Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Does everyone have the Right to Health Care?
In a perfect world, every American would have the means to buy health insurance or be provided charity care if they are unable to afford insurance.
Likewise, every American would be able to get affordable insurance, despite pre-existing conditions, or lack of employment.
If health care is NOT a right, then should we immediately repeal EMTALA? This law requires hospitals and health care providers to provide services to anyone who walks into an emergency room regardless of ability to pay. Questions regarding insurance coverage are not allowed to be asked until the patient is treated.
If health care is NOT a right, then should we allow 9-11 services to ask for proof of insurance or payment in advance before taking a patient to a hospital for treatment?
And perhaps we should eliminate malpractice suits? The basic premise of malpractice claims is that the patient is not just entitled to health care, but that care must meet the "Community Standards for Health Care."
Let's just say that we implement a system whereby hospitals, imaging facilities, laboratories, physical and occupational therapists, physicians and other health care providers are free to refuse treatment to any person who does not have the means to pay for their services. What would be the cost to society?
None, if all persons were required to buy health insurance. How do we enforce that? It is estimated that 22% of motorists in Arizona are uninsured. Of course, they only get caught when pulled over due to a traffic violation or are involved in an accident. These people should not be driving. Period.
But what do we tell those people that don't have mandated health insurance? They shouldn't get sick or injured?
The fact is, some people can't afford health insurance. Others are unable to find coverage due to pre-existing conditions or even existing conditions. (Try being a cancer victim and obtaining health insurance. If you can find a company that would cover you, the cost would be so astronomically high that I dare say even the Average American could not afford it.) And yes, some can afford insurance, but don't purchase it.
Some believe that charity should step in for these people; that doctors, hospitals and other health care providers should just give away their services in the name of community service.
That would be ok, I guess, except that the numbers of uninsured is growing. The reimbursements from insurance carriers and Medicare/Medicaid to providers is shrinking. There is no wiggle room anymore. Technology and new procedures have improved the outcomes for many diseases, but they are also very expensive. How much charity money is available? Not enough.
What about Medicaid? (In Arizona, this is the AHCCCS program.) If health care is not a right, then why have that program at all? Why should my and your tax dollars go to pay for these people's health care? We don't have a program to purchase Cadillacs for poor people because there is no right to drive a luxury automobile.
Health Care is a unique issue. If people don't have access to it, they can spread diseases to those the rest of us. They tend to be sicker and often contagious. (Think about the uninsured guy that isn't feeling very well, but can't afford to see his doctor. He keeps working as a cook in your neighborhood restaurant, his hepatitis untreated).
Untreated illness leads to lost productivity, for both the uninsured person and the insured guy in the next cubicle who catches the measles from him.
From my perspective, as a manager of a business in the healthcare field it would be great if I could:
A) Charge what I wanted for our services.
B) Collect the monies due at the time of service.
C) Make the patient file their claims with their insurance plans.
D) Let the patient try to collect from the insurance plans.
From my perspective as a member of the community at large and as a human being, it would be great if:
A) All patients had access to accurate diagnoses and treatment
B) The healthcare providers were paid a fair price for services rendered.
C) The money paid by the patient to the insurance companies were spent on healthcare, not paper pushers who deny legitimate claims and in ridiculous bonuses for the CEO's of the for profit healthplans. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Despite_economic_slowdown_defense_contractors_and_0414.html
Some ask:
When exactly did the idea of Health Insurance as a right spring forth?
Don't tell me... "general welfare"?
Well, it is a general welfare issue.
The answers on how to fix our system are not clear. We have those who would have no problem denying care to people who are not able to pay.
Then there are those that say, well, let the doctors and hospitals give away care. Okay,dokey, but that means that YOU may not have access to the latest technology when YOU need treatment. I can tell you that many specialists (orthopedic docs, hand surgeons, neurosurgeons) are starting to tell hospitals they are no longer interested in providing coverage for the emergency rooms and trama centers because of the high number of non-paying patients.
Some will say, that is what Medicaid is for. But why should our taxes go to pay for that if it is NOT GENERAL WELFARE? It is not like taxes for the streets we drive on, or get our garbage picked up twice a week etc. Right?
What do you think? How do we solve this issue?
Health Care-Is It a Right?
|
Posted By: indie616 Posted on: Apr. 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM  16 Comments
|
0.0 / 5
Based on 0 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 01:49:27 AM
|
|
| Indie, this was a great article. Very compelling and concise -- a must read for anyone considering why health care is a unique "general Welfare" issue. When the government starts telling what they will pay instead of the medical establishment saying what they will charge, you enter a spot where the supply and demand market forces are eliminated and twisted. AA, the medical establishment doesn't say what they will charge (not that that's necessarily a good idea either). Prices are set by private insurance companies, often with consideration or appreciation of the medical needs of the patient or the complexity of the services provided by the doctors. These insurance price setters collude with each other in their pricing, and in effect become a monopoly that no longer needs to respond to market forces. This is by definition a twisted free market. At least with government as the single payer, ultimately government is answerable to consumer demand. Example? When big government cut mammography reimbursements so much that mammo centers went belly up, and patients who formerly had to wait a few days to two weeks for a routine mammogram had to wait six months, these disenfranchised patients raised such a stink with their congressmen that mammo reimbursement were soon reestablished at fair market rates, enough to keep doctors in business, but not so much as to make millionaires out of the providers. Doctors in this country should not be told what specialty they have to have, nor should they be told where they have to practice. But under the Clinton plan this would be the case. I am not sure about Obama's plan but I have heard they are closely related. No, they shouldn't. And single payer universal health care does not change anything on the physician side (except make it much easier to get paid for their service). It simply takes out the middle man, downsizes if not eliminates the billing office, and replaces a confusing array of different payers (with different rules and draconian restrictions) with one payer and Medicare like rules. And although I am no fan of either Obama's or Clinton's plan as a substitute for real single payer health care, I am not aware of any provisions in their plans mandating what specialties physicians may or may not practice, or where they must practice. If you are referring to incentives to encourage physicians to choose underrepresented specialties in underserved locations, that is not a mandate. |
||
|
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 10:54:19 AM
|
|
| Health Care is a unique issue. If people don't have access to it, they can spread diseases to those the rest of us. That is one of the key distinctions. We have laws (in some states) for motorists to carry auto insurance. We now require all motorists to wear seatbelts. Maybe you can call it "nanny state," but it is constitutional. But last time I checked, not having auto insurance or not using your seatbelt wasn't contagious. This truly is a case where my right to be healthy must be balanced against your right to not seek/afford/pay for health care. And BTW, we are already, each and every one of us, paying for health care through the nose. Our time comes when we use the system and then have the costs of the unpaid medical bills of others passed down to us. The only way to avoid it is to skip out on your own bills, never get ill, never have family members get ill, or die young and suddenly. I'd rather pay relatively little up front when I'm healthy than have to pay dearly when I'm sick. |
||
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 02:32:44 PM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Apr. 21, 2008 at 10:54:19 AM]
www.MoronInCharge.com
Apr. 21, 2008 at 10:54:19 AM Health Care is a unique issue. If people don't have access to it, they can spread diseases to those the rest of us. That is one of the key distinctions. We have laws (in some states) for motorists to carry auto insurance. We now... View this Comment There was a great interview on Democracy Now with a Doctor here in Denver - a conservative, republican, deeply religious man - that is a huge advocate of single payer health care. (He's since left the republican party). Much like England has socialized medicine - where all the hospitals and doctors are run by the government - and Canada has a quasi socialized system, he believes something resembling this is the only possible remedy for the US. He said even the majority of physicians are on board with this and have formed a group called Physicians for National Health Care. Unfortunately, there's billions of dollars at stake so their is no political will to make this happen. The motivation might be there one day though. Remember we're not a 100% capitalistic, free market society, the government / tax payers do support basic necessities for people. Shouldn't health care be considered a basic necessity for people in the richest country in the world!? |
||
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM
|
|
| everything that has a right to life has a right to death. |
||
|
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 03:18:55 PM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by R. D. Briceland on Apr. 21, 2008 at 02:32:44 PM]
R. D. Briceland
Apr. 21, 2008 at 02:32:44 PM There was a great interview on Democracy Now with a Doctor here in Denver - a conservative, republican, deeply religious man - that is a huge advocate of single payer health care. (He's since left the republican party). Much like England has socialized... View this Comment I am not a fan of socialized medicine. By socialized, I mean that government owns and manages the hospitals, clinics, and ancillary services; and employs the medical professionals. This works great for the dispensing of basic medical services, but it can stifle innovation and research, which is still one of the things our medical system excels in. You also open up the Pandora's box of the bureaucratization of medical practice, with associated perfunctory shoddy service and long waiting lists. England's system is indeed universal, which is good, but it is also relatively moribund. Canada is only quasi-socialized, and is consequently only a partially flawed universal system. We need to learn from other nation's mistakes -- formulate our own unique solution by using the best elements of other countries' universal plans that have already been tested in the field. I think we can have all the advantages of universal health care without the potential negatives by reforming the money part of the equation (the single payer component), and leaving the medical infrastructure itself intact as is. Such a system would more closely parallel France rather than England or Canada. As for Physicians for National Health Care, I wish they did indeed have the support of the majority of physicians. Fact is, although the majority of doctors now do welcome the concept of universal health care, that doesn't mean they have signed on explicitly to a particular organized movement advocating universal care. Most doctors haven't even heard of PNHC. |
||
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 05:37:02 PM
|
|
| Why should young people pay into health care services or insurance if they have little need to use them? Healthy people should not have to pay in period if they chose not to do so. Under these plans that are being bantered about everyone would pay in whether you use it or not. This is just wrong. If I don't want to pay for insurance or if I have the means to self insure, why should I be forced, or more importantly, what gives you the right to make me pay in? You do not have to have auto insurance in Arizona if you can post a $50,000.00 bond as self insurance. This might have changed.... But it was true last time I checked. |
||
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 06:06:10 PM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on Apr. 21, 2008 at 05:37:02 PM]
Average American
Apr. 21, 2008 at 05:37:02 PM Why should young people pay into health care services or insurance if they have little need to use them? Healthy people should not have to pay in period if they chose not to do so. Under these plans that are being bantered about everyone would pay in... View this Comment When you can plan your accidents/injuries/illnesses that I suppose that not having health care insurance is a fine idea. There can be a split second difference between being healthy and being a quadriplegic. Do you know that a serious auto accident can cost over a million dollars between the diagnosis, treatment and subsequent therapy? But, lets go with your plan AA. You don't have insurance, then the ambulance is entitled to leave your bloodied body on the side of the road. Think of it this way. It you went into Frys grocery store and told them "to trust you, you will pay for the steaks tomorrow" how far many feet would get out of the store before they busted you? $50,000 may work as self insured for auto insurance. Better make it $1,000,000 for health care. |
||
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM
|
|
| I sure hope I get someone who thinks like this when we have national healthcare. I live a profligate life of overindulgence and decadence. I've made a lot of money over the years, and wish to accumulate much more. Left to my own devices, I am extremely lazy. I find it a distinct pleasure when people kiss my ass. |
||
|
Apr. 21, 2008 at 07:27:20 PM
|
|
| Why cro-mag man, Don't you get to kiss his ass enough now? |
||
I think you were on to the start of the problem when you said that Medicare is paying less. When the government starts telling what they will pay instead of the medical establishment saying what they will charge, you enter a spot where the supply and demand market forces are eliminated and twisted.
HMO's do much the same thing. (I got much of this information from a family member who has been both a hospital insurance billing agent and an HR directer for the same hospital)
The market is broken and will continue to stay broken so long as government tries to manipulate it.
Doctors in this country should not be told what specialty they have to have, nor should they be told where they have to practice. But under the Clinton plan this would be the case. I am not sure about Obama's plan but I have heard they are closely related.
I also have an issue with insurance companies deciding what is and is not necessary treatment instead of doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. I believe that if control was returned to the doctors the system would be more efficient and less expensive as treatment for issues would be dealt with while still small and more easily treated.
Preventative plans need to be common place.
If these kinds of changes were made I think it would help reduce cost to the point where medical providers could discount or have those who are without means like some of us are, get lower rates for their health care without it being a drain on the system or their profits. They want good publicity too.
Report Abuse