There's something to be said here for socialized medicine

[Chaos]

In any case, the reverse is almost certainly true - all the tightfisted bastards advocate reliance on charity funding.

 

[Cleon]

There's lots to be said for socialized medicine. Ron Paul, however, will not be saying it.

 

[Ausmerican]

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.......
"Yes!". Paul himself suggested that charities would be the answer.

However, Snyder's friends could only manage to scrape up less than $35,000,........

And yet, strangely, Dr. Paul did not charitably contribute either the money or medical care to his former campaign manager?
How odd.

Not really though.

 

[FattyCatty]

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?
<snip>

TheNooch, are you getting the brand name or the generic? If the brand name (i.e., Dilantin), could it be an application for the drug company's patient assistance program? I don't know how expensive your medication is.

 

[Minoosh]

And yet, strangely, Dr. Paul did not charitably contribute either the money or medical care to his former campaign manager?
How odd.

Not really though.

Maybe nobody liked him so they made sure to underfund him. If they'd liked him they would have really opened up. And in future this is how health care will be delivered - perhaps in "American Idol" format, deciding who gets to go to the next round of treatment and who doesn't.

Then of course in "Jeopardy!" format you could lose for betting all your money on this person who dies anyway. Death panels would make great reality TV, don't you think? If they could stay away from too much medical jargon.

The idea that sick people should just give up and die - this does indeed resonate with some folks. It's useful to have that pointed out so clearly.

 

[McHrozni]

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.

While I certainly agree with much of what you're saying, it should also be noted that the hospital (in all likelyhood) didn't spend the entire $400,000 they were going to bill him. For example - they need to pay their doctors, certainly, but they would pay them even if he would never visit, and pay them the same. Doctor pays are about 50% of US healtcare costs, iirc.

They had less turnover and less profit, but it was certainly considerably less than $400,000.

Socialized medicine or no, I think the first place to look is how to make the US healthcare system cheaper. There is no need to be paying two to three times more than in, say, Europe, for somewhat better health care. That's also a wonderful way of making insurance premiums cheaper and more affordable.
Add socialized medicine on top of that (government carries some medical costs but not all), and you have a much better system than today.

Implementing single payer socialzed medicine over the existing system quickly would likely cause considerable havoc in the insurance industry. Regardless of how you feel about them, the damage would be felt elsewhere as well. Perhaps socialized medicine is the best eventual solution, I won't be the judge of that, but abrupt major changes are best avoided when possible.

McHrozni

 

[Rolfe]

McHroni is right that the dangers of a difficult transition period are serious and need to be carefully considered. However, when all the non-healthcare-delivery parts of the US system are added up, the total is mindboggling. The entire insurance industry, the bureaucracy dedicated to figuring out who is entitled to treatment, all the bill calculations and billing and collection, the financial counselling services, the extra employees the doctors need to deal with the insurance companies, and so on. The NHS is often painted as being inefficient, with some justification, but it's parsimony itself compared to this.

Rolfe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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?

That too. But now that we have Faith Based initiatives, any of these services for the general welfare that we the people generally see as our moral responsibility, when we abdicate our responsibility to private charities, we still fund them with taxpayer money. Go figure.

You get more tambourines, and you can discriminate in hiring for these jobs paid for with public money that way.

Surely we don't want gay people providing healthcare services to the needy!!! If we did it directly with public programs, our hands would be tied. We would have to accept such an abomination! </sarcasm>

 

[Toke]

I wonder how libertarian/neocon politicians can live with forcing hospitals to provide for people who cannot pay and then pass the cost to paying customers?

It is a rather draconic intervention in the free marked.
If they absolutely have to let paupers into the ER they could at least limit it to what was covered by the number of prepaid "charity case forms" that had come in from donations that day.


ETA:
(It would at least be internally consistent, and expose the systems weakness.)

 

[Robrob]

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.

iokiyr?

 

[Magyar]

From the third link in the OP.



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

And if you continue this logic then we should ban police AND fire, since being both victim of a crime or of fire IS a personal risk fro which you could take personal responsibility for without any givt interference!

Somalia here we come.

 

[Drachasor]

As far as universal healthcare goes, I don't see how any reasonable person can be against it. As many here have said, it's just a heck of a lot cheaper. It's cheaper both for individuals (who'd pay for it as taxes rather than taxes + premiums), and it's cheaper for society. It's also far more ethical and humane. Lastly, it's just as effective for the insured as what we have now.*

Honestly, it's so utterly the most pragmatic way to go that it's a bit disturbing that the reality of it is fought so ardently against.

*ironically, polls about how pleased people are with their healthcare can be lower in UHC countries, but when you look at the efficacy of care, there aren't big differences among the insured.