeans and might possibly dump socialism before hitting their economy's event horizon.

Orientals are resilient so the Japanese will probably survive any catastrophe, natural or man-made. They'll crawl out of the ruins, dust themselves off and start over again with nothing.

The United States on the other hand is 20 trillion dollars in the red while government and MSM have lulled the masses into denial which has created a false sense of security. This of course is the absolute worst place to be when confronted with the mega-disaster bearing down on us like a runaway locomotive.

And it might very well lead to the end of life as we know it!

 

[Phys251]

The EU nations have no where near the populations as the numbers here in the United States!

Regardless; their over-taxed people and overburdened economies are bleeding Euros mercilessly.

As the EU marches blindly into economic armageddon, government assures them every things fine.

Greece requires regular euro dollars from other Union members to stay afloat but will likely fold first.

Like dominoes Spain will probably follow Greece, but on a positive note the Brits wised up and bailed.

Canada might very possibly get out ok because they're more intuitive than Europeans and might possibly dump socialism before hitting their economy's event horizon.

Orientals are resilient so the Japanese will probably survive any catastrophe, natural or man-made. They'll crawl out of the ruins, dust themselves off and start over again with nothing.

The United States on the other hand is 20 trillion dollars in the red while government and MSM have lulled the masses into denial which has created a false sense of security. This of course is the absolute worst place to be when confronted with the mega-disaster bearing down on us like a runaway locomotive.

And it might very well lead to the end of life as we know it!

"That's great it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes and airplanes, Lenny Bruce is not afraid..."

 

[<alt>doxygen]

No one on earth is more wasteful and inefficient than the US Government.

Why? Cause it's not their money and there's lots of it so they figure no one will miss it or even notice.

Have you never heard reports about government paying $300 each for hammers?

Or $800 each for plastic toilet seats? Or 50 million dollars to build a civilian gas station for the Iraqis.

And this inefficiency, waste and corruption goes on every single day in every single government agency and program.

So could we possibly infer from the reasons you provided here that the Government failed to foresee these problems and badly miscalculated the resources necessary to cover such cases?

Quite a mess, isn't it? And people actually want to lock the entire population into this system which will grow and worsen exponentially with time and increasing numbers.

You people need to accept the reality that government is the worst solution to any problem and nothing is free that's worth having.

Well, the DoD is responsible for a lot of the absurdities you referenced.

 

[Neomalthusian]

No one on earth is more wasteful and inefficient than the US Government.

Why? Cause it's not their money and there's lots of it so they figure no one will miss it or even notice.

Have you never heard reports about government paying $300 each for hammers?

Or $800 each for plastic toilet seats? Or 50 million dollars to build a civilian gas station for the Iraqis.

And this inefficiency, waste and corruption goes on every single day in every single government agency and program.

So could we possibly infer from the reasons you provided here that the Government failed to foresee these problems and badly miscalculated the resources necessary to cover such cases?

Quite a mess, isn't it? And people actually want to lock the entire population into this system which will grow and worsen exponentially with time and increasing numbers.

You people need to accept the reality that government is the worst solution to any problem and nothing is free that's worth having.

Would you support repealing Medicare, Medicaid, EMTALA and the like, and tolerating deprivation and amenable mortality for those who don't have the cash to cover whatever treatment they're needing?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It is not an inherent right. (Otherwise we wouldn't need doctor's to provide it to us) It is a privilege of citizenship if and only if the citizenry agrees and accepts this responsibility.

Think of it like we do the obligations we accept to pay for provision of mutual defense, justice, and education.

So if we as a society accept the idea that we can and should afford citizens at least some basic form of healthcare protection, then this obligates us to cooperate in funding and becomes a shared privilege of citizenship.

That truly sounded great, misguided but sounded great. Healthcare is a organized effort to help humans that need help. It is not a privilege to get help. In a cut throat asshole world providing needed help is a privilege. It dives into the citizenry being subjects with no actual rights. Want to live subject? I will provide you with this privilege so that you might live another day. Tomorrow though I might take away your privilege and let you die. SO bow down to my generosity my subjects!

Yep sounds just like the crap the founders were all worked up about.

 

[Gaius46]

Taking into consideration that our "Rights" as US Citizens are all well documented in the Constitution of which "Healthcare" is not listed. (

You are not correct. Amendment IX states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Jefferson was against a Bill of Rights in part because he was afraid people in the future would things are you are.

 

[Gaius46]

Over half the country doesn't work .Is it going to come out of their welfare check?

Half the country may not work because they choose not to. That doesn't make then unemployed. Nor does it mean they collect welfare. Lots of stay at home moms in my neighborhood. I doubt any of them collect welfare.