4 ms·

Especially when it covers non-citizens and people who are illegally in the country. We could at least have a little compromise by making health care more tiere

Especially when it covers non-citizens and people who are illegally in the country. We could at least have a little compromise by making health care more tiered so that citizens, payers and people with insurance receive better health care than others. Make a list of services that will only be provided to payers and automatically push non-payers to the back of the queue.

nck4222 9y ago
I would view that as a horrible compromise, because it would result in poor people receiving worse health care than wealthy people.
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  I'm amazed sometimes the things people say here. The idea of withholding medical care based on citizenship comes very close the criteria for evil, with the drawback that it's largely incorrect, too (non-citizen residents, legal and illegal pay taxes at many levels of government for far less in return comparably than citizens).
  - ythn 9y ago
    What is the maximum amount we should spend to save a human? A million? A billion? Should society absorb any cost to save a human even if it gets exponentially more expensive with each subsequent procedure? Or should there be a cutoff where you are basically told "Sorry, you've exceeded the threshold and have to either pay for it yourself or die"
    - dv_dt 9y ago
      It would seem that the cost of being stingy here is that the medical care system is more expensive for less performance in the US. Cut off your nose to spite your face exemplified.
    - ryanobjc 9y ago
      This is a non-sequitur, and not related to the original topic which was: Should non-citizens be disallowed from receiving ER care without paying for it themselves? Additionally, we already had that system in place, it was called "lifetime limits" and it was typically $1-2m on the best healthcare plans.
  - fav_collector 9y ago
    It's not withholding health care. It's withholding American tax money from being used for people who are not Americans. They're free to pay for health care for themselves.
    - halfteatree 9y ago
      I'm not a citizen. I come here legally. I pay my taxes. I pay for my insurance. This is not the minority case by the way, all your H1b colleagues as well as F1/J1 students are like this. Should we still die because we're not American citizens? I'm amazed sometimes the things people say here.
- panzagl 9y ago
  As opposed to now?
  - okreallywtf 9y ago
    I think the idea being that generally, two people going to the same ER one being broke and the other being loaded are going to get a similar level of emergency care. Long term maybe not but you aren't going to get the bronze plan of gunshot care while the guy next to you is enjoying platinum.
    - ryanobjc 9y ago
      I think most people believe its morally repugnant that your value as a human being is related to how much money you have. Because choosing to serve one person over another based on money rather than their medical need is exactly that. Ie: I broke my toe and I have insurance, so I get ER treatment, but that guy who has no insurance and is internally bleeding to death from a street stabbing (and is hispanic, doesn't have insurance and maybe isn't american?) is pushed behind me in line. That is the real life scenario that at least one person is advocating here.
      - okreallywtf 9y ago
        I agree, I think that ER's work more or less like that now (not necessarily the rest of the hospital), I'm concerned for the future this not always being the case. I think as the governments become more starved (not made more efficient by reducing costs, starved by simply cutting funding without optimizing it logically) that important government services will have to replaced with tiered private companies. As regulations are removed, the same thing occurs. What if a speed of ambulance was built into your insurance? How do you know what response time is right for you and your family (as it will be framed)?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > I would view that as a horrible compromise, because it would result in poor people receiving worse health care than wealthy people. It's impossible for that not to be the case. It's even the case in countries with single payer, because rich people who live there and don't want to wait for an appointment or want something that isn't covered will just go to a country that can give them what they want and open their wallet. Even without leaving the country, they can hire private nurses and so on when they aren't covered by the national health system. Moreover, why is this supposed to be a problem? "Money buys things" is the purpose of money. There are things a rational national health system wouldn't pay for because they aren't economical, but a rich person would buy for themselves for much the same reasons they buy a Tesla instead of a Dodge. Which means they have a safer car because they have more money. Should we prohibit expensive safer cars because poor people can't afford them?
- fav_collector 9y ago
  Wealthy people can already buy their way to better private health care. These changes would regulate the difference between health care for the middle/upper middle class and the poor. Although I would prefer to concentrate on the 10s of millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens who receive tax payer funded health care.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "Although I would prefer to concentrate on the 10s of millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens who receive tax payer funded health care." You're gonna have to provide a citation for that claim, there.
  - halfteatree 9y ago
    >Although I would prefer to concentrate on the 10s of millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens who receive tax payer funded health care. I feel like I should remind you here that many non-citizens are actually tax-payers. Taxes are paid in many different ways, but let's forget about that here for a second and realize that many non-citizens actually come here legally to work. A blanket statement like that really doesn't mean anything. Same arguments were given about dreamers using tax-payer money, without realizing many of them actually are tax-payers as well.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
leejoramo 9y ago
Not sure what citizenship has to do with this. As an American traveling in Europe, I received emergency room care. They may have glanced at my passport, but certainly did not ask for any other documents. Nor did they ask for payment.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  I dont know your experience as an American, but as an Argentinian I am not allowed to enter Europe without health insurance. They dont let you on the plane without it.
chrisbennet 9y ago
Is it really fair to let poor people have health services that they didn't pay for? Is keeping poor people healthy/alive really the best allocation of resources? Shouldn't triage take into account who is the most profitable so wealthy people can go to the front of the line where they deserve to be? I mean really, why should my undocumented nanny, house keeper and gardeners be entitled to the same health care that I am? [Of course, I don't pay them enough to buy health insurance but that's their problem.] As @gselevator tweeted "I never give money to homeless people. I can't reward failure in good conscience." (This is sarcasm in case it isn't obvious.)
- ryanobjc 9y ago
  Actually it wasn't obvious that this is sarcasm. It totally reads like the kind of libertarian/dude-bro nonsense that has invaded tech. I'd be wary of reusing text like this in other areas, because until I skipped ahead to "this is sarcasm" I was like "oh here we go again"
- conanbatt 9y ago
  There is a case for adverse selection for the ER, and the effects of it being free in comparison to very expensive healthcare. The next question would be: how many of the people that ended up on the ER could actually afford healthcare? And why didnt they have/use it?
undersuit 9y ago
How do they know I'm a citizen? Do they deny care to the unresponsive person in pajammas because they can't be sure if the person isn't a foreigner bilking the US health system?

nck4222 9y ago

I would view that as a horrible compromise, because it would result in poor people receiving worse health care than wealthy people.

throwaway5752 9y ago
I'm amazed sometimes the things people say here. The idea of withholding medical care based on citizenship comes very close the criteria for evil, with the drawback that it's largely incorrect, too (non-citizen residents, legal and illegal pay taxes at many levels of government for far less in return comparably than citizens).
- ythn 9y ago
  What is the maximum amount we should spend to save a human? A million? A billion? Should society absorb any cost to save a human even if it gets exponentially more expensive with each subsequent procedure? Or should there be a cutoff where you are basically told "Sorry, you've exceeded the threshold and have to either pay for it yourself or die"
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    It would seem that the cost of being stingy here is that the medical care system is more expensive for less performance in the US. Cut off your nose to spite your face exemplified.
  - ryanobjc 9y ago
    This is a non-sequitur, and not related to the original topic which was: Should non-citizens be disallowed from receiving ER care without paying for it themselves? Additionally, we already had that system in place, it was called "lifetime limits" and it was typically $1-2m on the best healthcare plans.
- fav_collector 9y ago
  It's not withholding health care. It's withholding American tax money from being used for people who are not Americans. They're free to pay for health care for themselves.
  - halfteatree 9y ago
    I'm not a citizen. I come here legally. I pay my taxes. I pay for my insurance. This is not the minority case by the way, all your H1b colleagues as well as F1/J1 students are like this. Should we still die because we're not American citizens? I'm amazed sometimes the things people say here.
panzagl 9y ago
As opposed to now?
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  I think the idea being that generally, two people going to the same ER one being broke and the other being loaded are going to get a similar level of emergency care. Long term maybe not but you aren't going to get the bronze plan of gunshot care while the guy next to you is enjoying platinum.
  - ryanobjc 9y ago
    I think most people believe its morally repugnant that your value as a human being is related to how much money you have. Because choosing to serve one person over another based on money rather than their medical need is exactly that. Ie: I broke my toe and I have insurance, so I get ER treatment, but that guy who has no insurance and is internally bleeding to death from a street stabbing (and is hispanic, doesn't have insurance and maybe isn't american?) is pushed behind me in line. That is the real life scenario that at least one person is advocating here.
    - okreallywtf 9y ago
      I agree, I think that ER's work more or less like that now (not necessarily the rest of the hospital), I'm concerned for the future this not always being the case. I think as the governments become more starved (not made more efficient by reducing costs, starved by simply cutting funding without optimizing it logically) that important government services will have to replaced with tiered private companies. As regulations are removed, the same thing occurs. What if a speed of ambulance was built into your insurance? How do you know what response time is right for you and your family (as it will be framed)?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> I would view that as a horrible compromise, because it would result in poor people receiving worse health care than wealthy people. It's impossible for that not to be the case. It's even the case in countries with single payer, because rich people who live there and don't want to wait for an appointment or want something that isn't covered will just go to a country that can give them what they want and open their wallet. Even without leaving the country, they can hire private nurses and so on when they aren't covered by the national health system. Moreover, why is this supposed to be a problem? "Money buys things" is the purpose of money. There are things a rational national health system wouldn't pay for because they aren't economical, but a rich person would buy for themselves for much the same reasons they buy a Tesla instead of a Dodge. Which means they have a safer car because they have more money. Should we prohibit expensive safer cars because poor people can't afford them?
fav_collector 9y ago
Wealthy people can already buy their way to better private health care. These changes would regulate the difference between health care for the middle/upper middle class and the poor. Although I would prefer to concentrate on the 10s of millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens who receive tax payer funded health care.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  "Although I would prefer to concentrate on the 10s of millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens who receive tax payer funded health care." You're gonna have to provide a citation for that claim, there.
- halfteatree 9y ago
  >Although I would prefer to concentrate on the 10s of millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens who receive tax payer funded health care. I feel like I should remind you here that many non-citizens are actually tax-payers. Taxes are paid in many different ways, but let's forget about that here for a second and realize that many non-citizens actually come here legally to work. A blanket statement like that really doesn't mean anything. Same arguments were given about dreamers using tax-payer money, without realizing many of them actually are tax-payers as well.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

leejoramo 9y ago

Not sure what citizenship has to do with this. As an American traveling in Europe, I received emergency room care. They may have glanced at my passport, but certainly did not ask for any other documents. Nor did they ask for payment.

conanbatt 9y ago
I dont know your experience as an American, but as an Argentinian I am not allowed to enter Europe without health insurance. They dont let you on the plane without it.

chrisbennet 9y ago

Is it really fair to let poor people have health services that they didn't pay for? Is keeping poor people healthy/alive really the best allocation of resources? Shouldn't triage take into account who is the most profitable so wealthy people can go to the front of the line where they deserve to be? I mean really, why should my undocumented nanny, house keeper and gardeners be entitled to the same health care that I am? [Of course, I don't pay them enough to buy health insurance but that's their problem.] As @gselevator tweeted "I never give money to homeless people. I can't reward failure in good conscience." (This is sarcasm in case it isn't obvious.)

ryanobjc 9y ago
Actually it wasn't obvious that this is sarcasm. It totally reads like the kind of libertarian/dude-bro nonsense that has invaded tech. I'd be wary of reusing text like this in other areas, because until I skipped ahead to "this is sarcasm" I was like "oh here we go again"
conanbatt 9y ago
There is a case for adverse selection for the ER, and the effects of it being free in comparison to very expensive healthcare. The next question would be: how many of the people that ended up on the ER could actually afford healthcare? And why didnt they have/use it?

undersuit 9y ago

How do they know I'm a citizen? Do they deny care to the unresponsive person in pajammas because they can't be sure if the person isn't a foreigner bilking the US health system?