Is Healthcare a "right" and should it have limits on how much is consumed and by whom?

[dianaiad]

You just wish to argue.

Bye for now

Actually, I wish to know precisely what it is you think I am to ignorant to discuss with you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the late1800's fire departments, and police, would often ignore problems at places that had not paid in advance for protection.

And you think that was a better system?

But anyway, I guess your actual answer to my question then would be "I have never received, nore do I know somebody that has ever received, a bill from the police or the fire department because they helped out with something"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irrelevant as it is about a right to someone's labour not fulfilled the job's duties. Your point is nonsense.

Your response is nonsense.
When firemen come to your house to rescue your kids and extinghuishing a fire, then that is labour.

Better is subjective

It's not. When I got surgery, I was in the OR on thursday, while my first housedoctor visit was on monday. She send me to a specialist the very next day - she even made the appointement for me.
That specialist send me to do radio scans and MRI on wednesday morning - he even booked it all for me. Wednesday afternoon, he called me up to say I had to go into surgery on thursday.
And FYI: this wasn't even an urgent matter. I had "supra spinatus tendonitis". I had shoulder pains for months already before I finally went to the doctor. I could have handled a few more months. I could have handled a couple weeks waiting time easily.

But no, everything handled within 4 workdays.
Try that in the US. Then come back here and tell me again that "better is subjective".

The OP is about rights.

And my position on that is "it doesn't even matter if it is or not"

The alternative is putting healthcare is the hands of bureaucrats which is will decline the quality as funding is only based on taxes not the funds that can be used in the open market

Just about every statistic shows the exact opposite.
Also, none of the private insurance companies that make a complete mess of health care and drive prices way up, have anything to do with medical research.

The actual alternative, is to have proper health care plans literally "build in" into your citizenship. Health care plans where no inequality exists, where prices are properly regulated and where nobody is left behind.

As NHS has major issues which are a trade off. Quality drops for the sake of national system

You keep saying this, but the statistics simply do not reflect this.
There's nothing wrong with the quality of health care over here in western europe.

You are conflating an insurance package as if all insurance.

Did you miss a few words in that sentence? I don't know what you mean.

K. So?

So.... in the US, this surgery, the revalidation, the hidden cost of no paid sick leave... even with premium insurance, it would still cost you a LOT of money.
I can't even count the amount of times I saw fund raises of people in the US requiring 10s of thousands of dollars to get some necessary surgery... which would cost close to nothing over here.

Not everyone is happy about getting their bills paid by other people.

This is such nonsense for a multitude of reasons.
It's not paid for by "other people". It's paid for by the NHS fund, which is in turn funded through taxes (fees). This is no different from how private insurance works. You pay fees, which contribute to a fund. When someone has medical bills, they are paid for (well, a part of them...) from that fund.

Suppose you have insurance and have contributed 15k in total already.
You then need heavy surgery and the total cost is for example 100k. Let's suppose that the insurance company covers it and pays for all of it. Where does the extra 85k come from, do you think?

EVERYTHING the government does, or that is funded by the government, works in this way.
"ow, I'm not paying for the police bill to catch that burgler of that shop there - it's not my shop after all, why should I have to pay for it!!!"

That's how that argument sounds like to me.

No. It just means you have no issues using money that isn't yours while I do.

So you hate driving on public roads?
You don't like the police helping you out?
You don't like firemen rescueing your kids from a burning building?

After all - it's all paid for with money that isn't yours.

So are a lot of medical expense in Canada. NHS does not cover a lot up here and people still go bankrupt.

I have no idea how the system works there, but it doesn't sound very good.

No such thing.

Clearly this isn't true, as is shown through statistics of systems around the world.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-healthcare-sweden-canada/

Just look at those first 2 graphs.
Not only is private spending on health care in the US ridiculously through the roof, but they also spend the most on public health care.

So really... concerning your previous point about "using other people's money" - in NHS you actually use LESS money from other people then in the US. While spending less yourself privately also.

Can't really argue with the facts.....

Depends on the time required. After a point the sick can go on disability instead of staying on the dime of an employer they do zero work for.

Over here, the employer pays for the first 10 sick days of the year. After the 10th day, the NHS takes over.

A replacement worker can do the same

Maybe if the job is flipping burgers or cleaning desks.
And even then, that's only a solution for the employer. The sick employee is still facing heavy financial costs

No it isn't.

Yes it is. And I say that as an employer myself.
If one of my employees shows up sick, or even half sick, I send him/her back home. And I'ld be complaining about them showing up sick. Not about them being sick. But about them showing up sick.

When one of my workers is sick, I want him/her back on their feet asap while I don't want to sickness to spread to collegues. And the way to accomplish that is by allowing the sick worker to stay home, get treatment and recover.

That was the question in the OP.

And my answer is "it doesn't matter either way".

No it doesn't as quality drops under a NHS system as funding is limited..

This is just not true. The only funding that goes on with private insurance companies, is the olympic pool and the ferarri of the CEO.
The NHS system is about providing care. It's not about medical research, development of new techniques etc. These are not the same funds.

The US still has the superior medical industry

Where everything is 5 times more expensive then in the rest of the world, where wait times are longer and where there is a fundraiser every 5 minutes because people can't afford much needed surgery.

Even if I would accept the claim that it is superior in the US (which it most definatly isn't....) what good does it do, if most of it isn't accessible to the majority of people due to being too costly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your response is nonsense.
When firemen come to your house to rescue your kids and extinghuishing a fire, then that is labour.





It's not. When I got surgery, I was in the OR on thursday, while my first housedoctor visit was on monday. She send me to a specialist the very next day - she even made the appointement for me.
That specialist send me to do radio scans and MRI on wednesday morning - he even booked it all for me. Wednesday afternoon, he called me up to say I had to go into surgery on thursday.
And FYI: this wasn't even an urgent matter. I had "supra spinatus tendonitis". I had shoulder pains for months already before I finally went to the doctor. I could have handled a few more months. I could have handled a couple weeks waiting time easily.

But no, everything handled within 4 workdays.
Try that in the US. Then come back here and tell me again that "better is subjective".



And my position on that is "it doesn't even matter if it is or not"



Just about every statistic shows the exact opposite.
Also, none of the private insurance companies that make a complete mess of health care and drive prices way up, have anything to do with medical research.

The actual alternative, is to have proper health care plans literally "build in" into your citizenship. Health care plans where no inequality exists, where prices are properly regulated and where nobody is left behind.



You keep saying this, but the statistics simply do not reflect this.
There's nothing wrong with the quality of health care over here in western europe.




Did you miss a few words in that sentence? I don't know what you mean.



So.... in the US, this surgery, the revalidation, the hidden cost of no paid sick leave... even with premium insurance, it would still cost you a LOT of money.
I can't even count the amount of times I saw fund raises of people in the US requiring 10s of thousands of dollars to get some necessary surgery... which would cost close to nothing over here.




This is such nonsense for a multitude of reasons.
It's not paid for by "other people". It's paid for by the NHS fund, which is in turn funded through taxes (fees). This is no different from how private insurance works. You pay fees, which contribute to a fund. When someone has medical bills, they are paid for (well, a part of them...) from that fund.

Suppose you have insurance and have contributed 15k in total already.
You then need heavy surgery and the total cost is for example 100k. Let's suppose that the insurance company covers it and pays for all of it. Where does the extra 85k come from, do you think?

EVERYTHING the government does, or that is funded by the government, works in this way.
"ow, I'm not paying for the police bill to catch that burgler of that shop there - it's not my shop after all, why should I have to pay for it!!!"

That's how that argument sounds like to me.


Yup. Also an assertion as no NHS plan has been implemented so you have no idea what the tax rate will be.



So you hate driving on public roads?
You don't like the police helping you out?
You don't like firemen rescueing your kids from a burning building?

After all - it's all paid for with money that isn't yours.





I have no idea how the system works there, but it doesn't sound very good.



Clearly this isn't true, as is shown through statistics of systems around the world.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-healthcare-sweden-canada/

Just look at those first 2 graphs.
Not only is private spending on health care in the US ridiculously through the roof, but they also spend the most on public health care.

So really... concerning your previous point about "using other people's money" - in NHS you actually use LESS money from other people then in the US. While spending less yourself privately also.

Can't really argue with the facts.....



Over here, the employer pays for the first 10 sick days of the year. After the 10th day, the NHS takes over.




Maybe if the job is flipping burgers or cleaning desks.
And even then, that's only a solution for the employer. The sick employee is still facing heavy financial costs



Yes it is. And I say that as an employer myself.
If one of my employees shows up sick, or even half sick, I send him/her back home. And I'ld be complaining about them showing up sick. Not about them being sick. But about them showing up sick.

When one of my workers is sick, I want him/her back on their feet asap while I don't want to sickness to spread to collegues. And the way to accomplish that is by allowing the sick worker to stay home, get treatment and recover.



And my answer is "it doesn't matter either way".



This is just not true. The only funding that goes on with private insurance companies, is the olympic pool and the ferarri of the CEO.
The NHS system is about providing care. It's not about medical research, development of new techniques etc. These are not the same funds.




Where everything is 5 times more expensive then in the rest of the world, where wait times are longer and where there is a fundraiser every 5 minutes because people can't afford much needed surgery.

Even if I would accept the claim that it is superior in the US (which it most definatly isn't....) what good does it do, if most of it isn't accessible to the majority of people due to being too costly?

Hah!! We know that can't be true. Our wise Republican leadership keeps assuring us that the rest of the civilized world is jealous of our amazing and inexpensive health care!

(If you knew how many times my autocorrect rejected the phrase "wise Republican" you would die laughing)

 

[ecco]

So when's the last time the police send you a bill to come to your house and arrest a burgler?
Or when's the last time the fire department send you a bill to come to your house and extinguish a fire and rescue your kids from a burning building?

In the late1800's fire departments, and police, would often ignore problems at places that had not paid in advance for protection.

And you think that was a better system?

That is an absolutely stupid comment. All I did was expand on your comment with a footnote from history.

For some reason, you took that as criticism. I suggest you chill out and carefully read what other people write before lashing out.

 

[ecco]

Hah!! We know that can't be true. Our wise Republican leadership keeps assuring us that the rest of the civilized world is jealous of our amazing and inexpensive health care!

(If you knew how many times my autocorrect rejected the phrase "wise Republican" you would die laughing)

I have a newer autocorrect feature. I can easily toggle IRONY and SARCASM on and off. So I can type something like...

And then the +S wise republicans -S voted again.​

...with no problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a newer autocorrect feature. I can easily toggle IRONY and SARCASM on and off. So I can type something like...

And then the +S wise republicans -S voted again.​

...with no problem.

Just in case you were wondering it took six times before it accepted it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is an absolutely stupid comment. All I did was expand on your comment with a footnote from history.

But I'm talking about today, not about 2-300 years ago.

For some reason, you took that as criticism. I suggest you chill out and carefully read what other people write before lashing out.

I confused you with the person I was initially replying to. Was a bit too fast, sorry
Nevertheless, don't really see how your comment was relevant to the point though

 

[BSM1]

And you think that was a better system?

But anyway, I guess your actual answer to my question then would be "I have never received, nore do I know somebody that has ever received, a bill from the police or the fire department because they helped out with something"

Actually, I, like most people who work, receive a "bill" for these services every paycheck and/or every year we pay our property taxes. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I, like most people who work, receive a "bill" for these services every paycheck and/or every year we pay our property taxes. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Right. One tends to pay for health care already in the U.S. through insurance. The problem with insurance is that we pay more than countries that have just as good if not better service than we do who only pay through taxes. The insurance companies are in effect an added layer of government bureaucracy which alone tends to make them less efficient. Second they have to make a profit on their activities.That also raises cost. I am pro government health care because it is the fiscally conservative approach to the problem.

 

[BSM1]

Right. One tends to pay for health care already in the U.S. through insurance. The problem with insurance is that we pay more than countries that have just as good if not better service than we do who only pay through taxes. The insurance companies are in effect an added layer of government bureaucracy which alone tends to make them less efficient. Second they have to make a profit on their activities.That also raises cost. I am pro government health care because it is the fiscally conservative approach to the problem.

Actually, I'm on the fence on this one. I see the good and bad in either choice..

 

[Shad]

Your response is nonsense.

Nope as you forgot we are talking about a right and your examples are not rights. There is no such right to a road.

When firemen come to your house to rescue your kids and extinghuishing a fire, then that is labour.

But I do not have a right to that labour so your point is still wrong

It's not. When I got surgery, I was in the OR on thursday, while my first housedoctor visit was on monday. She send me to a specialist the very next day - she even made the appointement for me.

That specialist send me to do radio scans and MRI on wednesday morning - he even booked it all for me. Wednesday afternoon, he called me up to say I had to go into surgery on thursday.
And FYI: this wasn't even an urgent matter. I had "supra spinatus tendonitis". I had shoulder pains for months already before I finally went to the doctor. I could have handled a few more months. I could have handled a couple weeks waiting time easily.

But no, everything handled within 4 workdays.
Try that in the US. Then come back here and tell me again that "better is subjective". [/quote]

You can get that service in the US faster

And my position on that is "it doesn't even matter if it is or not"

So?

Just about every statistic shows the exact opposite.

Nope. I am in a NHS system. Quality is lower than in the US.

Also, none of the private insurance companies that make a complete mess of health care and drive prices way up, have anything to do with medical research.

Obamacare increases those prices last time around.

The actual alternative, is to have proper health care plans literally "build in" into your citizenship. Health care plans where no inequality exists, where prices are properly regulated and where nobody is left behind.

Inequality exists. Rural vs Urban for one.

Prices are not regulated. Government determines what something is worth then makes it part of the law. No different than price fixing of central planned ecomonies.

You keep saying this, but the statistics simply do not reflect this.

You babble of stats but do not present any.

There's nothing wrong with the quality of health care over here in western europe.

All NHS create a decline in quality as the funding is limited.

Did you miss a few words in that sentence? I don't know what you mean.

Nope. You made a mistake in your comparison.

So.... in the US, this surgery, the revalidation, the hidden cost of no paid sick leave... even with premium insurance, it would still cost you a LOT of money.
I can't even count the amount of times I saw fund raises of people in the US requiring 10s of thousands of dollars to get some necessary surgery... which would cost close to nothing over here.

Pricing fixing does that

This is such nonsense for a multitude of reasons.
It's not paid for by "other people". It's paid for by the NHS fund, which is in turn funded through taxes (fees).

Which is tax dollars ergo be paid for by other people.

This is no different from how private insurance works.

Nope as fees are based on package picked and health of the person. NHS has no packages nor increased costs due to health. Someone could smoke for 40 years yet no pay a dime more into the system to cover their health issues caused by their own action

You pay fees, which contribute to a fund.

Nope. It is in taxes.

When someone has medical bills, they are paid for (well, a part of them...) from that fund.

By the taxpayer

Suppose you have insurance and have contributed 15k in total already.
You then need heavy surgery and the total cost is for example 100k. Let's suppose that the insurance company covers it and pays for all of it. Where does the extra 85k come from, do you think?

From the company funds which are not tax dollars nor money from people that are not in that system. See the difference?

EVERYTHING the government does, or that is funded by the government, works in this way.
"ow, I'm not paying for the police bill to catch that burgler of that shop there - it's not my shop after all, why should I have to pay for it!!!"

Police are required to maintain law and order. Healthcare isn't required for anything

So you hate driving on public roads?
You don't like the police helping you out?
You don't like firemen rescueing your kids from a burning building?

Which are required for a civilization for function while healthcare isn't

I have no idea how the system works there, but it doesn't sound very good.

It is a NHS system that is socialized



Clearly this isn't true, as is shown through statistics of systems around the world.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-healthcare-sweden-canada/

NHS does not make something affordable as it takes the costs of the individuals hands. That is called leeching.

Just look at those first 2 graphs.
Not only is private spending on health care in the US ridiculously through the roof, but they also spend the most on public health care.

Due to regulation such as no insurance bought across state lines, the general US population is unhealth, government only paying 70 cents for every dollar of costs (Ripping people off)

So really... concerning your previous point about "using other people's money" - in NHS you actually use LESS money from other people then in the US. While spending less yourself privately also.

Only if one is poor. Otherwise people that have money are using tax dollar for something they can pay for themselves

Can't really argue with the facts.....

You cited no facts.

Over here, the employer pays for the first 10 sick days of the year. After the 10th day, the NHS takes over.

You mean disability assistance?

Maybe if the job is flipping burgers or cleaning desks.
And even then, that's only a solution for the employer. The sick employee is still facing heavy financial costs

Yes. So? How much of that cost is high due to a health issue or the fact the person flips burgers for a living?

Yes it is. And I say that as an employer myself.

No as everyone includes more than you and your staff.
ack on their feet asap while I don't want to sickness to spread to collegues. And the way to accomplish that is by allowing the sick worker to stay home, get treatment and recover.

And my answer is "it doesn't matter either way".

So?

This is just not true. The only funding that goes on with private insurance companies, is the olympic pool and the ferarri of the CEO.

Nope. I use insurance for drugs and have never been screwed over

The NHS system is about providing care. It's not about medical research, development of new techniques etc. These are not the same funds.

Research is still part of NHS system for medical procedures that are new or risky.

Where everything is 5 times more expensive then in the rest of the world, where wait times are longer and where there is a fundraiser every 5 minutes because people can't afford much needed surgery.

Empty claim with no data.

Even if I would accept the claim that it is superior in the US (which it most definatly isn't....)

It is. NHS trade quality for universal coverage

what good does it do, if most of it isn't accessible to the majority of people due to being too costly?

It is accessible. Even those that are poor still get treated on the public dime.

 

[ecco]

Due to regulation such as no insurance bought across state lines, the general US population is unhealth, government only paying 70 cents for every dollar of costs

What does "government only paying 70 cents for every dollar of costs" mean?

 

[Shad]

What does "government only paying 70 cents for every dollar of costs" mean?

Government public healthcare in the USA right now only pays 70 cents for every 1 dollar of cost. That is why some doctors are refusing patients with government plans. Also why the private insurance costs go up as those medical personnel and facilities pass the costs to the private sector after the Fed screws them.

A lot of the issues with US healthcare is due to government like I said before.

 

[ecco]

Government public healthcare in the USA right now only pays 70 cents for every 1 dollar of cost.

Are you referring to a 20% copay expected from Medicare patients? If not, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

That is why some doctors are refusing patients with government plans.

Whenever I go to my doctor's office I see notifications like...

Dr. Jones is no longer accepting patients with AvoMed Insurance.
​

How does that relate to what you just said?

Also why the private insurance costs go up as those medical personnel and facilities pass the costs to the private sector after the Fed screws them.

Hospitals cannot / will not lose money.
Doctors / Insurance companies cannot / will not lose money.

When people without insurance use services, it increases the costs put on everyone else.

We have people without insurance because our elected officials allow it. These same officials never tell their constituents the truth.

A lot of the issues with US healthcare is due to government like I said before.

Yes, see my comment above about legislators.[/QUOTE]

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The OP is difficult to handle because it stretches out from its original intent to discuss the rights of those who are essentially vegetables (are they fully human, etc.). I'll do the best I can with this.

Each of us comes at this from a different POV. I approach it as a Jew, from the teachings of the Torah, which I believe underscore the values of Western Society, at least up until very recently.

The opening chapter of Genesis states that mankind has been made in the image of God. It doesn't mean that God has a body, and so we were made with a body like his (in fact this notion is offensive to Jews). It means that we share traits that God has, such as sentience, intelligence, the knowledge of right and wrong, understanding of basic virtues such as justice, mercy, love, and truth, etc. Things that are a little bit beyond the ken of a slug or a fern or a mosquito. Being made in his image gives us a certain worth and dignity, every last one of us.

From this Jewish notion that we all have worth and dignity, it directly follows that we have God-given human rights. These rights, because they come from God, are (as the US Declaration of Independence says) are inalienable. A state may SAY we don't have them, it can interfere with us getting them, or at the very least it can remain a passive participant in denying us, but it can never remove our rights.

So the question simply remains, is health care one of those rights?

I would argue yes. The right to life is the most basic right of all, and the quality of that life follows second: the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc. Ill health directly impacts the quality of life in the most negative of ways. It causes pain no different than if someone were harming you. It restricts you no different than if someone were restraining or imprisoning you. And in many cases it actually cuts your life short, interfering with the basic right to life.

If only the wealthy are able to treat medical problems and issues, they would have an unfair advantage in getting ahead in life (again). They would be able to attend school and spend more hours studying, and have the stamina to work longer hours at more demanding jobs, especially those in the salaried and management ranges.

I remember watching a show about England during the Great War, and how so many men simply didn't qualify for the army because they were so malnourished. I recall thinking to myself, the Brits were the greatest empire on the planet at that time, and so many Englishmen were too starved to join the army. What a scandal. A black mark on the Kingdom.

In the same way, it is a scandal and a black mark for any modern democracy not to supply its citizens with a safety net should they be unable to support their own families. I would like to add to that, that it is also a right for every citizen to universal healthcare.

How this happens is up to each society. I think in the US, we citizens pretty much agree that we would like to see a single payer Medicare available for everyone, with the option for anyone to opt for their private insurance if they is what they would like to do. There is a minority who are horrified by this idea, mostly because they think it is too expensive, that it will become another unwieldy social security system. I believe that it is the obligation of every citizen, especially the haves, to make sure that all are taken care of. Universal health care is simply the best way to do it.

I find analogy for this in the Torah. We find a strong sense of community in Torah, where those who have take care of those who do not have. The farmer does not harvest the four corners of his field so that it may be left for the poor. Similarly, if grain falls during harvest, he leaves it for the poor to glean. Any hungry person can enter a field or orchard and eat until they are full, and it is not stealing. A ten percent tithe (read tax) is given to support the temple staff and poor, so that they will not be left without. Every seven years debts are forgiven, and every 50 years, the land is redistributed evenly back to its original families so that wealth never becomes permanently fixed in one class.

If healthcare is treated like a commodity, like food, or housing, or land, then it too should be given to the poor by those who have.

In Judaism, the idea is that all we have is actually God's and is only entrusted to us, and that part of what we are given is entrusted to us on behalf of the poor. Our JOB is to give it to those to whom it belongs.

In this manner, perhaps a single individual does not do as well as he might, but the community as a whole flourishes because it functions as a giant family.

 

[ManSinha]

The OP is difficult to handle because it stretches out from its original intent to discuss the rights of those who are essentially vegetables (are they fully human, etc.)

I was focussing on cost - most if not all the "human rights" such as freedom of speech / religion / expression are abstract in a sense
Yes there are those who say "shelter" is a human right - and yet the growing number of homeless give a lie to that - we do not build $65000 homes for everyone to stay in - some people have to do with shelters and others live in apartment buildings

I would argue yes. The right to life is the most basic right of all, and the quality of that life follows second: the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc. Ill health directly impacts the quality of life in the most negative of ways. It causes pain no different than if someone were harming you. It restricts you no different than if someone were restraining or imprisoning you. And in many cases it actually cuts your life short, interfering with the basic right to life.

Your derivative is interesting - thank you - but remember sophisticated healthcare is extremely costly and shows no sign of letting up
When you say it is a "right" how much of it are you willing to provide before the rights of others and resources for education and defense and public works start getting affected? Remember there is only so much money even with AOC's proposal of 90% taxation

Universal health care is simply the best way to do it.

Are you willing to put any kind of limit of it?

If healthcare is treated like a commodity, like food, or housing, or land, then it too should be given to the poor by those who have.

Where do poor get land? They don't
See my comment about housing - they get what is on offer - not everyone has the same kind of housing
Food is about the only instance where the food stamp program provides choice in how the recipient wants to spend it

Thank you for the detailed reply

 

[ecco]

It means that we share traits that God has, such as sentience, intelligence, the knowledge of right and wrong, understanding of basic virtues such as justice, mercy, love, and truth, etc.

Off topic, but...
Unless your Jewish scripture is completely different from the Christian version...
If God wanted humans to have shared traits like "sentience, intelligence, the knowledge of right and wrong, " why did He punish A&E for pursuing knowledge of good and evil?

 

[Shad]

Are you referring to a 20% copay expected from Medicare patients? If not, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

No. I am talking about reimbursement

Whenever I go to my doctor's office I see notifications like...

Dr. Jones is no longer accepting patients with AvoMed Insurance.​

How does that relate to what you just said?

Probably a payment issue just as with government plans. Doctor bills X. Company disagrees with the price and will only pay Y amount.

Hospitals cannot / will not lose money.
Doctors / Insurance companies cannot / will not lose money.

Wrong as healthcare costs money. If costs are not covered there is a money loss.

When people without insurance use services, it increases the costs put on everyone else.

As does insurance which does not pay it's clients bills.

We have people without insurance because our elected officials allow it. These same officials never tell their constituents the truth.

You mean government didn't give insurance to people

Yes, see my comment above about legislators.

Which one?

 

[ecco]

Entire ACA is unconstitutional, Justice Department says, agreeing with Texas court ruling

Entire ACA is unconstitutional, Justice Department says, agreeing with Texas court ruling​

Published: Mar 25, 2019 10:25 p.m. ET

The U.S. Justice Department said in a legal filing Monday that it agrees with a Texas district court's ruling that the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare," is unconstitutional, throwing the future of the health-care law in doubt. "The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's judgment should be affirmed," the DOJ said in a filing to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Texas ruling last December said the law's individual mandate was unconstitutional, invalidating the entire ACA. The Justice Department had previously argued to keep the law mostly intact, but that the law's protection of pre-existing conditions needed to be struck down. The filing means the government agrees the entire law should be struck and it will not challenge the ruling in its lengthy appeal process. Health-insurance stocks turned volatile immediately following the original Texas ruling, as it brought uncertainty over future health-insurance costs. Experts said in December that the case may reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020.


Ya better stay healthy!