So what if hospitals can turn away people that cant pay?

[boomerang]

Do I need to point out that bee stings can kill some people?

No, because everyone knows that.

 

[hal2kilo]

No, because everyone knows that.

Ok Mr. Geico.

 

[boomerang]

Ok Mr. Geico.

:thumbsup: Occasionally, somebody gets my humor! :wub:

 

[brycejones]

No, because everyone knows that.

lol

 

[Incorruptible]

Can't pay... can't pay what?

The massive mark ups of US healthcare insurance "providers"?

The only people who suffer when a sick person can't pay for his/her medical treatment are the shareholders of insurance companies that can't take their vig.

Mr. Uninsured Sick Person comes into the hospital and is treated with about $10,000 worth of procedures and medicine; which probably only cost $2,000. That's $8,000 United, Oxford, Bluecross & Blueshield or whomever can't tap and claim as profit.

Also, social medicine is the answer. It's just absurd how most countries out there can handle free medical treatment,... but, not the USA.

Some 1st world country we are.

The ignorance is amazing. Capitalism is the answer and not this moronic idea of socialism.

 

[kia75]

I don't think non payment by deadbeats is the main cause of rising health care prices. The main culprit is lack of market forces with the unlimited all-you-can-eat for fixed-cost insurance most people demand, especially with medicare. When everyone takes as much as they can grab from the buffet line, the price has to go up. And it's easy to raise prices arbitrarily when you have a middle man paying the bill anyway.

The solution is to make people responsible for their own health care costs. Pass law mandating health care prices are clearly explained and posted up front before services are rendered and encourage people to switch to "real insurance", i.e. a HDHP with HSA instead of the low deductible medical service plans most people have now. When people realize they can save their own money by not getting medical services they don't need and shopping around for the best prices, prices will stabilize and become more efficient over time.

That sounds really really nice. I'm curious why no other country has tried your idea before?

Oh yeah, Myanmar has! In Myanmar you pay first then receive treatment. You actually have to buy all the medicine and disposables yourself and bring them to the doctor. There is no health insurance like we know it, i.e. with co-pays or anything, patients pay 100% of the costs themselves. And health care in Myanmar is atrocious, the rich actually leave the country to get medical treatment.

It's funny, there are examples of what you proposed in many 3rd world countries and it always results in worse treatment for everyone.

 

[BUnit1701]

That sounds really really nice. I'm curious why no other country has tried your idea before?

Oh yeah, Myanmar has! In Myanmar you pay first then receive treatment. You actually have to buy all the medicine and disposables yourself and bring them to the doctor. There is no health insurance like we know it, i.e. with co-pays or anything, patients pay 100% of the costs themselves. And health care in Myanmar is atrocious, the rich actually leave the country to get medical treatment.

It's funny, there are examples of what you proposed in many 3rd world countries and it always results in worse treatment for everyone.

Please, enlighten us to the point in history when Myanmar was the King of the Hill in terms of medical advancements and facilities? And had the largest and most prosperous middle class the world had ever known?

 

[QuantumPion]

That sounds really really nice. I'm curious why no other country has tried your idea before?

Oh yeah, Myanmar has! In Myanmar you pay first then receive treatment. You actually have to buy all the medicine and disposables yourself and bring them to the doctor. There is no health insurance like we know it, i.e. with co-pays or anything, patients pay 100% of the costs themselves. And health care in Myanmar is atrocious, the rich actually leave the country to get medical treatment.

It's funny, there are examples of what you proposed in many 3rd world countries and it always results in worse treatment for everyone.

This is a common logically fallacious argument. Burma doesn't have poor healthcare because they use a free market system. They have poor healthcare because the whole country is poor to begin with. If they have socialized medicine, they would be even worse off. There are plenty of countries with socialized medicine where health care is far worse or even totally unavailable to the masses.

 

[kia75]

This is a common logically fallacious argument. Burma doesn't have poor healthcare because they use a free market system. They have poor healthcare because the whole country is poor to begin with. If they have socialized medicine, they would be even worse off. There are plenty of countries with socialized medicine where health care is far worse or even totally unavailable to the masses.

That's a mighty good argument, but lets look at how well what you say corresponds to the real world.


Under your argument Burma should have the best healthcare among the poorest nations. Where do you think Burma resides in a ranking of health care? It should be pretty high among the poor nations right? Would you think Burma is in the top 50 % of nations? Top 75%? After all, In regards to health care Burma is a capitalist's dream! In fact, Burma\Myanmar is ranked as 190 out of 190 nations by the World Health Organization it's firmly in last place, being bested by countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia, and Vietnam.

But here's the thing, Burma really isn't that poor to begin with. By gdp it's 88 out of 190 countries. That puts in the top half of all countries by GDP, yet its followed all of your suggestions and has worse healthcare then extremely poor nations. Some of the nations that provide better health care are Dominica, Djibouti, and basically every other small and poor country. Burma isn't the US, but among all nations it's rather average, with an exceptionally bad health care system.

It seems like we have a very real test bed of free market healthcare ideas and they've failed spectacularly. This is why you need to always test your theories in the real world. Your theories sound logical but fail when tested among actual humans. Naive ideas tend to be disappointing when put into practice in the real world.

 

[Zaap]

^ MagickMan nailed it, you just don't have an emergency room and those requirements go away.

Or you close the entire hospital. Problem super-solved.

 

[QuantumPion]

That's a mighty good argument, but lets look at how well what you say corresponds to the real world.


Under your argument Burma should have the best healthcare among the poorest nations. Where do you think Burma resides in a ranking of health care? It should be pretty high among the poor nations right? Would you think Burma is in the top 50 % of nations? Top 75%? After all, In regards to health care Burma is a capitalist's dream! In fact, Burma\Myanmar is ranked as 190 out of 190 nations by the World Health Organization it's firmly in last place, being bested by countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia, and Vietnam.

But here's the thing, Burma really isn't that poor to begin with. By gdp it's 88 out of 190 countries. That puts in the top half of all countries by GDP, yet its followed all of your suggestions and has worse healthcare then extremely poor nations. Some of the nations that provide better health care are Dominica, Djibouti, and basically every other small and poor country. Burma isn't the US, but among all nations it's rather average, with an exceptionally bad health care system.

It seems like we have a very real test bed of free market healthcare ideas and they've failed spectacularly. This is why you need to always test your theories in the real world. Your theories sound logical but fail when tested among actual humans. Naive ideas tend to be disappointing when put into practice in the real world.

There are a lot of problems with your argument. Mainly it is too simplistic - the problems with Burma are wide and far reaching. Burma isn't some paradise that would have perfect health care if it weren't for the private payer system. Burma is a military dictatorship with a highly corrupt government that lacks many basic infrastructure. Particularly hospitals and an education system to produce doctors. They would not have better healthcare if everything was socialized - in fact it would be worse because the highly limited availability of services would be even more difficult to get due to the corrupt nature of the government - e.g. Cuba. What is needed in Burma is government spending on general healthcare infrastructure.

 

[QuantumPion]

The problem in Burma is not that health care is too expensive - it's that it simply doesn't exist. This isn't the same problem in the US, the problem with our healthcare system is uncontrollably rising costs due to over utilization of subsidized and free services.

What the US needs to improve our system is introduction of market forces. I think an interesting comparison is to that of Singapore. Singapore has a system which is essentially a mandatory payroll deducted HSA. The government does subsidize and control prices but the key factor is that no services are completely free, there is no welfare. Note Singapore is rated as having one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and it is definitely closer in principle to being private market. It is not single payer or socialized.

 

[zinfamous]

Do I need to point out that bee stings can kill some people?

fine, take out bee stings.

...but those are weak humans. we don't need those genes. :sneaky:

 

[fskimospy]

There are a lot of problems with your argument. Mainly it is too simplistic - the problems with Burma are wide and far reaching. Burma isn't some paradise that would have perfect health care if it weren't for the private payer system. Burma is a military dictatorship with a highly corrupt government that lacks many basic infrastructure. Particularly hospitals and an education system to produce doctors. They would not have better healthcare if everything was socialized - in fact it would be worse because the highly limited availability of services would be even more difficult to get due to the corrupt nature of the government - e.g. Cuba. What is needed in Burma is government spending on general healthcare infrastructure.

You aren't refuting his argument at all. Countries like Somalia have it worse than Burma in basically every way, yet they still outperform it.

If you have some data or analysis as to why Burma faces unique challenges that no other poor country does that leads directly to this disparity I would like to see it, but until that time this is a pretty good refutation of free market, patient cost centric health care.

 

[Nebor]

Or you close the entire hospital. Problem super-solved.

That's ridiculous. The rest of the hospital is very profitable. Why would you close it?

 

[Zxian]

What the US needs to improve our system is introduction of market forces. I think an interesting comparison is to that of Singapore. Singapore has a system which is essentially a mandatory payroll deducted HSA. The government does subsidize and control prices but the key factor is that no services are completely free, there is no welfare. Note Singapore is rated as having one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and it is definitely closer in principle to being private market. It is not single payer or socialized.

The entire thing is government controlled. The fact that the government is sending you the bill means that the entire thing is centralized. This is precisely the thing that free market advocates are fighting against.

Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies, and price controls.

-Link

Sorry to say, that is not free market in any manner.

 

[kia75]

The problem in Burma is not that health care is too expensive - it's that it simply doesn't exist. This isn't the same problem in the US, the problem with our healthcare system is uncontrollably rising costs due to over utilization of subsidized and free services.

That sounds very convincing and logical, but is it supported by the facts? The CDC states that in the 1970's the average stay for a mother during birth was 4 days, by the 1990's it was 2 days So it seems like we're actually consuming less health care now then we did in the past!

But maybe our grandparents were germophobes or something, lets look at how the US compares to other countries. Compared to 12 other countries, the US was at the bottom of health care utilization on almost every subject! It tied with Sweden in having the lowest amount of Doctor visits, it had the lowest amount of people actually in the hospital, the only bright spot was that the average length of stay in a hospital was strictly middle of the road (placed 6 out of 12) but in every other aspect Americans used less health care compared to the other advanced nations. If the US is over-utilizing health care then every other first-world nation is full of hypochondriacs!

What the US needs to improve our system is introduction of market forces. I think an interesting comparison is to that of Singapore. Singapore has a system which is essentially a mandatory payroll deducted HSA. The government does subsidize and control prices but the key factor is that no services are completely free, there is no welfare. Note Singapore is rated as having one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and it is definitely closer in principle to being private market. It is not single payer or socialized.

I'm very glad you pointed Singapore out. Singapore is one of the top Medical Tourism destinations in the world. Rich people from Burma travel to Singapore to get their medical treatment. Like you said, Singapore has one of the best places for Healthcare in the world!

At the same time I'd hate to live in Singapore, I do like my freedom. Singapore is known around the world for some of the most strongest and stringent regulations, some of the most draconian laws. Chewing gum is banned. You're not allowed to walk around in your own house naked. No public hugging. If you don't flush after you use the restroom you can get fined. In many ways the Singapore Government is the very definition of Big Brother.

Singapore's government has very stringent price controls on all medical procedures. Every public hospital has to follow the price controls or they will get fined, shut down and sent to jail. You say there is no wellfare in Singapore, but the truth is everybody in Singapore has welfare, including the very rich. Every single hospital procedure done to a Singapore citizen in a public hospital the government chips in on, regardless of your income. Yes, if you're rich you do pay more then a poor person but the government still pays for 40% of the procedure. If you make little money then the government pays 80%. And as you pointed out, you're mandated by law to put 6-9% of your paycheck into their equivalent of an HSA to pay for the other 20-60%. Singapore isn't a capitalist wet's dream, it's the government controlling almost every aspect of health care.

It's true that there is a thriving private healthcare system in Singapore, but that private hospital system doesn't supplant the Government system, it compliments it. It's built on top of subsidized, tightly controlled public health system.

 

[QuantumPion]

That sounds very convincing and logical, but is it supported by the facts? The CDC states that in the 1970's the average stay for a mother during birth was 4 days, by the 1990's it was 2 days So it seems like we're actually consuming less health care now then we did in the past!

But maybe our grandparents were germophobes or something, lets look at how the US compares to other countries. Compared to 12 other countries, the US was at the bottom of health care utilization on almost every subject! It tied with Sweden in having the lowest amount of Doctor visits, it had the lowest amount of people actually in the hospital, the only bright spot was that the average length of stay in a hospital was strictly middle of the road (placed 6 out of 12) but in every other aspect Americans used less health care compared to the other advanced nations. If the US is over-utilizing health care then every other first-world nation is full of hypochondriacs!





I'm very glad you pointed Singapore out. Singapore is one of the top Medical Tourism destinations in the world. Rich people from Burma travel to Singapore to get their medical treatment. Like you said, Singapore has one of the best places for Healthcare in the world!

At the same time I'd hate to live in Singapore, I do like my freedom. Singapore is known around the world for some of the most strongest and stringent regulations, some of the most draconian laws. Chewing gum is banned. You're not allowed to walk around in your own house naked. No public hugging. If you don't flush after you use the restroom you can get fined. In many ways the Singapore Government is the very definition of Big Brother.

Singapore's government has very stringent price controls on all medical procedures. Every public hospital has to follow the price controls or they will get fined, shut down and sent to jail. You say there is no wellfare in Singapore, but the truth is everybody in Singapore has welfare, including the very rich. Every single hospital procedure done to a Singapore citizen in a public hospital the government chips in on, regardless of your income. Yes, if you're rich you do pay more then a poor person but the government still pays for 40% of the procedure. If you make little money then the government pays 80%. And as you pointed out, you're mandated by law to put 6-9% of your paycheck into their equivalent of an HSA to pay for the other 20-60%. Singapore isn't a capitalist wet's dream, it's the government controlling almost every aspect of health care.

It's true that there is a thriving private healthcare system in Singapore, but that private hospital system doesn't supplant the Government system, it compliments it. It's built on top of subsidized, tightly controlled public health system.

The reason why I like Singapore's health care system is not because of its centralized government control but because some of its features are desirable stepping stones towards are more free market system. For instance, I'm not for government price controls, but fixed prices that are known to the consumer are far better than the completely messed up and indeterminable middle man pricing system we have.

I'm not in favor of government mandated savings accounts. But I would certainly take it over the welfare system we have today where a vast number of people, possibly a majority, don't pay anything while the rest pay exorbitant prices to subsidize the non-payers.

I'm not against government subsidies if they are applied equally to everyone. If both rich and poor get the same subsidy, that is fair. That is equality under the law. For example, the fair tax proposal's system where every tax payer, rich or poor, receives a pre-bate for sales taxes on basic necessities.

 

[shira]

Define 'can't pay'?

Meaning you can't pay the full bill right then and there? Meaning that you don't have insurance? What if you are unconscious? Just assume you can't pay if you are not conscious?

If you let people in with insurance and then the insurance doesn't pay it all and the rest either can't or won't be paid, then what?

Harvest the deadbeats' organs and make huge profits selling them (and transplant procedures) to wealthy old people who are desperate to live a few more years? And that way, the unemployment rate takes care of itself.

Win win!

 

[OverVolt]

The government also regulates treatments and the requirements to become various board certified medical professionals, so what gives? The government is always going to be playing a role.

 

[OverVolt]

Harvest the deadbeats' organs and make huge profits selling them (and transplant procedures) to wealthy old people who are desperate to live a few more years? And that way, the unemployment rate takes care of itself.

Win win!

50% off for horse kidneys?

 

[Zaap]

That's ridiculous. The rest of the hospital is very profitable. Why would you close it?

My guess: running a hospital isn't anywhere near as profitable as people think?

List of closed hospitals in my state- list doesn't seem to have been updated since 2008:

http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/no/closed/list/


This from last year, part of a trend:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/03/business/la-fi-pacific-hospitals-closing-20130404

"...experts say that about 10% of the state's hospitals could close within 10 years because of Obamacare."

Seems it's not just Cali:

http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2013/08/latest-hospital-closing-blow-rural-residents/


http://www.thenation.com/blog/175811/nycs-disappearing-neighborhood-hospitals

 

[JEDI]

why would 10% of the state's hospitals close within 10 years because of Obamacare??

wasnt obamacare created so that hospitals get paid for all those poor that flood the emergency rooms? (and the fed govt paying the heath insurance premiums of those poor.)

 

[AViking]

Why would you want the US to be like a 3rd world nation?

Lets just set the bar lower while we're at it and not educate our population either.

 

[AViking]

Please, enlighten us to the point in history when Myanmar was the King of the Hill in terms of medical advancements and facilities? And had the largest and most prosperous middle class the world had ever known?

You're not referring to the US are you? I'm pretty sure the US middle class is ranked #26 in the world as far as wealth.

This crap of 'MURICA! #1 is lame. We are not #1 in many categories anymore.