DEBATE: is health care a right or a privilege?

Originally posted by KarenC
I think there's a significant difference between Nixon's wage and price controls and putting constraints in place to provide US taxpayers with a return on their investment into drug research.
Taxpayer ROI on investment into drug research? How many drug companies are run/funded by the federal gov't. via tax dollars? The companies I know of are either privately or publicly owned and make money the old fashioned way: they earn it by selling stock or selling their products. I'd be interested to know what drug research is funded by taxpayer dollars. There may be some, and I will readily admit my ignorance about it. :eek:
 
Originally posted by Deb in IA
ABSOL-FRIPPIN-LUTELY.

We are a STATE HOSPITAL and provide several MILLION dollars in uncompensated FREE care every year.

25% of DW's practice is without any compensation whatsoever. About 20% of her department's services are done without any expectation of payment. Another 20 to 25% are "on the payment plan". We are "all paying" to be sure......but all publicly chartered hospitals (most hospitals) do this.
 
Originally posted by emmagata
Hey, your only 4 years older than me! So don't feel so old.

Yet. :teeth:
Owwwiiiieee! You may not know this "dinosaur" is pushing the big 5-oh-no in a couple of months. Just wait, my friend... just wait ... ;)
If my tax dollars are being spent to help medical research (specifically pharmacutical), I don't think think I should pay that amount (however small) again when I buy the drug.
Thank you ... now I think I understand. Methinks I am doing very well today in exposing the depths of my ignorance... I did not know pharmaceutical companies received tax money for research. :o
 
Originally posted by Toby'sFriend
Medicaid is the program for people who cannot afford health insurance. It is an entirely different program from Medicare.

And it also is not a perfect program. Many doctors will no longer accept Medicaid patients because some states are extremely slow in payment reimbursements and they pay nowhere near what it costs the doctor and facility to provide the service.

--------------------------------------

I am aware that Medicare and Medicaid are two entirely different programs.. However, for some seniors Medicare is their only choice and is not the "be all to end all" that many people assume it is.. My DH has been on Medicare for going on 5 years now and they have never paid one DIME for any of his medical care.. We have a supplemental policy that we pay for each month that is basically for emergencies only (if we happen to be somewhere that doesn't have a VA hospital nearby).. We were forced to turn his healthcare over to the VA because the supplemental policy would cover only $500 worth of medications per year and my DH's medications run in the THOUSANDS per year.. So - now he gets his substandard care at the VA - where we pay co-pays for all of his medications.. That means we are paying for his Medicare (which is taken out of his SS check each month) - the supplemental policy (that is pretty much useless except in an emergency that would require hospitalization) and his VA co-pays each month..

Now here's the "hitch" with all of these so-called "programs" for people who cannot afford insurance or have been disqualified for health reasons.. You can NOT do anything to "help yourself" or you will be PENALIZED for it.. Our experience with the VA is a perfect example.. When my DH had to resubmit his financial certification recently the allowable income had been reduced significantly to approximately $12,000 per year for a family of two..

Now - the logical thing would be for me to go out and get a job - right? Wrong.. Because if I did so - in order to still qualify for the VA program, I could only clear $32 a week.. Anything more than that, and he is disqualified.. I could attempt to work a full-time job and a part-time job (while still caring for him at the same time, taking him to his doctors appointments, etc.) but it still would not come close to what is needed to pay for his medications each month, his oxygen, his co-pays under the supplemental health insurance, etc..

Another possibility would be for us to sell everything we own - spend all of that money on healthcare for the next year or two at best - and then go on welfare.. And who is footing the bill then? Right back to the tax payers..

And before someone jumps in here and says we should have "planned better", let me tell you that when my DH retired he had a significant amount of money in pension, IRA, savings, etc. and every cent of it is GONE.. Gone where? To doctor bills, hospital bills, treatment bills, and medications..

So - how do you correct situations like this? Subsidize what people need - don't make it an "all or nothing" venture.. It's the same problem that plagues the welfare system.. Rather than subsidize the person who is struggling to get by, they would rather pay people ALL of what they need and have them sit at home doing nothing..

All of the programs that are currently in place "could" work - if they were managed in a realistic manner.. One that would allow the person in need to HELP THEMSELVES to the best of their ability, while at the same time subsidizing the additional dollars that are needed to achieve the goal..
 

I know first hand what a nightmarish headache Medicare can be. Add in supplemental insurance and it often just compounds the problem. Then add the VA rules and regulations ... I am still working on bills, claims, forms, co-pays, what have you from early 2003. I'm not sure, but I have a sneaking feeling there are bills from even earlier that need to be resolved.

As much as I hate spending so much free time sorting all this out (especially now that my father has departed this life), I am very reluctant to go along with "subsidize what people need." The fact is everyone's needs are different. And those needs, especially for seniors, change rapidly and sometimes without warning.

Giving the ever-growing population of seniors coming along in the next couple of decades, combined with a decreasing population of taxpaying workers and the "subsidize what people need" route would lead to economic disaster. Tax rates would have to skyrocket to keep up with the costs and that would stifle the economy and send us into another depression.

I just don't see this working, at least not for very long.
 
Originally posted by Bob Slydell
In the US, it's a privledge -- when it becomes a right, we've become a socialist society. People in countries where medical care is socialized either A.) wait forever for sub-standard care, B.) pay extra for decent care or C.) come to the US for medical care.

I'm Canadian and I beg to differ. The medical care here is free and by all accounts as good as or better than that in the States.

Get your facts straight. :rolleyes:
 
The medical care here is free and by all accounts as good as or better than that in the States.

Get your facts straight.

Certainly not by all accounts -- in fact, not by most accounts.
 
/
Originally posted by tinkerbeth
I'm Canadian and I beg to differ. The medical care here is free and by all accounts as good as or better than that in the States.

Get your facts straight. :rolleyes:

I'm glad you're getting good medical care. The accounts I've heard from many of the Canadians I've known told me otherwise in the past. :)
 
Originally posted by Eeyore1954

Giving the ever-growing population of seniors coming along in the next couple of decades, combined with a decreasing population of taxpaying workers and the "subsidize what people need" route would lead to economic disaster. Tax rates would have to skyrocket to keep up with the costs and that would stifle the economy and send us into another depression.

I just don't see this working, at least not for very long.
-------------------------------

So the only alternative would be for people to sell everything they own, pay their way as long as possible (which in the case of cancer or other severe illenesses could be as little as a year or two) and then have them become TOTALLY dependent on welfare for the rest of their lives? :confused:

I don't see how that could possibly be the best economic solution..
 
I'm Canadian and I beg to differ. The medical care here is free and by all accounts as good as or better than that in the States.

No it is not free. It is paid for by the Canadian Government. Look at the difference between what the United States spends on National Defense and Armed Services vs what Canada spends. That is one of the main reasons the Canadian Government has more funds available to provide a National Healthcare system.

Certainly not by all accounts -- in fact, not by most accounts.

I think based on numerous stories I've heard, I have to suspect many Canadians would not agree their Healthcare quality is equal.
 
The only place that I've heard of people saying that the US Health Care system is better than the Canadian system is on US message boards and US television. I know of nobody who feels that way. Actually, everyone I know has the opposite opinion.
 
You're right - we don't spend billions on the defense budget. I personally would rather spend the money on healthcare, but I guess it's about point of view.

To me, it seems that kindness dictates that we take care of people in our socieity. A lot of our social programs are geared that way, and I think it pays off. Check out the crime rates in cities. And the UN ranks Canada the number one country in terms of standard of living. So we can't be all wrong. ;) Taking care of people and keeping them at a reasonable standard of living keeps us from having millions of dis-enfranchised poor who turn to crime. It costs a lot more to keep people in prison than it does to keep them in health care. We need to do more, but I certainly don't think we do too much.
 
Originally posted by C.Ann
-------------------------------

So the only alternative would be for people to sell everything they own, pay their way as long as possible (which in the case of cancer or other severe illenesses could be as little as a year or two) and then have them become TOTALLY dependent on welfare for the rest of their lives? :confused:

I don't see how that could possibly be the best economic solution..
I don't think these are the only alternatives. I am not an economist (although I do play one on the DISboards!), so I don't claim to have an answer. All I know is that the current system is headed for bankruptcy given the increasing number of baby boomers entering it. If the current system cannot handle the load, a system that subsidizes everything for every senior wouldn't stand a chance.

JMO, but I believe each person is responsible for their own healthcare and expenses. Each person should plan for their retirement by saving and investing. There are plenty of tools available to assist people in this process. Planning for your future is the responsible thing to do. Depending on society to subsidize you and carry you as their burden is not.
 
Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Some hospitals will refuse to "run up a big bill" if the patient has no insurance and offers no proof they will be able to pay. I don't know of too many businesses that willingly give away their goods and services and hope to remain solvent for very long.

Diagnostic tests, medical treatment, etc. is not cheap. If the best you can offer is "give me a payment plan and I'll try to stick to it", I would be quite hesitant to run up a big bill on you, too.

Is what you are saying that if you were a doctor, you would refuse treatment to an obviously very ill person because you didn't beleive that they would try to pay via a payment plan??

:confused:
 
Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
Is what you are saying that if you were a doctor, you would refuse treatment to an obviously very ill person because you didn't beleive that they would try to pay via a payment plan??

:confused:
Ah ... another hypothetical...

Since I am NOT a doctor and have no experience in providing healthcare beyond applying band-aids to cuts and ACE bandages to sprains, I honestly don't know what I'd do.

But if you'd be so kind as to wait for another 10 - 12 years, I'll apply to medical school, get my degree, finish a residency and internship, focusing on emergency medicine, because that seems to be the focus on your hypothetical... and then I'll get back to you on what I'd do. 'K? :rolleyes:
 
You're right - we don't spend billions on the defense budget. I personally would rather spend the money on healthcare, but I guess it's about point of view.

I think the point is that Canada does not have to concern itself so much with defense spending precisely because the US does. You have the choice. We don't have that luxury. No one will fill the void for us.
 
Originally posted by mep319
It is a right. If it wasn't why would doctors take the Hippocratic Oath that states....

Using this logic, it's only a right if the doctors choose to give away their services. But it certainly isn't a right that should be mandated and paid for by the federal government.

No it is not free. It is paid for by the Canadian Government. Look at the difference between what the United States spends on National Defense and Armed Services vs what Canada spends. That is one of the main reasons the Canadian Government has more funds available to provide a National Healthcare system.

BINGO!!! The same could be said for many European countries. When a nation is paying a fraction of the cost for their own defense, it's much easier to have extra money to spend on social programs.
 
Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I don't think these are the only alternatives. I am not an economist (although I do play one on the DISboards!), so I don't claim to have an answer. All I know is that the current system is headed for bankruptcy given the increasing number of baby boomers entering it. If the current system cannot handle the load, a system that subsidizes everything for every senior wouldn't stand a chance.

JMO, but I believe each person is responsible for their own healthcare and expenses. Each person should plan for their retirement by saving and investing. There are plenty of tools available to assist people in this process. Planning for your future is the responsible thing to do. Depending on society to subsidize you and carry you as their burden is not.
---------------------------

I guess I'm just "dense" today (that's been known to happen from time to time - LOL) but I just don't see how providing a "half a loaf" as opposed to a "full loaf" could result in higher costs.. (And I'm not referring to only seniors here - look at the welfare system.) I think many people - or at least people with any pride at all - would much prefer to contribute as much as they can and receive a subsidy to make up the difference rather than receiving a full "hand-out"..

And while I agree with you that people should plan for their retirement (as did my DH), you don't seem to be able to understand the astronomical costs of health care for serious medical conditions and how quickly all of your "savings and investments" can disappear.. You can plan, save, and invest till the cows come home, but given the right set of circumstances that money can - and will - be depleted..
 
Originally posted by tinkerbeth
You're right - we don't spend billions on the defense budget. I personally would rather spend the money on healthcare, but I guess it's about point of view.


Have you ever taken a few minutes to think about WHY you aren't spending billions on your defense budget? Could the answer be because you don't have to? Because someone else is paying the lion's share of your defense costs?
 
Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Ah ... another hypothetical...

Since I am NOT a doctor and have no experience in providing healthcare beyond applying band-aids to cuts and ACE bandages to sprains, I honestly don't know what I'd do.

But if you'd be so kind as to wait for another 10 - 12 years, I'll apply to medical school, get my degree, finish a residency and internship, focusing on emergency medicine, because that seems to be the focus on your hypothetical... and then I'll get back to you on what I'd do. 'K? :rolleyes:
Oh, c'mon...You're ducking the question because you don't like how the answer makes you sound :)

EVERYTHING you've posted to this point says that you'd answer "Yes, that's exactly what I would do, since my practice is a business and if they can't pay, I shouldn't have to treat them".

EVERYTHING you've posted says that, so why no own up to it ?
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top