And when you have a minor cut that gets an antibiotic resistant infection, up $200,000 in hospital bills and need six months of rehab will you be ready to pay for it because you saved so much money on a cancer-only policy?
In a strict sense, I would argue none. Which is why life isn’t fair.
Or did you think otherwise? I don’t beleive I am entitled to your wealth to redress bad choices that I have made. Or even due to bad luck.
Do you believe that you are entitled to mine?
Why am I entitled to $200,000 of the hospital’s shareholders funds to redress a bad choice that I have made?
Then I pity you. You want someone else to take your resources and make your choices for you.
I suppose it’s up to the hospital. They can choose to treat me or not, and bill me later if they do.
Was that supposed to be a difficult question?
Reading this thread has been enlightening. Not informational about health-care financing, mind you, but about conservative thought.
I thought it interesting that “freedom” was used, rather than “competition” in the following. Anyway, if this meme is applicable, then it seems clear the American system does not feature “freedom.”
I’m trying to apply this to the real-world needs of lower-income Americans in the conservative caveat emptor utopia. Would they answer a questionnaire when applying for insurance:
[ul]
[li] What is the maximum you want us to spend on your behalf to save your life? _____[/li][li] Much money is wasted treating chronic conditions of people already in their fifties. Enter the age when you want to stop coverage: ____[/li][li] What caliber of doctors do you want? : Good, Average, Poor, Barely Passed.[/li][li] We pay cash for organs. Clicking box 17 may reduce your premium.[/li][li] Remember to sign malpractice waiver before submission.[/li][/ul]
Ok I’ve come into this thread late so might be repeating a point.
Don’t Americans wonder why they alone among the developed nations do not have universal public healthcare? One of the wealthiest most vibrant nations on the planet. Why wouldn’t you have universal healthcare?
We call it freedom. First, I’m not sure what you mean by health outcome, do you mean the level of care? Yes, I believe those who have more money should be free to purchase a higher quality of insurance and care. Just like with everything else.
What I don’t like is micro-management from a bureaucrat that takes my money and decides how best to spend it.
The notion that you are entitled to keep every damn dollar you earn is contrary to the Constitution. Get over it.
Why are we one of the wealthiest and most vibrant nations on the planet? How do you think that came about?
Your question is infantile.
True, which is a major point conservatives. We have way too much government intrusion in the marketplace. While it might seem fair to some to even the score, what it does is create a top heavy management system that does not respond to market forces, since it lives far removed from it, by people who probably couldn’t run an espresso stand. I don’t want my life controlled by their hands. No, there is no such thing as “pure” freedom, we are a society, but we can set up a system that helps the needy without stripping decision making away from productive members of society.
Then your SDMB name is remarkably prescient. And very similar, I might add, to the long list of other debaters who run full-bore into the arms of the government to have a warm blanket wrapped around them, and tell them that everything will be allright. If only we will sign over our resources and the power to make decisions to them.
Fear Itself.
To quote FDR, of course, “We have nothing to fear but Fear Itself.”
Fear Itself is you. You fear yourself. You cannot live with the notion that the freedom to make your own decisions comes with the accountability to live with the consequences of those decisions. That terrifies you. Just like it terrified Voyager to sign a mortgage contract in the “Libertarian/Fringe” thread, and terrified a multitude of others during the many “Whither the FDA?” threads on the board. They cannot fathom making important, consequential decisions about their own lives with 100% freedom of choice. They want somebody in government to make the choice for them.
Somehow you think a government bureaucrat, unaccountable to you or anyone else, sitting in Washington, D.C., will make better decisions for you with your resources than you can for yourself.
You are willing - no, eager! - to trade liberty for security. You will end up with neither.
Get over yourself since I made no such statement.
It’s a coincidence, I tells ya!
How droll. Did you think of that yourself, or did you steal it from someone else?
Excellent question. So let me try to understand your position without putting words into your mouth.
No one should be able to force you to buy insurance?
If you can’t afford treatment, you’re prepared to die?
Your position reminds me of my wife’s college roommate’s husband. He believed that life insurance was a scam, particularly since he was young, healthy and owned a successful business. He was killed in an armed robbery, leaving a stay-at-home wife with small kids. They didn’t have much in savings because he had invested everything in his business. But he was right in principle!
I just wanted to make sure you are clear that this is currently not the law. As of today, for any hospital that takes Medicare (which is, of course, basically all of them) they must treat any patient with an emergent condition or in active labor.
If you are proposing doing away with that law, then OK. But when you make references to Medicaid that are also false I wonder how much you really understand about the current medical system.
Ahh, dropping your reactionary turds again, are you? To correct you, I’m not at all scared of mortgage contracts, having signed quite a few. But I’ve got a PhD in computer science, and can work out complex financial calculations in my head. I’m just not arrogant enough to think that those who weren’t born with that kind of mathematical ability don’t deserve to get ripped off by banks.
I’m also not arrogant to think that over a weekend, when I’m already sick, I could catch up to those with graduate education in medicine and biology and access to complete studies. Since my wife writes medical articles for a living, and has done some textbooks also, so I offer that we collectively know a lot more than you do. And I’ve got the statistics background to at least get some of it. Sure, Andy Grove did his own research about his cancer - of course he could do it full time and had all the resources in the world. Roger Ebert, also a reasonably smart guy, tried it also and managed to screw himself over.
Now, when Fear Itself (whose username you obviously don’t understand) asked about paying for treatment of rare diseases, you bitched as usual about someone making choices for us. I’m confused. Are you saying that you are smart enough to know exactly which diseases you are going to get? Are you saying that this person chose to have this disease? Are you saying that he chose not to have coverage? What about if he chose to have good insurance but couldn’t afford it? What if he could but was turned down because of some other pre-existing condition?
I know all about lack of choice. At the moment if I wanted to quit my job to join a startup I couldn’t, because I have a heart condition and probably couldn’t get private insurance. It’s not the money - the treatment is fairly cheap. When that choice killing ACA kicks in, I’d have that choice again. And no, I didn’t choose to have this heart ailment. I’m not overweight, I don’t smoke, and my bad cholesterol is very good.
If I was working a low paying job without benefits I’d probably be dead now, since I doubt I’d think a racy pulse was enough reason to go to the doctor and miss a utility bill payment - especially since I had had a full checkup just weeks before. Unlike you, I think that every person, no matter their education, their IQ, and their salary, deserves to have an equal shot to live.
I do thank you for illustrating the immorality and arrogance behind pure libertarianism so very well.
Is it better to have an insurance-company bureaucrat, *with *an accountability to his management to *minimize *expenses, sitting in Hartford, CT, making decisions for you? If, that is, you’re fortunate enough even to be able to afford that privilege?
As a helpless pawn of an insurance company whose interests are actually antithetical to your own, *you *already have neither.
Wrong. An insurance plan is a contract. They are obliged to hold up their end of the deal, a Washington bureaucrat will also have beans to count and won’t worry about lawsuits.