Should broke people receive health care?

  • Thread starter Thread starter consumedconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I happen to prefer the Canadian system. It has its flaws, for sure, but at least everyone who needs care, gets care, without having to panic and wonder how they will pay for it.
You’re perfectly free to prefer any system you choose.

But how do you explain the medical clinics along the border who cater to Canadians who are willing to pay for treatment out of their own pockets? And you might ask yourself why that is, if Canada pays for everyone and everything?
 
Two of my brothers don’t work.
One is disabled and cannot drive. He opens up his house to street people and is very generous with the little food he lives on plus VA benefits. Pray for him, too, because he has never been baptized, although he was raised protestant fundamentalist. He is very content with the bad neighborhood and the mess he lives in. He gets help from a gentlemen in learning to live on a budget and trips to the grocery, etc. He has often been hospitalized and he is very upset about the bill. He often has seizures in the middle of the road and the onlookers take him to the hospital. His bills have been written off or taken care of by his guardian.

The other one is looking for work and putters in a tiny, messy apartment in a dangerous neighborhood. He has no health insurance and he refuses government aid. He could have an apartment and money for food from the government, but he refuses to agree to have counseling every week. He is anti-social in many ways and thus his chances of finding work are next to nil.
I live far away from them and cannot mentor them or even talk to them on the telephone. They don’t write me. For such people, private charitable aid and some kind of government aid has to be there.
The one brother does go to various churches to eat when there are suppers for the poor. That kind of help he is willing to accept. So the best aid seems to be the personal, mentoring kind which helps, but challenges the poor or needy person to work on improving their own life in at least some way, however small. St. Vincent de Paul of Ladies of Charity are excellent apostolates.
 
I happen to prefer the Canadian system. It has its flaws, for sure, but at least everyone who needs care, gets care, without having to panic and wonder how they will pay for it.

I am looking at the minimum Cobra payments, and thinking it’s a lucky thing I don’t live in the States, because I tend to be accident prone. Last January, I took a blow to the head when I fell down in a parking lot, and had to get an MRI scan to see what the damage was.

The Cobra payments listed in this thread are more than my take-home pay each month, and I’m sure I would not have been able to pay for an MRI scan all by myself. I had to pay for the ambulance, and that was bad enough!! (It took me two months to raise the cash for that.)

So, in my case, anyway, HURRAY FOR SOCIALISM!! I’m alive today, because of it! 😃
Don’t compare the Candadian system to “minimum Cobra payments.” Cobra is the costs to continue your current employee-supported insurance program after your employment is terminated. It is very expensive. Most American’s have insurance which is partially (often mostly) paid by their employer. For example, the company I am now leaving pays all but $160/month for my insurance - the $160 comes out of my paycheck pre-tax. Some people pay more than that, some pay less.

The problem we have is that some companies and/or jobs (e.g. part-time teller at a bank) don’t include insurance coverage. In that case, you are on your own. There are a variety of ways to cover yourself, and you have to shop around. It is quite expensive, but the Cobra number given earlier is twice as much as the quote for coverage that I received.

As Vern mentioned, changing some of the rules and competition would help…however, it may not be enough.
 
I’ve had it explained in a zillion ways. I simply don’t buy the idea that single payor health care is un-Christian. It seems just the opposite. We all need it. I guess I can understand having another tier for exclusivists, or those who would not be satisfied with the healthcare system. That’s up to the market. But there is simply nothing un-Christ like in providing health care for everyone. Why can’t it be there for everybody? The rich have always, do now, and will always find that extra special layer of service they seek. It’s actually more puzzling to me why SO many Americans don’t want it. You know, I don’t think the rich neccisarily think things through either, all the time. The Government has a slate of things that they provide for a country in exchange for tax dollars. It’s just not the end of the world. You know, I pulled up a list of Federal agencies on the net and was simply aghast. I’d be hard pressed to believe that we would even have to raise taxes to provide universal health. We could cut something like 1/2 the Federal Government right now. Turn things back to the states for them to decide what services they want to provide within their States. We wouldn’t have Medicare anymore. We wouldn’t have the VHA wing of the VA. We wouldn’t have Indian Health etc… Health care providers would simply be on contract with the Government instead of the Insurance industry, which they don’t like anyway. Private companies could still do research and development. The Feds could still offer grants or funding directly to pharmaceuticals rather than having them tack it into the prices of drugs. Whatever. It would just be invisible to the U.S. consumer. People who are working extra jobs and having to put their kids into excessive day-care could actually be at home with their families if they choose, helping to re-establish the family unit in this country.

In spite of all the above. I’m not a marxist or anything. People need to be able to make money, shoot for their dreams, have freedoms. I LOVE America. I don’t want to be the Soviet Union. I just think the provision of health care would make us so much better. So much more competitive in the world. Happier healthier people make for a more robust MOSTLY capitalist society WITHOUT FEAR.

Something to think aoubt. I don’t think the taxes have to be anywhere NEAR as high as the detractors would have us believe. I honestly think it could be done for the same, or perhaps less than what we pay now, honestly. We just need to re-structure the Federal Government a little is all. It’s not so much adding a layer as changing our priorities. Why is it okay to run huge deficits for a war nobody approves of? Where is THAT money coming from? Couldn’t some of THAT, (non-existent- mind you), money go to help pay for health?

If I accomplish nothing else, I hope I can get accross that it’s reasonable to want healthcare for everyone without guilt. Without some kind of communist identification red letter badge flashing from your forhead because of this rather compassionate and charitible idea. I’m a little tired of being labelled as some kind of “ist” or being placed into some kind of “ism” out of my zeal for single payor health. There are many of my principles and ideas which would be considered quite conservative. Even “right wing”, I suppose. I just have this one pecadillo, and it’s not going away. I don’t believe Christ chastizes me for this view.

Peace, and a blessed Advent from a pro health care Catholic

Smile,

Steven
 
I’ve had it explained in a zillion ways. I simply don’t buy the idea that single payor health care is un-Christian.
Hi Steven,

I’m not sure anyone has said it is un-Christian. The question is would it make things better or worse? Personally, I think it would make it worse.

I think we need to break the mold. IOW…it is not an either/or proposition. We should take a look at the positives and negatives of the socialized programs in other countries and the positives and negatives of the private insurance method and come up with the best of both worlds. For example: Maybe we should consider subsidized clinics for preventative and basic care, but keep the catastrophic coverage private (through employers or on our own) with the current safety nets for the poor. 🤷
 
Everyone seems to agree that the current system needs to be changed some way. Just curious: is there anyone out there who thinks things should go on the way they are now, indefinitely? It’s so chaotic right now…
 
I’m not sure anyone has said it is un-Christian. The question is would it make things better or worse? Personally, I think it would make it worse.
I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t get worse for those who don’t have insurance.
 
There is no instance in history of “price regulation” producing more or better goods and services at a lower price.

And the programs to assist those who truly cannot pay are already there.
That is an interesting thing to ponder though. The theory many have is…lower the prices or regulate them, so everyone can pay…why doesn’t it work???
Everyone seems to agree that the current system needs to be changed some way. Just curious: is there anyone out there who thinks things should go on the way they are now, indefinitely? It’s so chaotic right now…
Actually the system we have is new and an anomaly used to prevent drug abuse. So are we rid of drug abuse? Prior to these recent changes the medical profession was open market. Then you could buy your own medicine, or pay for a professional opinion. I think we should return to that system or something closer to it. Prices would fall by 50-90%.
 
Actually the system we have is new and an anomaly used to prevent drug abuse. So are we rid of drug abuse? Prior to these recent changes the medical profession was open market. Then you could buy your own medicine, or pay for a professional opinion. I think we should return to that system or something closer to it. Prices would fall by 50-90%.
Can u explain what you mean by to prevent drug abuse?
 
I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t get worse for those who don’t have insurance.
Sure. That’s kind of a “duh” statement.

But, if healthcare costs increase for everyone and everything economically gets worse for the country, then things would be worse for them in the long-term. This is why I don’t trust the liberal response of automatically going to a one-payer, government-run program. It is short-sighted and a typical “let’s throw money at the problem” response.
 
Can u explain what you mean by to prevent drug abuse?
The government took over all drug regulation making it illegal to make, grow, process, sell, deliver or prescribe many drugs without a specific government license. This control was installed to stop the problems of drug addiction and street drugs. The legislation keeps changing however in the late 1920’s& 1930’s is when most of this was started. So this system is about 75 years old. What do you think are we rid of drug addiction and street drugs?

Here is a link fda.gov/cder/about/history/time1.htm
 
That’s absolutely false. The vast majority of health care issues develop slowly and there is plenty of time for bargaining. There is nothing that prevents me from contacting several doctors to see what they charge for an annunal checkup, for example.

If I find I need surgery – such as my wife’s knee replacement – the time between diagnosis is adequate for searching for the best price.

Consider pregnancy – a woman has plenty of time to shop for an obsteretition.
Ok, just curious… do you generally get a positive response when calling doctors to ask about or negotiate prices? We’ve tried simply asking what the prices for different services are. Generally the receptionist transfers us to someone in the billing department, who either doesn’t respond, or gets belligerent, or says they have to look it up but never get back to you, or says it depends on your insurance, or the specifics of the case, or blah blah blah.

There are some doctors and clinics and such that have a fixed price list for specific services. However my experience has been that, for many doctors’ offices, it is just not that transparent. Never mind getting to point of negotiating a price, because you can’t even figure out what the starting point it.

A surgery would be the type of thing too where, e.g. you might get a price for the surgeon for the knee replacement, but the anesthesiologist, the radiologist, and the doctor making the rounds in recovery all belong to separate practices that all bill separately from the surgeon. Perhaps you can negotiate with one… but you don’t necessarily get to choose them all.

Other kinds of screwy things happen too. E.g. I know that my hospital runs blood work in their own lab, which is covered by my insurance and will charge xx amount. On Tuesday I get some blood drawn at the hospital. However, they’re short-handed that day, and send out my sample (without my knowledge or consent) to an outside lab, which happens to not participate in my plan, charges 3 times as much, and doesn’t apply toward my deductible. I’m left with a bill for much higher than I expected. I can stall up to a point, but they don’t respond without threat of legal action, insurance and the hospital both blame each other, and ultimately it’s my credit score that’s going to get dinged if I don’t pay, so I really have no recourse.

As for an Ob-Gyn - depending on where you live, these are in very short supply. Not an attractive field for young doctors to specialize in. 9 months isn’t necessarily a long time to find one. And if you actually want some prenatal care earlier in pregnancy… it’s not unusual to have to wait 3-4 months to get the next open appointment, never mind trying to find the doctor with the best cost structure, or one that will negotiate with you. And back to the first part of my post… my wife’s Ob practice was a classic case of having no idea what they actually charge. In fact they never even got around to billing us for prenatal services, and a different Ob ended up being on call for the delivery, so he billed us for that, which may have been totally different from what the original Ob would have charged.

So if I may summarize, even the cost of routine medical care can be difficult to predict, let alone negotiate. At least in my experience. Even if you do have time between 9 and 5 to call around to different doctors’ offices and speak with unhelpful people in the billing department.
 
Medical savings accounts? I could afford it…maybe a lot of people on here could afford it…but the thread title is about broke people.
First of all, true Medical Savings Accounts benefit even those who don’t participate because of the overall impact they have on the economics of medical services.

Secondly, some people are broke because they cannot earn money, others are broke because they either refuse to earn, or over-spend.
I work in the insurance biz…it costs companies millions to supply health coverage for their employees…millions in premiums each year, depending of course on the size. Med Spending funds actually were created by insurance companies, as a product to sell, whereby companies that are smaller, can still offer ‘something’ to their employees. (But large global enterprises have adopted them too–hey why should we pay all that premium?😉 )It won’t help the Walmart 40 hour employee, I’m afraid. Not that this person defines broke, but they probably cannot afford health care as we know it. I am not against medical savings accounts…my employer offers them and some people love them–but they won’t help people who are broke. I might read through the thread so I understand the definition of broke, to make sure I’m on the same page.
Many programs called “medical savings accounts” are no such thing – my company had one that required you to spend all the money in the account each year, or lose it! That’s just the opposite of a true Medical Savings Account.

Understand that true Medical Savings Accounts are like IRAs – there are no strings attached, and anyone can have one. We really don’t have anything like that at this time.
 
First of all, true Medical Savings Accounts benefit even those who don’t participate because of the overall impact they have on the economics of medical services.

Secondly, some people are broke because they cannot earn money, others are broke because they either refuse to earn, or over-spend.

Many programs called “medical savings accounts” are no such thing – my company had one that required you to spend all the money in the account each year, or lose it! That’s just the opposite of a true Medical Savings Account.

Understand that true Medical Savings Accounts are like IRAs – there are no strings attached, and anyone can have one. We really don’t have anything like that at this time.
vern–you make valid points…but some people are ‘broke’ and working three jobs…seriously. And medical care just doesn’t even fit into the budget. I believe that we must try to better ourselves, and some people are trying…but that doesn’t help them solve the medical healthcare problem that they have.

Flexible spending funds, which is another phrase for that they are called–do not really lower the premiums though. Premiums are decided by actuaries who are only looking at an aggregate claim history for companies…they don’t look at who is not using the plan, or who has opted to elect flex spending accounts. They develop premiums based on claims history, typically…or claims foreseen, depending on the demographic. I do this for a living, vern–I know how insurance companies come up with these premiums, and flex spending accounts…unless more than half of the staff were on them, wouldn’t impact the premiums. And even then, they are largely based on claims had in the past. (and in looking at an overall demographic, they need to be able to offset the premiums in case there were a lot of catastrophic claims, including death of employees.) Just wanted to add this, it’s important to know that flex spending accounts don’t help those who elect different plans. They really don’t. They HELP THE EMPLOYER, and the employee who elected it. Not the employee who didn’t elect it. Gotta run…but this is interesting.
 
vern–you make valid points…but some people are ‘broke’ and working three jobs…seriously. And medical care just doesn’t even fit into the budget. I believe that we must try to better ourselves, and some people are trying…but that doesn’t help them solve the medical healthcare problem that they have.

Flexible spending funds, which is another phrase for that they are called–do not really lower the premiums though. Premiums are decided by actuaries who are only looking at an aggregate claim history for companies…they don’t look at who is not using the plan, or who has opted to elect flex spending accounts. They develop premiums based on claims history, typically…or claims foreseen, depending on the demographic. I do this for a living, vern–I know how insurance companies come up with these premiums, and flex spending accounts…unless more than half of the staff were on them, wouldn’t impact the premiums. And even then, they are largely based on claims had in the past. (and in looking at an overall demographic, they need to be able to offset the premiums in case there were a lot of catastrophic claims, including death of employees.) Just wanted to add this, it’s important to know that flex spending accounts don’t help those who elect different plans. They really don’t. They HELP THE EMPLOYER, and the employee who elected it. Not the employee who didn’t elect it. Gotta run…but this is interesting.
The only purpose of FSA is to lower your taxes. Just like contributing to a 401K via your employeer lowers your overall tax burden.
 
They must be willing AND able.
And they are.

But isn’t it interesting how people who have government-paid health care choose to travel across the International Border and pay for health care out of their own pockets?

There has to be a reason for that.:confused:
 
The only purpose of FSA is to lower your taxes. Just like contributing to a 401K via your employeer lowers your overall tax burden.
It’s not the only purpose, but one. And that is a good one. I don’t like those plans though…personally. But, I know people at work who LOVE them!🙂
 
vern–you make valid points…but some people are ‘broke’ and working three jobs…seriously. And medical care just doesn’t even fit into the budget. I believe that we must try to better ourselves, and some people are trying…but that doesn’t help them solve the medical healthcare problem that they have.
Most people who are uninsured are young and just starting out. This is typically when they least need medical insurance.

In the early years, one should manage one’s affairs carefully – get a job, save money, gain skills, get promoted, and establish oneself financially.
Flexible spending funds, which is another phrase for that they are called–do not really lower the premiums though.
Flexible spending funds are not MSAs. MSAs are identical to IRAs, except the money is used first for medical expenses and the savings rolled over into the IRA at the end of each year.

Persons with MSAs are covered with a cheap, but high deductable catestrophic health policy (typically the deductable is equal to the amount saved each year.) With an MSA, the person pays by swiping the card. This has several important effects:
  1. Pay on the spot is much better for the provider than the typical slow-pay insurance system. The provider saves money and can pass on savings to the consumer.
  2. The consumer has an incentive to bargain for health care – and yes, you have time to bargain for most health care.
  3. The consumer had an incentive not to over-consume. How often have you heard someone say, “I might as well go to the doctor – I pay the premiums, don’t I?”
Premiums are decided by actuaries who are only looking at an aggregate claim history for companies…they don’t look at who is not using the plan, or who has opted to elect flex spending accounts.
But true MSAs, as shown above, don’t have premiums – except for cheap, high deductable catestrophic coverage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top