HorrorMovieFans.com

Is society responsible for providing you with medicines and treatments?

Please, no bullshit white knighting where we act like socializing medicine is not a selfish act.

no. unless it's an emergency hospital type of situation. (and then you should be on the hook to pay it off afterward, as you can)

No.

But when people speak of "rights" or "goods" in terms of health care, they're apt to frame the arguments incorrectly. For example, the "health care is a right" progressive crowd is not at all compatible with the anti-ACA crowd who viewed the mandate as an affront to their individual rights to...*drum roll*...health care.

The libs are slowly coming around, Foo!

Good discussion ruined already, too bad! :cry:

Jason wrote:The libs are slowly coming around, Foo!

we all believe the same things, in lockstep.

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:The libs are slowly coming around, Foo!

we all believe the same things, in lockstep.

The idea that we may not follow the conventions of a left-right spectrum 100% is a confusing concept for Jason.

I've stated before that we all want pretty close to the same thing, we are just taking different avenues to get there.

Jason wrote:I've stated before that we all want pretty close to the same thing, we are just taking different avenues to get there.

so, then what was that about "the libs are coming around" ?

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:I've stated before that we all want pretty close to the same thing, we are just taking different avenues to get there.

so, then what was that about "the libs are coming around" ?

Ehhh, just him dicking around tbqh. Stand down, Zombie! We've been attack dogs all day.

zombie wrote:no. unless it's an emergency hospital type of situation. (and then you should be on the hook to pay it off afterward, as you can)

I actually believe the ER situation is where the government does need to be involved. I think that situation is way to exploitative. You get into an accident, and tens of thousands worth of care are quickly piled on without your consent. Those situations are specifically geared towards maximum dollar extractions by the providers.

A lot of the testing done are dubious at best and I there is no way most would consent to many of them if properly informed, and had skin in the game for payment.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:no. unless it's an emergency hospital type of situation. (and then you should be on the hook to pay it off afterward, as you can)

I actually believe the ER situation is where the government does need to be involved. I think that situation is way to exploitative. You get into an accident, and tens of thousands worth of care are quickly piled on without your consent. Those situations are specifically geared towards maximum dollar extractions by the providers.

A lot of the testing done are dubious at best and I there is no way most would consent to many of them if properly informed, and had skin in the game for payment.

yeah, it does seem to be a lot about milking the situation on the part of the caregivers, but i didn't expect you to be sympathetic because a lot of the time it could be avoidable potentially, or could be seen to be the fault of the patient because of bad life choices or whatever. sorry.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:no. unless it's an emergency hospital type of situation. (and then you should be on the hook to pay it off afterward, as you can)

I actually believe the ER situation is where the government does need to be involved. I think that situation is way to exploitative. You get into an accident, and tens of thousands worth of care are quickly piled on without your consent. Those situations are specifically geared towards maximum dollar extractions by the providers.

A lot of the testing done are dubious at best and I there is no way most would consent to many of them if properly informed, and had skin in the game for payment.

yeah, it does seem to be a lot about milking the situation on the part of the caregivers, but i didn't expect you to be sympathetic because a lot of the time it could be avoidable potentially, or could be seen to be the fault of the patient because of bad life choices or whatever. sorry.

Every ideology has its own practical limits though. You're not betraying the ideology by conceding it isn't perfect in every case.

That's kind of where I'm at politically. I used to be far more ideological, now I lean more toward pragmatism...which is trickier to determine.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:no. unless it's an emergency hospital type of situation. (and then you should be on the hook to pay it off afterward, as you can)

I actually believe the ER situation is where the government does need to be involved. I think that situation is way to exploitative. You get into an accident, and tens of thousands worth of care are quickly piled on without your consent. Those situations are specifically geared towards maximum dollar extractions by the providers.

A lot of the testing done are dubious at best and I there is no way most would consent to many of them if properly informed, and had skin in the game for payment.

yeah, it does seem to be a lot about milking the situation on the part of the caregivers, but i didn't expect you to be sympathetic because a lot of the time it could be avoidable potentially, or could be seen to be the fault of the patient because of bad life choices or whatever. sorry.

Every ideology has its own practical limits though. You're not betraying the ideology by conceding it isn't perfect in every case.

That's kind of where I'm at politically. I used to be far more ideological, now I lean more toward pragmatism...which is trickier to determine.

i find fault in myself, being critical about things people say going too far, too hateful, not accepting, but also feeling like free speech is the most important. that's my biggest problem with how i see things politically. at least, as of now. i probably have other faults too. and i'm sure conservatives could point bigger issues, that could open my eyes to things i'm overlooking, but yeah.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:no. unless it's an emergency hospital type of situation. (and then you should be on the hook to pay it off afterward, as you can)

I actually believe the ER situation is where the government does need to be involved. I think that situation is way to exploitative. You get into an accident, and tens of thousands worth of care are quickly piled on without your consent. Those situations are specifically geared towards maximum dollar extractions by the providers.

A lot of the testing done are dubious at best and I there is no way most would consent to many of them if properly informed, and had skin in the game for payment.

yeah, it does seem to be a lot about milking the situation on the part of the caregivers, but i didn't expect you to be sympathetic because a lot of the time it could be avoidable potentially, or could be seen to be the fault of the patient because of bad life choices or whatever. sorry.

I know you were kidding, but there is another side as well. ER's are massively overused for non-emergencies. With the giant expansion of medicaid, this problem is a huge societal drain.

Do some reading some time about the volume users of emergency services. Those who use the ER monthly for non-emergencies. There are hundreds of thousands of them, and millions who do it less frequently every year. It is insane, and there is not much incentive to stop it by hospitals as it is good money billing the government for those services. Low risk and high reward.

There is also the "non-profit" bullshit many hospitals hide behind. Many times tripling up by charging their patients, the government, and then collecting as a charity while directors are making major money.

That pragmatic approach also means I know some of my own personal views are not going to be relevant in the long run. In the case of health care, this country is just going to limp through half-measures for a while and piss people off on both sides of the aisle until arriving at a single-payer system. It's inevitable. And it's pointless to project the burden that would ultimately fall on our generation and especially the next generation, we have no idea. "A mess" is a pretty safe bet though.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:no. unless it's an emergency hospital type of situation. (and then you should be on the hook to pay it off afterward, as you can)

I actually believe the ER situation is where the government does need to be involved. I think that situation is way to exploitative. You get into an accident, and tens of thousands worth of care are quickly piled on without your consent. Those situations are specifically geared towards maximum dollar extractions by the providers.

A lot of the testing done are dubious at best and I there is no way most would consent to many of them if properly informed, and had skin in the game for payment.

yeah, it does seem to be a lot about milking the situation on the part of the caregivers, but i didn't expect you to be sympathetic because a lot of the time it could be avoidable potentially, or could be seen to be the fault of the patient because of bad life choices or whatever. sorry.

I know you were kidding, but there is another side as well. ER's are massively overused for non-emergencies. With the giant expansion of medicaid, this problem is a huge societal drain.

Do some reading some time about the volume users of emergency services. Those who use the ER monthly for non-emergencies. There are hundreds of thousands of them, and millions who do it less frequently every year. It is insane, and there is not much incentive to stop it by hospitals as it is good money billing the government for those services. Low risk and high reward.

There is also the "non-profit" bullshit many hospitals hide behind. Many times tripling up by charging their patients, the government, and then collecting as a charity while directors are making major money.

i had to go to the er of a local hospital cause i fell unconscious during volunteer working at a goodwill type of store. and i woke up there. i didn't have any way to pay for it. and apparently they woke me up sometime between the fall and the actually being consciously awake, and i consented to them testing me from what they told me. it bites, and i feel responsible. i feel obligated to pay for it. but i can't still. but when/if i can find some place that will hire me, i do intend to. all they did was tests to figure out what happened. and not even finish with that, cause yeah. it felt like a rip off. and i didn't consciously agree to it at all.

Headhunter wrote:That pragmatic approach also means I know some of my own personal views are not going to be relevant in the long run. In the case of health care, this country is just going to limp through half-measures for a while and piss people off on both sides of the aisle until arriving at a single-payer system. It's inevitable. And it's pointless to project the burden that would ultimately fall on our generation and especially the next generation, we have no idea. "A mess" is a pretty safe bet though.

Not a doubt in my mind single payer will happen. There is so little pushback by the Republicans on the explosion of disability claims and Medicaid. Just keep getting people into the system and eventually you are there. No one wants to be honest about that situation because everyone has a fat aunt or uncle riding around Walmart on the scooter who needs the money.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:no. unless it's an emergency hospital type of situation. (and then you should be on the hook to pay it off afterward, as you can)

I actually believe the ER situation is where the government does need to be involved. I think that situation is way to exploitative. You get into an accident, and tens of thousands worth of care are quickly piled on without your consent. Those situations are specifically geared towards maximum dollar extractions by the providers.

A lot of the testing done are dubious at best and I there is no way most would consent to many of them if properly informed, and had skin in the game for payment.

yeah, it does seem to be a lot about milking the situation on the part of the caregivers, but i didn't expect you to be sympathetic because a lot of the time it could be avoidable potentially, or could be seen to be the fault of the patient because of bad life choices or whatever. sorry.

I know you were kidding, but there is another side as well. ER's are massively overused for non-emergencies. With the giant expansion of medicaid, this problem is a huge societal drain.

Do some reading some time about the volume users of emergency services. Those who use the ER monthly for non-emergencies. There are hundreds of thousands of them, and millions who do it less frequently every year. It is insane, and there is not much incentive to stop it by hospitals as it is good money billing the government for those services. Low risk and high reward.

There is also the "non-profit" bullshit many hospitals hide behind. Many times tripling up by charging their patients, the government, and then collecting as a charity while directors are making major money.

i had to go to the er of a local hospital cause i fell unconscious during volunteer working at a goodwill type of store. and i woke up there. i didn't have any way to pay for it. and apparently they woke me up sometime between the fall and the actually being consciously awake, and i consented to them testing me from what they told me. it bites, and i feel responsible. i feel obligated to pay for it. but i can't still. but when/if i can find some place that will hire me, i do intend to. all they did was tests to figure out what happened. and not even finish with that, cause yeah. it felt like a rip off. and i didn't consciously agree to it at all.

This is why you should always carry a fake ID, Pedro Gonzalez!

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:That pragmatic approach also means I know some of my own personal views are not going to be relevant in the long run. In the case of health care, this country is just going to limp through half-measures for a while and piss people off on both sides of the aisle until arriving at a single-payer system. It's inevitable. And it's pointless to project the burden that would ultimately fall on our generation and especially the next generation, we have no idea. "A mess" is a pretty safe bet though.

Not a doubt in my mind single payer will happen. There is so little pushback by the Republicans on the explosion of disability claims and Medicaid. Just keep getting people into the system and eventually you are there. No one wants to be honest about that situation because everyone has a fat aunt or uncle riding around Walmart on the scooter who needs the money.

It's not discussed much but quietly some Republicans have been having similar discussions about single payer as Democrats as well. More than anything, I just think they want to be done with the health care issue altogether and would secretly pass the buck to Democrats again if they could. It is quickly developing into a nonpartisan consensus in this country that universal health care is the way forward, over 70% now from what I've read. Combine that with the basic principle that once you provide entitlements you cannot take them away, and yeah every sign points to single payer within a decade or two.