But that $90 would have come out of someone’s taxes, and we can’t have that.
Where did the $250,000 come from, I wonder?
I got some details wrong.
The child was 12 years old, not nine. The tooth extraction would have cost $80, not $90.
EDIT: I hope that link works. I’m on a Windows machine today, and SDMB keeps putting viglink in. If it doesn’t work, the title of the article is in the link, and it’s in the Washington Post.
.
It didn’t, but here’s the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html
Well, actually the 250,000 probably came out of the hospital’s budget, which means that they charged everyone else extra money for their services to make up for it.
This makes increased medical costs for everyone, which leads to increased premiums and lower quality care.
This is also the medical plan that the republicans endorse. Wait until you are at death’s door, then show up at the ER.
Republicans consider this level of suffering to be acceptable, as long as it didn’t come out of someone’s taxes, and that is what is important, because, liberty.
Another example. My cancer (melanoma) could have been caught earlier and stopped with a single excision. But I waited to visit a dermatologist because I was without insurance coverage at the time. Because waited until insured, it delayed treatment and eventually became a stage 3 nightmare that almost bankrupted me in copays, and cost the insurance companies plenty, too.
If I had to choose between basic preventative care or catastrophic coverage, I’d go with preventative. That would actually do something. Catastrophic-only would do nothing but bring costs from “unimaginatively expensive” down to “insanely expensive.”
Agreed. This is what I was trying to tell Adaher upthread. At the least, basic & preventative care should be covered for all. Biggest bang for the buck in overall health metrics.
IMHO, government paying for basic services is taking care of my health. Government paying for catastrophic is taking care of my wallet.
And took money from Medicare and Medicaid via the Disproportionate Share Hospital Payment program, so that Paul Ryan et al. could turn around and complain that Medicare is going broke and Medicaid underpays providers.
That’s my favorite part. Drive up costs for Medicare, then claim that it’s going broke and needs to be changed. Underfund Medicaid, then claim that because it pays doctors so poorly it needs to be cut.
Are you suggesting that only bleeding hearts think it’s a bad idea to take money from poor people who desperately need it and give it to a group that doesn’t? Most of us call that basic human decency, no bleeding heart necessary.
Then I am confident that you favor ending the home interest deduction and treating home sales as regular capital gains.
Honestly, if that meant universal, high quality healthcare to all Americans, absolutely!
Aren’t republicans supposed to be the party of the religious? (Lol) Those tax breaks are nice but they are not absolute human necessities like healthcare…
Bite your tongue!* For rich people they are!
*But don’t expect your insurance to cover it.
unfortunately, those two changes would not be enough to get you to universal health care. To get there, you need a tax plan that raises taxes by about $1 trillion a year.
Ah. “I would rather pay $12,000 a year in insurance premiums with a $2000 deductible than pay $3000 a year in taxes for universal coverage with no deductible, because freedom! And also other people might benefit who aren’t paying in as much as I am, and I’d rather pay four times as much than let them get away with that.”
I wonder how many insurance plans cover sliced-off noses?
The issue is actually, “Will my taxes pay for better health care than my premiums?” or in other words, “Is Medicaid better than my Blue Cross plan?”
Is it actually? Or are you just changing the subject to avoid addressing the “actual” point?
(Incidentally, I point out again that universal healthcare doesn’t prevent private healthcare and insurance from existing as well; the UK manages both just fine. And since things like emergency care are covered by the NHS, private insurance rates are actually quite low compared to the US.)
This. And we do nicely with the named deductions, but this.
Looking at it like this, it would seem that a system of explicitly basic coverage for everyone + secondary private market for whatever added on perks individuals(want/need/can afford) would go a long way toward a solution that gives people what they need and allowing people to get what they want.
It would surely have problems with mission creep, as people may legitimately differ on what constitutes an ethical basic package. Does it include dental (I say, yes)? Does it include mental health? You could require cost justification through evidence based medicine, but the more you do that, the more your system looks like it’s entirely based on dollars and un-moored from ethics.
And the system would become explicitly multi-tier, which some may find un-American. Although what could possibly be MORE American.
It’s a pity that we can’t allow ourselves to follow the examples from other nations, because , I guess our exceptionalism makes it impossible to suggest that some foreigners know better than us*.
*except that Putin guy (“strong leader”. “very smart”)- does Russia have a healthcare sytem worth copying?
Paul Ryan says the new healthcare bill gives people freedom… the freedom to buy or not to buy coverage.
This naturally brings to mind: Freedom’s Just Another Word for Nothing Left to Lose
“…thet coon cuda clum down from thet tree an whupped up on them forty hounds an walked away a free animal”
Congress must be listening to Brother Dave.
Crane