[mike777]

I have tried to do a bit of research on what the costs are for the proposed Health care plans.

The best rough numbers I could come up with so far are:
1) 8-11,000$ per couple
2) plus copayments and deductibles.
3) These numbers are expected(guess) to increase 10-15% per year.

Hopefully someone can come up with better estimates than my rough numbers.

I get the impression alot of people are voting for this right and feel this is so important we should all have it regardless of costs.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

I get the impression alot of people are voting for this right and feel this is so important we should all have it regardless of costs.

And how do you feel about it?

[helene_t]

Why do u think a national health insurance would make things more expensive, Mike? European national insurance schemes are certainly affordable by US standards. Whether this has to to with the government's role and whether it is quality, is subject to discussion of course.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

Why do u think a national health insurance would make things more expensive, Mike? European national insurance schemes are certainly affordable by US standards. Whether this has to to with the government's role and whether it is quality, is subject to discussion of course.

As I said in another thread I have no proof at all that Nat. Health Ins costs more than other options or is lower quailty. In fact the people who are pushing it say just the opposite and I have seen no one in the media or debates challenge this with facts.

[mike777]

I certainly have no evidence that a government imposing more control over free markets in health care would be a net negative or any proof that a blackmarket in health care would spring up.

[DrTodd13]

The simple fact is that if you hide the cost of something and make it appear free then the inevitable result is increased demand, which will result in higher prices and/or rationing or long waits (if prices are not allowed to move). In the US or in a country with nationalized health care, there is very little downward pressure on prices because people don't shop around for the lowest prices since the costs are hidden. The insurance companies would like to pay less but all they can do is negotiate after the fact. If you want to control health care costs then only have health insurance for catastrophic events (> $10,000 deductible) and otherwise have health savings accounts and have people compete based on price for those health savings account dollars.

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous. What if no one was willing to be a doctor at the prices the government was willing to pay. Would the government then have an obligation to force smart people into medical schools under point of gun? Stop existing doctors from retiring? The whole concept is offensive. Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others.

[helene_t]

Agree with Todd but don't tell anyone this

[mike777]

"Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others."


I thought this was the law and ethical code of Doctors as of today. I thought Doctors are "partially enslaved" to help others by their cannon ethics code?


Can I not go to a hospital if I have a heart attack and demand and be entitiled to a Hospital staff's productive efforts and not pay for it if I have zero money?

[finally17]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

Why do u think a national health insurance would make things more expensive, Mike? European national insurance schemes are certainly affordable by US standards. Whether this has to to with the government's role and whether it is quality, is subject to discussion of course.

I can think of a variety of other possible causes. Tort law. Pharmaceutical profiteering. Possible different attitudes about when medical attention is necessary leading to greater demands on health care professionals. Possible different attitudes about the necessity of elective surgery (plastics specifically) leading to more doctors choosing plastics than more necessary fields, increasing demands on those.

[DrTodd13]

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

"Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others."


I thought this was the law and ethical code of Doctors as of today. I thought Doctors are "partially enslaved" to help others by their cannon ethics code?


Can I not go to a hospital if I have a heart attack and demand and be entitiled to a Hospital staff's productive efforts and not pay for it if I have zero money?

I think most states have a law that emergency care cannot be denied but just because it is the law doesn't mean it is right. Some doctors and hospitals do charity work out of the goodness of their heart and that is great but to force them to do it is wrong. I don't know if the Hippocratic oath obliges you to work for nothing.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

Agree with Todd but don't tell anyone this

heheh... your secret is safe with me

[finally17]

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

"Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others."


I thought this was the law and ethical code of Doctors as of today. I thought Doctors are "partially enslaved" to help others by their cannon ethics code?


Can I not go to a hospital if I have a heart attack and demand and be entitiled to a Hospital staff's productive efforts and not pay for it if I have zero money?

I think most states have a law that emergency care cannot be denied but just because it is the law doesn't mean it is right. Some doctors and hospitals do charity work out of the goodness of their heart and that is great but to force them to do it is wrong. I don't know if the Hippocratic oath obliges you to work for nothing.

I was (and am) under the impression that the inability to deny emergency medical treatment for life threatening illness/trauma is Federally mandated, not state mandated. I am not at all sure about this.

Furthermore, this emergency medical treatment generally comes at the expense of hospitals. As far as I'm aware, hospitals fall into 2 categories: for profit and non-profit. The non-profit ones have taken upon themselves the responsibility for emergency medical treatment in their very missions, regardless of ability to pay. Their refusal would almost, in essence, be a breach of contract to anyone that ever donated them money or volunteered for them.

So the question really becomes whether or not it is right to mandate that for-profit hospitals be required to perform emergency medical services on those unable to pay.

I challenge you to demonstrate that the corporation's right to profit trumps the individual's right to life, regardless of the individual or the corporation. You might believe it, and I imagine that you're a serious Ayn Rand acolyte if you do, but I highly doubt you can make an effective argument to that effect; human life is sacrosanct, profit is not.

And lastly, I fully believe the Hippocratic oath obliges a doctor to heal for nothing if necessary. The words "First, do no harm" seem to imply an active requirement to prevent harm when possible, and I believe they should be interpreted in this way. But I am certainly no medical ethicist to have any idea what is taught in med schools.

EDIT: Reading up a bit online, I found that "first do no harm" is not actually in "the oath," but I did find that modern versions include even stronger language: "I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient." From this modern version.

In short, I firmly believe in the legally mandated treatment of emergency medical situations regardless of ability to pay.

[han]

Hospitals do not have hearts.

[mike777]

"think most states have a law that emergency care cannot be denied but just because it is the law doesn't mean it is right."


"In short, I firmly believe in the legally mandated treatment of emergency medical situations regardless of ability to pay."


I do not think Nat health care has much to do with what you might think is right or wrong or how much it costs.

It is considered a right that you get medical care. What the cost is in terms of corporate profits(which really are human profits) or human time, energy or skill is not part of the debate.

As for hearts I don't think anyone cares about the hospital owners or employees heart or your work schedule or you getting paid. Now get back to work.

If you really must be paid, then make the rich owners and doctors pay more in taxes to cover the cost.


That is my point. These are simply not issues that are discussed in the media or debates.

[DrTodd13]

Wow. You should be on the supreme court or something with that kind of logic. The language and intent of the statement is plain. They used to have some pretty horrendous "cures" for various conditions and this oath simply says don't go trying to cure something in a way that the cure is worse than the disease. Your modern mind may wish that they were swearing to be your slave but that isn't so.

Corporations don't have a right to profit. To me, corporations don't even have a right to exist since they are a legal fiction that allows the owners to be irresponsible. Individuals don't have a "right to life." Individuals only have a right to be free from the infliction of harm from others. You don't have a right to happiness or wellness. You only have a right to be free from others _actively_ trying to stop you from being happy or well. I believe that no one has the right to initiate the use of force against anyone for any reason. What right to life are you protecting? The right to live as a slave to the majority? While we're at it, why don't you try and justify why it is ethical for the majority to be able to impose their will on the minority?

[blackshoe]

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

The words "First, do no harm" seem to imply an active requirement to prevent harm when possible

They do not.

The words say "do no harm". That doesn't mean "prevent any harm from occurring," it means "don't do any harm yourself".

I'm not at all sure that the Hippocratic Oath is still undertaken by doctors, to be honest. But let's assume it is. Does that impose on doctors a requirement to put a (potential) patient's welfare above their own? I don't think so. I do think most doctors would not consider payment or non-payment a primary issue. I know that my father (who was a cardiologist) didn't - he often got paid in kind rather than cash - and at values much less than his services would have rated. He often did not get paid at all - and didn't go around suing people for it. But he's old school, and practiced and believes in the Hippocratic Oath. Does that mean that hospitals should turn away people who can't pay? Well, I think emergency care is in a separate class - if there's an emergency, you deal with it, and worry about payment later, if at all. But people go to the emergency room for things that aren't emergencies, because they either haven't thought about it, or don't understand why they shouldn't. Or both. I don't think emergency facilities should be required to provide free care in those cases. Or be prohibited from turning away such cases.

As for whether the government should be in the health care business, I'd say "no". Consider two old sayings: "An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications" and "Would you want to fly in an airplane built by the lowest bidder?" So, no. And no again.

[mike777]

"why it is ethical for the majority to be able to impose their will on the minority?"

Are you suggesting it is not ok for one gene to impose it's will on another gene?
Assuming it is ok then why not the majority on the minority, who else?
If it is not ok to impose one's will on another what is the punishment and who hands it out?

Why bother to have a central government if it cannot impose it's will on who it chooses to?

If you advocate no central government then how do we get a Nat Health care plan?

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others.

You choose to live in the United States...

By doing so, you are consenting to participating in the prevailing social contract and pay taxes.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

Why bother to have a central government if it cannot impose it's will on who it chooses to?

Why indeed?

Quote

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”  —George Washington, 1797

[finally17]

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

Wow. You should be on the supreme court or something with that kind of logic. The language and intent of the statement is plain. They used to have some pretty horrendous "cures" for various conditions and this oath simply says don't go trying to cure something in a way that the cure is worse than the disease. Your modern mind may wish that they were swearing to be your slave but that isn't so.

Corporations don't have a right to profit. To me, corporations don't even have a right to exist since they are a legal fiction that allows the owners to be irresponsible. Individuals don't have a "right to life." Individuals only have a right to be free from the infliction of harm from others. You don't have a right to happiness or wellness. You only have a right to be free from others _actively_ trying to stop you from being happy or well. I believe that no one has the right to initiate the use of force against anyone for any reason. What right to life are you protecting? The right to live as a slave to the majority? While we're at it, why don't you try and justify why it is ethical for the majority to be able to impose their will on the minority?

I didn't use the term "right to life." I said that life is sacrosanct. By that I meant that our systems should be designed to preserve it. It's not about making anyone slave to anyone else. It's not about anyone having power of anyone else. It's about one idea being more important than another - life is more important than your free time, or your profits, or whatever else might keep a doctor from treating someone. This doesn't make anyone a slave, it just means there is a TRUTH that is greater than the self. The system is maintained, civilization continues, you are here to disagree, because human life takes primacy over other considerations. That is the truth of which I speak.

I don't know what you mean with "the language and the intent of the statement is plain." What statement? You haven't made one. However, the intent of "I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby," is very plain.

I never argued anything about happiness or wellness, or anyone's rights. "Rights" is not a word I used. The fact that you don't have a right to life (a point I won't dispute, despite the fact that the only evidence that exists one way or the other is that you're here, aren't you?) does not at all mean that we as a civilization, if we hope to continue, don't have an obligation to maintain your life. To believe otherwise is to open a door you don't want to open.