Quote:
Originally Posted by rshoffer
Not having health insurance absolutely and most definitely does mean uninsured people do not get health care services. What is the first question you get asked when you call a new provider for an appointment? "what kind of insurance do you have?" Do you think the example I gave above.. the young fellow who stuck the palms in your yard... is a rare, uncommon, poor example? he can't get medicaid (makes too much), he's too old for medicare, his monthly premium for his family of 4 would be over 1000 dollars and last year he made 26 thousand.
BTW, the "pool" you refer to above has a limited amount of money. As such, those that manage the pool (aka... "managed care") will tell you what you can or cannot take out of the pool. Thus, rationing. There is only 1 group that has no rationing at all--> those that pay cash for all of their care. For that group this debate has no meaning or impact on their care.
|
Contacting a business (which a physician's office is) to seek services on a non-emergency basis is one thing - showing up at a hospital emergency room is another.
The "young fellow with a family of 4" scenario is indeed a true one. I've been there, too, and the choices of what to spend money on and working two jobs if necessary is a real one.
Also, if one expects his/her health insurance will cover everything all of the time, that expectation is not rational. If one won't seek health care services because "the insurance doesn't cover it," that is just plain silly. There will always be out-of-pocket costs for things, especially if you want "the best available" and not just the
lowest common denominator.
Perhaps the "health care" matter can be mitigated in the same way the "legal care" matter is - mandatory or "aspirational" levies of time and/or money placed upon health care providers by their state licensing authority. As an example, the Florida Bar seeks (and has a reporting requirement covering pro bono services) member attorneys to provide a minimum of 20 hours of service to the poor, or donate $350 minimum to pro bono service agencies. Most states have similar levies on its attorneys.
If that's okay and expected of lawyers, what's wrong with the same for physicians? Why should only lawyers supposed to be "concerned with the poor geting help" as a condition of maintaining their license? (Please see:
http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/...irectory.html# )