[dapearce]

>Customer A does not receive full medical support because "he's dying anyway"?

Unless the patient consents to stop or reduce care, this would be medical negligence, which is illegal (in the US). Medical providers are required by law to provide medical treatment with all the knowledge and skill they possess.

[dragonwriter]

> Medical providers are required by law to provide medical treatment with all the knowledge and skill they possess.

No, to avoid liability for malpractice, they need to meet the “professional standard of care”, which is assessed by general practice in the medical community, not “all the knowledge and skill” the individual provider possesses.

[Broken_Hippo]

I wish that were the case. They'll treat you in the ER, but not make sure you can actually purchase antibiotics to cure the thing that brought you to the ER to begin with, nor make sure you can afford the bone specialist you need to see for your surgery.

Anything short of an emergency and you can be denied care due to finances. Even if your problem is cancer or they know it will eventually be an emergency or life-threatening. Money is part of the reason folks will use the emergency room instead of urgent care: Urgent care requires upfront payment, the emergency room does not. Many doctors will refuse to see someone if they do not pay upfront.

Luckily, different agencies tend to step in with end of life care.

[Spivak]

What is the ER going to do about the fact that you can't afford a prescription or treatment/surgery from a specialist? Their job is pretty much to stop you from dying right now and direct you to another doctor when you're stable.

You can also present insurance upfront but same difference I suppose. A world where you didn't have to pay upfront would make care even more expensive because doctor's offices have to essentially become banks.

[Broken_Hippo]

Most hospitals have pharmacies in-house. Would it be too much to ask that the hospital provide you with the prescription or pain meds that will take care of the problem that brought you there and include that in the bill? As far as the specialist is concerned, they can easily refer people to places that help the folks that can't afford such things. All they'd need to do is give a piece of paper with information on it.

It would essentially be this: YOu break your leg and go to the hospital. When you leave, you have not only a cast, but pain meds and crutches if required (many hospitals do not offer them). If you can't breathe and you need medicine for infection, you leave with the medicine. If you can't afford a follow up with a doctor, they refer you to folks that can help you.

Insurance doesn't help if you are near-broke and two days away from payday. Lots of folks can't afford their deductible plus the yearly out-of-pocket.

[knuththetruth]

>A world where you didn't have to pay upfront would make care even more expensive because doctor's offices have to essentially become banks.

Those are called nationalized healthcare systems and are almost all cheaper than the US’ privatized system?

[Spivak]

Huh? The doctor is still getting guaranteed payment but by your government instead of you. I mean the world in which doctors had to accept patients regardless of their ability to pay and have to try and recover later.

[Broken_Hippo]

Um. Nationalized health care. Sure, they get payment from the government, but this isn't much different than waiting on insurance to pay in the states.

My yearly out-of-pocket is about 300 a year for regular medical: Another 300 for physical therapy and a few other things. This includes maintenance prescriptions. The rest is out of taxes - the main difference is that I can plan for these things. Once people hit the out of pocket, they get a special card to pay with. Most doctors offices will bill folks without an issue and I think they are required to see people even if they can pay, though I'm not sure how late bills affect folks.

That world exists in some forms, and if folks would agree to it, surely could exist more places.

[knuththetruth]

Apologies, thought you were excluding this kind of arrangement in your argument.

[dekhn]

This is not factually correct.