There's something to be said here for socialized medicine

[Puppycow]

I've just read a series of articles on Ron Paul's former campaign manager Kent Snyder who died of pneumonia in 2008 after amassing over $400,000 in medical bills, which he could not pay. He could not afford health insurance because he had a preexisting condition. Now, I don't know if socialized medicine such as is available in Canada or Europe could have saved his life, but at least it could have perhaps saved him from dying penniless. And the hospital could have been paid too.

At the debate the other night, Ron Paul was asked if the uninsured should just be left to die if their luck runs out and they contract an expensive medical condition. Some in the crowd applauded that idea and shouted "Yes!". Paul himself suggested that charities would be the answer.

However, Snyder's friends could only manage to scrape up less than $35,000, less than a tenth what the services cost to provide. Who paid for the rest of it? Well, the hospital did, but ultimately everybody did, because the hospital has to charge more to others to make up the difference for those people it treats in an emergency but who can't afford to pay. So the costs are socialized anyway. Unless you agree with the Tea Partiers who applauded and yelled "Yes!" to the notion of just letting anyone who can't afford to pay right at this moment to die, the costs get socialized anyway.

There's many other points I could raise, such as that it makes no economic sense to have health insurance tied to one's employer, and that countries with socialized medicine seem to get better health outcomes overall for less money, but this seems like a good enough start.

 

[uk_dave]

At the debate the other night, Ron Paul was asked if the uninsured should just be left to die if their luck runs out and they contract an expensive medical condition. Some in the crowd applauded that idea and shouted "Yes!". Paul himself suggested that charities would be the answer.

wow. I've never been fond of the term 'paultard' before, but I now see it is justified.

 

[Magyar]

It's easy to over look logic, common sense and empathy when one is a sociopath.

People always assume that sociopath refers to people like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacey types, but if you look up the definition a large part of the GOP qualifies and I am yet to hear of a tea party leader or tea party member I've met in person who doesn't fit the bill to a T

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've just read a series of articles on Ron Paul's former campaign manager Kent Snyder who died of pneumonia in 2008 after amassing over $400,000 in medical bills, which he could not pay. He could not afford health insurance because he had a preexisting condition. Now, I don't know if socialized medicine such as is available in Canada or Europe could have saved his life, but at least it could have perhaps saved him from dying penniless. And the hospital could have been paid too.

At the debate the other night, Ron Paul was asked if the uninsured should just be left to die if their luck runs out and they contract an expensive medical condition. Some in the crowd applauded that idea and shouted "Yes!". Paul himself suggested that charities would be the answer.

However, Snyder's friends could only manage to scrape up less than $35,000, less than a tenth what the services cost to provide. Who paid for the rest of it? Well, the hospital did, but ultimately everybody did, because the hospital has to charge more to others to make up the difference for those people it treats in an emergency but who can't afford to pay. So the costs are socialized anyway. Unless you agree with the Tea Partiers who applauded and yelled "Yes!" to the notion of just letting anyone who can't afford to pay right at this moment to die, the costs get socialized anyway.

There's many other points I could raise, such as that it makes no economic sense to have health insurance tied to one's employer, and that countries with socialized medicine seem to get better health outcomes overall for less money, but this seems like a good enough start.

See the problem here was the law forcing the hospital to treat him because he was dying, if they had simply let him die in the street like the vermin he is, then there would be no issue of medical costs. As Ron Pauls campaign manager he clearly would have wanted it that way as well.

 

[TheNooch]

I had to visit the ER last week to get some more Dilantin (phenytoin) for my seizures. I have no insurance, and no hope of ever having any. This visit they asked me to fill out a "charity case" form. I am not sure, but I am guessing it is just a way to write my visit off their books more quickly and not waste any time or money trying to collect from me?

It's truly a sad time in America when you have to use the emergency room as a primary care facility. The good thing is, they don't turn you away. The funny part is that someone who hates socialized medicine and has a cadillac plan, is paying for my medical care, all the while bitching about their high premiums.

I wonder if that is what Paul means by charity.

 

[Biscuit]

Another good reason I have experienced is with small businesses. I know several people that would love to own their own business but are too afraid to risk going without the employer healthcare they now have. I knew another guy who gave up his business in order to get healthcare. A NHS would free up people to risk and develop new business.

These days I think the biggest fear that people have about being fired is never finding another job that will provide healthcare.

 

[johnny karate]

Who paid for the rest of it? Well, the hospital did, but ultimately everybody did, because the hospital has to charge more to others to make up the difference for those people it treats in an emergency but who can't afford to pay. So the costs are socialized anyway.

It never ceases to amaze me that this simple economic fact eludes all these anti-socialized medicine conservatives.

 

[BenBurch]

I have been in an internet campaign to save somebody's life with surgery he could not afford. We got him the surgery, but it was too late for him. I talked to him the day before he died and it was one of the hardest conversations of my life. I kept telling him that I thought he'd pull out of it, but I knew better.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wonder how many people who agree with Paul that charities are the answer are also in favor of charities getting public money via Faith Based Initiatives?

That seems to me to be the worst of both--the taxpayer foots the bill, but we get no protection against discrimination.

 

[Rolfe]

I wonder how many people who advocate reliance on charity funding are prepared to contribute several times as much as they would have to contribute through a fair income-tax system, to compensate for the tightfisted bastards who certainly won't contribute a penny if it's all voluntary?

Rolfe.

 

[BenBurch]

I wonder how many people who advocate reliance on charity funding are prepared to contribute several times as much as they would have to contribute through a fair income-tax system, to compensate for the tightfisted bastards who certainly won't contribute a penny if it's all voluntary?

Rolfe.

See, Libertarianism and Objectivism both depend on the same utterly false premise; An essential rationality and goodness of man that makes all this work even in the face of the prisoner's dilemma.

In this it is like Communism.

Neither sort of system can work because human nature is different from what would be required for them to function as intended.

 

[Bri]

I had to visit the ER last week to get some more Dilantin (phenytoin) for my seizures. I have no insurance, and no hope of ever having any. This visit they asked me to fill out a "charity case" form. I am not sure, but I am guessing it is just a way to write my visit off their books more quickly and not waste any time or money trying to collect from me?

It's truly a sad time in America when you have to use the emergency room as a primary care facility. The good thing is, they don't turn you away. The funny part is that someone who hates socialized medicine and has a cadillac plan, is paying for my medical care, all the while bitching about their high premiums.

I wonder if that is what Paul means by charity.

But surely the shame you must have felt at having to fill out the "charity case" form is incentive for you to stop having seizures, right?

-Bri

 

[TheNooch]

But surely the shame you must have felt at having to fill out the "charity case" form is incentive for you to stop having seizures, right?

-Bri

You know, there is no shame in not having health insurance. Given the choice I am pretty sure that all Americans would prefer having gainful employment and healthcare, but that is not the way it is right now for many.

The part that is scary is not knowing why I have seizures. I have never had the ability to actually get my seizure disorder diagnosed, and I only started having them at age 46. The ER will only treat the symptoms, and I haven't had the "charity" to get an EEG or an MRI to find out what's wrong, I just hope if it's a tumor, I die fast.

I have come to the conclusion that by applying for disability, they will have a neurologist examine me to determine what is wrong, but it takes a very long time both to get disability or see their neurologist.

On the bright side, I get to take my dog with me where ever I go as he is now a service animal.

 

[Bri]

You know, there is no shame in not having health insurance.

I hope you know I wasn't serious, and was making a jab at those who oppose universal health care.

I find it awful that anyone would have to fill out anything called a "charity case" form, which you undoubtedly wouldn't be asked to do if you were able to get insurance. Under most policies, you could also get the diagnostic tests and treatment that you obviously need.

I hope that you're soon able to get properly diagnosed and treated.

-Bri

 

[Robrob]

Some in the crowd applauded that idea and shouted "Yes!".

Those that never had a friend or family member die a lingering death.

Paul himself suggested that charities would be the answer.

The libertarians' eternal logical fallacy. We don't want our taxes to pay for medical care so citizens should count on charities? The difference between a charity using donations to pay for care and a government using taxes to pay for care?

Because the libertarian can legally not donate without fear of going to jail.

 

[TheNooch]

At the debate the other night, Ron Paul was asked if the uninsured should just be left to die if their luck runs out and they contract an expensive medical condition. Some in the crowd applauded that idea and shouted "Yes!". Paul himself suggested that charities would be the answer.

I was just thinking back to a time when Republicans were pro-socialized medicine at all costs. It was 2005, her name was Terry Shiavo, and she was on Medicaid. How times have changed.

 

[uk_dave]

Two things I learned from a recent trip to the states:

1. The Hospital will probably have a department which is called "Financial Screening" (YMMV)

2. Picking up prescriptions takes six times longer than it should because of the people in line complaining about the $$$ they are having to pay out and the ".... is there anywhere I can get this cheaper?" questions which follow.

So much for free market efficiencies

 

[Chaos]

I wonder how many people who advocate reliance on charity funding are prepared to contribute several times as much as they would have to contribute through a fair income-tax system, to compensate for the tightfisted bastards who certainly won't contribute a penny if it's all voluntary?

Rolfe.

I am quite willing to wager that the people who advocate reliance on charity funding are the tightfisted bastards who won´t contribute a penny if it´s voluntary... a lot of them, in any case.

 

[commandlinegamer]

From the third link in the OP.

That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks

If you take this to its conclusion, then all insurance should be banned, because that spreads the risk.

 

[Rolfe]

I am quite willing to wager that the people who advocate reliance on charity funding are the tightfisted bastards who won´t contribute a penny if it´s voluntary... a lot of them, in any case.

You may choose to think so, I couldn't possibly comment....

Rolfe.