parable about the current health care debate using our own history

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by PETA

I am unaware of how any medical service not authorized by an insurance company could ever result in dismemberment?

Many of the employer provided insurance plans will not cover the expense of specialists to reattach limbs, or provide full treatment in cases of infection such as MSRA. This directly results in thousands of Americans each year that lose arms, legs, fingers, toes etc. despite the fact that they have health insurance.

Those patients would still have their limbs if they had received healthcare in almost any European nation.

Originally Posted by PETA

Now for the zinger... do you really think a government plan is going to be MORE inclusive of coverage? That it will not deny coverage for certain services to certainb people based on things like their age or lifestyle choices such as denying lung transplant to ex-smoker?

Its not going to be perfect but it has to be better than our current system. Look at what happened to that Dallas cop who went down while training in Colorado. He had insurance and they still denied his claims for care. They had to get private donors to donate enough money for the simple procedure to save his leg, and then it took private donations to transport him back to Dallas. He had insurance and would have been left without a leg and no way to get back home without the support of our community. Anyone else in that situation would have been fucked. There are to many cases like that for the evening news to get donations for all of them.

Will a government option be perfect, hell no. Will it be better than Blue Cross Blue Shield....almost impossible not to be. If its not better there is nothing keeping you from sticking with your private coverage. At least there is some accountability with a government plan, private companies are only accountable for making a profit...and that requires the denial of care.

Originally Posted by PETA

No we don't Kevin. A patient cannot be denied care based on ability to pay. They may get a huge bill at the end of the day but they won't be denied service.

Thats simply not true. It applies in situations of critical care and emergencies but does not apply to the aftercare and treatments required to keep a person living.

If you live in Gainesville Texas and have Cancer that requires chemo therapy there are 4 medical clinics in the county that provide Chemo services. None of them will admit anyone for treatment unless they have insurance or money for pay. If you dont have insurance, and you dont have $80,000 laying under your mattress there is nowhere in that county that will provide you with chemo.

Your only option would be finding transportation to Dallas to get state funded treatment at Parkland hospital. If you dont have a car, someone to drive you, or a place to stay during your treatment....you will be left to die.

Sure eventually the cancer will reach the point that you are on deaths bed, and at that point they will take you at the hospital and put you into a ICU room.....but its to late by that point.

This problem is far worse for people that live in rual areas where all of the hospitals and clinics are privately owned. Sometimes the nearest State funded hospital could be 600 miles away, for someone that cant afford insurance its almost impossible to afford transportation and lodging to get treatment.

Originally Posted by PETA

You're making sentimental appeals to one's emotions not factual appeals to common sense.

Your treating healthcare like car insurance. The fact is you can go your entire life without driving a car, or without an accident, etc. Driving is an option that we choose to do and that requires insurance as a result of that choice.

NO ONE can go an entire lifetime without medical care. EVERYONE requires medical care. Its not an option, its not something that you can opt out of, its not something that you can just choose not to use.

Originally Posted by PETA

then buy some disaster insurance Kevin... high deductible stuff that'll kick in in those cases where its either bankruptcy or death... problem solved.

I have insurance for that purpose, although I know its mostly pointless if I have any medical condition that takes more than 1 year to treat. Insurance CEO's testified before congress that it is their policy to cancel insurance renewals for customers that have high health care expenses. You can pay on your insurance every month for 15 years, if you get cancer they will drop you like a hot potato as soon as your renewal comes up. At least a government option wouldnt be allowed to drop anyone in those situations.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Many of the employer provided insurance plans will not cover the expense of specialists to reattach limbs, or provide full treatment in cases of infection such as MSRA. This directly results in thousands of Americans each year that lose arms, legs, fingers, toes etc. despite the fact that they have health insurance.

I've never heard of that happening. Not saying it doesn't. Think Obamacare would ensure that never happens again?

I'd again point you to my broke country cousins... both helivac'ed to Mayo. One with a broken back and the other with her leg ripped off. The bills were in the hundreds of thousands for one and millions for the other but they got the care.... and the accidents happened in rural WI. Also, Mayo found a way to help them with their bills - neither had to declare bankruptcy etc etc.

See, was it Jindabune?, thread about her bills she complainmed of... looks liek she got the service that wasn't the issue... then she found a way to pay it.

Originally Posted by e-brake

Those patients would still have their limbs if they had received healthcare in almost any European nation.

maybe

Originally Posted by e-brake

Its not going to be perfect but it has to be better than our current system.

why is that? Because gov't bureaucrats as gatekeepers instead of insurance clerks will be more willing to break the rules of what is and is not covered, for whom and under what cvircumstances... or won't there be any rules? Everything will be covered? Because if the latter you're telling me limited resources with greatly increased demand canm be acheiuved w/out hugely raising cost? Nuh-uh. Rationing is how socialized medicine saves money Kevin.

Originally Posted by e-brake

Will a government option be perfect, hell no. Will it be better than Blue Cross Blue Shield....almost impossible not to be. If its not better there is nothing keeping you from sticking with your private coverage. At least there is some accountability with a government plan, private companies are only accountable for making a profit...and that requires the denial of care.

A recent NYT article noted that 77% of American are satisfied with their insurance.

Of the 45M unisured 50% will have it w/in a year and 90% within two years. It largely tracks unemployment. Further, mnany in that group choose not to have insurance because they either have the cash or the have great health - like me in my 20s.. rarely had insurance and didn't care.

Originally Posted by e-brake

Thats simply not true. It applies in situations of critical care and emergencies but does not apply to the aftercare and treatments required to keep a person living.

Kevin, if you are brought to an ER with your detached arm in your lap they aren't going to deny you care when you fail to produce an insurance card. Hospitals receiving public finance cannot refuse patients based on ability to pay. You may not like the option but the care is available.

Originally Posted by e-brake

Your only option would be finding transportation to Dallas to get state funded treatment at Parkland hospital. If you dont have a car, someone to drive you, or a place to stay during your treatment....you will be left to die.

So, I'm to understand that Bob cancer sufferer is reviewing his options and says, "well, I don't have a car - I guess I'll just die"? come on Kevin that's a silly proposition.

Originally Posted by e-brake

This problem is far worse for people that live in rual areas

My helivac'ed cousins lived in (actually outside) a town of about 75 people Kevin.

Originally Posted by e-brake

Your treating healthcare like car insurance. The fact is you can go your entire life without driving a car, or without an accident, etc. Driving is an option that we choose to do and that requires insurance as a result of that choice.

But we're still talking about insurance and the principle underlying insurance is spreading risk. If you eliminate pre-existing condition denial you've destroyed the basis of risk sharing. That's fine just call it what it is - socialized medicine not health insurance.

Originally Posted by e-brake

NO ONE can go an entire lifetime without medical care. EVERYONE requires medical care. Its not an option, its not something that you can opt out of, its not something that you can just choose not to use.

Most people who have ever lived have managed to do just that Kevin.

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Want to know what government run health care is like? Ask anyone who's been in the military. Being on a waiting list for 4 days to get some minor ankle surgery done is awesome.

Still sounds better than private insurance. If you needed ankle surgery first they would require you to find an in-network doctor, to give you a referral to a specialist. Dont even think about going to the ER, your going to be waiting for 8-12 hours behind all the uninsured people that are seeking care for minor bullshit because no family practice will see them.

After you get a referral for a specialist your going to spend the day on the phone making sure he is in network. Then you get to spend more time on the phone making sure that visiting him will actually be covered. After you finally get in to see the specialist he is going to spend most of his time trying to find out which drugs he can give you on your plan. Then he has to figure out what procedure is covered by your plan. He might be capable of giving you more effective drugs, and a better surgery....but that doesnt matter if your insurance company wont cover them.

Finally you have medication and a scheduled surgery for your ankle. Well now its time to work with the hospital billing people to make sure that the OR will be covered. They will also require you to pay all your co-pays up front or at least sign away your soul on various contracts that ensures they will be able to collect anything from you that the insurance denies.

Eventually you get the doctor approved, the hospital OR approved, the medication approved. Time for surgery....hope there are no complications. If anything goes unplanned, or if a nurse fucks up and gives you a brand name IV drug instead of the generic your going to get socked with a big fat bill when you get home. Now its time for rehab.

Same hoops again, find a rehab clinic thats covered. The doctor may determine that you need rehab 3 times a week, but that doesnt mean jack shit if the insurance company will only pay for once a week. God forbid your rehab should require any special braces etc. Its starting the approval process all over again.


Now lets contrast that to the French government run system. You hurt your ankle and go to the nearest doctor or hospital of your choice. They see you immediately and only ask about your condition, money/payment/approvals never even comes up. When they determine that you need surgery the doctor thinks about what procedure is BEST FOR THE PATIENT, and not most cost effective for the insurance company. You get the surgery and its rehab time....if the doctor says you need 3 days a week you get 3 days a week without question.

Ya those government plans are so much worse than what we are using today

[PETA]

Kevin, I think you're describing a system that you'd want to have not the one proposed or the one we'd likely get.

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by PETA

Kevin, if you are brought to an ER with your detached arm in your lap they aren't going to deny you care when you fail to produce an insurance card. Hospitals receiving public finance cannot refuse patients based on ability to pay. You may not like the option but the care is available.

So in an acute crisis, people often can get some care. The bigger problem is that people who are uninsured can't afford health care, and they delay care. So if they get it, by the time they get it they're sicker, and they're much more likely to suffer more adverse health consequences. Their cases, as a result, are more costly for all of us at the end of the day.

And that's one of the things people have misconceptions about. They say to themselves, but don't people who get hit by a truck go to the emergency room and get care? Yeah, by and large they do. That's not the problem. The problem is that they can't afford the care, so they don't want to be chased by the collection agency, so they delay care. They delay care, and they suffer, and we suffer financially as a country as a result. That's really the problem that we have.

The same amount of money we spend mending together the uninsured could cover the expense of providing them with basic healthcare in the first place.

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by PETA

Kevin, I think you're describing a system that you'd want to have not the one proposed or the one we'd likely get.

I never said I agree with the Obama plan. In fact I actually hate it because its simply insurance not HEALTH CARE. Insurance is the problem not the solution.

But on that note, anything is better than nothing. The republicans had 8 years in charge to do what they wanted with healthcare and they did nothing. Not a single healthcare proposal from any republican senator during the entire Bush presidency. The only reason they are proposing anything now is because the new president is forcing the issue on them. I say to little to late, they had 8 years to do something with the entire nation asking for change and they chose to do nothing. Fuck them, its time for the democrats plan to pass to light a fire under the republicans to develop a better system under the next administration.

At this point doing nothing is no longer an option.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by e-brake

So in an acute crisis, people often can get some care.

People with acute care needs may not get that care but it isn't because of lack of insurance or inability to pay.

Originally Posted by e-brake

The bigger problem is that people who are uninsured can't afford health care, and they delay care. So if they get it, by the time they get it they're sicker, and they're much more likely to suffer more adverse health consequences. Their cases, as a result, are more costly for all of us at the end of the day.

The poorer the person is the more likely they'v got medicade. Again, of that 15% of Americans w/out insurance 50% get it in one year and 90% w/in two. In the meantime they can still get care at any public hospital. That may not be the optimum deal but it is a far cry better than a denial.

Originally Posted by e-brake

And that's one of the things people have misconceptions about. They say to themselves, but don't people who get hit by a truck go to the emergency room and get care? Yeah, by and large they do.

I'd imagine they don't so much go to the ER if they';ve been hit by a truck Kevin... they are most likely taken there and treated without administrators first checking for insurance.

Originally Posted by e-brake

That's not the problem. The problem is that they can't afford the care, so they don't want to be chased by the collection agency, so they delay care. They delay care, and they suffer, and we suffer financially as a country as a result. That's really the problem that we have.

That's a choice then isn't it?

Originally Posted by e-brake

The same amount of money we spend mending together the uninsured could cover the expense of providing them with basic healthcare in the first place.

I don't think that jives even remotely with what the CBO rep tstified too... he said the plan would do nothing to rein in costs and is financially unsustainable.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by e-brake

I never said I agree with the Obama plan. In fact I actually hate it because its simply insurance not HEALTH CARE. Insurance is the problem not the solution.

So you want MOE than what Obama was offering? See CBO cat's comments on the proposal.

Originally Posted by e-brake

But on that note, anything is better than nothing. The republicans had 8 years in charge to do what they wanted with healthcare and they did nothing. Not a single healthcare proposal from any republican senator during the entire Bush presidency. The only reason they are proposing anything now is because the new president is forcing the issue on them. I say to little to late, they had 8 years to do something with the entire nation asking for change and they chose to do nothing. Fuck them, its time for the democrats plan to pass to light a fire under the republicans to develop a better system under the next administration.

At this point doing nothing is no longer an option.

Doing Obamacare is worse than doing nothing.

There is a wobbly 15% - fluid in membership without insurance... no american is without healthcare.

Doing nothing is an option and the most likely one Congress will choose. Do note that they exempted themselves from ther public option and get their own gold plated insurance. Doing nothing is an option because some how some way Americans for the first 200 years of our existence were able to build this nation w/out the government being their nurse.


editorial comments froma right-winger \/

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2295/26/

But the acceptance of the principle that individual health is so complex its management can only be outsourced to the state is a concession no conservative should make. More than any other factor, it dramatically advances the statist logic for remorseless encroachments on self-determination. It’s incompatible with a republic of self-governing citizens. The state cannot guarantee against every adversity and, if it attempts to, it can only do so at an enormous cost to liberty. A society in which you’re free to choose your cable package, your iTunes downloads and who ululates the best on “American Idol” but in which the government takes care of peripheral stuff like your body is a society no longer truly free.

Interestingly enough... just thought of this... for every horror story you note in the abstract... I can come up with some one I know personally who, under same circumstances, got the treatment and in only one case did they go broke (22 y/o with testicular cancer). Do you know any of those tragedies? If not, anecdotally you're on the speculative end and I'd be on the concrete example end. If you were arguing another issue which end would you select to be on? I'm not inviting a "show me your scars" match. Just saying that you seem to point out the exceptions and I seem to be pointing out the rule.

[johnny861]

While that's one example of a good implementation of socialism, I don't that example correlates very well to the insurance industry. It's a whole different dynamic.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by johnny861

While that's one example of a good implementation of socialism, I don't that example correlates very well to the insurance industry. It's a whole different dynamic.

huh?

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by PETA

huh?

public fire departments.

[PETA]

gotcha

[Nyteshade]

Still sounds better than private insurance. If you needed ankle surgery first they would require you to find an in-network doctor, to give you a referral to a specialist. Dont even think about going to the ER, your going to be waiting for 8-12 hours behind all the uninsured people that are seeking care for minor bullshit because no family practice will see them.

It was an emergency room visit at the base hospital and it was a good 8 hours before I was seen. The ONLY reason I was taken to the hospital was because I had broken my leg and it was after the nearby clinic was closed. If it had been open, I would have had to go through them first. Once they did all the testing and saw that my ankle was horribly sprained, I was discharged and had to hang out at the Navy barracks across the street until I could see the surgeon.

BTW, this is considered "fast" care in the military.

All the post-op care was done in Carswell in Ft Worth. Every time I've tried to get an appointment there, I was asked, "Do you have insurance? Because you can either book an appointment here and it will be in 3 months, or find a private doctor who takes Tricare and get it done today." Booking dental work was a 6 month wait.

[hepkatmama]

i had an e-argument about something today & i just randomly looked up a thread here so i could share it with u:

the ppl grasping at a dying system of healthcare are believing the sound bytes. you are right in that they don't know what lies outside our borders. they don't realize that in canada there is socialized medicine. that doesn't mean all socialized hospitals are va/parkland quality and there is no other option.

capitalism saves the day again. even in canada you can choose to spend more money on dr. fancypants if you want. or you can go to the govt clinic for almost nothing. its a CHOICE. & the bonus is you don't have to step over a hacking homeless person with TB to do it.

republicans are leaving that part out. the other part they conveniently forget is that the govt is paying for the uninsured already. but we are doing it the expensive way. instead of offering govt. sponsored health maintenance or prevention we force the poor to go to emergency rooms only. er's are expensive and there are subsidies already working to keep hospitals from turning ppl away.

not very smart budgeting on their part to cling to an unwieldy expensive method that isn't benefiting the rich or the poor, only the medical industry.

[thumpcbd]

Except simply providing coverage isn't what this bill is about, it provides for other more far reaching things like setting pay rates for physicians, auditing the books of any and all companies that self-insure, 8% payroll tax if a company doesn't offer the government plan, all physicians will get paid the same, hospitals can't expand without government approval.

Don't fool yourself, this bill is much, much more then just allowing you to buy health care provided by the government.

Analysis:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...acre-bill.html

Bill:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...0714/aahca.pdf