Can someone explain...

[Steve Petersen]

why it is OK for government to refuse medical treatment but not OK for private insurance to do the same thing?

Does is really just boil down to 'intentions.'

The government can refuse knee replacment due to weight, but private insurance must not?

Is health care an unconditional right? If so, how can anyone be refused for anything without regard to circumstances (age, obesity, etc.) If it is not unconditional, and people may be discriminated against due to various circumstances, do you really believe that government may legally discriminate?

If health care is an unconditional right, why not things that are more necessary for life like food and shelter. Logically, if the government must provide one, they surely must provide the others.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Insurance companies refuse procedures every day.

 

[Belk]

why it is OK for government to refuse medical treatment but not OK for private insurance to do the same thing?

Does is really just boil down to 'intentions.'

The government can refuse knee replacment due to weight, but private insurance must not?

Do you have a particular case in mind? Not sure what you are talking about here.

Is health care an unconditional right?

Not that I am aware of. It is just something that most civilized countries feel is beneficial to the well being of their citizens.

If so, how can anyone be refused for anything without regard to circumstances (age, obesity, etc.) If it is not unconditional, and people may be discriminated against due to various circumstances, do you really believe that government may legally discriminate?

Depends. By what criteria do you feel they should be able to discriminate? Let me know and I will tell you if I agree or not.

If health care is an unconditional right, why not things that are more necessary for life like food and shelter. Logically, if the government must provide one, they surely must provide the others.

You might have missed this, but we do provide assistance for those who are unable to make it on their own. Social security, food stamps, low income housing, there are many social programs to provide these things.

That said I don't think these things are rights, they are the assistance you provide people who are having a difficult time on their own.

 

[Conservativation]

Insurance companies refuse procedures every day.

OK.....so, in a way that answers the question. lets refine it.

I will take license here and assume that you see refusal of (some) procedures as a bad thing (setting aside who does the refusing). Correct me if Im wrong.

So , now if we have established that refusal is a bad thing, and private insurance refuses, (here's where I get lost in Obamalogic on pretty much every topic).....it is therefore OK that government run healthcare refuse a procedure?

Help me sort that.

 

[jayem]

With Medicare, payments are handled by Carriers or Fiscal Intermediaries (FIs.) Private companies that Medicare contracts with to pay claims. These are the ones who make determinations of whether a service will be covered. And there is an appeals process if a beneficiary feels a service was improperly denied by an FI.

 

[Conservativation]

Do you have a particular case in mind? Not sure what you are talking about here.



Not that I am aware of. It is just something that most civilized countries feel is beneficial to the well being of their citizens.


Depends. By what criteria do you feel they should be able to discriminate? Let me know and I will tell you if I agree or not.



You might have missed this, but we do provide assistance for those who are unable to make it on their own. Social security, food stamps, low income housing, there are many social programs to provide these things.

That said I don't think these things are rights, they are the assistance you provide people who are having a difficult time on their own.

If support were limited to those who cant make it on theor own, that'd be uber cool.

The sum of all social/poverty alleviation programs yields $65,000.00 per year for families earning below the poverty line. Dang they may rather carve that up, instead of raising that amount to $75000 per family by adding another program, while holding constant or increasing the number of poor.

The demand for a free thing will always exceed supply.

 

[AirPo]

why it is OK for government to refuse medical treatment but not OK for private insurance to do the same thing?

Does is really just boil down to 'intentions.'

The government can refuse knee replacment due to weight, but private insurance must not?

Is health care an unconditional right? If so, how can anyone be refused for anything without regard to circumstances (age, obesity, etc.) If it is not unconditional, and people may be discriminated against due to various circumstances, do you really believe that government may legally discriminate?

If health care is an unconditional right, why not things that are more necessary for life like food and shelter. Logically, if the government must provide one, they surely must provide the others.

In a very general sense, it's because private insurance assumes more risk than the government.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Actually, I was thinking the opposite is the pertinent question -

Why is it okay for a bureaucrat in a private insurance company to refuse a person medical treatment, but it isn't okay for a government bureaucrat to do the same thing?

 

[chaz345]

Actually, I was thinking the opposite is the pertinent question -

Why is it okay for a bureaucrat in a private insurance company to refuse a person medical treatment, but it isn't okay for a government bureaucrat to do the same thing?

Might be a pertinent question if anyone had said that it is ok for insurance companies to refuse treatment.

The thing is, that the argument I see is that such refusals will somehow disappear under a government program when in fact, there's much evidence to suggest otherwise.

Cost based treatment decisions will exist under any system we have. That's an unfortunate fact of life.

 

[Steve Petersen]

You might have missed this, but we do provide assistance for those who are unable to make it on their own. Social security, food stamps, low income housing, there are many social programs to provide these things.

That said I don't think these things are rights, they are the assistance you provide people who are having a difficult time on their own.

I am well aware of this. What if a person receiving food stamps makes bad lifestyle choices for food? Should they be denied Medicaid/Medicare treatment for conditions that arise from that choice? Aren't they adding to health care costs also?

If we are not already, will their purchase of food items have to be approved by the government?

 

[Belk]

I am well aware of this. What if a person receiving food stamps makes bad lifestyle choices for food? Should they be denied Medicaid/Medicare treatment for conditions that arise from that choice? Aren't they adding to health care costs also?

If we are not already, will their purchase of food items have to be approved by the government?

I don't think so. why do you think there would be?

 

[DaisyDay]

Cost based treatment decisions will exist under any system we have. That's an unfortunate fact of life.

Not simply cost, but also the likelihood of a favorable outcome.

I would think that a fat person would need a new knee as much as a thin one, providing he is mobile (if he's seven hundred pounds and can't get out of bed, then perhaps the new knee should be postponed until his more pressing problems are treated).

As has mentioned before, private companies are known for refusing procedures. Whether they can refuse a particular one (or pay a fine later), is in the fine print of the contract.

I will take license here and assume that you see refusal of (some) procedures as a bad thing (setting aside who does the refusing). Correct me if Im wrong.

Yes, the refusal of some procedures is a bad thing, refusal of others is a good thing. One size does not fit all.

 

[salida]

Healthcare won't be refused if you go in the ER room. Taxpayers pay for your care - for the poor and uninsured. Its against the law to refuse treatment here. But healthcare insurance is another issue.

 

[kermit]

I think medical decisions should be made on a risk-benefit analysis and on a success-failure analysis. For example, if you are 100 years old the risk or death of surgery and the low likelihood of success should prevent you from getting open heart surgery.

The private system uses a cost-benefit analysis. The current system refuses heart surgery for the 100 y.o. because the high risk means that they probably won't be able to recoup the cost.

IMO, the argument is not whether or not the decision is being made, but rather the criteria for the decision. One is health oriented the other is money oriented.

 

[kermit]

Healthcare won't be refused if you go in the ER room. Taxpayers pay for your care - for the poor and uninsured. Its against the law to refuse treatment here. But healthcare insurance is another issue.

Which of course leads to a discussion about the cost of emergency care vs preventative care.

 

[Steve Petersen]

IMO, the argument is not whether or not the decision is being made, but rather the criteria for the decision. One is health oriented the other is money oriented.

So it does come down to motiviation to you, rather than outcome.

The government is interested in your health, but insurance companies aren't?

Why then would the government EVER deny ANYONE care, regardless of age or lifestyle? The fact is, government health care does deny people treatment based on cost/benefit analysis just like insurance companies.

Obama will at least admit it. Why won't you?

YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill

 

[kermit]

So it does come down to motiviation to you, rather than outcome.

I think that different motivations will often times lead to different outcomes.

I went to high school with a guy who was born with his intestines on the outside. Through a number of surgeries he was able to lead a relatively normal life, but had lot of complications due to his birth defect. Fast forward to a 33 year old man, he has exhausted his lifetime insurance benefits and every time he gets sick he wonders if this is the one that will kill him; you and I get the flu and are in bed for a few days, if he gets the flu he's in the hospital for a few weeks. If he gets to celebrate his 40th birthday it will be a miracle. Money was the motivator and as a result someone who is quite frankly a genius is left uninsured.

The government is interested in your health, but insurance companies aren't?

I'd say they are more interested. I don't think it's fair to state that insurance companies are not interested in my health.

Why then would the government EVER deny ANYONE care, regardless of age or lifestyle? The fact is, government health care does deny people treatment based on cost/benefit analysis just like insurance companies.

Like I said, the analysis is risk-benefit and success-failure. If someone is old the risk of them dying during surgery is high and the likelihood of them recovering is low.

[/quote]Obama will at least admit it. Why won't you?

YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill[/quote]
Where is your evidence that his decision process involved money?

 

[Conservativation]

Not simply cost, but also the likelihood of a favorable outcome.

I would think that a fat person would need a new knee as much as a thin one, providing he is mobile (if he's seven hundred pounds and can't get out of bed, then perhaps the new knee should be postponed until his more pressing problems are treated).

As has mentioned before, private companies are known for refusing procedures. Whether they can refuse a particular one (or pay a fine later), is in the fine print of the contract.

Yes, the refusal of some procedures is a bad thing, refusal of others is a good thing. One size does not fit all.

Lets look then.

First....refusal of some is bad, and some is good.
YOU get to decide? Govt gets to decide? A company gets to decide? Seriously, its nice that you or anyone has YOUR opinions....what if mine differ?

The point is then that you are saying that refusal via insurance company is bad.....but refusal via government is good.

Why?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Healthcare won't be refused if you go in the ER room. Taxpayers pay for your care - for the poor and uninsured. Its against the law to refuse treatment here. But healthcare insurance is another issue.

So let me see if I got this...

...it is so wrong to provide health care to all Americans that it is preferrable that people, when they get sick, rather than going to a doctor and getting treated, wait until the thing is life-threatening and then get publicly subsidized health care?

How does that make sense?

 

[Glaz]

The doctor and the patient are the only ones who should be deciding what medical treatment a patient gets, not the beancounters be they government or private industry.