To those who oppose mandatory health coverage

[KillerDog]

Do any other advocates against mandating health care want to step in here? I don't think this sort of immoral tripe is what you want representing your position.

I say I won't respond so you make it a personal attack. FYI, it isn't about moral or immoral, it is about allocation of costs and responsibilities. If you don't have real arguments you should stay on the sideline because the only immorality here is turning a blind eye while people reallocate burdens based solely on voter blocks.

[CardiacCoug]

I say I won't respond so you make it a personal attack. FYI, it isn't about moral or immoral, it is about allocation of costs and responsibilities. If you don't have real arguments you should stay on the sideline because the only immorality here is turning a blind eye while people reallocate burdens based solely on voter blocks.

You're looking at this from a political perspective, I guess.

For people on the front lines who deal with the actual uninsured patients coming in with actual life-threatening medical conditions (not just in need of a few scalp staples), it is obvious that denying medical care isn't an option. And asking patients with catastrophic medical events to pay for their care doesn't work either. An uninsured person making $40K per year will never pay off a $500K medical bill. An uninsured person who dies after $500K of health care will never pay off the bill.

[UteStar]

I personally can't imagine a more selfish way to live your life than going without some kind of health insurance. I would cut back on all entertainment in my life as well as other things in order to pay for health insurance if I had to. The financial risk to you and your family and the state is too great to go without it.

Allocation of risk is a silly term in this regard. I can tell all of you--I don't drive more reckless or do stupider things because I have insurance. That plays no role for me. If I get a major accident or a major diagnosis, I was going to get it with or without insurance. The difference is, with insurance, I have some financial protection. I honestly cannot imagine explaining to my wife that I didn't want to pay $200--$500 a month so it sucks that we now have $200K in hospital bills. I would give my wife the actual pen and paper for her to sign to divorce me if I did that to my family.

[woot]

I say I won't respond so you make it a personal attack. FYI, it isn't about moral or immoral, it is about allocation of costs and responsibilities. If you don't have real arguments you should stay on the sideline because the only immorality here is turning a blind eye while people reallocate burdens based solely on voter blocks.

Unless I've grossly misread your intent, you deflected the problems with our health care system onto the decision to treat everyone rather than letting those who can't afford health care to die. Please explain how this is a better solution than mandating insurance coverage for everyone.

[il Padrino Ute]

As woot said, this isn't about you. It's always sad when significant numbers of our society don't get freedom or aren't up to its obligations and therefore government has to step in, ironically for the sake of freedom. The Civil Rights Act was a classic example.

You singled me out as one who wants to mooch. I responded.

[statman]

I personally can't imagine a more selfish way to live your life than going without some kind of health insurance. I would cut back on all entertainment in my life as well as other things in order to pay for health insurance if I had to. The financial risk to you and your family and the state is too great to go without it.

Allocation of risk is a silly term in this regard. I can tell all of you--I don't drive more reckless or do stupider things because I have insurance. That plays no role for me. If I get a major accident or a major diagnosis, I was going to get it with or without insurance. The difference is, with insurance, I have some financial protection. I honestly cannot imagine explaining to my wife that I didn't want to pay $200--$500 a month so it sucks that we now have $200K in hospital bills. I would give my wife the actual pen and paper for her to sign to divorce me if I did that to my family.

The other difference - with insurance, YOU are being financially responsible and not passing the bills on to the rest of society...

[U-Ute]

I have health insurance, but I bought it in case it is needed, not because it was required to have it. So, in my case, your mooch theory is 100% wrong.

You aren't the problem demographic.

It is the 18-30 year olds who aren't on mommy and daddy's insurance plan anymore. They are young and indestructible.

Until they get in that mountain biking accident or wrap their car around a telephone pole.

U-Ute

[KillerDog]

Unless I've grossly misread your intent, you deflected the problems with our health care system onto the decision to treat everyone rather than letting those who can't afford health care to die. Please explain how this is a better solution than mandating insurance coverage for everyone.

Your assumption is that failing to require treatment of everyone will result in only treatment of those who are wealthy. As I point out, this is not the case. Medical care for the good of the public existed without government involvement. Clinics and hospitals run for the indigent were common and could provide the solution to serving the indigent while still allowing people to make rational cost based choices. I think our big mistake in health care is a failure to acknowledge what got us here in the first place and what other options are therefore available. Instead of entering into that discussion, you and your ilk prefer to make assumptions that aren't grounded in fact. You want to state the argument as Poor People Die vs. Everyone Own Insurance. I prefer to think that there are more than two choices.

[statman]

I prefer to think that there are more than two choices.

The third choice is - everyone else pays for the poor person's - or the person who isn't poor but still foregoes insurance - care.

That was the case then, and it's the case now. But medical care is much more expensive now...

[CardiacCoug]

Your assumption is that failing to require treatment of everyone will result in only treatment of those who are wealthy. As I point out, this is not the case. Medical care for the good of the public existed without government involvement. Clinics and hospitals run for the indigent were common and could provide the solution to serving the indigent while still allowing people to make rational cost based choices. I think our big mistake in health care is a failure to acknowledge what got us here in the first place and what other options are therefore available. Instead of entering into that discussion, you and your ilk prefer to make assumptions that aren't grounded in fact. You want to state the argument as Poor People Die vs. Everyone Own Insurance. I prefer to think that there are more than two choices.

There are other options if you're talking about paying for treatment of a sprained ankle or a scalp laceration.

If you're talking about paying for cancer treatment, organ transplantation, bypass surgery, etc. then everyone who is at risk for needing these very expensive health resources should be contributing to the pool of funds for these treatments. Right now, there are a lot of people who don't pay their fair share, and when they get sick, they do receive charity care. The problem is that there is so much more expensive and highly effective medical care that can be offered to patients than in the pre-Medicare days.

I agree with your point that we need to expose the majority of elective, outpatient health care to free market forces. This would drive down cost and improve quality. Medical insurance is the problem rather than the solution when applied to the majority of health care. But for catastrophic health problems, every working person who will receive expensive care needs to contribute.

[statman]

I paid my hospital bills. By definition, I'm not a free rider. Please explain how I am.

Here's how - what happens if you wrap your car around a tree and suddenly face $500K in medical bills? Still paying?

Fact of the matter is, there is an expected value of such an event happening to everyone. If you don't have insurance to cover that expected value, you're freeloading. Just because you got lucky and didn't need hospitalization when uninsured doesn't mean you're not freeloading. Far from it.

I'll cover the small stuff myself, and then when the big stuff comes in I'll just let the hospital eat the bill. You're gaming the system. That is freeloading...

[statman]

Medical insurance is the problem rather than the solution when applied to the majority of health care. But for catastrophic health problems, every working person who will receive expensive care needs to contribute.

I agree on both points...

[PaloAltoCougar]

I've nothing to add to this discussion, but am enjoying the views expressed, especially those from the physicians.

From the time I was around five until after my mission, I planned on becoming a physician, most likely a pediatrician, and studied the profession quite intensively. It's amazing (and rather disappointing) how the "business" of medicine has changed over the years. I have great respect for the docs who put up with the mess that has evolved and grown over the past 30+ years.

[statman]

I say I won't respond so you make it a personal attack. FYI, it isn't about moral or immoral, it is about allocation of costs and responsibilities. If you don't have real arguments you should stay on the sideline because the only immorality here is turning a blind eye while people reallocate burdens based solely on voter blocks.

I hope you never said a bad word about the banks during the latest financial crisis. If you did, you're a huge hypocrite. You're living your life EXACTLY the same way they made loans. The probability of small losses was always there and they'd eat them without thinking twice. What they simply didnt' cover was catastrophic failure of the system - just like you're not covered for catastophic illness or injury. They knew - exactly like you know - that if the worst happens, they'll get bailed out.

You can repeatedly tell yourself otherwise, but sorry, by any rational definition of the word, that's freeloading...

[RobinFinderson]

I've nothing to add to this discussion, but am enjoying the views expressed, especially those from the physicians.

From the time I was around five until after my mission, I planned on becoming a physician, most likely a pediatrician, and studied the profession quite intensively. It's amazing (and rather disappointing) how the "business" of medicine has changed over the years. I have great respect for the docs who put up with the mess that has evolved and grown over the past 30+ years.

I haven't followed this thread much at all, so excuse me if I say something that has already been said, but your post caught my eye. It is interesting what has become of the practice of medicine over the last thirty years. Doctors have to juggle a dozen balls for every patient, nine of witch have little to nothing to do with the patient's care. We should indeed have respect for the docs that are willing to put up with this mess.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of a single payer system would be how it would allow doctors to focus on providing quality health care to everybody that comes through their office, with the full confidence that they would get paid for everything that they would do. Billing would be simple. I performed a checkup on patient x. Submit the bill. Done. What a world that would be, with no insurance companies second guessing your every move.