It could also mean that they, like my father, pay for the medical care out of pocket on an as-needed basis.
It's all about choice.That'd suck. But he'd pay as much as he could, as long as he could.
That'd suck. But he'd pay as much as he could, as long as he could. There was a point over the last few years when having an insurance premium (even just on himself) would have been the difference between keeping or losing his house. He's spent less on paying full-price for medical care in 20 years than he'd spend on premiums in one.
I admit that it would be nice to have a million dollars set aside for that. For most of us, though, that's not an option.
and now he's not young. no way could he pay for anything major, so in effect, WE pay for him. he would be one of those people many in this thread are talking about, the irresponsible one who didn't get insurance and now is catastrophically ill.
your dad, among others, is why i think we need mandated coverage.
and now he's not young. no way could he pay for anything major, so in effect, WE pay for him. he would be one of those people many in this thread are talking about, the irresponsible one who didn't get insurance and now is catastrophically ill. your dad, among others, is why i think we need mandated coverage. are you insured?
Exactly right.He is not irresponsible. WE are irresponsible for insuring de facto those who opt not to be insured.
I keep seeing people write "hospitals will treat people regardless of whether or not they have insurance or money." But ultimately if someone has a serious condition, long term treatment is out of the question. They are usually refused more expensive options and are sent home.
One of the reasons that UHC is typically a cheaper option is because of the level of preventative care. Treatment is cheaper if the condition has not been allowed to fester.
This -should- be the case in all situations.I keep seeing people write "hospitals will treat people regardless of whether or not they have insurance or money." But ultimately if someone has a serious condition, long term treatment is out of the question. They are usually refused more expensive options and are sent home.
This -should- be the case in all situations.
Otherwise, you're forcing people to provide goods and services w/o compensation, and/or to pay for goods and services they do not receive.
Is that a question or a statement? I cannot tell, because it doesnt stem directly from anything I said.So you think basically ambulances should be equipped with a credit card machine?
Medical necessity sends all hospital patients home when they clear, regardless of insurance status.
Preventive care is a cost saver for a very small minority of conditions. Overall it is absolutely not true.
This -should- be the case in all situations.
Otherwise, you're forcing people to provide goods and services w/o compensation, and/or to pay for goods and services they do not receive.
You give the provider the choice to treat him at risk of doing so w/o compenation, or to not treat him.So back to square one: someone cannot afford treatment: treat them or let them die?
You give the provider the choice to treat him at risk of doing so w/o compenation, or to not treat him.
If they choose to treat someone that cannot pay, then they choose to take whatever loss that may result.
He's far from a millionaire. He took losses the last 3 years. He lives in a house valued at $87k (low for DFW).
Then unless he's on Medicare now, he's taking a huge risk. I would get him insured as soon as possible, and I would highly recommend nursing home insurance, as well. End of life care and nursing homes / hospices can be devastatingly expensive.
Non sequitur, red herring.So ultimately, a person's value equals their monetary value. . .
When they "clear," that doesn't mean they were properly treated.
That defies logic. Especially if preventative care costs are kept reasonable.
WE haven't paid for anything for him. He's never even taken unemployment benefits. He's never been on food stamps, welfare, medicaid, or any other government program. He's paid in full for every procedure he's had done.
He is also not the type who would sit for years and years suffering from any disease that would kill him slowly with treatment. He's made it pretty damn clear he won't live that way.
So don't worry. "We" will likely never pay for my father's "irresponsibility".
He's 47. Too young for government health care and honestly, I doubt he'll take it. If my dad is disagnosed with anything short of bad knees I doubt he'll stay alive long enough to end up in a nursing home.
He's 47. Too young for government health care and honestly, I doubt he'll take it. If my dad is disagnosed with anything short of bad knees I doubt he'll stay alive long enough to end up in a nursing home.
why would you say that?
really you are missing the point. say your dad has to have a bypass.......much more than he could ever pay for in his lifetime. what do you think happens when hospitals and doctors have to eat their fees? they raise their prices, insurance goes up. so yes, WE do pay.
and if you're not insured, the same thing could happen to you. do you expect to be treated if you can't pay? again, this is why we need mandated insurance.
really you are missing the point. say your dad has to have a bypass.......much more than he could ever pay for in his lifetime. what do you think happens when hospitals and doctors have to eat their fees? they raise their prices, insurance goes up. so yes, WE do pay.That's our problem. We must stop.
and if you're not insured, the same thing could happen to you. do you expect to be treated if you can't pay? again, this is why we need mandated insurance.
Again, this is why we need to respect people's decisions by holding them to those decisions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?