Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old May 28th, 2010, 07:58 PM   #251 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Crude
So say what you say is true, that it is illegal to turn down treatment for anyone, then we are already paying for the health care of people who do not have it, but at what cost?

It costs more to treat a person who is very ill because he didn't have health care and didn't seek medical attention until he had to. So he goes to the emergency room much sicker than he would have been if he had just been provided regular visits to a clinic.

It makes more sense to treat people, who you say are getting treatment anyway, before they get deathly ill.

You know how expensive a visit to the emergency room is, I'm sure.

Now the other way to treat people who need medical care and don't have insurance is to change the law and deny them treatment if they can't pay.

Oh, by the way, many of you say there will be rationing; well excuse me but don't look, there already is rationing. If you can afford expensive treatments you get them. If you can't, you don't. Is that rationing? i think so.

Pregnant women are sent home before their doctors want to release them.

Ever heard of out patient surgery. Procedures which were never outpatient before are now that way.

I have a personal experience. My son, when he was 15, had open heart surgery to repair a hole in his heart. He had a VSD, ventricular septal defect and a patent ductor arteriosis. I remeber those terms because I lived with them from the time he was 3 years old, when he was first diagnosed. The doctors were great, the surgery was successful, only the doctors were forced to release him before they wanted to. We took him home and he went to church with my wife that Sunday where he collapsed. He had to be taken back to the Charlotte Medical Center and the fluid around his heart had to be drained. He spent an addtional 5 days in the hospital because his care had been rationed. The cost to the hospital and the insurance company was much greater than it would have been.

Advertisements
 
Last edited by brab; May 28th, 2010 at 08:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old May 28th, 2010, 08:32 PM   #252 (permalink)
Member
 
Zenze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 210
 
Device(s): HTC Inc
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhorwinkle View Post

Anyway, the problem is cost. Why has medicine grown so expensive? Litigation has been blamed. But I wonder if medical insurance is the real problem. Insurance is just a third party inserted into the game for profit. Whatever profits the insurers take home does not improve my medical care. It's just another profit-mouth to feed.
This.
__________________
"Both politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason." -Unknown
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
Zenze is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2010, 11:27 AM   #253 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 136
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
Crude
So say what you say is true, that it is illegal to turn down treatment for anyone, then we are already paying for the health care of people who do not have it, but at what cost?
This is not true. It is illegal for an emergency department to turn anyone away. All other providers can turn them away. The ED can discharge them as soon as they are healthy enough to be discharged.
Quote:
It costs more to treat a person who is very ill because he didn't have health care and didn't seek medical attention until he had to. So he goes to the emergency room much sicker than he would have been if he had just been provided regular visits to a clinic.
This is true and untrue at the same time. It heavily depends on the condition, etc.
Quote:
It makes more sense to treat people, who you say are getting treatment anyway, before they get deathly ill.

You know how expensive a visit to the emergency room is, I'm sure.

Now the other way to treat people who need medical care and don't have insurance is to change the law and deny them treatment if they can't pay.
All providers except for emergency departments can deny treatment to individuals. No one is required to be seen outside of the ER.
Quote:
Oh, by the way, many of you say there will be rationing; well excuse me but don't look, there already is rationing. If you can afford expensive treatments you get them. If you can't, you don't. Is that rationing? i think so.
That's not rationing. No one is saying that they can only receive x amount of care.
Quote:
Pregnant women are sent home before their doctors want to release them.
Generally due to insurance company and hospital policy.
Quote:
Ever heard of out patient surgery. Procedures which were never outpatient before are now that way.

I have a personal experience. My son, when he was 15, had open heart surgery to repair a hole in his heart. He had a VSD, ventricular septal defect and a patent ductor arteriosis. I remeber those terms because I lived with them from the time he was 3 years old, when he was first diagnosed. The doctors were great, the surgery was successful, only the doctors were forced to release him before they wanted to. We took him home and he went to church with my wife that Sunday where he collapsed. He had to be taken back to the Charlotte Medical Center and the fluid around his heart had to be drained. He spent an addtional 5 days in the hospital because his care had been rationed. The cost to the hospital and the insurance company was much greater than it would have been.
Do you know what the definition of outpatient surgery is? If the doctors, wanted to keep him overnight, they shouldn't have either:
a) performed it as an outpatient surgery, or
b) should have admitted him to an inpatient setting following the surgery.
zauper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 10:21 AM   #254 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

bbrosen
In case you hadn't noticed, all drivers are required to have car insurance. Now if you are implying that non-drivers have car insurance,,,, nah, you wouldn't imply that would you.

As far as liberals giving from their own pockets to help others, I could say the same thing for the born again right. Go to church on Sunday, pray to Jesus and then to heck with those in need. Slightly hypocritical don't you think.

Liberals aren't holering about any tax increase which would extend health coverage to those who have not.

I bet your tune would change if you were the one that required the health care coverage.
 
Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 11:18 AM   #255 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Crude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nexusville
Posts: 1,151
 
Device(s): Gnex, N5,N7
Carrier: AIO

Thanks: 202
Thanked 134 Times in 91 Posts
Default

Quote:
So say what you say is true, that it is illegal to turn down treatment for anyone, then we are already paying for the health care of people who do not have it, but at what cost?
MY point exactly. They are not paying in so it's costing taxpayers. Why do people not understand that this healthcare bill was lobbies for heavily by insurance companies? It has very little to do with actual healthcare costs. Besides when imperfections in the current bill come to light the amendments will be passed without much public knowledge as the program grows and grows. Or do you think anything the halfrican has done isn't going to need fixed in the next 5 years?


Quote:
Ever heard of out patient surgery. Procedures which were never outpatient before are now that way.

I have a personal experience. My son, when he was 15, had open heart surgery to repair a hole in his heart. He had a VSD, ventricular septal defect and a patent ductor arteriosis. I remeber those terms because I lived with them from the time he was 3 years old, when he was first diagnosed. The doctors were great, the surgery was successful, only the doctors were forced to release him before they wanted to. We took him home and he went to church with my wife that Sunday where he collapsed. He had to be taken back to the Charlotte Medical Center and the fluid around his heart had to be drained. He spent an addtional 5 days in the hospital because his care had been rationed. The cost to the hospital and the insurance company was much greater than it would have been.
You got lucky that he received treatment right away when complications arose. I don't see how a doctor is "forced" to let anyone go home. They make the to keep people for observation if they feel it is necessary.
The flip side of that is that my neighbors wife bleed to death internally after a car accident at night while she waited for the on-call physician to arrive at the hospital.
Oh this was in the 90's in Europe.
Crude is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 08:59 PM   #256 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 136
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crude View Post
MY point exactly. They are not paying in so it's costing taxpayers. Why do people not understand that this healthcare bill was lobbies for heavily by insurance companies? It has very little to do with actual healthcare costs. Besides when imperfections in the current bill come to light the amendments will be passed without much public knowledge as the program grows and grows. Or do think anything the halfrican has done isn't going to need fixed in the next 5 years?
I'll say it again
This is false. Providers (except ERs) are not required to treat anyone.

The insurance companies lobbied against it. AHIP, the group for the
insurers did not support the reform. Nor did any of the large plans. Take a look at the AHIP proposals: Health Care Reform

The deal, on the whole, is bad for insurance companies.

Perhaps you suspect that the increased rating requirements (in most states) is something that they lobbied for.

Maybe they like having the federal government set the maximum profit they can achieve by locking down minimum medical loss ratios, and requiring rebates if they aren't met?

Or perhaps they lobbied for the single most major defeat they suffered in the bill -- the creation of federal options in the future health exchanges?

The insurance companies lost, big time. In fact, the only reason the bill passed, frankly, was the increases in the individual market in California that WellPoint proposed.
zauper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.