Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
...dealing with the immediate problem, like emergency medical care? Let's say that I get shot in the leg and I have no insurance. The cop gets the bad guy, and I do what? I try to get it out myself and get an infection? I go to a free clinic and compete in line with the 45 million other uninsured people?
What if just emergency care were covered in a social program like fire and police? It's dealing with the immediate problem, which seems more than comparable to fire crime (firemen prevent the fire from getting worse, doctors prevent the wound from getting worse; firemen put out the fire, doctors clean and stitch the wound).
|
That's a fine and dandy suggestion. I think it has merit. I also think that it would never happen for the simple reason that you'd have to raise taxes to do so and figure out when coverage gets cut off. I think some emergency ambulances provided by governments are free to the patient, and I agree that's the way it should be. But you can't make emergency rooms into public entities. If you get shot (again), you go to the hospital and worry about how to pay for it later. In the current system, charity would take care of a portion of the bill if you are uninsured.
Quote:
|
Do you have statistical information available to you on this? I think it'd be really helpful. I know most doctors are against socialized medicine (and a lot of that has to do with the fact that they believe they'll be making a lot less and seeing a lot more patients, which is a big fat myth).
|
Again, this isn't what I do. I don't have this kind of information at my fingertips. I'll check my back issues of Business Insurance when I get home to see what I can find with a minimal amount of searching.
Quote:
|
I'm aware that the cost of these technologies is astronomical, but it was astronomical in the 80s and 90s, too. Expensive technology is hardly something new, and I have no information that tells me that technology now has become more expensive relative to inflation. A million dollar machine in the 80s may have a counterpart ( better replacement replacement) now, but it's basically the same when you adjust for inflation, according to my cardiologist.
|
I don't think I've been clear. The $1M machine 10 years ago has a new version that costs $2M. The rate of inflation should make it about $1.1-$1.2M. The technology costs more today.
I
Quote:
wonder if the better thing might be ceilings on malpractice suits imposed by the government. No one needs $15b because a doctor did his best but still couldn't save someone. I know a lot of doctors make mistakes, and it's important that the victims be taken care of, but what can a million dollars do for someone who's finger was put back on wrong?
I imagine this might be something we agree on. I'll have to check and see how malpractice is handled in France.
|
Actually, we don't even get close to agreeing on this. Malpractice caps have worked very well at keeping insurance costs down for California doctors, but there's a doctor that I know of in N. CA that delivered a number of babies while high on cocaine. He moved from Illinois specifically because of the caps. Many times the doctor didn't make any mistakes and life happened. Some times the doctor plain old fucked up. Those are the times where the cap is a huge disservice to the claimant.
Quote:
|
I understand what you're saying, but I still can't bring myself to think that 45 million Americans don't buy insurance because they just don't feel like it. As a matter of fact, I'd guess that most of them can't afford it or have been denied. I feel deeply for them because, had it not been for positive circumstance, I would have been one who was not insured because my preexisting condition. If I hadn't been able to get a few scholarships, I'd be dirt poor. It's that small twist of fate that separates me from these 45 million. If you can't think of their situation, think of yours. Imagine if somehow you weren't able to afford medical care and something, god forbid, were to happen to you or your family. I would want a system in place that can deal with anything you can throw at it whether you're Bill Gates or a bum.
|
You missed the next paragraph where I conceeded that this isn't the majority of uninsured. The majority are most certainly those who can't afford the coverage. I just went off on a rant against those that can but choose not to.
As far as single payer - no. Not at all. Single payer means that someone pays all of their own bills outside the health insurance system. They are the "single payer". My proposal would have the individual apply through the state, be assigned a health insurer who's already writing business in the state and assigned into a plan with the payment burden being shouldered by the state for the most part.