Quote: (03-05-2013 11:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:
Quote: (03-05-2013 11:00 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:
Quote: (03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:
I dislike the idea of paying extra tax for people to get free healthcare when they make bad decisions.
Here's a thought experiment for those who like the idea of government run universal health care.
Bob Jones comes into the emergency room...wheezing, short of breath.
He is 48. He is 50 lbs overweight. He hasn't exercised in 30 years. His diet is terrible -- he eats tons of processed food, loads of simple carbs. For years, he thinks lettuce and green vegetables are for rabbits.
He has never seen a doctor until now.
The tests are run, the blood is drawn. Bob has had a myocardial infarction.
He remains in the hospital for 3 days. The cardiologist decides he needs an a cardiac catheterization -- moving a stent into his heart to open the stenosis.
The blood work comes back and it turns out Bob is a type II diabetic -- his glucose numbers are through the roof.
This episode costs $75,000. The tests. The equipment. The doctors. The nurses. The procedure. The time in the hospital.
And then there is the ongoing cost of attempting to control his diabetes.
**************
You, who have exercised, have eaten healthy, have seen a doctor regularly...you get your paycheck. Your taxes are itemized. One line item is your tax for the universal health care. One of the ways to see how your health care tax dollars are used to is to go to a governmental web site. There you can find details on every patient the health service has treated.
You scan the list. You click on Bob Jones.
You read about his care. You read about how he has behaved for 30 years.
And you think...the money I HAVE EARNED has gone to take care of HIM!!
As the psychiatrist might say during therapy, "How do you feel about that?"
tenderman, your example is very valid and a good example of how you are subsidizing others who may be stupid in UHC. I want to present you with a counter to this, however.
I posted this before but nobody answered, what happens if you are one of the survivors from the Dark Knight Rises shooting and you are lucky enough to survive you get hit with a hefty bill because you don't have insurance (probably in the hundreds of thousands). Is that really your fault that some dumbass shot you while you were watching a movie and you were lucky enough to survive?
Second example (this actually happened at my dad's work). Some guy in his 20s who was working part-time and also going to school part-time was diagnosed with cancer. He ended up dying but he was able to prolong his life for 2 years without going broke.
My point is what is you actually live healthy like you said and you or your family relative have cancer or some other hideous disease but can't afford the extremely expensive health care. Would you be okay with saying in that instance let him/her die or go broke because of the medical bill?
In the end, both, UHC and private health care have drawbacks and you can provide scenarios like we both just did but I prefer the security of people not having to worry about not receiving adequate health care due to money.
Now in the USA, there might be other factors that can make it unworkable such as the huge population, illegal immigration, and insurance lobbyists but that's a separate debate altogether.
As I had mentioned above, the examples you give are a reason to provide some sort of national "disaster insurance" to cover those who suffer from sort of unpredictable illness or injury resulting in costs beyond the ability of most people to pay. But you wouldn't need to nationalize the entire system just to address those extreme cases.