Unconstitutionalcare

Not really. Hospitals factor in what an insured patient will get from their carrier . . . what they figure they can tack on to make the customer dig deep . . . then bill for the sum of that.

The fully-insured are beaten like pinatas at billing time, because the hospitals know they can get it.
To say the least . . . the system is far from ideal.

 

Watch Hot Coffee. Get back to us then.

 

Any doctor who performs appendectomies.

 

Yep. Known as the "Sorry Works" campaign.

 

I'm supposed to comparison shop with a ruptured appendix?

 

OK, OK. Yeah, sorry. Answered that too quickly.

Yeah, you're right. This is the kind of case in which government regulation is necessary. It's why we can't have a total free market economy, because of market failures like information asymmetry and a situation like this where one party has the other totally over a barrel.

 

They'll create jobs!

 

I recently read the autobiography of late Florida Senator Claude Pepper, a Southern progressive. He said he first noticed a strong need for national healthcare when, during WWI, he saw so many men from poor areas relegated to 4F status.

 

One way the Canadian health system manages wait times is to use the US as a relief valve. Some cancer and cardiac patients are cared for south of the border (the linked article says that the number is small, only 400 of 12,000 cancer patients in Ontario, a little more than 3%) http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/3/186.full

I do not know the dollars involved but it seems that the marginal cost of building new cancer treatment facilities for those 400 patients would be exorbitant. Fortunately for Canada, there is a place to send those 400. If that option were not available, what would those people do?

The concept of right v. privilege regarding health care is difficult. Rights can be taken away. Philosophical, I believe that society has the obligation to care for its members. However, the individual has the responsibility to care for their body and maintain their health. If that does not occur, then perhaps they lose their right to care...

 

The other question is what does a "right to health care" mean, exactly. No matter what, health care is a finite resource. Someone used the word "ration" on this thread. There's no way to have a system where anyone can get anything done they want, any time. If we have universal health care, there might not be as many hip replacements. Or late-stage cancer treatment. Etc., etc., etc. This is what Sarah Palin calls "death panels," and that was a gross mischaracterization, but health care has to be rationed somehow. It's rationed now.

 

DocTalk makes a good point.

Another factor is that we spend 3 times what Canada does on Defense as a percentage of GDP.

Now, a lot of liberals would say we should just drop our spending on Defense. Problem solved. But, the fact of the matter is that the US plays an out sized role in NATO, in the defense of North America, and in the defense of Europe.

If our allies spent more, we could spend less. To his credit, Gates pushed our European allies on this in terms of the action in Libya.

(And, please don't look at this as a criticism of Canada or its military. I love Canada. The Canadians have fought and died with us in every war. Their courage and spirit is second to none. I'll also never forget how Canada responded to a neighbor in need on 911 and hosted thousands of people, on no notice.)

America also bears a lot of the costs of research and development that are enjoyed by the rest of the world.

Fuck with that, and the health care of the whole world will suffer.

 

I was prepared for someone to bring up the classic McDonald's case.