I believe the word you're looking for is "accounts recievable". Every business does this and, as you suggested, keep the doors open with savings and/or current inflows. Even restaurants "loan" their services for a majority of transactions. There is usually another creditor involved of course, but that would apply to hospitals as well. So while this technically be a subsidy in the strict definition, I think we all know the context in which that word is used in political discussions. For example, if I go to McDonald's and pay in cash, technically I could be "subsidizing" the person behind me that uses their credit card, but it's kind of a pointless observation. If you apply the following part of your definition "with the aim of promoting economic and social policy" then it's not a subsidy in either the restaurant or the hospital. It's just a receivable. Also, if everyone delayed payments (on any type of transaction), the business can pretty easily sell or borrow against the debt. In the case of a hospital or any other relatively large business, they very well may have a line of credit because they have so much constructive receipt. In summary, no this is not comparable to the moral objection of taking from Peter to give to Paul, at least insofar as you all have discussed it.
When you go to McDonald's it is voluntary, and you can budget for that. When you go to the hospital, involuntarily, with no means to pay for it (other than to "make payments"), it is - by it's very definition - a low-interest loan, done to benefit social policy (not to be confused with government policy.) Social policy tells us that we treat people first and THEN work out payment, which is contrary to every example you gave. ETA: there will always be those who can pay, and those who cannot. Unless you are suggesting we leave people to die unless they can work out payment in advance, it will ALWAYS, be a system where some people subsidize others. Most people will do both.
By inflating there costs 500% How many 5 min lasik eye surgeries does it take to pay for a 100,000 dollar machine? So when I front a bag to a friend it's only because someone else paid? Try again bat mobile
I still fail to see how it's different than the sale of any other good/service. Businesses in just about every industry sell on credit and know that a certain percentage of that credit won't be paid. In fact, most businesses of considerable size specifically budget for "bad debt" with an "noncollectable allowance". The difference you mention is an important point to bring up. People being rushed to emergency rooms cannot negotiate payment as they're on their way. It's certainly not a good financial position for either the creditor (hospital) or the lender (patient). However, if the elements composing healthcare spending are aggregated and analyzed, we can see that these specific incidents are not the financial burden that they are made out to be. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/28/nick-gillespie/does-emergency-care-account-just-2-percent-all-hea/ So, it's 2% of healthcare spending total, meaning part of the 2% is paid off and part is written off. While I would never make the case that this is excellent, the suggestion that this is the major, inherent problem with our system, I seriously disagree with. The write-offs in this area do not surpass that of many other industries.
A doctor shouldn't leave someone to die just because they cannot pay. Society shouldnt force doctors to treat people without pay. Morality goes both ways. It is amoral to force people to be moral by your own standards Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
How many other services can you receive a service and THEN work out a payment plan? If you wanted to buy a new TV would Best Buy or Sears give you that TV and then work out your payment plan after it has been delivered? Yet, if you're rushed to the emergency room you're not negotiating payments before that service is rendered. What if you can't afford to pay for it? Who is subsidizing that?
I agreed with you in the last post that the distinction you made was a noteworthy one. It is a very unique type of transaction in that one respect. However, as the link I posted before shows, it is not the huge financial burden on our system that it is made out to be. 2% of all healthcare costs are emergency room visits. 55% (I'd have to go find the source again, this was a separate journal) of that 2% are never paid for. Allow me to say 50% for the easy math. This will be oversimplified, but should give us a ballpark regarding how big of a financial burden this is. $200,000 is spent on healthcare today between 200 different people (including their respective creditors, etc.). <----hypothetical numbers Out of this aggregation, 4 people and $4000 are accounted for by emergency room visits. 2 of the individuals cannot pay their combined $2000 costs. <------ Percentages from the article applied to above hypothetical. The other 198 people each owe $1000. If the unpaid emergency room visits are split among these 198 people, their bill will increase from $1000 to $1010.10 (a 1.1% increase). Again, rough numbers, but relative to depths this thread goes to, the ballpark is more than enough to make the point. While I would NEVER say a 1% increase in the cost of anything is good, it's pretty clear that this is not a major cause of our woes in the country's healthcare system. I certainly don't think it warrants a law that increases premiums by significantly more than this current issue, which it purports to solve. I'm not on the "let's do nothing about healthcare" team, but this aspect of it makes no sense when you hold the numbers up to the light. Regardless, I'm glad the discussion is being had, but I don't think this is the solution.
You're missing my main point which is really pretty simplistic. Health care, by it's nature (like any sort of infrastructure), will always be subsidized, and costs will always be spread out among users unequally. Unless you have a completely cash based system where denying emergency care is an option. It doesn't matter if it's a single payer system or completely privatized. I raise this point because of the moral objection people have over "paying for someone else", and the government is to blame. That moral objection fails to look at the bigger picture which is the business model of health care and insurance. ETA: I don't think I Obamacare is the solution either. It's a deeply conservative idea that sprung from the depths of the Heritage Foundation. Single payer has clearly proven, world over, to be the most efficient, cheapest, and stress free health care model.
It has clearly showed it doesn't work. It's either cheap health care or good health care not both. People leave the US for cheaper or experimental health care not better . And people leave single payer countries for the US for better health care not cheaper. If you read people's personal experience this is almost always the case bat mobile
Most people need regular healthcare; from annual check ups all the way to cancer treatments and everything in between and single payer does a decent job delivering. In some cases, some Provincial health authorities have contracts with parts of the US healthcare system. Also covered by the single payer. Many folks who head south are on their last legs and are wanting to take one last heroic stab at living longer. I get that desire. But for most healthcare needs, single payer is fine. I understand your ideological opposition to single payer, but no need to vilify it in order to make your point.
Okay, I see where you were going with it. My bad. I didn't know you were addressing a specific argument. I thought you were arguing that the ER costs are the reason to justify the current legislation. I guess I didn't read the preceding posts closely enough. I agree with everything in the bold. In general, costs are almost never allocated so precisely and independently that there is no overlap in who is paying for whom. It is even less true is healthcare and insurance, as you mention. Anything with a risk adjustment inherent in the price (like insurance, loans, healthcare, mortgages, raw materials, rent, to name a few), if you are one of the majority of individuals who pays their balance, a portion of your price reflects the many who don't pay their balances. I was just pointing out that (although they each take different forms) many other transactions involve cost overlap between buyers. In this regard, we are in total agreement. I'm not going to address the "government is to blame" or "single payer" portions of your post because we will be discussing those for the next decade if we go down that road.