Do poor people "deserve" top-notch health care?

[Deleted member 4644]

There are many people in this country who will work for 40 years and never make $1,000,000 in total wages. They will contribute only a few 1000 or 10,000s to the tax system.

If one of these people gets sick and needs $500,000 of dialysis or a $1,000,000 transplant or surgery, do you think tax payers should foot the bill?

Obviously, free/low cost health care is a net *positive* for our country. It limits the spread of disease, makes workers more productive, and increases general national happiness.

But where are the limits? Where are the lines that should be drawn?

In the foreseeable future, we might have fantastic new technologies like growing organs in a vat, but those techs might cost many millions per patient (who knows?).

Debate please.



For the record, I believe it should be illegal for health insurance companies to be for-profit. I also think that *most* health care should be provided by a single-payer system that is supplemented by non-profit private insurance for wealthy people who can afford the extra coverage.

Example: John works for Wal-Mart, he gets insurance from the government, and it provides for very good health care, but maybe not something that costs $1,000,000.

Bob works as an accountant, he also has government health care, but he pays for private insurance that will pay for up to 10 years of kidney care.

Ed is a lawyer, he has government care, but he pays into a private insurance that provides for unlimited home nursing care.

Just some ideas.. maybe this is a BS system. Discuss.

 

[halik]

The real question is does a dialysis or a transplant surgery really cost 500K-1mil?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
There are many people in this country who will work for 40 years and never make $1,000,000 in total wages. They will contribute only a few 1000 or 10,000s to the tax system.

If one of these people gets sick and needs $500,000 of dialysis or a $1,000,000 transplant or surgery, do you think tax payers should foot the bill?

Obviously, free/low cost health care is a net *positive* for our country. It limits the spread of disease, makes workers more productive, and increases general national happiness.

But where are a limits? Where are the lines that should be drawn?

In the foreseeable future, we might have fantastic new technologies like growing organs in a vat, but those techs might cost many millions per patient (who knows?).

Debate please.

They deserve it more than Iraq deserves any of our aid to rebuild it.

 

[Ns1]

If (future value of person to society) > (cost of healthcare) then yes

Else no

Just my opinion.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
There are many people in this country who will work for 40 years and never make $1,000,000 in total wages. They will contribute only a few 1000 or 10,000s to the tax system.

If one of these people gets sick and needs $500,000 of dialysis or a $1,000,000 transplant or surgery, do you think tax payers should foot the bill?

Obviously, free/low cost health care is a net *positive* for our country. It limits the spread of disease, makes workers more productive, and increases general national happiness.

But where are the limits? Where are the lines that should be drawn?

In the foreseeable future, we might have fantastic new technologies like growing organs in a vat, but those techs might cost many millions per patient (who knows?).

Debate please.

No, healthcare is a consumer good. Doctors sell healthcare, patients buy it.

But it would be good PR for greedy bloodsucking doctors to perform some of these procedures for free once in a while. I thought people became doctors to help people. People, doctors' greed is the reason for expensive healthcare.

 

[Fern]

The OP's question is based on a false premise IMO.

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. The hospitals can't really refuse treatment, so the question is more like "who is going to pay?". Will it be Medicaid/Medicare, or the local hospital (local government)?

If Medicare/Medicaid won't pick up the tab, then either the hospital goes bankrupt (or more likely) the local government raises property taxes etc to subsidize the community hospital.

This is now happening in my area.

Fern

 

[Capt Caveman]

Yes, always.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

A lot of doctors do free stuff, esp for kids, and esp transplants and other complex surgeries. But I get your point. Doctor's greed, esp the AMA, and the artificially limited supply of doctors is a big reason HC costs so much. If we let the market drive the number of docs in the country, we would have twice as many, and they would get paid 30% less.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Fern
The OP's question is based on a false premise IMO.

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. The hospitals can't really refuse treatment, so the question is more like "who is going to pay?". Will it be Medicaid/Medicare, or the local hospital (local government)?

If Medicare/Medicaid won't pick up the tab, then either the hospital goes bankrupt (or more likely) the local government raises property taxes etc to subsidize the community hospital.

This is now happening in my area.

Fern

Well, this is based on the idea that the laws could change so that hospitals could refuse treatment, even public hospitals.

 

[Sinsear]

Oh man this will get ugly.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
A lot of doctors do free stuff, esp for kids, and esp transplants and other complex surgeries. But I get your point. Doctor's greed, esp the AMA, and the artificially limited supply of doctors is a big reason HC costs so much. If we let the market drive the number of docs in the country, we would have twice as many, and they would get paid 30% less.

There are positions outside of obtaining an M.D. that perform the same functions as doctors. You can go to D.O. school which is basically an M.D. or you can go to P.A. school. If not that, you can work as a nurse. There are so many fields that are related to healthcare that are not regulated by the AMA that it's not a fair justification for why things are expensive in the US. Doctor's have an extreme amount of responsibility and they get paid for it in relative terms. They don't earn more than other jobs that require a similar amount of upfront cost and education and hours put in and they have the additional expense of paying nearly half their salary (depending on what field they specialize in) in insurance costs. I see alot of misinformation being spread here and it probably exemplifies why people have such basic views about medical healthcare.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
A lot of doctors do free stuff, esp for kids, and esp transplants and other complex surgeries. But I get your point. Doctor's greed, esp the AMA, and the artificially limited supply of doctors is a big reason HC costs so much. If we let the market drive the number of docs in the country, we would have twice as many, and they would get paid 30% less.

Twice as many getting paid 30% less is a net increase.

Plus the quality would go way down, a good 30% of the people in practice today have no clue what they're doing. You make every Tom, Dick, and Harry an MD, and the country turns into a quack factory.

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Oh man this will get ugly.

Yup.

I always find myself struggling with questions like these. On one hand, I can't get myself to say that I deserve better healthcare because I work harder than others. That's just not right. On the other hand, goddammit I work more hours and harder than others!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
A lot of doctors do free stuff, esp for kids, and esp transplants and other complex surgeries. But I get your point. Doctor's greed, esp the AMA, and the artificially limited supply of doctors is a big reason HC costs so much. If we let the market drive the number of docs in the country, we would have twice as many, and they would get paid 30% less.

They own the politicians with the moniez. They have a really good PR machine though for keeping it out of the public spotlight and having drug companies (the INVENTORS of life saving products) and health insurance companies (the ones that make healthcare affordable for the masses) take it up the ass politically.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Oh man this will get ugly.

Yup.

I always find myself struggling with questions like these. On one hand, I can't get myself to say that I deserve better healthcare because I work harder than others. That's just not right. On the other hand, goddammit I work more hours and harder than others!

Just imagine what that person who works harder and more than you is thinking about you taking his/her healthcare.

 

[Dissipate]

There are many people in this country who will work for 40 years and never make $1,000,000 in total wages. They will contribute only a few 1000 or 10,000s to the tax system.

Yes, they are called 'illegals.' Under your plan, say HELLO to Mexico!

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Oh man this will get ugly.

Yup.

I always find myself struggling with questions like these. On one hand, I can't get myself to say that I deserve better healthcare because I work harder than others. That's just not right. On the other hand, goddammit I work more hours and harder than others!

Just imagine what that person who works harder and more than you is thinking about you taking his/her healthcare.

Oh, I absolutely agree. That's why I can never actually translate work and taxes to quality of health care. I was just showing my frustration on some points, but I'm not ignorant to the fact that I live in a society where putting money into a pool that I may never see the full benefit of in terms of hospital visits, will be for the better.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: LordSegan
A lot of doctors do free stuff, esp for kids, and esp transplants and other complex surgeries. But I get your point. Doctor's greed, esp the AMA, and the artificially limited supply of doctors is a big reason HC costs so much. If we let the market drive the number of docs in the country, we would have twice as many, and they would get paid 30% less.

There are positions outside of obtaining an M.D. that perform the same functions as doctors. You can go to D.O. school which is basically an M.D. or you can go to P.A. school. If not that, you can work as a nurse. There are so many fields that are related to healthcare that are not regulated by the AMA that it's not a fair justification for why things are expensive in the US. Doctor's have an extreme amount of responsibility and they get paid for it in relative terms. They don't earn more than other jobs that require a similar amount of upfront cost and education and hours put in and they have the additional expense of paying nearly half their salary (depending on what field they specialize in) in insurance costs. I see alot of misinformation being spread here and it probably exemplifies why people have such basic views about medical healthcare.

You are evoking DOs? Bottom line is that the demand for healthcare has exploded as the standard of living has increased this generation yet the AMA has not approved ONE more medical school and are PURPOSEFULLY controlling the supply of doctors. Not only that, the entire process is ridiculous and it only attracts a certain group of people - ones from well off families to be able to pay for medical school and work on slave wages while intern & resident.

They are extremely protective of their profession. Medical malpractice costs are a tiny percentage of overall health care expenditures. Medical malpractice insurance and claims costs represent, at most, only 2 percent of overall health care spending in this country, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office.

My bolded part - that is exactly the problem. It is undue burdensome job. There are plenty of people out there capable of becoming a doctor but choose investment banking, law, etc, because it is much easier and they get the financial reward immediately. The AMA makes the system difficult to control the number of doctors. They are a monopoly.

 

[Nebor]

This reminds me of the toll road thread, where someone said, there's no free bread, there's no free roads, there's no free anything.

If you decide that health care should be "free" someone is going to pay for it, rest assured. People make choices about what to use their limited resources for. Some people choose health insurance, some people choose ferraris, some people choose yachts. Just because you think someone (or yourself) needs something that you're not willing to pay for doesn't mean you should get it.

What's next? Everyone has a right to information, so free computers and TVs for everyone! They're FREE!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: Fern
The OP's question is based on a false premise IMO.

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. The hospitals can't really refuse treatment, so the question is more like "who is going to pay?". Will it be Medicaid/Medicare, or the local hospital (local government)?

If Medicare/Medicaid won't pick up the tab, then either the hospital goes bankrupt (or more likely) the local government raises property taxes etc to subsidize the community hospital.

This is now happening in my area.

Fern

Well, this is based on the idea that the laws could change so that hospitals could refuse treatment, even public hospitals.

OK,

I still view it as something more than being the question of "deserving".

What are the societal ramifications of refusing treatment?

What if it's the "bread winner" of the family? Do the wife and kids deserve to die (starve to death etc) because a member of their family is poor?

What about the burden on the other relatives, and friends?

What is the impact on national productivity if we have a bunch of people taking off to stay with, and care for, someone who is refused treatment dying?

What if that poor person is someone young? What if they would have survived with treatment and grown up to be very valuable to society?

Ultimately, and to some extent, it's for our common good. And I've only touched on the finacial impact, there is aslo a moral/spirtual effect as well. I don't wana live in a miserable place with a lot of sorrow and suffering; a society breeding cold, immoral and inhuman people.

Fern

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JS80
You are evoking DOs? Bottom line is that the demand for healthcare has exploded as the standard of living has increased this generation yet the AMA has not approved ONE more medical school and are PURPOSEFULLY controlling the supply of doctors. Not only that, the entire process is ridiculous and it only attracts a certain group of people - ones from well off families to be able to pay for medical school and work on slave wages while intern & resident.

They are extremely protective of their profession. Medical malpractice costs are a tiny percentage of overall health care expenditures. Medical malpractice insurance and claims costs represent, at most, only 2 percent of overall health care spending in this country, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office.

My bolded part - that is exactly the problem. It is undue burdensome job. There are plenty of people out there capable of becoming a doctor but choose investment banking, law, etc, because it is much easier and they get the financial reward immediately. The AMA makes the system difficult to control the number of doctors. They are a monopoly.

D.O. Degree. I don't see anything wrong with going to school for a D.O. degree so I don't know what you're trying to imply in your first paragraph. You skipped over the Physician's Assistant degree and Nursing degree that take significantly less time, still offer healthcare at varying levels (remember, most healthcare is not in the realm of surgery but just general well-being care), and pay well.

In regards to your second paragraph addressing medical malpractice insurance, it does not matter if it's only a small percentage of health care costs. The topic that was being addressed was that it was a doctor's greed that garnered higher rates of pay. Doctors, in general, do not earn that much compared to other professional degrees considering they're one of the few professional degrees that require purchase of personal liability insurance. Doctors are not extremely protective of their profession, the profession itself is ideally protective. You cannot have any random person hopping into the medical profession. That is not only unrealistic but dangerous.

Being a doctor and caring for the physical and emotional well-being of another person will always be an overly burdensome job. That's the nature of the profession. You're fooling yourself if you think that doctors are going into medicine purely for monetary purposes. There are always those who do but I'd be willing to bet that most want to genuinely make a difference. The AMA is no different than the ABA or FINRA. They are organizations designed to maintain a level of due diligence in the profession. These are jobs that have a very real and direct effect on people's lives and thus must maintain a level of expertise.

To address your point that there are plenty of people who would rather go into investment banking and law instead of medical school because of the quicker returns (first of all, law is not that easy of a profession and neither is investment banking) only enhances the need for organizations like the AMA. Most doctors go into their profession because they enjoy the idea of having an impact on someone's life and not because they get the "moniez," as you so finely put.

Lastly, to address your idea that medical schools only accept those from well off families, that can be basically said for any graduate level of schooling. This only emphasizes why doctors have a high pay (along with other professional degrees). Whatever the case, I have plenty of friends who are not rich by any means who are attending medical school at UCSF, UCLA, NYU, USC, University of Illinois, etc. and they've all found means to get through.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Nebor
This reminds me of the toll road thread, where someone said, there's no free bread, there's no free roads, there's no free anything.

If you decide that health care should be "free" someone is going to pay for it, rest assured. People make choices about what to use their limited resources for. Some people choose health insurance, some people choose ferraris, some people choose yachts. Just because you think someone (or yourself) needs something that you're not willing to pay for doesn't mean you should get it.

What's next? Everyone has a right to information, so free computers and TVs for everyone! They're FREE!

Nothing in life is free but there are certain things that should receive support from everyone. Whether you believe healthcare is one of those things is your opinion but to compare it to receiving subsidized computers is just silly. We're talking about a person's life versus a person's connectivity.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: LordSegan

Originally posted by: Fern
The OP's question is based on a false premise IMO.

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. The hospitals can't really refuse treatment, so the question is more like "who is going to pay?". Will it be Medicaid/Medicare, or the local hospital (local government)?

If Medicare/Medicaid won't pick up the tab, then either the hospital goes bankrupt (or more likely) the local government raises property taxes etc to subsidize the community hospital.

This is now happening in my area.

Fern

Well, this is based on the idea that the laws could change so that hospitals could refuse treatment, even public hospitals.

OK,

I still view it as something more than being the question of "deserving".

What are the societal ramifications of refusing treatment?

What if it's the "bread winner" of the family? Do the wife and kids deserve to die (starve to death etc) because a member of their family is poor?

What about the burden on the other relatives, and friends?

What is the impact on national productivity if we have a bunch of people taking off to stay with, and care for, someone who is refused treatment dying?

What if that poor person is someone young? What if they would have survived with treatment and grown up to be very valuable to society?

Ultimately, and to some extent, it's for our common good. And I've only touched on the finacial impact, there is aslo a moral/spirtual effect as well. I don't wana live in a miserable place with a lot of sorrow and suffering; a society breeding cold, immoral and inhuman people.

Fern

Seems to me Fern has become a much more thoughtful poster since becoming a moderator.

There are basic human needs I like to see provided for. Capitalism has an important place in the heart of our economy for efficiently producing goods and services, but it's not for everything. Trying to make it so would only return the human race to the massive poverty it's had through most of its history. When we can reasonably afford to cover basic human needs, we should and we can now with healthcare for all Americans.

As for the OP, yes, lines would need to be drawn at some point. That's no reason not to proceed with a good system.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Nebor
This reminds me of the toll road thread, where someone said, there's no free bread, there's no free roads, there's no free anything.

If you decide that health care should be "free" someone is going to pay for it, rest assured. People make choices about what to use their limited resources for. Some people choose health insurance, some people choose ferraris, some people choose yachts. Just because you think someone (or yourself) needs something that you're not willing to pay for doesn't mean you should get it.

What's next? Everyone has a right to information, so free computers and TVs for everyone! They're FREE!

Nothing in life is free but there are certain things that should receive support from everyone. Whether you believe healthcare is one of those things is your opinion but to compare it to receiving subsidized computers is just silly. We're talking about a person's life versus a person's connectivity.

Is it fair to forcefully take money from one person and give it to another for healthcare or any other reason? If so, why not do away with wages completely? Why not just have the government control everything we recieve? The government already gets at least half of my wages, probably more, after all of the various taxes and fees I pay. Could we then force everyone to get a job and contribute to the common good? Under this scenario all jobs could be government jobs so why not?

Can you see how surrendering freedoms to government control can snowball out of control?

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: RY62
Is it fair to forcefully take money from one person and give it to another for healthcare or any other reason? If so, why not do away with wages completely? Why not just have the government control everything we recieve? The government already gets at least half of my wages, probably more, after all of the various taxes and fees I pay. Could we then force everyone to get a job and contribute to the common good? Under this scenario all jobs could be government jobs so why not?

Can you see how surrendering freedoms to government control can snowball out of control?

But then, which freedoms are you willing to let the government control? National Defense, FDA, school? Nothing?

Isn't the government's very existence a form of control? Should we do away with government completely? Sounds like it from your post.