For Ron Paul, health-care question struck close to home
In the Republican debates the other night, Ron Paul was asked a hypothetical question about a healthy young man who goes without health insurance, but is then struck down by a major illness.
Do we step up and give him the medical treatment that he needs, Paul was asked, or do we just let him die as penalty for not doing the smart and responsible thing? (That second suggestion drew cheering from a small number in the crowd.)
Paul responded by suggesting that we should turn to private charity to handle the problem, which isn’t in the slightest bit feasible.
As it turns out, though, the question struck closer to home than most people realized, as Seth Abramovitch reports for Gawker.
Kent Snyder, 49, served as Paul’s 2008 campaign manager but died of complications from pneumonia two weeks after Paul withdrew from the ‘08 race. As the Wall Street Journal reported in Snyder’s obituary (which happened to be matched with the obituary of Sen. Jesse Helms):
“It was Kent more than anyone else who encouraged and pushed Ron to run for president,” said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Mr. Paul. “Ron would not have run for the presidency if it had not been for Kent. Ron was really hesitant, but Kent drove him forward.”
However, Snyder did not have health insurance. According to his mother, he had a pre-existing condition that made it financially impossible to buy it on his own. (Interestingly, Snyder is credited with raising $19.5 million for the Paul campaign in the fourth quarter of 2007 alone, but none of that money was apparently used to buy insurance for campaign staffers.)
Because we treat health care as a de facto right in this country, Snyder did get at least some health care, racking up $400,000 in unpaid medical bills before he died. A fundraising effort after his death — the charity approach advocated by Paul — produced only $35,000 toward paying off those bills.
That’s not an unusual story. I’m aware of at least three similar instances among my extended circle of neighbors and friends, two involving cancer and one involving a major heart attack. In all three cases medical care was provided despite the fact that the victims didn’t have insurance, and in all three cases that treatment has been successful to date.
The patients involved didn’t come close to having the resources to pay off their bills. But somebody paid them. You did, and I did, and we paid Kent Snyder’s bill as well. It’s a convoluted, extremely irrational, unnecessarily expensive and inefficient system, and the only two approaches that show any promise of rationalizing it are the individual mandate or single-payer.
But because that is allegedly “socialism”, many would prefer no solution at all.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
785 comments Add your comment
Bill
September 15th, 2011
3:14 pm
It is interesting, all of the screaming about obamacare being socialist, let alone a single payer system. When the idea of insurance began to gain wide acceptance in this country, most companies were mutual insurance companies. They did not exclude anyone. The idea was to spread the risk. Then insurance companies discovered underwriting, and the rest is history.
Dave R.
September 15th, 2011
3:15 pm
“Pat Robertson says it’s okay to leave your spouse if they are stricken with Alzheimer’s?”
In his case, it’s even money on who should leave that relationship. That dude hasn’t been thinking right for about a decade or more.
emack06
September 15th, 2011
3:15 pm
Great Article. You made to point as simple as it can be. Obama is right to have pass healthcare reform. Instead the the tea party pundits and idiots constantly trying to tear it down, Why don’t they offer solutions to better improve Obama’s plan. At this point in our nation discourse, we all need drop the rhetoric and come up with sensible solutions.
Dave R.
September 15th, 2011
3:17 pm
“If it becomes that bad here . . .”
It already IS that bad here, Adam.
And even WORSE in Massachusetts since Romneycare was passed.
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the Liar Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
September 15th, 2011
3:17 pm
It is NOT the taxpayers job to fund the uninsured. Priorities have to be in order, instead of buying cell phones, I-pads, big screen TVs and other luxury items.
Joe Mama
September 15th, 2011
3:17 pm
Dave R. — “The military is a constitutionally-provided function of government. Health care is not. Nice try.”
Actually, only the Army and Navy are Constitutionally provided for. You may now explain the Constitutionality of the Air Force. And NASA. Proceed.
“And the more regulated health care becomes the harder it is to find people willing to work in it. Do you really want to go there? Do you?”
Last time I checked, there was no shortage of people applying for Federal and State jobs. I doubt the “more regulated” jobs you apparently fear will be any different, Dave.
Chuck
September 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
I thought Ron Paul already addressed this. You do a credit check in the ambulance and take the formerly healthy young man to a place of worship. That way you can save his soul instead of saving his life.
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the Liar Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
September 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
emack06 – besides being WRONG, spell check your thoughts…..
DebbieDoRight
September 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
Are reactions forced Adam?? Are instincts forced Adam??
No, they are choices………yes, may be instinctual and uninformed, but choices none the less…….. Shall we continue……..or do you want to slink away declaring how right you aren’t…………….
Sigh……
I think it is cruel when Adam continues to question individuals in their advanced age when their minds begin to go and they say things that they never would have said when they had all their faculties. Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Betty Ford, Barry Goldwater, etc come to mind. Sad. Really, really, sad. And Bad. Bad, bad, bad, Adam.
md
September 15th, 2011
3:23 pm
“No, they aren’t — esp. instincts, those are innate, not forced. Reactions are more of a choice, but even then sometimes are formed from instincts.”
Innate? Is there an alternative to the action taken??
If there is an alternative, a choice was made…….either consciously or unconsciously……
md
September 15th, 2011
3:24 pm
Adam………if you don’t want to play the whole game……don’t engage…………
But quitting in the middle and declaring victory is a poor choice………….
MrLiberty
September 15th, 2011
3:26 pm
And if we actually had a free market in both medicine and insurance what would those costs REALLY have been. Likely far less than half of what they were. Your complete igorance of the economics does not justify socialized medicine. Theft is theft and is predicated on violence. Charity is voluntary and without violence. That govenrment chooses to steal from some to pay for others doesn’t make it moral and doesn’t mean it should continue.
md
September 15th, 2011
3:27 pm
Oh goody DDR wants to play……….care to expound on your reasoning or is calling someone senile the extent of your argument……………
Disgusted
September 15th, 2011
3:28 pm
Anyone paying attention knew that as soon as the Bush Prescription Drug Plan was passed, a pure textbook case of Socialism if one has ever existed, that serious attempts at “universal care” would soon follow. And so we have Obamacare.
I call BS on that one. Medicare Part D came with a proscription against the negotiation of drug prices. Unlike any other healthcare plan, it forbade negotiating even a penny’s reduction in the list price for prescription drugs. In other words, it guaranteed profits to pharmaceutical companies no matter what. If that’s Socialism, I’m John Rockefeller revived. It certainly sounds like government-sponsored capitalism to me. It was, in short, a payoff for the pharmaceutical firms for their campaign support and a cynical effort to win the senior vote.
Jay
September 15th, 2011
3:29 pm
you know, it fascinates me to see so much high-brow rhetorical theory flung about with such abandon, with absolutely no attention paid to reality.
emack06
September 15th, 2011
3:31 pm
Bottom Line: the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed for whatever reason. Your average everyday working 9-5 employee just cannot afford it as it is. For those who are able to purchase healthcare on their own or via their job, there is still a cap. Insurers are willing to pay only soo much. If treatment for your illness exceeds that cost, you may still find yourself azzed-out (financially and physically). The current system only works if the insures are collecting a lot of money on premiums and paying out a few dollars as they can on claims. The less people insured, the more it will cost the insured. And as premiums go up, more and more will become un-insured, thus creating a downward cycle. Healthcare needs to be mandated by the federal government, period. Everyone needs to pay into the system and the profitability aspect needs to be removed. Think about, if the Fed was the “insurance company” and everyone paid into the system, our rates would be low and affordable. But I know some really see this a population control mechanism.
Bosch
September 15th, 2011
3:32 pm
md,
“Innate? Is there an alternative to the action taken??”
With instincts, no, there isn’t. It’s innate, we have no choices over our instincts.
C Carroll
September 15th, 2011
3:33 pm
Bookman, you fail to be honest in your writings. This was America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, until you liberals began implementing socialism. The person choosing not to purchase health insurance is making a personal decision. He may chosen to use the funds he would have paid for insurance to purchase an expensive automobile or he may have been a gambler and gambled away his money. Why in the HELL should I be penalized for his choices? Can you not at least write a column that is honest in all ways? Does your social agenda get in your way?
What about illegal immigrants getting free medical needs? Your opinion does not agree with mine.
Thulsa Doom
September 15th, 2011
3:33 pm
“say these hypothetical (or hell, even real people you’ve seen) suddenly start to prioritize health care as an expense”- Bosch
Bosch,
Hopefully I am misinterpreting this but it looked like a veiled insult. As if you are questioning the validity of whether some of the people I meet with are fictional or real. I would hate to think you are calling me a liar, especially given the fact that I’m rarely here till the afternoons since I have 1-2 appts most mornings on health insurance or Medicare insurance. Please clarify.
“And while those items you mentioned do contribute to the high cost of health care, which is the root of the problem, agreed, you forgot a rather big one: insurance itself.”- Bosch
Bosch,
There is good and bad. Insurance is indeed a middle man and a layer of overhead. But if we went to a single payer system we would have an even bigger layer of overhead and as you surely know the avg. federal employee costs more than the avg private employee- particularly in benefits.
And if you don’t believe a govt layer of overhead would be expansive not to mention costly then please look at the sheer size of the British NHS which I believe is the 3rd largest employer in the world.
Also what you fail to realize is that the whole idea of an insurance HMO or PPO network is to drive costs down through negotiated pricing. If you walked into a hospital and asked for a gall bladder surgery the price you pay is substantially more expensive than a negototiated price via an insurance plan. So for all the nonsense about how much insurance companies are making you sure seem to not how much they save you in actual cost via negotiated pricing.
Last you need to put aside the* insurance companies are getting rich* rhetoric and look at the actual profit margins of the companies. The biggest-United healthcare had something like a 3 or 4% profit margin last year or last qtr from what I remember. Their margins are reasonable and substantially lower than most industries- a fact that detractors of the insurance plans conveniently ignore.
“Such a huge industry where the providers of the service and the consumer of the product have no control over price, is whacked.”- Bosch
As I said you are completely ignorant (I do not mean that derisively) of the fact that a major insurance plan negotiates an enormous, significant discount via their volume of members from what you would normally pay for major treatment as an individual.
Now you can make an argument using that logic that we should thus then go to a single payer system and thus save even more money via the marketing power of a single entity. The problem with that is that federal employees are much more expensive and secondarily you would be taking away a great deal of freedom of choice from the consumer with a one size fit all policy.That often gets left out of the debate on these matters.
Dave R.
September 15th, 2011
3:36 pm
“Actually, only the Army and Navy are Constitutionally provided for. You may now explain the Constitutionality of the Air Force. And NASA. Proceed.”
National defense is national defense, Joe. Any and all appropriate agencies that contribute to same are constitutionally-provided for. NASA is arguably a stretch, but could still be covered under Defense if need be, however, their civilian work today clearly is not.
“Last time I checked, there was no shortage of people applying for Federal and State jobs. I doubt the “more regulated” jobs you apparently fear will be any different, Dave.”
Reality just doesn’t suit you, does it? Look at how difficult it is to get doctors to move to Massachusetts right now since Romneycare was passed. Virtually impossible. On the other hand, since tort reform was passed in Texas, no such shortages of doctors exists there.
Oh, and while Federal and state jobs are CREATED by regulation, they are not necessarily GUIDED by excessive regulation.
Again, nice try, but another fail.
Bosch
September 15th, 2011
3:41 pm
Doom,
Yes, that knee jerking of yours going straight to someone trying to insult you, you might want to get that looked at — that’s not my intention. Geez. Believe it or not, not everyone here automatically goes for the insult first and foremost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Insurance is indeed a middle man and a layer of overhead. But if we went to a single payer system we would have an even bigger layer of overhead and as you surely know the avg. federal employee costs more than the avg private employee- particularly in benefits.
Yes, they are an unneccessary middle man that keeps the basic concept of supply and demand from happening in the biggest industry in our country.
Federal employees? What are you even talking about? Are you assuming that all health care providers become federal employees? Who the hell has proposed that?
Bosch
September 15th, 2011
3:46 pm
And Doom, you never addressed my point of why should we continue to pour so much money into one industry to the detriment of others?
md
September 15th, 2011
3:48 pm
“With instincts, no, there isn’t. It’s innate, we have no choices over our instincts.”
We don’t??
You get in a fight and some guy hits you, instinct hits back……you saying you didn’t have the choice to not hit back??
Or that just because you have poor self control it is not a choice??
Joe Mama
September 15th, 2011
3:49 pm
Dave R. — “National defense is national defense, Joe.”
The Constitution only speaks directly of an “Army” and a “Navy.”
“Any and all appropriate agencies that contribute to same are constitutionally-provided for.”
You may post and link to the specific language providing for it now. Proceed.
BTW, please also spell out the explicit Constitutional justification for the FAA and the FRC (now FCC). What did the Founders have to say about those two functions of government?
“NASA is arguably a stretch, but could still be covered under Defense if need be, however, their civilian work today clearly is not.”
NASA isn’t part of the DoD. Your concession is noted and appreciated.
“Reality just doesn’t suit you, does it?”
Dave-ality doesn’t, no. (laughing)
“Look at how difficult it is to get doctors to move to Massachusetts right now since Romneycare was passed. Virtually impossible. On the other hand, since tort reform was passed in Texas, no such shortages of doctors exists there.”
And yet patient outcome quality is dropping like a rock in TX, while it’s going up in MA. Of COURSE you can produce more product or service if you just drop your freakin’ STANDARDS, Dave. (laughing)
“Oh, and while Federal and state jobs are CREATED by regulation, they are not necessarily GUIDED by excessive regulation.
I see. Federal and State jobs aren’t actually *regulated* by the Fed or the state, as the case may be, Thank you for clearing that up, Dave. (laughing, pointing)
“Again, nice try, but another fail.”
Speaking of fail, how’s your NATO research coming, Dave? Any movement on that topic? (laughing)
Bosch
September 15th, 2011
3:50 pm
That’s not an instinct md, that’s a reaction, and I didn’t say or didn’t mean to imply that reactions aren’t choices, yes, you have some control over reactions, but not necessarily a choice.
I mean, when I see a clown, I can choose not to get all freaked out, but it usually doesn’t work out that way.
md
September 15th, 2011
3:51 pm
You give me an instinct that is not a choice Bosch…..and we’ll debate it……
md
September 15th, 2011
3:52 pm
“I mean, when I see a clown, I can choose not to get all freaked out, but it usually doesn’t work out that way.”
If you can…..then it is……….
Poor self control is not an excuse for making a bad choice…….even so called instinctual ones.
Bosch
September 15th, 2011
3:56 pm
“even so called instinctual ones”
Not sure what you mean by that, but instinct is innate behavior, you don’t change that.
Maybe we’re just arguing semantics, not sure.
Bosch
September 15th, 2011
3:57 pm
“You give me an instinct that is not a choice Bosch”
Reflexes.
Bosch
September 15th, 2011
3:58 pm
And sorry, md, but we can’t discuss anymore, gotta run to a meeting.
md
September 15th, 2011
3:58 pm
“Not sure what you mean by that, but instinct is innate behavior, you don’t change that. ”
But one can control it…………the mind can override that behavior……but that is where the choice comes in………
md
September 15th, 2011
4:00 pm
“Reflexes.”
Do we “do” reflexes?
Butch Cassidy
September 15th, 2011
4:00 pm
“you know, it fascinates me to see so much high-brow rhetorical theory flung about with such abandon, with absolutely no attention paid to reality.”
Well then you must new to this board. Oh wait, Jay?
Butch Cassidy
September 15th, 2011
4:03 pm
C Carroll – ” The person choosing not to purchase health insurance is making a personal decision. ”
Yes, and the same goes for people with children. When do I get to stop paying taxes for schools and the roads that run in front of them. Afterall, having children is a personal choice, why should the rest of us have to pay for it?
Just wait...
September 15th, 2011
4:09 pm
Outsourcing government work costs billions extra, study says
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/09/private-contractors-cost-billions-more-than-governments-in-house-workers-study-says.html
Goldie
September 15th, 2011
4:11 pm
Seems like the “Let ‘em die” crowd is the same folks who were screaming about “death panels” in the health insurance reform debates and scaring everyone a couple of summers ago… they ARE the death panel now, apparently, choosing who will die and it’s based solely on whether or not they are wealthy enough to have any health insurance! What a bunch of crazy creeps!
Thulsa Doom
September 15th, 2011
4:12 pm
Bosch,
I did not have a knee jerk reaction to your comment about hypothetical vs real people. I simply asked in a polite and professional manner if that was meant to be an insult. One could take it as such. Since you did not mean it as such I will gladly take your word for it.
Bosch
September 15th, 2011
3:46 pm
“And Doom, you never addressed my point of why should we continue to pour so much money into one industry to the detriment of others?”
Bosch,
As I just explained we pour that money into insurance companies because they are then able to use millions of members market power to get us deep, negotiated discounts on health care services. Otherwise the cost of an average surgery would be substantially higher.
Common Sense
September 15th, 2011
4:14 pm
I went from the first three pages of the blogs to this last page and the conversation got all tangled up from insurance to NASA and national defense. Read what Jay was saying – patient could NOT get insurance due to pre-exisisting condiditon, paitent died, taxpayers still paid for $365,000 health bill. The link is taxpayers pay for it now, so how in the world could Obamacare be so bad if all the government is doing is FORCING people to pay for it? The ones that don’t, take it out of their food stamps or their SS payment, whatever. But we are America and we don’t let our people die! At least EVERYBODY will be paying. What is the problem with this? Government is dishing out the health care, just forcing people to pay there fair share of the cost!
Slinking Toward Retirement | For Ron Paul, health-care question struck close to home | Jay Bookman | News, Travel, Opinion and Just Odd and Funny Things...
September 15th, 2011
4:15 pm
[...] For Ron Paul, health-care question struck close to home | Jay Bookman. abramovitch, campaign staffers, charity, Health care, health care question, Home, insurance, Jay Bookman, jesse helms, Journal, major illness, manager, President, private charity, Race, republican debates, second, treatment, unpaid medical bills, Wall Street Journal [...]
Thulsa Doom
September 15th, 2011
4:15 pm
And yet patient outcome quality is dropping like a rock in TX, while it’s going up in MA. Of COURSE you can produce more product or service if you just drop your freakin’ STANDARDS, Dave. (laughing)- Joe mama
Joe mama,
I have jump in on this for just a minute. From what I’ve read wait times for doctor appts, especially specialists, has gone up substantially in Mass. since the passage of Romneycare. I don’t think that is a disputable fact.
asdf
September 15th, 2011
4:17 pm
We demonized socialism but at least we beat the commies.
Joe Mama
September 15th, 2011
4:27 pm
Doom — “I have jump in on this for just a minute. From what I’ve read wait times for doctor appts, especially specialists, has gone up substantially in Mass. since the passage of Romneycare. I don’t think that is a disputable fact.”
I don’t dispute that. The point I was making is that negative quality of care indicators — patient readmissions, unplanned follow-up surgeries, medical errors, all the indicators of POOR quality of care — are on the increase in TX after tort reform’s impletmentation there.
Long wait times suck, sure, but I’d rather wait two weeks for an appointment than have to be sliced open again because some surgeon left a sponge in me.
Adam
September 15th, 2011
4:27 pm
Bosch: Maybe we’re just arguing semantics, not sure.
BINGO
md: I didn’t quit in the middle. I quit when it became clear you didn’t understand or didn’t care to understand my points. You simply pretended, and continue to pretend, they are invalid. Your best argument to me saying some things aren’t choices is “yes they are!” I told you what is not a choice, I told you why. You just told me I was wrong. So backatya.
clem
September 15th, 2011
4:34 pm
repub health care solution:
die early, die quietly, die cheap
Jay
September 15th, 2011
4:36 pm
Thulsa, Joe Mama:
Doctors per 100,000 residents
Texas 214
Mass. 469
Massachusetts leads the country in doctors per capita. Texas ranks 41st.
Source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/ranks/rank18.html
Ilene
September 15th, 2011
4:43 pm
People are ignoring one thing – Paul is an actual doctor. He has taken the Hypocratic oath. He’s going against his own oath. Not a doctor I would want to go to.
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
4:43 pm
Jay – how did you & i pay for them? Via taxes? Or through higher medical costs & health insurance costs?
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
4:44 pm
Jay – you are omitting population density from your typical liberal data manipulation.
Jay
September 15th, 2011
4:45 pm
It’s a per capita figure, Paddy.
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
4:45 pm
ilene – that is typical liberal asinine idealism. one has nothing to do with the other.
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
4:47 pm
But how? In taxes? Or the others? Per capita you must know is just simple math, and fails to address a salient fact: Where did all four of these people receive care? Emergency room? I NEVER go to the emergency room, so that cost would not be born directly by me. Also, how do hospitals defer these non-paid bills? Through the entire hospital or restricted to emergency room activity? Plus, did that hospital receive and medicaid disbursement? The equation is exceptionally pertinent to the debate.
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
4:48 pm
also, which are you replying to? You MUST know that population density controls all economic activity & government largesse, no?
Jay
September 15th, 2011
4:50 pm
Paddy, the emergency room is not operated as a separate business. Furthermore, all four of the people used as examples above were treated in hospitals by doctors. Their unpaid bills were simply added on to the hospital’s cost of doing business, which means they were eventually paid by higher premiums on health insurance and by taxpayers as well.
The cost didn’t just evaporate. Somebody paid it.
Jay
September 15th, 2011
4:53 pm
Dave R., for reasons I’ve already pointed out, you’re advancing an exceedingly silly thesis.
Are the jobs created by Hartsfield “sustainable?” The place has been going strong for 60 years now.
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
5:00 pm
Thank you, Jay. What prevents the hospitalf rom suing people with liquid assets to obtain payment? Also, why do people with insurance typically pay less for a specific procedure than someone without insurance?
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
5:01 pm
Jay – do you know journalistically, if you get an x ray at a hospital, cost is $140 – what % of that is to pay for the uninsured/deadbeats?
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
5:03 pm
OK, Jay – I would assume all 4 originally came in via the emergency room – once their emergency health problems subsided, what mandated that the hospitals continue treatment?
Jay
September 15th, 2011
5:04 pm
Most of the time, Paddy, the cost of the suit would far exceed the amount collected. It certainly would have in all four of the cases I’ve mentioned.
And people with insurance generally pay less because the insurance company employs very smart, experienced people who know what the bill really ought to be. A guy walking in off the street doesn’t have those resources available. He’s hopeless, with no knowledge and no bargaining power. He might as well have a “screw me” sign dangling from his neck.
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
5:06 pm
Also, the per capita data is genuinely affected by population density – one reason NJ is so bankrupt – they suffer from NY envy, and strive to deliver the same liberal nanny state that is omnipresent in their uber high density neighbor, and it is unsustainable. One reason for the high Dr #ers are the many teaching hospitals in Boston, which are there due to the population density – just as Grady is in Atlanta and not Carrollton.
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
5:09 pm
Jay – it sounds as thought the government really needs to create a quick, easy, cheap “medical services lien” to be placed on a person house/assets if they receive medical service & fail to pay. It would be relatively cheap for any hospital to have a lawyer process those liens – probably could even farm out to a medical repo man. It would also serve as a counter-incentive for those who are gaming the system (such as the 4 people you reference).
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
5:10 pm
I concur with your conclusion on medical costs for insured vs non. However, that does seem to violate our civil rights (14 amendment of equal protection), no?
Joe Mama
September 15th, 2011
5:10 pm
Paddy — “Thank you, Jay. What prevents the hospitalf rom suing people with liquid assets to obtain payment?”
I can answer some of this, as I used to work for a company that did administrative services (HR, benefits, billing and collections) for hospitals and healthcare providers.
Nothing prevents hospitals from suing. However, they are rather circumspect about doing it, because they don’t want to be accused throwing little old granny cardiac patients out of their homes. They’d much prefer that you pay voluntarily, so some hospitals actually have loan counselors who can help accounts receivable access commercial loan services in order to pay their bills. I have seen cases where hospitals successfully persuaded former patients to mortgage their homes in order to pay their bills; I have also seen cases where hospitals simply declined to pursue five-figure collectibles because they felt the likelihood of collecting was very low.
“Also, why do people with insurance typically pay less for a specific procedure than someone without insurance?”
Insurers typically negotiate lower prices or specific discounts on procedures. The price/discount will vary from provider to provider and from procedure to procedure.
You can often do this on your OWN if you are self-pay; many doctors will give a discount if you pay up front, in cash. The reason is that they know they won’t have to expend any time or effort in collecting from you.
Jay
September 15th, 2011
5:10 pm
Paddy, those things exist. But again, most of the patients in question don’t have the assets to seize in the first place.
Jay
September 15th, 2011
5:12 pm
Didn’t see it, Josef.
Now … what were you doing watching Fox News? You can watch it, but we’re not supposed to advertise on it?
Mary Elizabeth
September 15th, 2011
5:15 pm
“and the only two approaches that show any promise of rationalizing it are the individual mandate or single-payer.”
————————————————-
I agree. Thank you for your position. It is a humane position, and will help many, in the long run, and will probably be economically more sound, overall, in the long run, also.
AT
September 15th, 2011
5:17 pm
Personally, I think HSAs and High deductible plans are the way to go. The consumer has enough skin in the game to make free market decisions on care, but the plan takes over after a certain point for catastrophic events. It takes health insurance back to the definition of insurance instead of just being an all-encompassing health plan for every thing.
Jay
September 15th, 2011
5:30 pm
No, that’s not what I’m saying, Thulsa. It just seems to be a pattern. When gov’t agency screws up, it’s an indictment of all government, period.
When a company screws up, it’s just that company at fault. it says nothing about the viability of private enterprise, etc.
And no, Barney Frank didn’t force the banks to lower lending standards and offer lo-doc and no-doc loans. Once again, you’re trying to shift the blame for private enterprise decisions onto government.
Trotsky Radio
September 15th, 2011
5:31 pm
How it goin comrades?
Slater
September 15th, 2011
5:46 pm
White men can’t jump and Black men can’t manage their money.
Truth Squad
September 15th, 2011
5:50 pm
Why is it that so many people who have government-run, or government subsidized health care, so vehemently opposed to every citizen having that same privilege?
For example, why would someone who uses the VA, or TriCare object to someone who helps fund it having the same level or care?
Why would anyone now on Medicare object to those who fund it having the same service?
I think that,even in a sluggish economy, voters are going to pause when asked to vote for people who want to repeal the New Deal, Great Society, and eventually, the G.I. Bill?
Lastly, why did all but nine congressional Republicans vote for RyanCare that eliminates the individual mandate, but generally keeps in place most of ObamaCare? The truth is that ObamaCare is chock-full of Republican ideas that they use to like and know are good policies. Those advocating repeal should be asked to reconcile their supposed disapproval with support of RyanCare.
James C
September 15th, 2011
5:57 pm
If healthcare in the USA was as cheap as it is here in the UK, you’d be able to provide comprehensive cover for the whole population for less than the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare today.
Check out the UK health budget using Google. You’d be amazed at the power of an entire country bargaining at once. Like the ultimate Groupon deal.
James C
September 15th, 2011
6:00 pm
http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
6:32 pm
Truth squad: Is the VA/Tricare not compensation for laying your life on the line for your nation – in many instances non-voluntarily? So, you are not genuinely making a rationale statement, more of the liberal ideologue manipulation, no?
You must also know that the GI bill has been rigged now to eliminate cost control; and in 96, the Repub controlled Congress provided VA care to all service veterans’, regardless of time in or service connected disability. And, just as James C is NOT saying, those Vets not classified as Priority 1 will have access to a Dr in about 6 months. Not exactly convenient, but it looks good on the campaign resume.
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
6:33 pm
Apparently, I need to repeat this easy to understand, portable problem understander: If I pay $140 for an x-ray at the hospital, what % of that is being used to subsidize the uninsured/deadbeats who also visited this specific hospital?
Paddy O
September 15th, 2011
6:34 pm
James C – we have seen how happy ALL the people in the UK are.
peaceout
September 15th, 2011
7:20 pm
This article says that private charities is not feasible. That is simply a false statement just thrown in there with nothing to back it up. In a free society, people can choose to donate to another’s medical care rather than being forced by the government through taxes. Besides, in a libertarian society people have more money because there is no income tax. The federal reserve would not exist, so the value of the money will be steady and predictable. Economic prosperity and free market leads to cheaper and better health care. Unfortunately, its hard to explain this to the people in a 30 second sound byte. The author of this article has no clue about economics, so I don’t understand who gave him permission to write on a topic that he knows nothing about.
professorjoe
September 15th, 2011
9:30 pm
Paul must be surging in the polls because they’re coming out of the woodwork to attack him.Today he’s an anti-semite , a racist, a dangerous isolationist( an oxymoron) and and man who lives in a fantasy world because he said the US has 900 bases when,according to the author we only have 662. The headline on this could have been “Paul lets best friend die” because that’s what the author inferred and its a cheap shot! I’m sure from what I know of Ron Paul if his friend needed a procedure to save his life Ron would have preformed it for him. Dr Paul has previously treated poverty patients free during his years in practice. By the authors own admission the patient got almost a half million dollars of service free, it doesn’t appear that this man died for lack of treatment. He also unfairly notes “none of the money he raised was used for insurance.” I’ve worked for two Presidential candidates and I don’t know of any that buy you medical insurance. These are temporary employees , most only employed for less than a year and most are part time. The vast majority are volunteers.
My guess is that it would probably be unethical to use campaign funds for campaign workers health care and then this guy’s article would have been ” Paul misappropriates campaign funds for Buddy’s Health care”
buck@gon
September 15th, 2011
10:04 pm
Jay @ 10:19 am,
Let him die under the following circumstances:
1. Government payments, like your example of private charity are also woefully inadequate to pay bills too. The country is broke as I write this, and as we all sit here, it can not hope to pay anymore bills, period. So whether or not this guy gets treatment costing $1 or $1,000,000, someone’s not going to get paid. Medicare pays pennies on the dollar in many cases, and the percentage of actual cost that they pay keeps going down.
So in exchange for government laws, threats and higher taxes, medical providers are by necessity, cutting services and quality to cut costs. This is the result of your “alleged” socialism. It’s not just a name, Mr. Highly paid columnist.
2. No government has the right, except in extreme cases to tell any private citizen what they can and can not do. Threatening anyone with arrest or the loss of income is wrong just because a citizen or business has a legitimate reason for not treating someone.
3. If charities and government are concerned with treating those unable to pay, they are free to set up low-cost alternatives to modern medicine. This will cost lots of money, sure, and it will make government accountable for performance (moreso than blanket mandates for the whole country), and this our leaders do not want. If someone can not pay and has no insurance, then they ought to be able to go to one of these places free of charge or not based on ability to pay.
You can prattle on all you want, Jay, about the absolutes of saving someone or not. The other absolute is ability to render service and remain doing so without going under financially. If THAT happens, there will be no medical care. Look at Cuba. It has plenty of doctors. What they don’t have for the poor tyrannized masses are toilet paper, bandages and antibiotics. Where does “modern medicine” exist in Cuba without these basics? (Besides in the palaces of the Castros).
Think Cuban doctors feel they’ve got to save or pay for someone if they come in?
Socialized medicine just does not work.
All it does is create entitlement classes that will revolt, protest and demand more free services that will bankrupt any system. Don’t believe me? Look at Greece, the Eurozone. There really is no doubt anymore that Greece will default. How will they get their medical care then, Jay?
As far as mandates or single payor, there really is little difference: one is communist-socialism, the other fascist-socialism.
If you want to guarantee “modern medicine” as a de facto right in this country, what you will wind up with is a new dumbed-down version of “modern medicine”.
Blaine
September 15th, 2011
10:50 pm
Basic rhetoric dictates that you aknowledge your opponents argument so that you can properly refute it. You havent made an attempt to understand the point Dr. Paul is trying to make. The govt will not be able to provide services for people if we continue on the course we are on. Is it humane to tell people to get ready and support each other, or pretend that the govt will be there to fill this role forever? His point is that we should take care of each other, not compelled by the govt to give up our money to be wasted in a chain of bureaocracy. We can’t even keep the post office above wate, spare me the faux outrager.
joe
September 16th, 2011
12:06 am
Joey, you’re good at Propaganda for state and health care system. I knew Ken, the reason he couldn’t get health insurance was because of moron’s like you that piss on the free market and want additional Govt’ assistance through “law”. You’re the reason men like Ken can’t get health care. It’s one thing to cater to the brain dead Republicans and Democrats that read your worthless rag in the statist AJC, but Ron Paul is way too heavy for a moron like you to understand. Moron’s like you shouldn’t even go there. Even when you think your scoring points for your controllers. You make an ass out of yourself.
Weasel Whiff
September 16th, 2011
11:48 am
Come try to rob me like a man and we will see what we see. You are inciting violent theft. Statutory law created this, the USA exists as a fascist state. It will fail and then what will replace it? Freedom and money must be bought. The answer to this insurance problem is to make it a cash business with freedom of contract between adults. Doctors always understood they had a social responsibility to help people who were destitute and they did. They also asked for their services amounts that the market would bear, and they still made a good living. That’s what happened before the monster commie guvmnt went to screwing with contracts between adults (read:self owners). Einstein sure was right about how much stupid is around. WAKE UP DUMMY
TS
September 16th, 2011
1:39 pm
He didn’t die from not being able to afford the treatment. He died even when he was being treated for pneumonia.
Karen
September 16th, 2011
2:21 pm
I have health insurance and it’s gone up 3 times since Obamacare has passed. And medical costs have gone way up too…even for basic checkups. So I pay for this and now will be paying MORE in taxes …?? for what! Medicaid covers the poor and I pay that too! …so I pay more so those who don’t WANT to pay for health insurance don’t have to? Trust me I live paycheck to paycheck and would rather not have to pay for health insurance but it IS MY responsibility to do so…. just like you have to pay for your light bill… or taxes. You cut back on other things so you CAN pay for it. And if you have a cell phone and no health insurance… then you CAN afford it!
Bharat Chandrasekhar
September 17th, 2011
4:52 pm
These alleged situations with a man without healthcare wouldn’t even be present if healthcare costs were low and affordable. Imagine if in 1910, the government mandated everyone get a car. The results would have been disastrous. Car technology would have been hindered, the market would have been destroyed, prices would have skyrocketed, and the abysmal outcome would obviously be the opposite of what the original intent was. Today, cars are cheaper (for quality), the majority of Americans own a car, cars have technologically improved way beyond 1900 levels, etc. The s word should be looked on as a horrendous word because it is. Quality and low prices can only be provided by liberty in the marketplace.
An s word that should be looked at by more eyes should be the word scarcity. Scarcity is and probably always will be a part of society, regardless of the product or service. Government interference does nothing to eliminate that. Instead, it destroys incentives and hinders progress. Democrats will, in their failure to understand economics, continue to support policies that will end up doing the exact opposite of their intended effects. This is an unfortunate truth.
For those that simplistically answer “look at our healthcare today! We have a capitalistic market and yet prices are so high!” Such a statement could not be further from the truth. A closer examination will reveal the gigantic bureaucracy and special interests behind medicine.
Louis Nardozi
September 19th, 2011
9:55 am
But nobody mentions the fact the medical care would have been less than the $35,000 they raised if an insurance company had been billed. Typically, insurance companies are charged 5% of what uninsured people are charged with the bad excuse of, “so many uninsured do not pay”. Why do you suppose that might be?