No, they don’t. The patient lives or dies based upon whether a procedure is performed or not, and not based upon who pays for it.
Oh look, another Trump/Musk policy that screws rural Americans
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
Yeah, my first answer was too simple. I quickly replaced it with, “Well, we should definitely require drivers to carry and present certain papers.”I took a cool screenshot yesterday because the Internet is serious business.
Okay with that?
So, reading through your posts up to this point, you seem like sort of an Ayn Rand figure. What I can’t quite figure out is how you square a market driven healthcare system that includes healthcare insurance with your position that we should have the choice of what we pay for and what we don’t.
Are you covered by some form of health insurance or do you “self-insure” personally? I would imagine that it is different to even interact with the healthcare system without some form of coverage, unless you only utilize it on an emergency “as needed” basis.
Yeah, this is where this analogy breaks down, at least until we got through the horrific transition and costs start plummeting
You're not a history buff, I see.
Merica SELDOM keeps the same Party in power for >8 years.
You’re going to be singing a different tune when your benefits get cut and prices skyrocket and your taxes all go up under Trump. I hope you’re financially stable because things are going to be rough. Really rough.
He mentioned once that he works for Bureau of Child Protection so probably insured by his government job. Bit of a Ron Swanson move by him.
I forgot signatures are a thing. I turned mine off years ago because I didn’t want to be reading something innocuous and then have something flash on the screen making me look like a weirdo if someone saw my screen.
And whether that procedure is performed or not is all too often based on if the insurance company will agree to pay for it.
You can keep denying it but you’re wrong.
Russians still struggle sometimes trying to figure out how things work in the United States.
Agreeing quickly with Nazis is too simple? Dude, take a break. Your head is jacked up.
Maybe the autistic vibes I get from him are just good old sociopathy.
let's take a 24 hour holiday from shots at others today - it's Christmas after all.
They make it REALLY difficult.
Americans are definitely not smart lol. We’re all living off the laurels of each 1st generation immigrant who had the work ethic, smarts and foresight to take care of their families and replenish this country with useful individuals.
For whatever reason, the past month really seems like the personal attacks on other posters has just skyrocketed - I've easily reported more posters in that time than the rest of the year combined.
And if the insurance company refuses to pay for it for their policy holder? The company that they paid premiums to? The company counted on to cover these costs?
The insurance company certainly does make life and death decisions based on profit/loss.
You're trying hard to split hairs here but I will play along. Do you advocate for Emergency Rooms to be lawfully mandated to treat patients as they are now? Or do you believe they should be able to turn patients away if they can't provide proof of their ability to pay?
His point is technically accurate, but ignores reality. It’s as if he thinks people who are denied insurance can just pay out of their own pocket. Or somehow can easily procure charity care or free prescriptions. It’s not how things work in the real world, so yes, an insurance denial can have life or death consequences.
That was clear before you unnecessarily truncated my post:
"He gave the government 20 years of his life in return of a promise of free medical care for him and his wife."
The government altered the deal after he retired.
Read about Bud Day's lawsuit for more info on the subject.
He mentioned once that he works for Bureau of Child Protection so probably insured by his government job. Bit of a Ron Swanson move by him.
Almost 100% correct.
I'm not an anarchist, but I am a libertarian.
I'll explain to you how and why the rules are ****ed up, but I play the game by the rules in place.
The role I have taken is one I believe government should do, which is seek justice on behalf of abused children.
I get to see the idiocy, and frankly unmeasurable 'inefficiency', of government from inside the bureaucracy, and I have stories to tell. Your money is less than trash to the vast majority of them. The biggest sin is to end the year not having found a way to spend all of it.
"Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody."
--Calvin Coolidge
But I understand the flip side of it too, and that the money isn't unlimited just because the government is made to be the payer, it's just much less likely to be spent logically than if individuals were spending their own money on themselves.
Next January I'll be initiating a pilot in to utilize Starlink to connect the 53 sites statewide that I have telemedicine or forensic interview systems in, an upgrade over the 29 sites that are currently connected at 45Mbps at a mere $1714/mo, per site (you read that number right!).
The money saved going forward just from that more than offsets my salary and benefits, and it's hardly the first thing I've done like this in a 25 year career.
I don't play the game the same way most of them do. My moral compass is a little different.
"Public expenditure is not rain from Heaven, but sweat from the taxpayer's brow."
--Okamitsu Nobuharu
Agreed, the corporate insurance companies and all corporation should be paying higher taxes.
How do you pay for your own food? You choose from producers competing on price and quality, and pay for what you want. This method maximizes your satisfaction, with the added benefit of competition ruthlessly pushing out the most inefficient producers and driving down consumer costs. Profits drive the provision of goods where and how they are demanded.
Nowadays I get a text, pull up to the store, and they put the merchandise in my car. Only thing I walk the aisles for is produce.
Can you fathom doing this under the health insurance model, where your employer paid for 'food insurance', and put you on a plan with a 'network' of providers, and pre-determined selection of goods requiring prior authorization to obtain?
It's ludicrous to contemplate, but has been normalized in this one industry, for no good reason. It does have vested interests, who have exercised the political clout to entrench and extend it, when it needs to be pulled out root and branch.
Last time I checked my employer was annually spending more than $18k on health insurance for me. I'm way, way behind ever having spent that much on health care. It'd be depressing to add up how much that would be in savings at this point of my life. No doubt some people come out 'ahead' under this model, but the (vast) majority, as a simple matter of arithmetic, cannot come out ahead in this model.
But not always.
I do not know the stats on how often this occurs. I suspect not often, at least compared to how many covered procedures are performed.
But the contract between insurance company and individual does not say the former will pay for anything submitted.
Some people can pay for some things out of pocket if need be.
Some people can get charity service.
And some people will die because there insurance does not cover some procedure.
So are there consequences for failure in any of these 3 cases? Sure. But not one of them is making a life or death decision for a patient.
