Clinton & health care
The lessons from Canada, Cuba, England and France have yet to be learned by the dolts in Congress who are pushing this. If we destroy our health care system as you and my idiot Congressperson Degette suggest, where will folks in the aforementioned countries go for health care? I recently heard of a pregnant woman in Canada who couldn’t see an obgyn until her seventh month. People are dying for lack of care in these countries, regardless of what that lying lardbutt Michael Moore says. Oh, but it’s all free! I’m on board (not!).
Illegal aliens must return to their home countries for medical care, and according to some, it’s a no brainer since the care is so much better when the taxpayers are covering it. So what if the extortionistic level of taxation leads to double digit unemployment? Who cares about waiting months for the most basic services? The Utopia of collectivized medicine is well worth the trip home.
Government health care: the cost effectiveness of the Pentagon, the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service and the efficiency of the U.S. Postal Service. Think for two minutes about what we’re looking at doing here. There’s no hope for the likes of Degette but many of us know what they’re trying to do (again) and we will stop it.
This letter has not been edited.
Pat,
you don't know shit about shit, cause the post office is way better than UPS.
Posted by on August 9, 2007 03:55 PMPat,
you don't know shit about shit, cause the post office is way bettrer than UPS.
Posted by on August 9, 2007 03:55 PMMore stupid horror stories about Canada so we don't have to think about the fact that they pay way less for health care and manage to cover everybody, like every other industrialized country except us. Long waits are unheard of here, are they?
And by the way, what is the waiting time for someone with no coverage? Oh yeah, infinity.
"stupid horror stories" huh? It doesn't matter that there are some problems with the system in Canada...Let's just jump on board!! There are problems with the system that Canada has. Let's not sweep them under the rug, let's look at them and figure out how to avoid those problems here! They may pay less in Canada, but for some medical treatments, they receive less...is that what we want? It sure isn't what I want! I have good health care and I realize that not everybody does. But I have also made choices in my life that have afforded me that good health care. I'm not opposed to a system that provides health care for everyone, I just don't want the level of health care/choices to decline. I want to be able to choose the best treatment for my family, I want access to the latest medical breakthroughs and from what I hear from friends in other countries, this isn't what they have. So, let's have a real discussion and look at all sides, don't throw out the arguements that you don't want to hear.
Posted by idk on August 9, 2007 04:23 PM"And by the way, what is the waiting time for someone with no coverage?"
About 15-30 minutes at the local ER. And if you don't have insurance you don't have to fill out all those forms either. They just usher you right in and pass the expense to the taxpayers.
Next.
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 04:49 PMKW
Here's a scenario for you.
You've bragged about how you researched health benefits before you took your job so as to get the best benefits, right?
And it sounds like you're a good moral, conservative person who doesn't take advantage of government hand outs, right?
You've also mentioned how you blog this site at work, right?
Well what if your employer found out how much of his time you spend blogging while at work and he fires you. Then you're suddenly stricken with cancer and need all kinds of chemo and drugs that you no longer can afford because you haven't been able to find a job with good insurance, or if you did they denied you coverage because of a pre existing condition.
What would you do? Just curious, and please don't come back with your ridiculous assumptions.
Posted by GK on August 9, 2007 06:34 PMKW said ” About 15-30 minutes at the local ER. “
You crack me up KW, you really do!
I won’t call you a lying incontinent garden gnome, but I would really like to know what hospital you worked or volunteered at that dealt with uninsured like you seem to think.
15-30 for critical care, yes.
If your problem is not life threatening it is likely to be longer (triage, remember?), and if it isn’t considered part of their services you don’t get anything, you need to be admitted to the hospital or outpatient clinic – who don’t treat until the paperwork is done.
You can’t get your cholesterol medication at ER, you can’t get your chemo there, and you can’t get a stent put in or have an angioplasty done.
So let’s take the top ten killers and see what ER protocol does for those:
- Heart disease: ER can do emergency treatment of trauma, arrest, or acute angina, but doesn’t treat chronic diseases. You could just come back each time you have a coronary. Of course it will just steadily damage chunks of the myocardium until you die.
- Malignant Neoplasms : nada You get to just die slowly. Of course many of them are entirely treatable, just not in ER. Prostate cancer for example.
- CVI : yep, they will treat stroke, but once you are stabilized you are referred for admission. ER no longer treats you. So recovery and physio might be a bitch.
- Chronic Respiratory disease: they will treat acute attacks, but once stabilized you need to be sent elsewhere. So basically you will slowly die of it.
- Injury: yep, until you are stabilized, and then off you go. They don’t usually do amputations, so you might want to keep a hacksaw and some clove oil handy.
- Diabetes : for acute shock yes, otherwise no. They will dress the wounds when your toes fall off though, so there’s a luck. They won’t help with the blindness though, but they will treat injuries if you walk into something.
- Alzheimers disease : nope, they can call your next of kin to fetch you. When you die of it, they will move your body for you.
- Influenza & Pneumonia : acute system failure yes, ongoing treatment, no. Untreated pneumococcus is often eventually fatal, but a reasonably nice death – they used to call it “old man’s friend”. If you perforate a lung they will use a trochar to let the air out of your chest cavity though
- Nephritis : acute attack yes, ongoing treatment, no. Which of course leads to kidney failure in many cases, and since they also don’t do dialysis or kidney transplant in ER, you would be a bit sol.
- Septicemia: yes! Until you are stabilized then you must be admitted someplace. Untreated septicemia is almost always fatal, but ER will keep reviving you until you have multiple organ failure and die.
So here’s the pattern emerging – ER will stabilize you but don’t do ongoing care or outpatient treatment. So if you have a heart attack, they stabilize you and then you need to be admitted, which means the lady with the clipboard asks for insurance details. If you have none, then there is an entertaining sequence of options – see below.
”And if you don't have insurance you don't have to fill out all those forms either.”
I dare you to try that.
The only time you get away from having to fill the forms out is if you are a non-ambulatory critical case. In that case they just wait before doing the forms.
I think you will find that you have to prove that you have no insurance, that you are eligible, and that you have no liquid assets. If I recall right, you have to show that you have less than $15,000 in total assets – including a house and car.
If you can prove you have no assets, many hospitals will allow you to pay off your treatment. If you can’t prove it, then they will charge you “standard pricing” which is likely to be 300% or higher than what the insurance pays, and they will set about the process of trying to bankrupt you.
The good news is that once your total assets drop under the ceiling amount, they will indeed put you on a waitlist and a low-cost program.
If living without insurance was such a breeze, why don’t you do it that way?
When ever I think liberals can't get dumber,I just read a dribble from drew,sharon b. mary charles b. og,mikey,etc..How did we creat so many idiots?Answer,clinton dead years.
Posted by bart on August 9, 2007 08:04 PMOK everyone....let's consider your retirement years........
As a retired teacher I am paying 840 dollars a month OUT OF POCKET for health care...and then a good hefty sum on top of that for doctor visits, meds, and procedures such as colonostomies....
now as a teacher, I didn't make a killing in the stockmarket, and as so many people do live on a fixed income, and am GRATEFUL to have health care at all...
after 26 years of teaching middle school, enough was enough...........
so there are TONS of people with less health care than me, and MANY with better and cheaper..
Yes this country should pay for basic health needs....
and I'm an independant voter and could care less about party bs
GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by janis houston on August 9, 2007 09:32 PMKW - you said: "And if you don't have insurance you don't have to fill out all those forms either. They just usher you right in and pass the expense to the taxpayers.
"
FYI - I went to the ER at Parker Adventist in November w/o insurance and filled out plenty of forms and got plenty of bills. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by Liam on August 10, 2007 06:10 AMLaim,
That is because you are in the country legally, had you been an illegal there would have been no problem.
Posted by jgd777 on August 10, 2007 08:04 AMGK:
"What would you do? Just curious, and please don't come back with your ridiculous assumptions."
Ridiculous assumptions? You mean ridiculous as in:
"Well what if your employer found out how much of his time you spend blogging while at work and he fires you. Then you're suddenly stricken with cancer and need all kinds of chemo and drugs that you no longer can afford because you haven't been able to find a job with good insurance, or if you did they denied you coverage because of a pre existing condition."
I just want to be clear what your defiition of "ridiculous assumptions" is.
Bango - Opinions like yours used to concern me but once I learned that you're just a guest here and don't possess the right to vote I ceased to care.
Liam - You're probably here legally. Thats why the paperwork so they would know where to send the bill.
Posted by KW on August 10, 2007 08:07 AM” Bango - Opinions like yours used to concern me but once I learned that you're just a guest here and don't possess the right to vote I ceased to care.”
Strange sort of outlook, but I suppose it makes sense to somebody who views everything in political terms.
The millions of illegals also can’t vote, so by your thinking they just don’t exist.
KW
I didn't think I could get a direct answer to my question.
You're so transparent.
Posted by GK on August 10, 2007 08:31 AMGK - Since you were quoting me from a previous post, I though you might remember I also stated in that post if I was to get dealt a worse hand later on down the road, that "I" would deal with it.
Just as "I" have dealt with many other problems I've faced throughout my life. I don't expect the government to take care of me.
Now are there any other make believe scenarios you want to throw out there or is this it?
Posted by KW on August 10, 2007 08:55 AMKW
That doesn't answer the question, which BTW was not an assumption.
How would you "deal with it?"
Posted by GK on August 10, 2007 09:12 AMAs long as we're playing make believe, I guess I'd win the lottery.
Problem solved.
Posted by KW on August 10, 2007 09:30 AM"That is because you are in the country legally, had you been an illegal there would have been no problem."
Posted by jgd777
I was never asked about my legal status.
Posted by on August 10, 2007 09:54 AMGK,
Every insurance plan I have ever been a part of through an employer allows the employee to keep the insurance after leaving his job; not indefinitely, but it isn't cancelled immediately. I'm sure you have heard of Cobra.
I would suggest that KW take advantage of that until he could find an employer who tolerates blogging at work.
Posted by Mike on August 10, 2007 10:26 AMKW could "deal with it" the way many others do - declare personal bankruptcy. Problem solved.
Posted by Liam on August 10, 2007 10:26 AMLiam - GK's fairytale has me losing my insurance before I get the cancer. That way I can't get the healthcare needed and no bills accrue so no need to file for BK.
You do realize BK is a perfectly legal recourse available in the US for someone who has found themselves in a credit predicament they can't get out of, right?
The tone of your post leaves me thinking you consider BK a sin.
Posted by KW on August 10, 2007 10:47 AMKW - no sin - just a perfectly legal way to "pay" medical bills, no matter how large.
Posted by Liam on August 10, 2007 11:14 AMKW
Fairytale? People do loose their jobs and their health insurance and they do get cancer or some other horrible disease.
Your response sounds like it could never happen to you. Let's hope so.
Posted by GK on August 10, 2007 11:51 AMKW, what Bango posted were facts not opinions, So far in your life, you have been lucky. All you plans have worked out. I have seen many people like you completely fall apart when bad luck hits them and they simply can not "deal with it".
Posted by Sharon B. on August 10, 2007 12:03 PMKW, having been twisted into knots by a simple question, and completely at a loss to provide an answer that wouldn't shed light on his morally vacuous stance on health-care, offered feebly:
"I guess I'd win the lottery."
It just might not be the kind of lottery you were hoping to win...
Posted by Charles B on August 10, 2007 06:18 PMStatistically speaking, KW is no better off then any of us. But at least he has an insurance company that "cares" about him and will never turn him down or leave him sick and along just because they found some little loop hole to prevent coverage.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 10, 2007 06:59 PMBango Skank - you keep blowing hot air out of the wrong orifice and dear old Peter Straub may rewrite your dialog and make you totally unintelligible, instead of just unintelligent.
Ok,
I'm not like KW because we have low income and pretty bad insurance. My health started downhill six years ago after being pretty darn good for the first 50 years of my life.
I also reject any attempt to socialize medicine as reduction of my healtcare. Perhaps it is too complicated for most to understand but I have had to deal with VA on health care for my husband and I know how bad it is to have any government entity making health care decisions. I don't want it. I'm the lucky one here though. I don't qualify for open heart surgery and the cardiologist told me I probably don't have enough heart muscle to take the wait. I'll be out of this debate by default. It's those who actually want to pet the snake of socialized medicine who will be so amazed when they get bit. KW and I understand that it isn't going to be perfect for everyone all the time but individual responsibility and choice sure as heck are better than any nanny plan.
Posted by momma y on August 11, 2007 08:25 AMmomma y,
I'm continually amazed by your stance on this issue. You think HMO's, who have a profit motive to turn down coverage, are a better nanny than the state, who's imperative would be to help get you the care you need without the motive to turn down coverage?
Doesn't make much sense to me.
Your anecdotal evidence is just that, and stands at odds with the well-documented fact that many of the countries with socialized medicine stand head and shoulders above the United States in both the quality and availability of their health care.
You remind me of all those middle and lower income earners who keep voting Republican because they think tax cuts for the rich are going to benefit them.
Posted by Charles B on August 11, 2007 08:36 AMMomma, in a certain respect I completely agree with you about a socialized system winding up as bad as the VA. I think that is a very real possibility because the very same social forces and people who deliberately undermine the VA to make it a failure are going to pull out all the stops to break socialized healthcare initiatives in order to make good on their beliefs that government is necessarily bad.
The selfsame Grover Norquist apostles that now trumpet how inefficient government is, will bend over backwards to make sure those prophecies come true.
They are busy proving that government schools are useless by under-funding the system, giving it an overstretched objective of “No Child Left Behind” and then set limitations that ensure the project fails. They will give NASA the goal of putting humans on Mars but then under-fund that objective, set impossible and contradictory targets, and then let it break apart.
At the end they can smugly point to these failures as proof that government is useless.
Same with the “War on Drugs”, the “War on Poverty”, and all the other “Wars” against processes.
FEMA failed because it had a political appointee at the head and was starved of funding, but given objectives that would stress the infrastructure until it failed.
The CDC and FDA, are headed the same way.
Bango Skank -
Your point about the head of FEMA being a political appointee, and the direction of the CDC and FDA as being toward the same ilk, is an understatement. The FDA especially, is strictly a political appointment based on the rush to market new and expensive drugs.
The number two man in the FDA, a political appointee comes from wall street. Even though he has an MD, he's never been a researcher or practitioner. His credentials are solely as an advocate for drug companies on Wall Street; and he describes his role with the FDA as that of eliminating the "long term" studies required to bring new drugs to market.
The number one man comes from one of the most profitable cancer consortium's in the world.
How can we entrust public health care to political appointees such as these when their emphasis is on the profits of the private sector via the investment and approval from the public sector.
Medicare Plan B is an example of things to come with the government more involved in health care as it stands now. Overly expensive to the taxpayer and overly profitable to the underlying pharmaceutical companies.
Posted by Trinity on August 11, 2007 12:38 PM