Before the ACA who paid for people showing up at the hospital that had no insurance or ability to pay?
Yeah, it amazes me that no matter how many times it’s been explained, some people just can’t get it through their heads that their taxes and insurance premiums helped pay for this. And that it was costing them more than if folks had subsidized insurance and could get their care from a doctor before their illnesses got out of control. Or maybe they didn’t care so much because they didn’t pay attention to this “hidden” cost but now that the government wants to take their money and help undeserving people, they are outraged. :smack:
Very energetic meeting tonight. There were 320 chairs set up and all were filled along with a big crowd of standees. As far as I could tell, no one had to stay outside the building.
Representative Tom Suozzi is a freshman who filled the seat vacated by Steve Israel.
The biggest topics were the ACA and Trump’s affair with Putin and his conflicts of interest.
People representing about 20 different community groups, half of them new, were present.
It remains to be seen whether the energy translates into sustained activity.
One of the replacement suggestions is a tax on the insurance benefits paid by employers. Tom Price, himself, has proposed that.
Correct. It’s an error to let the search for the perfect get in the way of the good enough.
Here in CA, the first thing they ask is what insurance do you have. So I’m thinking this meme that there were all these folks who were getting free healthcare at the hospital isn’t founded on fact. Shoot, for a while (dunno if this is still true) the hospitals were allowed to turn away people on MediCal when they reached some limit.
I don’t think it’s “good enough” to continue to teach people they don’t need to be responsible for themselves.
You’re dealing with people. Perfect can’t be done.
There is a point where you spend more rooting out waste and fraud than what the waste and fraud costs.
Hospital emergency rooms by law have to treat emergency medical conditions without regard for ability to pay.
The problem then is, people do not get treatment for conditions and end up in the ER which is FAR more expensive. Better to pay $10,000/year to treat that woman’s husband with the heart condition than to pay for the care he needs when he has a heart attack.
I said “I don’t think it’s “good enough” to continue to teach people they don’t need to be responsible for themselves”, not root out fraud.
And how frequent is it that someone without the ability to pay has a condition that falls under that law? Other than getting the taxpayer to pay for birthin’ their babies.
It’s also FAR cheaper to get these folks to be responsible for themselves instead of just handing them even more of the taxpayers dollars. I’m looking at this as spending the money to get people to do that, instead of just deciding it’s easier to throw someone elses money at them. WHY is it that these folks have gotten to the point that he has a serious heart problem, etc and no way to deal with the cost himself?
Treat the underlying issue, not the symptoms.
Perhaps he puts unhealthy cheap food on the table to be able to buy his kid breakfast.
Plus heart problems, and many other conditions, can be genetic in nature, and no matter your choices in life you can’t control your DNA.
Why did he have a kid he couldn’t afford to raise well?
That’s even worse. You know you have this strong possibility and don’t plan for it?
Perhaps one should have a license to procreate.
I doubt folks would want to spend their tax money on genetic testing of the poor.
We can sterilize people who get food stamps.
How many babies that people can’t afford are you willing to adopt and raise? Otherwise forced sterilization is the only way I can see to prevent humans from procreating.
Not everyone is aware of their genetic predispositions. People can find out about these things as the condition presents and there may not be any way to know and prepare. Plus a lot of people don’t have enough money to feed themselves day to day, let alone put emergency medical money away.
You need to realize that your life experience is not universal. Step out of your own shoes for a second. Its called empathy.
I know I’ve only recently joined, but I have been reading this board for years. As I recall, you are collecting SSDI, correct? Why, exactly, should my taxpayer dollars be handed to you, but not others likely more deserving?
Very frequent. Before the ACA more than 41 million people were uninsured. In 2015 hospitals in the US saw about 35 million admissions or about 10% of the population. So, if we assume 10% for those 41 million as well then 4,100,000 patients in the hospital were uninsured. 11,233/day on average.
It’s called life. Shit happens.
What does genetic testing of poor people have to do with anything?
At least temporarily would be a good idea. You all are supposed to be the ones who care so much about children - why are you OK with them being born into poverty and probably stuck there for the rest of their lives?
Nowdays we can require them to be temporarily sterilized - way to jump to the worst possible scenario. Also, I am addressing public attitudes, like you all. Nothing wrong in your minds with people who cannot afford them having children, eh? Nothing wrong with those kids growing up thinking being on welfare is normal?
I’d think that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that it is rather likely they are going to end up with some sort of expensive health issue in old age even if none of their ancestors had anything and nothing shows up in them until old age. And, I am not talking about emergency medical money, I’m talking about being able to afford insurance that isn’t funded by the taxpayer.
And your example of empathy is so good? No, my experience isn’t universal, that is why I keep giving you all examples of irresponsibility.
It’s amazing that just because people don’t agree with my opinions, they pretend to believe that Social Security is welfare.
It’s that sort of assumption that tends to lead you astray. It’s far more likely that people with insurance are admitted to the hospital, since the hospitals do all they can to not have to take in those who will cost them millions. So you really can’t assume that 10% of the uninsured were admitted to the hospital.
And that is the attitude that I think needs to be addressed and fixed. Yes, shit happens but the more responsible and proactive you are, the less likely it is that you’ll get shit on.
Perhaps he lost his job and doesn’t get social security?
An explanation of why health insurance doesn’t work as a free market good - a fact understood by pretty much every economist alive - would be lost on you, since you’re very dull-witted. I could try, but you won’t get the concepts of moral hazard, information asymmetry, and market failure.
It is worth noting, however, that pretty much every country on the planet that has single payer health insurance pulls it off for less money than the United States does, which sort of completely annihilates your claim that it’s somehow a money waster. Indeed, Americans somehow pay more tax dollars towards health care than do the people in other developed countries, and even did so before the ACA, just because there’s no universal health insurance process unless you’re really old.