Hospital Publishes Rates; Capitalism Ensues

It's obviously true that some people get more out of the system than they put in directly, some people are getting hand-outs. We wish to minimize this, have them work to put back into the system, overall we just have to figure out if it's worth it. A healthy population to me is well worth it, healthy people are useful to society, healthy people bring happiness to their friends, and families unhealthy people do so less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Not everyone pays federal income tax where the money liberals what to use come from. Don't really care if someone pays sales tax on a stick of gum that still doesn't make the government handout anything other than free.

---

Everyone pays taxes. I don't know how I can make it more clear than that.

Quote:

---

Everyone pays taxes. I don't know how I can make it more clear than that.

---

Just to give Lewk's point some legitimacy, which is to does have. If it cost the government more money than you personally have put into the government then you are profiting off the government, especially if they're giving you stuff you need. They're stopping you from taking a loan out or whatever, effectively they are giving you money. My point is that it can be worth it, because in the long-run I'd argue the government will make it the money back, but also our society will reap rewards via positive externalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Cool so if someone doesn't pay federal income tax (or whatever bucket you gather the money from) its OK for them to be denied medical care?

---

Would you be okay with that? Medical care based on your tax returns? :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The argument that "everyone pays taxes so anything the government hands out isn't free" is deliberately misleading. If you get more goods and services beyond what you put in you are absolutely getting something for free.
Also not everyone pays taxes.

---

Says the guy who works in insurance, where no one pays full price for medical care services by design. :rolleyes: Aren't those tax credits and state/federal funds for hospitals (and medical school student loans) "government handouts", too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Its deliberate use of cheap rhetoric to imply that government handouts aren't government handouts.

---

The cheap rhetoric is your use of "free handouts" for individuals (but not corporations) while comparing healthcare subsidies to income taxes, or sales tax on gum. What are you smoking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

Just to give Lewk's point some legitimacy, which is to does have. If it cost the government more money than you personally have put into the government then you are profiting off the government, especially if they're giving you stuff you need. They're stopping you from taking a loan out or whatever, effectively they are giving you money. My point is that it can be worth it, because in the long-run I'd argue the government will make it the money back, but also our society will reap rewards via positive externalities.

---

You realize there are countries that pay a significant number of people to not seek employment, right? If you don't believe that, just pretend to and see how things look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Everyone pays taxes. I don't know how I can make it more clear than that.

---

The type and quantity matter. And depending on the type and quantity some people get free stuff from the government. I don't know how I can make it more clear than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

The cheap rhetoric is your use of "free handouts" for individuals (but not corporations) while comparing healthcare subsidies to income taxes, or sales tax on gum. What are you smoking?

---

A tax break is not a handout. Corporations shouldn't be taxed on profits because its double taxation. "Corporate welfare" is a misnomer. Outside of idiotic green and agricultural subsidies corporations don't ever get handouts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The type and quantity matter. And depending on the type and quantity some people get free stuff from the government. I don't know how I can make it more clear than that.

---

Taxes are taxes. The more money people have to spend, the more taxes they pay. You think places like Detroit and Stockton are in bad shape now? Think what situation they would be in with even less local taxes coming in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

A tax break is not a handout. Corporations shouldn't be taxed on profits because its double taxation. "Corporate welfare" is a misnomer. Outside of idiotic green and agricultural subsidies corporations don't ever get handouts.

---

I guess, technically, you can't call the billions of dollars Apple will make selling banned products in the USA corporate welfare.

Wow. You mentioned Detroit. And you're a liberal. Ballsy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Cool so if someone doesn't pay federal income tax (or whatever bucket you gather the money from) its OK for them to be denied medical care?

---

You didn't answer the question: Would you be okay with that? Medical care based on your tax returns? :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You didn't answer the question: Would you be okay with that? Medical care based on your tax returns? :donkey:

---

Obviously no - why should taxes matter? Your health care is between you, the insurance you elect to purchase and your doctor. Government shouldn't be involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The type and quantity matter. And depending on the type and quantity some people get free stuff from the government. I don't know how I can make it more clear than that.

---

Then you'll have to clarify your definitions of "free stuff" and "hand-outs". Start with healthcare, since that's the topic.

Are you purposely ignoring benefits from that evil government R & D that led to medical advances? How about medical school subsidies and university grants...that eventually led to screenings and treatments for all sorts of diseases, including cancer? Children with cancer haven't paid any taxes, and no family could pay enough in taxes to afford the six-figure + treatments. Even with private insurance it would be unaffordable, unless some of the costs were absorbed by hospitals and state/federal funding.

Do you think Medicare or Veteran benefits are "hand-outs"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Then you'll have to clarify your definitions of "free stuff" and "hand-outs". Start with healthcare, since that's the topic.

Are you purposely ignoring benefits from that evil government R & D that led to medical advances? How about medical school subsidies and university grants...that eventually led to screenings and treatments for all sorts of diseases, including cancer? Children with cancer haven't paid any taxes, and no family could pay enough in taxes to afford the six-figure + treatments. Even with private insurance it would be unaffordable, unless some of the costs were absorbed by hospitals and state/federal funding.

Do you think Medicare or Veteran benefits are "hand-outs"?

---

Medicare a partial yes - the program was another big government push who's costs have ballooned far beyond the original estimates. Veteran benefits no - those were earned through patriotic service.

Government makes R&D take longer (John Stossel did a great piece on the length of time it takes the FDA to approve a new drug). Charity exists - when we stop turning to the government to fix every problem we'll see that people generally are compassionate and will help others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Medicare a partial yes - the program was another big government push who's costs have ballooned far beyond the original estimates. Veteran benefits no - those were earned through patriotic service.

---

Right, your grandparents using Medicare can't be a "hand-out" or "free stuff", because that would make them participants in government programs you vilify. The only way you can save face is giving a partial answer. You're a hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Government makes R&D take longer (John Stossel did a great piece on the length of time it takes the FDA to approve a new drug). Charity exists - when we stop turning to the government to fix every problem we'll see that people generally are compassionate and will help others.

---

You're a hypocrite digging your hole deeper. You're practicing denial, to protect your ideology. :donkey:

Sure, charity exists, but it's not capable of filling in food/hunger gaps, let alone medical and healthcare gaps. Charity wouldn't have done much for Homeschooler without the government funding that came first. And guess what....that's a pretty good reason for taxation and The Public Good.

Quote:

---

Government makes R&D take longer (John Stossel did a great piece on the length of time it takes the FDA to approve a new drug). Charity exists - when we stop turning to the government to fix every problem we'll see that people generally are compassionate and will help others.

---

Not saying the FDA is working perfectly, but the existence of it is a good thing. drugs that aren't tested can cause nasty problems.

And I have a problem with, as a nation, relying on charity. It's not sustainable, or wise. What if, say, a church charity won't help someone because they aren't christian? Or if they run out of money because they are needed most in times people have the least to donate?

Also, with health insurance, people don't buy it because they don't need it, or so they think.. Then they do need it, go bankrupt and pay only a small portion of their bills. Is that how it is supposed to work? How is that for freeloading?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ck-up-her-tab/

Quote:

---

This is a very common problem. We cover $30 million in charity and uncompensated care every year,” “If it’s a bad debt, we have to absorb it.”

---

And that's from one medical center.. It bankrupts close to two million people a year. That's a lot of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Simple: conflict-of-interest. Kick-back profits. You probably don't remember the scandals in radiology years ago, when the technology of MRIs and CAT scans left hospitals, and outpatient sites began to pop up. Many turned out to be owned by physician LLCs, who would send patients to their own facilities, often over-ordering or duplicating scans. Similar to pharmaceutical companies sending doctors to exotic places for "medical conferences", drug reps buying lunches and giving gifts, in exchange for their brand of drugs being prescribed. It took legislation to crack down on that type of "business"....because it's a crappy way to practice medicine.

If surgeons own and operate their own surgical clinics -- performing surgeries they recommend -- there should be some kind of process to protect the patient. Whether it's an outside second opinion or referral, or a review board with physicians that don't have a financial interest, something along those lines.

Do you object to patient protections, especially when surgery is concerned?

---

:confused: Well sure, I mean everyone could be lying to you and scamming you all the time. That's what second opinions are for.

And, BTW, more open cost information would probably help the paranoid scenario you outline because at least you would know how much a doctor is charging your insurer with each suggestion he/she makes. But your references to vague "protections" against the entire world scamming everyone all the time is pretty...vague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Not saying the FDA is working perfectly, but the existence of it is a good thing. drugs that aren't tested can cause nasty problems.

And I have a problem with, as a nation, relying on charity. It's not sustainable, or wise. What if, say, a church charity won't help someone because they aren't christian? Or if they run out of money because they are needed most in times people have the least to donate?

Also, with health insurance, people don't buy it because they don't need it, or so they think.. Then they do need it, go bankrupt and pay only a small portion of their bills. Is that how it is supposed to work? How is that for freeloading?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ck-up-her-tab/


And that's from one medical center.. It bankrupts close to two million people a year. That's a lot of people.

---

You assume things would cost the same in a world where people would pay out of their own pocket books. In a world where people foot the bill instead of an invisible middle man - costs would go down. It doesn't cost $80.00 for Tylenol but hospitals have charged that much and it gets absorbed through premiums. When costs are diluted and benefits are specific you have a recipe for runaway prices.

Also if a new drug is said to save 10,000 people a year did the FDA just kill 10,000 people by delaying it for a year? People should have the option to take experimental drugs as long as they are fully away its not fully "safe" per the FDA. Its insane that people have to LEAVE the country to get medical treatment that's accepted in other countries but still pending FDA approval here.

On the other hand, obamacare requires insurance which is usually private, right? They have every incentive to drive down expenses, for more profit, and lower premiums which should lead to more customers. Capitalism! That's how it works over here anyway. And one of the reasons the bills are high is because you're paying for the moochers, too ;) Do your hospitals make outrageous profits? If not, the money for lowering the prices must come from somewhere..

And allowing that has obvious downsides, too, why would any company do expensive testing if the patients can just sign waivers?