guy at school's esophagus was torn away from his stomach

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Tiqua

Originally posted by: Kenazo
Wow, that is crazy. I know it's been talked about quite a few times in this thread already, but it does make me glad to be in Canada. Our system has its flaws, but no one gets turned down. You may end up on a waiting list, but you will not get turned down.

This is the problem I have about Canada's and other countries "free" healthcare system that covers everyone. My aunt died while she was on the "waiting list" to see a cardiologist. Ironically, one day before she was scheduled to see the doctor.

Tiqua

She should have bought supplemental. Most people of means do that in Canada. Here she woulda never had an appointment. Bad care is better than NONE.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hospitals cannot turn people away who are in need of emergency care. Medicare, medicade and private charities all exist to help people with chronic illnesses.
-----------------
Does that cost us more in the long run? Someones paying for this cronic/emergency/terminal care. Would general preventative medicine/physicals/etc been cheaper?

Free clinics (charity) and Medicaid/Medicare allow for preventative care. The problem is, one must SEEK OUT preventative care. It will not come to you. A chief complaint at free clinics is that patients do not come back for follow up care, or refuse to show up for preventative care.

Think about it... A person too irresponsible to have a steady job or any gainful employment is going to be responsible enough to maintain a regular physical schedule?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hospitals cannot turn people away who are in need of emergency care. Medicare, medicade and private charities all exist to help people with chronic illnesses.
-----------------
Does that cost us more in the long run? Someones paying for this cronic/emergency/terminal care. Would general preventative medicine/physicals/etc been cheaper?

Free clinics (charity) and Medicaid/Medicare allow for preventative care. The problem is, one must SEEK OUT preventative care. It will not come to you. A chief complaint at free clinics is that patients do not come back for follow up care, or refuse to show up for preventative care.

Think about it... A person too irresponsible to have a steady job or any gainful employment is going to be responsible enough to maintain a regular physical schedule?

I did'nt know any of this. I hear about 50+ million uninsured and it sounds like they are SOL.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hospitals cannot turn people away who are in need of emergency care. Medicare, medicade and private charities all exist to help people with chronic illnesses.
-----------------
Does that cost us more in the long run? Someones paying for this cronic/emergency/terminal care. Would general preventative medicine/physicals/etc been cheaper?

Free clinics (charity) and Medicaid/Medicare allow for preventative care. The problem is, one must SEEK OUT preventative care. It will not come to you. A chief complaint at free clinics is that patients do not come back for follow up care, or refuse to show up for preventative care.

Think about it... A person too irresponsible to have a steady job or any gainful employment is going to be responsible enough to maintain a regular physical schedule?

I did'nt know any of this. I hear about 50+ million uninsured and it sounds like they are SOL.

And yet, you don't see people dying in the streets. Don't you think the leftists would post stories all over the place of people dying of easily treated common diseases if it was happening?

They can't because it isn't. And it wasn't happening even BEFORE Medicaid and Medicare. Nor were people starving in the streets before Welfare, public housing and food stamps.

The charity is there, and it works. The problem is, people expect to be served on a platter.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hospitals cannot turn people away who are in need of emergency care. Medicare, medicade and private charities all exist to help people with chronic illnesses.
-----------------
Does that cost us more in the long run? Someones paying for this cronic/emergency/terminal care. Would general preventative medicine/physicals/etc been cheaper?

Free clinics (charity) and Medicaid/Medicare allow for preventative care. The problem is, one must SEEK OUT preventative care. It will not come to you. A chief complaint at free clinics is that patients do not come back for follow up care, or refuse to show up for preventative care.

Think about it... A person too irresponsible to have a steady job or any gainful employment is going to be responsible enough to maintain a regular physical schedule?

I did'nt know any of this. I hear about 50+ million uninsured and it sounds like they are SOL.

And yet, you don't see people dying in the streets. Don't you think the leftists would post stories all over the place of people dying of easily treated common diseases if it was happening?

They can't because it isn't. And it wasn't happening even BEFORE Medicaid and Medicare. Nor were people starving in the streets before Welfare, public housing and food stamps.

The charity is there, and it works. The problem is, people expect to be served on a platter.

Then what do we need all this for and how did it come to pass? I personally hate welfare or anything free to those that can do. Make them scrub graphitti off walls/babysit something to get the check but free is entilement breeder.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hospitals cannot turn people away who are in need of emergency care. Medicare, medicade and private charities all exist to help people with chronic illnesses.
-----------------
Does that cost us more in the long run? Someones paying for this cronic/emergency/terminal care. Would general preventative medicine/physicals/etc been cheaper?

Free clinics (charity) and Medicaid/Medicare allow for preventative care. The problem is, one must SEEK OUT preventative care. It will not come to you. A chief complaint at free clinics is that patients do not come back for follow up care, or refuse to show up for preventative care.

Think about it... A person too irresponsible to have a steady job or any gainful employment is going to be responsible enough to maintain a regular physical schedule?

I did'nt know any of this. I hear about 50+ million uninsured and it sounds like they are SOL.

And yet, you don't see people dying in the streets. Don't you think the leftists would post stories all over the place of people dying of easily treated common diseases if it was happening?

They can't because it isn't. And it wasn't happening even BEFORE Medicaid and Medicare. Nor were people starving in the streets before Welfare, public housing and food stamps.

The charity is there, and it works. The problem is, people expect to be served on a platter.

Then what do we need all this for and how did it come to pass? I personally hate welfare or anything free to those that can do. Make them scrub graphitti off walls/babysit something to get the check but free is entilement breeder.

Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare were all part of LBJ's failed "Great Society" socialist plan passed in the mid 60s. It's goals were to end poverty and homelessness. It has achieved NONE of it's goals, and made suffering by the poor increase greatly by creating public housing ghettos and making poverty far more generational than before.

When people become entitled to charity rather than having to ask for it, the abuse skyrockets.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hospitals cannot turn people away who are in need of emergency care. Medicare, medicade and private charities all exist to help people with chronic illnesses.
-----------------
Does that cost us more in the long run? Someones paying for this cronic/emergency/terminal care. Would general preventative medicine/physicals/etc been cheaper?

Free clinics (charity) and Medicaid/Medicare allow for preventative care. The problem is, one must SEEK OUT preventative care. It will not come to you. A chief complaint at free clinics is that patients do not come back for follow up care, or refuse to show up for preventative care.

Think about it... A person too irresponsible to have a steady job or any gainful employment is going to be responsible enough to maintain a regular physical schedule?

I did'nt know any of this. I hear about 50+ million uninsured and it sounds like they are SOL.

And yet, you don't see people dying in the streets. Don't you think the leftists would post stories all over the place of people dying of easily treated common diseases if it was happening?

They can't because it isn't. And it wasn't happening even BEFORE Medicaid and Medicare. Nor were people starving in the streets before Welfare, public housing and food stamps.

The charity is there, and it works. The problem is, people expect to be served on a platter.

Then what do we need all this for and how did it come to pass? I personally hate welfare or anything free to those that can do. Make them scrub graphitti off walls/babysit something to get the check but free is entilement breeder.

You...although this is now pretty off topic, that is actually an excellent idea to fix the leeching on the welfare system. They can still get welfare if they really need...but they have to do some modest amount of civil service to get it. That would encourage people to not just have 50 kids so they could sit around all day eating cheese whiz and watching soap operas. Pick up trash on the side of the road, or some of the suggestions you made. People have all these useless kids because they don't want to work, this would force them to do some work in exchange and hopefully stop being a leech.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I figured stomach acid leaking into your thoracic cavity would cause mayhem with your lungs and heart.

The stomach is not inside the toracic cavity, is inside the abdomen. But you are right, the gastric acid will affect badly the liver, kidneys, spleen and whatever else might be inside.

Calin

 

[Zebo]

You..--
---
Hehe I'm known as pretty liberal but never will you hear me say give free anything. Work, even if made up work, teaches valueable lessons and is good for the soul.

Now is the people living off cap gains only paying 15% vs. mom and pop shop 30% income plus 12.5% FICA...fair? Hell no. Now that's where my liberal side pops out.

 

[CPA]

go back to a cash-based, competitive business. Watch costs plummet.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: brigden
I love living in Canada. Free healthcare.

He probably would have died while in the waiting room. I've heard it takes forever to get anything scheduled or done up there.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
The people we should get pissed at are the damn malpractice lawyers, and the malpractice insurance people.

Do we blame the lawyers?
Or do we blame the average joe idiot juror who is returning guilty verdicts and gargantuan awards?

I blame the system that only allows idiots who can't get out of jury duty or have no job or are totally clueless to sit and those that don't believe it is their civic duty to sit in a jury.

Not that they would ever pick me, but I would serve to inflict a little common sense to the legal system.

 

[dquan97]

fyi, there are low-cost health insurance available for low income families...to the tune of $4/month at the lowest.

link

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: KokomoGST
Dang... I thought in most areas there are laws against refusing service to those without insurance.

BTW, I wouldn't say that the US has the best healthcare system in the world at all. Too much political bullcrap for it to be as good as it can be. Singapore definitely has better healthcare.

What is the size of Singapore and what is the size of the US?

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
The people we should get pissed at are the damn malpractice lawyers, and the malpractice insurance people.

Do we blame the lawyers?
Or do we blame the average joe idiot juror who is returning guilty verdicts and gargantuan awards?

Yeah it's the stupid average joe morons who like this concept of creating a way for ordinary people to get rich quick at the cost of the healthcare system. Having a system where this is possible provides hope to everyone that they may become millionaires, since everybody needs healthcare at some point. What these morons don't realize is that they are making necessary medical care more expensive for themselves and growing the gap of people who can't afford medical care. The vast majority of doctors do their best, and sometimes things go wrong as this isn't a precise science. People are different and every case is unique in itself. The only way people should be able to get money for damages is if it can be shown that gross negligence was the cause.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: buyer262000

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: Dacalo
Medicine has become a fvcking business, not service.

One of many reasons why I didn't persue medicine.

Would you take a job in which you perfrom lengthy and stressful operations on people for no money?

I don't get this doctor-bashing. The people we should get pissed at are the damn malpractice lawyers, and the malpractice insurance people. The insurance companies have to jack their rates sky high due to these jackhole lawyers, who contribute absolutely nothing to society, suing a doctor because an operation hurt.

The doctors and hospitals, in turn, have to crank their rates sky high to pay for insurance to protect from a devi - i mean, lawyer suing them out of existance. They CAN'T AFFORD to treat people and not ever see any money. It pisses me off when I see people whining about doctors being money grubbers when a malpractice attorney is driving a 7-series.

This kid should have been treated. But I don't blame the doctors. I blame the malpractice lawyers, the insurance companies, and the healthcare system, in that order.

You would not need lawyers if the doctors would admit their mistakes and compensate fairly for them to begin with.

Doctors ' for the most part ' are money grubbing. You'd be amazed at the difference in treatment you get if you are a 'cash' patient.

We need a national health care system, like *gasp* Canada, Brazil, or many other places. You ask if I were a doctor, would I want to do long and stressful operations for no compensation? Doctors by the thousands did just that in the early history of country. Frontier doctors patched people up and worked long hours and were happy to have the support of the community, what payment they could get, and anything in trade for their services. Also the doctors did not turn thier patients over to the collection agencies when they paid what they could every month to them.

Would you settle for the piss-poor standard of care offered in Canada? Would you want to wait for months to get a procedure done? No. You want the cake and you want to eat it too.

If you haven't noticed we exist under a free-market economy. Do you really think the brightest people will go to medical school for 4 years plus do a residency for another 4-8 years to make $50,000 a year? These are people who could have been making $60-80K over those 8-12 years at a minimum if they had chosen another field. Would you do it? But you expect others to do it.

Medicine today is much more advanced than it was at the turn of the century, it takes much more training, knowledge and skills to be a physician today than it did even 20 years ago, forget about 100 years ago. Ask yourself if people sued phyiscians back then if things went wrong. They just took what they got, back then. Would you accept less than the best care today? No? That's what I thought. If physicians had to work for "whatever the community felt like giving them" today, they'd have to fill medical school classes with morons (and maybe a very few smart dedicated people - maybe 5 per class).

Are suggesting that we should be like Soviet Russia where if you are at a certain intelligence level you have to go to medical school? That way we'd have physicians who are smart and have no choice but to work for free.

What do you do in your line of work? Should I suggest that you should go to work everyday for "whatever the community feels like giving you?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Dissapte- How about people like your conservative friend Onrey, had job, skills and family but the company simply up and moves overseas or to another state...lays off folks. Even he saw the value in 8mo unemployment and I imagine subisded HEalth.


My point is things change.

When theres not enough jobs for the people here or they pay too little or a man/woman simply does'nt have the skills or ability to make enough to fork over an insane $1600 a month for health insurance after paying all his and his families expenses who to do with him? As I said earlier people like you never address issues like how to keep the jobs here, how to insure our workers don't become a peasant class to corportate elite, how to insure people have a living wage (this means being able to afford heatlh insurance and a modest roof over you head). In fact you guys hate all things which try do insure this for people..unions, minimum wage, tarriffs etc. It's simply cut and dry for you'all some make it some don't. probelm is with these conservative policies last 25 years less and less people are making it. It's natual law that wealth concentrates itself amoung few individuals without any controls. It's also natural for companies to raise thier prices given government protection against competitors.

I think the worst part is we pay more per capita for health care than any first world country who all insure everyone, we only insure about 3/5 of our population and heath care here sucks. I have to best PPO there is, a 90-10 plan with no referral needed, and still had trouble getting my wife an MRI who has had vertigo and constant headaches. When we go to the doctor the waitng time is ludicris and overpriced 2-3 visists later.

How ironic. In the first part of your post you advocate government imposed ecomomic regulations, then in the second part of your post you complain about poor healthcare which is caused by government programs. In a free market there would be an equilibrium price set for healthcare which would mean if you paid that price you would be guaranteed immediate service, because of healthcare programs created by the government you get slow, and poor service. The reason for enormous healthcare costs, and poor service.

 

[Amused]

Those who advocate government run "free" health care should go see the level of service in their local DMV and VA for a clue as to what socialized healthcare would look like.

No thank you.

 

[sxr7171]

For those people who don't have a clue on what health insurance is, it is not insurance as much as it is a way to prepay the inevitable costs of healthcare that arise in a person's life. Since medical care has gotten so advanced and people feel that it is their birthright (and rightly so) to get the best care available, the costs of healthcare have skyrocketed. People expect the best drugs, which require billions of dollars of research and development to create or the best materials and products which cost billions of develop and manufacture. They want the most innovative treatments which cost millions of dollars to come up with and require millions of dollars of testing to ensure safety. It costs a lot to get medical treatment these days, so much so that only the richest people can pay cash for medical care today.

For the rest of us the concept of medical insurance was created so that you can pay for the medical care that you will need in your lifetime in nice little monthly installments. When the company you work for pays for your medical insurance, they are basically paying for the cost of medical care for everyone in the company plus administrative costs that the insurance company charges. If you have a group policy you basically pay the average cost of medical care for the people that are in the group. Sometimes your individual expenses are higher than the average and sometimes they are lower, but basically over time you are paying for medical care for yourself. Is there something wrong with paying for your medical care? Is there something wrong with providing for medical care for your family? Is it not your duty to do so? If you are unwilling to pay in installments via medical insurance then you should have the funds to pay for medical care on an as needed basis - no? Maybe this is why we need a state sponsored insurance program, because people can't be trusted to pay for their own damn healthcare by getting their own insurance. People would rather spend the extra $50 a month on making sure their car has leather seats, or on a nice new big screen TV to watch "the game." We live in a society of conspicuous consumption where people would rather spend money on items of consumption and luxury than on their medical care. Again since we can't trust people with taking care of their own medical needs and we need a plan where it gets taken out of our taxes. We should welcome socialized medicine, and put up with waiting years for life saving treatment or kill innovation in medicine. Now everyone should expect less in medical care because people couldn't be trusted to pay for their own care when they had the chance. How about overcrowding in hospitals for everyone? Those leather seats don't look so tempting anymore do they? Maybe 2 kids will suffice instead of 8?

For the poorest people who truly can't afford healthcare we have medicaid. Many states have free healthcare plans for children under the age of 18, but people don't think it's very important. It's insurance it's optional. Who needs it? It's insurance. No, it is your healthcare - the healthcare every person needs to live. It should come right after food, water and shelter and before that new DVD player.

There is a growing gap of people who do not have healthcare and maybe the government should kick in with a mandatory tax to cover healthcare for those who cannot provide proof of paying for their healthcare via some insurance plan. We don't like the government meddling in our affairs here in the US, but sometimes we need it to look after those who'd rather not look after themselves or their families.

I really didn't want to bring up the whole issue of insurance and medical care in this thread as it is a moot point for this poor kid now. The circumstances surrounding this person are so tragic that it truly isn't the time to talk about "should have, could have, would have" at this point. However the level of misunderstanding about health insurance and healthcare in this thread made it necessary for me to bring this issue up. Maybe it will make people remember that the way our government is currently set up, the onus is on you to provide for your healthcare (unless you qualify for medicaid or free insurance for minors in certain states).

 

[SuperGroove]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Let's look at the raw data. Population growth rate of 3.38% with a life expectancy of sub 50 years. Obviously people are having kids in deplorable conditions, and this is just one of many countries I could use as an example.

A country is not poor because people are brining children into deplorable condition. That would be causation. And you can't prove that. I know you can't.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperGroove

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Let's look at the raw data. Population growth rate of 3.38% with a life expectancy of sub 50 years. Obviously people are having kids in deplorable conditions, and this is just one of many countries I could use as an example.

A country is not poor because people are brining children into deplorable condition. That would be causation. And you can't prove that. I know you can't.

That depends on which school of philosophy you subscribe to. However, causation is not the issue here. The issue here is that the population of a country such as Afghanistan should be shrinking, not increasing. For most of the people in that country it is unethical for them to bear children.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: brigden
I love living in Canada. Free healthcare.

He probably would have died while in the waiting room. I've heard it takes forever to get anything scheduled or done up there.

That I doubt. If he was getting some elective procedure done, then he might have to wait. Hip replacements for example take for ever to happen where as say bypass surgery can happen within a day or two.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: glaHHg
Dissipate:

There is a force more powerful than ethics: the desire to procreate. That's why we are all here, and that's why there are more of us than ever before. Should your great^200 grandfather, who lived in a cave and whose previous 4 children were all torn limb from limb and eaten by wolves, have decided not to have any more children because the world was too terrible a place? He chose to have more children because there was nothing he wanted more than to have a family. Was he wrong? The point is that the choice was his to make. Some people are in bad situations because of lack of planning or irresponsibility, yes. Some people are in bad situations by freak random chance. And sometimes people are still in the financial gutter despite doing everything logical and everything right, every time. Are these people banned from ever having a family of their own?

You oversimplify the reasons people may find themselves in desperate situations. And you oversimplify the ease with which they can get themselves out.

So, like most people have been saying, in an ideal, utopian world, you are correct. In the real world, which is infinitely more complicated than you imply, it just doesn't work that way.

I really hate to say this, but in the real world people die. Sometimes they die young. If you want to bring kids into the world without consideration of their survivability then you must accept that some of them will die. Again I really hate to say this, but such is the law of nature. There are two strategies that organisms use to proliferate. One is to create less progeny but ensure the survivability of that progeny. The other (employed by weeds) is to proliferate as much as possible in the hope that enough survive to keep your genes in the pool. We as humans typically go for the former strategy, our 9 month development times also are an indication of this.

As humans we get very attached to our young and we expect them to survive. Anything less is unacceptable in our eyes. This being the case we should only have children if we can care for them. Otherwise you have to accept that your child may not survive. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Raj]

thats scary,

I don't have insurance.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperGroove

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Let's look at the raw data. Population growth rate of 3.38% with a life expectancy of sub 50 years. Obviously people are having kids in deplorable conditions, and this is just one of many countries I could use as an example.

A country is not poor because people are brining children into deplorable condition. That would be causation. And you can't prove that. I know you can't.

That depends on which school of philosophy you subscribe to. However, causation is not the issue here. The issue here is that the population of a country such as Afghanistan should be shrinking, not increasing. For most of the people in that country it is unethical for them to bear children.

up, for every extra child they have, the ability to afford education, let alone basic necessities becomes harder and harder for the poor. thats why they are called the poor and pretending that the poor don't get poorer when they have scads of children, well thats just a bit of denial.