This article discusses why healthcare tourists are being required to payup, or go home. I realize it's in England, but my point is that a healthcare plan must be national, or we'll have the same system we do now. Pay up, or go home.
Viewing Comments 1-18 of 18 Last » See most liked comments
FollowBefriend (1)80 threads1,242 comments
This is an excellent article. And another great reason why health care can never be a right. It costs money, it requires work by others. How can your rights require others to give up resources and labor to satisfy you? That is not a right, it is you becoming a slave master. Doesn't that make doctors, nurses and chiropractors your slaves? Doesn't that make any taxpayer your slave? 100 years ago medicine was far less advanced, government was far less involved and it was far less expensive. But people survived, people even survived the "Spanish flu" without health insurance. We can survive without it again. It is not a right, and you have no right to force others to work for you. Want health care? get a job and pay for it, auction off your unneeded items and pay for it, sell your blood and pay for it, join the army and let them pay for it, move to Canada let them pay for it, just don't force me to pay for it.
If it was your right to have health care it wouldn't cost me anything. But if I like you and you have a legitimate need I'd be happy to help you. That is how it used to work and that is what we have lost by big government becoming the biggest charity organization.
Incidentally I am not sure if this is true but I heard a statistic that conservatives give a much higher percentage of their incomes to charity. Perhaps that is because of the difference in philosophy. Conservatives in general tend to understand that people are ultimately responsible for themselves and their neighbors and act accordingly to solve problems themselves. Big government liberals tend to think the Government is responsible for them and everyone else, and expect government to take care of all problems.
FollowBefriend41 threads2,655 comments
Doesn’t that make doctors, nurses and chiropractors your slaves? Doesn’t that make any taxpayer your slave?
No, no, no. Not even remotely close to slavery or anything resembling it.
To spin this differently:
Isn't failing to provide health care to everyone the same thing as genocide?
Hyperbole doesn't help anyone (except maybe politicians).
Doesn’t that make any taxpayer your slave? 100 years ago medicine was far less advanced, government was far less involved and it was far less expensive. But people survived, people even survived the “Spanish flu” without health insurance. We can survive without it again.
Sure, we survived about half as long as we do now.
We can "survive" without a lot of things. That is not an argument against doing those things.
Want health care? get a job and pay for it, auction off your unneeded items and pay for it, sell your blood and pay for it, join the army and let them pay for it, move to Canada let them pay for it, just don’t force me to pay for it.
What if I can't get a job to pay for it because I am disabled? What if I am an underage child with incompetent parents?
"Just don't force me to pay for it"? Dude, that's a part of living as a member of society. Don't want to pay into the pot? Move to some country without a government -- good luck keeping your property there.
If it was your right to have health care it wouldn’t cost me anything.
It is your right to have an attorney if you are charged with a crime, and that costs me money. It is your right to not be attacked on the streets, and that costs me money. You do not have a single right that does not cost me money.
Incidentally I am not sure if this is true but I heard a statistic that conservatives give a much higher percentage of their incomes to charity. Perhaps that is because of the difference in philosophy. Conservatives in general tend to understand that people are ultimately responsible for themselves and their neighbors and act accordingly to solve problems themselves.
This has been brought up before -- "conservatives" give more to charity overall, unless you subtract religious donations, in which case there's no appreciable difference.
You really don't want religions running services. History is full of nasty lessons that we learned by allowing religious institutions to run things.
Public defender is a modern "right", not a God given right. Since most criminal cases are (or should be) state criminal cases then states have every right to spend money on this as they see fit. But it has almost no comparison to public medicine, which incidentally is not a God given right either. Again though, I think it would be great if California or other states decided to offer public insurance or public medicine. It would teach everyone a lesson, if it is a good lesson great, we will all follow suit. If it is a bad lesson, at least we didn't all drink the KOOLADE.
Many people lived to a ripe old age before modern medicine. Modern antibiotics account for the majority of increase in life expectancy. We don't need insurance for antibiotics.
A large percentage of chemotherapy drugs kill faster than cancer. And they have a success rate that is often much lower than 50% Is that the kind of genocide you are looking for? And while they don't work very well, and may kill you, at least you won't have to pay for them right!
There will always be a bunch of what ifs. We don't need a government to solve, plan for and create an organization to anticipate and try to resolve these what ifs. They can be handled on a case by case basis in the local jurisdictions. Are you so afraid to get your hands dirty that you want to pay some Washington bureaucrat to try to solve these for you from hundreds of miles away? I've lived in a trailer park for 20+ years. I've donated time and money to care for people in all kinds of need. I've given rides to smelly people down on their luck. I've helped people of many different races and backgrounds get jobs, drivers licenses etc. That is how we solve problems. We actually solve them ourselves when we see them. We can't pay Washington to do it for us. Why not be a neighbor not a Big Government Crony?
I don't have a right not to be attacked, but I do have a right to defend myself and my neighbors from any attacker. That costs you nothing, unless you happen to be the attacker.
I'm no fan of religion, but you really don't want government institutions running things either. History if full of nasty lessons we learned by allowing government institutions run things.
FollowBefriend (25)434 threads7,312 comments Saint George, UTelliemae's website
I have a friend who is moving out of state with her husband to get a new job. She is pregnant, also has a minor pre-existing condition (it exists but requires no treatment, isn't life-threatening nor does it mean any other health ramifications) and he is healthy, no current medical needs. He is covered under his work, just gave his notice. Her new job starts on the 5th and her health insurance starts after 90 days. Her husband has given his two-week notice. We had this discussion yesterday; please try to keep up, students:
Assuming that she has had continuous coverage for the past 2 years without fail, apply and pay for continued coverage under COBRA. Her husband's Health Maintenence costs them $75 every two weeks, which means that they will be covered until the fifteenth of October. They will have sixty days to decide whether to pay their COBRA payment (estimated to be $700 for the two of them each month), at which point they'll have to pay by calendar month. In order for her to continue coverage without a pre-existing condition, she can't have a gap of more than 62 days without insurance. The eligibility for her insurance at her work is 90 days, meaning that she will be eligible January 5th. Since the insurance starts on the first of the month following eligibility, they will have health insurance at an affordable cost on February 1st. They'll have to pay about $2,450 until she's eligible for insurance at work in order to ensure that she is covered without a pre-existing condition.
Since they're moving out of state and the current employer only offers the HMO, she won't be able to have most of her costs covered by the COBRA policy - and the baby is due at the end of December. She'll be paying $2,450 in order to basically receive nothing, nada, zip - unless she goes back to the state from which she's moving to receive treatment. Emergencies are covered - but birth isn't considered to be an emergency unless there are complications.
Yep, the current system works perfectly.
FollowBefriend30 threads763 comments
My wife is a claim manager at a MAJOR insurance company and I am all too familiar with the insurance industry non-sense. I hear all the stories about how folks who thought they were covered wind up getting dropped due to pre-existing conditions or lapsed coverage. She comes home extremely disheartened by these cases and often times tells me stories of other claim managers who have experienced more of the same. Most of these insurance companies don't even provide their own employees with a decent health care plan, partly which is why we had 5k in out of pocket expenses for the delivery of our son through my wifes crappy plan. She had better coverage at a non-profit that she had worked at previously, by which our first born was covered 100% with no out of pocket expenses.
I'm not defending insurance companies, they are scum and you can thank government for giving them so much power through the tax free incentives they give to employers who purchase it (which tax break incidentally are not available to individuals who purchase health care or health insurance on their own. We need to level the playing field by allowing individuals to have the same tax breaks as the large corporations, NOT by mandating health insurance be purchased which will only further fill the coffers of the insurance industry and their lobbyists.)
But there is a problem with people's attitudes toward insurance. Insurance is by definition a protection against an unexpected loss in exchange for a periodic payment. UNEXPECTED LOSS. Some things that are not unexpected losses: Giving birth/pregnancy, regular check ups, blood pressure medication. A high percentage of women get pregnant and give birth, it is not an unexpected loss so why should we expect insurance to pay for it? Regular check ups are part of maintaining your health, and while they may in the long run save insurance companies money (therefore it may be in their best interest to give incentives to their customers to see their doctor regularly) they are not unexpected losses so why should we expect insurance to pay for them? Same goes for blood pressure, cholesterol, birth control medications etc... These are not unexpected losses, there is a great likelihood that as you age you will develop high blood pressure and or high cholesterol. Certainly not unexpected.
But, lets let one of the states try demanding all citizens purchase insurance and force insurers to pay for even EXPECTED expenses and see how that goes. Or let one of the states offer universal health care coverage and see how it works. If it works well we can implement it in other states. If not at least we all didn't drink the koolade.
"But there is a problem with people’s attitudes toward insurance. Insurance is by definition a protection against an unexpected loss in exchange for a periodic payment." - 2nd class citizen, 2009
Agreed. However, if I don't have homeowner's insurance, I still have a place to live. If I don't have life insurance, I still have a life. And if I don't have auto insurance, I still have transportation AFFORDABLE options.
Without health insurance, I have no reasonable access to healthcare. You use the example of high blood pressure as not being an unexpected loss. But where do you draw the line? HPB can lead to strokes, so insurance companies shouldn't pay for treatment of either? Heart attacks, bypass? Medication isn't affordable and healthcare isn't accessible because of the insurance industry driving up costs.
If I'm walking down the street and trip over the sidewalk, breaking my ankle, that too would be expected and therefore not paid by insurance with your example. As would be an appendectomy, because it's expected that eventually I'll need one. And cancer, 'cause we all have to die from something... Childbirth is expensive and not all of the costs are expected - so using your reasoning we should disallow some associated expenses but not others? Or do we just disallow the entire bill? What if, during a c-section, a tumor is found?
Until people suffer a life-altering event or have a family member who does, they simply don't understand the financial devastation (or the death that occurs as a result of lack of treatment). Insurance companies decide who will receive (or won't receive) treatment. Doctors/hospitals/clinics have the right to refuse treatment to people who can't pay, and they do every day. And please don't respond saying that the patient can go to the ER and receive treatment that way - they are stablized and referred on but unless it's life threatening at that moment the patient isn't treated.
People live in pain, are disabled and/or their lives are affected by the lack of treatment.
There are affordable options in health care (not to be confused with health insurance), just as there are in your transportation analogy. If you are having trouble finding a reasonable priced physician and medical services then I would wager you haven't tried very hard or just haven't found the right resource. I don't know but perhaps the AMA can help you. They would love some good publicity I am sure.
Tripping, falling and breaking a bone is definitely not an "expected" accident. I don't know anyone who would suggest that car insurance not pay for a fender bender and broken ankle is certainly analogous to a fender bender. Also, most people will NEVER have appendicitis nor need their appendix removed. Appendicitis certainly is not an expected event and most insurance companies would be glad to charge you a flat monthly fee to insure against the unlikely event you will have need for its removal. In fact for the low fee of $15 a month I would probably issue the policy myself! Why are you even arguing about this? Please don't put words people's mouths. If you don't mind perhaps I could speak for myself?
As far as childbirth goes it is not an unexpected event as I said in my original post. Pregancy for the most part is something everyone knows is a result of personal choice to engage in what you describe as "beautiful" sexual activity (except in the rare case of a rape pregnancy). I would agree there can be costs associated with childbirth such as an emergency C-section that are unexpected and perhaps a person could take out "pregnancy insurance" to cover them.
It is unfair/unproductive for you to say that, "Until people suffer a life-altering event or have a family member who does, they simply don’t understand the financial devastation (or the death that occurs as a result of lack of treatment)." You can believe what you want but your blanket statement is more of a subtle form of discrimination saying that other people's opinion is less valid because of something that is completely out of their control. But for that matter most everyone I know has had someone close to them affected by accident, disease, death and /or medical bills.
I know a man who has lived with chronic back pain for quite some time, and just recently was approved for a spinal pain pump by his insurance company. We are all happy for him, and sorry it took so long. I just want to know what makes anyone think that he would have gotten his pump any faster if the government were involved? Know any Veteran or other victim/beneficiary of government medicine that has gotten a pain pump as a first option? Doubt it, it doesn't happen. It is always a last resort. My only point here is that government cannot take away pain and suffering. In fact it is more efficient at creating pain and suffering.
Here is an interesting take on how government has made health care expensive by its own failures. http://mises.org/story/3699
"If you are having trouble finding a reasonable priced physician and medical services then I would wager you haven’t tried very hard or just haven’t found the right resource. I don’t know but perhaps the AMA can help you. They would love some good publicity I am sure".
Good try. I specialize in finding the right resources - and have seen many, many examples in my career of people who weren't able to access healthcare and remained in pain - or died - as a result. I do "believe what I want" because I've seen it, again many, many times. The AMA is no help at all, and no - they don't give a shit about the publicity. They're a lobbyist group .
The broken ankle is analogous to a fender bender in that, with your insurance ideas, the patient will have to prove that it's an accident and that he's not at fault before receiving treatment - because the provider won't be guaranteed payment until that issue is resolved. Should the patient go to three clinics, obtain quotes and have one accepted prior to treatment? The insurance company can send out an adjuster at the time of accident to determine whether the sidewalk is at fault - and then deny payment until the sidewalk's owner can prove he's not at fault.
Pregnancy insurance sounds good, until you consider that they would probably charge double for twins, tripple for triplets, etc. And what if the patient can't afford the c-section option? They'll choose natural birth, no meds, to save money? Rape pregnancy - what if the woman was dressed provacatively? Or what if she claims rape in order to aleviate herself of the cost of insurance? What about those cases where the woman wasn't aware she was pregnant (it happens)? What if the woman can't afford insurance, the father can but chooses not to or denies his paternity? While these issues work their way through a "choice" system, the patient receives no treatment.
Lupus is a serious, debilitating disease that can't be predicted. RA is the same. Huntington's, Parkinson's, Alzheimers... AIDS, Cancers... It's impossible for people to anticipate every disease that might occur to them. I stand by my statement that people don't understand until they've had something horrible happen to them. It's not a subtle form of discrimination - the discrimination occurs when someone isn't able to access healthcare due to lack of insurance. I'm not saying that other people's opinion is less valid - but I am saying that people who think that healthcare should be optional probably haven't suffered financial, emotional and physical devastation that can occur without access to healthcare.
Healthcare should not be a choice and should never, ever be an option. Arguements to the contrary are inhumane.
I stand by my statement that affordable care can be found. Please don't give up or teach others it can't be done.
Proving an accident, do we really need to go there? Let's be reasonable please. Let's just suffice it to say that all broken bones are "accidents." Can we do that please?
Pregnancy insurance is a great idea, a way to avoid catastrophic risk. What if people can't afford payments? Blah blah blah. What if our country can't afford payments for universal coverage for everyone inside our borders? Oh wait. It can't. We are in debt up to our eyeballs and sinking faster. Ever seen the national debt clock? They had to add a new digit recently. Oh, and please don't say we'll just steal it from the rich to to pay the ballooning costs. The rich are the ones we owe all the money to. They make money no matter what. It is the rest of us that ALWAYS end up paying.
I'm sorry to see you are so quick to discriminate and call names. Now not only do you say that "people don’t understand until they’ve had something horrible happen to them." You have called everyone who doesn't drink the KOOLADE of universal health care for all " inhumane."
When people have exhausted their meaningful arguments they tend to resort to name calling and demonizing the opposition. That is sad.
The fact of the matter is there is no reason why we should "try" government run health care, at least on a national basis. Let the states try it and see how it works.
I am opposed to the theft of property that government medicine represents but if one or more of the states wishes to be the experimenting ground by all means give a whack at it. If it works, great! If not, at least we all didn't drink the KOOLADE.
"I stand by my statement that affordable care can be found. Please don’t give up or teach others it can’t be done. "
Where? Affordable would have to be subject to a person's finances. No finances, no healthcare. I don't have to teach anyone it can't be done, I just live it every day. What's forgotten here is that this isn't an abstract issue. This is people.
I guess that we'll agree to disagree on this one. As an informed professional, I realize that many people don't understand the problems that lack of access to healthcare can cause. I hope they will never have to endure the pain, stress, financial & emotional devastation easily caused by any type of health problem. I don't purport to have all of the answers, it's just that I have a heart full of compassion for others and am fully informed.
I didn't say that you are inhumane. I said, "Healthcare should not be a choice and should never, ever be an option. Arguements to the contrary are inhumane."
Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
I happen to be an informed professional as well and can assure you there are not legions of people who have no access to health care. There are legions of people who don't want to pay for it, or would rather spend their time/money on something else. But I have never seen anyone who really wanted care and was willing to work it out with a provider, turned away. The key here is, are people invested in their health care or do they EXPECT others to invest in it in their place?
There is access to health care if you want to and are willing to invest in it yourself. If you are not willing to invest in your own care, why should anyone help you? And please don't waste your time an another what if they can't pay scenario. What about working out a way to pay it back in the future? Is that unreasonable?
By the way, I am all for helping those who need a helping hand. I myself have been in situations where I was unable to pay for my own needs including health care. Sometimes I was able to get some assistance from people I knew. Other times I had to go into debt. I am not saying that we as a society should be an every man for himself and every woman for herself. But I am saying that you, me, and everyone else are responsible for taking care of the needs we see around us. That is what personal and private charity, volunteerism, mentoring etc.. is all about. It is not a government responsibility, and government has no right to play robin hood.
In my book calling someone's heartfelt argument "inhumane" is the same as calling them inhumane. Do you wish to protest?
2nd class says:
"What about working out a way to pay it back in the future? Is that unreasonable?"
Yes - because our medical system operates on payment now, up front/in advance, or no treatment. We're talking reality, not the ideal. Perhaps you haven't seen people who really wanted to work it out turned away, but I have (and do, on a daily basis).
BTW, we don't read the same books.
Gee, I'm glad to know you didn't call me inhumane and just think my argument is inhumane. I am sure there is a huge difference in your book. What book would that be?
What part of the world do you live in where people cannot get treatment?
Gee, I’m glad to know you didn’t call me inhumane and just think my argument is inhumane. I am sure there is a huge difference in your book. What book would that be?
What part of the world do you live in where people cannot get treatment?
I live in the United States of America, where people can't access treatement unless there's a payment source. I believe that you are well aware of that. However, you continue to assert that everyone has access to healthcare because you don't know anyone who can't get it. I can't change your belief system (nor would I want to), but there are people who have serious conditions that go untreated because they can't afford it, receive denials, or otherwise have no access. It happens every day all around the world, including in our country, whether or not you choose to believe it. Our lawmakers, who have excellent healthcare options, share your attitude. Perhaps you should run for office, you'd be in good company.
I find it ironic that your moniker is "2nd class citizen," yet you refuse to believe that people who are treated at second class citizens have limited opportunities:
"Second-class citizen is an informal term used to describe a person who is systematically discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there. While not necessarily slaves, outlaws or criminals, second-class citizens have limited legal rights, civil rights and economic opportunities, and are often subject to mistreatment or neglect at the hands of their putative superiors. Instead of being protected by the law, the law disregards a second-class citizen, or it may actually be used to harass them."
Based on the paradigm you present, you have every privilege and your opportunities for healthcare are abundant. Whether or not you worked hard for it or it was handed to you, many others aren't as fortunate.
A measure of a great society isn't how it treats the most privileged citizens, but how we care for the weakest. I'm done with this discussion, because it's not a discussion. A discussion is an exchange of ideas, where one party has the opportunity to become enlightened about issues about which they might otherwise not know. As your book is closed, there's no chance that another chapter can be written.
It is a terrible thing that you can't have something unless you can first show you can pay for it. So instead lets steal from those who can pay for it. That is basically the argument you present. All the while the rich still get richer. You see, you may not realize it but you are the 2ndClassCitizen. We all are, the people on this blog. Not one of us is truly free. We all must work first to support the lifestyle of the master's and second to support the lifestyle of the plebes that won't or don't know how to work to provide for themselves.
I can appreciate your frustration, but implying I am closed minded and unwilling to write another chapter in my book of reason and understanding is a bit hypocritical. Especially since you are the person who is "done with this discussion." We can continue our discussion when you come to the realization that while you and I may be privileged enough to have most of our needs met by our work and/or good fortune, there are powers out there struggling to take those privileges from us. The "middle class" is the foundation of free society and it has been under attack to the point that it is bankrupt, demoralized and looking for a handout just like the rest of the 2ndClassCitizens. Who will provide for the people who cannot provide for themselves when we the middle class are not able to do it anymore? Think the rich elites will do it? Fat chance. They will not rest until each and every one of us non-elites is completely and utterly dependent on them for our entire existence. If the elites are good at it (and they are) they may even succeed in making us feel happy to be a part of a "great society" as they are in China. China is a great example because it is a place of total government control, but the people of China by and large are so brainwashed into believing their suffering is good for them. They actually think their way of life is superior to ours. Now I don't claim that we in USA have it all figured out nor should the world look to us as an example (actually our government is WAY to big and personal freedoms are WAY to restricted). But America can look to China for glimpse at our future if we continue down this path of government growth and private freedom disintegration.
Patrick Henry said it right.
We can continue our discussion when you come to the realization...
That's fine, go back to sleep. We'll leave the light on for you.