On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

who do you believe currently pays the bill for treatment when the patient doesn't/can't pay?

It depends. If we are talking about a community clinic (like we have here locally), then federal funds pay for care. If we are talking about an emergency room, then the hospital writes off the bill when it can't be collected from the patient or from government subsidized programs.

Now, will you answer my questions?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

It depends. If we are talking about a community clinic (like we have here locally), then federal funds pay for care. If we are talking about an emergency room, then the hospital writes off the bill when it can't be collected from the patient or from government subsidized programs.

Now, will you answer my questions?

so at the community clinic the answer is federal taxes. with the emergency room, if it is a privately owned facility, it is the rest of the billed patients as uncollected receivables would be estimated and added to the price of services. if it is a public facility it is the property taxes levied to support the facility, or iow property owners in the tax jurisdiction.

in all these situations someone else pays for the care given to the uninsured. if the patient were to be insured those costs wouldn't be apportioned to, in the case of the federal taxes, the taxpayers, in the private facility, to the rest of the patients receiving services there, and in the case of the public facility, the property owners.

requiring insurance stops the subsidy you mention.

it isn't inherently cheaper, it is just more equitable, although there should be efficiencies that reduce overall costs caused by these unpaid receivables.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

in all these situations someone else pays for the care given to the uninsured. if the patient were to be insured those costs wouldn't be apportioned to, in the case of the federal taxes, the taxpayers, in the private facility, to the rest of the patients receiving services there, and in the case of the public facility, the property owners.

requiring insurance stops the subsidy you mention.

No, it doesn't. Your question involved people who couldn't pay for services. Even if you mandate that they be insured, they still won't be paying.

it isn't inherently cheaper

At least we've got that out of the way.

it is just more equitable

The only way you can argue that it's more equitable is if it's requiring more folks to pay for their own care. If they can't pay in the first place, then an insurance mandate isn't going to change that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, it doesn't. Your question involved people who couldn't pay for services. Even if you mandate that they be insured, they still won't be paying.

if they are paying for the insurance then yes, they will be paying.

At least we've got that out of the way.

it also isn't inherently more expensive.

The only way you can argue that it's more equitable is if it's requiring more folks to pay for their own care. If they can't pay in the first place, then an insurance mandate isn't going to change that.

yes, it is requiring more folks to pay for their own care.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

if they are paying for the insurance then yes, they will be paying.

Well, sure, if they are paying for the insurance. But the whole premise was that they don't have insurance NOW. What makes you think they'll suddenly be able to afford it on their own?

it also isn't inherently more expensive.

Sure it is. A mandate will unquestionably lead to the subsidization of a lot more health care than we have under the current system. I don't think that can be seriously debated.

yes, it is requiring more folks to pay for their own care.

Not really, unless you somehow believe that mandating coverage will make insurance cheaper. There's certainly no evidence of that.