And so it begins...CO and MD offer bill for single payer

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff You would be forced to default on your bills and dump them on us.

Or maybe set up a payment plan with the hospital and pay for treatment the way most people pay for almost all large purchases, on credit.

[cb7010]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Very principled approach. (sarcasm emoticon missing). In the pre-Obamacare environment millions loose (or never get) health insurance through no fault of their own. Your self stated approach (out of my own pocket) only works because you would be willing to steal your care from the rest of us if you suffered a devastating uninsured illness or injury and ended up in an emergency room. No civilized country (including ours) would throw you out and no set of pockets (outside of the top 2%+) could afford the bills. You would be forced to default on your bills and dump them on us.

Your post illustrates the problem with our entire system and way of thinking. It assumes life is inherently fair and that every human being deserves by some birthright to be given a certain high level of healthcare whether they can pay or not. I don't believe this at all. And, this whole concept of "through no fault of their own" doesn't fly with me either. People, irrespective of the challenges they were born into or encounter, need to take responsibility for their health and lives, period.

I can control my health to a certain degree. I can control what foods I put in my body, how much sleep and exercise I get, etc..Even then, I might very well have congenital problems or just be unlucky and get sick or impaired or to die young. This is life and this is natural law.

I do agree that we could and should do many things to bring down the cost of health care and that would be of benefit to all.

I simply don't see myself as selfish, if I get sick and can't pay for it; it would be immoral for me to be a drag on society and/or to stick you or anyone else with my bills against thier will. I am only one of over 6 billion humans on this planet and my death ultimately won't mean much one way or another to the survival of our species. If there are certain people out there that just can't handle the way nature works when it culls out the weak in a species to allow the species to get stronger; then they can certainly form private charities and pool their money voluntarily to whatever group of people or cause they like. Just think, money getting to less fortunate people without the involvement of lobbyists, politicians, government agencies...

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cb7010 I simply don't see myself as selfish,

That's one way to look at it.

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Or maybe set up a payment plan with the hospital and pay for treatment the way most people pay for almost all large purchases, on credit.

I am talking about a system (as it is pre-Obamacare) that does not officially cover catastrophic costs. They are not all that uncommon and they are called catastrophic for a reason -- they are. After such a loss all but the top 2% or so would be incapable of paying the bills. A payment plan would be a useless gesture for bills in the hundreds of thousands or millions for someone with normal earnings or someone disabled and no longer earning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cb7010 Your post illustrates the problem with our entire system and way of thinking. It assumes life is inherently fair and that every human being deserves by some birthright to be given a certain high level of healthcare whether they can pay or not. I don't believe this at all. ... I simply don't see myself as selfish, if I get sick and can't pay for it; it would be immoral for me to be a drag on society and/or to stick you or anyone else with my bills against thier will.

See above. You would be covered. I suppose a "principled" position would be that in the world you espouse you would be bared from the emergency room if you had no insurance and couldn't post a huge bond. Absent that how would you pay?

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff I am talking about a system (as it is pre-Obamacare) that does not officially cover catastrophic costs. They are not all that uncommon and they are called catastrophic for a reason -- they are. After such a loss all but the top 2% or so would be incapable of paying the bills. A payment plan would be a useless gesture for bills in the hundreds of thousands or millions for someone with normal earnings or someone disabled and no longer earning.

Right. All the hospital needs to cover is it's expenses. Everything else is profit. Don't take this to mean all they need is to cover their expenses for every procedure. I simply mean if the hospital covers it's expenses then it won't go out of business.

Catastrophic care is not a very common occurrence, although it is more common than is should be due to people's inability to control themselves and take care of their bodies. If everybody had a catastrophic illness then the cost of insurance would go up to the cost of the catastrophic care.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff See above. You would be covered. I suppose a "principled" position would be that in the world you espouse you would be bared from the emergency room if you had no insurance and couldn't post a huge bond. Absent that how would you pay?

Actually, a "principled" position would also opt out of employer sponsored health care when reaching the age of ~34. Otherwise, it puts an undue burden on the younger co-workers, who unfairly pay higher premiums because the old farts are in the pool.

In fact, the only "sane" health care plan is an individual plan or to go naked. Even the state high-risk-pool is placing an undue burden on the state taxpayers.

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cb7010 No thanks. I will worry about my own health and health care and pay for whatever health care I receive out of my own pocket. At some point, if the government becomes too onerous and demands more of my money to pay for other's care, I will seriously consider taking myself and my money to some other part of the world and look at the great American social utopia experiment from afar.

Do you pay for all of your health care out of your pocket today? Do you buy your insurance privately (do not use an employee type plan)?

[snodog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cb7010 At some point, if the government becomes too onerous and demands more of my money to pay for other's care, I will seriously consider taking myself and my money to some other part of the world and look at the great American social utopia experiment from afar.

Sorry, even if you move to another Country you will still have to pay US taxes. Looks like your stuck here in our "social utopia".

[huusom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Works for me. The sooner the better.

+1

[RustyShackleford]

Since this is America, and it's pretty much inconceivable that I could say anything that would make the people who disagree with me see my way of thinking (or vice versa, and not to say America is unique) ... the best I can do is to interject some humor:

Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Zathras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cb7010 I simply don't see myself as selfish, if I get sick and can't pay for it; it would be immoral for me to be a drag on society and/or to stick you or anyone else with my bills against thier will.

Part of the issue is that we, as a society, have decided that any person that needs life saving emergency care should get it. Do you disagree with this?
In other words, if someone who can't afford it gets hit by a bus and needs expensive surgery, should they get it on society's dime (I do).

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathras In other words, if someone who can't afford it gets hit by a bus and needs expensive surgery, should they get it on society's dime (I do).

Well, there's the problem. That person on the gurney just isn't engaging in rational free market behavior and shopping around for the best price on the needed treatment. Now, a real Galtian Rugged Individualist would sit up in the back of the ambulance, and demand to see a price list for treatment of injuries likely to be received from being hit by a bus. He'd then force the ambulance driver to take him to the hospital offering the best deal. Dagny Taggert would probably just shoot the ambulance driver if he failed to take her to the right hospital. Damn moochers...


Injured people are inefficient economic actors.

[grasshopper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Well, there's the problem. That person on the gurney just isn't engaging in rational free market behavior and shopping around for the best price on the needed treatment. Now, a real Galtian Rugged Individualist would sit up in the back of the ambulance, and demand to see a price list for treatment of injuries likely to be received from being hit by a bus. He'd then force the ambulance driver to take him to the hospital offering the best deal. Dagny Taggert would probably just shoot the ambulance driver if he failed to take her to the right hospital. Damn moochers... Injured people are inefficient economic actors.

Because I live in the boonies, I have medical helicopter insurance. Trouble is there are 3 services in our area. If you need air transport you have a 33% chance of getting your plan.

So I would say, rattlesnake bite, heart attack, head injury, I will wait for the free ride. I ride out is 10-14k I'll take my chances.

My neighbors who are both EMT's already told me forget it, you get whoever comes. And since they are so close I guess I am overruled.

[Bdroc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathras Part of the issue is that we, as a society, have decided that any person that needs life saving emergency care should get it. Do you disagree with this? In other words, if someone who can't afford it gets hit by a bus and needs expensive surgery, should they get it on society's dime (I do).

I'm in favor of guaranteeing a basic level of care, but we simply can not afford Cadillac coverage for everybody. Example would be to provide expensive cancer treatments or organ transplants to people in their 80s. I know that sounds harsh, but it's reality.

[dgoldenz]

Well, looks like I was right on target about Vermont....glad I don't live there.

Vermont Senate Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill | ThirdAge

[samclem]

I wish the state of Vermont luck. Maybe it will work out and they'll save a ton of money and everyone there will be happy with their taxes, their choices, and their health care. If so, perhaps other states can learn some lessons. If it doesn't go well (expanding ER room lines, expanding state health care costs, as seen in MA), then we'll all learn from that, too.

As long as federal funds aren't pumped in to make it a success, I can't see any reason to oppose the idea--if you don't live in VT.

[modhatter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cb7010 No thanks. I will worry about my own health and health care and pay for whatever health care I receive out of my own pocket. At some point, if the government becomes too onerous and demands more of my money to pay for other's care, I will seriously consider taking myself and my money to some other part of the world and look at the great American social utopia experiment from afar.

Obviously there is a significant difference in the way you and other people view an ideal society. Those of us who favor some form of universal care, do want to see everyone covered, even if it costs us more personally.
I could not in good consciousness condone a mother losing her child because she couldn't afford the needed medicine or treatment to save her son. I know that our country is made up of diverse individuals with very different capabilities and not everyone is going to be able to work for a mega corporation, with wonderful benefits, a 401K and sustain a two parent family unit.

Most other industrial countries agree with me, and their citizens feel an obligation toward their fellow man, and are willing to share in costs even when it costs higher wage earners more in order to provide basic health care for everyone.

Read T.R. Reid "The Healing of America" It outlines the health care system other countries have adapted across the globe to insure everyone can receive health care when needed. We are the "only" industrial country country that does not. Heck even poor countries like Mexico have a government low cost insurance plan available for it's citizens.

Yes we have fiscal problems, and health care has become very expensive, but all the rest of the countries faced the same problem and figured out a way to do it. I think it was Taiwan (don't hold me to it) that was one of the last to join the fold. They formed a committee and decided to travel to many of the other countries (Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, England etc. etc.) and look closely at their health care systems and made up a list for each country of what was "good" about their system (worked) and what didn't work with their system. Then they came home and put together a plan that adapted what "worked" for other countries and made sure to avoid what did not.

The Medicare system is broke, because the government is only covering seniors who are inherently sick and the insurance companies get the younger population, who are generally healthy, and make record profits. Now what might happen if the government was able to use some of that profit to offset the expense of the elderly?
I think we would be able to balance the scale a little better.

The point of all this being, that most other countries consider it a moral obligation to care for one another, and they think it would be morally wrong to deny health care to someone because they did not have sufficient income to pay for it.

Now if you think that being an American exempts you from the rest of the world and humanity, then there is little more I can say on the matter Perhaps "American Exceptional ism" at it's best.

[samclem]

Emphasis added:

Quote:

Originally Posted by modhatter The point of all this being, that most other countries consider it a moral obligation to care for one another, and they think it would be morally wrong to deny health care to someone because they did not have sufficient income to pay for it.

America has a safety net to provide medical care for the poor. You may not like the level of that net or how the care is administered, but it's not accurate to imply that it doesn't exist.

And I'd like to hear of a single country that provides every type of medical care to anyone, regardless of ability to pay. Go ahead--I'll wait. There are none. So the situation you describe is a matter of degree, not a binary situation.

Most people, and especially Americans, voluntarily give away their own possessions to help others. This is a very good measure of the generosity of a people. I have a hard time with the idea that it is somehow morally upright for a majority of people to vote to use the power of the government to take the personal property of a minority of their fellow citizens to "help others."
For Americans who want to do more to help others, please give until it hurts. That's true charity, and it's a tremendous virtue, and a real demonstration of your love and caring for other people. But no one should feel better about themselves because they asked the government to mug someone else to benefit their particular pool of worthy recipients (no matter how the fact is packaged and dressed up).

[Beryl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by modhatter The Medicare system is broke, because the government is only covering seniors who are inherently sick and the insurance companies get the younger population, who are generally healthy, and make record profits. Now what might happen if the government was able to use some of that profit to offset the expense of the elderly? I think we would be able to balance the scale a little better.

+2

The problem is that greedy profiteers have convinced an uninformed populace to protest against their own best interests. Most haven't lived 500 miles from their birth places let alone become aware of successful healthcare in other geographies.

[modhatter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem America has a safety net to provide medical care for the poor. You may not like the level of that net or how the care is administered, but it's not accurate to imply that it doesn't exist. And I'd like to hear of a single country that provides every type of medical care to anyone, regardless of ability to pay. There are none. So the situation you describe is a matter of degree, not a binary situation. Most people, and especially Americans, voluntarily give away their own possessions to help others. This is a very good measure of the generosity of a people. I have a hard time with the idea that it is somehow morally upright for a majority of people to vote to use the power of the government to take the personal property of a minority of their fellow citizens to "help others." For Americans who want to do more to help others, please give until it hurts. That's true charity, and it's a tremendous virtue. But no one should feel better about themselves because they asked the government to mug someone else (no matter how the fact is packaged and dressed up).

If you are speaking of Medicaid, or other state run programs, they are very limiting and restrictive, and there are many people who do not qualify who remain uninsured or under insured.

As for not wanting to be forced by government to contribute, (or as you put it ask our government to mug someone else) we will just have to agree to disagree on that. We are forced to contribute through our taxes to pay for our roads, schools, clean water, food safety and defense etc. etc. Why can't medical care be part of the equation? You don't think it's as important as all the other things we pay for?

You appear to be financially set, and feel you could handle what ever medical costs might come your way. What if you weren't "so" set and you lost your job and your insurance and then had a bad auto accident or got cancer.

Your not poor enough to get medicaid, your not old enough to get medicare, so you have to sell everything you own including your home and empty your not so large bank account. I am painting this word picture to illustrate what fears many Americans must live with on a daily basis. You are fortunate that you don't.

Of course the level of care will vary with those who can afford the best of the best. I am not arguing this point and I do not begrudge those who could afford the best.
Hopefully they earned it and deserve it, just like the fancy car and fancy home if they so choose.

But basic care with a reasonable safety net for the rest of the population is what I am addressing.