DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RahvinDom
That's a funny question, considering that people who cant afford any healthcare at all never wind up on ANY wait list - they just don;t get any non-emergency bypasses at all.
They tend to just die, because they can't get help until they have an actual heart attack.
Perhaps every phone in the US should be preset with 911 on speed dial so that if someone without insurance has a heart attack, they can call and get emergency care. And, it's also a huge relief to know that people with insurance don't have heart attacks except planned ones.
quote:
Again: limited supply is ALWAYS a problem in every healthcare system that does not possess an infinite supply of doctors and medicine. The US "system" simply cuts a large portion of the population out of the system entirely by including "ability to pay" in the rationing system. That really is the only difference.
In effect, those who do not support a single-payer or other truly universal healthcare option are saying "fuck the poor, let them die."
That's reprehensible.
No, it's not what those of us against Government health care are saying. In the US, emergency care is mandated, and one can not be turned away for lack of ability to pay. While that sets up a conundrum where hospitals escalate costs to cover the "charity care," and insurance companies escalate costs to pay for escalated hospital costs (which is a big "fuck you" since many insurance companies also own the hospitals), it's still getting that stuff paid for. Add into it that hospitals can write off charity care for tax purposes.
quote:
The lie that single-payer would cause "extreme rationing" is simply the twisting of the fact that a universal system includes those who are currently excluded entirely from non-emergency healthcare. If supply remains the same and demand increases due to increased eligibility, then yes, the system will be more strained...but it really is only the difference between "healthcare assigned by need" and "healthcare assigned by ability to pay." One of those is ethically unacceptable, because the value of a life is not based on one's net worth.
What PPACA doesn't do, however, is lower health care costs. It's a shell game shifting the costs to others instead of actually lowering the costs.
If government is the sole payer of medical care, how does it control costs?
1. You either cut down on the number of services paid for (ie. covering partial knee replacements but not total knee replacements)
2. Cut down on the limit how much of a service is paid for (ie. only pay for 1000 knee replacements/year vs. covering all knee replacements/year)
3. Reduce the reimbursement for the service (ie. paying $10,000 now, but cutting down to only paying $5,000). In all 3 cases, the patient or the service provider ends up getting the shaft for the cost of the care. In the first case, if you need a total knee replacement, you'll have to cough up the extra, or the hospital takes the hit. In the second case, anyone after the first 1000 get to figure out how to pay for it, or the hospital takes the hit. In the third case, either the hospital accepts the reduced reimbursement as payment in full, the hospital writes off the unsubsidized portion, or the patient gets to figure out how to pay for it.
And, if you think that can't happen, isn't that the point of the UK's NHS NICE Agency?
{edited to fix grammar error}
< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 9/12/2012 4:22:27 AM >
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Healthcare. Doors #1 and #2. - 
that's so prevalent here in this forum. As such, I shall begin 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread