U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Greer
1,613 posts, read 2,031,399 times
Reputation: 1137

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Cutting expenses will allow the average worker to minimize the debt should they need to go through bankruptcy.
By a miniscule, meaningless amount in most cases.

Quote:
Why is bankruptcy a bad thing?
Because it stiffs the hospitals and they raise their rates to compensate. But I repeat myself.

Quote:
Find me a modern nation whose government is not drowning in debt due to propping up citizens with no plan to repay the money.
Australia and Switzerland have particularly low debt and universal healthcare. But Canada, UK, France, and Germany all have universal healthcare and have less debt than the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:21 AM
 
3,421 posts, read 2,594,272 times
Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
You still don't seem to get it.

Private charitable work is very essential the a free market health care system. Additionally, a true free market system would in fact significantly lower costs due to the increase in options open to people. That study is somewhat meaningless when thought about in reference to an actual free market system.

I as a human being have a responsibility to help people who are less than fortunate, our government should not have that responsibility. There is a very big difference between a social and legal obligation. Please stop trying to legislate moral behavior.



Right, because another company cannot open up with lower prices. Good god the stupidity. Markets are kept in check because of the other person's greed. You charge $1,000 for a CAT scan, I open a clinic next door and charge $700 for the same test. How is that such a hard concept for people to understand?
Because there are people who still wouldn't be able to afford it, and on top that, its simply easy to say you offer lower prices, but at some point, you can only go so far before it starts not to make economic sense. How many people can afford a 700 dollar CAT scan, and doctor may not take certain insurance because of reimbursements issues. Healthcare is way to complex of an issue to simply break it down into just lowering the cost for patients.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:24 AM
 
1,736 posts, read 1,593,121 times
Reputation: 1130
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebelYell14 View Post
The section starts out with a health care proposal, and a sceptics position. Over the last 60 years or so, 100 % of the available evidence backs up the sceptics position. There is no evidence in favor of the proposal, it is based entirely on theory.

And not generally accepted theory, the vast majority of Health Care Economists are on the sceptics side, following orthodox theory. So basically it is a theory based on a oversimplified undrestanding of market mechanisms, which does not fit real-world observation and is rejected by specialists in the field.

Your question should more properly be "Tell me why this hasn't worked?"

Health Care Economics is a big area with a lot of complex theory, but here are some of the basic problems...

1) Medical treatment has zero price elasticity. In a normal market, the customer must be able to reject the product if the cost is too high. A life-saving treatment will not be rejected due to cost. This removes a fundamental brake on price infaltion from the market.

2) Extrernalities.
a) A patient does not have the time and possibly not the ability to aqquire all the information needed to make an informed choice about treatment. He is dependent on a provider for that.
b) When an insured patient gets treatment, neither he nor the provider bears the cost of the treatment, it is borne by a third party. This removes another brake on price inflation normally present in a market.

Medical treatment if often too expensive to be paid out of pocked so some external finaincing mechanism is neccessary.

3) The people most in need of treatment are the least attractive customers.

There are a number of other factors too. Note also that a lot of the "Positions" advocated by the proposal are already in place in Africa and other o****ries that use the "out-of-pocket" model extensivly. It has not worked well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:25 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,435,181 times
Reputation: 5453
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvsteve View Post
By a miniscule, meaningless amount in most cases.

Because it stiffs the hospitals and they raise their rates to compensate. But I repeat myself.

Australia and Switzerland have particularly low debt and universal healthcare. But Canada, UK, France, and Germany all have universal healthcare and have less debt than the United States.
Australia and Switzerland also have some of the highest rates of people purchasing supplemental health insurance (which is not factored into published figures).

You still don't seem to understand how debt is handled from an accounting perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55 View Post
Because there are people who still wouldn't be able to afford it, and on top that, its simply easy to say you offer lower prices, but at some point, you can only go so far before it starts not to make economic sense. How many people can afford a 700 dollar CAT scan, and doctor may not take certain insurance because of reimbursements issues. Healthcare is way to complex of an issue to simply break it down into just lowering the cost for patients.
Anyone can afford a $700 CAT scan when they pay over two years at 4% interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
And when I was 23 years old, I was on my laptop for 6 hours every other Friday in a chemo infusion center being pumped full of poisons while working my tush off having already worked a 60 hour week. Then, the next week, I'd be back in my office on Monday in excruciating pain because of the tumors dying in my bones and around my organs and need my bosses to guard the office bathroom door while I dry heaved from the chemo.

And I did that to keep my health insurance and to have some money flow, and it did NOTHING to make the debt manageable.

85 hours a week if you're healthy? That's no big deal. I pulled that the week after chemo for a weekend event that required constant contact with people, running around, setting up, etc. And I'm certain I made significantly less money than you did in doing it.

How should a 23 year old fresh out of college be prepared for an emergency like that? Had I been diagnosed 4 months earlier, I would have been unemployed, uninsured because of preexisting conditions, and on the hook for over $250,000 just for treatment alone, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of dollars in follow-up a year. And I'm far from a rare case. For me, it was cancer. For my best friend from college, it was a rare reaction to an antibiotic that caused severe nerve damage that pulled him out of med school. For one of my college roommates, it was such severe Chrone's disease that part of his intestines were removed. For one of my high school friends, it was a car accident. Now that I'm fairly prominent in the young adult cancer community, it's hard to ignore when the vast majority of people are seriously struggling to even get access to their follow up appointments, much less pay their debts from chemo. I know of a 25 year old who is HOMELESS in New York City due to cancer bills and no family to help. HOMELESS because of the bills. Can you grasp that?

Not everyone has time to prepare. Others, like my parents, do all that they can to prepare, but find that it's not enough. My dad is dealing with complications from diabetes and early-onset Alzheimers right now in what should have been the height of his career at 55. Their savings are almost gone and my dad will never work again. Cut out cable? Try cutting out medications. That's a much more realistic picture of what it means to be sick and poor in the US.
I feel sorry for you. I really do. That being said, you are the exception, not the rule. Lets try to make decisions based on facts, not based on the exceptional stories that tug on our heartstrings, ok?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:25 AM
 
3,421 posts, read 2,594,272 times
Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
And when I was 23 years old, I was on my laptop for 6 hours every other Friday in a chemo infusion center being pumped full of poisons while working my tush off having already worked a 60 hour week. Then, the next week, I'd be back in my office on Monday in excruciating pain because of the tumors dying in my bones and around my organs and need my bosses to guard the office bathroom door while I dry heaved from the chemo.

And I did that to keep my health insurance and to have some money flow, and it did NOTHING to make the debt manageable.

85 hours a week if you're healthy? That's no big deal. I pulled that the week after chemo for a weekend event that required constant contact with people, running around, setting up, etc. And I'm certain I made significantly less money than you did in doing it.

How should a 23 year old fresh out of college be prepared for an emergency like that? Had I been diagnosed 4 months earlier, I would have been unemployed, uninsured because of preexisting conditions, and on the hook for over $250,000 just for treatment alone, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of dollars in follow-up a year. And I'm far from a rare case. For me, it was cancer. For my best friend from college, it was a rare reaction to an antibiotic that caused severe nerve damage that pulled him out of med school. For one of my college roommates, it was such severe Chrone's disease that part of his intestines were removed. For one of my high school friends, it was a car accident. Now that I'm fairly prominent in the young adult cancer community, it's hard to ignore when the vast majority of people are seriously struggling to even get access to their follow up appointments, much less pay their debts from chemo. I know of a 25 year old who is HOMELESS in New York City due to cancer bills and no family to help. HOMELESS because of the bills. Can you grasp that?

Not everyone has time to prepare. Others, like my parents, do all that they can to prepare, but find that it's not enough. My dad is dealing with complications from diabetes and early-onset Alzheimers right now in what should have been the height of his career at 55. Their savings are almost gone and my dad will never work again. Cut out cable? Try cutting out medications. That's a much more realistic picture of what it means to be sick and poor in the US.
libertarians always seem to have a very simplistic view of the world. Their is always the same answer, free market society, private charity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Camberville
12,049 posts, read 16,786,314 times
Reputation: 19815
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvsteve View Post
By a miniscule, meaningless amount in most cases.

Because it stiffs the hospitals and they raise their rates to compensate. But I repeat myself.

Australia is particularly low. But Canada, UK, France, and Germany all have universal healthcare and have less debt than the United States.
Let's take internet. My share of internet with 3 roommates is $15 a month, or $180 a year. That's the equivalent of about 1 minute with my oncologist, or one set of bloodwork, or a few days worth of medication. That $15 a month doesn't even pay for an office visit copay.

If I had been uninsured when I got sick, just for treatment (and no follow ups, specialists for my lung and heart damage due to the chemo, etc) with no interest, it would take me 50 years of paying $400 a month. And I still would have the $50,000 a year in follow ups and scans for the first 5 years or so out.

$400 a month might not sound like much for some of you, but that's 3/4 of a week's pay and would mean that I would not be able to pay my rent or my car payments (which I need because my lung damage is too bad to walk much further than a block and I can't be outside at ALL if it's under 40 degrees). I am working toward a better salary, but I'm 24 years old. There's only so much I can expect at 24.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:30 AM
 
3,421 posts, read 2,594,272 times
Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Australia and Switzerland also have some of the highest rates of people purchasing supplemental health insurance (which is not factored into published figures).

You still don't seem to understand how debt is handled from an accounting perspective.



Anyone can afford a $700 CAT scan when they pay over two years at 4% interest.



I feel sorry for you. I really do. That being said, you are the exception, not the rule. Lets try to make decisions based on facts, not based on the exceptional stories that tug on our heartstrings, ok?
My mom has been a nurse for 35 years, that poster's story is everyday life. Everyday I heard stories like that. She also worked at a charity hospital for 20 of those years, from the stories she told me, it was a horror show. Healthcare is an ugly, complex beast, but you are living a delusional, simplistic world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:30 AM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
13,992 posts, read 10,939,534 times
Reputation: 12783
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebelYell14 View Post
Because as a society, we've stated that it's not acceptable for people to die of preventable disease solely because they can't afford expensive treatment. You don't know when you'll need major health care, but it will surely be punishingly expensive to pay out of pocket when you do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:32 AM
 
3,421 posts, read 2,594,272 times
Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Because as a society, we've stated that it's not acceptable for people to die of preventable disease solely because they can't afford expensive treatment. You don't know when you'll need major health care, but it will surely be punishingly expensive to pay out of pocket when you do.
they can't seem accept that we as a society have chosen to live in a world where we try to help the poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:32 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,435,181 times
Reputation: 5453
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55 View Post
My mom has been a nurse for 35 years, that poster's story is everyday life. Everyday I heard stories like that. She also worked at a charity hospital for 20 of those years, from the stories she told me, it was a horror show. Healthcare is an ugly, complex beast, but you are living a delusional, simplistic world.
You mean the kind of simplistic world where people think that the government will magically have the funds to pay for the country's health care?

Got it champ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55 View Post
they can't seem accept that we as a society have chosen to live in a world where we try to help the poor.
You seem to have a problem reading...we have an obligation to help the poor, but why the hell should the government be involved? Get off your a** and volunteer, donate money, do something yourself instead of sitting back and just hoping the government will take care of everything. Typical liberal...wants to help the poor, not enough to personally do anything, so the government has to take care of it for us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top