BadDog40
Well-Known Member
Or people like me who have a pre-existing condition and cannot get coverage at any cost. Some of the crap you people come up with is simply amazing.
Uninsured ER patients twice as likely to die
- Thread starter FlyLikeAnEagle
- Start date
Haul me to Heaven
New Member
Why Obamacare Will Lead to Rationing of Medical Services
No Matter How Many Promises Democrats Make
Sarah Palin took a lot of heat for her comments on the federal government setting up so-called "death panels."
Yet few have commented on the fact that insurance companies in America already have "death panels." Everyday, insurance companies and hospitals decide who is going to get necessary lifesaving treatments—and who isn't.
But one thing Palin is correct about is that this process is even more pronounced in countries with universal healthcare.
In his book, The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford reveals the dark underside of the healthcare system currently in place in Great Britain.
In Britain, the National Health Service (NHS) offers "free" care to all citizens. But as in Canada, "free" healthcare means strictly limited healthcare where government bureaucrats, not patients or their doctors, decide who does and who does not receive treatment.
Here's one example.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind wants the NHS to provide photodynamic therapy for the blind using a new drug and laser treatment. The NHS has refused because of the expense.
In 2002, the British government ruled against such treatments unless both eyes are affected. In other words, the NHS literally doesn't care if you are blind in one eye.
It's easy to condemn the NHS, but keep in mind that just because it is a government agency, it too has limited resources and an unlimited number of ways to spend it.
So who decides what gets spent and on whom?
The NHS decides based on a formula called the Quality Adjusted Life Years (or QUALY).
In the best tradition of British utilitarianism, the QUALY score attempts to quantify moral judgments according to a fixed deterministic formula:
"A treatment that saves 10 years of life is better than a treatment that saves five years of life," the economist Harford explains. "A treatment that gives somebody 10 years of able-bodied life is better than a treatment that gives somebody 10 years of life, but in a coma. The value-judgments involved are extraordinarily difficult."
Indeed. But as in most things, the devil is in the details—and in the essential question, "Who decides?
No Matter How Many Promises Democrats Make
Sarah Palin took a lot of heat for her comments on the federal government setting up so-called "death panels."
Yet few have commented on the fact that insurance companies in America already have "death panels." Everyday, insurance companies and hospitals decide who is going to get necessary lifesaving treatments—and who isn't.
But one thing Palin is correct about is that this process is even more pronounced in countries with universal healthcare.
In his book, The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford reveals the dark underside of the healthcare system currently in place in Great Britain.
In Britain, the National Health Service (NHS) offers "free" care to all citizens. But as in Canada, "free" healthcare means strictly limited healthcare where government bureaucrats, not patients or their doctors, decide who does and who does not receive treatment.
Here's one example.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind wants the NHS to provide photodynamic therapy for the blind using a new drug and laser treatment. The NHS has refused because of the expense.
In 2002, the British government ruled against such treatments unless both eyes are affected. In other words, the NHS literally doesn't care if you are blind in one eye.
It's easy to condemn the NHS, but keep in mind that just because it is a government agency, it too has limited resources and an unlimited number of ways to spend it.
So who decides what gets spent and on whom?
The NHS decides based on a formula called the Quality Adjusted Life Years (or QUALY).
In the best tradition of British utilitarianism, the QUALY score attempts to quantify moral judgments according to a fixed deterministic formula:
"A treatment that saves 10 years of life is better than a treatment that saves five years of life," the economist Harford explains. "A treatment that gives somebody 10 years of able-bodied life is better than a treatment that gives somebody 10 years of life, but in a coma. The value-judgments involved are extraordinarily difficult."
Indeed. But as in most things, the devil is in the details—and in the essential question, "Who decides?
doc111
Well-Known Member
If you have a point to make then make it. I made mine. I know exactly what hospital dumping is and it simply doesn't happen as often as you're being told. I want you to give me proof of this happening on a mass scale. And remember I was in healthcare before most of the people on this site were out of huggies.
Iron Lion Zion
Well-Known Member
Solution - Buy Health Insurance.
Philo2
Active Member
It seems so obvious to me but I guess some people just don't get it.
There are more people in this country without health insurance than without cable television. More people without health insurance than without cars. What we seem to have is a problem setting priorities in this country more than anything else. I support everyone's rights, including their right to have misplaced priorities. If you would rather have cable TV then health insurance, that is your right to make that choice.
If you want to look at studies on death rates take a look at the comparisons of death rates very common problems like prostate cancer in countries with socialized medicine vs those in the US. You are 6 times more likely to die of prostate cancer in the UK because the government rations simple tests that can save lives.
ancap
Active Member
I wouldn't necessarily dispute the study. To me though, allowing the government to take over healthcare (which will happen when they get into the insurance business) to solve healthcare problems is like giving a child abuser more custody of his child instead of taking the child away from the abuser altogether. We give the abuser more powers and then wonder why the abused kid keeps getting more fucked up.
Couldn't we just pre screen for losers who use the E Room too much and just send them to a gas chamber or something? That way we can get rid of the dead weight that is causing the USA to flounder. The economy is fine, but if E-Room using freeloaders would just die we could all have good jobs and appreciating houses again. Kill em all I say.
doc111
Well-Known Member
I hope this is sarcasm.....please tell me you are being sarcastic. Give it 5 years. 5 years after healthcare reform come back and tell me how much better healthcare is. I think 5 years is plenty of time for the govt. to get things sorted out.
doc111
Well-Known Member
My bad. I didn't realize you were just one of the trolls polluting the site. I now realize you weren't being sarcastic, just ignorant. Have a nice day troll.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
I dont think you get it. 1 out of 3 people have some type of medical condition, when those people lose their current coverage they are turned down for new coverage so they do nothing. 40,000 people a year die in this country because of lack of coverage.
so⋅ci⋅o⋅path
noun Psychiatry. a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
angelsbandit
Well-Known Member
BadDog40,
Here is the problem with pre-existing conditions:
Lots of people don't pay for insurance until they have a problem - If you have a pre-existing disease like lets say stage 4 cancer and you go in to get insurance.
It is not really insurance is it? The insurer would be paying out from day 1 with no chance to recover the costs, you have scammed the insurer, and everyone else who pays for insurance in case they have a problem down the line.
I don't believe these people should just be left to die, this is the type of situation that should fall under government programs.
But you can't expect the insurer to take everyone who did not buy insurance until a problem arrises because your actions would only raise the costs for everyone who did things right in the first place.
Here is the problem with pre-existing conditions:
Lots of people don't pay for insurance until they have a problem - If you have a pre-existing disease like lets say stage 4 cancer and you go in to get insurance.
It is not really insurance is it? The insurer would be paying out from day 1 with no chance to recover the costs, you have scammed the insurer, and everyone else who pays for insurance in case they have a problem down the line.
I don't believe these people should just be left to die, this is the type of situation that should fall under government programs.
But you can't expect the insurer to take everyone who did not buy insurance until a problem arrises because your actions would only raise the costs for everyone who did things right in the first place.
medicineman
New Member
Why is it anyone disagreeing with you is a troll. You have yet to label me a troll. Is it because I have so many posts? Just because someone disagrees with your extreme position does not a troll make, and polluting the site, well that's condescending at best, like who made you the "decider"? Ignorant, want to talk ignorant? How about starting with birthers, teabaggers and deathers, there are some real ignorant folks, actually more like just plain stupid.
stalebiscuit
Well-Known Member
you got one sourceYea because studies done by Harvard are done by liars with an agenda.
and way to not address any other points i made
doc111
Well-Known Member
Go and look at this guy's posts. He simply tries to be confrontational that's why he's a troll. Trolls are people who simply come on here to start arguments with nothing to back them up. While I may not agree with most of what you say I don't think you are a troll because you aren't simply going around being a dick in all of your posts. Go ahead and check this guy's posts. There aren't that many so it will be easy for you to do, then tell me he isn't a troll. Oh, you won't do that just because he agrees with you. Now who's ignorant?
doc111
Well-Known Member
By the way, still waiting for that apology.......
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
Lets see health insurance for me a month $574.Monthly cable bill $67,big fucking diffrence......
medicineman
New Member
Sorry, I have moved on, so let me apologise for any inconvience I may have caused you. Like you never call me names, LOL. BTW what was it I'm apologizing for?By the way, still waiting for that apology.......
medicineman
New Member
Righto, The money grubbing insurance companies now consider 1,000 a month for a family of 4 cheap, I could pay my mortgage with that kind of cabbage, let's see, roof over my head or health insurance, not much of a choice. Single payer people, single payer! solves all the incipient problems in this healthcare bill and current problems as wellLets see health insurance for me a month $574.Monthly cable bill $67,big fucking diffrence......
ViRedd
New Member
So, what would a policy with a $5000 deductable cost?
Here's a quote from Kaiser: Husband, wife, two teen-aged children with a $5000 deductable ... $513 per month. Notice that for each adult, the monthly premium is cheaper than most car payments.
https://kaiser.healthinsurance-asp.com/expressweb/plan/AvailablePlans.action?groupId=0"eId=0
With a $5000 deductable, I'll bet there isn't a hospital or doctor in existance that wouldn't work out terms for the first $5000.
Here's a quote from Kaiser: Husband, wife, two teen-aged children with a $5000 deductable ... $513 per month. Notice that for each adult, the monthly premium is cheaper than most car payments.
https://kaiser.healthinsurance-asp.com/expressweb/plan/AvailablePlans.action?groupId=0"eId=0
With a $5000 deductable, I'll bet there isn't a hospital or doctor in existance that wouldn't work out terms for the first $5000.
doc111
Well-Known Member
I apologized for the post you reported of mine. I wanted an apology for you calling me an inappropriate name. Thank you. And yes I have called you names before but I apologized for it. We can disagree and be civil about it can't we?