- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm #602706
hooper1961MemberInstead of the Federal Requirement that everyone purchase Health Insurance by 2014 I would propose that starting in 2014 Hospitals and other care providers stop providing services to those that choose not to purchase Health Insurance AND make it illegal for Hospitals and other care givers to cost shift charity care to those of us that purchase Health Insurance.
I read that in Washington State there was about $2,000,000,000 in charity Health Care provided last year. These costs are unjustly passed on to those of us who pay for insurance and taxes. This costs a family of 4 about $100 more a month.
It is time that the Government stop forcing Hospitals and other care givers to provide charity care. Freedom involves choices and if someone chooses not to purchase insurance that is their right, but they then should have to live with that choice accordingly!
March 30, 2012 at 6:47 pm #753240
redblackParticipanthoop! where ya’ been?
how about we start out in a spirit of not taking urgent care away from people who can’t afford it?
March 30, 2012 at 7:02 pm #753241
hooper1961MemberThe cost of Health Insurance is higher to those that purchase it to pay for those that elect not too. How is this fair?
Making it illegal for Hospitals and other care givers to cost shift charity care would lower insurance premiums for those that pay. This approach does not intrude on personal choice, but simply places the risk where it belongs. If a person chooses not to purchase insurance they simply would not be provided services accordingly!
redblack – I have been working more hours to pay for a kid in college and pay for inflated Health Insurance and the like.
March 30, 2012 at 7:11 pm #753242
JanSParticipantso are you saying those folks should just be told, sorry, you’re outta luck, you’re gonna die? Is that what you’re proposing? Massive amounts of ill people in this country hanging out around you?
Take me forinstance. I have ESRD..End Stage Renal Disease. Yes, it’ will kill me. Yes, I need a kidney transplant. Right now my medical bills are paid through Medicare, special program for kidney patients. Without it I would have no dialysis, and my demise would be fairly quick, as my kidneys have stopped functioning altogether. But, because I can’t afford insurance premiums (and too many preexisting conditions, for that matter – well, one is enough for them to say no.)you would tell me that, too bad, you’re gonna die? Seriously?
oh, and , sure, allow them to say no to charity care..but then they don’t get any money from the federal government for other things…they would be cut off..saving even more money..so they would have to become for profit only. Yep, big business rears it’s ugly head once again. But, if they can’t function in a for profit atmosphere, you’re paid for benefits may not be able to be met either.
March 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm #753243
redblackParticipanthooper: glad you’re doing well.
care to share your experiences about finding an insurance provider? why the use of the word “inflated?”
did they find a needle in your haystack? preexisting condition maybe?
well, have no fear. obamacare is on the way. :)
March 30, 2012 at 7:16 pm #753244
JanSParticipantYour kid is in college..well, make them take out a hefty loan. If they wanna go, they have to pay. It’s the American Way..and less of a burden for you.
Do I have sympathy for you? Absolutely not. Walk in my shoes for a little while.
March 30, 2012 at 7:26 pm #753245
hooper1961Memberjan – i am not aware of any other business that is required to provide services to those that do not pay! and because of this requirement those of us that purchase insurance are paying more than what is fair because we are essentially subsidizing those that don’t pay.
i need to get some work done on my car, i think the mechanic should be required to fix my car and then shift the cost to another customer. this is exactly what is wrong with the health care system as it currently exists. the hammer to encourage everyone to buy health care coverage (thus lowering premiums for all) is simply to stop requiring charity care in 2014.
March 30, 2012 at 7:28 pm #753246
redblackParticipantMarch 30, 2012 at 7:29 pm #753247
hooper1961Memberafter my wife passed i was thrust into the private insurance market and i purchased a high deductible policy for me and my son to keep cost manageable.
March 30, 2012 at 7:32 pm #753248
hooper1961Memberredblack – there is nothing in the constitution that says health care is a right. it is something free people must decide on there own.
March 30, 2012 at 7:33 pm #753249
miwsParticipanthoop, without charity care, there’s a possibility I wouldn’t be here right now.
Thank you for your compassion…
Mike
March 30, 2012 at 7:34 pm #753250
miwsParticipantMarch 30, 2012 at 7:39 pm #753251
redblackParticipantbut we are entitled to live, aren’t we? and it says so right there in the declaration of independence.
like i said in other threads, hooper, health insurance is not simply some commodity to be bought and sold. for most people it’s the gateway to health care. the only gateway.
when they can’t afford insurance – and most people can’t – others need to get their care in the ER. and even most middle class people who have employer-provided health care could never afford to buy their own policy.
now, if you want to remove that gateway, i’ll be standing right beside you. because i think that insurance deciding what procedures they’ll cover to save someone’s life is unconstitutional.
March 30, 2012 at 7:45 pm #753252
dobroParticipantI think hooper needs a heart transplant.
March 30, 2012 at 7:49 pm #753253
KBearParticipantThey did it for Cheney…
March 30, 2012 at 7:51 pm #753254
hooper1961Memberin my late 20’s and early 30’s i was fat. i made a concerted choice to lose the extra weight (no sweats, very little alcohol and eat a better diet) and exercise. i lost the weight because i committed to do so; thus i know from personal experience it is possible through dedication to lose weight; and by doing so reduce the associated adverse health consequence of being over weight.
March 30, 2012 at 7:54 pm #753255
casabobaMemberhooper1961, you raise an interesting point. However I fear subsidized burial costs would increase. How would you suggest that unintended consequence be handled?
March 30, 2012 at 8:11 pm #753256
skeeterParticipantI think Hooper’s point is a valid one. No one is advocating that poor people should not have medical care. That is what Medicaid is for.
The problem comes about when people who earn enough money to not qualify for Medicaid do not have medical insurance. Some don’t have medical because they are irresponsible. So don’t have medical because they have other spending priorities – housing, transportation, education, whatever else they are spending their money on.
If one of these people falls ill and requires expensive medical services, the government will not pay. Generally, the hospital will provide the care, but they will not be able to collect fees. So the hospital or medical provider will pass the costs along to other paying customers so the hospital can stay in business. That drives up the fees for the rest of us who have insurance or self-insure.
Hooper’s point is this situation isn’t fair. The more people don’t have insurance, the more it costs the rest of us who do. The more expensive insurance gets, the more people will not have insurance and so on and so forth.
The only logical conclusion that I come to is we have to do one of the following:
Option 1: If a person has no medical insurance and requires medical services, we let the person die.
Option 2: We adopt a single payer system. We fundamentally change medical care. Every man, woman, and child is guaranteed medical services paid for by the government (taxes.) A system similar to Canada.
Neither option is acceptable in my mind. I have no answers.
March 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm #753257
dyn99ParticipantI have lots of answers, but no one will agree to them.
Hooper – comments like yours above give conservatives a bad name. Then they pigeonhole all of us into one bucket of “heartless rich people” regardless of our means and say that we only care about money.
The thing is: based on that post, you do care about money more than ensuring that human beings get the emergency medical care they need.
I’ll gladly pay $100/month extra to ensure that those who need it get basic coverage.
I would rather see the system comprehensively addressed intelligently. But I’ll take them having access to life-giving care over $100/month.
And you should too.
March 30, 2012 at 8:41 pm #753258
casabobaMemberI’ll do it for $101.00 / Mo. extra!
March 30, 2012 at 8:45 pm #753259
kootchmanMemberWe don’t let our fellow citizens die in the street. First, you check their voter ID and political affiliation. They may be lapsed republicans! Have a heart man!
March 30, 2012 at 8:53 pm #753260
redblackParticipantdyn99: i don’t pigeonhole people. and i don’t like being told what i believe, either.
but i have no problem pointing out when a person’s political ideals dovetail conveniently with the interests of multi-billion dollar industries who have the power to arbitrarily sway public opinion. when that happens among my neighbors, i’d like to discuss it, its ramifications to society at large, and its effects on our ability to govern effectively.
but i suspect that you and i would actually agree on a great deal philosophically. policy and practice, though, are constrained by money. and under “free market capitalism,” money buys access.
March 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm #753261
Spring ChickenMemberWhat about ambulance costs, would medics responding at an accident scene first need to verify insurance coverage and policy limits before providing emergency transportation? Should they also run a credit check to make sure the victim has savings to meet the deductible? What about you, Hooper, so slim and healthy and responsible… what if mugged and knocked unconscious with your wallet stolen, no proof of insurance to show and unable to speak, should you be left to die? Would you really want to live in an America like that?
March 30, 2012 at 9:10 pm #753262
JanSParticipantskeeter, I think what hooper is saying is..no more medicaid, no more medicare. If oyu can’t afford to buy what’s out there on the market, too bad. You have to pay to play. That’s the way I understand it. So..that means those poor people will go without, in his plan, period. Wrap your head around that. This isn’t the first time he’s brought this up.
Hooper, you didn’t answer my question. I could give a damn if you lost weight – that’s your business, your choice. It certainly didn’t help the health of your brain cells, or your heart., compassion-wise. My medical problems are not caused by my weight. I was lucky enough to get a rare autoimmune disease that caused my kidneys to fail – luck of the draw. You have no answers for that scenario, so you avoid the questions. And now I can only work part time, my income is limited, and no insurance company would even give me a second look.
You are lucky that your health remains good…but..down the road, you have no idea what may befall you, and what help you may need from others.
March 30, 2012 at 9:22 pm #753263
dyn99ParticipantAnd skeeter, there is a 3rd option:
We tax everyone to provide an option for basic government insurance for all.
Then we allow anyone who wants to opt-out and use the money to buy a private insurance plan of their choice, as long as it provides at least catastrophic coverage.
And a fourth option:
We tax everyone (many ways to do this) and re-distribute the tax as a voucher where you can spend the money to go buy a private insurance policy of your choice, but you’re required to spend at least that much money on private insurance, or you can spend more if you like.
Moral of the story – there are lots of options/solutions. Some that are more politically viable than others.
But letting people who have medical needs die in the street is not an acceptable one.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.