[excon]

I'm not gonna guess at anything.

Hello again, Elliot:

Ok, I'll spell it out for you. I KNEW you'd miss it. Uninsured people don't have private doctors.. That's WHY they go to the emergency room.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

Ok, I'll spell it out for you. I KNEW you'd miss it. Uninsured people don't have private doctors.. That's WHY they go to the emergency room.

excon

But YOU are the one arguing that the government should insure them so that they have private doctors... I was arguing from YOUR point of view... and you completely missed the point.

IF the patient was given government insurance, and IF he went to a private doctor, it would NOT be a more efficient use of medical assets and time as you have argued.

THAT is the point I was making... and of course, you missed it because you were too busy nit-picking my argument to get the main point of the argument.

I guess it comes from barely reading what we right-wingers post.

>snicker<.

Elliot

[excon]

But YOU are the one arguing that the government should insure them so that they have private doctors... I was arguing from YOUR point of view... and you completely missed the point.

Hello again, Elliot:

Hold on podner... I also argue for the legalization of marijuana, but it has NOTHING to do with THIS discussion.

So, you're arguing THIS argument from MY point of view?? What kind of response is that?? No, you're not.. Not at all... Not even close.. And, why would you anyway?? I don't know who you think you're trying to fool, but, you forget that it's all written here for everybody to read and draw their own conclusions...

This ISN'T about insured people going to the emergency room... It's about YOUR CLAIM that emergency rooms are efficient...

Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen?? What planet do you normally reside on?

I can't argue with you when you do the right wing dance.. You need to settle down, and speak slowly.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Here's some fresh government insanity for you, from the same Justice Dept that dropped charges against the New Black Panthers in a case of voter intimidation they had already won:

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

Obama's Justice Dept wants to rig elections for Democrats and blacks while refusing to prosecute black activists intimidating voters. And you guys complained about Bush politicizing Justice. This is outright political thuggery in Obama's Justice Dept.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

Hold on podner... I also argue for the legalization of marijuana, but it has NOTHING to do with THIS discussion.

So, you're arguing THIS argument from MY point of view?? What kind of response is that?? No, you're not.. Not at all... Not even close.. And, why would you anyway?? I don't know who you think you're trying to fool, but, you forget that it's all written here for everybody to read and draw their own conclusions...

Sure I am... I took YOUR assumptions and argued them to their logical conclusion. YOUR assumption is that if the government takes over health care that this hypothetical patient with a cold will be given a private physician of his own and that this will make the system more efficient. I took those assumptions and proved that they are NOT correct.

You're wrong... deal with it.

This ISN'T about insured people going to the emergency room... It's about YOUR CLAIM that emergency rooms are efficient...

Yep. And you STILL haven't been able to post a single thing that makes that statement untrue. Including THIS post.

Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen?? What planet do you normally reside on?

Nope. You still misunderstand. I'm not arguing that the patient will go to the ER is he has government health insurance. I'm agree that he'll go to his doctor. As he should. I'm just arguing that this outcome is NOT the most efficient use of medical assets or time.

If your argument is that government managed health care will be more efficient, you are simply WRONG because doctors offices are NOT more efficient than ERs. THAT is my only point. I am not arguing whether that fact is good or bad. I am not arguing that having a private doctor is better or worse. I am not arguing whether going to an ER is better or worse.

I am simply addressing the issue of EFFICIENCY which has been the basis of your argument in favor of government-run health care. YOU have argued that a government run system would be more efficient than our current system... and you used ER's as your example of the inefficiency of our current system.

You did it right here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2034869

The exact words you used were:

Take ER's for example. I understand you have some experience there... ER's aren't for day to day treatment. They're too damn expensive for that. So, we should REFORM the system, if in no other way, so that ER's go back to being ER's, and people get their day to day treatment in a much more cost effective manner.

My entire point is that there is no provider of health care that is more efficient than an ER. And to date you still haven't been able to prove that statement wrong.

So instead, you keep changing the argument... now the discussion is not about efficiency, it's about what people will choose to do if they have coverage. The goal post moves again.

I can't argue with you when you do the right wing dance.. You need to settle down, and speak slowly.

Excon

Clearly I do... 'cause you ain't fast enough to keep up.

Elliot

[inthebox]

Hello again, Elliot:

Hold on podner.... I also argue for the legalization of marijuana, but it has NOTHING to do with THIS discussion.

So, you're arguing THIS argument from MY point of view????? What kind of response is that????? No, you're not.. Not at all... Not even close.. And, why would you anyway???? I don't know who you think you're trying to fool, but, you forget that it's all written here for everybody to read and draw their own conclusions...

This ISN'T about insured people going to the emergency room... It's about YOUR CLAIM that emergency rooms are efficient...

Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?????? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen????? What planet do you normally reside on?

I can't argue with you when you do the right wing dance.. You need to settle down, and speak slowly.

excon

What ET states about the ER being the most efficient is true. The most efficcient for emrgencies. Most ERs are set up to have imaging [ x-rays, cat scans, mri[s], u/s ] labs, and the staffing that has training and skill to deal with emergencies. Your private physician does not have this logistical set up. It is too expensive and there are CLIAA laws that forbid this. If you are having a heart attack, your doctor will tell you to go to the ER/ hospital, he won't tell you to meet him at the office.

If you go to the ER for a cold, the triage system ensures you will be seen AFTER all the more critical illnesses. If you are smart and learn that going to the ER for a cold takes 6 hours, maybe next time you will go to an urgent treatment center.

This is efficient. THe VA system could not stand on its own because it is inefficient, If you live in southern IL, the closest VA hospital is in Marion, and for specialty care it is ST Louis. Is this the system you desire for the rest of America?


G&P

[galveston]

Hello again, Elliot:





Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?????? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen????? What planet do you normally reside on?

excon

I've been thinking about this very thing recently.

What will I do after Obama rationing kicks in and I or my wife start to hurt?

I will call the doctor's office, and when I am told it will be 3 months before they can see me, I will get into my car, or call an ambulance and go to the EMERGENCY ROOM.

I expect a lot of other people will do the same.

What do you think?

[Wondergirl]

Gal, if, after the health care plan kicks in and you or your wife start to hurt, you call your doctor's office and get an appointment just as quickly as in past times, will you apologize?

[NeedKarma]

What will I do after Obama rationing kicks in

What is "Obama Rationing"? You do know that he doesn't decide what goes on in your wife's day to day health issues right?

[Wondergirl]

What is "Obama Rationing"?

I'm guessing he means doctors will have to ration health care after President Obama gives health care options to all those millions of currently uninsured people who now go to an ER for care. We will have to wait months to see a doctor.

[ETWolverine]

Gal, if, after the health care plan kicks in and you or your wife start to hurt, you call your doctor's office and get an appointment just as quickly as in past times, will you apologize?

Wondergirl, after the health care plan kicks in, WHEN, not if, rationing begins (as it has in every other country in which nationalized health care ha become law) it will be too late for you to apologize.

Elliot

[excon]

Wondergirl, after the health care plan kicks in, WHEN, not if, rationing begins

Hello Elliot:

Begins?? BEGINS, you say?? We ration health care right now. If you got the filthy lucre, you get health care. If you got nothing, you die. It ain't no more difficult than that.

Or, in the alternative, if we treat everybody NOW, which is what YOU say we do, there clearly ARE enough doctors to go around. It's just a matter of allocating them a little better, no?

Or, are you unable to keep up with all the crap you post??

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello Elliot:

Begins?? BEGINS, you say?? We ration health care right now. If you got the filthy lucre, you get health care. If you got nothing, you die.

No... if you've got nothing, you go to the ER... where you are treated based on need, not based on your ability to pay.

It's more efficient that way, you see.

It ain't no more difficult than that.

Sure... if you aren't going to tell the truth about our current system, it's ALWAYS easy.

Or, in the alternative, if we treat everybody NOW, which is what YOU say we do, there clearly ARE enough doctors to go around. It's just a matter of allocating them a little better, no?

And you think that a government... ANY GOVERNMENT, much less one as wasteful as ours is... is going to be better at allocating those assets than our current system is?

The best way to allocate them, as I have said, is via a triage system in an ER... those with the most need get care first. Those with less need get care later. That way we don't have to ration the care... we can manage the supply based on the actual need of the patients.

But if 46 million new people get added to the system, and the government allocates the assets by simply sending people to doctors' offices. Those doctors offices will become overcrowded. Patients will be seen on an as-come-as-served basis, and assets will be allocated based on the least effective methodology possible, resulting in shortages where the assets are most needed.

Or, are you unable to keep up with all the crap you post??

Excon

I'm keeping up just fine. You? Not so much.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

No... if you've got nothing, you go to the ER... where you are treated based on need, not based on your ability to pay.

It's more efficient that way, you see.

Then who are all these people here: Medical Conditions & Diseases - Ask Me Help Desk
They should all go to the ER?

[ETWolverine]

Then who are all these people here: Medical Conditions & Diseases - Ask Me Help Desk
They should all go to the ER?

They are all people seeking medical advice.

They ought to be asking their doctors for medical advice instead of relying on people claiming to be experts on an internet website.

But I'll bet you that most of them have a private doctor to go to.

If they don't, and/or if their condition seems emergent, then yes, they ought to go to the ER.

Do you think that someone should instead have to wait 3-6 weeks under government-run health care to see his GP, followed by another 6-week wait to see his specialist to find out why he has swelling in the right side of his penis?

Yeah, you probably do.

Elliot

[excon]

But if 46 million new people get added to the system, and the government allocates the assets by simply sending people to doctors' offices.

I'm keeping up just fine. You? Not so much.

Hello again, Elliot:

Let's examine that, shall we? On the one hand, you say we cover EVERYBODY. On the other hand, you talk about 46 million NEW people being added?? Dude! Where did THEY come from, if we treat EVERYBODY now??

Plus, Mr. Wolverine, if they are NOW going to the emergency room to get treated for their colds, and they ARE getting treated as YOU say, if after they have insurance, and they go to their private doctor, won't that mean that there will be 1,000's and even more 1,000's of emergency room doctors just standing around?? After all, they'll have 46 million LESS people to treat...

Dude!

You really don't listen to yourself, do you?

excon

[NeedKarma]

They are all people seeking medical advice.

They ought to be asking their doctors for medical advice instead of relying on people claiming to be experts on an internet website.
On this we agree.

But I'll bet you that most of them have a private doctor to go to.
I wonder why they are not going to him/her then.

If they don't, and/or if their condition seems emergent, then yes, they ought to go to the ER.
At least with a doctor's appointment you have a time and date to plan for versus the waiting at an ER.

Do you think that someone should instead have to wait 3-6 weeks under government-run health care to see his GP, followed by another 6-week wait to see his specialist to find out why he has swelling in the right side of his penis?

Yeah, you probably do.
It's fun to make up stats uh?

[excon]

Hello again, folks:

It's simple MATH. If EVERYBODY is being treated NOW, like YOU say, then all we have to do is move a few doctors around and EVERYBODY will STILL be treated.

Or, is my math off?

excon

[tomder55]

Your math is off. If cheeseburgers were free then everyone would gorge themselves on free cheeseburgers.

The same is true with medical care. I am more inclined to do a web search and treat a routine stomach ache than go to a doctor and get treated for a fee. I can go to the store and purchase otc's for the sniffles instead of going to the doctor to get perscriptions that do the same thing the otcs do . But if it were free;perhaps the equation changes.

So yes the system would be overwhelmed as demand of free services increases.

[NeedKarma]

Tom,
As a person living in a country with UHC I can tell you that that isn't the case.