I have mixed feelings on this topic.

On one hand, I can't see having an insurance company shelling out $1 million a month just to keep someone alive.

On the other hand, I see a lot of disabled people living pretty full lives with the assistance they get.

My biggest hesitation is that any system will be gamed. And some will be treated more fairly than the rest because they are deemed more equal.

It all boils down to one thing. Scarcity of resources. That's it. There is a finite amount of medical care availiable to people to use. Those with more money can get better healthcare, those with less will get less.

The sooner people realize this basic concept of economics that every freshman in college learns the better.

After that, it's a decision on if you are willing to accept that world wasn't created equal (capitalism) and people will compete to get those resources. Or you think that people have a fundamental right to those resources and are willing to sacrifice the good of everyone for the good of everyone (socialism).

Every experiment in testing these two competing mindsets we have proven time and time again that the most efficient way is to allow competition for the resources.

How's that Venezuelan or Cuban healthcare going? Anyone scheduling trips to those countries to get their heart surgery? Basic economics 101. Some get it, some don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
It all boils down to one thing. Scarcity of resources. That's it. There is a finite amount of medical care availiable to people to use. Those with more money can get better healthcare, those with less will get less.

The sooner people realize this basic concept of economics that every freshman in college learns the better.

We had a system that covered about 95% of the people. But that left about 20 million without "coverage". So rather than providing charity or something to the 5% we throw the baby out with the bath water.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
Hospitals are legally required to proved care to people "actively dying" (P226RN could describe a lot better). It is legal for a hospital to have a medical professional evaluate potential patients who are unable to pay and if they don't meet the rather narrow criteria give them directions elsewhere. Whether this is moral or right is a separate question, but it is legal.

Those are private hospitals. Publicly funded hospitals cannot turn away based on an inability to pay.

Any Emergency Dept has to follow EMTELA laws. Doesn't matter if "private" or "public".

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
Any Emergency Dept has to follow EMTELA laws. Doesn't matter if "private" or "public".

Yes, this is true and I should have elaborated more - I was just trying to acknowledge his point that private hospitals can, at some point, use ability to pay to factor into the decision to continue care or transfer the patient while publicly funded hospitals cannot. But emergency care is a different animal and all hospitals must provide emergent care to stabilize regardless of ability to pay.

The next logical step is for insurance companies to come to terminally ill patients with a "deal"... Drink the hemlock (or whatever) and we'll pay your survivors $XXX,XXX. Cheaper than keeping you alive. No pressure on survivors, of course.

Most suicide clauses are temporary. In other words, they exist to prevent people from buiying insurance specifically to cover their already-planned suicide. Usually, these clauses expire after a couple of years. Because some people develope bona fide mental health issues that lead to a suicide well after they bought the insurance. Those suicides are covered.

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”—from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol

quote:

Originally posted by markand:
The next logical step is for insurance companies to come to terminally ill patients with a "deal"... Drink the hemlock (or whatever) and we'll pay your survivors $XXX,XXX. Cheaper than keeping you alive. No pressure on survivors, of course.

I have no idea what it is like to be in that situation, but think I might take the deal if it meant leaving my family in a more secure position. "Terminal" meaning there is little or no chance of recovery.

There is only one way to STOP THE INSANITY:

Recognize what "Health Insurance" is (or at least used to be or should be: A voluntary purchase of an insurance policy against a catastrophic expense.

It is not a "right";

It is not (or should not be) a mandatorily-supplied benefit from your employer

It should not be a "grab bag of freebies" such as condoms, viagra, birth control, flu shots etc....UNLESS THE INSURANCE COMPANY WISHES TO OFFER THOSE as part of their package.

Everyone eventually gets sick, injured, and/or dies. Free people can make a rational personal decision about how much money they want to spend to try to extend their life by x% or improve their health by y%.

Yes, "rich people" will have more options. That's one of the incentives to become rich.

The whole myth that health insurance needs to be control, "supplied", regulated, "funded", etc just represents the success that socialists have had on propagandizing our thinking processes.

Real life case in the news now from the U.K. The .gov is ordering life support removed. The parents want to remove their child from the system and bring him to the US for an experimental procedure completely at their own expense. The .gov and Human Rights council say 'No'.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/..._campaign=benshapiro

quote:

the inescapable logical direction is to simply provide nothing and let people get sick and die.

Question: Why should it be any other way?

Healthcare is a service. If you can't afford it you don't get it.

Doctors don't work for free.

quote:

when someone is in a position to force your hand

They aren't forcing your hand. Nobody is refusing to allow anyone to purchase a more expensive treatment.

They just aren't going to pay for it FOR you.

If you signed a contract with an insurance provider that allows them to do this to you, that's your problem.

Read that contract next time.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by Yellow Jacket:
After "assisted suicide" comes "enforced suicide."

That's certainly a stretch.

Not really