Trump / GOP's Stunning Hypocrisy on Preexisting Conditions

Uninsured still receive treatment by going to the ER which is one of the most expensive ways to receive healthcare. It's typically paid for by your state, county and municipal tax dollars. Since ER visits are not only costly, it also typically means a patient receiving treatment is in such a poor state of health that they need to resume some of the most expensive forms of treatment just to maintain their current poor health standards. It's reactive healthcare system that still puts an enormous drain on the insured and provides non-preventative treatment for the uninsured.

A single payer system or universal healthcare would actually lower costs since it would encourage people to get annual check ups and receive treatment for minor health injuries that are unlikely to get worse from negligence by being uninsured. Prevention is key.

I have relatives in their 50s that look like they're in their 70s due to obesity and other poor lifestyle choices. They have healthcare where they receive Rx medications to treat the symptoms instead of focusing on diet and lifestyle changes that would provide long term health benefits for them over Rx. This too is reactive healthcare.

What I think a lot of people not in favor of a universal healthcare system realize is that no matter what, you're still paying the tab for the indentured and uninsured. It would be better and less costly to provide the uninsured preventative healthcare measures before their health concerns get exponentially worse and more costly.

 

Well, yes the Emergency Room stuff needs to stop. It's being abused, as everyone knows. The law says "no one can be refused" -- that law clearly needs to change.

 

About half that. And oh yeah those social programs? We're 21 trillion in debt. Maybe you've heard of that. It will have to be addressed at some point. Better sooner than later. Oh and social programs largely subsidize and reward dysfunction. National parks are Ok.

 

151,000 people die every day, to quote Blue Oyster Cult. There's nothing we can do about it. When it's your time, it's your time. That applies to me and everyone, obviously.

A couple of years ago, my mother died of a horrible case of cancer. Toward the end of her days, she racked up about 88-90K in medical bills (at MDA no less). What good did it do? Nothing, except greasing the administrative medical sector. Fortunately my mother (and father) were responsible people, and had their own insurance as well as Medicare. Responsibility goes a long way.

But that does not hide the fact that this was in fact an inefficient use of private and public financial resources.

Getting back to your example, there are two problems: a) over-inflated medical costs b) public expectation that "everyone should be covered."

A and B reinforce each other, and in a negative fashion.

 

Just a few quick thoughts.

a) "due to obesity and other poor lifestyle choices." -- You said it -- their choices, that's on them. They did not live a healthy lifestyle. Hate to say it, but people seeking to avoid the consequences of their choices is a large part of the reason we're in this mess.

b) I addressed the Emergency Room think elsewhere in this thread. My elderly father was in the ER about 3 or 4 times (at least) over the past year. But he had insurance, and actual emergencies. I've seen what goes on there. The ER system is being abused, as you noted. The answer here is to change the law. I would be ok with some very basic service for a nominal fee, but we need to quit being so "compassionate." That's how we get to be $21 trillion in debt. Other countries (usually poorer ones) actually have it right -- if you don't have the money, you don't get served.

c) I agree with the prevention thing, but I don't believe that this requires the single payer system. I have a buddy who doesn't have health insurance. Pays about $60 cash for a visit to the doctor. If you don't have $60 to visit the doctor, you're mismanaging your financial resources. Moreover, I don't think prevention even requires a visit to the doctor, or not many visits. It's all about learning and living a healthy lifestyle. You don't need the doctor to do this.

 

Actually, that isn't true. Hospitals and folks that bill for medical institutes don't have a problem sticking it to the non-human greedy insurance company. They would have a problem sticking it to folks when those costs are being tightly regulated. It's one of the reasons why health costs are lower in the nations that have similar type of health care systems.

 

My main (and quick, pressed for time) reply to this is that those Euro nations, and Canada, have way higher tax regimes to pay for this. Many Americans object to such higher tax rates, as they should. Medical care is a service, not a right. Someone has to pay for it. It seems that the proponents of the single-payer system want someone other than themselves to pay for it. Of course they don't bring this fact up in their discussion of the issue.

 

What are you talking about with other people paying for it? I'm in favor of a single payer system. I'm a taxpayer. I would be paying for it. I think there are plenty of other taxpayers that are also in favor of single-payer system of health care. They are paying for it as well.

 

This may shock you but people don't always choose not to have insurance. Sometimes that choice is made for them by the high cost of insurance and employers that don't provide it to their employees for whatever reason. Get out in the world see how it works.

Why do we have overinflated medical costs? Go find out and you might be shocked to learn that the easiest way to lower those costs would be single payer. But, that might ruin your ideas of how the world works and you couldn't make baseless and false claims all day on an internet message board.

Now, those people that can look outside themselves and think of another's need probably want everyone to be covered. I would gladly pay more taxes to do it, unlike some. I am not afraid to admit that I have benefited from a hand up, that put me in the position that I am in today. I am willing to pay that forward because it was given to me when I had nothing to give back. Actually, most people I know that have had a hand up feel this way. It's those that feel entitled to the hand up that drive me crazy. I acknowledge that it's on both sides I really do.

However, there is something hypocritical and fallacious with bragging about responsible parents who leaned on the closest thing we have to single payer as proof that single payer is bad. . . . . . .

 

So your solution is more akin to "Kill em all and let G-d sort them out"?

What do you think will happen if a bunch of people can't get treatment for things like the flu or other illnesses that could spread but typically don't because hospitals are required to treat people?

 

Not sure how you get "kill em all" out of my message. There's a huge difference between killing someone and letting nature take its course.

I actually would not be against something like government sponsored flu shots, on a limited basis. I don't expect that that would cost too much, and could possibly do a lot of good, maybe. (This leaves aside the question of whether flu shots are actually a good idea--I have serious doubts).

It's people who treat the emergency room as their own paid-for hotel and spa that is the problem. And yes, I've seen them in the emergency room. My dad had to share rooms with a few of these guys -- who, by the way, were there not for any emergency but because they had some ongoing, long-term issues relating to bad diet/smoking/drinking.

In other words, a lot of people in the emergency room were their because of problems that were of their own making, and over a long time. It wasn't like they had slipped and broken a bone, which is what we usually think about when we think of people going to the emergency room.

 

1) I have gone out in the world and earned and won a job that provides such health insurance. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

2) You say you are happy to pay more taxes. Fine. Then come April 15, send in more taxes than Uncle Sam says you owe. I'm guessing you won't do it. The problem with arguments from people such as yourself is that you also want to force other people to pay more taxes for your sense of fairness/equity -- a sense that I may not share. Which is to say, you're very generous with other people's money. I would hope you see the problem with this.

3) My parents depended on their own privately bought insurance, and Medicare. Not sure how you can see this as close to single payer.

Yes, Medicare and SS are socialistic -- there is no getting around that. However, they exist, and they won't be eliminated easily. And if people have paid into them, it's politically difficult to argue for their elimination.

So, sometimes you have to accept the government programs that exist, and hope that they won't be expanded; and then fight tooth and nail against any new such programs.

And, if SS and Medicare are going to survive into the 2030s and beyond, they are going to have to be scaled back, not expanded.

 

You don't see the connection between not requiring hospitals to treat anyone and everyone to a rise in death from easily treatable diseases?

Letting nature take its course? That's f***ing dark.

 

Heh.

...and who says nobody believes in evolution?

 

As I said, life's a b&tch and then you die. We should not shrink from proper policies because some people think they are "dark."

And to keep things from being "dark," I'm guessing you would be happy to see everyone else's taxes raised. So I can't quite agree with your position.

As I have said elsewhere, we have only a short time here. In the time that I/we have, why should I be forced to pay for someone else's lifestyle choices? Many diseases and medical problems boil down to just that.

Some people might say, "well, my child got [fill in the blank]." I would say: You chose to have a child. That inevitably brings on increased costs and uncertainty. You should not be able to throw that cost onto me, in a just society.

 

That was a long way around just saying, "Yes, I think the poor should die because they're poor." Just own it, man.

 

The fact that they so boldly lie about their own policies and actions is both morally reprehensible and a further threat to our democracy. It certainly speaks volumes about how they view their constituents, voters, and supporters.

Trump has demonstrated that there is no lie too obvious to not be parroted by the flock. We can probably expect this level of lying about every GOP action.

 

My taxes that I pay go toward a lot of crap that I don't wish to help pay for. I don't wish to help pay for a majority of the military expenses etc. So I'm not going to feel bad if other people who don't want to pay for a better health care system that will provide more health care at a lower cost.

There is no reason to not do this. It is not only about wanting good health care it is about loving freedom. Why take away the freedom of a poor person to quality health care when we can provide that freedom? It is wrong that poor people should have fewer freedoms than others.

You mentioned that people need to stop abusing the emergency room treatment law. But a person without insurance has to seek out that option because they don't have the freedom for something different.

 

People don't die because they are poor. They die -- if they are younger than say 65 -- because they make poor choices.

It's interesting that you're trying to frame my argument in terms of moral outrage.

I can play that game too. Why shouldn't I be outraged when my wallet and hard work is plundered to pay for other people's problems--and frankly, their often horrifically bad and stupid decisions? I'll be happy to "own" this sentence.

 

1. yeah I am not shocked you are not sure what I am talking about, thanks for proving my point.

2. Oh, I am more than aware you don't want to pay more taxes, not a big shock. I gave my reasoning for why I am willing to. You then turn that into an attack on you, how sociopathic of you.

3. Great for them, some people don't have that choice and spare me the "that's their fault" line I have heard it ad nauseam with topics like this. It's a weak argument that amounts to. I have mine you can pound sand, that is until you don't have yours then it's not fair. . . . . like my original post in this thread. So thanks again for proving my point.

All and all you are like the perfect point prover for me, stick around.