You would not support that bill. So you support hospitals having to shoulder the cost of medical procedures for uninsured people, and then charging their paying customers more to compensate?
The "plan that we have currently" is to triage healthcare (i.e. pain meds instead of surgery) in favor of the insured over the uninsured. Why do you think that is the best solution?
I've answered the question. Several questions actually. If others choose to be obtuse and snide and make childish comments like yourself I cannot help them.
That's why I'm asking. People without insurance do not pay for service at emergency rooms, and the cost is shouldered by the hospital, which passes the cost onto its paying (i.e. insured) customers, increasing their insurance premiums. The "current system" you say you prefer.
Why do I think people should get a service that they pay for and those that do not pay for it do not get it?
You said you would not support a bill that would stop free riders. Why should I pay more for my insurance because of uninsured people? What is your solution to people without insurance being given free services at emergency rooms?
Here's what seem to be your positions from what you've said in this thread:
1. You do not have to pay for insurance if you don't want it.
2. You want to receive emergency room care if you have not purchased insurance and have not demonstrated that you are able to pay for it in other ways.
Are these correct? If not, what are your positions? If so, you can't have it both ways and remain ideologically consistent.
What is your suggestion for people who choose to not buy insurance to continue to get gratis care at emergency rooms, while also not increasing the costs of people who do choose to buy insurance?
2. Yes, I'm no medical professional but I do believe that a hospital is obliged to give emergency room care as per the EMTALA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
They are correct.
Paying higher premiums for insurance because of others not paying insurance is the cost of doing business. It is the same for car insurance. I may not like it but it is the way that it is.
...a hospital is obliged to give emergency room care as per the EMTALA.
Hospitals are businesses. Why are they obligated to spend money on something they may not wish to do?
Paying higher premiums for insurance because of others not paying insurance is the cost of doing business. It is the same for car insurance. I may not like it but it is the way that it is.
Except that it is the law that you purchase car insurance when you own a car, thus it is much less likely that you will need to rely on your uninsured motorist coverage. Are you also against car insurance being mandatory like health insurance?
3. Any random doctor cannot walk into a hospital and start grabbing medical supplies to treat any patient they like.
You are saying that due to the EMTALA businesses are forced by law to provide charity to the public. You're not willing to pay the charity yourself, you just want me to pay it for you. Sounds like socialism to me.
How about this: would you agree to a bill that would use Medicare funds to pay hospitals for the uninsured? Medicare deductions would increase, but the insurance premiums would decrease.
The cost of uninsured people seems to be $49 billion in 2011 (http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obamacare-healthcarereform-uninsured-pay/2011/05/10/id/395835), so let's say $50 billion. I'm pretty sure this only covers the ER visits we've been talking about, not plain old preventative medicine or regular checkups.
Medicare spent $560 billion in 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Financing_of_Medicare).
610 / 560 = 1.089
So Medicare deductions overall would increase 9%. The Medicare paycheck withholding is 1.45%, so the new paycheck withholding would be 1.58%. The employer withholding would also increase from 1.45% to 1.58%.
US median income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) is $57,500. 1.45% of this is $833, 1.58% is $909, so if you're making median income you'd pay $76 more per year.
This older article (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm) says the average insurance premium is $1k more per year because of the uninsured. Insurance premiums and healthcare costs have gone up a lot in the past couple years, but let's just use that.
This is all back of the napkin of course.
Is everyone who pays into Medicare paying $76 more per year worth people who pay insurance paying $1k less per year?
Paying higher premiums for insurance because of others not paying insurance is the cost of doing business. It is the same for car insurance. I may not like it but it is the way that it is.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![](https://p.dreamwidth.org/b69448b436f4/3016231-2694456/sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/148525_456671280781_502655781_5347307_6312211_n.jpg")
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-03-31 09:34 pm (UTC)The "plan that we have currently" is to triage healthcare (i.e. pain meds instead of surgery) in favor of the insured over the uninsured. Why do you think that is the best solution?
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 12:15 am (UTC)....."if you do not understand the image,
I sure as hell can't explain it...then I cannot help you.....if you do not understand the image.....no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 01:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 01:12 am (UTC)Why do I think people should get a service that they pay for and those that do not pay for it do not get it?
I believe it is the best system.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 01:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 02:49 am (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 01:58 am (UTC)That's why I'm asking. People without insurance do not pay for service at emergency rooms, and the cost is shouldered by the hospital, which passes the cost onto its paying (i.e. insured) customers, increasing their insurance premiums. The "current system" you say you prefer.
Why do I think people should get a service that they pay for and those that do not pay for it do not get it?
You said you would not support a bill that would stop free riders. Why should I pay more for my insurance because of uninsured people? What is your solution to people without insurance being given free services at emergency rooms?
Here's what seem to be your positions from what you've said in this thread:
1. You do not have to pay for insurance if you don't want it.
2. You want to receive emergency room care if you have not purchased insurance and have not demonstrated that you are able to pay for it in other ways.
Are these correct? If not, what are your positions? If so, you can't have it both ways and remain ideologically consistent.
What is your suggestion for people who choose to not buy insurance to continue to get gratis care at emergency rooms, while also not increasing the costs of people who do choose to buy insurance?
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 02:42 am (UTC)2. Yes, I'm no medical professional but I do believe that a hospital is obliged to give emergency room care as per the EMTALA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
They are correct.
Paying higher premiums for insurance because of others not paying insurance is the cost of doing business. It is the same for car insurance. I may not like it but it is the way that it is.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 02:54 am (UTC)Hospitals are businesses. Why are they obligated to spend money on something they may not wish to do?
Paying higher premiums for insurance because of others not paying insurance is the cost of doing business. It is the same for car insurance. I may not like it but it is the way that it is.
Except that it is the law that you purchase car insurance when you own a car, thus it is much less likely that you will need to rely on your uninsured motorist coverage. Are you also against car insurance being mandatory like health insurance?
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:02 am (UTC)I am.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:32 am (UTC)1. That's an oath, not a law.
2. Doctors take the oath, not businesses.
3. Any random doctor cannot walk into a hospital and start grabbing medical supplies to treat any patient they like.
You are saying that due to the EMTALA businesses are forced by law to provide charity to the public. You're not willing to pay the charity yourself, you just want me to pay it for you. Sounds like socialism to me.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:42 am (UTC)2 ok
3 I didn't say that they could
I do pay for it as I pay for Medicare
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:55 am (UTC)1. a business must treat the uninsured if they cannot pay;
2. the insured must pay for the uninsured;
But the government cannot say:
3. the uninsured must pay for insurance.
Is this correct?
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 05:02 am (UTC)The third statement is false and while cleverly worded should say. The government cannot force anyone to purchase insurance.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 05:10 am (UTC)How would you reword the first two?
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 05:15 am (UTC)2. Health premiums will rise because the cost of treating the uninsured will be passed on to the insured.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 05:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 05:28 am (UTC)Medicare spent $560 billion in 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Financing_of_Medicare).
610 / 560 = 1.089
So Medicare deductions overall would increase 9%. The Medicare paycheck withholding is 1.45%, so the new paycheck withholding would be 1.58%. The employer withholding would also increase from 1.45% to 1.58%.
US median income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) is $57,500. 1.45% of this is $833, 1.58% is $909, so if you're making median income you'd pay $76 more per year.
This older article (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm) says the average insurance premium is $1k more per year because of the uninsured. Insurance premiums and healthcare costs have gone up a lot in the past couple years, but let's just use that.
This is all back of the napkin of course.
Is everyone who pays into Medicare paying $76 more per year worth people who pay insurance paying $1k less per year?
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 03:03 am (UTC)that makes absolufreakinloutely NO SENSE.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:33 am (UTC)