90% of all health care cost in US due to preventable illnesses

[PLC1]

So lets clarify: in social democracy one trades the basic fundamental right to freedom of the fruits of ones labor in exchange for public "rights" like education and health care. More importantly one trades one's neighbor's fundamental rights and will use force to make sure that he complies. To continue the analogy that is on some levels literally true one is making his neighbor a slave.

Personally, I think if one wants to trade the fruits of ones labor (time and money) for payment of health care one should buy insurance. If one wants someone else to get said healthcare then one should pay for it himself. But we must draw the line at deciding that someone else should pay for another persons healthcare. As you said that is immoral. Again, as you said; there is no defined end to how much will be taken from some and how much will be given to others.

Right, sure, and when an individual who has made the choice to go without health insurance has a major illness or accident, the provider will gladly take care of him, give him the rehab and physical therapy he needs to get back on his feet and once again become a contributing (voluntarily contributing, of course) member of society as private charity will be happy to pony up the quarter million or so that his care costs. There will be no need to give the patient the minimum care necessary to get him out of the door, then pass the cost on to other patients.

Which makes me wonder just why anyone would bother to have private insurance anyway, as it would be unnecessary.

Here in the real world, however, where unicorns do not frolic and where people act on their own self interests most of the time, such a system just might not work as planned.

 

[Dr.Who]

Right, sure, and when an individual who has made the choice to go without health insurance has a major illness or accident, the provider will gladly take care of him, give him the rehab and physical therapy he needs to get back on his feet and once again become a contributing (voluntarily contributing, of course) member of society as private charity will be happy to pony up the quarter million or so that his care costs. There will be no need to give the patient the minimum care necessary to get him out of the door, then pass the cost on to other patients.

Which makes me wonder just why anyone would bother to have private insurance anyway, as it would be unnecessary.

Here in the real world, however, where unicorns do not frolic and where people act on their own self interests most of the time, such a system just might not work as planned.

There are already instances in which people do not have insurance, do suffer major accidents, and their care is paid for by others. No need to imagine such a situation. In fact there are whole websites created to assist in transferring money from those who want to give to those who are getting. And as a result do hordes of people choose to forgo having insurance? No, because having insurance and being responsible for ones own care is preferrable. There are in fact multiple ways which could be combined to provide care to those who did not have insurance, none of them are coercive and none if them require that people be left to die in the streets or go without care.

 

[Cruella]

I've never seen anyone die in the streets. They get carted off to a hospital and by law the hospital can't refuse to take care of them.

 

[dogtowner]

I've never seen anyone die in the streets. They get carted off to a hospital and by law the hospital can't refuse to take care of them.

buzz killer

 

[Dr.Who]

I've never seen anyone die in the streets. They get carted off to a hospital and by law the hospital can't refuse to take care of them.

And after they get there if they have insurance it pays, if they do not they can get billed, if they are poor they have medicaid, if they are between middle class and poor and have assets they can sell assets, if they do not qualify for poor and also do not have assets (very unlikely) then they can appeal to the charitable programs that the hospital runs just for this purpose, if the hospital does not have the funds they can ask family and friends and other charities and even strangers through cans at the gas station or websites. We do see such cans and websites and so far I have never seen an example of a person who was actually paying for medical expenses rather than either scamming the system or paying for personal expenses that are stretched as a result of medical expenses. The need for universal gov health care is simply non-existent. If you can find an example of somone who does need it then by all means go to the thread here where over two years ago I asked for an example of a person who did not have medical care and post your example; so far no examples have been posted and that has not stopped people from supporting universal care. The reason the lack of a need has not stopped the calling for care is that the real purpose is to grow gov not to take care of people.

 

[PLC1]

I've never seen anyone die in the streets. They get carted off to a hospital and by law the hospital can't refuse to take care of them.

"Take care of them" means give them the minimum possible, then pass t he cost on to other patients. That's why the patient who pays cash pays triple what the insured pay.

 

[Dr.Who]

"Take care of them" means give them the minimum possible, then pass t he cost on to other patients. That's why the patient who pays cash pays triple what the insured pay.

Actually it does not mean to give them the minimum. It means to give them what is urgent no matter how extensive or expensive it is. The things that can wait, like getting hearing aids - that the person can't get in the ER.

I believe that those who pay through insurance also pick up some of the cost of the uninsured. Since the cost of treating the uninsured is less than 5% of total medical costs one can't blame triple price tags solely on them. I am quite happy with treatments costing roughly 5% more if it means that 100% of americans don't lose freedoms through a government run health care program. If I were concerned with the 5% increase to costs I would have ways to address that. I could tell hospitals that I want them to reduce these costs and that I would choose to do business with hospitals that do reduce these costs. I do none of that because I don't care. Meanwhile when the gov does something I have much less power since my vote is worth about 1/300 million. I do care about the ACA that limits my freedom and that of many others in ways that are clearly in opposition to the intent, purpose, and written word of the constitution.

 

[Cruella]

"Take care of them" means give them the minimum possible, then pass t he cost on to other patients. That's why the patient who pays cash pays triple what the insured pay.

Well, they took the gamble to not get insured and that's not going to stop with Obamacare. No one can be forced to buy medical insurance.

 

[PLC1]

Well, they took the gamble to not get insured and that's not going to stop with Obamacare. No one can be forced to buy medical insurance.

It won't stop, no. It might diminish some, but it won't stop. Soaring costs won't stop, either, nor even slow down, which is why the issue of health care needs to be revisited. Even more than the expanding federal government, health care costs are bankrupting the country.

 

[dogtowner]

It won't stop, no. It might diminish some, but it won't stop. Soaring costs won't stop, either, nor even slow down, which is why the issue of health care needs to be revisited. Even more than the expanding federal government, health care costs are bankrupting the country.

polititians have no intetest in lowering cost as that would be bad for fundraising

 

[Cruella]

Even more than the expanding federal government, health care costs are bankrupting the country.

I have two doctors in my family. The biggest reasons medical costs are so high is because of governments and lawyers. Also, you need to read the pay-out schedules for medicare and medicaid to see that "they don't pay their fair share", so the costs are shifted to others. Think of it as re-distribution of wealth.

 

[dogtowner]

I have two doctors in my family. The biggest reasons medical costs are so high is because of governments and lawyers. Also, you need to read the pay-out schedules for medicare and medicaid to see that "they don't pay their fair share", so the costs are shifted to others. Think of it as re-distribution of wealth.

alright that was funny. true and sad but funny

medicine got ecpensive when govt got involved

 

[GenSeneca]

It won't stop, no. It might diminish some, but it won't stop. Soaring costs won't stop, either, nor even slow down, which is why the issue of health care needs to be revisited. Even more than the expanding federal government, health care costs are bankrupting the country.

Interventionists keep injecting more government into HC, which causes the prices to go up, so they inject more government, always get the same result, but refuse to even consider going the opposite direction - Lower prices by reducing, and even eliminating, taxation and regulation of the HC industry.

 

[PLC1]

Interventionists keep injecting more government into HC, which causes the prices to go up, so they inject more government, always get the same result, but refuse to even consider going the opposite direction - Lower prices by reducing, and even eliminating, taxation and regulation of the HC industry.

It worked for the mortgage industry. Just see how housing prices dropped.

 

[GenSeneca]

It worked for the mortgage industry. Just see how housing prices dropped.

You may as well have blamed the housing bubble and collapse on ManBearPig... That would actually be - slightly - less absurd than blaming the problem on the mythical existence of a Free Market.