On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:44:00 -0400, BAR wrote:


The problem most of us have is the falsehood that you push that
providing everyone with government funded health insurance will solve
the problem of access to health care. There is no access to health care
problem. The problem is that people are not paying for the health care
they are receiving and the costs are being passed onto those who are
paying via their health insurance.

It can be argued that those very same health insurance plans aren't
paying their fair share. You do know that health insurance plans get a
*very* discounted rate, don't you? There is also a new trick many are
using. If the hospital is in the network, they pay the pre-negotiated
discounted rate, but here's the trick. When the hospital is not in the
network, many insurance plans still will only pay the discounted rates.
That also leaves the health care professionals SOL.

Add to that, if you don't have insurance, you pay through the nose, far
above normal rates.

When you go to a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and get up and
walk out without paying for it you are stealing. But, when you go to the
hospital emergency room and receive medical care and leave without
paying for it nobody says anything. Both are examples of stealing.

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:44:00 -0400, BAR wrote:


The problem most of us have is the falsehood that you push that
providing everyone with government funded health insurance will solve
the problem of access to health care. There is no access to health care
problem. The problem is that people are not paying for the health care
they are receiving and the costs are being passed onto those who are
paying via their health insurance.

It can be argued that those very same health insurance plans aren't
paying their fair share. You do know that health insurance plans get a
*very* discounted rate, don't you? There is also a new trick many are
using. If the hospital is in the network, they pay the pre-negotiated
discounted rate, but here's the trick. When the hospital is not in the
network, many insurance plans still will only pay the discounted rates.
That also leaves the health care professionals SOL.

Get everyone who uses the hospital to pay for the services they use.

Add to that, if you don't have insurance, you pay through the nose, far
above normal rates.

I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

When you go to a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and get up and
walk out without paying for it you are stealing. But, when you go to the
hospital emergency room and receive medical care and leave without
paying for it nobody says anything. Both are examples of stealing.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:44:00 -0400, BAR wrote:


The problem most of us have is the falsehood that you push that
providing everyone with government funded health insurance will solve
the problem of access to health care. There is no access to health care
problem. The problem is that people are not paying for the health care
they are receiving and the costs are being passed onto those who are
paying via their health insurance.

It can be argued that those very same health insurance plans aren't
paying their fair share. You do know that health insurance plans get a
*very* discounted rate, don't you? There is also a new trick many are
using. If the hospital is in the network, they pay the pre-negotiated
discounted rate, but here's the trick. When the hospital is not in the
network, many insurance plans still will only pay the discounted rates.
That also leaves the health care professionals SOL.

Get everyone who uses the hospital to pay for the services they use.

Add to that, if you don't have insurance, you pay through the nose, far
above normal rates.

I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

When you go to a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and get up and
walk out without paying for it you are stealing. But, when you go to the
hospital emergency room and receive medical care and leave without
paying for it nobody says anything. Both are examples of stealing.


Easy cure would be make it the law, that if you pay cash, you get the best
insurance pay rate plus maybe 10%. When I see the negotiated charges, the
under insured or those without insurance and have assets, they are getting
ripped of.

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.


That is correct...if that.

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:06:00 -0400, H the K wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.


That is correct...if that.

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care.
At what point is someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved ones by
putting them in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
t...
It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care.
At what point is someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved ones by
putting them in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

Eisboch




Why should a family have to go into hopeless debt or bankruptcy for
medical care for a loved one, so long as there is a chance of prolonging
some sort of reasonable life for someone already here?

That's such an anti-life position...be careful or the crazies will soon
be picketing outside your store, calling you an anti-lifer.


Oh, wait...*they* only care about fetuses...once you're here, they don't
give a **** whether you live or die...


:)

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:40:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
t...

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement,
regardless of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency
room without insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is
a leading cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care. At what point is
someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved ones by putting them
in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

If someone has a terminal illness, I might balk at spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars, for a few weeks more life. Short of that, I value
life far more than dollars. I understand your point. The last few
months of a life, probably cost more, medically, than the entire rest of
that life, but ...

Both of my folks, both in their nineties, are still going *relatively*
strong. My Mom just had a carpal tunnel operation. Now, some people
might say that's excessive. Not me, I saw the pain she was in.
Fortunately, they have good insurance, but if they hadn't, I wouldn't
have hesitated to pick up the tab.

Personally, I don't want to be calling those shots. Nor do I want the
insurance companies, nor the government calling them. I'll leave those
calls in the hands of a doctor. Anything short of that, smacks of
eugenics.

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:06:00 -0400, H the K wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.
Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.

That is correct...if that.

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

Very few *private* hospitals go above and beyond, since profit is their
motive.