Medical bills are way too expensive... But why?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 05 Oct 2006 12:20

With more taxes (scaled to your income) there will be a more equal society

The old Socialist lie.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 05 Oct 2006 13:04

They have to factor into your bill, the un-recouped costs of treating illegal aliens, even in Minnesota.

They get the gold-plated health care, and YOU pay double, or triple, or ten times, on your bill.

-n

-n

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 05 Oct 2006 16:48

With more taxes (scaled to your income) there will be a more equal society because wealth will be distibuted more equally

What are you, a fucking communist??

jokes, jokes.

Jon, in a developed western country, residents should be able to rely on something as basic as healthcare. If people can't afford to get sick in the US of all places, then something is wrong. Like someone said before, you shouldn't have to choose between paying the rent and taking care of their body. This is a reality in Australia, there's no reason the US can't do it too. Maybe it's because we're not trying to take over the world

Oh, and in Australia I believe at the moment you get subsidised if you install solar power etc. Making it attractive for people to go the green way is a good idea, methinks.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 05 Oct 2006 20:41

james_dean said:

Jon, in a developed western country, residents should be able to rely on something as basic as healthcare. If people can't afford to get sick in the US of all places, then something is wrong. Like someone said before, you shouldn't have to choose between paying the rent and taking care of their body. This is a reality in Australia, there's no reason the US can't do it too. Maybe it's because we're not trying to take over the world

James,

I am actually strongly in favor of universal health care.

However, I'm looking for somebody out there to make a better case for it than "I'm entitled to it because I need it." Thats not a very convincing argument. I need food: am I simply entitled to it, as a citizen of a wealthy nation? Is there nothing I should have to work for?

you shouldn't have to choose between paying the rent and taking care of their body.

Okay then, so why not insist that your government provide you with shelter so that you can spend your money on your medical bills? Why not insist that a government provide for all your absolute necessities, so that you are free to spend your money on luxuries instead?

Bring some definition to this discussion James and everyone else. Tell me exactly what goods and services you think an individual should be responsible to provide for himself and what should be provided to him by his government instead, and why. Convince me.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 05 Oct 2006 21:31

Switch Kicker:

Driving a car a convenience, it's not a neccessity. I have no problem riding a bike to work or school.

Spoken like a typical insensitive inconsiderate youth. Riding may work fine for you for now, but go and tell your parents or your grandparents that they should pedal their middle-aged and elderly butts to work this winter. Go and tell it to a mother or three that she should bring her kids to the pediatrician's office by bicycle, or that she should do grocery shopping for her entire family and carry everything back to the house on her bike. A car might be a conveniece for you, for now but that doesn't make it so for everybody for all time. Your own circumstances are bound to change and you might not find a car so frivolous then. But, until then, put your money where your mouth is and sell your car. If the vehicle alone isn't worth enough to buy some health insurance for your and your girlfriend, maybe the money you save on gas and insurance is.

Why should the government give more finacial support to our personal health care? Because we pay fucking taxes you dumbass.

Taxes pay for alot of things. Mine pay for education and public libraries, amongst many other things. Taxes don't pay for everything. An individual is still responsible to get some things for himself, or don't you believe that? Hey, you pay taxes, so why doesn't somebody come and take care of your every need for you? Isn't that covered by your taxes? You want 100% provided to you for your taxes, but you only cough up 25% of your paycheck to Uncle Sam. Are you willing to give 100% to get 100%? Are you ready to cede control of your finances entirely for somebody else to provide for all your needs?

And it's more like 20 years you ass. 12 grades, and then 8-12 years of medical schooling.

20 Years won't even get you a license to practice general medicine in this country. The radiologist who reads your X-Rays typically needs 25 years (1-12, 4 year college, 4 year medical school, 1 year internship, 4 years residency in radiology) Specialized surgeons like cardiac and neuro-surgeons need 27. The anesthisiologists whom the surgeons depend on need 24 years to be licensed. Think about that: a surgeon with 27 years of learning cannot even perform his work without another expert with at 24 years worth of school to support him, never mind the nurses. Doctors in their residency are often required to work OVER 80 HOURS A WEEK. And in those hours they are responsible for life and death decisions and operations. I think those guys earn their pay.

c-fan,

It all comes down to doctors protecting themselves from malpractice suits, as well as the profitability of the insurance industry for both doctors as well as the insurance industry itself.

So what you're saying is that its lawyers suing doctors that brings medical cost up. I agree. The answer to that is tort reform, not medical reform.
As for our for-profit medical world, it has lead to the development of medical ultra-sound, CAT Scans, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, all medical breakthroughs that we benefit from. The CAT and MRI were deemed worthy of Nobel prizes (taken home by Americans, btw).

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 05 Oct 2006 21:52

ville:

Also if the goverment payed for the healthcare for everybody starting from a baby, maybe they would be more healthy and require less healthcare on a longer term. That might actually cost less than treating the people when they get sick.

Perhaps, or perhaps that could back-fire on you. If individuals bear no responsibility for their own health, if their health care costs are provided no matter what, what is there to motivate them to try to stay fit? In the US, smokers pay higher health care costs. The cost itself is incentive to quit. If their costs are covered by the state, why should they bother to quit? Why exercise to keep your blood pressure down, when the government will pay for medicines to lower your blood pressure, thus saving you from having to work and sweat for it? The Law of Unintended Consequences might bring a very different result than what you predict. You Europeans have state-sponsored health care, don't you? Maybe thats why you have higher rates of smoking than us?

janis · Post by **janis** » 05 Oct 2006 23:46

Anyway, to better clarify my position, there is a point of view which holds that a government should be responsible for those expenses which an individual cannot reasonably be expected to pay for alone. Thats the whole point of having a government. No individual could reasonably be expected to pay for a Navy, for instance. -- Is personal health insurance REALLY one of those things which the individual cannot reasonably be expected to get for himself? (I'm not saying it is or it isn't, and clearly its a debate-able issue. But then, thats what we're doing here, though, isn't it? Debating?)

Seeing as you are taking a financial approach to this debate I will too:
Health care is much better taken care of by the Government due to the enormous efficiencies of scale that result from a collective health care/research/production system. As a result everyone pays less to the government than they would otherwise pay in private health system fees, not to mention the huge benefits that having a healthy population makes to the national economy, including increased productivity etc... I am not arguing that people personal health insurance is a "of those things which the individual cannot reasonably be expected to get for himself", rather that it should not exist, and that it is the responsibility both morally and fiscally for a society to look after the well being (ie health) of its members.

Perhaps, or perhaps that could back-fire on you. If individuals bear no responsibility for their own health, if their health care costs are provided no matter what, what is there to motivate them to try to stay fit? In the US, smokers pay higher health care costs. The cost itself is incentive to quit. If their costs are covered by the state, why should they bother to quit? Why exercise to keep your blood pressure down, when the government will pay for medicines to lower your blood pressure, thus saving you from having to work and sweat for it?

Are you suggesting that people deliberately damage their health to get the government to pay for their healthcare? But even still, there is a high level of obesity in America, and the government doesn't pay for peopleâ€™s blood pressure decreasing drugs, so how do you explain this phenomenon? Besides I think that people value their health in non-financial terms, usually when someone is chronically ill money doesn't rate as a concern when compared with making a recovery.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 06 Oct 2006 07:16

In Canada people laugh at idiots who say that free public healthcare is a bad idea.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 07 Oct 2006 11:55

Free public healthcare has some drawbacks which shouldn't be ignored.

If healthcare costs money, then people won't go to the doctor every time they have a cold or minor ache. In countries where healthcare is free, sick people often have to wait longer to get treatment, because they have to wait behind lines of old women and hypochondriacs, who don't need the attention as badly, but are at the doctor's office because its free. Free healthcare creates a drain on the system by encouraging people (especially people with very minor problems) to seek treatment even when they don't need it very badly, which makes treatment less available for those who actually need it.

janis · Post by **janis** » 07 Oct 2006 16:00

C-Fan wrote:Free public healthcare has some drawbacks which shouldn't be ignored.

If healthcare costs money, then people won't go to the doctor every time they have a cold or minor ache. In countries where healthcare is free, sick people often have to wait longer to get treatment, because they have to wait behind lines of old women and hypochondriacs, who don't need the attention as badly, but are at the doctor's office because its free. Free healthcare creates a drain on the system by encouraging people (especially people with very minor problems) to seek treatment even when they don't need it very badly, which makes treatment less available for those who actually need it.

If the australian situation is anything to go by, this simply doesn't happen, and hypochondriacs will go the the doctor regardless of the cost, because they are hypochondriacs.

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 07 Oct 2006 17:52

Docter fees in NZ are kind of expensive, you can pay like $50-$100(33-660USD) if your an adult, nothing compared to $290USD though...

Students get very very cheap doctor visits, like $10-$20NZD.

I get free doctors appointments because my dad is a well known doctor here

.

Aleksandr · Post by **Aleksandr** » 09 Oct 2006 08:12

Cuba health care system - cubans have the highest life expectancy proportion to wealth and higher overall life expectancy than the US yet is run completely by government. Shows that it is easy for any country to have good health system no matter what holds them back.

Hypocondriacs is stupid "drawback" - c-fan do you have source for those claims or are you just making it up?

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 09 Oct 2006 10:14

I'm getting sick of this conversation. I'm just here playing the devil's advocate to try to help sharpen the arguments in favor of Universal Health Care in the US. You guys are not keeping up your end of the discussion.

Aleksandr

Hypocondriacs is stupid "drawback" - c-fan do you have source for those claims or are you just making it up?

janis

If the australian situation is anything to go by, this simply doesn't happen, and hypochondriacs will go the the doctor regardless of the cost, because they are hypochondriacs.

I think you all are focusing TOO MUCH on the word "hypochondriac." I don't think c-fan is refering to the overall problem of hypochondria fouling up a universal health care system. I think he means that unnecessary visits in general are a problem. And it does happen. I couldn't find the article that I originally read it in, but apparently a related problem in Germany was that there was no charge at all to see a doctor, so all kinds of people were making unnecessary visits to the doctor. One version said that alot of retirees were going to see their doctors, not because they had a particular problem they were seeking treatment for, but just because they liked having someone to chat with. Anyway, for this reason and various others Germany (apparently the very first country with state-mandated universal health care) has had to make major overhauls to its health care system, and those changes are still not sufficient to close their budget shortfalls.

Correspondents say the funding problem will get worse because Germany's population is ageing. They say it is only recently that the introduction of prescription charges and consultation fees have begun to discourage frivolous visits to the doctor.

Here's the link to the whole article, though there isn't much there to read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5409014.stm

Aleksandr, I think Cuba is a poor example to compare to the US. The US population is almost 30 times that of Cuba. Its ten times larger than that of Canada.

Slowsis

In Canada people laugh at idiots who say that free public healthcare is a bad idea.

As the above article should make clear, there is no such thing as free public healthcare. Its always got to be paid by somebody. In your case, other people are paying for you. The average individual tax burden is 14 percent higher in Canada than in the US. Canadians are paying for their health care through these higher taxes. Publicly funded health care is a nice thing, but in this case it might not be so helpful for Switch Kicker and his girlfriend. They're choosing between healthcare and rent, right? If they were covered by public healthcare, but had significantly higher taxes in return than they still might not be able to make their rent payments. If I got 14% more taken out of my paycheck, I'd be in a difficult situation.

Its probably a little irrational of me, but for some reason this one is still bugging me --
Zeb Jackson

think about it, considering if they were payed by the hour they are paid WAY more than teachers who get payed crap, and teahcers goto school for just as long sometimes, justifying how long someone has trained for a position doesnt really justify how much they should be paid...(well actually it should in a sense but if teachers are beng payed 25k a year why cant doctors tone down the expenses a little?)

Teachers don't work year round (they actually get more vacation time than ANYONE) and they don't have to be on-call to deal with life-and-death emergencies at the hospital at ANY hour of the day. Why can't we ask doctors to charge less money? Its a fair question, but try that in reverse -- every time somebody asks teacher to work a few more days each year they go on strike and/or demand more money in exchange for having a longer school year. Nobody wants to give up what they've got. Doctors don't want to give up their pay, teachers don't want to give up their vacation time.

Other info I've found during the course of this little discussion. The Canadian health-care system is one of the most highly regarded in the world. Well done. However, I've read that it is still common for wait-times for many major health-care procedures there and in Germany. Something like THREE YEARS to have hip-replacement surgery or cataract surgery. Imagine going blind and having to wait a few years to get your vision back. In the US, if you have health insurance, an appointment to get cataracts removed might take a couple of weeks, not a couple of years. Two years ago, my mother badly needed hip-replacement surgery. She could not walk around without being in terrible pain. Out stolling her granddaugher around = agony. Walking up the steps to go to bed = agony. She pays for her own health insurance. She got her diagnosis, made her plans, went in for the surgery in the course of a couple of months, and has been fully recovered for nearly a year (recovery from being cut open, having a couple of your bones sawwed out, and then having a few steel parts glued in to replace them takes almost a full year to recover from). In Canada, she'd still be in pain waiting for the procedure. In Switch Kicker's ideal world, she'd pay for his girlfriend's insurance along with her own, so that Tamaran can have her minor back problem looked at while my mother waits years to relieve her every-day debilitating pain.

We've got a major health-care problem in this country, but I'm just saying that if we're gonna talk about it, lets really look at all of it, and not just from the point of view of some teenaged students.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 09 Oct 2006 10:20

Outsider wrote:
Aleksandr
Hypocondriacs is stupid "drawback" - c-fan do you have source for those claims or are you just making it up?
janis
If the australian situation is anything to go by, this simply doesn't happen, and hypochondriacs will go the the doctor regardless of the cost, because they are hypochondriacs.
I think you all are focusing TOO MUCH on the word "hypochondriac." I don't think c-fan is refering to the overall problem of hypochondria fouling up a universal health care system. I think he means that unnecessary visits in general are a problem. And it does happen. I couldn't find the article that I originally read it in, but apparently a related problem in Germany was that there was no charge at all to see a doctor, so all kinds of people were making unnecessary visits to the doctor. One version said that alot of retirees were going to see their doctors, not because they had a particular problem they were seeking treatment for, but just because they liked having someone to chat with. Anyway, for this reason and various others Germany (apparently the very first country with state-mandated universal health care) has had to make major overhauls to its health care system, and those changes are still not sufficient to close their budget shortfalls. .

Thanks for answering for me Jon. I don't generally respond when people address me in such an obnoxious tone. And while I was basing my observation on interviews with Turkish doctors, similar results happen in almost every country where it doesn't cost anything to see a doctor (Germany, Spain, etc.)

Aleksandr · Post by **Aleksandr** » 09 Oct 2006 17:59

Sorry I do not mean to sound obnoxious. I do not speak good english.

You still have not posted any source.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 09 Oct 2006 20:39

Health care is much better taken care of by the Government due to the enormous efficiencies of scale that result from a collective health care/research/production system.

Name one government agency that runs efficiently. There isn't a single one. How can you expect the massive overhaul of medicine from the private to the public sector to be anything else but chaotic? I don't know what you have to support your claim that collective healthcare would create enormous efficiences.

As a result everyone pays less to the government than they would otherwise pay in private health system fees

Sure, but the reason for this is because the government under "collective" healthcare limits the general supply of healthcare to hold costs down. This is done through the arbitrary limiting of the number and availability of doctors, specialists, operating room hours, equipments, and medications. The result is shortages, rationing, and wait lines.

In Canada people laugh at idiots who say that free public healthcare is a bad idea.

This is egregious. Hundred's of thousands of people in your country are forced to wait years upon years for things that take weeks to months in the US. If you want a hip replacement in some parts of Canada, expect to wait ATLEAST a single year. If you need to have Catarax surgery because you can't tell the difference between a green and yellow stop light, an operation that takes under half an hour, you might be in for a few more years or terrible vision. It gets even worse though, with terminal diseases such as cancer, with only a certain number of doctors legally available to perform on you. And how many people are on the wait list before you to get your cancer removed? Sorry, you're pretty much fucked unless you have to money to have the operation in the US. People's brain surgery appointments get pushed back by years and cancelled repeated times. So Slowsis, are you really willing to call a victim of nationalized healthcare an idiot because they'd rather get surgery quickly as opposed to, say, dying?

This is the thing that pisses me off about a lot of Canadian's. You claim that we in America are hyper-patriotic, but anyone in your country who might disagree with centralized healthcare is idiotic. All because you want to see your healthcare system as the gem of Canadian bueracracy, when in fact, it is a laughing stock comparable to America's own poor system.

Another rather funny irony on the health system in Canada is that you can buy insurance for your pets at the veternarians, but it actually illegal to buy health insurance for yourself. Two other nations where it is also illegal to purchase healthcare are Cuba and North Korea.

Also, the Canadian system generally caters to the healthy majority. So it isn't too surprising to see many Canadian's proudly boasting about their system, when in reality it's all because they haven't seen it from the inside, having never really been sick. Sure you can get primary doctor care and flu shots for free, but what good does that do when shit really hits the fan?

These above are all practical points. I don't even need to get into the philosophical sillienesses of centralized healthcare.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 09 Oct 2006 21:02

Recently there has been some controversy in the news about St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, which gets its funding from the government and recently had to shut down it's MRI machine some of the time due to lack of money in the budget, even when many Canadian's are languishing in long lines to get an MRI scan. Through an arrangment through a private company called "Timely Medical Alternatives", paying customers were able to gain access to MRI's at St. Pauls with the help of the company, which is turn gained revenues for the public hospital. Of course, since the government doesn't like its hospitals stepping out of line, their is now a full no investigation into the hospitals practices, who let their public equipment be used by a private company.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 09 Oct 2006 21:59

When my shoulders hurt I find punching an Oilers fan in the face much more soothing than a doctors visit.

janis · Post by **janis** » 10 Oct 2006 03:38

When did everyone (particularly policymakers) get indoctrinated with the idea of "user pays"? it seems to be a relitavely recent phenomenon. There seems to be a really big double standard, that the user pays only if they are poor. The US government supports and subsidises the wealthy and corporations, yet nobody seems to mind, but as soon as people try to provide healthcare for the disadvantaged in the community there is a huge problem. Why is it that many policymakers, supposedly elected by the population, are encouraged to subsidise the people who need subsidies the least? Further, why do people support this system when it clearly is not in their self interest to support it?

Also:

Aleksandr, I think Cuba is a poor example to compare to the US. The US population is almost 30 times that of Cuba. Its ten times larger than that of Canada.

As there is no moral argument against universal healthcare that leaves only the economic. So athough Cuba has a population 30 times smaller than the US it has far less than 1/30 of the US budget. So perhaps the US can take a look at the Cuban system, so that the pitiful amount that is spent on healthcare in the US can be used more efficiently.

Name one government agency that runs efficiently.

military.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 10 Oct 2006 06:03

Janis said:

As there is no moral argument against universal healthcare

Ah, finally, we're getting to the heart of the matter!

I know all you guys take this position, refer to this position. But now will somebody please explain this position? What exactly IS this moral argument in favor of universal health care? (no, its not good enough to just assume that we all share the same morality, or too assume that we all know what you mean when you refer to things like "the moral argument") Where are all the philosophy majors in this discussion? Show me that you know what you're talking about when you use phrases like that, rather than just basing this all on some gut feeling of right and wrong.