[mxlm]

the real solution would be to get a handle on rediculous healthcare costs at the base and make the racket that is medical insurance irellevant.

And the way to do that is with universal coverage, as is demonstrated by, oh, every other Western nation.

But you won't support universal care, nevermind something as sensible as a single payer system.

Incidentally, was the already existing requirement that ERs not, like, let people die untreated an improper use of government power?

[SpardaSon21]

How is Obamacare mandating insurance coverage going to stop the medical insurance racket?  Wouldn't that increase demand for insurance instead?

Klaustrophobia is probably suggesting something like consumer-driven health care as a means to bring down insurance costs.  Note that CDHC does not remove insurance entirely, it merely relegates it to the level of something needed for catastrophes.

Also, let's talk about auto insurance.  Coverage is mandated on auto insurance yes, but auto insurance is only needed in case of something like an accident.  Imagine if auto insurance paid for routine maintenance such as oil changes and tire rotations.  Do you think more people would get oil changes and tire rotations more often?  Yes, they probably would, simply because someone else would be paying for it and the true costs would be hidden.  Then, in order to control costs do you think auto insurance companies would put caps on benefits as well as increasing premiums to cover the increased expenses?  Yes, they probably would.  Do you see any parallels with how health insurance is run here?

[Vrets]

As a global superpower in an age of high technology and globalization, what we really need to do to is decentralize to solve our problems.

Spoiler:

sarcasm

[General Battuta]

So to extend the metaphor:

Also, let's talk about auto insurance.  Coverage is mandated on auto insurance yes, but auto insurance is only needed in case of something like an accident.  Imagine if auto insurance paid for routine maintenance such as oil changes and tire rotations.  Do you think more people would get oil changes and tire rotations more often?  Yes, they probably would, simply because someone else would be paying for it and the true costs would be hidden.

...let's say because of this more frequent preventative care, the rate of serious automotive problems and even crashes dropped dramatically, saving huge amounts of time and money.

I'd call that a win.

[SpardaSon21]

But it wouldn't cause the rate of automotive incidents to drop dramatically.  Most people take care of their cars just fine without the need for insurance to cover routine maintenance.

[iamzack]

Routine maintenance on a car isn't comparable to the cost of medical care for a human. My personal routine medical care easily costs several thousand dollars per year.

Here's the options: the government makes sure I get health insurance I can afford, and I absorb some of the costs of my health care myself, or the government picks up the whole tab when I inevitably land in the emergency room repeatedly.

[Liberator]

Routine maintenance on a car isn't comparable to the cost of medical care for a human. My personal routine medical care easily costs several thousand dollars per year.

Here's the options: the government makes sure I get health insurance I can afford, and I absorb some of the costs of my health care myself, or the government picks up the whole tab when I inevitably land in the emergency room repeatedly.

Here's the rub.  I don't want the Government to that for me, or much of anything else, it's not their place.  Their only place in my life is to exercise and pursue the constitutionally mandated powers and objectives.  Anything that is not those very specific and exact provisions

Healthcare is over-priced because everyone uses insurance to pay for it, hiding the actual costs of that health care so they don't see them and don't care how much it costs because they only ever pay $20 or $40 or whatever, not because there's some vast conspiracy between ALL the insurance companies and teh ebil republcans to drive up prices.

That's like saying the CIA teamed up with Castro to pay the mafia to kill Kennedy.

[General Battuta]

But it wouldn't cause the rate of automotive incidents to drop dramatically.  Most people take care of their cars just fine without the need for insurance to cover routine maintenance.

Sure, but this is a metaphor for health insurance, and preventative health care would cause the need for palliative health care to drop massively. Scientists have said again and again that more preventative care is the best way to save money health-wise.

[LordMelvin]

That's like saying the CIA teamed up with Castro to pay the mafia to kill Kennedy.

Well Duh. I thought everyone knew that.

Or weren't the obvious connections between Jack Ruby and the Chicago mob, in light of the presence of Duke Harris on the grassy knoll and John Dillinger Jr. by the underpass, and of course the recently revealed long-term homosexual relationship between Dallas Police Captain Fritz and Cuban Assistant UN Ambassador Gutierrez...

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, as much as I agree with healthcare reform and mandated insurance, the auto insurance analogy just doesn't really fit.  Thing is, routine maintenance isn't covered in auto insurance.  Auto insurance exists to protect the driver in case of a breakdown on the road, or to pay for the damages caused in an accident with another driver.  

Routine maintenance, on the other hand, is what's covered in most warranties and roadside assistance plans offered by dealerships and automotive clubs.  And frankly, if you know anything about what's under your hood and you have the resources to do so, you can perform 99% of routine maintenance yourself.

So, I guess if you want to continue with the auto insurance metaphor, HCR right now is more like a combination of auto insurance and warranty coverage.  Can you do routine things like maintain a healthy diet, exercise, stop smoking, and limit drinking yourself?  Yes, but the insurranty exists to protect people who can't.

[Galemp]

Scientists have said again and again that more preventative care is the best way to save money health-wise.

Yep, same way that giving out $1 toothbrushes can save you $3000 at the dentists' later on. Or how a $2 condom can save you $50,000 worth of tuition in 18 years.

[iamzack]

Routine maintenance on a car isn't comparable to the cost of medical care for a human. My personal routine medical care easily costs several thousand dollars per year.

Here's the options: the government makes sure I get health insurance I can afford, and I absorb some of the costs of my health care myself, or the government picks up the whole tab when I inevitably land in the emergency room repeatedly.

Here's the rub.  I don't want the Government to that for me, or much of anything else, it's not their place.  Their only place in my life is to exercise and pursue the constitutionally mandated powers and objectives.  Anything that is not those very specific and exact provisions

So, what, if you got sick, showed up in the ER choking on blood, you'd want them to turn you away if you couldn't pay because you don't want the government paying for you? Or would you rather they fix you up and then seize your car, home, etc. to pay for it later?

[mxlm]

Healthcare is over-priced because everyone uses insurance to pay for it, hiding the actual costs of that health care so they don't see them and don't care how much it costs because they only ever pay $20 or $40 or whatever, not because there's some vast conspiracy between ALL the insurance companies and teh ebil republcans to drive up prices.

It's overpriced because insurance companies have extraordinarily little competition. In most areas there are maybe two real options, and people don't actually have a choice; you can get the insurance your employer provides, or you can pay an extraordinary amount of money that you almost certainly can't afford.

Not because people use too much care.

Fun fact time:

In 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person, up from $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per capita, the previous year.[37]  Spending in 2006 represented 16% of GDP, an increase of 6.7% over 2004 spending. Growth in spending is projected to average 6.7% annually over the period 2007 through 2017. A recently released report on the latest figures showed that the US spent $2.5 trillion, $8,047 per person, on health care in 2009 and that this amount represented 17.3% of the economy, up from 16.2% in 2008.[38]  Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and medical causes were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.[39]

The next highest country's GDP spending on healthcare is Switzerland, at 11%. So, again: national care to cure the disease.

Not the form of national care we're going to get, though. Good job, fiscal conservatives, you managed to make sure the healthcare reform we are getting was about as inefficient as it could possibly be. Nice one.

Also, nice job not remembering that the reform we have gotten is basically your own damn idea from 1994.

Here's the rub.  I don't want the Government to that for me, or much of anything else, it's not their place.

Do you believe emergency rooms should be allowed to turn away people who are unable to pay? Rephrased, do you think ERs should be permitted to allow people to die simply because the dying person doesn't have money?

If not, then you do think it's the government's place, whatever your protestations to the contrary. If so, well, I don't really care what you think about the role of government.

[Liberator]

That's a fallacious argument on the face of it.  No emergency room in the United States is going to turn away someone who is choking on blood or anything else.  AFAIK, they never have and never will, it goes against a little thing called the Hippocratic Oath.

As for them seizing my house or my car because I couldn't/wouldn't pay, that's between me and the hospital, BHO and his cronies can keep his narcissistic nose out of my business, though I would hope that the administrators at the hospital would be reasonable about a payment schedule presuming I did have to make use of they're services and didn't have a means of full payment available.

[Nuclear1]

Insurance is your means of payment dude.  That's the whole point of this legislation:  pay a premium now so you don't have to talk with hospital administrators to try to pay of $8000 in medical bills later.

[Liberator]

Exvcept that because of the way that insurance works you don't get an itemized bill that you have to work out the payments to the hospital/doctors with your agent.  The hospital bills the insurance company directly and no one ever sees the $3000 a night for an unmonitored bed or the $500 surgical steel screws that you have in your knee from when you blew out your ACL, so they don't care.  They think it actually only cost $140 or whatever they're copay is.

[mxlm]

That's a fallacious argument on the face of it.  No emergency room in the United States is going to turn away someone who is choking on blood or anything else.  AFAIK, they never have and never will, it goes against a little thing called the Hippocratic Oath.

They don't do that because doing so is illegal. Because the government has required them to render aid since 1986. And why did the government institute that requirement (under Reagen, note)? Because:

EMTALA was passed to combat the practice of "patient dumping", i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual with a medical emergency "comes to the emergency department," regardless of whether the condition is visible to others, or is simply stated by the patient with no external evidence.

Note that patient dumping happens anyway (a cursory google search will lead you to many more articles).

So now that we've established that refusal of care is indeed a real danger in the absence of government intervention, I ask again: should ERs be required to render aid to those in need?

[Bobboau]

I'll say it, I don't think they should have to.
if you can't afford treatment you are just making it harder for the people who can.

[perihelion]

I'll say it, I don't think they should have to.
if you can't afford treatment you are just making it harder for the people who can.

... I am so disgusted right after reading that I feel physically ill.  I cannot fathom that level of greed, selfishness, and complete disregard of your fellow human beings.  Have you no shame at all?

[iamzack]

At least he's honest. Most conservatives just avoid the question.