How SHOULD Health Care Work?

[boppaid]

I am really unhappy that no one took a shot at this one. Would it help if I told you to be careful because it was a trick question?

Sorry. I missed it somehow. That is a tough question to answer. I would say that I believe everyone should have basic health insurance. I don’t think every insurance would cover every procedure. Even in countries with socialized health care, that isn’t the case. I believe that they have additonal policies that can be purchased to cover more than basic care. This seems reasonable to me.

Now, whether or not he is DESERVING to have his life saved at taxpayers’ expense? I have to say ‘yes’. BUT, with conditions. Is he still drinking? Then, no, because the new kidney will not save his life, as the alcohol will destroy the new one, and the point of the operation will be gone. If he goes into AA or some sort of rehab treatment program, then, yes, I think he should get the kidney.

 

[boppaid]

I had a friend who taught at a certain school in the inner city. Yes, 16 year olds have babies and enter the system willingly. Raise their babies and continue the cycle. Yes, it does happen. They often find employment somewhere or other that pays tax free…

Okay, while this has not been my experience w/ people on welfare, I see it has been yours (in that you’ve seen it). While I don’t doubt you when you say it happens, I need to ask: are you willing to let deserving recipients go without because bad apples spoil it?

 

[boppaid]

I’d just like to point out in defense of Vern that I believe he does advocate government help (in the form of contributions to health care) for those who truly cannot afford to contribute the maximum to their MSAs. He can elaborate, but it seems to me that for many of your cases, he would probably say (or at least, using his system I would say) that they should contribute X amount (based on their tax returns no doubt) and the government would pay Y% of the bills that come in, up to a certain amount.

Vern - correct me if I’m wrong.

Any way - the point is that people are making their own medical decisions about their own care. They would also be expected to contribute something. The tax burden to the rest of us would be significantly less than it even is now since we’d be much less responsible for other’s decisions. Theoretically, I believe there would be catastrophic insurance for the really big claims (paid for by premiums of those who bought the catastrophic insurance).

Anyway - It sounded like you might have forgotten Vern’s stated plan.

Okay, I think I did forget his original stated plan, then. I think it’s because of his recent posts to me.

So, Vern, to clarify, you do believe in the government subsidizing those who cannot afford health care in the form of MSAs? If so, I don’t think it’s a terrible idea at all. Hmmmm, so long as the government helps the poorer class with these contributions, that IS something I could get behind.

 

[Man]

Okay, while this has not been my experience w/ people on welfare, I see it has been yours (in that you’ve seen it). While I don’t doubt you when you say it happens, I need to ask: are you willing to let deserving recipients go without because bad apples spoil it?

I already pointed out that the system we have just needs a little work done.

 

[emily47017]

here’s a little something about malpractice suits and their actual effect on doctors’ premiums:

Medical Malpractice, Health Care Quality, and Health Care Reform

• Only two states with caps have experienced flat or declining premiums; 19 states that have implemented these limits have seen premium increases from 1991 to 2002 averaging 48.2%; 32 states without caps saw premium increases of only 35.9% over the same period (Weiss Ratings, Inc. in Crain’s Health Pulse, June 9, 2003).
• In New Jersey, where doctors and insurers have been vociferous in blaming rising malpractice premiums on skyrocketing payouts, data on settlements, awards, and other payout for 2001-2003shows that “the total payout declined [by 24%] even as doctors saw steep increases in their malpractice premiums.” (Newark Star-Ledger,
June 9, 2004)
• In Texas, where caps on non-economic damages have just been passed, one of the nation’s largest medical-malpractice insurance companies told regulators they would save only 1% in total payouts. (Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2004)

 

[Man]

here’s a little something about malpractice suits and their actual effect on doctors’ premiums:

Medical Malpractice, Health Care Quality, and Health Care Reform

Insurance company premiums are dictated as much by the stock market and general economy as they are by actual medical/settlement costs; They hedge their “statistical risks” into the stock market. So, recession = higher premium.

 

[Man]

Health insurance is the area where we are allowed to judge people based on almost any criteria. Maybe they should be prevented from discriminating based on sex. Prudent, because inexpensive young men are less expensive to insure than their often less well paid female counter-part (though this may change in a couple generations… even reverse as men dwindle in the college role call).

 

[jman507]

Insurance company premiums are dictated as much by the stock market and general economy as they are by actual medical/settlement costs; They hedge their “statistical risks” into the stock market. So, recession = higher premium.

Isn’t tax revenue hindered by recession as well?

 

[kim3260]

state.tn.us/tenncare/

Emily 47017,

This is the link for tenncare. I will discuss more later, got to go.

 

[sosayi1960]

Sure.

Let me point out once again, a family is a responsibility, not a right. If you cannot afford to support a family, don’t start one.

Get a job. Work. Learn. Get promoted. When you can afford to support a family, then you can start one.

Yet there are those who would have us believe that most people are on minimum wage, have six kids and an invalid mother to support,

Your right a family is a Responsibility and a Choice**. The church and the government need to stay out of peoples reproductive choices. If by some “accident” a poor person becomes pregnant. By all means keep the church out of it. God forbid the government get involved. The responsibility is the church and the government to stay out of reproductive lives.
Why should any of us care what happens to poor people. Keep your taxes down. Don’t worry about the poor. Just make sure you keep your taxes down. Keep them off welfare. Doesn’t really matter what happens to their family, their choices. It’s not our problem, is it. The poor should not be allowed to have children. Let them keep their “problems” to themselves. They can have the choice to get rid of their “problem”.**

 

[Trader]

Sorry. I missed it somehow. That is a tough question to answer. I would say that I believe everyone should have basic health insurance. I don’t think every insurance would cover every procedure. Even in countries with socialized health care, that isn’t the case. I believe that they have additonal policies that can be purchased to cover more than basic care. This seems reasonable to me.

Now, whether or not he is DESERVING to have his life saved at taxpayers’ expense? I have to say ‘yes’. BUT, with conditions. Is he still drinking? Then, no, because the new kidney will not save his life, as the alcohol will destroy the new one, and the point of the operation will be gone. If he goes into AA or some sort of rehab treatment program, then, yes, I think he should get the kidney.

Wow, we agree again. I gave that example especially for you to demonstrate the difference between being judgemental and prudent judgement.

To say he should not have any medical care would be judgemental. To deny a specific procedure because it would have no chance for success and endanger two human beings is prudent judgement. To perform the operation anyway, perhaps to earn a fee, or just to get the family to stop begging for it would be very wrong. It would also waste a lot of money that could be used for better purposes and waste a healthy kidney that might improve someone else’s life. Donatable organs are even more scarce than money.

It should also be noted that just entering a program will not solve the problem. It will take years to stabilize the situation and it may not be possible to undo the damage already done. Also the AA program is one of the best around. Its steps include taking responsibility and reparation for the harm casused to others.

You are also correct that countries with “universal” health care have limitations on what is covered. They have to do this because there can never be enough resources available to meet all our needs. Every conceivable economic system has some form of rationing. In market systems the rationing mechanism is price. In command economies the rationing mechanism is government fiat.

 

[boppaid]

I already pointed out that the system we have just needs a little work done.

Oh. Then we’re in agreement. I’m sorry, I don’t know how I missed that. I think I"m getting confused with so many threads about this subject, and so many posters on each thread! Sorry.

 

[boppaid]

Wow, we agree again. I gave that example especially for you to demonstrate the difference between being judgemental and prudent judgement.

To say he should not have any medical care would be judgemental. To deny a specific procedure because it would have no chance for success and endanger two human beings is prudent judgement. To perform the operation anyway, perhaps to earn a fee, or just to get the family to stop begging for it would be very wrong. It would also waste a lot of money that could be used for better purposes and waste a healthy kidney that might improve someone else’s life. Donatable organs are even more scarce than money.

It should also be noted that just entering a program will not solve the problem. It will take years to stabilize the situation and it may not be possible to undo the damage already done. Also the AA program is one of the best around. Its steps include taking responsibility and reparation for the harm casused to others.

You are also correct that countries with “universal” health care have limitations on what is covered. They have to do this because there can never be enough resources available to meet all our needs. Every conceivable economic system has some form of rationing. In market systems the rationing mechanism is price. In command economies the rationing mechanism is government fiat.

Yep, we’re in agreement! It’s nice to find middle ground sometimes.

 

[Trader]

Yep, we’re in agreement! It’s nice to find middle ground sometimes.

I’ll drink to that!

Sorry, this is Indiana and I can’t buy alcoholic beverages in my local grocery store on Sunday.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Okay, I think I did forget his original stated plan, then. I think it’s because of his recent posts to me.

So, Vern, to clarify, you do believe in the government subsidizing those who cannot afford health care in the form of MSAs? If so, I don’t think it’s a terrible idea at all. Hmmmm, so long as the government helps the poorer class with these contributions, that IS something I could get behind.

I believe you should meet people half-way. The government should guarentee part of the $3,000 the individual is expected to save – how much of that is based on the individual’s tax return.

When the money is spent, the individual must always pay something. And even when he’s spent $2,999, there is still some of his money in that last dollar – to encourage him to not overconsume, and to bargain for health care.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve been searching for these studies, and I can’t find them. Can you provide them for me?

For a start, go here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170859

It just keeps evading you, doesn’t it? I did restate the question! (It was in the quote box at the bottom of my last post.) I’ll do it again:

Which person? Be specific, and we’ll explore that person’s situation in detail. Be prepared to show that person is “typical” – give us some data on that.

And while we’re on the subject, tell us what we should do for “Bill,” “Tom” and “Sally” and their children. They’re real people, too.

 

[Man]

Isn’t tax revenue hindered by recession as well?

While true, I’m not sure about the context of your question…

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I’m not for “nationalization” of the healthcare industry, but we definitely need health care reform. There needs to be a program for those who are uninsured BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR.
There also needs to be laws written that would help people like me, who can’t leave our jobs for a better paying job because our healthcare and prescription insurance coverage are not “portable” and benefits on the new job are not available for 6 months or more and we can’t stop taking our medications for 6 months while waiting for coverage yet can’t afford the meds without coverage.
Quite a big problem indeed…

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Man]

I’m not for “nationalization” of the healthcare industry, but we definitely need health care reform. There needs to be a program for those who are uninsured BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR.
There also needs to be laws written that would help people like me, who can’t leave our jobs for a better paying job because our healthcare and prescription insurance coverage are not “portable” and benefits on the new job are not available for 6 months or more and we can’t stop taking our medications for 6 months while waiting for coverage yet can’t afford the meds without coverage.
Quite a big problem indeed…

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

There is a law, you are eligible for COBRA, which may be a little more expensive in the short term, but will keep you insured.

I’ve been on COBRA…

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Thanks for the heads-up about COBRA.
I never have heard of this.
I’ll definitely look into it.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+