Medicare for all? Please explain...

[deleted480308]

It's hard to trust your vision when your world is black and white with no grey.

I spend more time talking directly with patients about treatment and testing options than the avg pathologist. All they want to know is if it’s covered. They don’t care about the number as long as it’s not getting to their bank account.

We might have different patient populations though, who knows...maybe we’re both wrong

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted941485]

Rather than wasting your time on philosophical arguments, you would probably be better served preparing for the inevitability of making less money in a system you don’t want.

Because honestly you can’t control voters or bend politics to your will...you can only react.

 

[cmz]

What does medicare for all do to the already gutted PCCP billing?

 

[deleted941485]

What does medicare for all do to the already gutted PCCP billing?

Lol don’t worry because it isn’t like you will be able to influence that practice anyway

 

[gbwillner]

Am I reading this wrong...? That's borderline sociopathic...Oh you can't afford the cost of a biopsy and workup? Guess you just gotta live with that lump until you save up!

AMS patient shows up in the ED...better run his credit before we treat!

How asinine.

I have a perfect, final solution to solve the health insurance problem.

First, you buy the lot next to every tertiary medical center in the country.

Second, you eliminate health insurance all together. Problem solved. Everyone gets to keep every penny they earned.

Third, you hire those lazy jobless people and haven them clear the property purchased by the state next to the hospital. Then you have them dig a deep pit in the lot. Congrats, you also solved the unemployment problem!

Fourth, sick people go to the medical center. Costs will significantly decreased because there is no more insurance and all costs are paid by the patient, so they won't need to cover expenses from underpaid or denied claims.

Fifth, if the patient can't pay for services, then they are denied. They can go next door and jump in the pit, as to not be a burden on society.

Sixth, profit!

 

[bauber]

Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ScubaV]

I spend more time talking directly with patients about treatment and testing options than the avg pathologist. All they want to know is if it’s covered. They don’t care about the number as long as it’s not getting to their bank account.

We might have different patient populations though, who knows...maybe we’re both wrong

Perhaps there is a reality outside what you or I personally see and experience and it can't be neatly classified into black or white, right or wrong.

 

[PathRes123]

Hadn't expected a 78 y/o senator who had a heart attack in middle of the campaign to lead Democratic primaries. But Bernie Sanders is and seems his appeal is only increasing! Quite believe him when he says he has the momentum, can get new voters in the General and likely win the presidency.

If that happens, what do folks think are the chances for M4A becoming law, and in how much time? Will that be the death knell of non-academic pathology as we know it?

 

[gbwillner]

Hadn't expected a 78 y/o senator who had a heart attack in middle of the campaign to lead Democratic primaries. But Bernie Sanders is and seems his appeal is only increasing! Quite believe him when he says he has the momentum, can get new voters in the General and likely win the presidency.

If that happens, what do folks think are the chances for M4A becoming law, and in how much time? Will that be the death knell of non-academic pathology as we know it?

No, I don't believe so. I don't think expanded Medicare would be bad for PP, in fact i think the opposite.

One problem for PP in the current system is the Medicare effectively sets reimbursement rates already, and you negotiate for rates above, but usually below that rate. You then fight for other groups not only for volume from providers, but also contracts with payors. Payors are likely to go with the lowest common denominator (cheapest contract) unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Medicare would ensure the same rate for the same service for everyone (within a jurisdiction). They would play be fixed rules (the law), so it would be easier to predict rates and coverage.

Not sure that will affect consolidation, but I don't think in an of itself it will have a negative impact on the market.

I think most complaints from posters here and out in the world are due to pure ignorance of the subject and parroting propaganda from talking heads who are similarly ignorant.

 

[StatistPriceControlsFail]

"The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the ’60s got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity. But the fact is: You don’t abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not any politician, lobbyist or activist calls it a “right.” To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still—though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name."

Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” - The Objective Standard

Surveys the history of government interference in health insurance and medicine, specifies the problems caused thereby, and shows the free-market solution.

www.theobjectivestandard.com

1. Phase out Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security). In addition to being immoral due to coercive taxes (no, you do not pay for your own benefits--the vast majority of your current benefits are taken from current taxpayers) and reimbursement price controls (that always cause shortages and surpluses--see economics 101), the promises to pay benefits in the future cannot possibly be paid.
"Premiums paid by the beneficiaries will cover only about 25% of program costs; the rest of the spending is unfinanced. Income and corporate taxes fall far short of what is needed to cover these costs along with the rest of the government’s obligations. Medicare’s overall unfunded liability over 75 years is more than $37 trillion."

The financial hole for Social Security and Medicare is even deeper than the experts say

The combined unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are more than $50 trillion, according to official government projections. But those...

www.marketwatch.com

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

Today, the Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs. The reports echo past conclusions: Social Security and Medicare are still going bankrupt.

www.americanactionforum.org

What to Know about Medicare Spending and Financing | KFF

This brief provides an overview of Medicare spending and financing, based on the most recent historical and projected data from the Medicare Trustees and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The brief highlights trends in Medicare spending and key drivers of spending growth, including higher...

www.kff.org

2. Repeal EMTALA.
3. Repeal the tax-exempt status of employer provided health insurance.
4. Repeal benefit mandates. Allow any and all varieties of plans.

 

[StatistPriceControlsFail]

No, I don't believe so. I don't think expanded Medicare would be bad for PP, in fact i think the opposite.

One problem for PP in the current system is the Medicare effectively sets reimbursement rates already, and you negotiate for rates above, but usually below that rate. You then fight for other groups not only for volume from providers, but also contracts with payors. Payors are likely to go with the lowest common denominator (cheapest contract) unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Medicare would ensure the same rate for the same service for everyone (within a jurisdiction). They would play be fixed rules (the law), so it would be easier to predict rates and coverage.

Not sure that will affect consolidation, but I don't think in an of itself it will have a negative impact on the market.

I think most complaints from posters here and out in the world are due to pure ignorance of the subject and parroting propaganda from talking heads who are similarly ignorant.

Defending the individual right not to have force used against you is ignorance and parroting propaganda? Could you be projecting?

"Government-run health care systems do not and cannot work, because they improperly treat health care as a “right.” Health care, like food and clothing, is a need, but not a right. It is a commodity that is created by the intelligent thought, creativity, and hard work of producers, such as doctors, nurses, allied medical professionals, and hospital administrators. When the government treats health care as a right, it necessarily violates the genuine rights of the providers who produce those goods and should be free to offer them for exchange on whatever terms they see fit, not forced to serve people against their own judgment. And it necessarily violates the rights of consumers, who should be free to trade with providers by mutual consent to mutual benefit. As we have seen repeatedly, good doctors cannot and will not continue working under a system that enslaves them."

Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” - The Objective Standard

Surveys the history of government interference in health insurance and medicine, specifies the problems caused thereby, and shows the free-market solution.

www.theobjectivestandard.com

 

[Guest8]

"The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the ’60s got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity. But the fact is: You don’t abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not any politician, lobbyist or activist calls it a “right.” To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still—though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name."

Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” - The Objective Standard

Surveys the history of government interference in health insurance and medicine, specifies the problems caused thereby, and shows the free-market solution.

www.theobjectivestandard.com

1. Phase out Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security). In addition to being immoral due to coercive taxes (no, you do not pay for your own benefits--the vast majority of your current benefits are taken from current taxpayers) and reimbursement price controls (that always cause shortages and surpluses--see economics 101), the promises to pay benefits in the future cannot possibly be paid.
"Premiums paid by the beneficiaries will cover only about 25% of program costs; the rest of the spending is unfinanced. Income and corporate taxes fall far short of what is needed to cover these costs along with the rest of the government’s obligations. Medicare’s overall unfunded liability over 75 years is more than $37 trillion."

The financial hole for Social Security and Medicare is even deeper than the experts say

The combined unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are more than $50 trillion, according to official government projections. But those...

www.marketwatch.com

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

Today, the Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs. The reports echo past conclusions: Social Security and Medicare are still going bankrupt.

www.americanactionforum.org

What to Know about Medicare Spending and Financing | KFF

This brief provides an overview of Medicare spending and financing, based on the most recent historical and projected data from the Medicare Trustees and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The brief highlights trends in Medicare spending and key drivers of spending growth, including higher...

www.kff.org

2. Repeal EMTALA.
3. Repeal the tax-exempt status of employer provided health insurance.
4. Repeal benefit mandates. Allow any and all varieties of plans.

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

 

[StatistPriceControlsFail]

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

At least your reply accurately sums up the argument for initiating force via taxes and government controls: there aren't any.

 

[Guest8]

At least your reply accurately sums up the argument for initiating force via taxes and government controls: there aren't any.

I'll just be over here rolling my eyes repeatedly. You go ahead and find a functioning, tax-less utopia. Be sure to call and let us all know when you find it.

 

[deleted480308]

I'll just be over here rolling my eyes repeatedly. You go ahead and find a functioning, tax-less utopia. Be sure to call and let us all know when you find it.

We definitely had a funded govt pre income tax

 

[gbwillner]

Defending the individual right not to have force used against you is ignorance and parroting propaganda? Could you be projecting?

"Government-run health care systems do not and cannot work, because they improperly treat health care as a “right.” Health care, like food and clothing, is a need, but not a right. It is a commodity that is created by the intelligent thought, creativity, and hard work of producers, such as doctors, nurses, allied medical professionals, and hospital administrators. When the government treats health care as a right, it necessarily violates the genuine rights of the providers who produce those goods and should be free to offer them for exchange on whatever terms they see fit, not forced to serve people against their own judgment. And it necessarily violates the rights of consumers, who should be free to trade with providers by mutual consent to mutual benefit. As we have seen repeatedly, good doctors cannot and will not continue working under a system that enslaves them."

Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” - The Objective Standard

Surveys the history of government interference in health insurance and medicine, specifies the problems caused thereby, and shows the free-market solution.

www.theobjectivestandard.com

I suppose I could be projecting, but likely it is you. I make no issue or argument about the "morality" of taxes and the "right" of having Medicare. I simply was addressing the question regarding what it would do to the marketplace and how it would affect providers. All else is on you. Many dismiss the concept out of hand that it will be bad for the market, and this is based usually on nothing.

I think it's funny that you spout about how government run health care "cannot" work, yet it seems to be present and working all over the world at this point. The most unstable system seems to be ours.

I personally have no preference if the government runs healthcare or there are other systems that do. It is clear that both can be capable.

Be sure you stock up on bitcoin and gold bars though, because you know the government will collapse soon. Probably because you don't pay immoral taxes.

 

[deleted480308]

I suppose I could be projecting, but likely it is you. I make no issue or argument about the "morality" of taxes and the "right" of having Medicare. I simply was addressing the question regarding what it would do to the marketplace and how it would affect providers. All else is on you. Many dismiss the concept out of hand that it will be bad for the market, and this is based usually on nothing.

I think it's funny that you spout about how government run health care "cannot" work, yet it seems to be present and working all over the world at this point. The most unstable system seems to be ours.

I personally have no preference if the government runs healthcare or there are other systems that do. It is clear that both can be capable.

Be sure you stock up on bitcoin and gold bars though, because you know the government will collapse soon. Probably because you don't pay immoral taxes.

ours isn't actually behind the world on most metrics when you look at them, we have great care if you can afford it. Fabulous care.

 

[gbwillner]

ours isn't actually behind the world on most metrics when you look at them, we have great care if you can afford it. Fabulous care.

Absolutely. We have great care here. It's the cost that is unsustainable. Lots of reasons for it, and there is no magic bullet to fix it.

 

[deleted480308]

Absolutely. We have great care here. It's the cost that is unsustainable. Lots of reasons for it, and there is no magic bullet to fix it.

the cost is plenty sustainable if we stop pretending everyone can have everything

 

[Guest8]

We definitely had a funded govt pre income tax

Yet still a government funded by tax. "A rose by any other name..."

 

[bauber]

One in three campaigns through GoFundMe are for medical costs and the GoFundMe site states they are the leader in online medical fundraising. There are over 250,000 medical campaigns per year raising $650 million each year.

This libertarian stuff is pure fantasyland nonsense. If you're poor, you suffer and you die. That's what y'all are advocating.

 

[deleted480308]

This libertarian stuff is pure fantasyland nonsense. If you're poor, you suffer and you die. That's what y'all are advocating.

We all die. That fact doesn’t obligate our neighbor to buy is things

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

This libertarian stuff is pure fantasyland nonsense. If you're poor, you suffer and you die. That's what y'all are advocating.

There is a middle ground in there.

The majority of the medical care in this country can be done inexpensively. This includes primary care, most medications, most labs, lots of imaging, basic pathology. I had a cash-only practice for a few years and its amazing how cheap so much of medicine actually can be.

If insurance was reserved for stuff that's actually expensive (major surgery, trauma, ICU time, cancer), it would be significantly cheaper.

 

[gbwillner]

There is a middle ground in there.

The majority of the medical care in this country can be done inexpensively. This includes primary care, most medications, most labs, lots of imaging, basic pathology. I had a cash-only practice for a few years and its amazing how cheap so much of medicine actually can be.

If insurance was reserved for stuff that's actually expensive (major surgery, trauma, ICU time, cancer), it would be significantly cheaper.

I agree... there are infinite possibilities to address the issues, some better than others. The world is not an all or none dilemma. But some are so dogmatic that they never take their concrete and rigid philosophy to their natural conclusion; that's why I used my "pit" solution to demonstrate its absurdity.

 

[deleted480308]

I agree... there are infinite possibilities to address the issues, some better than others. The world is not an all or none dilemma. But some are so dogmatic that they never take their concrete and rigid philosophy to their natural conclusion; that's why I used my "pit" solution to demonstrate its absurdity.

I definitely understand the end implications of the ideology

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

There is a middle ground in there.

The majority of the medical care in this country can be done inexpensively. This includes primary care, most medications, most labs, lots of imaging, basic pathology. I had a cash-only practice for a few years and its amazing how cheap so much of medicine actually can be.

If insurance was reserved for stuff that's actually expensive (major surgery, trauma, ICU time, cancer), it would be significantly cheaper.

Make those cash only as well. It works for the Amish. Insurance jacks the price of everything up and creates false markets.

 

[johnnyb255]

Healthcare isn’t a right.

As a non-US poster I've got no skin in the game, but wow- ouch.

Access to healthcare is an Article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which I presume the US is still a signatory to).

 

[deleted480308]

As a non-US poster I've got no skin in the game, but wow- ouch.

Access to healthcare is an Article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which I presume the US is still a signatory to).

I give literally zero craps about the UN opinion. It is not a right

 

[johnnyb255]

I give literally zero craps about the UN opinion. It is not a right

Well I'd argue the point of being a signatory to a multinational agreement is that it's your (the US's) opinion as well. Eleanor Roosevelt was the chair of the Committee that wrote it.

Genuinely interested though- is this the general position of most Americans? Because it puzzles the rest of the world seeing your healthcare insurance system- certainly puzzles me- but that's based on the absolute starting point of 'access to healthcare is a fundamental human right'. If that isn't a shared starting point (and again wow, just Googling 'Is health care a right in America' indicates it's probably more on the side of 'no')- it makes more sense.

 

[deleted480308]

Well I'd argue the point of being a signatory to a multinational agreement is that it's your (the US's) opinion as well. Eleanor Roosevelt was the chair of the Committee that wrote it.

Genuinely interested though- is this the general position of most Americans? Because it puzzles the rest of the world seeing your healthcare insurance system- certainly puzzles me- but that's based on the absolute starting point of 'access to healthcare is a fundamental human right'. If that isn't a shared starting point (and again wow, just Googling 'Is health care a right in America' indicates it's probably more on the side of 'no')- it makes more sense.

There are a lot of us who would be pleased to tell the UN to find a new hq and back out altogether, but yeah there are quite a bunch of Americans who don’t think healthcare is a right. It’s not if you understand the concept of positive and negative rights

 

[NITRAS]

Basing our moral decisions on what the UN thinks. . . . .These threads do sometimes have interesting turns, but this is one of the funniest in a while.

 

[johnnyb255]

There are a lot of us who would be pleased to tell the UN to find a new hq and back out altogether, but yeah there are quite a bunch of Americans who don’t think healthcare is a right. It’s not if you understand the concept of positive and negative rights

Go on.

 

[johnnyb255]

Basing our moral decisions on what the UN thinks. . . . .These threads do sometimes have interesting turns, but this is one of the funniest in a while.

Well I only mentioned it because I honestly didn't realise access to health care was not widely considered a basic human right in the US.

 

[bauber]

Right wing/libertarian dorks in the US are content with society falling apart around them so long as they're doing okay. They try to use special philosophical arguments about rights and will tell you how the US stands alone in doing it the right away and the rest of the developed world is wrong. At the end of the day it all boils down to being selfish and a **** you I've got mine mentality. The right wing deficit hawks are nowhere to be found when you bring up the massive subsidies given to corporations that contribute to destruction of the planet or human life but the second you want to use tax dollars to help people and maybe try to make poor folks lives a little easier they come scurrying out shouting about rights and costs.

 

[Thr0mbus]

Well I'd argue the point of being a signatory to a multinational agreement is that it's your (the US's) opinion as well. Eleanor Roosevelt was the chair of the Committee that wrote it.

Genuinely interested though- is this the general position of most Americans? Because it puzzles the rest of the world seeing your healthcare insurance system- certainly puzzles me- but that's based on the absolute starting point of 'access to healthcare is a fundamental human right'. If that isn't a shared starting point (and again wow, just Googling 'Is health care a right in America' indicates it's probably more on the side of 'no')- it makes more sense.

"Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right"

Define access please......

Access as in "I have free government healthcare in Venezuela" (socialist country that is broken down)
Access as in "I have government healthcare in Canada, my surgery for my tumor is scheduled in 6 months"
Access as in "I have healthcare in the US, I have access to surgery TODAY for my cancer"

 

[Guest8]

"Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right"

Define access please......

Access as in "I have free government healthcare in Venezuela" (socialist country that is broken down)
Access as in "I have government healthcare in Canada, my surgery for my tumor is scheduled in 6 months"
Access as in "I have healthcare in the US, I have access to surgery TODAY for my cancer"

No one in Canada is waiting 6 months for cancer surgery, they're waiting for non-emergent, elective surgeries. And MANY people in the US wait for healthcare and surgery - it takes weeks/months or longer to see many specialists in the US. No one is getting cancer surgery the same day they see an oncologist, that's complete BS.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

This forum is turning about as loony as the anesthesia forum. You aren't going to talk each other into your left or right wing views so you are wasting time.

 

[johnnyb255]

"Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right"

Define access please......

Access as in "I have free government healthcare in Venezuela" (socialist country that is broken down)
Access as in "I have government healthcare in Canada, my surgery for my tumor is scheduled in 6 months"
Access as in "I have healthcare in the US, I have access to surgery TODAY for my cancer"

From a personal view- Access as in "I have free public healthcare and subsidised primary care in Australia, the country isn't socialist, it isn't broken down, my surgery for my tumour is scheduled when clinically necessary, which could be TODAY if it's an emergency". The government negotiates pharmaceutical costs as the single buyer, and subsidises it to roughly $40 a prescription (or roughly $10 if you're on a concession), no matter the drug cost. A national body of health professionals assess drug applications for approval based on efficacy, a national body of health professionals recommend listing medications for subsidy based on cost effectiveness.

Doctors and patients decide what treatment is delivered. 'Approval' from an insurer is not required. There are good relations with pharma, compassionate access schemes to high cost drugs not yet listed are common. If an efficacious treatment is available overseas though not in Australia, the government will contribute to costs for the patient to travel.

In addition there is a thriving private healthcare system which services those with private health insurance, especially for elective surgery (knee replacements etc), oncology and psychiatry. Doctors are the highest paid profession. Tax rates around OECD average (similar to US, lower than Scandinavia).

Objectively and in comparison with other countries: Infant mortality rate is below OECD average, health efficiency rankings are high, access to same day/next day appointments are quick, outcomes are good.

EDIT: Grammar.

 

[Thr0mbus]

No one in Canada is waiting 6 months for cancer surgery, they're waiting for non-emergent, elective surgeries. And MANY people in the US wait for healthcare and surgery - it takes weeks/months or longer to see many specialists in the US. No one is getting cancer surgery the same day they see an oncologist, that's complete BS.

Go to Mayo and listen to the patient stories! (I have)

We have folks who get colonoscopies with cancer and the surgeons are calling that afternoon for a diagnosis so they can get them on the table!

Service must SUCK where you are at!

 

[johnnyb255]

This forum is turning about as loony as the anesthesia forum. You aren't going to talk each other into your left or right wing views so you are wasting time.

I fear I have opened a religious debate as an outsider, but I- again- honestly didn't realise the underlying basis (right to health care) was such a contentious issue. I'm not trying to provoke, I'm trying to understand such a foreign concept to me.

 

[deleted480308]

Go on.

Do you understand the concept of negative rights?

 

[deleted480308]

Right wing/libertarian dorks in the US are content with society falling apart around them so long as they're doing okay. They try to use special philosophical arguments about rights and will tell you how the US stands alone in doing it the right away and the rest of the developed world is wrong. At the end of the day it all boils down to being selfish and a **** you I've got mine mentality. The right wing deficit hawks are nowhere to be found when you bring up the massive subsidies given to corporations that contribute to destruction of the planet or human life but the second you want to use tax dollars to help people and maybe try to make poor folks lives a little easier they come scurrying out shouting about rights and costs.

I hate corporate welfare too, inconsistency solved

 

[Thr0mbus]

I hate corporate welfare too, inconsistency solved

People who use the government to fund their own business (corporate welfare/cronyism) are not "right wing". Rather, these cronyists are left wingers who believe in using Big Government to pick the winners and the losers. Right wing says keep government out of the economy except to enforce justice. There is no justice in giving one business priority over another.

 

[johnnyb255]

Do you understand the concept of negative rights?

Yes.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes.

Well there are quite a lot of people who propose that negative rights are the only “rights” that actually exist. Natural rights.

The notion that other people owe you goods and services is not considered to be a natural right. If you lived on an island and no one showed up to give you chemo, your rights were not violated. An island with 10 guys on it and no one finds you chemo hasn’t violated your rights either. That doesn’t change when the island has 10mil people

 

[bauber]

It's pure selfishness though, no? As long as I can access the system it doesn't matter who can't. We have the means to help people, but **** 'em, because I don't want to help and they don't deserve help because rights!

 

[deleted314957]

It's pure selfishness though, no? As long as I can access the system it doesn't matter who can't. We have the means to help people, but **** 'em, because I don't want to help and they don't deserve help because rights!

On this issue of rights; Assume you have this “right” to health care. Someone must administer this care. Because you have this “right”, do you also think you have the “right” to demand a portion of another persons time, effort and expertise? That, my friend, is involuntary servitude.
Just because you want something and decide to call it a “right” to give it some gravitas does not allow you to demand ANYTHING from ANYONE who does not wish to participate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[johnnyb255]

Well there are quite a lot of people who propose that negative rights are the only “rights” that actually exist. Natural rights.

A libertarian concept of rights, sure. You have to subscribe to this to 'understand' access to health care (and by extension all others categorised as positive) are not rights though.

 

[johnnyb255]

On this issue of rights; Assume you have this “right” to health care. Someone must administer this care. Because you have this “right”, do you also think you have the “right” to demand a portion of another persons time, effort and expertise? That, my friend, is involuntary servitude.
Just because you want something and decide to call it a “right” to give it some gravitas does not allow you to demand ANYTHING from ANYONE who does not wish to participate.

Well, no. In the example of Australia, the state (State governments) provides free public healthcare largely through the hospital system. The staff in public hospitals are employees of those hospitals/statutory bodies, and are paid a salary just like any other public sector employee. The patient doesn't demand anything, they are entitled to health care as delivered by the health care workers. They get clinically appropriate management. It's as much involuntary servitude as any client/service provider relationship (and a really bizarre way to describe it). No one is being 'forced' to do anything, it's their job.

Primary healthcare is actually a private enterprise- the General Practitioner (equiv. of Primary Care/Family Physician) is a private doctor who bills the patient. The Government provides a rebate through the universal insurer (Medicare) of approx $40 for standard consult. If this is accepted as the full rate by the GP, the patient can directly assign their rebate to the doctor so there is no out of pocket to them. Otherwise the GP bills the patient, who then claims a rebate from Medicare separately. This system is funded by the Commonwealth (federal) government.

 

[deleted480308]

Well, no. In the example of Australia, the state (State governments) provides free public healthcare largely through the hospital system. The staff in public hospitals are employees of those hospitals/statutory bodies, and are paid a salary just like any other public sector employee. The patient doesn't demand anything, they are entitled to health care as delivered by the health care workers. They get clinically appropriate management. It's as much involuntary servitude as any client/service provider relationship (and a really bizarre way to describe it). No one is being 'forced' to do anything, it's their job.

Primary healthcare is actually a private enterprise- the General Practitioner (equiv. of Primary Care/Family Physician) is a private doctor who bills the patient. The Government provides a rebate through the universal insurer (Medicare) of approx $40 for standard consult. If this is accepted as the full rate by the GP, the patient can directly assign their rebate to the doctor so there is no out of pocket to them. Otherwise the GP bills the patient, who then claims a rebate from Medicare separately. This system is funded by the Commonwealth (federal) government.

The servitude there is the person being taxed to pay for everyone else’s healthcare as their labor is then not of benefit to themself.

Govt should get out of the healthcare business