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.
My question to you is just who do you suggest should be paying for those who can't pay for themselves? Are you ready to write a check each month to cover the uninsured? Not likely!
That's just the problem. I DO write a check each month to cover someone who IS insured. When someone needs care that exceeds what they can afford, then their spouses, parents, children, or other relatives have to provide that extra financial support, regardless of their ability to afford it.
But my personal financial resources have an obvious limit. If I have to cover someone else's care expenses with 100% of my monthly net income, how am I (not the one who's sick) supposed to eat, get to work, pay bills, pay rent, pay for my own medical care and deductibles (like dental), etc. etc. etc. Why do the medical and legal systems punish ME, who's tried hard to live a healthy lifestyle and who has rarely ever needed anything, for a disease that someone else has? Doesn't our society have some minimal moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves? Are we supposed to put every American citizen who has a stroke, or cancer, or gets a disease like MS, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Huntingtons, and ALS out on the streets and let them fare for themselves, or die trying?
monies that go back into any business for growth and development are NOT profit. . . profit is the "end of year" bonus that the health insurance execs., and perhaps even the Physicians that own their own clinics and practices, get. . . above salary, above re-investment.
Actually profits are the monies left over after paying all the overhead, including salaries and bonuses. The profits are then distributed to the owners of the business, i.e., the stockholders. If you have a 401K plan you are likely a part owner of one or more health insurance companies. In the final analysis it is your greed, as an owner, that is destroying health care? Feel better?
You have a right to it? You mean a right to choose to get it if it is offered correct? Not a right to have it as in it be "given" to you??
Ok, that's probably a better way of stating it. If a person has a serious medical condition and wants and needs care in order to live, and without it will certainly suffer horribly and untimately die, and that medical care is refused due to their and their family's inability to meet that cost not covered by their insurance, or are denied insurance coverage (i.e. the old "pre-existing condition" clause), then haven't we as humanity failed?
It always has and has medical profession has evolved with expensive treatments and equipment cost its gotten more so. It will continue but who pays and at what other cost to the economy will change. If the pay for doctors for example reduces .then many will decide to enter another field that requires lesss esxpensive training. number of year to get that training and is as rewarding monet wise is my opinion.We will alos see less research on preocedures and drugsw has reward goes down. The US now does 70% of that research because of the reward now.
Finally, someone who gets it. The rise in health care costs in the last 30 years or so is multi-factorial. It serves the interests of the ideologues to ascribe that increase to the greed of insurance companies or of pharmaceutical companies. But in fact, as you point out, the great improvements in medicine of the last generation have come at a cost. Add to that the aging of the population and increases in longevity. It is well known that the aged consume a disproportionate amount of health care dollars and the more of them that there are and the longer they live the higher we can expect costs to rise. Add to that the cost of treating people who have no health insurance for whatever reason--the which cost is passed on to the rest of us. And add to that the contribution of government regulation of the health insurance market that has pushed the cost of insurance through the roof. Face it. The days when medical care was a small part of the family budget are over. You can't get the kind of health care you think you deserve for rock bottom prices. And if you think that the government can purchase that care on your behalf cheaper than it is now you're living in fantasy land. It costs what it costs. And if you want something cheaper you'll get what you pay for. You'll pay in much higher taxes and you'll pay in terms of a lower standard of care. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Although I don't want to, I suppose I'll probably end up being the only person who has to go into her room and tell her she needs to pack up her belongings because she's being (literally) put out onto the street. It'll be interesting to see her hop into he old electric power chair and head off into the sunset in search of a place where she can live.
When did medical care become solely based on money?
It's not. If you were to go to a hospital emergency room complaining of chest pains, you would be treated, regardless of whether you had money or insurance. The doctors would save your life regardless if you could pay them.
I'm sure they would expect you to then make arrangements to pay for your treatment.
"When did a patient's basic rights to receive and appropriate level of healthcare become solely based on money".
Everyone works for pay. Our problem began, IMO, when companies started to provide health insurance as an employee benefit. As unions grew they demanded more. The American worker got used to having insurance. Espescially if someone else paid a portion of it. The more you give, the more that is wanted. They now think it is their "right" to have health insurance.
When someone who has become, through no fault of their own, disabled and unable to work or care for themselves, why are they denied any compassion within the healthcare system?
If this person is disabled and unable to work or care for his/herself, they should have some kind of public assistance, including medical care, right?
If he/she went to a hospital in need of medical care, they would treat her/him.
Why can't you or your wife get Medicaid? Is there something that prevents you from availing of this?
I can't because I don't need it, as I have a job and Health Insurance and a pension and a 401K. She can't because she gets disability from Social Security, and because both of our incomes always count as one. But even if they count her seperately, the amount of the disability still places her well above the limit. And before you ask the law here doesn't allow for a divorce under these circumstances.
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.
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.
