Funny thing, I've had insurance through my parents, through myself and through work. I've been at college where I could go to the health center at any time for no charge. I've had insurance through my wife at the hospital where the coverage was very good. I've had insurance through my own job.
At no time did I ever think "I'm going to go to the doctor just for the hell of it". In fact, my rate of visiting a physician has probably been unchanged since I was a teenager regardless of how much the co-pay was or who was covering it. The only real differences have been for major medical issues that weren't reflective of a $20 co-pay.
Edited, May 20th 2011 5:45pm by Jophiel
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Single Payer Health Care: Livin the Dream!
Single Payer Health Care: Livin the Dream!Follow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
The difference is that over here is that they'll show up at the ER with a scraped knee, which leads to ludicrous ER waiting times.
Assuming by "over here", you mean in the US, they wouldn't do that if they had to pay for it, would they? And what makes you think that people aren't doing the same thing in countries with socialized medicine? If we accept the premise that people are more likely to show up for unnecessary care if they don't have to pay for it themselves, then that's still always going to be an arguing in opposition of publicly funding health care.
The problem is that in the US we *only* publicly fund it for emergency care (generally speaking), so it creates this false statistic about people showing up in emergency rooms for things that aren't really emergencies. But in systems which publicly fund all health care those same factors are in play. They're just showing up at any random medical center for care instead of the ER. Same total cost and extra weight on the system though. You've just changed the name of the place where people show up with a scraped knee.
]
You'd think the fact that it's driving up ER waits would be a more serious problem than GP waits.
Sweetums wrote:
You'd think the fact that it's driving up ER waits would be a more serious problem than GP waits.
In the US, it's actively driving ERs out of business.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
I don't really see what you're trying to say - people affected by economic hardship are more likely to opt for public health insurance?
I'm saying that the existence of public health care makes the demand for health care less flexible than it would otherwise be. In terms of wait time, we're talking about non-emergency care. If people have to pay for their own health care, they will take cost factors into consideration when determining if they *really* need that care. When it's "free", they don't. So they'll continue to show up for their 6 month checkup which statistically isn't going to show any change, and in general schedule appointments for things which they might not need as often or even at all.
Of course anything is "free" if you don't plan to pay for it.
People over here do, too, and the waiting times are not that bad. ERs can prioritise, if someone is obviously unconscious, bleeding all over the place or seizing or something, they won't have to make them wait.
Actually, all the ones I've been to in Europe asked what the problem was before the waiting room.
Yes, because we all know the only reason people can't afford to pay for their own health care is because they're irresponsible. 
The freedom argument is illogical and inaccurate. Most of the countries (if not all, I'm not positive) who have a government run health care system also allow people who would prefer to seek out private health care to do so. Obviously the private health care is expensive, and people have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
At least the people who complain about not wanting to pay for everyone else's health care make sense. I still think it's selfish, but the argument makes sense.
The freedom argument is illogical and inaccurate. Most of the countries (if not all, I'm not positive) who have a government run health care system also allow people who would prefer to seek out private health care to do so. Obviously the private health care is expensive, and people have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
At least the people who complain about not wanting to pay for everyone else's health care make sense. I still think it's selfish, but the argument makes sense.
Jophiel wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
You'd think the fact that it's driving up ER waits would be a more serious problem than GP waits.
In the US, it's actively driving ERs out of business.
Kalivha wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
I don't really see what you're trying to say - people affected by economic hardship are more likely to opt for public health insurance?
I'm saying that the existence of public health care makes the demand for health care less flexible than it would otherwise be. In terms of wait time, we're talking about non-emergency care. If people have to pay for their own health care, they will take cost factors into consideration when determining if they *really* need that care. When it's "free", they don't. So they'll continue to show up for their 6 month checkup which statistically isn't going to show any change, and in general schedule appointments for things which they might not need as often or even at all.
Of course anything is "free" if you don't plan to pay for it.
People over here do, too, and the waiting times are not that bad. ERs can prioritise, if someone is obviously unconscious, bleeding all over the place or seizing or something, they won't have to make them wait.
Actually, all the ones I've been to in Europe asked what the problem was before the waiting room.
The ER over here is pretty much used as a place where people who can't afford to make appointments for things that can wait receive medical care. They take advantage of the fact that they're not allowed to refuse you.
Edited, May 20th 2011 5:58pm by Sweetums
Edited, May 20th 2011 6:00pm by Sweetums
Sweetums wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
You'd think the fact that it's driving up ER waits would be a more serious problem than GP waits.
If by "public funding" you means the people working the desk will be receiving state unemployment, sure!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
You'd think the fact that it's driving up ER waits would be a more serious problem than GP waits.
If by "public funding" you means the people working the desk will be receiving state unemployment, sure!
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yes, because we all know the only reason people can't afford to pay for their own health care is because they're irresponsible.
You're confusing what causes people to be in a state with what they do once in that state.
Quote:
The freedom argument is illogical and inaccurate. Most of the countries (if not all, I'm not positive) who have a government run health care system also allow people who would prefer to seek out private health care to do so. Obviously the private health care is expensive, and people have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
As opposed to the public health care, which they don't have to pay for at all? So the funding for that public health care just falls like manna from the heavens, right? The only way to negate the freedom argument is if you allow people to fully opt out of the public health care system. They can't receive it *and* they are not required to pay a single dime of tax dollars to pay for it.
Of course, that's impossible since health care is typically paid via a bewildering set of different income taxes, tariffs, VATs, sales taxes, property taxes, product taxes, etc. Also, if there was some way to actually allow all of those who'd rather pay for their own health care (and just their own) to opt out of paying for the public health care system, there wouldn't be any public health care system.
The loss of freedom is because of the absence of choice. Everyone *must* pay into it, whether they want to or not.
Quote:
At least the people who complain about not wanting to pay for everyone else's health care make sense. I still think it's selfish, but the argument makes sense.
That's the argument I was making btw.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
The freedom argument is illogical and inaccurate. Most of the countries (if not all, I'm not positive) who have a government run health care system also allow people who would prefer to seek out private health care to do so. Obviously the private health care is expensive, and people have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
Germany used to prevent people who had private health insurance to opt back into health insurance, but because it's illegal to be without it in Germany, they had to change that law, legal paradoxes aren't a good thing.
Kalivha wrote:
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
The freedom argument is illogical and inaccurate. Most of the countries (if not all, I'm not positive) who have a government run health care system also allow people who would prefer to seek out private health care to do so. Obviously the private health care is expensive, and people have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
Germany used to prevent people who had private health insurance to opt back into health insurance, but because it's illegal to be without it in Germany, they had to change that law, legal paradoxes aren't a good thing.
Gotta love all that freedom they've got over there!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
The freedom argument is illogical and inaccurate. Most of the countries (if not all, I'm not positive) who have a government run health care system also allow people who would prefer to seek out private health care to do so. Obviously the private health care is expensive, and people have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
Germany used to prevent people who had private health insurance to opt back into health insurance, but because it's illegal to be without it in Germany, they had to change that law, legal paradoxes aren't a good thing.
Gotta love all that freedom they've got over there!
gbaji wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
The freedom argument is illogical and inaccurate. Most of the countries (if not all, I'm not positive) who have a government run health care system also allow people who would prefer to seek out private health care to do so. Obviously the private health care is expensive, and people have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
Germany used to prevent people who had private health insurance to opt back into health insurance, but because it's illegal to be without it in Germany, they had to change that law, legal paradoxes aren't a good thing.
Gotta love all that freedom they've got over there!
If you have free health care, it just means someone pays the hospital bill if something does happen, even if you don't use it of your own accord. How's that a bad thing?
LeWoVoc wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Gotta love all that freedom they've got over there!
When you actually pay for your own health insurance, you can always decide to change to a different insurer, or to not pay for insurance at all! I know. Freedom of choice. What a freaking concept!
And in a free market model, the companies providing the service kinda have to provide good service. It's only when the government gets involved with an industry that this breaks down. Remember that time when you bought a TV and it broke a week later and you couldn't get it replaced for free? No. That didn't happen. And that time when you paid for a hotel room and it wasn't available and they didn't refund you? Nope. That didn't happen either. Or that time you went to a restaurant and there wasn't a table available, but they charged you anyway and made you eat some leftovers out in the parking lot? Wait! That didn't happen either. Why? Because in each case, if they did that, they'd lose their business to a competitor.
Know what happens when you start mandating public health care costs on the people? There's no competitor anymore. That's when all that crap happens. We're going in the wrong direction with health care.
Edited, May 20th 2011 4:50pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Make people responsible for their own well being.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
gbaji wrote:
And in a free market model, the companies providing the service kinda have to provide good service
You're adorably naive.
Quote:
It's only when the government gets involved with an industry that this breaks down
Like in 1890.
Edited, May 20th 2011 6:57pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
bsphil wrote:
So I take it you're happy with the individual mandate in the health care bill?
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were!
Until they were savaged for daring to break from party orthodoxy and had to come crawling back, apologizing and begging forgiveness for having an independent thought...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yes, because we all know the only reason people can't afford to pay for their own health care is because they're irresponsible.
You're confusing what causes people to be in a state with what they do once in that state.
No I'm not. A lot of the times people can't do enough to get themselves out of the situation they are in. Health insurance is ridiculously expensive. The only reason I have any is because my mom pays for it, because she doesn't want to chance something bad happening and me not being covered. I certainly would not be able to afford it on my own as a college student living off of financial aid. She pays over $200 a month to cover me for the basics with a $3500 deductible. What's stupid is that even with that high of a premium, my antidepressants and any counseling I might need for my depression isn't covered. I have to pay for all of that in addition to what my mom pays for my health insurance.
Quote:
The loss of freedom is because of the absence of choice. Everyone *must* pay into it, whether they want to or not.
Quote:
At least the people who complain about not wanting to pay for everyone else's health care make sense. I still think it's selfish, but the argument makes sense.
That's the argument I was making btw.
Yeah, and so are public schools, the police force, the fire department, etc. Do you think you should be able to opt out of paying for your local police because you live in a good neighborhood and you assume you won't get robbed or attacked? Should you be able to opt out of paying for education because your kids are already done with school, so you'll get no benefit from it?
Paying taxes for these types of services is part of living in a Democratic society.
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Make people responsible for their own well being.
In exactly the same proportion to which it makes each person responsible for their own well being. Which is not at all in case you're confused.
Edited, May 20th 2011 5:04pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Gotta love all that freedom they've got over there!
When you actually pay for your own health insurance, you can always decide to change to a different insurer, or to not pay for insurance at all! I know. Freedom of choice. What a freaking concept!
Uh, not really no. If you are getting bad service, presumably you have some sort of condition that needs taken care of. If you have a pre-existing condition when you apply for new health insurance, you WILL get denied. Health insurance companies are corrupt. They don't want to give people health care, they want to make money off of them. That's why they cover people who are healthy and reject people who aren't.
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Make people responsible for their own well being.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yes, because we all know the only reason people can't afford to pay for their own health care is because they're irresponsible.
You're confusing what causes people to be in a state with what they do once in that state.
No I'm not. A lot of the times people can't do enough to get themselves out of the situation they are in.
Which has nothing at all to do with why they are in that situation though.
Quote:
Health insurance is ridiculously expensive. The only reason I have any is because my mom pays for it, because she doesn't want to chance something bad happening and me not being covered. I certainly would not be able to afford it on my own as a college student living off of financial aid. She pays over $200 a month to cover me for the basics with a $3500 deductible. What's stupid is that even with that high of a premium, my antidepressants and any counseling I might need for my depression isn't covered. I have to pay for all of that in addition to what my mom pays for my health insurance.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about people taking responsibility for their own well being. Did the government force your mother to help pay for your health costs? Or did she make her own choice? What do you think "taking responsibility" means?
Quote:
Quote:
The loss of freedom is because of the absence of choice. Everyone *must* pay into it, whether they want to or not.
That's the argument I was making btw.
Quote:
At least the people who complain about not wanting to pay for everyone else's health care make sense. I still think it's selfish, but the argument makes sense.
That's the argument I was making btw.
Yeah, and so are public schools, the police force, the fire department, etc.
And a lot of people don't agree that we should be funding those (to the degree we do) at the federal level either. The argument for school vouchers is precisely because of a disagreement over the issue of the government effectively forcing parents paying for private school to have to pay *twice* (once for their local public school and again for the private school). That's the same argument against saying that since you can pay for private health care on top of what you pay for public health care, that it's not a freedom issue. It still is.
Police and fire services are overwhelmingly paid for with local and state taxes btw. You're also missing that a big part of this is the level of government involved.
Quote:
Do you think you should be able to opt out of paying for your local police because you live in a good neighborhood and you assume you won't get robbed or attacked? Should you be able to opt out of paying for education because your kids are already done with school, so you'll get no benefit from it?
I'm willing to pay more for police coverage in my county, because even though I live in an affluent neighborhood with low crime and few police, I am affected by the crime rates and problems from the poorer neighborhoods I'm subsidizing. And I might just have to drive through there sometime or something. I would be just as opposed to a law mandating that I pay for police services in Detroit, for example. I'm a Republican, not a libertarian.
Quote:
Paying taxes for these types of services is part of living in a Democratic society.
No. It's not. Paying taxes for those types of services is something we may choose to do as part of a democratic society. But in no way are they required for a democratic society to exist. I choose to oppose implementing a federal level universal health care system. Why is that wrong? I have a say too, right?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
gbaji wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Gotta love all that freedom they've got over there!
When you actually pay for your own health insurance, you can always decide to change to a different insurer, or to not pay for insurance at all! I know. Freedom of choice. What a freaking concept!
Uh, not really no. If you are getting bad service, presumably you have some sort of condition that needs taken care of.
Same can be said if you're getting good service though. What's your point? They charge everyone for their service and ***** over everyone? That seems like unlikely hyperbole. Most people must think their health insurance is good most of the time, or no one would pay for health insurance. You get that, right? People *choose* to pay for health insurance. They aren't required to (not yet anyway).
Quote:
If you have a pre-existing condition when you apply for new health insurance, you WILL get denied.
Bullshit. You're repeating rhetoric. Have you tried changing health care insurers ever? Are you saying that every single person in the US with any sort of ongoing medical condition has never ever been able to change health insurers? Ever? People with medical conditions do this all the time. A friend of mine has had a medical condition since she was 15. She's been on her parents health insurance, then her own via her work, then her husbands, then on Corba for awhile, then back on a different insurance when her husband got permanent work, then yet another when they weren't satisfied with the coverage they were getting (yeah. Free market. Try it sometime, you might be surprised how well it works).
This is one of the most often repeated falsehoods about the health care industry. The reality is that people with pre-existing conditions change health care providers and insurers all the freaking time.
Quote:
Health insurance companies are corrupt. They don't want to give people health care, they want to make money off of them. That's why they cover people who are healthy and reject people who aren't.
As opposed to the government which wants to go a step further and mandate that healthy people buy insurance so that they can get yet more money flowing into the health care industry? And you honestly can't see how absurd your statement is? If that were true, then no one ever gets any health care. You might want to try testing your assumptions for ridiculousness before posting them.
Some people do get denied. Very very rarely. And usually because they're either trying to buy insurance that doesn't cover their condition (cause it's cheaper, which is well... why it doesn't cover their condition), or they lie about their condition so they can buy the cheaper rate insurance. If you have a pre-existing condition and are honest about it when filling out your application, you can *always* find some company which will insure you. It may cost more than you are willing to pay, but that's because your medical costs are higher. Why would any company insure you for less money than your medical costs will be even if no accident ever happens? Think about it.
Do you actually expect a company to accept a patient who requires $300/month in medication costs and only charge them $200/month or something? Are you aware that if you have a pre-existing condition, you're probably better off *not* having health insurance? Health insurance should cover accidents and injuries. If you're paying insurance to cover a regular cost, then you're ******** yourself over.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Make people responsible for their own well being.
I don't care if everyone has insurance or not. I do care if everyone is forced to have insurance. How is that even remotely confusing to anyone?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 208
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (208)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Single Payer Health Care: Livin the Dream!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC