Should broke people receive health care?

[pathia]

We have an old saying in the Infantry, “If it’s stupid and it works – it isn’t stupid.”

I think if you are applying for a job, and know from experience that when your condition is known it will cause problems, it only makes sense to get it out into the open. After all, you discuss your condition with people you’ve never met (like me) don’t you?

So why not lay it out for them – the worst they can do is not hire you. But if they do hire you, they are not likely to fire you later for something you told them upfront, are they?

This place is anonymous. You don’t really know who I am. I am just a bunch of words on your screen. Work is an entirely different animal. I don’t discuss the issues I discuss here until I’ve known someone for MONTHS. Do you know how hard it is to talk to someone about these issues in an interview? It botches the entire thing, I get nervous, I start stammering, I start to have flashbacks and nervous breakdowns. I break out in hives for goodness sakes, on my face no less.

It might be possible for some people, but my mind just can’t take it, I lock up, break down and inevitably lose the interview for other reasons, because I make myself look like a psychotic freak.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This place is anonymous. You don’t really know who I am. I am just a bunch of words on your screen. Work is an entirely different animal. I don’t discuss the issues I discuss here until I’ve known someone for MONTHS. Do you know how hard it is to talk to someone about these issues in an interview? It botches the entire thing, I get nervous, I start stammering, I start to have flashbacks and nervous breakdowns. I break out in hives for goodness sakes, on my face no less.

It might be possible for some people, but my mind just can’t take it, I lock up, break down and inevitably lose the interview for other reasons, because I make myself look like a psychotic freak.

Visualize success. Picture yourself cooly handing a copy of your medical record to the interviewer and saying, “I need to be up front with you. I have an unusual medical condition, and I think it’s better I tell you now than let it come out later.”

Practice doing it. Get a friend to role-play with you.

What have you got to lose?

 

[rlg94086]

This place is anonymous. You don’t really know who I am. I am just a bunch of words on your screen. Work is an entirely different animal. I don’t discuss the issues I discuss here until I’ve known someone for MONTHS. Do you know how hard it is to talk to someone about these issues in an interview? It botches the entire thing, I get nervous, I start stammering, I start to have flashbacks and nervous breakdowns. I break out in hives for goodness sakes, on my face no less.

It might be possible for some people, but my mind just can’t take it, I lock up, break down and inevitably lose the interview for other reasons, because I make myself look like a psychotic freak.

I disagree with Vern on this one. There is no reason to tell anyone at work about your condition. Discuss it with the insurer, when it comes time to apply for group insurance (at that point, your HR person may be involved, but I’m not sure…even then, I think your privacy has to be protected).

There is no reason to start the gossip mill going needlessly. You present yourself as a woman, and there is no reason anyone should think or know anything to the contrary unless it is an intimate relationship. If you do feel the need to address it prior to being hired, only discuss it with the HR Director. They are supposed to keep things private (but, they often don’t).

Just my :twocents:

 

[SoCalRC]

I made a comment on humanity and charity. What do these two paragraphs have to do with my post? What did I reject in my post “that demonstrably works?” Are you taking issue with my statements regarding God and charity? I don’t understand your post in relation to mine.

You are asserting that Charity can work because of God. However, the whole statement is founded on the basis of devotion to a human construct.

According to Jesus, the Son of Man will judge us, as nations, on the care of our weakest. No where does he say that one must maintain devotion to a quasi free market or the profit motives of private insurers.

Roughly 40 other industrialized nations offer their citizens some form of basic health care. All do better than us in terms of tangible results. All spend less. Those benefits are, like all else, from the grace of God.

Further, we have nationalized heath care for the most expensive individuals. That is, we have constructed a lopsided risk pool maximizing costs, and it still outperforms our private, for profit, system.

So, when we reject extending those mechanisms to our weakest members, and even raise other issues like “deserving” or “free ride” (Jesus was clear on morally judging others as well), we are rejecting Christ and worshiping another idol. Since Christ is truly the Lord, should anyone be surprised that we spend the most to get the least and the system is loaded with unsustainable inflation?

 

[melensdad]

Here’s my own true story. My wife was rushed to a “magnet” hospital forty miles away in order to prevent her delivering three months early. She stayed at that hospital one month. When our son was born, over two months early, he had to stay in various special needs nursuries for a month. When he was in neonatal intensive care, it cost an average of $4,700 a day to keep him alive. The final cost is yet being tallied, but already exceeds $100,000; I suspect that when the final hospital gives us a statement, it will bring that total to around $130,000.

We were dramatically underinsured for such an event.

Why were you underinsured? Was that your choice?

I understand that NOW you have a serious problem, I’m simply curious if it was your choice to risk the status of being underinsured because you chose to have lower coverage and chose to spend your money on other things you deemed more important (at the time).

So now you are broke but could you have avoided it?

Many people, and I am NOT suggesting you are one of them, choose to have cable TV or car payments instead of living on less and carrying health insurance. Others are simply working poor and can’t afford either. I’m simply trying to find out what ‘broke’ is and where we need to start.

 

[SoCalRC]

I agree. We certainly do tweak it constantly, and we must. But it is reductionist for some people to suggest that there is a linear, direct cause-and-effect relationship between the needs of society and our ability to set the dials on the monetary and fiscal policy machines in order to make it happen. It is incredibly more complicated than that. That’s my point.

But we already HAVE national health care for the most expensive segment of society (which also happens, as a group, to have the most weatlth).

In fact, those that claim to worship the free market have most betrayed it. Look at Plan D. We know from the VA that large government programs can negotiate drugs at a significant savings for a large group. So, what did we do? We forbid Medicare from negotiating on drug prices. That is, we expanding our nationalized health care substantially, but specifically inhibited the benefits of a free market.

 

[consumedconvert]

Why were you underinsured? Was that your choice?

I had the maximum insurance my corp. offered at that time.

 

[ribozyme]

melensdad:

Many people, and I am NOT suggesting you are one of them, choose to have cable TV or car payments instead of living on less and carrying health insurance. Others are simply working poor and can’t afford either. I’m simply trying to find out what ‘broke’ is and where we need to start.

Gee… if you think that some people cannot manage their own expenditures well, why would health savings accounts be a good idea then?

 

[jman507]

Gee… if you think that some people cannot manage their own expenditures well, why would health savings accounts be a good idea then?

Which is why I wonder why somoeone would think it a good idea to put the government in charge of it?

 

[ribozyme]

Which is why I wonder why somoeone would think it a good idea to put the government in charge of it?

Well, I wonldn’t want to trust the current administration’s “military Keynesianism” to spend taxpayer money.

 

[rlg94086]

You are asserting that Charity can work because of God. However, the whole statement is founded on the basis of devotion to a human construct.

According to Jesus, the Son of Man will judge us, as nations, on the care of our weakest. No where does he say that one must maintain devotion to a quasi free market or the profit motives of private insurers.

Roughly 40 other industrialized nations offer their citizens some form of basic health care. All do better than us in terms of tangible results. All spend less. Those benefits are, like all else, from the grace of God.

Further, we have nationalized heath care for the most expensive individuals. That is, we have constructed a lopsided risk pool maximizing costs, and it still outperforms our private, for profit, system.

So, when we reject extending those mechanisms to our weakest members, **and even raise other issues like “deserving” or “free ride” **(Jesus was clear on morally judging others as well), we are rejecting Christ and worshiping another idol. Since Christ is truly the Lord, should anyone be surprised that we spend the most to get the least and the system is loaded with unsustainable inflation?

SoCalRC,

You did make assumptions about what I am in favor of. I made comments about charity. I didn’t say the whole system had to set up based on charity. I also made an earlier post, where I clearly stated that I believed we should take a look at all systems and create the best one - possibly a hybrid system with some form of nationalization for basic care and a private method of insurance for catastrophic care.

Further, I am fairly confident I never used the words “deserving” or “free ride” in this discussion. I even did an advanced search on myself under the whole Social Justice forum, and it came up with no results. So, before you jump to conclusions, it would be nice if you actually read their posts.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, I wonldn’t want to trust the current administration’s “military Keynesianism” to spend taxpayer money.

Exactly why you should be leary about government programs. If you don’t trust this administration with taxpayer’s money, what makes you think that the next administration or all future administrations would be better?

We have to be very careful when constructing more bureucracy. Abuse is going to occur. It always does.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gee… if you think that some people cannot manage their own expenditures well, why would health savings accounts be a good idea then?

Because it would give them an opportunity to manage their expenditures better and provide for their own healthcare. If they choose not to take the opportunity, that is their business.

 

[melensdad]

Gee… if you think that some people cannot manage their own expenditures well, why would health savings accounts be a good idea then?

There are many good ideas, but I don’t believe that I indicated HSAs as one of them. FWIW, your posts often twist what others say into something they neither stated nor implied. I’m not sure why you do that, but it is very easy to see what you are doing. I, for one, don’t appreciate it.

 

[ribozyme]

There are many good ideas, but I don’t believe that I indicated HSAs as one of them. FWIW, your posts often twist what others say into something they neither stated nor implied. I’m not sure why you do that, but it is very easy to see what you are doing. I, for one, don’t appreciate it.

You did not state it directly, but it does seem like an agenda for one who promotes personal responsibility.

 

[jman507]

Well, I wonldn’t want to trust the current administration’s “military Keynesianism” to spend taxpayer money.

Yeah, yeah, there are a lot of good things in theory, that fall apart in application. Even when things may initially start off well, usually they fall apart as time goes on. Your going to have to trust a lot of administrations to not abuse the system. Given the state of Social Security and Medicare, I’d be worried about an even bigger program.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yeah, yeah, there are a lot of good things in theory, that fall apart in application. Even when things may initially start off well, usually they fall apart as time goes on. Your going to have to trust a lot of administrations to not abuse the system. Given the state of Social Security and Medicare, I’d be worried about an even bigger program.

Worried?

We should be scared stiff about it!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

We all have only two choices – rely on charity, or pay our own way.

The only difference in a tax-payer supported system is that the charity is not freely given, but extorted from the wage earner by threat of force.

I beg your pardon – I mis-spoke. There is another difference. In a tax-payer supported system, the bureaucracy eats more of the money, and the bureaucrats are less compassionate.

That’s why the overhead for the eeeeeeeeeevil government program known as Medicare is something like 2% while for-profit health care insurance has an overhead closer to 30%.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s why the overhead for the eeeeeeeeeevil government program known as Medicare is something like 2% while for-profit health care insurance has an overhead closer to 30%.

I take it you’re relying on government figures for that?

My wife is ADN at the local nursing home. You should see the paperwork load Medicare causes – nurses nowadays do more paperwork than nursing.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I take it you’re relying on government figures for that?

My wife is ADN at the local nursing home. You should see the paperwork load Medicare causes – nurses nowadays do more paperwork than nursing.

Medicare pays for Skilled Nursing Facilities? First I heard about that.