Socialized healthcare

[vern_humphrey]

What about socialized donkeys and horses? And what about hay?

Socialized saddles, bridles, oats, pony carts, boots, hats and free horseshoeing!! Free horse trailers – the kind with living space for the human in front, and big, hairy-chested 4X4 ton-and-a-half trucks to pull them, with free diesel!

Yeah, man!!

 

[rlg94086]

and where is your proof that an uninsured individual will get chemo at a non-charity based mainstream hospital.

What is that all about? The Mayo Clinic (you know, the “clinic here or there” ) isn’t good enough?

The fact is, there are plenty of examples…
breastcancer.org/questions/insurance.jsp

Call your local Social Services Department. You may be eligible for Medicaid or other programs for low-income women.
Call your local Public Health Department to find out about local health care programs.
Many hospitals run free clinics where they provide medical care at no or low cost.

Here is another, ironically in an article about how the uninsured are “left behind:”

“Hospitals and physicians in the state should be applauded,” said Baskies, of the cancer society. “They do provide pro bono care for patients who have very expensive health care bills. … They are not turned away.”
…
A Mexican immigrant in Paterson had her first mammogram when she found a lump at 63, Pacheco recalls. Charity care paid for surgery, chemo and radiation. But it took months to get approvals for physical therapy to help her move her arm again after surgery.

It’s a good article. I recommend you read it, as it may help you understand the problems a little better. The biggest complaint in the article is bureaucracy… …I wonder if that would get better or worse with a nationalized program.

The other problem is this…

“When they do find a lump, they’re concerned about where do they go, who do they see when they have no insurance,” Pacheco said. “They tend to wait and see, and then go to the emergency room. Sometimes they wait a few weeks because they think the lump will go away. Then, when they see the lump get bigger, they panic. Some feel God will take care of it.”

That is why, despite your ill-informed posts, I still favor a middle ground, where we have some sort of state-funded or state-run basic care - either across the board or as part of medicaid for those in need. Prevention and early detection are key to decreasing our overall health cost as a nation. Once someone knows they have a serious illness, our current modes of payment - insurance, medicaid/medicare, charity - step in.

 

[cynic]

Ah, if it isn’t a government hospital, it doesn’t count, eh?

In fact, our church has a lot of retirees, and we have several parishoners on chemo from time to time. All got treatment. We have a family that adopted a severely brain-damaged child (he’s nine and cannot speak or walk) and he gets top-notch care.

By the way, do you know what “cynic” means?

so the truth is, no they won’t, you leave it up to charity so as to not be a burden on the taxpayer. My point in a nutshell.

 

[cynic]

Hey, I’d benefit from socialized housing, automobiles, gasoline, electricity, food, clothing, and vacations.

So all of you work harder, and make enough to pay the taxes so I can live the way I want without paying for it myself.

So you compare the funding of life saving treatment as if it were similiar to the state providing some cushy existence for those who don’t want to work. Rather dismissive.

 

[wabrams]

“emergency” radiation therapy Like that’s going to work. Chemotherapy is ongoing treatment, it’s costs a lot of money, then there are drugs that cancer patients have to take for years afterwards, possibly for the rest of their lives.

It works very well when the tumor is impinging on a major vessel or nerve root ganglia and the emergency treatment shirnks it down to stop the impingement. You might find it hilarious, but those that get the immediate relief don’t.

 

[cynic]

It works very well when the tumor is impinging on a major vessel or nerve root ganglia and the emergency treatment shirnks it down to stop the impingement. You might find it hilarious, but those that get the immediate relief don’t.

It wouldn’t get to that stage if they had free a free course of chemo in the first place. No it’s not funny at all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

so the truth is, no they won’t, you leave it up to charity so as to not be a burden on the taxpayer. My point in a nutshell.

Ah, so by giving charity ourselves, and not extorting it from someone else, we do wrong?

Glad to know where you’re coming from.

 

[wabrams]

It wouldn’t get to that stage if they had free a free course of chemo in the first place. No it’s not funny at all.

I never said anything bout chemo, I was replying to the fact you thought emergency radiation therapy was a joke; now you say it’s not funny. Make up your mind. Second, those with insurance and getting regular treatment sometimes have to have emergency treatment as well.

 

[cynic]

What is that all about? The Mayo Clinic (you know, the “clinic here or there” ) isn’t good enough?

So 5 hospitals make it their business to offer free care, and it’s not clear to what extent. 40 million uninsured. 5 places to go.

The fact is, there are plenty of examples…
breastcancer.org/questions/insurance.jsp

Here is another, ironically in an article about how the uninsured are “left behind:”

It’s a good article. I recommend you read it, as it may help you understand the problems a little better. The biggest complaint in the article is bureaucracy… …I wonder if that would get better or worse with a nationalized program.

so some other hospitals offer a free service on some ad hoc basis.

That is why, despite your ill-informed posts, I still favor a middle ground, where we have some sort of state-funded or state-run basic care - either across the board or as part of medicaid for those in need. Prevention and early detection are key to decreasing our overall health cost as a nation. Once someone knows they have a serious illness, our current modes of payment - insurance, medicaid/medicare, charity - step in.

I’m quite middle-ground. There are plenty of ways a government can help out. They can simply pay the insurance bills for those who fall below an income level, like they do in Japan for eg, Or the government can means-test those receiving state funded care . The important distinction is that you guys leave it up to charity as a last resort.

 

[cynic]

Ah, so by giving charity ourselves, and not extorting it from someone else, we do wrong?

.

the fact that you regard tax payer funding for such things as extortion sums it up perfectly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

the fact that you regard tax payer funding for such things as extortion sums it up perfectly.

The fact that you want someone else to pay for it, instead of giving of your own labor sums it up perfectly.

 

[cynic]

, I was replying to the fact you thought emergency radiation therapy was a joke; now you say it’s not funny. .

I think your statement was a joke, as if last minute radiotherapy were the same thing as real treatement. By that stage it’s too late.

 

[rlg94086]

So 5 hospitals make it their business to offer free care, and it’s not clear to what extent. 40 million uninsured. 5 places to go.

No…there are many more than 5 places to go. As I posted, most hospitals provide care for the uninsured. Also, you are completely daft if you think that 40 million uninsured all need to have chemotherapy.

so some other hospitals offer a free service on some ad hoc basis.

And, this is a problem because? If they are providing the services pro bono, why is the “basis” important to you?

Now that you have the “proof” you asked for, please provide your “proof” that the poor are getting turned away and denied chemotherapy due to a lack of insurance.

cynic:

I’m quite middle-ground. There are plenty of ways a government can help out. They can simply pay the insurance bills for those who fall below an income level, like they do in Japan for eg, Or the government can means-test those receiving state funded care . The important distinction is that you guys leave it up to charity as a last resort.

We already have means-testing - it’s called medicaid. Charity is not a last resort. Your argument is again rooted in ignorance. Please try educating yourself before posting anything else on the thread. It is just making you look ridiculous.

 

[cynic]

The fact that you want someone else to pay for it, instead of giving of your own labor sums it up perfectly.

and we’re back to this again. I pay tax on my income. I can aslo afford private insurance for myself. The fact that I can give to charity, and should feel obliged to do so, on top of what I pay in tax is a fair point, but if you mean charity should be a substitute for that, then we just have to disagree.

 

[cynic]

\

We already have means-testing - it’s called medicaid. Charity is not a last resort.\quote]

so your saying to me that medicaid will fund and entire course of chemo, aswell as the drugs required afterwards? If that’s true then I retract my statement(s). Keep in mind though there are other posters here who disagree with medicaid.

 

[cynic]

We already have means-testing - it’s called medicaid. .

so your saying to me that medicaid will fund and entire course of chemo, aswell as the drugs required afterwards? If that’s true then I retract my statement(s). Keep in mind though there are other posters here who disagree with medicaid.

 

[vern_humphrey]

and we’re back to this again. I pay tax on my income. I can aslo afford private insurance for myself. The fact that I can give to charity, and should feel obliged to do so, on top of what I pay in tax is a fair point, but if you mean charity should be a substitute for that, then we just have to disagree.

Right – we’ll do it our way in our country, you do it your way in your country.

 

[wabrams]

I think your statement was a joke, as if last minute radiotherapy were the same thing as real treatement. By that stage it’s too late.

How would you know? What is your background in oncology and radiology? So you think if it’s too late, then it’s a joke and why bother?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

i agree. i currently don’t have health insurance, simply because my car payment is too high. when i pay that down i plan on getting some through my company. i am a 23 year old male in good physical/mental health and i work approximately 50 hours per week give or take. i have full coverage insurance on my car which includes medical for myself, and i can make a claim should i ever get hurt on the job at work. i have money in savings, go to a GP every year for a physical and a check-up, and don’t really see why i need to cough up $70 per month for coverage i would probably never use when i can pay my Dr $85 out of pocket for a checkup. my vehicle’s have 100,000/300,000 coverage which includes medical, so i currently don’t see the point? if i had a family, i would most certainly get it in a heartbeat but i think that extra $70 a week is better spent paying down the principle of my car and for rent and food at the moment.

The first thing that came to mind to me is the wonderful charitably supported hospitals and organizations - Mayo Clinic (cancer), St Jude’s (children), Shriner’s hospital (crippled children and burn centers). Are they Catholic? No (St. Jude’s was however founded by a Catholic, Danny Thomas), but they are the ones that came to mind immediately.

My younger brother was born with a physical birth defect, and my family (single Mom raising three boys on a secretary’s salary) is forever thankful to the Shriners.

Someone has to tell me why it would have been better for my brother if there was a national health system. Would he have gotten “free” care? Yes, at a greater burden to every taxpayer. Did he get free care? Yes, thanks to loving charity of many people who gave from their hearts.

As I have posted several times, I think it may make some sense for some basic/clinical care to be state supplemented for those who don’t have comprehensive insurance, as it might help lessen some of the more serious illnesses. But, I don’t see why it is necessary to nationalize everything.

 

[BamaRider]

Semper Fi is sayin-

i agree. i currently don’t have health insurance, simply because my car payment is too high. when i pay that down i plan on getting some through my company. i am a 23 year old male in good physical/mental health and i work approximately 50 hours per week give or take. i have full coverage insurance on my car which includes medical for myself, and i can make a claim should i ever get hurt on the job at work. i have money in savings, go to a GP every year for a physical and a check-up, and don’t really see why i need to cough up $70 per month for coverage i would probably never use when i can pay my Dr $85 out of pocket for a checkup. my vehicle’s have 100,000/300,000 coverage which includes medical, so i currently don’t see the point? if i had a family, i would most certainly get it in a heartbeat but i think that extra $70 a week is better spent paying down the principle of my car and for rent and food at the moment.

Quote:

If you can get insurance for 70 dollars a month-WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR BRO??

Hey I was 23 way long time ago, and you feel iinvincable, but you can contract anything at anytime. The odds on your side right now, but why ya wanna roll the dice to save 70 dollars a month?

I’d check and see what the medical cap payout is on your auto. I’m thinking the average is about 25k?

Get checked in a ICU with some kind of medical or bad truama and see how long your savings account last. You wont hafta to worry about paying for your ride, cause the hospital will seize it to pay off the bills.

So use one less tank of gas this month and get on the company insurance while you still can.

You’ve been reading the post from those other boys on here so you know we ain’t gonna tell ya wrong. Dang brother you’re a walking poster boy why so many of us are against social medicine LOL.