Whether we do it in a coordinated, predictable fashion or a random ad-hoc manner we all (by which I mean society as a whole) end up paying for the health care system. Ron Paul and others on the far right of the political spectrum are vehemently opposed to any kind of single payer health insurance strategy and like to tell us that people should be free to choose whether to buy health insurance. They also like to remind us even the uninsured still get health care.
Unfortunately, that care doesn't just drop out of the sky for free. Somewhere, somehow, we will pay for it. When a hospital takes in a seriously ill or injured patient that has no insurance, the cost of that treatment gets passed along to those that can pay. Medicines and supplies are not free and doctors, nurses, and technicians need to get paid.
When Kent Snyder died at age 49 in 2008 after raising $35 million for Ron Paul's first run for the White House, he left behind $400,000 in unpaid medical bills after an illness of just a couple of weeks. You and I ultimately have to pay to cover those costs through higher premiums and copays.
Unless we as a society are prepared to turn away those who can't or won't pay for care or insurance, we need to make fundamental changes. Many of those in attendance at the most recent GOP presidential debate apparently would choose to "Let Him Die!" I'm not one of those people and I firmly believe that we need both a single payer system that covers everyone and we need to take the profit motive out of health care.
Embedded Link
Ron Paul's Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured
At CNN's Tea Party-indulging debate on Monday, Ron Paul, a medical doctor, faced a pointed line of questioning from Wolf Blitzer regarding the case of an uninsured young man who suddenly found himself…
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
Agree 100% that, unless we're willing to drop the "floor" on emergency care, we're paying for it one way or another.
Howerver, "take the profit motive out of health care" is questionable, depending on what it means, specifically whose profit motive for what.
With no profit motive, there are no new drugs, devices, diagnostics or other advances in medical technology. With no profit motive, no one wants to become a doctor.
A contrast to "no profit motive" might be "more intelligent consumption of healthcare resources" motive. Pay doctors a salary, not per case/treatment. Revise malpractice laws to deincentivize "defensive medicine" (throwing probably unnecesssary tests/diagnostics/drugs a patient b/c not doing so puts them at risk in a malpractice case).
Agree 100% that, unless we're willing to drop the "floor" on emergency care, we're paying for it one way or another.
Howerver, "take the profit motive out of health care" is questionable, depending on what it means, specifically whose profit motive for what.
With no profit motive, there are no new drugs, devices, diagnostics or other advances in medical technology. With no profit motive, no one wants to become a doctor.
A contrast to "no profit motive" might be "more intelligent consumption of healthcare resources" motive. Pay doctors a salary, not per case/treatment. Revise malpractice laws to deincentivize "defensive medicine" (throwing probably unnecesssary tests/diagnostics/drugs a patient b/c not doing so puts them at risk in a malpractice case).
In reference to profits, I'm thinking mainly of the insurance and hospital side. Obviously the drug makers need some incentive beyond the betterment of humanity. However having hospitals and the the insurer(s) focus on how best to utilize the available resources to help the largest number of people rather than wall street would probably incentivize them to pursue approaches that are both affordable and effective.
In reference to profits, I'm thinking mainly of the insurance and hospital side. Obviously the drug makers need some incentive beyond the betterment of humanity. However having hospitals and the the insurer(s) focus on how best to utilize the available resources to help the largest number of people rather than wall street would probably incentivize them to pursue approaches that are both affordable and effective.
Ah…indeed.
At its core, insurance is about providing the minimum outpay of coverage that will still get you customers.
The flipside is to go non-profit/single source, but I've yet to see an efficiently and competently run large-scale federal beurocracy.
This is where I kinda buy the insurance exhange idea, in that it might allow consumers to actually shop and compare and make reasonably informed decisions about who they're going with and why.
I was a fan of the public option, as it would provide a safety net for those that couldn't/wouldn't get care through their employers. My assumption is it would turn out to be an acceptable affordable option over no healthcare, but in the end be kinda crappy. Because of that crappiness, I don't believe the argument that creating a public option would dooooom the private insurance industry, as offering something better than the public option would be a good recruiting tool for employers.
Ah…indeed.
At its core, insurance is about providing the minimum outpay of coverage that will still get you customers.
The flipside is to go non-profit/single source, but I've yet to see an efficiently and competently run large-scale federal beurocracy.
This is where I kinda buy the insurance exhange idea, in that it might allow consumers to actually shop and compare and make reasonably informed decisions about who they're going with and why.
I was a fan of the public option, as it would provide a safety net for those that couldn't/wouldn't get care through their employers. My assumption is it would turn out to be an acceptable affordable option over no healthcare, but in the end be kinda crappy. Because of that crappiness, I don't believe the argument that creating a public option would dooooom the private insurance industry, as offering something better than the public option would be a good recruiting tool for employers.