Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - page 50

by Asystole RN 50,632 Views | 622 Comments

If one were to read the Constitution one would realize that the Constitution does not grant anyone freedoms, liberties, or rights. The Constitution only protects freedoms, liberties, and rights from transgressions on part of the... Read More


  1. 2
    Quote from cdsga
    It's not sufficient because it is inefficient and not managed properly.

    You'll still have very high premiums for pre-existing conditions-and probably not affordable for the avg person

    Well despite our debate on whether it's good bad or ugly of the ACA, It is here and we will be paying for it for 4 years before it ever comes to fruition. I love that. Pre-paying for an unknown result. I know I always pay upfront before I receive benefits. Only the government ...
    My hospital has been in recent news over some billing issues.

    I think it is strange that we all expect to see a price quote before we have our cars or houses to be worked on but for our bodies we just write a blank check.

    I think that prices should be standardized and up front. Now things like room and board must be variable simply due to the difference in quality of care and environmental costs but things like equipment and medication should have a standard price.

    There is no reason why a medication should cost $7,500 at one facility and $40,000 at another.

    Let the consumer know what the prices are and standardize equipment/medication costs and I think we will go a long way to improving healthcare costs.
    RNfaster and lindarn like this.
  2. 0
    Quote from cdsga
    It's not sufficient because it is inefficient and not managed properly.

    You'll still have very high premiums for pre-existing conditions-and probably not affordable for the avg person

    Well despite our debate on whether it's good bad or ugly of the ACA, It is here and we will be paying for it for 4 years before it ever comes to fruition. I love that. Pre-paying for an unknown result. I know I always pay upfront before I receive benefits. Only the government ...
    "It's not sufficient because it is inefficient and not managed properly."

    Are you saying that it is ok for some people to receive all their health care in community clinics and emergency rooms?
  3. 2
    You might be right with the fact that healthcare is not a basic right according to the constitution, however, everyone should be granted healthcare. This is a basic human intervention and invention which should not be exclusive to anyone. I am a nurse with my full heart for over 30 years and I feel privileged to take care of the sick and the dying as this is the right thing to do.
    RNfaster and lindarn like this.
  4. 0
    No hospitalization is covered with Medicare, Medicaid and children's plans (PeachCare in Ga for example) If you need hospital care you can get it.

    Most hospital people don't know about billing, don't know about different coverages unless they are in social services, case management, a physician, or are a nurse navigator for cancer care.

    There's alot we don't know. I'm working in a transitional care facility where I am learning more about all this. It's interesting.
  5. 0
    Quote from cdsga
    No hospitalization is covered with Medicare, Medicaid and children's plans (PeachCare in Ga for example) If you need hospital care you can get it.

    Most hospital people don't know about billing, don't know about different coverages unless they are in social services, case management, a physician, or are a nurse navigator for cancer care.

    There's alot we don't know. I'm working in a transitional care facility where I am learning more about all this. It's interesting.
    What about the people who aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or children's plans, and can't afford or can't obtain insurance because of pre-existing conditions? What about people who are unable to work for various reasons but do not qualify for Medicaid/Medicare? People who cannot find work with medical insurance? How do they obtain primary and specialist care - they access care through community clinics and the ER. Do you believe people must spend all their resources until they qualify for Medicaid or a government program, or become so ill that they are admitted to hospital in the late stages of illness through the ER? Must they forgo health care until they qualify for Medicare? Please tell, what should these people do?
  6. 3
    A friend of mine wrote this which I think sums up what I'm talking about-
    the issue is not access to health care by the poor, nor has it been, at least in recent history. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 prohibits hospitals from turning away or transferring patients based on their ability to pay. If a patient who lacks the ability to pay requires treatment, he or she must be provided that treatment and the facility eats the cost - there's where the problem begins. Hospitals never like doing anything for free. They would much rather charge CMS or an insurer than to do anything pro bono.

    Where the two sides differ is in determining who should pay for this health care and the degree to which the government should be involved. One side sees entirely too much government involvement in health care (among other things). That side believes that the American public already pays too much. They also believe that our government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to manage the taxpayer's money and their medling in health care in the form of the establishment of seemingly arbitrary reimbursement rates and actuarially unsound Medicare premiums are examples of CMS' lack of ability. Lastly, this side believes that everyone should contribute - there should be no free rides for anyone. The other side thinks of government as a parent that should take care of everyone. This side is very good at allocating money without actually determining where the funding will come from. Currently, it appears that this side would have us beleive that the wealthy are not paying their fair share and should be require to pay more because other people need it.

    Currently there are 50.1 million people on Medicare and 57 million on Medicaid (these groups overlap as it is possible to be eligible for Medicare as the primary coverage and Medicaid as the secondary - 9.2 million are dual enrolled according to CMS). The net is that there are 97.8 million Americans who receive health care that is paid for by the taxpayer. To provide care for this large group of people, the Federal Government collects 2.9% of every working employee's pay off the top (The employer and employee split this equally while self-employed people pay the full 2.9% themselves. This figure has steadily risen since it began in 1966 at 0.7%. There are approximately 120 million workers in the US who are tasked with funding these social programs. The 2013 submitted budget for CMS is $898 billion. This comes out to an average total cost of $9,238 per enrollee at the federal level - this does not include the amounts that the states spend on Medicaid. The administrative cost of CMS averages $121,000 per CMS employee. The point is that these programs are incredibly expensive, extremely wasteful and naively administered. While it sounds nice to provide free health care for all, nothing is free - someone must pay. Every dollar the federal government collects comes from someone who earned that dollar.

    Since WWII, many employers have provided either no cost or subsidized health insurance for their employees. This has put distance between the employee and the actual cost of care. Folks just don't realize how much health care actually costs. Many people would think that paying $1,000 per month for health insurance is too high, but when you consider that the total claims for their family greatly exceed that amount, the cost of coverage is justified. What isn't justified is the cost of care. However, arbitrarily determining how much CMS will pay for a specific service will not actually reduce the cost of care. Instead, this will result in the access to health care problem that your post mentioned - If CMS will reimburse a doctor $50 for a service that costs him $60 to perform and for which he charges a privately insured patient $120, the doctor will do one of two things. He will either charge the privately insured patient more (subject to contractual limitations) or he will stop seeing Medicare/Medicaid patients...and then the issue will actually be an access to health care problem.
    toekneejo, CountyRat, and lindarn like this.
  7. 0
    Yes!! To what CGSDA said!!
  8. 0
    Quote from cdsga
    A friend of mine wrote this which I think sums up what I'm talking about-
    the issue is not access to health care by the poor, nor has it been, at least in recent history. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 prohibits hospitals from turning away or transferring patients based on their ability to pay. If a patient who lacks the ability to pay requires treatment, he or she must be provided that treatment and the facility eats the cost - there's where the problem begins. Hospitals never like doing anything for free. They would much rather charge CMS or an insurer than to do anything pro bono.

    Where the two sides differ is in determining who should pay for this health care and the degree to which the government should be involved. One side sees entirely too much government involvement in health care (among other things). That side believes that the American public already pays too much. They also believe that our government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to manage the taxpayer's money and their medling in health care in the form of the establishment of seemingly arbitrary reimbursement rates and actuarially unsound Medicare premiums are examples of CMS' lack of ability. Lastly, this side believes that everyone should contribute - there should be no free rides for anyone. The other side thinks of government as a parent that should take care of everyone. This side is very good at allocating money without actually determining where the funding will come from. Currently, it appears that this side would have us beleive that the wealthy are not paying their fair share and should be require to pay more because other people need it.

    Currently there are 50.1 million people on Medicare and 57 million on Medicaid (these groups overlap as it is possible to be eligible for Medicare as the primary coverage and Medicaid as the secondary - 9.2 million are dual enrolled according to CMS). The net is that there are 97.8 million Americans who receive health care that is paid for by the taxpayer. To provide care for this large group of people, the Federal Government collects 2.9% of every working employee's pay off the top (The employer and employee split this equally while self-employed people pay the full 2.9% themselves. This figure has steadily risen since it began in 1966 at 0.7%. There are approximately 120 million workers in the US who are tasked with funding these social programs. The 2013 submitted budget for CMS is $898 billion. This comes out to an average total cost of $9,238 per enrollee at the federal level - this does not include the amounts that the states spend on Medicaid. The administrative cost of CMS averages $121,000 per CMS employee. The point is that these programs are incredibly expensive, extremely wasteful and naively administered. While it sounds nice to provide free health care for all, nothing is free - someone must pay. Every dollar the federal government collects comes from someone who earned that dollar.

    Since WWII, many employers have provided either no cost or subsidized health insurance for their employees. This has put distance between the employee and the actual cost of care. Folks just don't realize how much health care actually costs. Many people would think that paying $1,000 per month for health insurance is too high, but when you consider that the total claims for their family greatly exceed that amount, the cost of coverage is justified. What isn't justified is the cost of care. However, arbitrarily determining how much CMS will pay for a specific service will not actually reduce the cost of care. Instead, this will result in the access to health care problem that your post mentioned - If CMS will reimburse a doctor $50 for a service that costs him $60 to perform and for which he charges a privately insured patient $120, the doctor will do one of two things. He will either charge the privately insured patient more (subject to contractual limitations) or he will stop seeing Medicare/Medicaid patients...and then the issue will actually be an access to health care problem.
    Well, you didn't answer my questions, but that's ok.
  9. 0
    Well in a way I did-but then again after all the available programs (county, state, and charity/indigent care are ruled out-just how many people are you talking about? Is it a huge proportion?
  10. 3
    So, devil's advocate here,

    As many have mentioned, Americans have a right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness
    also right to bear arms, speak freely, gather peacefully, etc.

    So, lets say we amend the constitution to include the right to have access to health care. Fine, now it's a constitutional right.

    There are limits on these other rights. If they are abused, they are taken away.

    A criminal can have their freedom or even their life taken away. They can also lose their right to bear arms.
    In certain cases, such as in public forums, the right to free speech may be censored to protect certain audiences.
    But these guys still get health care? How can they lose access to the most fundamental of human rights but still obtain health care services?

    Sooooo...

    What kind of limit could we place on the "right" to health care. Could we begin to call things what they are and cut off abusers of the system? The habitual, weekly ER visitor with vague abdominal pain who is allergic to all but dilaudid (fast push, please)?
    The repeat drunk driver in with their third car wreck this year, this time with liver lacs and TBI due to an accident that killed a family of four? The violent ETOH abuser, in at family's request for detox, who, last time they were here spit in a nurse's face and broke another one's nose? The diabetic who, despite excellent access to needed supplies, repeated attempts at education, and declined offers of home health services continues to be readmitted to the hospital in DKA because they "didn't have time" to check their blood sugar and treat it?

    I mean, can't we place these guys who don't follow the rules on health care probation or something? I understand that some may lack the mental capacity to understand their health condition and treatments. Yes, we should be compassionate and do everything we can to help. But for the ones who simply will not follow the rules or decline every attempt we make to help them, shouldn't we re-distribute scarce resources to help those who are willing to accept it?
    lindarn, realmaninuniform, and tntrn like this.


Top