Ron Paul activist gets sick; suddenly socialized medicine doesn't look so bad

[Puppycow]

Last week I was hospitalized - Healthcare

Submitted by rftbunny on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 17:06
in

* Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Last week I was hospitalized and went through hell. I haven't been around to know anything about what was going on here at the dailypaul or in the liberty movement. Anyway I have no insurance and the only way for me to pay for my medications and treatment was to apply for medicaid ... that's what the hospital told me.

I was diagnosed with a disease of unknown cause and unknown cure called IBD or Ulcerative Colitis. I'm only 21, which is depressing. I've been really shaken up as this will involve massive lifestyle changes and my standard of living.

This all got me thinking. I hold the paleoconservative/libertarian position on healthcare and still have, however, this got me thinking that no wonder the other side fights so fervently about this. There are people such as myself that simply cannot live. You are attacking their existence.

 

[Chaos]

You know, allegedly a conservative is a liberal who got mugged - I´m sure you´ve heard that canard before.

Maybe, then, a liberal (you know, a "socialist") is a libertarian who got sick?

 

[EatatJoes]

Considering the subject in the OP is a fan of Ron Paul, he seems confused on just what libertarians think the issues are with Medicare and healthcare as a whole. It is their contention that the whole system, with the "help" from the government (through Medicare and regulation in general), sets up people to become dependent on Medicare. Libertarians advocate changing aspects of the system so eventually Medicare could be abolished without leaving people without access to affordable healthcare. They don't advocate just tossing it and hoping people will simply adjust (a common misconception of the libertarian philosophy). One could argue whether or not their fixes are do-able but the OP appears to have a misconception of libertarianism.

Did the OP decide not to take Medicare because he saw taking it as compromising his libertarian philosophy? Did the OP decline medical coverage through an employer? If he did, why? If insurance wasn't available through his employer, did he look into private insurance but figured the cost of coverage was cost-prohibitive? It appears he had a choice to be covered but chose not to. He took the chance and quite frankly he's lucky that he has an opportunity to be covered under something to avoid the high costs of his condition.

 

[Ladewig]

Considering the subject in the OP is a fan of Ron Paul, he seems confused on just what libertarians think the issues are with Medicare and healthcare as a whole. It is their contention that the whole system, with the "help" from the government (through Medicare and regulation in general), sets up people to become dependent on Medicare. Libertarians advocate changing aspects of the system so eventually Medicare could be abolished without leaving people without access to affordable healthcare.

If there are no government requirements about private insurance, then how will there eventually be "access to affordable healthcare"?

 

[EatatJoes]

If there are no government requirements about private insurance, then how will there eventually be "access to affordable healthcare"?

LOL, you know it just may be possible to fix the high costs associated with healthcare without help from the government. Think outside the box, get creative. As I also stated in my reply, those fixes may not be do-able but that wasn't the point of my post.

 

[Lulamar]

Pretty much every resident in the country has health-care coverage. To hear you empathize with those that have not is refreshing.-Kudos!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You know, allegedly a conservative is a liberal who got mugged - I´m sure you´ve heard that canard before.

Maybe, then, a liberal (you know, a "socialist") is a libertarian who got sick?

Or a conservative is a liberal who started making money.

I like yours too.

 

[Unabogie]

Considering the subject in the OP is a fan of Ron Paul, he seems confused on just what libertarians think the issues are with Medicare and healthcare as a whole. It is their contention that the whole system, with the "help" from the government (through Medicare and regulation in general), sets up people to become dependent on Medicare. Libertarians advocate changing aspects of the system so eventually Medicare could be abolished without leaving people without access to affordable healthcare. They don't advocate just tossing it and hoping people will simply adjust (a common misconception of the libertarian philosophy). One could argue whether or not their fixes are do-able but the OP appears to have a misconception of libertarianism.

Did the OP decide not to take Medicare because he saw taking it as compromising his libertarian philosophy? Did the OP decline medical coverage through an employer? If he did, why? If insurance wasn't available through his employer, did he look into private insurance but figured the cost of coverage was cost-prohibitive? It appears he had a choice to be covered but chose not to. He took the chance and quite frankly he's lucky that he has an opportunity to be covered under something to avoid the high costs of his condition.

No true Scotsman, eh? He sounds like a typical 21 year old who never goes to the doctor. It just seems like a waste of time and money if you're never sick. And yet, he's exactly the kind of person who needs to be in the pool in order to drive down costs.

I have talked to many "libertarians" or "Teabaggers" and they all want to abolish - immediately - Medicaid and Medicare on principle. But invariably their answer to "what do we do with poor people who can't pay for medical care" is "I don't know".

 

[Unabogie]

By the way, the commenters on that site are...unusual!

 

[EatatJoes]

No true Scotsman, eh? He sounds like a typical 21 year old who never goes to the doctor. It just seems like a waste of time and money if you're never sick. And yet, he's exactly the kind of person who needs to be in the pool in order to drive down costs.

I have talked to many "libertarians" or "Teabaggers" and they all want to abolish - immediately - Medicaid and Medicare on principle. But invariably their answer to "what do we do with poor people who can't pay for medical care" is "I don't know".

Strawman much? The self-described Libertarians I know do not advocate for the immediate abolishing of Medicare. Getting rid of the program wouldn't help those that are dependent on it unless viable/affordable alternatives exist. It is argued that these alternatives do not exist because of insurance, regulation and well, Medicare. There are actually some Libertarians who recognize that Medicare is needed for many families.

How do we "fix" the problem of expensive healthcare? Well, medical tort reform may go some way in dealing with this. In FL it's near impossible to find a doc that will perform a VBAC. Why? Malpractice fears. If the Republicans are right, one can't buy insurance across state lines, which does hamper competition. Perhaps simple education could help. Many people chose a high premium plan over a high deductible plan for fear of "the unexpected" when some simple math would reveal that in a year they would actually spend less with the high deductible plan even if something "unexpected happen". And with a high-deductible plan you can use a HSA. I would like to see HSA's used for all insurance plans, not just high-deductible ones. I don't know what my husband's place of employment does but his employer IS the insurance company, they just have UMR do the paperwork. The total cost of insurance per month for a family is just under $500. The cost is split, 50/50 between employer and employees. There is a deductible but enrolling in an HSA helps insure that any extra money you are saving for healthcare actually stays with you and I believe you earn interest on those accounts (even if it's modest).

There are ways to cut costs and some of those ways don't involve a healthcare "mandate" or even more gov't regulation.

 

[Unabogie]

Strawman much? The self-described Libertarians I know do not advocate for the immediate abolishing of Medicare.

Right. So the ones I know are "no true Libertarians". How would reforming medical malpractice reform make a 2 million dollar stroke bill become affordable for someone without insurance?

 

[EatatJoes]

Right. So the ones I know are "no true Libertarians". How would reforming medical malpractice reform make a 2 million dollar stroke bill become affordable for someone without insurance?

Another strawman, you are good at this...Did I state that simply reforming medical malpractice laws would lower costs substantially? No, I said it could simply help work us in the right direction. My father had a heart attack followed by mini-strokes 6 years ago. The bill was over $100,000. He didn't have insurance. Now, $100,000 is a lot of money and I don't know how he managed to pay for it, but it wasn't no $2 million. I sense some hyperbole unless you have an example in which a stroke now costs $2M. Jeepers, you could have at least used cancer care. I suppose trying to treat/cure some cancers can easily reach the 7 digit mark.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I suppose trying to treat/cure some cancers can easily reach the 7 digit mark.

Yes. I work for an oncology practice. Bills totalling the millions are not uncommon. And people are always so surprised to learn that their insurance which covers 80% and sounded like sooo much coverage when they first got it, and then they discover that 20% of a million is $200,000. Mathematics are not forgiving, and insurers are not notable for their generosity. They'll fight like hell to avoid paying their share, they certainly aren't going to give you a break on your share. So unless your provider is wealthy enough to be generous and forget the debt, you get to have all the fun of selling your house to pay your bills, or just declaring bankruptcy. While sick.

Those of us in the business are always baffled by the lack of imagination on the part of the people yelling about politics and healthcare. Unless you are a multimillionaire, you are one unfortunate diagnosis away from bankruptcy. It's not even a choice between bankruptcy or death, frequently it's both.

If Medicaid is ever abolished, the death rate will be staggering. Not just from those dying from lack of care, but from those who resort to suicide because they won't have any better options.

 

[EatatJoes]

Which is why just ditching Medicare won't help anything.

 

[Ladewig]

Well, medical tort reform may go some way in dealing with this. In FL it's near impossible to find a doc that will perform a VBAC. Why? Malpractice fears. If the Republicans are right, one can't buy insurance across state lines, which does hamper competition.

Can you be more specific about what you mean by tort reform? Are you suggesting we cap damages in lawsuits brought by patients? That we limit what cases may go before a judge and jury?

 

[Unabogie]

Another strawman, you are good at this...Did I state that simply reforming medical malpractice laws would lower costs substantially? No, I said it could simply help work us in the right direction. My father had a heart attack followed by mini-strokes 6 years ago. The bill was over $100,000. He didn't have insurance. Now, $100,000 is a lot of money and I don't know how he managed to pay for it, but it wasn't no $2 million. I sense some hyperbole unless you have an example in which a stroke now costs $2M. Jeepers, you could have at least used cancer care. I suppose trying to treat/cure some cancers can easily reach the 7 digit mark.

My boss had a stroke last year and his bills are right about at $2 million dollars, so I'm speaking from personal knowledge, not hyperbole. Now, how could he pay for this without insurance?

 

[EatatJoes]

Can you be more specific about what you mean by tort reform? Are you suggesting we cap damages in lawsuits brought by patients? That we limit what cases may go before a judge and jury?

Perhaps "tort reform" wasn't the right phrase...How about malpractice insurance, which I suppose is linked fairly intimately to lawsuits...According to this website..."There actually is a law in Florida (see 458.320, F.S.) that says doctors must carry $100,000 in malpractice insurance in order to practice medicine at all, and in order to have hospital staff privileges (they see patients in hospitals and not just in their offices) they must have at least $250,000 in malpractice insurance. As an alternative to having an actual malpractice insurance policy, Florida law also allows doctors to use other types of pre-arranged secured assets to cover claims in these amounts, like trust accounts, bank letters of credit, and similar arrangements. There is nothing inherently wrong with these other types of security, but they are rarely used.

Unfortunately, these amounts of insurance are often woefully inadequate to pay the actual damages in medical negligence claims. What good is a $250,000 malpractice policy if the patient's injuries result in medical bills of $600,000? What about wage losses and other damages? And the $250,000 is gross, not net after paying for expenses and attorney's fees to file a suit to collect the money. Fortunately, some doctors and virtually all hospitals carry insurance policies in larger amounts.

But the law also has a loophole that allows doctors to carry no insurance at all. If your doctor practices without insurance he should have a sign posted on the wall of his office advising his patients of that fact. Of course you have a problem if he doesn't post a sign and he has no insurance. What will you do, sue him? You still have the difficulty of collecting, because ... he has no insurance."

Doctors have a strong incentive to practice "conservatively". Meaning they want all the tests ordered to make sure that all the bases are covered to cover their asses. This way the chances of something getting "missed" and therefore making them vulnerable to a lawsuit is lowered. This means more costs for everyone. Not only is the costs of whatever care you are receiving includes the cost of malpractice insurance but it also means going through possible unnecessary procedures (like c-sections just because you previously had one).

Do I support caps on lawsuits? No. Sometimes $250,000 isn't enough to cover the loss of employment, all the trouble that that in itself causes along with dealing with a traumatic injury due to negligence.

 

[lomiller]

This case really does highlight the big problem with US health insurance system.

First, the fact that the person had no insurance at all. Sad for him/her but consider the problems that creates for the big picture. Insurance companies are just that *insurance* companies, they are not “subsidized medical care companies”. They don’t provide a cheaper way to access medical care they spread around the risk that you will need medical care and charge for this service.

This means that when you have a high risk group like the elderly, you need to either charge them near full price for their care because their risk is near 100% or you need to subsidize their care by charging them the same rates as people in lower risk groups.

If the people in these groups can simply opt out, as the person in this case did how can you provide the insurance service to the higher risk group? The existence of someone who isn’t insured means that the elderly must be subsidized in some other way, or most simply would not be able to afford their care.

The second problem is that even though the person in this case didn’t actually buy insurance, they were actually still insured albeit in an inadequate way. They can still get emergency room care, they can still apply for subsidized government programs they can still apply to charities and so on. All of these serve as mechanisms to pass along the cost of their insurance, limited though it is, to other people.

For a such a system to actually work the person in the post should not be given any medical care they can’t pay for out of their own pocket, and shouldn’t be allowed to opt back in when their risk is greater. The former because they shouldn’t receive insurance they didn’t pay for the latter because they didn’t pay to subside others in their old age and therefore should not receive this type of assistance themselves.

Of course the other alternative is to simply spread the risk to everyone by making everyone buy insurance. This has the added benefit of avoiding the massive inefficacy of maintaining separate risk pools and monitoring for those trying to game the system by trying to “buy insurance after their house is already on fire”.

 

[EatatJoes]

My boss had a stroke last year and his bills are right about at $2 million dollars, so I'm speaking from personal knowledge, not hyperbole. Now, how could he pay for this without insurance?

Most people could not. Why are you asking me this? I couldn't afford to have my children if I paid cash for all of their care and they are healthy.

 

[Unabogie]

Most people could not. Why are you asking me this? I couldn't afford to have my children if I paid cash for all of their care and they are healthy.

Why am I asking? Because a) you intimated that I was lying about the cost of a stroke, and b) this goes to the heart of why the Libertarian Utopia fails. If you have money, you get to live. If you don't then there are no solutions. If you are a proponent of abolishing government insurance like Medicare and Medicaid, you have to explain how a stroke victim with $2 million in bills will get to see a doctor. If you can't, then you have no ideas about health care worth listening to.