19 ms·

Yes, but in US you have to have a lot of money for receiving a very basic and fundamental human right: medical care...

ryanhuff 14y ago
Inflammatory statement, and not true. I happen to know doctors in the US who do not refuse care for those who cannot pay.
- malkia 14y ago
  I happen to know doctors in the US who would refuse to take care for those who cannot pay.
jdminhbg 14y ago
I wasn't going to respond to this to avoid prolonging this burgeoning off-topic health care flamewar, but I figured that in the name of cross-cultural understanding, I'd correct you: Hospitals in the US are obligated to treat any emergency patient regardless of whether they can pay.
- brudgers 14y ago
  They then charge those people least able to pay a higher rate, add interest, and turn it over to a collection agency. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/new_york_hospitals_saddle_uninsured_patients http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/new_york_hospitals_sad... http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/7/state_secret_why_are_uninsured_patients http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/7/state_secret_why_are_un... [somehow Democracy Now seems appropriate for a Stallman discussion]
  - ismarc 14y ago
    This isn't entirely true and varies from state to state and hospital to hospital. We had a trip to the hospital last year (non-ambulance, but was an actual emergency). Prior to checking out, we refused to sign anything from the hospital itself until checkout time. (quick sidebar, I've never seen anything as sleazy as an administrator trying to get someone who's heavily sedated and mediated but hasn't been fully diagnosed yet (triage and stabilization only) to sign paperwork related to billing and insurance, and then to authorize a room change to long term and the to an overnight room...all before they even knew what was going on). At checkout time, they had no insurance info...if we had no insurance, they would consolidate the fees from all groups (contracted doctors, anasthesiologists, equipment use, medications, etc.) and waive 2/3 of it and set up a payment plan (non-loan style, so no interest, or fees). This total was lower than if we used insurance and paid what was remaining on the deductible for the year and happened late enough that we wouldn't have benefited from using the insurance. I have no idea if it was attitude, handling it like business, persistence or just how they do business, but it greatly impressed me.
- ashayh 14y ago
  Medical Care != ER
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  The problem with that is that emergency care is absurdly expensive. I was in an accident last year that put me in hospital for one night for observation, and I was billed almost $20k. Where illness rather than accident is the problem, people postpone going to a doctor or hospital until they are really ill, even though it would be much cheaper to address a minor illness before it becomes a medical emergency - a stitch in time saves nine, and all that. But people without insurance find access to non-emergency care difficult because of cost, and so the emergency spend half their resources dealing with completely avoidable medical problems. And even if you do have insurance or the ability to pay, or (AFAIK) if a hospital waives payment for someone indigent, there's still a metric ton of paperwork to be filled out, which makes doing my taxes seem simple and fun by comparison. Don't even get me started on the catastrophically bad state of medical record-keeping.
alwillis 14y ago
As I mentioned here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955537), living in Boston, Massachusetts, we have the best of both worlds when it comes to access to health care at some of the best healthcare organizations in the world. I should also add that even if you don't have money, you still have access. I was seen at a clinic at Mass General (http://www.massgeneral.org http://www.massgeneral.org) recently by making an optional $2 donation.
ajross 14y ago
It's coming. The law is a mess, and phasing in slowly. But it passed, and it's real. It will no doubt have to be fixed over the coming decades, but universal health care in the USA is a reality. But the "lot of money" thing is just reality: health care costs a lot of money, period. And it must be paid. Coming up with a regime to do so without leaving people out or inappropriately burdening them is a hard problem, and frankly no entity, government or private, can claim to have solved it "well".
- Peaker 14y ago
  In the US the "lot of money" is somehow a lot more than in every other state, even though most western states have better quality care than the US.
cglace 14y ago
Why is medical care a fundamental right?
- mindcrime 14y ago
  It can't be, because if it's a fundamental right (read: entitlement) then someone else is obligated to provide that care. So, in a hypothetical world where no one chooses to go into the medical profession, we'd have to put guns to people's heads and force them to become doctors, because, after all, medical care is a "fundamental right." There's an obvious paradox in that. Medical care is a "right" in the sense that it's something you shouldn't have to ask for permission to seek, but we aren't entitled to it. It's a service that can be provided and bought on the free market like all other services.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    That argument is perfect in a theoretical world where no one choose to go into the medical profession. Back in real life, that doesn't happen. At most, you have to hire foreign doctors. So yes, it's a right, which like any other right, it's subject to the constraints of reality.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      Real world / hypothetical world / thought-experiment aside, the point stands: treating a service as an entitlement entails imposing an obligation on somebody else to provide that service, OR to pay for that service, etc. If granting one person a "right" means violating someone else's rights (that is, their right to choose how to direct their energy and the fruits of their labor) then it's unjust.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        I don't think it's unjust to make people contribute to society through taxes if they want to live in it. They're free to opt-out from that implicit contract by going to live elsewhere. There's plenty of inhabited places on Earth still. In any case, rights can and are sometimes eclipsed by others. The idea of natural, absolute rights is just ridiculous.

Inflammatory statement, and not true. I happen to know doctors in the US who do not refuse care for those who cannot pay.

malkia 14y ago
I happen to know doctors in the US who would refuse to take care for those who cannot pay.

jdminhbg 14y ago

I wasn't going to respond to this to avoid prolonging this burgeoning off-topic health care flamewar, but I figured that in the name of cross-cultural understanding, I'd correct you: Hospitals in the US are obligated to treat any emergency patient regardless of whether they can pay.

brudgers 14y ago
They then charge those people least able to pay a higher rate, add interest, and turn it over to a collection agency. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/new_york_hospitals_saddle_uninsured_patients http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/new_york_hospitals_sad... http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/7/state_secret_why_are_uninsured_patients http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/7/state_secret_why_are_un... [somehow Democracy Now seems appropriate for a Stallman discussion]
- ismarc 14y ago
  This isn't entirely true and varies from state to state and hospital to hospital. We had a trip to the hospital last year (non-ambulance, but was an actual emergency). Prior to checking out, we refused to sign anything from the hospital itself until checkout time. (quick sidebar, I've never seen anything as sleazy as an administrator trying to get someone who's heavily sedated and mediated but hasn't been fully diagnosed yet (triage and stabilization only) to sign paperwork related to billing and insurance, and then to authorize a room change to long term and the to an overnight room...all before they even knew what was going on). At checkout time, they had no insurance info...if we had no insurance, they would consolidate the fees from all groups (contracted doctors, anasthesiologists, equipment use, medications, etc.) and waive 2/3 of it and set up a payment plan (non-loan style, so no interest, or fees). This total was lower than if we used insurance and paid what was remaining on the deductible for the year and happened late enough that we wouldn't have benefited from using the insurance. I have no idea if it was attitude, handling it like business, persistence or just how they do business, but it greatly impressed me.
ashayh 14y ago
Medical Care != ER
anigbrowl 14y ago
The problem with that is that emergency care is absurdly expensive. I was in an accident last year that put me in hospital for one night for observation, and I was billed almost $20k. Where illness rather than accident is the problem, people postpone going to a doctor or hospital until they are really ill, even though it would be much cheaper to address a minor illness before it becomes a medical emergency - a stitch in time saves nine, and all that. But people without insurance find access to non-emergency care difficult because of cost, and so the emergency spend half their resources dealing with completely avoidable medical problems. And even if you do have insurance or the ability to pay, or (AFAIK) if a hospital waives payment for someone indigent, there's still a metric ton of paperwork to be filled out, which makes doing my taxes seem simple and fun by comparison. Don't even get me started on the catastrophically bad state of medical record-keeping.

alwillis 14y ago

As I mentioned here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955537), living in Boston, Massachusetts, we have the best of both worlds when it comes to access to health care at some of the best healthcare organizations in the world. I should also add that even if you don't have money, you still have access. I was seen at a clinic at Mass General (http://www.massgeneral.org http://www.massgeneral.org) recently by making an optional $2 donation.

ajross 14y ago

It's coming. The law is a mess, and phasing in slowly. But it passed, and it's real. It will no doubt have to be fixed over the coming decades, but universal health care in the USA is a reality. But the "lot of money" thing is just reality: health care costs a lot of money, period. And it must be paid. Coming up with a regime to do so without leaving people out or inappropriately burdening them is a hard problem, and frankly no entity, government or private, can claim to have solved it "well".

Peaker 14y ago
In the US the "lot of money" is somehow a lot more than in every other state, even though most western states have better quality care than the US.

cglace 14y ago

Why is medical care a fundamental right?

mindcrime 14y ago
It can't be, because if it's a fundamental right (read: entitlement) then someone else is obligated to provide that care. So, in a hypothetical world where no one chooses to go into the medical profession, we'd have to put guns to people's heads and force them to become doctors, because, after all, medical care is a "fundamental right." There's an obvious paradox in that. Medical care is a "right" in the sense that it's something you shouldn't have to ask for permission to seek, but we aren't entitled to it. It's a service that can be provided and bought on the free market like all other services.
- icebraining 14y ago
  That argument is perfect in a theoretical world where no one choose to go into the medical profession. Back in real life, that doesn't happen. At most, you have to hire foreign doctors. So yes, it's a right, which like any other right, it's subject to the constraints of reality.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Real world / hypothetical world / thought-experiment aside, the point stands: treating a service as an entitlement entails imposing an obligation on somebody else to provide that service, OR to pay for that service, etc. If granting one person a "right" means violating someone else's rights (that is, their right to choose how to direct their energy and the fruits of their labor) then it's unjust.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      I don't think it's unjust to make people contribute to society through taxes if they want to live in it. They're free to opt-out from that implicit contract by going to live elsewhere. There's plenty of inhabited places on Earth still. In any case, rights can and are sometimes eclipsed by others. The idea of natural, absolute rights is just ridiculous.