Huh? I never claimed that bankruptcy is granted simply because you want out of paying bills. And I never claimed that ERs are the best way of dealing with poor people in all circumstances. I was discussing the very specific issue of emergency room care for critical patients which is why I’m talking about ERs. Try reading my posts.
I think you’re the one with the weird idea about how bankruptcy works. The end result of a bankruptcy declaration is that some or all of your bills are shifted onto other parties (because you end up not paying some or all of your bills).
Just to add, I think it’s fairly obvious we’re talking about people who cannot afford to pay their medical bills. If everyone could afford to pay their medical bills, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
In Indiana we have a pre-existing plan. It is funded by premiums but also by state subsidies and taxes on health companies. I think a $5000 deductible plan for a person 60-64 costs about $800/month. And that doesn’t include the money raised by the state. So a person even older (it varies by age. If you are 30-34 the same plan is only $200/month) in their 70s, then a 5k deductible would cost over 1k a month. Plus you take out the subsidies by the state & health insurance companies and it might be $1500/month for a catastrophic plan covering one person (not even covering the spouse).
So no idea. Many seniors barely have enough to make ends meet with social security & medicare.
They’d probably go uninsured and die. That is the honest answer to what would happen with our current health system w/o medicare.
Unless the baby is poor and can’t afford health care, then they deserve to die after they’re born.
Seems strange that you would force a life to be born only to then force it to die because the mother can’t afford health care.
And let’s not forget that babies born with pre-existing conditions will also get excluded from health insurance, and ultimately bankrupt the parents.
Wouldn’t the most logically consistent argument be, “if you can’t afford to pay for your child’s medical care, the pregnancy should be terminated.”
Force a woman to be pregnant, but don’t provide pre-natal care, increasing the likely hood of low birth weight and neo-natal problems, then dump the child into a world without health care, where it will ultimately die of an easily preventable condition. Sounds like a very long and very complicated abortion to me. But I guess potato potato.
And afterward I didn’t give a shit about you because your parents lacked the means to provide for you.
What if your employer goes bankrupt or is bought by another company that does not honor your company’s prior commitment? FTR, not a snarky question, this is happening a lot of late.
I am a fiscal conservative, I am comfortable describing myself as a light libertarian and I even think that some type of socialized health care is preferable to the alternatives. Our current system is a mess for a number of reasons and it isn’t tenable for much longer. So what should replace it?
First, it shouldn’t be tied to the employer. I am comfortable with a system of universal catastrophic health coverage. Coverage that would either kick in at a high lifetime or annual cap. Any expenses below that cap are the responsibility of every person. So, imagine that cap is $100,000 for a five year period (I am making these numbers up). The government insurance doesn’t cover your doctors visit but it universally covers widely accepted treatments above the cap. The private insurance market covers the risks and expenses below that cap.
The one thing I am willing to accept, but seems to be a sticking point for most people, is that I would want and expect the government insurance not to cover treatments that are very expensive with a low success rate. Widely accepted, widely successful, rationed treatment is fine in a world where private insurance coverage can be purchased that will cover a wider range of treatments. I want people to know that they are protected from catastrophic loss, not every loss. Basic health care is obtainable, but not without sacrifice.
This would have to be coupled with malpractice reform that would reduce cost and unnecessary tests. This is also the major mistake the Dems made. By not incorporating the best of the Republican ideas they produced plans that were weak and partisan. I don’t have all the answers, but I am pretty confident that the answers start with redefining what the government has to do for us and being willing to accept that the basic insurance won’t cover every treatment and every test for all concievable diseases.
I am a moderate-to-left liberal and definitely not an economic libertarian, and I agree with pretty much every word you wrote here.
The one major caveat I’d make is to stipulate full coverage for routine health care, including vaccinations, for everybody under 18 (which we’re pretty much on track to get anyway at some point with the CHIP coverage). Routine and preventative care for children tends to be pretty cheap on average and pays off down the line in a healthier population.
Medical should not be a for profit industry. Most other nations have figured that out. it leads to rationing and higher costs. With success being bigger profits every year, the costs can never go down. it just is an unworkable system. we should scrap it and start over beginning with UHC.
So if you don’t want rationing, then UHC should cover any treatment, at any cost, for anything you might want or need?
This is what I don’t get. If you want universal coverage I don’t see how you can have it without giving something up. I think I will fall in love with the first politician who explains that if you want a benefit it comes with sacrifice. You cant have complete universal coverage of everything with no rationing because it simply costs too much.
It’s not a bad idea (didn’t Kerry have a plan like this when he was running for President?) One thing that has to be considered though is that you would theoretically want people to participate in preventative and/or regular care if such care would keep catastrophic health care costs down. Although if the catastrophic plan costs are low enough, that might not be an issue.
Those are very compelling arguments. And if we restricted abortion, I have to say that we’d be morally obligated to provide some form of universal health care, pre-cradle to grave.
Lots of countries provide medical coverage without a for profit system. We would not be a petri dish. The proof is being demonstrated every day. Our medical system costs double or more than every other industrialized county. We are rated no. 37 in the world for quality of care. The money that could go to health care is going to insurance companies who provide no health benefit.
Medicare as you all know takes the worst health demographic. The people who are super profitable (young and healthy) are not part of it. if they were the average cost would plummet. This cheery picking, profit gobbling, insurance corporation megalith adds nothing to the health of the American people. It does eat a lot of money. Pretty simple concept to follow. We should have Medicare for all.
Gonzo, saying the insurance companies are solely responsible obscures that costs that consumers demand. We test more than other countries, even if the test is unnecessary. We demand all treatments be available regardless of any cost/benefit calculation. European countries do ration care. They will pay for some things and not others, you have to wait for certain types of care. I am OK with that.
You can’t just preserve the current wildly expensive system and make the government pay for it. That would not magically make costs fall. There has to be an element of sacrifice. We would have to give up something to change the system. Is that something that people are willing to do?
