09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoSettle down and put away your tear soaked handkerchief, it's a hypothetical. Hospitals in the States have signs stating you cannot be refused treatment based on your ability to pay. (That is by law)
never have I heard anything more ridiculous or morally repugnant as this.
It is truly a mystery to me why in the US, still the most prosperous country on the face of the earth, people are allowed to be swindled by greedy corporations in such a disgraceful manner. Here we are talking about a man's life, his most precious possession, and all the laiss ...[text shortened]... the one presented in the OP.
Shame on you, and shame on all those who espouse similar views.
You should be asking, "That can't be true or the hospitals would be out of business for lack of income." Answer is: Those patients who have insurance pick up the costs of indigents by proxy. The hospitals figure losses acquired from those who do not pay and increase their charges for those who are insured.
09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainWait a second. The sign says you cannot be refused treatment.
Settle down and put away your tear soaked handkerchief, it's a hypothetical. Hospitals in the States have signs stating you cannot be refused treatment based on your ability to pay. (That is by law)
It doesn't say you'll get any treatment you want. And I guarantee you, on that basis, people are refused treatment quite often.
09 Dec 10
I have no problem with society deciding that it will not pay for certain medical treatments. There comes a point where costs are just prohibitive. Maybe we could pay $250,000 but what if it were $2.5M or $25,000,000 or $25B. At some point society should decide that certain medical treatments are too expensive for all citizens to get so either pay for it yourself or get a cheaper treatment.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by joneschrYou have no idea. Your're just justifying your paradigm. Disregarding your guarantee, name someone who has been refused.
Wait a second. The sign says you cannot be refused treatment.
It doesn't say you'll get any treatment you want. And I guarantee you, on that basis, people are refused treatment quite often.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by MacSwainEasy. About a year ago my wife's insurance rejected a request to do a extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
You have no idea. Your're just justifying your paradigm. Disregarding your guarantee, name someone who has been refused.
You're kidding right, you really think anyone can get any treatment they want?
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by quackquackAh Ha! Well said indeed. You have identified the fly in government medicine ointment.
I have no problem with society deciding that it will not pay for certain medical treatments. There comes a point where costs are just prohibitive. Maybe we could pay $250,000 but what if it were $2.5M or $25,000,000 or $25B. At some point society should decide that certain medical treatments are too expensive for all citizens to get so either pay for it yourself or get a cheaper treatment.
What if I have £25 billion to provide my treatment?
Under tyrannical government medicine I would not be allowed (and no doctor would be allowed to provide) treatment to me because the government could not afford to do it for anyone else. Therefore I would be sacrificed on the alter of fairness.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by joneschrSorry about your wife's kidney stone (I've had two myself and wish no one that pain). Aside from that: You are insured. Obviously you bought a policy that does not cover lithotripsy. Obviously you are not indigent and your wife does not apply at all to my previous post which you are attempting to refute.
Easy. About a year ago my wife's insurance rejected a request to do a extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
You're kidding right, you really think anyone can get any treatment they want?
My original question to follow up on your guarantee that treatment is refused to people who cannot pay. Name one.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by joneschrMy post was not in response to the OP only, it was also in referrence to the "he ought to die as he lived: free" remark.
I don't get what's morally repugnant. The OP's situation was one where a person consciously refuses to purchase something he can afford, on principle. He suffers the fate of his own actions.
If the OP's statement was rephrased to:
"A 42-year-old man can not afford to buy health insurance of any kind. The next day he has a heart attack .."
then the answer changes.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by MacSwainMy wife had a gall stone, not a kidney stone. I don't understand the difference between being refused treatment because your insurance won't pay and being refused treatment because you don't have insurance.
Sorry about your wife's kidney stone (I've had two myself and wish no one that pain). Aside from that: You are insured. Obviously you bought a policy that does not cover lithotripsy. Obviously you are not indigent and your wife does not apply at all to my previous post which you are attempting to refute.
My original question to follow up on your guarantee that treatment is refused to people who cannot pay. Name one.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by quackquackI agree. It's the most efficient solution to provide a certain basic package taxpayer-funded, that covers conventional treatments. Private insurance can then cover whatever remains.
I have no problem with society deciding that it will not pay for certain medical treatments. There comes a point where costs are just prohibitive. Maybe we could pay $250,000 but what if it were $2.5M or $25,000,000 or $25B. At some point society should decide that certain medical treatments are too expensive for all citizens to get so either pay for it yourself or get a cheaper treatment.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by MacSwainHow about this guy? Could he pay?
Sorry about your wife's kidney stone (I've had two myself and wish no one that pain). Aside from that: You are insured. Obviously you bought a policy that does not cover lithotripsy. Obviously you are not indigent and your wife does not apply at all to my previous post which you are attempting to refute.
My original question to follow up on your guarantee that treatment is refused to people who cannot pay. Name one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/health/main6335430.shtml
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by MacSwainSo essentially the "Live Free or Die" types around here who have private health insurance and think requiring people to get health insurance if they can afford it is "socialism" are, under the current arrangement, picking up the tab for the slackers who refuse to get coverage by way of increased premiums. Gee, you'd think they'd be upset by that.
Settle down and put away your tear soaked handkerchief, it's a hypothetical. Hospitals in the States have signs stating you cannot be refused treatment based on your ability to pay. (That is by law)
You should be asking, "That can't be true or the hospitals would be out of business for lack of income." Answer is: Those patients who have insurance pick ...[text shortened]... ses acquired from those who do not pay and increase their charges for those who are insured.
09 Dec 10
3 edits
The case of the Tea Partier types can only be made by adding at least three zeros to every dollar amount in a debate (such as "quackquack" did a dozen posts up). It's what I call the "Slippery Slope Fallacy," which generally goes like this: Nothing should ever be done to help people, because if you help them even once, they'll do nothing for themselves forever after and suckle at the government teat till their dying day -- AND STEAL ALL MY MONEY, MY LIBERTY, AND MY ETERNAL SOUL!"
Edit: Which is not to say quackquack is necessarily a Tea Party type. It's just he/she said something I tend to hear a lot from such types, usually to absurd extremes.