Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a pointless argument. We will have different definitions of what a "right" is.
Imo, everyone should have the same access to health care (speaking of payout price) regardless of employment status or where one happens to be employed. I work at a fortune 500 company. I just paid $158 out of pocket for an MRI because my company subsidizes my insurance premiums and provides great options. My comrade (threw that in the sentence for fun ) who works at a restaraunt and is not offered a subsidized premium and who cannot afford an insurance premium would have to pay $3,000 or up for an MRI. Hense, he must choose between his health or a bill that will set him back years.
This is how "people are denied health care" even though they are not truely denied.
Call it socialism. Free market society, socialized health care. Sounds like a plan for a country's well-being ... especially when it can mean more freedom for its people (at the expense of just one more progressive tax added on).
Basically they want 'someone else' to pay with little cost to them.
So, if we decide to ax the profitability of one private company since it is "needed" what will come next?
Well, in order for me to get to my doctor's appointment I need a car. I don't own one. Give me one. "Hey Mr. Ford, you have to sell that car at cost now since someone 'needs' it to live." Or "I don't make enough money to pay for the car being sold at cost to the manufacturer, give it to me for free!"
Next up? Education. Well, in order to pay my government single-payer system premiums I need a good job (I'm all for that). Therefore, I want to go to college "at cost." No institute of higher learning should be allowed to turn a profit since people need education in order to get the job that allows them to pay their premiums. (Seriously, I think we should look at the education crisis in this country instead of the health care issues).
I might come across as facetious, but simply saying "People need X service, therefore that company cannot turn a profit" is ridiculous.
Basically they want 'someone else' to pay with little cost to them.
What do you want? I admitted it was socialism. I believe in free-market business, but socialized health care. That is a recipe for a much better nation.
I might come across as facetious, but simply saying "People need X service, therefore that company cannot turn a profit" is ridiculous.
The problem is that your scenario is extreme hyperbole ... that wouldn't happen. Are you saying that happens in other countries that have moved into mandatory non-profit health industry?
Well, they are charging the same from their end. Insurance adjusts the initial cost to them to a lower price and then only makes you the customer pay a portion of that. The person without good health insurance just accepts the up-front cost with no adjustment. My argument is that my employment status should not make or break whether I have great insurance or not. I have a professional job making good money. I pay $158 out of pocket for an MRI. My friend works a normal job making below-average money. He may be able to afford catostrophic, but pays $3,000 out of pocket for an MRI.
Single-Payer would solve this ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
What about food production?
Water?
Shelter?
SO it the customers fault....I would agree to some extent.
We DEMAND the very best for little cost...or now it seems no cost to the person,make 'someone else' pay.
Now you don't see water companies deciding every day who lives or dies because they're pricing people out the market.
Let's just stick to the issue at hand: health insurance companies.
If we need to deal with water companies, food companies, etc in the future...we'll go there but let's just take it one step at a time.
It's just great for other people in other countries that they have decided human lives are more important than corporate profits when it comes to heath care. It would be nice if the United States got on that bandwagon.
Yes, it is to some extent our fault. We want the newest, most expensive, etc. even though we can have good outcomes with cheaper technology. Hospitals, doctors, etc. are also at fault.
It seems that health care is one of those industries where innovation and new technology is NOT a blessing. It seems every new product adds on cost.
Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs so Much by Maggie Mahar is a great read.
The second myth is that having the most elaborate and expensive medical technology in the world must translate into medical excellence. The reality is that medical technology has helped us in certain areas like the management of trauma and critical conditions. It has, however, served us very poorly in terms of creating cost-effective health care. In fact, one of the main reasons American health care is so expensive is that our interventions are based in expensive technology—including pharmaceutical drugs. There are many low-tech methods of intervening in disease that our doctors simply don’t learn
So, if we decide to ax the profitability of one private company since it is "needed" what will come next?
Well, in order for me to get to my doctor's appointment I need a car. I don't own one. Give me one. "Hey Mr. Ford, you have to sell that car at cost now since someone 'needs' it to live." Or "I don't make enough money to pay for the car being sold at cost to the manufacturer, give it to me for free!"
Next up? Education. Well, in order to pay my government single-payer system premiums I need a good job (I'm all for that). Therefore, I want to go to college "at cost." No institute of higher learning should be allowed to turn a profit since people need education in order to get the job that allows them to pay their premiums. (Seriously, I think we should look at the education crisis in this country instead of the health care issues).
I might come across as facetious, but simply saying "People need X service, therefore that company cannot turn a profit" is ridiculous.
I'm not advocating for single payer.
Germany has private health insurance and private providers while guaranteeing universal coverage. They just regulate the health insurance companies and have instituted price controls.
Picking up a book would do you wonders. I suggest The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T.R. Reid.
What do you want? I admitted it was socialism. I believe in free-market business, but socialized health care. That is a recipe for a much better nation.
Why stop there?
And is it a recipe for a better nation?
Most NH systems have some major drawbacks and problems,I haven't been able to find one that seems to work like we would want it to.
The problem is that your scenario is extreme hyperbole ... that wouldn't happen. Are you saying that happens in other countries that have moved into mandatory non-profit health industry?
WHY is getting 'free/subsidised' healthcare more important than 'free/subsidised' food/shelter/clothing/water?
Because one can typically afford food and shelter with any job. One can not typically afford (good) health insurance or health care with any job.
Exactly why employers subsidize most of it...but even they are getting sick of it.
They're passing it off to their employees and not raising their wages either.
At least with food stamps and affordable housing vouchers, the cost to the government isn't as great as with health care subsidies.
It would just be better to go the way of Germany and save ourselves a ton of money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) who works at a restaraunt and is not offered a subsidized premium and who cannot afford an insurance premium would have to pay $3,000 or up for an MRI. Hense, he must choose between his health or a bill that will set him back years. 
Now you don't see water companies deciding every day who lives or dies because they're pricing people out the market.
