no health care...real story of suckage in america

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by doeton, May 8, 2008.

  1. doeton
    Offline

    doeton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,213
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +65
    Standing in the misty rain yesterday evening, Mike Cook surveyed his backyard, dotted with empty flower beds he’s not sure he’ll be able to plant.

    "Every time I bend over, my nose starts bleeding," Cook said, adding that he had been counting on his backyard gardens to lift him out of the winter doldrums and add color back into his life. "They took that from me. This has stopped my life in its tracks."

    Early yesterday, Cook and three co-workers were robbed at gunpoint while assembling copies of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for their morning distribution routes. One of the gunmen kicked Cook in the face, and he suffered nerve and retina damage in addition to a broken nose, cheekbone and eye socket.

    This morning, Cook, 43, met with a surgeon to decide whether it would be better to heal without intervention and run the risk of permanent double vision in his left eye or to surgically implant a metal plate in his cheek to hold his eye in place.

    The few scrapes and minor bruising on Cook’s face belie his severe internal damage, just as the robbery resulted in Cook’s loss of only $1 and coins but has shaken him to the core.

    Police have no suspects.

    Interviewed in his living room, Cook said his immediate future rests on what surgeons tell him today.

    He lacks health insurance, which only adds to his angst. "The ER doctor said, ‘You can be a burden to society if you go on disability and don’t get these things taken care of because you will have visual problems if you do not heal properly. Or, we can take care of this and worry about how we’ll pay for it down the road.’ "

    Cook said he hopes the Missouri Crime Victims’ Compensation Program will help offset his costs.

    source:

    http://www.showmenews.com/2008/May/20080508News006.asp
     
  2. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    That is one problem with our current system. He apparently has a job, but no coverage. Operations like these are extremely expensive and can put you in bankruptcy. About 50% of those facing bankruptcy are the result of catastrofic medical costs.

    I still think we need some kind of universal heatlhcare siminlar to what we do now with Medicare/caid. You still pay for your insurance. The doctors are not employees of the government. It will provide care for more people at a lower total cost than what we are paying which is the highest per person of any industrialized nation with a 37% overall rating for quality.

    Right, now I am advocating socialized medicine like all those socialist commie countries.:rofl:
     
  3. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Wait a minute. Isn't there worker's compensation in Missouri? The US?

    Apart from that, yes, every country needs universal health care for its population. It's just sensible.

    Now wait for the usual crap from the ideologues :rofl:
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    But.... but...... then the world is less Darwinian!!!

    oh wait... they don't believe in Darwin either. :rolleyes:
     
  5. TopGunna
    Offline

    TopGunna Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +26
    I'll bite. I, like most Americans, oppose a government-led universal health care insurance system.

    http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...alth_insurance_overseen_by_federal_government

    29% favor such a system, 39% oppose it (31% unsure).
    46% believe such a system would result in a decrease in the quality of care, and 16% believe quality would increase.
    42% would expect prices to rise, 25% would expect prices to decrease.

    Not to suggest that the consensus view is necessarily the right view, but it will mean that we'd be implementing a system most Americans do not want.

    Personally, I'm of the belief that the problem with American health care isn't the 40 million Americans who don't have health insurance - it's the 250 million that do have it. Huge insulation between the buyer and seller usually discourages the buyer from shopping around. Why should one shop around for health care? There's no real incentive in a system where someone else is paying the bill. So given that consumers are going to accept whatever price is offered, what incentive do providers have to worry about productivity or cost control?

    During WWII, the government imposed wage controls, effectively prohibiting employers from extending cash raises to employees. How did those employers continue to attract workers? By offering non-cash benefits, like health insurance. Competition among these companies pushed each of them to offer increasingly attractive policies - first-dollar coverage for routine ailments like ear infections and colds, and coverage for things that are not even illnesses, like pregnancy. People came to expect insurance to cover everything. Furthermore, tax breaks allow employers to purchase health insurance at favorable rates - so even if employees preferred less coverage, it made sense to buy increased coverage at a lower price.

    Let me pose a theoretical question: what if automobile insurance covered all expenses associated with keeping your vehicle running? If it paid for your gas usage, you wouldn't care about how much you use, or how much it costs per gallon. If your insurance covered oil changes, mechanics could charge $100 and you wouldn't care, as long as the insurance covered it. Prices would skyrocket.

    And unfortunately, that is why health insurance costs are as steep as they are right now. People have no incentive to get a good price for care, only to ensure that insurance will cover that price.

    How will government reduce those costs? I don't have much confidence in the government as a prudent buyer ($800 hammers, anyone?). While I suspect there will be some savings in reduced paperwork costs, the real savings will come from the government deciding which procedures it will and won't cover. Once in charge of health care choices, the government can simply start denying procedures and care ("rationing"). This is in fact how costs are managed in most socialist medical systems. Worse yet, as the government will now be paying for your health care, they have incentives to tax or outlaw "unhealthy" behavior.

    I personally believe the solution lies in eliminating incentive to purchase group coverage and allowing folks to buy levels of coverage in accordance with their needs. For me, that would be a high-deductable plan where I would pay out-of-pocket for most doctor visits. For others with greater needs, a lower deductable plan might make more sense. What doesn't make sense is forcing all Americans to purchase uniform coverage as selected by a few know-it-alls.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Personally I believe the solution lies in not making health care a commodity in an open market. You Americans, well those of you who don't believe in universal health care, have really been sucked in. Still, as your numbers show, that's how you want it, so that's how it will be I suppose.
     
  7. Gungnir
    Offline

    Gungnir Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    532
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +26
    There is plenty of health care in the United States. There is quite a bit of Socialist provided health care in the United States (ie Medicare). There is no Socialist run Health Care System in the United States.

    Another problem is that Insurance Companies can bully doctors into providing certain treatments or running their business in a certain manner, this can be too costly and too confused for some doctors thus they opt to not work for any insurance companies.

    In everyone's rush to abandon religion they have left behind a powerful community support system, the individual church. I wouldn't expect Europeans to understand this, perhaps no nation other than America would be able to as it was an instrumental part of our developement. In addition to the beneficent church there are organizations such as the Free Masons, Lions, and Shriners which love to help people. I also find it ludicrous that there are no charities, endowements, or other functions that are unwilling to donate money or services for necessary medical needs of genuinely poor people.

    The Constitution for these United States does not grant the Federal Government the right or privelege to be involved in any Socialist Health Care scheme. This is a State issue without an appropriate Constiutional Amendment and supporting legislation.
     
  8. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    That is simply not true. Call your college and ask for a refund.

    Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . .
     
  9. Gungnir
    Offline

    Gungnir Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    532
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +26
    That is like taking Clause 3 of the same section^1 and saying it gives the Federal Government the right to set the price of corn being sold in the same state it was farmed in. Your view of the "general Welfare" may even allow price regulation.

    Had the clause read "...and general Welfare of the people..." I might agree with you but it speaks of the Union, the country. The welfare of a country is a different matter than the welfare of a person.

    The country, the several states, and the people are seperately identified entities in that document.

    You are wrong.


    ^1 Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
     
  10. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    The US Supreme Court says your are wrong, as I explained here. This matter is so settled that no one even raises the point anymore.
     

Share This Page