Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich (Texas has it right)

[Peikko 1,575]

However, you Ms VW have ducked and dived continually, but have failed to address the fundamental point that the uninsured cost you and I, (sorry that would be just me as you, a citizen don't pay taxes, while I, a resident do) are paying a very, very high cost to provide emergency care to the uninsured when we (sorry, I and my fellow tax payers) could be paying a lot less for a lot more.

[mawilson 2,133]

It's the refusal to accept that the uninsured are already a huge financial burden on society that I find so bizarre. They already are, so why not seek a solution that would (we know because we have countless examples) not only reduce the overall costs on everyone but also afford everyone with much more effective preventative medicine? To do it because of ignorance, fair enough, but to bare face lie? Horrible.

What I find bizarre is this belief that insuring everyone will somehow magically reduce the costs on everyone.

What do you think is cheaper:

- endless doctor visits, procedures and a medicine cabinet full of prescriptions, all paid for by the taxpayer, or

- a much smaller number of emergency room visits for which the *patient*, not the taxpayer, is liable

Edited May 21, 2009 by mawilson

[mawilson 2,133]

There is no such things as 'free' healthcare.

Call it what you want, but if you don't have to pay for it, it's FREE.

Someone will pay for it to be sure, but it's not always the person using it.

[Peikko 1,575]

There is no such things as 'free' healthcare.

Call it what you want, but if you don't have to pay for it, it's FREE.

Someone will pay for it to be sure, but it's not always the person using it.

Again, who is paying now for all those ER visits that, while someone may well be liable for, they sure as hell aren't paying.

I know it's convenient to imagine these costs somehow don't exist but, the reality is, they do. The taxpayer is being screwed currently. Not only do they pay for their own insurance cover, that may well prove to be inadequate, but they are also paying taxes that fund the uninsured to get ER care - these bills are being paid by someone.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is no such things as 'free' healthcare.

Call it what you want, but if you don't have to pay for it, it's FREE.

Someone will pay for it to be sure, but it's not always the person using it.

Again, who is paying now for all those ER visits that, while someone may well be liable for, they sure as hell aren't paying.

The hospital refers what it can to a collection agency, and the loss is absorbed into the overhead. That is why many private hospitals are accused of patient dumping, where they minimally stabilize the patient, and give them a ride to the county hospital.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This is a prevailing argument. The cold, heartless Right Wingers don't think that everyone should have access to healthcare....only the ones who can afford it. Fortunately, they are the minority on this issue, so trying to convince them that they aren't heartless is futile.

That's a specious, self-serving statement. You can argue for universal health care all you want, but it remains undefined and how to pay for it is still undetermined. "Shoulds" aren't worth a damn without a workable plan that doesn't kill incentive, drive out competition and ration care.

In the beginning of this thread, I listed programs which have suffered from the poor performance and management of a government which tends to hand enormous responsibility to unqualified cronies who have never run a business in their lives. The car commission is the latest example, running the auto industry further into the ground.

Tell me how universal health care would be better managed so that health care is fairly distributed, and our tax dollars not wasted and stolen.

Answer that.

The point is though, everyone does have access to basic health care, it's just paid for in the most expensive way imaginable. The uninsured may not seek care for every twinge and ailment, but they sure as hell are not dying in the streets, no matter what some might have me believe

Define basic. How would you cut costs?

And if the access is already there, what is all the fuss about?

Explain how health care becomes a right. And under what edict?

You already know the answer, you are being deliberately obtuse. Suffice to say, the burden of 20 million uninsured on state/federal government is not a light one. The government is forced to pay for all those who can't pay while not being able to offset that against income from those who can pay and who's accident of birth (genetically not predisposed to illness) and sheer luck (not being involved in an accident requiring treatment) who cost an insurance pool very little.

It's one thing to shove this problem under the carpet through ignorance, quite another to deliberately subvert facts to give the impression that somehow US society would be worse off if we rejigged the system to include everyone. Preventative medicine is a sight cheaper than lurching from crisis to crisis. We all know that fixing a problem at an early stage is a lot, lot easier and cheaper than waiting until it's at crisis point and must be fixed now.

Of course, there will always be a need for ER medicine, but it should not be being used in the way that it is now, inefficiently and to treat preventable illness.

Actually, you are the one without facts. Hospitals have closed due to their inability to absorb the cost of ER treatments for the uninsured. Governments do not have to reimburse them.

Now, you have failed to address my initial point. The poor state of the Veterans medical system, Medicare and medicaid, and Social Security as a retirement support system all previously attest to the sad performance of the US government, riddled with incompetents, when it comes to serious health care issues.

What evidence is there that pouring more money into a universal system will be an improvement?

You don't believe that health care is right. You've said it plain as day. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

You haven't made a sustainable case for health care being a right except that you wish it to be so. That is you arguing for the sake of arguing. What is your support for that position?

So, they close, and what happens to the uninsured? Dying in the streets yet? No, I thought not. Is it your contention that as an ER closes, those who sought care there before magically have no further need for treatment? Are poor people really remarkably fit and healthy and magically avoid accidents?

You don't realize you make a great argument for no universal health care.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, in other words, those who are insured pay more to cover the costs of those who are uninsured because they get the care anyway? Those who qualify for medicaid et al are coming out of my taxes? Basically, as an insured tax payer, I am paying already, as I said.

[Peikko 1,575]

This is a prevailing argument. The cold, heartless Right Wingers don't think that everyone should have access to healthcare....only the ones who can afford it. Fortunately, they are the minority on this issue, so trying to convince them that they aren't heartless is futile.

That's a specious, self-serving statement. You can argue for universal health care all you want, but it remains undefined and how to pay for it is still undetermined. "Shoulds" aren't worth a damn without a workable plan that doesn't kill incentive, drive out competition and ration care.

In the beginning of this thread, I listed programs which have suffered from the poor performance and management of a government which tends to hand enormous responsibility to unqualified cronies who have never run a business in their lives. The car commission is the latest example, running the auto industry further into the ground.

Tell me how universal health care would be better managed so that health care is fairly distributed, and our tax dollars not wasted and stolen.

Answer that.

The point is though, everyone does have access to basic health care, it's just paid for in the most expensive way imaginable. The uninsured may not seek care for every twinge and ailment, but they sure as hell are not dying in the streets, no matter what some might have me believe

Define basic. How would you cut costs?

And if the access is already there, what is all the fuss about?

Explain how health care becomes a right. And under what edict?

You already know the answer, you are being deliberately obtuse. Suffice to say, the burden of 20 million uninsured on state/federal government is not a light one. The government is forced to pay for all those who can't pay while not being able to offset that against income from those who can pay and who's accident of birth (genetically not predisposed to illness) and sheer luck (not being involved in an accident requiring treatment) who cost an insurance pool very little.

It's one thing to shove this problem under the carpet through ignorance, quite another to deliberately subvert facts to give the impression that somehow US society would be worse off if we rejigged the system to include everyone. Preventative medicine is a sight cheaper than lurching from crisis to crisis. We all know that fixing a problem at an early stage is a lot, lot easier and cheaper than waiting until it's at crisis point and must be fixed now.

Of course, there will always be a need for ER medicine, but it should not be being used in the way that it is now, inefficiently and to treat preventable illness.

Actually, you are the one without facts. Hospitals have closed due to their inability to absorb the cost of ER treatments for the uninsured. Governments do not have to reimburse them.

Now, you have failed to address my initial point. The poor state of the Veterans medical system, Medicare and medicaid, and Social Security as a retirement support system all previously attest to the sad performance of the US government, riddled with incompetents, when it comes to serious health care issues.

What evidence is there that pouring more money into a universal system will be an improvement?

You don't believe that health care is right. You've said it plain as day. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

You haven't made a sustainable case for health care being a right except that you wish it to be so. That is you arguing for the sake of arguing. What is your support for that position?

So, they close, and what happens to the uninsured? Dying in the streets yet? No, I thought not. Is it your contention that as an ER closes, those who sought care there before magically have no further need for treatment? Are poor people really remarkably fit and healthy and magically avoid accidents?

You don't realize you make a great argument for no universal health care.

Fail. Refer above. As an insured tax payer, I am paying for this now. This is the most expensive way to pay for their care AND results in poorer care for myself, one of the insured because the insurance company will try to recoup costs by hiking my insurance and reducing my cover. Wonderful.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You are of course suggesting that somehow there is an effective source of income for these institutions, but that, corruption, inefficiency and incompetence have resulted in paltry performance. How come the US government is so awful? Surely, if the French can provide a first class health service to all it's citizens, I mean, those lazy cowardly French, then what the hell is wrong with the US that it can't?

We aren't French. I have given you several examples of how the US can't.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, you have stated that the US doesn't, not that it can't or why it can't when other countries quite patently can and at a lower cost per capita.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So, in other words, those who are insured pay more to cover the costs of those who are uninsured because they get the care anyway? Those who qualify for medicaid et al are coming out of my taxes? Basically, as an insured tax payer, I am paying already, as I said.

Actually, even if you have insurance, you make up the difference in the cost for ER treatment. For instance, the copay on my hospitalization is $100 day, but $250 for an ER visit, unless I am admitted to the hospital as a patient.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yeah, I pay and pay and pay as an insured person when I know, from experience it does not have to cost this much.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah, I pay and pay and pay as an insured person when I know, from experience it does not have to cost this much.

Yep. They are all crooks, the doctors, the hospitals, the insurance companies, and the destitute. Oh, and the old people, we can't leave them out as well. Toothless whiny raisins.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yeah, I pay and pay and pay as an insured person when I know, from experience it does not have to cost this much.

Yep. They are all crooks, the doctors, the hospitals, the insurance companies, and the destitute. Oh, and the old people, we can't leave them out as well. Toothless whiny raisins.

I visited a family friend in rehab this evening. She's about 70, expects to be sent home in 2 weeks or so. While there, I saw a much older woman, had to be near 100 years old. A team of therapists working on her trying to get her to hold a balloon with both hands. She couldn't. While the time and effort spent on her is commendable, does it make sense from a strict return on investment point of view?

I'm not saying anything here. Just tellin' ya what I saw, is all.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yeah, I pay and pay and pay as an insured person when I know, from experience it does not have to cost this much.

Yep. They are all crooks, the doctors, the hospitals, the insurance companies, and the destitute. Oh, and the old people, we can't leave them out as well. Toothless whiny raisins.

I want it fixed though. There are a lot better and cheaper ways to do this.