See my post here. Got it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
See my post here. Got it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Got me salivating... a Nice Pasta ragu with freshly grated stravecchio Parmagianno cheese... And a nice Lambrusco.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So who paid for the meds and the physician if you or her didn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Read the damn post.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I did. The state paid. So you got the other taxpayers to pay for your family's healthcare? Sounds like socialized medicine to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
After what I just posted, you still feel the need to be an a$$?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I don't understand. I'm not being an ***. You quoted an example that shows that socialized medicine has its place, it's not as bad as you try to make it out to be. I didn't bring up your daughter - you did. Now you're trying to turn the tables on this discussion. Sad.
What's sad is you feel the need to provoke no matter what. You mock my state and after countering with a very personal example of the safety net working in my state, you make digs about socialized medicine. It was EXACTLY what excon said doesn't happen, with the epitome of compassion in the long term care a PRIVATE physician gave my daughter. Like I said, enough of this bullsh*t, I was right the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It absolutely was not "provoking" no matter how you lay it out. If that event is that sensitive to you then don't bring it up. We all have loved ones and we all want them cared for - THAT's why Canadians love their system, for the same reasons that you enjoyed it when you need it.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
To be clear, I didn't say it DOESN'T happen. Certainly, we have compassionate and charitable people here. I said it's a system that people CANNOT count on, and doesn't work for everybody. As a result, people DIE! A LAW, on the other hand, CAN be counted upon.
excon
I'm past being sensitive about my daughter's situation, NK. The point is I was right the first time and I have the ultimate example, so enough already.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Right about what? The state paying for someone's care?
A lot of people do... seriously, if you HAVE to go to the emergency room... they are FULL and you would wait hours, but a life threatening event does get treated ASAP. Because they do Triage patients. Most there are not insured.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I've been into one three times for anaphylaxis. A doctor saw me inside of 3 minutes of walking in despite full waiting room. Obviously due to that being very urgent type of condition. I did have insurance but that wasn't dealt with until after I was treated. It wasn't a condition FOR getting treated.
Its not like some people portray... if you don't have insurance you will die in the gutter. The Reality is you get needed emergency treatment... what you don't get is routine exams etc...
And I did have a family member that lost his job and insurance had a ruptured appendix... spent a month in the hospital due to complications... he had no assets then and they dropped the bill as a result.
If you listen to the liberal talking points and they were true... he would have died. The reality is far different.
Life threatening stuff is taken care of... its the other stuff you won't get unless you have some means to pay for it. Call it a minimum of care IS provided now.
Canada has its fair share of problems paying for its program... and a lot of rationing of what is routine stuff to us. Like elective surgeries are usually done in days at most... not weeks or months. No waiting list for artificial joints, or pacemakers (outside of medically required delays), and you don't have to get a medical board to approve it first here.
To be clear you said, "You don't get LONG TERM treatment." I proved that wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
To be clear you said, "People who don't have insurance and who need LONG TERM treatment, in this country, DIED before this health care law." My daughter had no insurance, no money and the system not only SAVED her life, she's still with us today. In the local community hospital, her CD4 count was 4, she had pneumonia, CMV, hepatitis C, kidney failure and she was unconscious. That's for starters.
To be clear you said, "They suffered the nations DEATH PANEL." Not so.
To be clear you said, "You don't get cancer treatment in the emergency room... " After discharge my daughter also received cancer treatments and still does.
To be clear you said, "You don't get your appendix taken out in the emergency room... You DIE if you need that stuff. How is it, that you DON'T know that?? "
I showed you how I know you're wrong. 'Nuff said.
P.S. Health care you can get, cheese you can get. It's potatoes you can't get.
So one person who got state sponsored treatment is proof that all people get long term treatment? Is that all the proof we all need to make any point we need to make - find one person?
The president likes to use a poster child, at least my example is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, it's not nuff said. Your personal anecdote, while heartwarming, is NOT indicative of what happens to the public at large... I'm addressing THAT stuff.
Unless, of course, you're saying that because it happened to you, that it happens to EVERYBODY. I think you ARE saying that. We don't agree.
excon
We can disagree, but you said flat out that before Obamacare Americans that needed health care were out of luck and that is not true. Do some slip through the cracks? Sure, but they are not all sentenced to "death panels," which were your words.
My daughter is an example of the excellent, lifesaving, long term care - including regular exams and dental - available in THIS community in this state. Your community and your state may have "death panels," but mine doesn't (and I doubt yours does either).
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Ok, I'll fix it. Before Obamacare, Americans that needed health care were MOSTLY out of luck, and that is true.
But, it's not about numbers. It shouldn't be about MOST people, or SOME people, or LUCKY people. It should be about ALL people, and that's what the law does (or soon will).
excon
Sorry, I don't buy that either. Problems, yes. Perfect, no. But you don't get an obese citizenry that needs to have potatoes withheld from their diet that has a life span of 77.9 years if people are "MOSTLY out of luck" on health care. We've all said let's make it better, but why do you have to screw mine up to do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Amazing how the life span keeps increasing in this nation of lousy health care.Quote:
But you don't get an obese citizenry that needs to have potatoes withheld from their diet that has a life span of 77.9 years if people are "MOSTLY out of luck" on health care.
BTW... Excon's state passed a law in 2008 that gave their death panel it's ultimate weapon... euthanasia.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Now we get down to the nuts and bolts... IF we've screwed yours up, then it's a BAD LAW. IF it DOESN'T screw yours up, and DOES what it purports to do, then it's a GOOD LAW. But, tell me truly. Has yours actually BEEN screwed up?
It's that purporting thing I have trouble with. So do you. The fact is, neither of us knows how it's going to work out. I certainly don't trust the Democrats to have written a law that mimics what they purport. And, I certainly don't trust the Republicans to tell me the truth about it, in any case.
Therefore, I suggest that it hasn't panned out yet. It COULD be a monstrosity, or it COULD be a great piece of legislation. Most of the law doesn't take effect till 2014, and the economic results won't be known until later than that.. Until then, we can choose to believe the glass is half full, or half empty. I CHOOSE to believe it's half full - but they've fooled me before.
So far, I LIKE what I see. I LIKE the fact that your insurance company can't drop you if you get sick. I LIKE that you can keep your children on your policy until they turn 26. I LIKE that the doughnut hole is closed for seniors. I LIKE the report from the CBO that says the law will REDUCE the deficit. What's not to like?
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You'd rather have the nanny state tell me when to go? Dude!
excon
No one would ever just take it upon themselves to put patients out of their misery would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well, I didn't like the word euthanasia and was going to object, but I thought it was a catchall word that INCLUDED assisted suicide. I now don't think it does, and I should have objected. But, let's be clear here. The law in Washington allows ME to choose the time of MY departure. It doesn't give the nanny state that right, as you suggest... In fact, the law takes that decision OUT of the hands of the nanny state, and puts it squarely in MY hands where it absolutely SHOULD be. No?
I understand your position... You LIKE the fact that the nanny state requires people to die naturally, even though that death might be horrible, painful, and cost an exorbitant amount of money. THIS kind of a nanny state interference is just FINE with you, because of some misbegotten religious mumbo jumbo that I don't subscribe to. I'd like to be FREE of the nanny state. You and tom? Not so much.
excon
And the "advisory panel" aka the “consulting physician"will not steer them towards "chosing" voluntary suicide? Nahhh that never happens.
Just ask Barbara Wagner of Oregon who's life saving drug was denied by the Oregon system ;but was steered towards assisted suicide.
There are no safeguards in the Washington plan . Next of kin does not have to be notified. Depressed or mentally ill patients can be persuaded... ooops I mean advised to take the lethal dose.All the records are sealed from public view.
Wagner was saved because the evil pharmaceutical company that made the cancer drug heard of her plight and offered it to her for free.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Safeguards = nanny state. I thought you didn't LIKE the nanny state...
excon
Why would a doctor or nursing home kill the cash cows?
There's a huge difference between reasonable protections and making us all government sucklings.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Too good to pass up answering that commentQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
... say you off yourself... what is the state going to do for breaking the law? Hang your corpse from a flagpole for 90 days after you die?
Kramer explains how this is done...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This triggered thoughts regarding a study I heard about. We have been found to be at the bottom of the life expectancy ladder when compared to a dozen developed countries. Interestingly enough, obesity is not a factor in the death rate. So I guess the nanny state should be allowing those on food stamps to purchase taters. The study actually supports a nanny state when it comes to health care. The other countries that beat us all supply their citizens with universal health insurance. Medical Daily: Life expectancy in America lowest compared developed countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So they eliminated other possibilities and came to a conclusion based on a supposition where they provide no evidence of linkage .Sadly ,that is probably what passes for scientific research these days. What is that ? A Sherlock Holmes novel ? Eliminate the obvious and the only thing remaining ;regardless of a lack of evidence ,must be the culprit .
It sounds like the only basis for their conclusion is a pre-determined outcome.
Again... probably the best you can hope for from a scientific community these days .
From their web site :
The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.
Amazing then that an "independent " study funded by them would support their mission.
Show me in their study where they explored the linkage of the US absorbing up to 1.5 million immigrants annually legal and illegal from various ethnicites and levels of poverty and health . Many of them have brought back into this country diseases that had been eradicated in the country years ago. Just this week a case of dengue fever occurred in Miami . Do they just dismiss this reality because it is an inconvenient truth ?
LOL. Tom, it does appear they went directly from point A to point M.
Why isn't health a fundamental right in the U.S. This was the question I posed earlier. The only answer I got was something along the lines of "It just isn't"
In a country that prides itself on the ideals of, 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' why does someone who needs an expensive drug to save their life, or to promote the quality of their life have to rely on the charity of a drug company to provide it for free or at a greatly reduced price.
This is the bit I still can't figure out.
Tut
I answered it, Tut. Health insurance is not a fundamental right, and no one is denied health care. Ex will argue that, but he's wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You use your own family to prove your point... Well, I have some family too - ME. When I was a young uninsured whipursnapper, I needed a blood test for my cholesterol. I went to the emergency room to get it.. They said no. They said that's not what they do.
Shortly thereafter, in my local supermarket, there was a lab doing FREE cholesterol tests. I got one. My cholesterol was 325 - VERY HIGH. I was a heart attack waiting to happen. I went to the emergency room to get a prescription for a cholesterol lowering drug. They said no. They said that's not what they do. They denied me health care. That's just so.
excon
Hi Speech,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I will probably go along the claim that no one is denied health care. Even though I saw an interview with a woman who took her daughter to a hospital but was told to go elsewhere because the hospital only deals with insured patients. Unfortunate the girl died before the mother could reach a different hospital.
I am prepared to accept that mistakes can be made in any system. I guess what I am asking is, "Why does wealth determine the quality of health care one receives?"
Regards
Tut
Tut to use a well worn cliché... the answer to your question is because there is no such thing as a free lunch... You have to take from Peter to give to Paul...
Steve is absolutely right. There is NO denial of care due to economic circumstances.
If people are not getting care then perhaps they don't know the options available for them . Perhaps there is a case that we should do a better job informing the needy about their options .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 PM. |