OT: We the people?

Page 4 of 8  

message

What part of 'rather expensive service', did you expect me to ignore?

That is because wth more service available, people get more service each year. Doctors are a lot more likely to order a CAT scan or an MRI today than they were 15 years ago.

I made two assertions, it was not clear which of the two you disputed.

So, which is it, do they HAVE health care plans or do they not, or do they have one that most of the full time employees cannot afford after they pay for rent and food?
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Defensive medicine, though from long experience, the use of rule-out tests rather than differential diagnosis bears a direct relationship to the limit imposed by the individuals' insurance, regardless the patient load in the ER.
"Standard of care" is what is used in malpractice suits, and the bar rises with each award. All you can do is hope the outcome, using the current standard of care, is favorable. A lawyer will create a new one if not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It may yet prove that the single greatest expense was the loss of assets from the South Asia theater, especially Predator UAVs which, unlike our ground forces, can operate in Pakistan.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Not likely...I'd suggest with current military spending both theaters have sufficient resources.....not to mention last week we took out a prominent al-Qaida leader(in Pakistan with one. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It may not be likely that had we not withdrawn some of the Predators from we would have killed bin Laden by now, but can you sensibly argue that it would not have been MORE likely?
If the resources in Afghanistan were sufficient, why did so much of the country revert to Taliban control? Why do we have to rely on NATO troops deployed out of theater?
If you think that is adequate, what might consider deficient must be terrible indeed were it based on the situation in theater, rather than in the White House...
--
FF






Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:055cd8dd-3a37-4e51-ae1f->>

No evidence to suggest that.....One can "what if" Ad nauseam .....maybe if we had mobilized the entire country and fielded a 15 million man army and invaded Pakistan we might have found him.....somehow that solution might have a bit to be desired as well.

From the "get go" we did not want to be a foreign occupying force in Afghanistan .....The Soviet Unions 10 yr. occupation did not work out well, there is a rather long historical failure of foreign occupiers in that country.....from the invasion onward we tried to provide assistance with a very small footprint.....Using NATO or multiple countries is simply to avoid that imprint......Afghanistan and Iraq are very different situations. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't say as I agree that bin Laden's chances for survival are independent of the resources dedicated to killing him.
But if that IS your argument then I guess you don't care how hard Clinton went after him because it wouldn't have made any difference...

Remember our earlier discussion about false dichotomies? I assume that this is also not one, just another exaggeration proffered in lieu of a serious discussion on your part.

Somebody didn't want to dedicate more resources to Afghanistan because they wanted them for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
NATO stepped in because our NATO allies understood the importance of the Afghanistan Campaign.

Yes, that has been precisely my point for the last five years.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As you know it is a false dichotomy to suggest that we had to either invade or ignore him. Containment had rendered him impotent outside of his own borders and even in the Northern Third of his own country.

IOW, you are well aware that he was NOT being ignored.

No, ignoring al Queda was Republican policy. They called attacks on bin Laden and his assets 'wagging the dog.' Clinton made no fewer than four (4) publicly acknowledged attempts to kill or capture bin Laden.
Bush not only made NO attempts on bin Laden but his response to the intelligence blaming bin Laden for the bombing of the Cole was to remove his name from the State Department's list of 'terrorists' and to disband the group tasked with hunting him down.
Bush's appeasement didn't end until September 11, 1991 and then Powell had to talk him into retaliating against bin Laden and the Taliban. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz almost convinced Bush to continue ignoring al Queda and to use the attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq instead. Ultimately they prevailed, but at least in the short run Powell got him to do the right thing when it was needed most.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

No false dichotomy but rather simply being facetious....however because of short term self interest by various parties including the UN oil scandle the embargoes etc were crumbling and had little long term chance of survival.....Incidently the U.S. Iraq containment effort was one of Osama's recruiting tools.

Of which was almost a sole U.S. effort at U.S. expense.....and still begs the question of how long we should have continued the effort.....Incidentally if Saddam was not worthy of removal why was he worthy of containment?

Four? All of which were half assed and ineffective and in no way lessoned Al Queda's looming power or organizational growth..... I'm sure when we blew up the antibiotics plant in the Sudan Osama was shaking in his boots.

Simply BS without actual historical fact, your mistaking the rearrangement of administrative deck chairs with substantive diminished concern .....nonetheless soon after Bush's close electoral win he did not have the publics support for any quick or substantial Middle-East adventure.....Presidents may be powerful but new Presidents must work their way up to invasions etc.....

Such silliness Powell never got anybody to do the right thing.....to his core he was and is a dove. As a administration talking head he did present a case before the UN to justify invading Iraq albeit a non convincing poor one at that. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Its good to know you thought about it but I daresay there are way too many who do think that way.

It is one thing to smuggle out oil for money, it is quite another to spend than money to violate the import prohibitions. North Korea is one of the poorest countries on the Planet, yet they were able to develop nuclear weapons. It is not primarily a question of finance.

However effective that may have been, have you any doubt that invasion and occupation are far more effective?

Non Sequitor. Hussein was 'worthy' of removal. The same is true of Bashir, Mugabe, Kim Jung Il, Musharriff, King Abdullah, the Burmese junta, or any number of others. There is con- siderably more to consider.

At the very least, unlike the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those actions did not contribute to the growth of al Queda.

"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing terrorism.'" -- CNN 4/30/2001

Especially after the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001 he should have finished in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of diverting resources and attention to the Middle-East.

Do you also think he is a liar? He said that on the evening of September 11-12, 2001 he convinced Bush to retaliate against Afghanistan and not Iraq.

Yes, he made the best argument possible without making statements he knew to be lies, though some of the information he as given were lies. As you note, that argument was not convincing.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You need to get out and about a bit more. Here in rural WV bingo fundraisers are a common affair for people with all sorts of medical problems and no cash to treat them. Last year there was a fund raiser for a woman, cancer, no insurance, no treatment until she could come up with her share of the bill. Needless to say she is now gone.
There are people who die daily because they cant afford the treatment. There are people who's cancer metastasises while they are trying to find a facility that will administer charity care. There are people who are simply refused payment unless they can come up with a major percentage of the costs and then put there property up against the remainder.
The koolaid colored glasses may allow you to think people arent dying in the streets, and of course there arent actual bodies in the streets, but none the less people are going in the ground daily while profit taking abounds in the medical profession.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BDBConstruction wrote:

Have you never heard of Medicaid? The fundraisers could very well be for living expenses, when sick it is hard to pay the rent.

Who are these people when Medicaid is available?

I don't need to get out....My 79 yr. old mother passed away from cancer....Medicare and my dad's medical supplement picked up the $100,000 tab..... my father-law(86) and mother-in-law(80) both died from cancer and Medicare/Medicaid picked up the entire tab, surprisingly the kids inherited the house. A 59 yr. old cousin died of Kidney cancer on Medicaid's tab and his millionaire brother got his house(again surprised) a 60 yr. old aunt fought cancer for nearly a decade again on Medicaid's tab......The reason people are dying daily is simply cancer kills and true cures are few and far and death at best is often simply delayed......In fact many or most working or insured people once sick enough cannot maintain insurance or employment anyway, the existing Medicaid program is the ultimate coverage for most....at least before pronouncing such koolaid accusations you should know what your talking about...... Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wont make another sugary glasses references but having to post this in the first place is rather sad.....
The ease of eligibility is very far from your spin. Eligibility varies wildly from state to state and there are basic criteria that, within minutes of sitting down at DHHR, flatly disqualify many individuals any from coverage. It is not called one of the biggest bureaucracy's for no reason and furthermore its not there to insure the uninsured in the first place. The simple fact is many people dont come close to qualifying period, but of course I shouldnt have to explain this to you as you are well versed in Medicare.
Young, single, no young children, asset issues, a working spouse or able to work, own land, have savings, and so on. Even with spending down (if you have even been able to stack up bills to qualify) eligibility can be difficult and in many cases impossible.
Pertaining to our area: ______________________________________ WV's eligibility criteria:
Except in the case of pregnant women and children up to age 19 years, eligibility for Medicaid is based on categorical relatedness, income and assets.
Categorical relatedness means that an applicant must be a member of a family with a child who is deprived of support due to the absence, incapacity or unemployment of a parent(s). If the applicant has no children under age 18, the individual must be age 65 or over, blind or disabled.
The second factor considered is an applicant's income and assets. Income is any money a family or individual receives such as wages, pensions, retirement benefits or support payments. Assets include money in the bank, property other than the homestead, and the cash or loan value of certain life insurance _______________________________________
**Read above**: "If the applicant has no children under age 18, the individual must be age 65 or over, blind or disabled." Start doing the math.
In WV AFDC Limits assets to $1000.00, In spend down it is increased to 2k for one person and 3k for two. More math.
These criteria alone render the vast majority of those under 65 and uninsured ineligible. The fact that I even have to spell this out is ludicrous. If medicaid were a viable option for the uninsured we wouldnt even be having a political debate on health care. My OP never said anything pertaining to age, or income level. The woman I spoke of was in her 40's, children over 18. She was not disabled and up until the end she was able to work and therefore had income. If she were eligible she would have been enrolled. These simple criteria exclude you from most options for care unless you have insurance. Once you exhaust the facilities willingness to cover your expenses its pay or play. But again, I shouldnt have to tell you this.
Though she didnt work there, a good example would be "welcome to the world of a Walmart employee". While the company is pulling down $20,000.00 per minute in shear profit (fact) their average employee will likely be denied any form of medicare, freecare, or charity care, at any hospital due to their whopping 16K/year income. Now please dont start about Walmart beginning to extend availability of benefits to workers (only after years of scathing PR). They have gotten rich off the backs of their workers and now in their ultimate benevolence will offer the 16k/yr employee an insurance plan they can never afford.
here are some others:
DHHS: "Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups. Low income is only one test for Medicaid eligibility; assets and resources are also tested against established thresholds."
2002 MedPac: Medicaid limits access to quality care. Due in part to Medicaid's low reimbursement rates and burdensome bureaucracy, fewer physicians are agreeing to accept Medicaid patients. A 2002 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) survey found that "approximately 40 percent of physicians restricted access for Medicaid patients
Derek Hunter, "Government Controls on Access to Drugs: What Seniors Can Learn from Medicaid Drug Policies," In order to control spiraling costs, many Medicaid programs restrict access to treatments and services. This is particularly visible in how states ration access to prescription drugs within Medicaid. States have devised a variety of approaches, such as restricted formularies and monthly limits, to impede enrollees' access to prescription drugs. This can be especially problematic for enrollees with multiple health problems. Those with mental illnesses, for example, may find that the limited formulary restricts their ability to find the best choice for them within a class of similar drugs. Policymakers should find ways to give enrollees, and their physicians, greater control over treatments and services.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

SNIP
Sort of makes you wonder why Enormous General Hospital up north of here has so many social workers on the payroll. Their primary job is to "help families through difficult times," which normally translates into filling out applications for medicaid, special child coverage and such. They must recover enough through such means to cover the cost of the employees, though social workers are pretty cheap, as they should be, and a bit more. Never known them to waste a nickel. Counseling is free through the clerics, and the social worker fees are not line items in the bill.
Of course, we're pretty generous up here. Woman from our town had a gastric bypass (for health reasons) on the state, then, after losing all that weight, some reconstructive surgery to remove skin and sag (for self-esteem), courtesy the same taxpayers. Her girls were looking pretty good after their state-funded braces cured an unhealthy overbite, too.
Not to diminish the tragedy of your cancer patient in a higher post, but I've seen too many people who are told in two or three consults of the inoperability and untreatability of their condition having spaghetti dinners to help them try another therapy or get another diagnosis. Guess I'd do the same, since Kevorkian isn't around anymore. Wouldn't blame the medicos, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BDBConstruction wrote:

Interesting. Over the last few years, I've had a chance to see how the poor people are left dying in the streets.
In 2005, my wife went through a near death experience as she had a 95% blockage in her right carotid artery. The reason it was a near death thing was that about 17 years before she suffered a stroke and unknown to us, her left carotid was blocked and had calcified over the years - no blood to the brain isn't a good thing. But I digress. She ended up having an operation which opened the carotid, stripped it out and put it back together with a patch as her veins/arteries are very small. There is more to the story, but that doesn't matter as she had great care and is doing well.
The interesting part is that during her recovery, she shared a room with several people, one of which was a 350-400 lb poor female person. This person was only there for 3 days, and had no apparent medical problems other than complaining incessantly. After she was discharged, the nurse explained that she was a regular - every time it got too warm outdoors, she showed up at the emergency room and was admitted. She was checked out thoroughly and spent her mandatory three days at our expense. My question was if she had mental problems. The answer was no, she was checked out each and every time and was determined to be in reasonable phsical and mental health before she was discharged. In fact, she was given bus fare to get wherever she needed to go. I can't figure out how she maintained her bulbous dimensions being so poor?
The next room-mate my wife shared her room with spoke no english. Neither did her obvious family visitors. She did have real problems and they were treated and she was transferred to a rehab center. Guess what country she was a citizen of, and guess who picked up the tab?
My wife and I have great medical insurance. The reason is that starting about 40 years ago, I started putting away 10% of my gross earnings. I was never rich as my first professional job in 1966 paid $450/month. By the time I took early retirement in 2001, I managed about $95K/year. Because of a little discipline and not living week to week, I was able to invest in US markets/corporations and accumulated a low 7 digit portfolio, so paying health insurance premiums is no problem.
I could tell you much more from personal experience, but the point is that unless you are too spaced out or ignorant or believe the liberal propaganda and refuse to go to a hospital, you will get health care in the US. As well, if you don't plan your future and instead think that other folks will pick up your tab, you will probably not suffer too much for being such a friggin drag on society.
BTW, my insurance paid for by me and the US health care system saved me from colon cancer - as it would have any walk in from the streets if they didn't wait too long before seeking treatment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

95%
death
unknown
years -

up
put it

There
and
<snip>
First,let me say I'm glad to see your wife has recovered.
Your experience with the medical insurance program points out a lot of what is wrong with the present system, IMHO.
The present system focuses on paying for care AFTER the medical problem has been identified rather than paying for preventative health care BEFORE the problem develops.
This is the most expensive form of medical care that can be provided.
Also, allowing the insurance providers to "cherry pick" the customers they will insure doesn't help problem since it results in a group of uninsured who probably have the highest need for medical care.
Socialized medicine such as found in the UK isn't going to get the job done here in the US; however, using the US gov't as a guaranteeritor of plans developed by the private sector that cover 100& of the population has some merit.
Yes there would need to be some limiting controls or you end up with the "fox in the henhouse" type of part D program presently in place.
Spreading the risk across 300 million (The US population) has a way of minimizing the risk problems.
Private enterprise is just not capable of handling something that large without gov't involvement.
Computerizing and standardizing a secure data base of medical records would also reduce overhead costs.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

What? My insurance program stresses preventative medicine. I see nothing wrong with my program or the entire system (other than folks who won't see far enough in advance to take care of themselves) - it did and does exactly what I expect it to. I pay for coverage and they take care of medical issues that arise with me and mine - and the same system takes care of those who don't have a clue or a plan and won't think far enough ahead to do the same as I have - and you and I get to pay for it already as it's included in the cost of medical care. Do you really think that adding more government will reduce the cost?
I have no problem taking care of those who through no fault of their own are unable to do what I and many others have done - plan ahead, but I have zero compassion for those who expect to be taken care of even though they won't plan ahead far enough to take care of themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

You are very fortunate.

far
Especially those minimum wage workers in a place like SoCal where the rent for a one bedroom apt can often be $1K/mo, or those who have regularly paid their health insurance premiums, only to be denined payment when medical services were required.

As a matter of fact, it will probably be a wash, especially when the necessary reforms are implemented.
Reforms such as competitive bidding for drugs and secure computerization of medical records as a beginning.
Think of it as a investment, just as you would any infrastructure investment such as a bridge, highway, etc.
Yes, the overall health care investment will increase; however, the unit cost will decrease and the benefits will help to create new wealth in the process.
Providing the environment that allows a healthy and well educated work force to grow and flourish is a function of gov't.
That healthy and well educated work force provides the business that chooses to locate in that environment a competitive advantage.
Those businesses grow the GNP, create new wealth, and yes, pay taxes.
Providing that environment requires an investment, an investment that provides significant returns to the overall society.
Getting the health care mess cleaned up is going to require gov't intervention, which in the overall scheme of things, will provide a more efficient program.
Having the gov't become a service provider makes no sense at all; however, providing standards and oversight is quite another matter.

own
Sounds like you are willing to underwrite WalMart among others health insurance programs.
- plan ahead, but I

I'm reminded of the old saying:
"It's tough to remember your objective is to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators"
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course. Few people deny that those of us with insurance have access to great care.
The issues that was raised was preventive care for people without insurance. The laws that require treatment only require it for acute care. The system will pay to treat a patient dying from metastacized breast cancer but not for routine mammograms to catch the cancer early.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I couldnt agree more with regards to personal responsibility and accountability. While your examples are framed in a context that surely angers all of us who work for a living and pay our way, there is a shear lack of detail as to why they were there, free care, disabled, child born in the US even though the parent is not a citizen, on and on. What was the facilities charter. You may not agree with it but if they were rightfully there enrolled in some part of the system then thats the system.
The simple fact of the matter is even most with coverage should clearly be able to see that there are hundreds of thousands of individuals out there who will likely have a very difficult time paying todays insurance premiums. Forget about the ones who flat out cant. The Walmart employee in my last post is a perfect example. Deal with it, they are there, in that store, daily, to deliver you your cheap goods, and for the forseeable future they will continue to be there. They are paid at a rate that allows those goods, they are given or not given access to benefits to ensure your cost of goods. At 16K/ yr ($8/hr 40hr/wk) almost everyone is going to have a hard time breaking off 300 a month (a weeks pay gross) for health care if they can even get it for that. It just aint gonna happen.
Perhaps you should look at paying there way as part of the cost of those cheap goods. Some one has got to pay it. At their current payscale they cant, their employer is clearly not interested in paying it,...... Cheap goods, or a slightly higher priced goods in trade for an insured workforce that is not a burden on the health care system.
I dont buy a thing from Walmart, but they are still getting my money as I am subsidising their employee healthcare plan.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.