O/T: Fired Up, Ready To Go

Page 3 of 9  
"Phisherman" wrote:

The same thing happened to my father, my mother was concerned gangrene had set in.
They performed emergency surgery on dad as soon as he got to the hospital and he survived.
The year was 1940/1941.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In Canada, your friend would have been whisked inside to be treated immediately and you would have been asked questions by a clerk who filled out a couple of pages form. The clerk would probably also have asked you to go get your friend's medicare card. A nurse would immediately have asked your friend a bunch of questions, but related to his condition and previous medical experiences. A flu patient would be immediately isolated from the others.
Your hypochondriac would be made to wait, and wait and wait. And then they would bitch about the Canadian health system because their obviously non-urgent condition was not treated immediately. Then they would have mortgaged their house to get their pimple operated on in the USA and appeared in ads for the Republicans about how bad the Canadian system is.
Luigi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phisherman wrote:

I've read news reports that Canada has a problem with people who go to the doctor for every case of the sniffles since there are no co-pay fees to discourage that; they take up resources needed by those who have more serious complaints. Apparently some hospitals in the U.S. have closed their ERs because they can't afford to run them, they are de facto health clinics for the uninsured. I'd have no problem with ERs being restricted to actual emergency cases involving immediate threats to life and limb. But then that would leave millions of people with no health care at all since the ER is the only place they have. It sort of looks like clinics providing basic preventative care would be more efficient that waiting until someone is so sick they have no choice but to go to the ER, doesn't it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Must be a hospital specific thing. The only time I've been to the ER in a true emergency situation, I was treated immediately and the paperwork came later. The necessary medical stuff (pharmaceutical allergies, etc.) was taken verbally while treatment was underway.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me until I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to much blood on the paperwork to read it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the paper work, you are really delusional.
--
Jack
Got Change: Individual rules =====> Collective rules!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't like paperwork anymore than most, but get rid of the paper trail and fraud will be (even more) rampant IMO.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you are letting your ideology blind you to reality. Every other government-run health care system in advanced countries has a lot less paperwork than the US private health care system, hence the much lower administrative costs.
Luigi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote: ----------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
"Luigi Zanasi" wrote: ==================================I think you are letting your ideology blind you to reality. Every other government-run health care system in advanced countries has a lot less paperwork than the US private health care system, hence the much lower administrative costs. =================================== SFWIW:
Kaiser is running TV spots announcing that they are now paperless and listing it's many benefits.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Absolutely! But it's not the greed that is bad - it is the method of pursuing it or the results to which it's put that causes the harm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

It's kinda like the "people use guns to kill other people, so let's outlaw the guns" argument. People are able to use capitalism as a tool to commit evil, so capitalism must be inherently evil. I hear that's Michael Moore's latest diatribe...
--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Capitalism is not inherently evil. It is healthy. To make a better bandage than the next guy, will eventually make you more money than that next guy. To charge $ 9000.00 for it when somebody is bleeding to death is wrong. To deny that person a bandage because he's bled before, is wrong. To charge $ 100.00 per gallon for fuel for the ambulance, because it is 'needed'..is wrong. As the population of country is in charge of electing the next boss, they have to make sure that new boss doesn't get an advantage in the electoral process, because that bandage maker gives him more money. Special interests have corrupted the democratic process. Under that umbrella, the line between capitalism and corrupt capitalism becomes blurred. It's ok to make money, but that 'free enterprise' system doesn't give anybody the right to extort. There have to be limits when essential care and services are at play. A guy who is trying to feed his kids WILL sign up for that 30% loan.
Too many people are forgetting who is working for who.
And, no... just because a guy gets drunk, drives a Honda, kills a pedestrian, doesn't make Honda an evil company.
Oh... and that Michael Moore film on capitalism? That's just Michael Moore making money off the gullible. The irony.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Why? Clot-busting drugs cost almost that much. The alternative may very well be no drug.

If you're talking about pre-existing conditions, the obvious abuse is a game-changer.
Doctor: "You need a heart-valve replacement. It'll cost about $100,000." Patient: "I guess I better get some insurance."
There's also a bastardization of words here. NO ONE is denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions! They are merely denied CHEAP insurance due to pre-existing conditions. The underwriters at Lloyds would be glad to provide insurance in my example above (at a cost of, oh, $200,000/year).

It costs what it costs. The alternative to not paying the market price is for the ambulance to sit somewhere with an empty tank. Think back to the Carter years when there were price controls on gasoline. Some vehicles HAD to sit with empty tanks, even though the owners might have been willing to pay $100/gallon.
I was a Deputy Sheriff during that time and we had to curtail routine patrols due to lack of fuel. Fortunately, the goblins couldn't drive to the Stop-N-Rob to do their crime and the car thieves couldn't drive the stolen car away, so that example was pretty much of a wash.

Special interests are the counter-point to the mob. The great unwashed have an emotional point of view; the special interests have an informed point of view. Sometimes the mob wins, sometimes the special interests win. It averages out. But I'll agree that the government should quit trying to handicap elections (i.e., campaign finance limits, same-day voter registration, etc.).

Yes it does. Extortion is guaranteed by our Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Inventions." [Article I, Section 8]
Consider my clot-busting drug above. Suppose it costs Pharma $340,000,000 to develop the drug and the company projects it could sell 10,000 doses per year. A patent is good for 17 years, so the company has to net $2,000 per dose over the life of the patent just to recoup their development costs. Then, too, there are the on-going costs to manufacture, advertise, administer, and deliver the drug. Plus, there is no guarantee that the drug won't be superseded next month by a competitor. I would think the drug company would have to price its medicine at, oh, $5000 per dose to reasonably guarantee an eventual profit. There are a lot of unknowns; for example, they may sell ten times the projected number (or one-tenth). That's where their expertise comes into play. Their estimate of 10,000 units per year is certainly more informed than the mob screaming "fair is $100 per dose, $1,000 is extortion!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snipped]
So."Give me your house and all your assets or you will die" is appropriate 'free enterprise'?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Well, yeah. Nobody is FORCING you like they are with increased taxes to pay for somebody else's stuff.
It's your choice.
Besides, if alive, you can always accumulate more assets and another house. Possibly by going into the health-care business.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope, it won't. To get good and timely health care, you will still have to have private insurance. The government run health care will end up being just another tax which will, in effect, increase your health care cost...substantially. Has anybody thought of how many employers will cease to offer health insurance claiming that there is no need as the government will take care of it. This will increase cost to the individual as they will now have to pay the full price of their insurance.
"Government run health care is like a man giving himslf a transfusion from one arm to the other, but government spills half of it in the middle."
Paul Harvy
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phisherman wrote:

So how do you feel about various industries including the health insurance industry being in your face? They keep raising the cost of health insurance while finding ways to deny coverage to those who need it. They manage to consume 20% of the money they take in for administrative overhead, at least several times what it costs in other industrialized nations. Competition is supposed to drive down prices for consumers, yet the health insurance industry has achieved the exact opposite. Did you know the health care industry shifts about a tenth of what you pay for health insurance to cover their costs in treating uninsured patients? Did you know that despite spending the most on health care of the 13 wealthiest nations that life expectancy in America is the lowest of those 13 nations, while infant mortality is the highest? So who, other than the govt., is supposed to do something about this? Do you imagine that the insurance companies and drug companies and so on will voluntarily decide that the pursuit of profit with no regard to the harm they do cannot continue? Or do you dismiss all this in the belief that the suffering of tens of millions of your fellow citizens is simply not your problem, and that there is no way it will ever be your turn to be told you aren't covered for something your doctor says you need?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

You do realize that if you don't like one health insurance company, you are perfectly free to find another, or to lobby your employer to change insurers -- if enough employees are having problems, your employer will most likely listen. If you are denied, nothing stops you from fighting via the legal system or paying yourself -- that may lead to indebtedness, but if people are willing to go into debt to get that flat-screen TV or the newest car, you'd think something that will save their lives would be viewed as a good investment. If you don't like the price, you can shop around -- you'd be surprised the prices you can get on medical if you pay without insurance -- you save a lot of paperwork for the doctors. Do you think those options would be available if the government runs health care? How many choices do you have for the motor vehicle department?
i.e, if you can't see the difference between the choices you have now and a federally mandated, unconstitutional, federally run health system, there is nothing more that can be discussed.

Did you know that survival rates from cancer are the highest in the United States compared to other countries, especially those with socialized medicine? That is a much better measure of health system success than life expectancy since that is driven strongly by genetics and thus demographics in some of those countries that are very homogeneous compared to the US. As far as infant mortality, you also have to examine the definitions that other nations use.

I'd feel a whole lot better if the government were doing a bang-up job on the health care programs it already runs. VA? Medicare? Indian Health Service? Not exactly glowing testimonials. But if we give them the whole sector, they'll make it work. Yeah, I'm convinced.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Excellent retort. In sum, we spend more per capita than other countries BECAUSE WE CAN. Other countries spend less than we for a lot of reasons, chief among them is they don't have the wealth to do so.
A consequence of this deficiency is lowered expectations. Here in the U.S., I EXPECT a tooth extraction to involve anesthesia - not so in Britain. Here I EXPECT an MRI, and possibly surgery, for a torn knee ligament within a few days* - it's months in other industrialized countries.
---------- * In some, admittedly rare, cases, the MRI diagnosis takes place within MINUTES of the injury (think professional football). The entire concept of a portable MRI machine in the locker room, or just down the street, of a British soccer stadium is so patently absurd as to be laughable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Considering all the bankruptcies and wasteful spending practices that have come to light lately in the US, one has to question if all that wealth is really available to spend or has the US been using up much of its future spending ability for some time.
"BECAUSE WE CAN" is a poor excuse for any country to pursue a bankrupt future. Realistically, I'd fully expect the US as the world's only truly functional superpower to take what it wants when the time comes that it can't afford to buy what it wants. Simple survival really.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.