Health Care - What would you do?

**Kyle** · 09-25-2007, 10:22 AM

Since the off-topic is back in style and the topic came up in the UAW thread, I am finally going to break down and start a health care thread. Instead of immediately pitching a position (or ripping someone else's) I will throw out a few questions to spark the discussion.

Should the government be involved in health care at all? Should we guarantee health care to children? The disabled? The elderly? The poor? Everyone? Should we maintain a free market system? Go to a single payer system? If a market system, what role should the government play? Should it run a subsidized program of its own, give out tax breaks or vouchers, require more of employers, or mandate that everyone have insurance? Should the insurance industry be regulated in a different fashion? Should people be denied care at emergency rooms? What should be done about people without coverage? What principles are your opinions based on? Is it dictated by your strong belief in markets, personal property, health care as a right, social justice, or other principles?

Whew... As was hopefully made clear by the above word vomit, I don't think this is an especially simple issue. Hopefully this sparks some good discussion.

**bos** · 09-25-2007, 10:27 AM

I think we need to find a solution with the root problem. High cost of medical services. Why do doctors, surgeons, etc get paid rediculous amounts of money for nothing? We took our son to the doctor for an ear infection a month or so ago. it wasnt his usual pediatrician. My son had some ear wax in they way so the doctor removed it and billed us 80 bucks for an in office type surgery. What a joke. Our usualy ped. does it no charge. It takes 2 seconds. Why do some things cost and others dont. Its like me walking into walmart and buying a pack or reeses peanut butter cups for 89 cents and then 2 minutes later my wife goes in and buys one for 3 bucks.

**HILLCYD** · 09-25-2007, 10:28 AM

There's always one sure fire way to screw something up, let the govt get involved.

**4VR4CY** · 09-25-2007, 10:30 AM

I don't know a lot about the issue, but I have always thought that all health care providers and insurance companies should be considered non-profit business. That way they are led with a mentality of helping people rather than screwing people and paying the CEO 12 mill per year.

**Wesley** · 09-25-2007, 10:35 AM

I would make sure all kids under 12 and under are insured no matter what. In the long run, it is the right thing to do.

Between 13-67, offer somewhat reasonable insurance to compete with private industry for those that need it and will pay.

Taking care of the elderly? This will be a huge problem. Offer illegal immigrants the chance to become US citizens by taking care of the elderly for five years. Just kidding.

**Cyclonepride** · 09-25-2007, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Kyle

Since the off-topic is back in style and the topic came up in the UAW thread, I am finally going to break down and start a health care thread. Instead of immediately pitching a position (or ripping someone else's) I will throw out a few questions to spark the discussion.

Should the government be involved in health care at all? Should we guarantee health care to children? The disabled? The elderly? The poor? Everyone? Should we maintain a free market system? Go to a single payer system? If a market system, what role should the government play? Should it run a subsidized program of its own, give out tax breaks or vouchers, require more of employers, or mandate that everyone have insurance? Should the insurance industry be regulated in a different fashion? Should people be denied care at emergency rooms? What should be done about people without coverage? What principles are your opinions based on? Is it dictated by your strong belief in markets, personal property, health care as a right, social justice, or other principles?

Whew... As was hopefully made clear by the above word vomit, I don't think this is an especially simple issue. Hopefully this sparks some good discussion.

That is a big one, Kyle. I'm pretty sure I don't have enough information to have all the answers, but I have all sorts of opinions.

I think it starts with limits on liabilities that hospitals, doctors and drug companies face from law suits. If nothing else, it will remove that excuse from the conversation. I am all about free market health care. Anytime you subsidize the cost of something, you automatically increase demand, and therefore artificially create shortages.

Hospitals cannot turn away people. As far as I am concerned, those who use the system should be responsible for their own costs. If they do not feel that they can afford health insurance, how are they going to afford a hospital stay? It's the same choice that everyone faces, and if people want to roll the dice with their financial futures, then I guess they can have that debt around until they are able to pay it off. I spent three years paying off the uncovered costs (after insurance) of three surgeries, and the people I owed were more than gracious about it.

All my opinions come from a strong belief in the free market system, and a strong belief in individual responsibility. Some people will do what is right, some people will do whatever it is that they can get away with.

**Kyle** · 09-25-2007, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by cys_av8r

There's always one sure fire way to screw something up, let the govt get involved.

So what would you do with people who don't have coverage? Would you deny care at emergency rooms?

Is this assertion based on your belief that people will be better off as a whole if the government is not involved or on some other philosophy?

**SpokaneCY** · 09-25-2007, 10:38 AM

whether there IS a problem. When you hear the number of 45M w/out insurance, some report that 33% of that number is made up of illegals. Another third are eligible for medicaid but do not enroll. There is another group that has higher household incomes but chooses not to seek coverage.

If the number of uninsured is substantially less than 45M, is there still a national problem? What if there are truly only 5M w/out some sort of health coverage?

**bos** · 09-25-2007, 10:41 AM

The sad part is I would rather die then create a financial burden on my wife and kids. If it comes to me needing heart surgery that will cost me 150,000 out of pocket and will cripple my family, then I say screw it. It should never be like this. Thank God I have insurance. It may suck, but at least it helps a little.

**PreLives** · 09-25-2007, 10:42 AM

I have a queston. Is there any solution to health care or is it always going to be like it is and we can only make the problem less severe?

**Kyle** · 09-25-2007, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

but I have all sorts of opinions.

As I expected...

I think it starts with limits on liabilities that hospitals, doctors and drug companies face from law suits. If nothing else, it will remove that excuse from the conversation.

Any idea what you would cap it at? Is such an amount sufficient compensation for someone who is severely injured due to negligence? (e.g. has the wrong limb amputated, or suffers nervous system damage)

**Cyclonepride** · 09-25-2007, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by PreLives

I have a queston. Is there any solution to health care or is it always going to be like it is and we can only make the problem less severe?

Until you can pass a law that says it is illegal to spend your existence sucking off the tit of society, it will always be a problem. Government assistance should be available to those who are physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves. PERIOD.

**Kyle** · 09-25-2007, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Bryceman

I would make sure all kids under 12 and under are insured no matter what. In the long run, it is the right thing to do.

Between 13-67, offer somewhat reasonable insurance to compete with private industry for those that need it and will pay.

Why the cut off at age 12 vs. say 16 or 18? Is the expectation that you can should get a job at 12?

**isugcs** · 09-25-2007, 10:49 AM

Of course we should have free medical coverage. I mean, that's how it was in the oldin' days! Oh wait.

**Cyclonepride** · 09-25-2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Kyle

As I expected...

Any idea what you would cap it at? Is such an amount sufficient compensation for someone who is severely injured due to negligence? (e.g. has the wrong limb amputated, or suffers nervous system damage)

I don't know......5 million? Doctors and hospitals try their best to help people and save lives. In trying to do so, they may fail at times. Negligence should be compensated, but it must be real negligence.