A question about social health care

[PPHSfan]

In a country with social health care, is a person who eats right, doesn't smoke or drink, and exercises on a regular basis entitled to a better degree of service than the fat lazy chain smoking alcoholic?

[ronwx5x]

No, but they are entitled to a better degree of health.:cool: Beside, they don't require as much health care.

[Phil C]

A doctor from Canada told me that we don't want health care. He said his father in law in Canada fell and broke his elboW on a Saturday and he went to the hospital there and was told they couldn't see him till Monday. He went there Monday and stayed all day and at the end of the day he was told to come back the next day because they couldn't see him that day. This went on until late Friday when near the end of the day he was told to come back on Monday again. A staff person overheard it and knew he had been there all week and took pity on him and stopped him and got him to a doctor to patch up his elboW.

This is an alarming story that we don't need to happen here. I know there have been horror stories here about having to wait for hours at an emergency room but this one is ridiculous.

[Blastoderm55]

Health care shouldn't be free, but honest working people shouldn't have to declare bankruptcy just to take care of their sick kid. There's nothing civilized about a society that can't take care of the ailments of its contributors.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
The problems are: #1, the people who do pay are also having to pay for the people who dont. That makes the cost go through the roof.
#2: People who don't pay or people who barely can pay feel entitled to the same care that people who can pay above and beyond. Sorry, but if you can't pay for it, you don't get it.

Agreed...to an extent. A teacher or police officer should have access to the highest quality of health care, even if they can't pay for the same services that NFL players or Hollywood actors could afford.

[carter08]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass

#2: People who don't pay or people who barely can pay feel entitled to the same care that people who can pay above and beyond. Sorry, but if you can't pay for it, you don't get it.

My this logic, you are saying that someone who can barely afford health insurance doe not deserve the same care as someone who can afford it.

This goes into an education problem. A person from a low income family will have a harder time finding the money to obtain a higher education. Therefore, they will not be able to get as good a job as others.

Example.

Tom is from a high income white family.
John is from a low income black family.

Tom graduates 56th in his class. John graduates at 19.

John is unable to get together the funding to attend a university, having to settle for an Associates. Tom receives his B.A.

Not only is Tom able to get a better paying job, he has family money to fall back on. Because of the economic environment, John takes a job at a local grocery store until he can get a higher paying job.

Both men catch Ryne Disease (which I made up just now). Although both are equally deserving of treatment, only Tom can afford it. He is eventually cured, while John dies at the age of 29.

Yes, I know this is a rare situation and most people do end up abusing the system, but there are cases where someone deserves help even if they cannot afford it.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by carter08
My this logic, you are saying that someone who can barely afford health insurance doe not deserve the same care as someone who can afford it.

This goes into an education problem. A person from a low income family will have a harder time finding the money to obtain a higher education. Therefore, they will not be able to get as good a job as others.

Example.

Tom is from a high income white family.
John is from a low income black family.

Tom graduates 56th in his class. John graduates at 19.

John is unable to get together the funding to attend a university, having to settle for an Associates. Tom receives his B.A.

Not only is Tom able to get a better paying job, he has family money to fall back on. Because of the economic environment, John takes a job at a local grocery store until he can get a higher paying job.

Both men catch Ryne Disease (which I made up just now). Although both are equally deserving of treatment, only Tom can afford it. He is eventually cured, while John dies at the age of 29.

Yes, I know this is a rare situation and most people do end up abusing the system, but there are cases where someone deserves help even if they cannot afford it.
FASFA ;)

[carter08]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
FASFA ;)

I have a friend with a deceased father and a mother making about 20,000 a year. He filled FASFA out and received nothing.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by carter08
My this logic, you are saying that someone who can barely afford health insurance doe not deserve the same care as someone who can afford it.

This goes into an education problem. A person from a low income family will have a harder time finding the money to obtain a higher education. Therefore, they will not be able to get as good a job as others.

Example.

Tom is from a high income white family.
John is from a low income black family.

Tom graduates 56th in his class. John graduates at 19.

John is unable to get together the funding to attend a university, having to settle for an Associates. Tom receives his B.A.

Not only is Tom able to get a better paying job, he has family money to fall back on. Because of the economic environment, John takes a job at a local grocery store until he can get a higher paying job.

Both men catch Ryne Disease (which I made up just now). Although both are equally deserving of treatment, only Tom can afford it. He is eventually cured, while John dies at the age of 29.

Yes, I know this is a rare situation and most people do end up abusing the system, but there are cases where someone deserves help even if they cannot afford it.

The school funding I don't buy. Anyone without a criminal record can get a student loan to pay for their education, even this 26 year old who failed out of college the first time. Sure, its not free, but you can bet your butt it'll keep me from screwing up again. Your assessment on the health care scenario is pretty much right on with what I was talking about, though.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
In a country with social health care, is a person who eats right, doesn't smoke or drink, and exercises on a regular basis entitled to a better degree of service than the fat lazy chain smoking alcoholic?
They shouldn't be, but whether or not that's the case, I have no clue.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
If you'd like a preview of socialized health care, the next time you're sick, take a trip to one of our free hopitals(Parkland in Dallas is a good one to use). While you won't get any of the bureacracy, you'll get a little taste of what a regular trip to the dr's office would be like.
I've sat in a health clinic with a sick child, and imagine it's roughly the same.

[Trashman]

You want to know what socialized medicine is all about? Ask one of your relatives that served in the military. They know first hand what it's all about, and it isn't good. Can you say Walter Reed Scandal? You get what you pay for. I agree that the system needs an overhaul, but socialized medicine is not the answer.:mad:

[bwdlionfan]

Originally posted by carter08
My this logic, you are saying that someone who can barely afford health insurance doe not deserve the same care as someone who can afford it.

This goes into an education problem. A person from a low income family will have a harder time finding the money to obtain a higher education. Therefore, they will not be able to get as good a job as others.

Example.

Tom is from a high income white family.
John is from a low income black family.

Tom graduates 56th in his class. John graduates at 19.

John is unable to get together the funding to attend a university, having to settle for an Associates. Tom receives his B.A.

Not only is Tom able to get a better paying job, he has family money to fall back on. Because of the economic environment, John takes a job at a local grocery store until he can get a higher paying job.

Both men catch Ryne Disease (which I made up just now). Although both are equally deserving of treatment, only Tom can afford it. He is eventually cured, while John dies at the age of 29.

Yes, I know this is a rare situation and most people do end up abusing the system, but there are cases where someone deserves help even if they cannot afford it.

This kind of crap pisses me off. You obviously have NO idea what you're talking about. This person you know must have filled out something wrong on FAFSA, because first off this person should have gotten grants, and if they didn't, they would have at a minimum gotten a loan. Take it from someone who has filled out FAFSA in the last few years and has already paid off the loans that FAFSA gave me.... yes loans, not grants, I had to pay mine back, and mine even accumulated interest while I was in school. Additionally, if this hypothetical guy graduated #19 in his class, assuming his class had more than 20 students in it, I think he would be up for some scholarships. I got a pretty hefty scholarship to UTA for my education and took out loans from FAFSA to cover what the scholarship didn't for my first two years. Then I worked my last two years and paid out of pocket what my scholarships wouldn't cover. The whole thing about someone being at a disadvantage because their parents can't afford to pay for them to go to school is nothing more than an excuse, and your example is nothing more than a shot at discrimination and idiocy.

[Trashman]

I graduated from college in 1985, what was true then is true now. If you want to go to college bad enough, someone will be willing to pay for it. That someone may be you and it may not happen in the time frame that you would like, but it can be done.

[Trashman]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
This dude's goal is to live on a commune and teach creative writing. Don't think you're gonna find 52 cards in his deck.

:spitlol:

[slingshot]

Guess I'll take a shot at this and piss a few (mostly of our younger posters) folks off... As a primary care doctor for the last 19 years I have a different perspective than most. Health care in this country is indeed far from perfect. Unfortunately it never will be. This much I can assure you--the more Government gets involved, the worse it will be. 40 million people in this country are without health insurance.... but don't forget that 270 million Americans do have health insurance.
Everyone you ask is for universal, affordable coverage... no one is for the sacrifices that will have to be made to achieve it. How does Canada/England/etc do it? Simple--they ration care. Say you're 50 and you hurt your knee playing softball in the church league--it's popping and grinding, hurts to squat down on it... you've rested it/iced it/took Advil--still no better. If you're my patient, I take an x-ray of it, likely order an MRI--diagnose the meniscus tear and send you to a good ortho doc who scopes your knee and viola'!--couple weeks later you're back to full activities. In Canada? You might get an MRI... in 12-18 months... then see the ortho doc... in a couple months... then have surgery (maybe)... in a year or two. Am I making this up? No. I practiced for 3 years with Mike S. a family doctor from Alberta. He related these type events to me daily. While we were together his father (aged 75 and healthy) began to have chest pain... his doctor did a stress test on him that was positive and referred him to a cardiologist for a heart cath... 6 months later he had the cath (yes--6 months) and was diagnosed with 2 high grade blockages and needed bypass surgery as they could not be corrected with stenting. At first they denied him surgery as they said he was too old for the surgery! At 75! After Mike through a fit and called everyone he knew they finally approved him for surgery. They sent him home on angina meds and told him it would be 18 months before he could have surgery. Mike got so frustrated that he took all his savings and took his Dad to Detroit and paid cash for his surgery.
Is this the system or a close facsimile of what we are wanting here in order to provide basic care for all?
A couple of other points. The 'Canadien System' develops No important new medical technology, drugs or breakthroughs. Wealthy Canadiens come to the states for their healthcare... and pay out of pocket for it--always have. The only reason the 'Canadien System' works is because they have the 'American System' sitting right next door to do all their R&D for free... In most European countries with socialized healthcare, they have public clinics and hopitals--and they have very nice private versions for those that want to pay. I guess we could end up with the same... then instead of one healthcare system for the insured and one for the uninsured it would be one for the rich and one for everyone else.

[Trashman]

Originally posted by slingshot
Guess I'll take a shot at this and piss a few (mostly of our younger posters) folks off... As a primary care doctor for the last 19 years I have a different perspective than most. Health care in this country is indeed far from perfect. Unfortunately it never will be. This much I can assure you--the more Government gets involved, the worse it will be. 40 million people in this country are without health insurance.... but don't forget that 270 million Americans do have health insurance.
Everyone you ask is for universal, affordable coverage... no one is for the sacrifices that will have to be made to achieve it. How does Canada/England/etc do it? Simple--they ration care. Say you're 50 and you hurt your knee playing softball in the church league--it's popping and grinding, hurts to squat down on it... you've rested it/iced it/took Advil--still no better. If you're my patient, I take an x-ray of it, likely order an MRI--diagnose the meniscus tear and send you to a good ortho doc who scopes your knee and viola'!--couple weeks later you're back to full activities. In Canada? You might get an MRI... in 12-18 months... then see the ortho doc... in a couple months... then have surgery (maybe)... in a year or two. Am I making this up? No. I practiced for 3 years with Mike S. a family doctor from Alberta. He related these type events to me daily. While we were together his father (aged 75 and healthy) began to have chest pain... his doctor did a stress test on him that was positive and referred him to a cardiologist for a heart cath... 6 months later he had the cath (yes--6 months) and was diagnosed with 2 high grade blockages and needed bypass surgery as they could not be corrected with stenting. At first they denied him surgery as they said he was too old for the surgery! At 75! After Mike through a fit and called everyone he knew they finally approved him for surgery. They sent him home on angina meds and told him it would be 18 months before he could have surgery. Mike got so frustrated that he took all his savings and took his Dad to Detroit and paid cash for his surgery.
Is this the system or a close facsimile of what we are wanting here in order to provide basic care for all?
A couple of other points. The 'Canadien System' develops No important new medical technology, drugs or breakthroughs. Wealthy Canadiens come to the states for their healthcare... and pay out of pocket for it--always have. The only reason the 'Canadien System' works is because they have the 'American System' sitting right next door to do all their R&D for free... In most European countries with socialized healthcare, they have public clinics and hopitals--and they have very nice private versions for those that want to pay. I guess we could end up with the same... then instead of one healthcare system for the insured and one for the uninsured it would be one for the rich and one for everyone else.

Thanks Slingshot, people just don't understand the costs of universal health care.

[gatordaze]

Unfortunately, many of the problems that we are facing are a result of policies and decisions that were made 50+ years ago. The unions that promised pensions and healthcare to their workers did not anticipate that those workers would require funding for 20+ years after they retired. My grandfather died at 58, my dad is now 66 and I am confident that my sons will live well into their 90's.

In the past if you had a serious illness it was just a matter of time until you kicked the bucket. Today, we are on the verge of organ regeneration from your own cells at a huge price. Unless we all plan on working for 90+ % of our extended lives we WILL fail at healthcare and social security under current expectations.

Although, not a comprehensive answer, personal accountability has to play a part. If you CHOOSE to spend your life eating Cheetos and watching TV, then you better CHOOSE to cover your future healthcare demands. If more of us consumed healthy foods and hit the gym 4-5 a week we could dramitically reduce the demands on the system. Maybe the government should pay us to be healthy and fine us for being lazy.

[OldNavy]

Our own government has laws against monopolies. I would not mind "socialized medicine" as long as it was not a monopoly and I still had a choice. But, the government wants to monopolize health care, why? So they can take our property and dispense it "more fairly" and the government can determine who is worthy of the best care, or that none are worthy of the "best" care. We all just get equal care?

OK, I am not really OK with socialized medicine.

[PPHSfan]

Well this didn't go in the direction I was expecting. It was really a loaded question and nobody bit on it.:D

[waterboy]

Originally posted by slingshot
Guess I'll take a shot at this and piss a few (mostly of our younger posters) folks off... As a primary care doctor for the last 19 years I have a different perspective than most. Health care in this country is indeed far from perfect. Unfortunately it never will be. This much I can assure you--the more Government gets involved, the worse it will be. 40 million people in this country are without health insurance.... but don't forget that 270 million Americans do have health insurance.
Everyone you ask is for universal, affordable coverage... no one is for the sacrifices that will have to be made to achieve it. How does Canada/England/etc do it? Simple--they ration care. Say you're 50 and you hurt your knee playing softball in the church league--it's popping and grinding, hurts to squat down on it... you've rested it/iced it/took Advil--still no better. If you're my patient, I take an x-ray of it, likely order an MRI--diagnose the meniscus tear and send you to a good ortho doc who scopes your knee and viola'!--couple weeks later you're back to full activities. In Canada? You might get an MRI... in 12-18 months... then see the ortho doc... in a couple months... then have surgery (maybe)... in a year or two. Am I making this up? No. I practiced for 3 years with Mike S. a family doctor from Alberta. He related these type events to me daily. While we were together his father (aged 75 and healthy) began to have chest pain... his doctor did a stress test on him that was positive and referred him to a cardiologist for a heart cath... 6 months later he had the cath (yes--6 months) and was diagnosed with 2 high grade blockages and needed bypass surgery as they could not be corrected with stenting. At first they denied him surgery as they said he was too old for the surgery! At 75! After Mike through a fit and called everyone he knew they finally approved him for surgery. They sent him home on angina meds and told him it would be 18 months before he could have surgery. Mike got so frustrated that he took all his savings and took his Dad to Detroit and paid cash for his surgery.
Is this the system or a close facsimile of what we are wanting here in order to provide basic care for all?
A couple of other points. The 'Canadien System' develops No important new medical technology, drugs or breakthroughs. Wealthy Canadiens come to the states for their healthcare... and pay out of pocket for it--always have. The only reason the 'Canadien System' works is because they have the 'American System' sitting right next door to do all their R&D for free... In most European countries with socialized healthcare, they have public clinics and hopitals--and they have very nice private versions for those that want to pay. I guess we could end up with the same... then instead of one healthcare system for the insured and one for the uninsured it would be one for the rich and one for everyone else.
slingshot, I agree with you about socialized care not being the answer, but I do have a couple of questions. With you being a physician, maybe you are more qualified to answer these questions. Why has health care prices gotten so out of hand? Honestly, I don't see where the money actually goes. I'd like some sort of itemized list of where the money actually goes. If it costs me $20 for co-pay, then the doctor's office charges my insurance $145 for a 10 minute office visit without any tests, how do they justify getting this amount of money? Also, for a while I didn't have insurance, and the same doctor only charged me $60 for the entire visit for the same thing. How and why the double standard? Is this not what is causing health care costs to go up? Maybe you can clarify this for me.:cool:

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
It's b/c the people who pay also have to pay for the people who dont.
Yeah, you have a point. People who can't, or won't, pay need to be sent to a free clinic somewhere for everyday care. If it's something that requires a hospital stay, and is a non-emergency, they should be sent to any of a number of hospitals that provide care for the indigent. I've seen it many times where a patient will go to the emergency room, with no intent of ever paying for it, to get treatment simply because they know they will not be refused care. There probably ought to be some universal guidelines for these things, but the problem would be that it's a judgment call by a human being. But, something will HAVE to be done eventually or we WILL be headed toward socialized medicine....something I am definitely against. Any change to the health care system as it stands today will be met with opposition, which is probably why none of these measures have been brought to fruition to begin with. So, there is NOTHING that can be changed that everyone would agree upon, so the pattern won't change unless something drastic is forced on us.

[STANG RED]

I saw an interview with a member of the British Parliament a few days ago. When asked if the U.S. should move toward socialized medicine, he looked straight in camera and begged American citizens not to do it. He said socialized medicine is a complete disaster in the UK, that heavily relies on people dying before receiving costly procedures. And that is part of the reason that most of those needed procedures are scheduled for months and even years down the road. He even said that most people around the world that can afford to, come to America for treatment of serious conditions. Those that cant afford it, are simply left to die, in the socialized med care countries. He said that, even as flawed as our system is, it is still the best in world by a long shot. It just needs to be tweaked a little to make it even better for everyone. In fact he said a whole lot more about our entire system of health care, government, economics, etc... that made a whole lot of sense, none of which would be improved by moving toward socialism to any degree.
And he is just one of many well informed officials from foreign countries that think America is seriously headed down the wrong path on its present course toward socialism.

[Black_Magic]

One of the main reason that health care is going up all the time is that the folks who dont have or cant afford health care just go the the ER for ANYTIHNG... If they can go to the Dr office for a normal visit you would have a 60 dollar bill. not a $800 dollar bill.... I believe that if we would get a plan for everybody then the ER visits would be cut tremendously. this would help out alot. OR.. We could just keep doing what we have and keep watching it go higher and higher while some just go whithout.

[waterboy]

Back before the election, I tried to warn people what was coming, but was denied that opportunity by the powers that be -- not that it would've made any impact, but.... This country is headed in that direction (toward socialism), and the course is getting met with very little formidable and sustained resistance from ANYBODY! Oh, well......as the old saying goes, "You reap what you sow." .....and the rest of us will have to pay for that lack of foresight and wisdom.:nerd: It's not like me to be so narcissistic, either, but I can read the writing on the wall.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
One of the main reason that health care is going up all the time is that the folks who dont have or cant afford health care just go the the ER for ANYTIHNG... If they can go to the Dr office for a normal visit you would have a 60 dollar bill. not a $800 dollar bill.... I believe that if we would get a plan for everybody then the ER visits would be cut tremendously. this would help out alot. OR.. We could just keep doing what we have and keep watching it go higher and higher while some just go whithout.

I dont think I know of anyone advocating "just keep doing what we have and keep watching it go higher and higher while some just go whithout."
You dont get rid of a good car just because you have a blowout do you? No, you get a new and better tire is all. Our system most certainly needs imporvement, but the whole system doesnt need to be chuncked out, especially not for a system that has been proven over and over again not to work. Why dont we just concentrate on making the best system in world much better?

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
One of the main reason that health care is going up all the time is that the folks who dont have or cant afford health care just go the the ER for ANYTIHNG... If they can go to the Dr office for a normal visit you would have a 60 dollar bill. not a $800 dollar bill.... I believe that if we would get a plan for everybody then the ER visits would be cut tremendously. this would help out alot. OR.. We could and keep watching it go higher and higher while some just go whithout.

:rolleyes:

There is a constant pattern from the point of view of those in favor of "change". Change seems to be do what they want, in this instance socialized healthcare, or the old tired line "just keep doing what we have".

Granted healthcare costs are high, but there are plenty of ways to improve on health care without giving up more of our freedoms to Big Brother.

[Black_Magic]

I think some of you guys are buying into the whole "socialism" lable because some have labled it as socialism. SO , you now think its socialism if everybody has access to health care. I believe we can make sure that everyone has health care. just becuase everyone has access to health care does not make is socialist. Heck! public schools is a socialistic idea when you really look at it. I like our system. I just think changes can be made not just for the folks who have health care but to include those who dont. Thats not socialist. Some of you confuse socialism with populism.. there is a difference.

Populism is a discourse which claims to support "the people" versus "the elites". Populism may comprise an ideology urging social and political system changes and/or a rhetorical style deployed by members of political or social movements. Generally, populism invokes an idea of democracy as being solely the expression of the people's will.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Socialized health care, universal health care, subsidized health care, I dont care how you spin it, it's still a bad idea. You can call it Perfect Health Care for all I care, it doesn't take much research to understand that it's a bad idea. So everybody cant have health care?? why?

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
In a country with social health care, is a person who eats right, doesn't smoke or drink, and exercises on a regular basis entitled to a better degree of service than the fat lazy chain smoking alcoholic?
Well, that fat lazy chain smoking alcoholic obviously isn't all that concerned with his or her health.;) Therefore he or she is less likely to be a hypochondriac who runs to the doctor every time they sneeze, have a belly ache, or get skeeter bit. So at the end of the day, maybe they the government should give these "sloths" an annual rebate, and put a cap on the health care doled out to the country's health nuts.:nerd:

[BuffyMars]

hawaii tried it and it failed.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
So everybody cant have health care?? why?
The money has to come from somewhere, right? What program has the government ever intervened in and is ran efficiently? With all the redtape and pork-bellying that goes on, you know as well as I do, that it won't work. In a perfect world, yes, I would LOVE for everybody to have access to the best of medical care. It's just that the vast majority of the rest of us would have to foot the bill. I don't know about you, but that idea does not sit well with me.

[SWMustang]

Originally posted by waterboy
The money has to come from somewhere, right? What program has the government ever intervened in and is ran efficiently? With all the redtape and pork-bellying that goes on, you know as well as I do, that it won't work. In a perfect world, yes, I would LOVE for everybody to have access to the best of medical care. It's just that the vast majority of the rest of us would have to foot the bill. I don't know about you, but that idea does not sit well with me.

I think if the 40% of the population that doesn't pay taxes could cough up 5% we could cover them. For the people already insured, why change anything? Our rates should go down. Why couldn't there be a government insurance program for people to buy into? It probably wouldn't perform as well or as efficient as its private sector cousin but it would provide care to all that have nothing.

[PPHSfan]

I just can't get a simple answer. This thread was not about whether to have it or not, I just wanted to know if the person who works harder at taking care of themselves deserved better care.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I just can't get a simple answer. This thread was not about whether to have it or not, I just wanted to know if the person who works harder at taking care of themselves deserved better care.

Yes--but only successful middle-aged men......:D

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I just can't get a simple answer. This thread was not about whether to have it or not, I just wanted to know if the person who works harder at taking care of themselves deserved better care. If they take care of themselves, they probably don't need any care. :devil: :D :kiss:

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I just can't get a simple answer. This thread was not about whether to have it or not, I just wanted to know if the person who works harder at taking care of themselves deserved better care.

Better care for what? Typically those people feel good most of the time, and seldom need any medical care. So how can you get better care than not needing any to begin with.:confused:

[PPHSfan]

Originally posted by STANG RED
Better care for what? Typically those people feel good most of the time, and seldom need any medical care. So how can you get better care than not needing any to begin with.:confused:

OK let me make up an example.

In a socialized system.

Patient number one eats right, exercises, brushes his teeth three times a day, and does not smoke, or drink alcohol. He turns forty and finds out that he has developed prostate cancer.

Patient number two eats fast food three times a day, only exercises by walking to the fridge to get another beer, and smokes two packs of cigarettes a day. He turns forty and finds out he has diabetes.

The diabetes patient shows up at nine fifteen at the clinic complaining of foot pain. The prostate patient shows up two hours later with trouble urinating. Both are sitting in the waiting room, and find out that due to the shortage of doctors, one will be seen today, and the other will be seen in three weeks.
Who gets to go first?

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
OK let me make up an example.

In a socialized system.

Patient number one eats right, exercises, brushes his teeth three times a day, and does not smoke, or drink alcohol. He turns forty and finds out that he has developed prostate cancer.

Patient number two eats fast food three times a day, only exercises by walking to the fridge to get another beer, and smokes two packs of cigarettes a day. He turns forty and finds out he has diabetes.

The diabetes patient shows up at nine fifteen at the clinic complaining of foot pain. The prostate patient shows up two hours later with trouble urinating. Both are sitting in the waiting room, and find out that due to the shortage of doctors, one will be seen today, and the other will be seen in three weeks.
Who gets to go first?

Early bird gets the worm? A fight ensues and the cancer patient distracts the diabetes patient with sweets and forgets why he is there. Problem solved. :thinking: :D

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
OK let me make up an example.

In a socialized system.

Patient number one eats right, exercises, brushes his teeth three times a day, and does not smoke, or drink alcohol. He turns forty and finds out that he has developed prostate cancer.

Patient number two eats fast food three times a day, only exercises by walking to the fridge to get another beer, and smokes two packs of cigarettes a day. He turns forty and finds out he has diabetes.

The diabetes patient shows up at nine fifteen at the clinic complaining of foot pain. The prostate patient shows up two hours later with trouble urinating. Both are sitting in the waiting room, and find out that due to the shortage of doctors, one will be seen today, and the other will be seen in three weeks.
Who gets to go first?

EXACTLY! the waiting lists in canada are astronomical.

[PPHSfan]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
EXACTLY! the waiting lists in canada are astronomical.

That's your answer?

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
That's your answer? :( Are you ignoring me or just don't like my answer?

[PPHSfan]

A better question.

Who SHOULD be seen first?

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
OK let me make up an example.

In a socialized system.

Patient number one eats right, exercises, brushes his teeth three times a day, and does not smoke, or drink alcohol. He turns forty and finds out that he has developed prostate cancer.

Patient number two eats fast food three times a day, only exercises by walking to the fridge to get another beer, and smokes two packs of cigarettes a day. He turns forty and finds out he has diabetes.

The diabetes patient shows up at nine fifteen at the clinic complaining of foot pain. The prostate patient shows up two hours later with trouble urinating. Both are sitting in the waiting room, and find out that due to the shortage of doctors, one will be seen today, and the other will be seen in three weeks.
Who gets to go first?

Duh! The diabetes patient because the prostate patient can't....:D

(I realize you're trying to keep this a serious discussion, but it's hard to do with you, PPHSFan---I would contribute some serious comments but there arn't enough pages on the Internet if I get started on healthcare.)

[PPHSfan]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Duh! The diabetes patient because the prostate patient can't....:D

(I realize you're trying to keep this a serious discussion, but it's hard to do with you, PPHSFan---I would contribute some serious comments but there arn't enough pages on the Internet if I get started on healthcare.)

I love a well used pun.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
That's your answer?

The nurse inside me says the guy having trouble urinating.

But who is to say the the chronic foot pain isn't related to his diabetes and could be signs of a more serious problem requiring ultimate amputation!!! :nerd:

[PPHSfan]

It's a simple question. Just looking for a simple answer.

Who SHOULD get treatment first?

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
It's a simple question. Just looking for a simple answer.

Who SHOULD get treatment first?

Will if it is so simple, please give us YOUR answer!

[PPHSfan]

Ok better yet. Both are going to die if left untreated. Only one can be treated due to the hospitals budget. Now who gets treated, and who dies?

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
It's a simple question. Just looking for a simple answer.

Who SHOULD get treatment first?

oh in that case....

ur mom.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
Ok better yet. Both are going to die if left untreated. Only one can be treated due to the hospitals budget. Now who gets treated, and who dies?

ask house m.d.

quite frankly if it were me....i would treat the cancerous patient in a heartbeat. i don't give a....about fair.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
Ok better yet. Both are going to die if left untreated. Only one can be treated due to the hospitals budget. Now who gets treated, and who dies? We are all going to die. :)

[waterboy]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
It's a simple question. Just looking for a simple answer.

Who SHOULD get treatment first?
:thinking:The one with insurance? :confused:

[PPHSfan]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
ask house m.d.

quite frankly if it were me....i would treat the cancerous patient in a heartbeat. i don't give a....about fair.

I think anyone who could answer this question in the darkness of a voting booth with nobody knowing what they decided would say the one that has done the work to take care of themselves deserves the doctor.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
EXACTLY! the waiting lists in canada are astronomical.

Waiting Lists in Canada: Reality or Hype?


http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by pirate4state
We are all going to die. :)

"I plan to live forever, or die trying."

--Groucho Marx

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by garciap77
Waiting Lists in Canada: Reality or Hype?


http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

i don't know about you, but i prefer our system in the US. the averages on those "lists" are ridiculous and i would raise hell if me my loved one NEEDS to be seen.

[slingshot]

28 weeks for a hip replacement? 10 weeks for a freaking CT scan? I order a CT scan today and it's done tomorrow... and notice it made the claims that wait times for non-emergent surgeries were not prolonged. Depends on your definition of non-emergent. Sorry--but if I need a coronary bypass--even if I'm stable, I'm not waiting 6-12-18 months like they wanted my friend's Dad to wait!
Whole different subject. A couple pages back, someone asked about why Dr's charge what they do and why it is so much higher than what they were charging when they had no insurance--think I can explain, at least from a primary care perspective...

Why are charges so high? Many reasons. One of the biggest is that such a high percentage of folks that go to the hospital or Dr now days have no coverage what so ever--they get their care for free... means more charges for the ones who do pay in a nutshell. Also hospitals and doctors are lucky to break even on Medicare (generally older folks) and usually lose money on Medicaid (State funded poor folks). Again--results in more cost shifting. In the end though the reality is that people get sticker shock from the charges they see on the bill but no one ends up paying that amount--its all funny money charges, pie in the sky numbers! Private insurance patients have their charges set at previously negoiated rates (usually somewhere around 50-60% of actual charges), Medicare and Medicaid have theirs at even lower rates and if you are a private paying patient all hospitals and just about all doctors that I know of (we certainly do) will give you a hefty cash discount (usually on the order of 40% or more) to pay your bill... the rest gets 'written off'. Hope this helps.

[carter08]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
This dude's goal is to live on a commune and teach creative writing. Don't think you're gonna find 52 cards in his deck.

<3

[garciap77]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
i don't know about you, but i prefer our system in the US. the averages on those "lists" are ridiculous and i would raise hell if me my loved one NEEDS to be seen.

:iagree:

[jason]

if doctors/hospitals would turn away illegals who get treated for free that would probably solve a lot of this - all of that 'free' health care is paid by those who have premiums that are out the wazoo.....

i can understand helping contributing us citizens, but not illegals....



maybe that makes me a bad person, oh well.....



and im still waiting on my bailout/stimulus package from the government..... :rolleyes:

[garciap77]

Originally posted by jason
if doctors/hospitals would turn away illegals who get treated for free that would probably solve a lot of this - all of that 'free' health care is paid by those who have premiums that are out the wazoo.....

i can understand helping contributing us citizens, but not illegals....



maybe that makes me a bad person, oh well.....



and im still waiting on my bailout/stimulus package from the government..... :rolleyes:

:iagree:

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by jason
if doctors/hospitals would turn away illegals who get treated for free that would probably solve a lot of this - all of that 'free' health care is paid by those who have premiums that are out the wazoo.....

i can understand helping contributing us citizens, but not illegals....



maybe that makes me a bad person, oh well.....



and im still waiting on my bailout/stimulus package from the government..... :rolleyes:

no. not a bad person at all. your opinion. which i totally agree 100%.

i will refrain from the bailout topic.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
I got my stimulis! I had an extra $23 on my paycheck last month.
But the problem with that that no one tells you about, is that you have to pay that money back next April anyway when you file your taxes. So, it's basically a loan. BULL. you will have to pay money back IF you owe taxes at the end of the next year just like every other year.... Good Grief!! turn away someone who is very sick or about to die? Come on folks!! You guys are doom and Gloomers.. Just because you hear someone falsly use the word Socialism in regards to health care reforme plans you Buy int hook line and sinker... Yet you Ignore them when they say that you can keep your existing coverage or plan... You just buy all that garbage about going to socialism bla bla bla..... Reminds me of the rednecks and NRA card holding folks ranting and crying that Clinton was going to take away all the guns or that Obama is going to take away all the guns. Never did happen but they all promised that both would do it... Have some comon sense folks:rolleyes: The System needs fixing and there may be some changes to our plans. In my oppinion Doctors make WAY to much money... They should be payed very well but some of the fees are just incredible now days...

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
In my oppinion Doctors make WAY to much money... They should be payed very well but some of the fees are just incredible now days...


Wow..so someone whose job it is to SAVE lives makes to much money?

[BuffyMars]

i wouldnt have to pay so much for my insurance if doctors wouldnt charge so damn much.

case in point:

i need chiro care to walk let alone function on a daily basis. my chiro charges me out of pocket (w/ no insurance) $40 for an adjustment. that includes any extra therapy i may need for that visit.

when he charges my insurance....he charges $200 for one visit.

and this is JUST a chiropractor.

there is a reason people CANNOT afford insurance and it can ONLY be blamed on doctors IMO.

so if I DONT WANT TO PAY for an illegal or a crack addicts hospital bills, then it is my god given right to say no. and i sure as hell will. i work very hard to pay MY bills. i am in debt just like every other human on the planet.

we all have problems. we should mind our own. that includes the government. the republican party might gain some more players if they would go back to their roots.

i dont want the government to tell me what to do about anything. if i want to marry a woman. i should be able to. if i dont want to pay taxes for ridiculous bills...then i shouldnt have to. thats why non-profit charities and organizations were formed.

if people would use their senses and resources....there are so many PEOPLE out there who want to help. BUT THE GOV. shouldn't be one of them.

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Wow..so someone whose job it is to SAVE lives makes to much money?

He's probably talking about the proctologist he has to see on a
weekly basis.:thinking:

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Wow..so someone whose job it is to SAVE lives makes to much money?

not all doctors work in fields that involve life-or-death situations.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
So everybody cant have health care?? why?
.
Should only citizens receive health care or do we continue to pay for those who aren't citizens?
I'll try to answer you but I need a little clarification. When you say "everyone" do you mean everyone one in the country, including those here illegally, or just the citizens?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Look partner, I have a masters degree in political science and I teach government/economics, I know what the hell socialism is without anyone telling me it is. I can think for myself.
Yes, it is socialism when the government pays for equal health care for everyone. The definition of socialism is this:a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Anytime the government takes over an industry in order to equally distribute it, it's socialism. If the government takes over the health care industry in order to equally distribute health care, that is, by definition, socialism.
I dont know about you, but when I go to see my carcinologist, I want the best and brightest. If you want the best and brightest, then you have to pay them as such. Nothing wrong with what doctors are paid. There is something wrong with what WE pay, but that's b/c we're also paying for the people who don't pay. A doctor/hospital by law cannot refuse someone care, but if that person doesn't pay, they have to get their money from those of us who do pay.
Oh, and as for Clinton taking guns, he didn't get to, but it wasn't for lack of trying. You can't do it all at once. He did, however, pass the Brady Bill and ban assault weapons. If not for the midterm elections of 1994, Im sure many more peices of anti-gun legislation would have been passed.
Oh, and that "stimulus" money you get on your check will be considered income. That means you have to pay taxes on it, you gibblethead. I'd love to know the origins of your misguided confidence in your knowledge. Well getting a degree from NRAU does not make you an expert in anyhting political. As far as paying for medical services you think that just becuase all the doctors SAY thier services are worth what they say that is true. What if all the OIL corporatins got together and said Oil is worth $10 a gallon that would be OK??? heck no its not. Just because someone wants to get paid and ungodly amount for a service does not mean they should get it.
ALSO, you keep saying that the plan is to Socialize the whole industry and for the government to "takeover" health care in this country. THat is the same scare tactics used to try to keep him and Clinton from being elected..:rolleyes: Its Was Bull then and its still Bull. Conservatisim- Preserve the ways of the past... We gota move FORWARD and be Progressive. If doing what we have done in the last 8 years worked so well then why are we on the verge of a depression? Insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Conservatisim- Preserve the ways of the past...

oh please. yeah that just sums of conservatism completely. that is a narrow minded opinion. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Off Topic but

"Insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result."

$50,000,000,000 on The drug war yearly and its going up, while stopping only 10% of the drugs coming over. = %90 fail rate at $50,000,000,000 yearly = insanity at its finest!!!.:clap:

[PPHSfan]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Off Topic but

"Insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result."

$50,000,000,000 on The drug war yearly and its going up, while stopping only 10% of the drugs coming over. = %90 fail rate at $50,000,000,000 yearly = insanity at its finest!!!.:clap:

Dude,

You better count your zeros there. Fifty Billion? Come on, that's more money than I make in ten years.

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
Dude,

You better count your zeros there. Fifty Billion? Come on, that's more money than I make in ten years.

I wont hijack but yes the numbers are right...Dang you make alot, Ya need any help?:D

[PPHSfan]

So who gets the doctor and who dies?

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
So who gets the doctor and who dies?

As previously discussed--depends on which country you are in....
See following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage

[RMAC]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Please explain to me the difference between socialism and what you're wanting to happen. You've said it was bull more than once, but you have yet to explain how it is so. You sound like the radio hacks(both right and left wing) who just shout out opinions with nothing to back them up. I explained how it IS in fact socialism, now please explain how it isn't. Honestly, I dont care what you call it, anytime the government attempts social engineering(might wanna google that term, partner) it's a bad thing.
Oh, and if you honestly think that last 8 years are the cause of the current economic issues(verge of a depression? Please!), then I dont think you're smart enough to vote anyway.

I love how he still manages to bring oil into the equation. The level of stupidity this guy is on is so far above any of us we couldn't get there with the NASA Mars Rover, ETB. I love how if you have conservative views, to him, you're labeled "intolerant" as noted by his referencing NRAU, which was really creative by the way BM :rolleyes:. I thought progressives were "tolerant" Blackie? Guess I missed that one. You can't explain anything to him. All he'll tell you is Bush is Satan and you make too much money.