spasemunki: His actual claim is that a for-profit health care system disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

His actual claim was that it keeps them healthy. Which isn't really true; if you neglect yourself for decades, money or not you aren't getting a new body. You can't buy a cure for diabetes; you can't yet clone a heart for a truly compatible transplant; we aren't particularly good at building eyes, yet, either. If your bones are fragile from a lack of calcium, you're not getting a new skeleton. And so forth.

It may be *easier* for a well-off person to stay healthy, because they're more likely to have more recreational time (for exercise, say) and to live in a neighborhood that is more helpful (safe areas to jog/bike, actual grocery stores, what not) but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the health system being for-profit.

bunner: I can see the vague outline of your strawman but it keeps falling into the mud.

This, made me LOL, good work!

Also, how is it that it used to be you could see a doc and they'd let you pay it off a bit at a time, but now that's pretty much unheard of?

anniepoonanny: Poor people are lazy.

I'd pay damn good money to see you sent to West Virginia up to coal mine country and then say this.

mmagdalene: keithrogan: The real problem is that people don't want to buy health insurance, they want the rest of us to buy it for them.

And the last time you tried to purchase private health insurance with a pre-existing condition was...when?

I paid for my health insurance before I had a condition. Now I have several conditions, but I'm covered because I made the sacrifices to get health insurance when I was younger. That's what smart people do. If you weren't smart enough when you were younger, don't ask me to sacrifice AGAIN to pay for your care. If you can't work, go on SSN disability. If you can work, suck it up and buy health insurance. And yeah, you may have to pay out of pocket until your waiting period is past. Tough luck, but I don't feel like doubling my health care costs, to cover the both of us.

The one thing no one seems to be addressing has nothing to do with getting people covered or the cost. It has to do with the culture we have in this country when it comes to going to the doctor. Just because we have health insu doesn't mean we'll go in for check-ups every year. Especially men. There's a large number of people that don't go to the doctor unless something is wrong with them. Changing that culture is going to take a long time.

If we do get some sort of univeral coverage or govt option, there's no assurance that people will actually go to the doctor for regular check-ups. And if they don't, what do you suggest we do about it? Send some govt goon to their door & drag them to the clinic? That's doubtful. Or will the bureaucrats say "Sorry, pal. You didn't come in for annual check-ups so your warranty is void. You'll have to pay for this out of pocket."?

Anyone? Bueller?

highwayrun: Nocens: anniepoonanny: If you can't take time off of work to take care of your damn self, then maybe you should focus your energy on getting a better job instead of complaining about your situation.


I dunno, I have a great job. I went to see a doctor for an eye exam. Preventive visit, glaucoma is a hereditary beast in my family. Took off work and was an hour early for the appointment. SEVEN hours later I finally got in. I reamed his ass, he didn't give a fark. He cost me 5k that day. He sent me his bill. I sent him mine.

Now the lawyers get to make the money.

There's a LensCrafters in your local mall that would have seen you on a walk-in basis. Why wouldn't you just go there? Heck, even Wal-Mart has an optometrist.

This smacks of utter and total bullshiat. Did this dope try to go to a GP for a glaucoma test?

ban_sidhe: trappedspirit: Yo, subby-moron, there's a difference between just "ignoring" health issues and not having them treated because you can't afford it. A really big difference.

Yep. Some years back, I worked in an urgent care. A lady came in one day because she'd been having symptoms for some time - months and months. She was a single mother who worked full time but had no insurance, since her company didn't offer health care benefits. She didn't make a ton of money and with kids, car, groceries, and bills couldn't afford to visit a doctor and pay for loads of diagnostic tests. Finally, she came to the urgent care because she just couldn't stand it anymore.

She died of colon cancer about a month later.

That's one story. Multiply her by thousands and thousands more.

I've got insurance and hope on a daily basis that my disk doesn't herniate again, because even with coverage, I paid several thousand dollars out of my own pocket the first time it happened. Naturally since then, my insurance has reduced the amount it will pay, while increasing the amount my husband and I pay.

It's a freaking disgrace.

Dang that sucks...

/hoping it's not me.

Our health care system faces multiple problems.

1) When children are exercising less, eating more sugar, and straining their brains on video games instead of something productive, we get a generation of WoW addicts with few skills usable in the workplace along with heart and diabetic problems. Preventative health must be funded, encouraged, and developed if we are to slow the trend down.

2) There are people who simply choose not to take care of themselves. Diabetics who eat sugary foods regularly, people who choose not to exercise at all despite being obese and deconditioned, and many others who end up having expensive hospital stays paid for by us multiple times a year because of poorly controlled but preventable conditions. What is the punishment for these folks if all they get is a slap on the wrist and little/no cost if the govt picks up the check?

3) Under a rationed system there will be notable changes to how the end-of-life care is handled. Right now this is where lots of cost comes from, and families are usually left with the ultimate decisions. In a centralized system it will often be the state that says when the plug is pulled and when it is not, especially when costs go up.

highwayrun: Nocens: anniepoonanny: If you can't take time off of work to take care of your damn self, then maybe you should focus your energy on getting a better job instead of complaining about your situation.


I dunno, I have a great job. I went to see a doctor for an eye exam. Preventive visit, glaucoma is a hereditary beast in my family. Took off work and was an hour early for the appointment. SEVEN hours later I finally got in. I reamed his ass, he didn't give a fark. He cost me 5k that day. He sent me his bill. I sent him mine.

Now the lawyers get to make the money.

There's a LensCrafters in your local mall that would have seen you on a walk-in basis. Why wouldn't you just go there? Heck, even Wal-Mart has an optometrist.


They sent me to the specialists years ago. I have a birth defect in my eyes. Something in the back didn't close properly in both of them. Mall doctors look in, go WTF, and won't finish the exam.

Nocens: Kludge: Hold on here...

So all of you are saying that there might be some benefits to having money?

And there are detriments to being poor?

Goddammnit, I wish someone would have told me sooner.


I'll be damned, Bernie Madoff gets internet in prison... And free healthcare.

Thanks, Bernie.

My prison cell is larger and better decorated than your apartment.

keithrogan: I paid for my health insurance before I had a condition. Now I have several conditions, but I'm covered because I made the sacrifices to get health insurance when I was younger. That's what smart people do.

Sure...and smart people never get laid off and lose their insurance after developing "conditions."

keithrogan: Tough luck, but I don't feel like doubling my health care costs, to cover the both of us.

Having people not covered is what'll double your premium.

Fano: This smacks of utter and total bullshiat. Did this dope try to go to a GP for a glaucoma test?

probably an opthamologist

Nocens: highwayrun: Nocens: anniepoonanny: If you can't take time off of work to take care of your damn self, then maybe you should focus your energy on getting a better job instead of complaining about your situation.


I dunno, I have a great job. I went to see a doctor for an eye exam. Preventive visit, glaucoma is a hereditary beast in my family. Took off work and was an hour early for the appointment. SEVEN hours later I finally got in. I reamed his ass, he didn't give a fark. He cost me 5k that day. He sent me his bill. I sent him mine.

Now the lawyers get to make the money.

There's a LensCrafters in your local mall that would have seen you on a walk-in basis. Why wouldn't you just go there? Heck, even Wal-Mart has an optometrist.


They sent me to the specialists years ago. I have a birth defect in my eyes. Something in the back didn't close properly in both of them. Mall doctors look in, go WTF, and won't finish the exam.

So you have a coloboma, big deal.

ban_sidhe: keithrogan: I paid for my health insurance before I had a condition. Now I have several conditions, but I'm covered because I made the sacrifices to get health insurance when I was younger. That's what smart people do.

Sure...and smart people never get laid off and lose their insurance after developing "conditions."

Last time I was laid-off I purchased a health insurance plan. Of course I have savings and no debt. But hey, we can't all live within our means right?

Kludge: Hold on here...

So all of you are saying that there might be some benefits to having money?

And there are detriments to being poor?

Goddammnit, I wish someone would have told me sooner.

I guess the truth of the matter asserted is that capitalism creates winners and losers, the more capitalist the system, the greater the disparity in number and degree between these winners and losers.

I suppose it would be germaine at this point to note that the government has many public works projects, wars and other expenses which seem to merit funding, and that many of our citizens believe that the priority of a decent, accessible health system for all americans is as pressing or greater than our need to, say, maintain a military presence in the middle east, or subsidize our banking industry, or maintain our federal parkland.

You see, the simple summation of the argument FOR universal health care is that if we treat it as a necessity(not a right, a necessity), than our populace would be more productive, have longer lives (and spend more of those longer lives working), and waste less energy on the recovery from illness if our societal model supported a more sensible approach to medicine than the one we have now. Think about how much money/other resources would be saved by minimization of downtime from illness.

Think about solutions, and implementation of same, to the problems we as a society face, rather than just snarkily reiterating the tired and pathetic american virtue of making money.

Korovyov: spasemunki: His actual claim is that a for-profit health care system disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

His actual claim was that it keeps them healthy. Which isn't really true; if you neglect yourself for decades, money or not you aren't getting a new body. You can't buy a cure for diabetes; you can't yet clone a heart for a truly compatible transplant; we aren't particularly good at building eyes, yet, either. If your bones are fragile from a lack of calcium, you're not getting a new skeleton. And so forth.

It may be *easier* for a well-off person to stay healthy, because they're more likely to have more recreational time (for exercise, say) and to live in a neighborhood that is more helpful (safe areas to jog/bike, actual grocery stores, what not) but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the health system being for-profit.

"keeps them healthy" was not an absolute literal claim that for-profit healthcare preserves them from all ills regardless of what they do with the rest of their lives. The idea that it's only for-profit healthcare that keeps wealthy people healthier than poor people is obviously stupid. The idea that inadequate access to care among the poor has no affect on their health is equally stupid.

Kludge: Of course I have savings and no debt

You can have all the savings in the world and still be denied health insurance.

keithrogan:
If you can't work, go on SSN disability. If you can work, suck it up and buy health insurance. And yeah, you may have to pay out of pocket until your waiting period is past. Tough luck, but I don't feel like doubling my health care costs, to cover the both of us.

In practice, if the uninsured are using the local ER for their primary care, or they're relying on SSI disability or Medicaid, you're indirectly paying for their health care anyway. And purchasing individual insurance can be expensive to the point of impossible. The only ways to not absorb that cost are

- let them go completely untreated (which would be presently illegal, and is dubious for multiple other reasons incl. purely practical -- contagious illnesses are good to treat fast, and people with no other options to buy a perceived necessity may well turn to crime to fund it)

- let them rely on private non-profits (which *can* be very good, but which don't exist everywhere, and which need to be funded by somebody else -- somewhat harder in a down economy when they're more likely to be needed)

- treat them, nobody pays for it and let the deficit spiral (which is generally illegal for state governments), which you will probably pay for rather indirectly

Ryan2065: Er, he didn't have health insurance and because of back surgeries money was tight. People living paycheck to paycheck don't always have $200 for a doctor's visit. I can't really say he is completely at fault here.

5$ visit
clearly you didnt read the article

but more importantly, why should I pay for emergency care for people and NOT pay for preventive care????

either let them die or force them into preventive care to save me money

namatad: either let them die or force them into preventive care to save me money

Mm. How would you force them? How would you set standards of minimum care (what, schedule for physical / dental / vision exams?), would transportation be provided, and how would you verify that they'd actually met those standards when somebody's being rolled into an ER? Massive national database + national ID cards?

bunner: They can afford 13.00 Tylenols and and 6,000.00 test procedures that burn up about 7.00 in electric, 250.00 in labour and 120.00 in equipment and materials.

um, idiot
that 13$ tylenol, pays for yours and the next 20 people who come to ER without insurance
that 6000$ test pays for your emergency test and the next 20 people who come to the er in cardiac arrest (with unknown insurance)

so what we could do, is next time you are in a car accident, before the ER treats you, we can spend time making CERTAIN that you will pay every penny

or, we continue the way we are ....

or we fix it ???

/hint: do you really think that hospitals are making PROFITS? in rural or poor areas??
/or, do we set a value on peoples lives and just not treat them if they cant pay?

I don't give a fu*k about your "political imperatives".

I din't give a fu*k not a fu*k not a single solitary fu*k about "GAH! CAPITALISM!" or "OH NOES! TEH SOCIALISMS!" or any of that hogwash, pass the buck, head up your ass so far you can chew your own food twice, pseudo-ideological bullsh*t.

Solutions. Results. Useful ones. Give me those or step the hell out of the way of the people who can.

The rest is just people shilling for what feeds THEIR bulldog while their neighbour's dog starves. Shame on you.

namatad: um, idiot
that 13$ tylenol, pays for yours and the next 20 people who come to ER without insurance

Um, idiot, it shouldn't HAVE to.

And as far as your manners, go fu*k yourself, you mouthy ass punk.

sideways.

Kludge:
Last time I was laid-off I purchased a health insurance plan. Of course I have savings and no debt. But hey, we can't all live within our means right?

If "living within our means" is defined as somehow managing to own one's house and car outright and having no children or pets, then you're probably right. Most of us can't live within our means.

cuzsis: Depends on if you can afford the 3hr drive (gas, time off of work, and the bills.)

I'm having to put off figuring out a niggling digestive issue (my gi tract periodically just stops working...more or less.) but the costs of tests that they'd have to run is more than we can afford right now with hubby out of work and me on reduced hours plus a kiddo to take care of.

My dad was going to help me a bit right up until he had to go to the ER himself for gi issues (more diverticulitus, yay.) and had someone hit his car on the side. Now what little extra cash he had managed to carefully save up is completely blown.

Sometimes, life just sucks.

/had to put off dental care for a month for the kiddo too, as it was either that or be able to eat/pay rent that month.
//being poor sucks.

I think we're really off on a tangent from my original post about finding a doctor who takes your problems seriously, but I can sympathize. But my point still stands about people choosing other things to be more important than some aspect of their health. You, for example, have decided that keeping a roof over your head is more important than whatever GI problem you may have. I don't mean this in any sort of cruel or judgmental way, but as a simple statement of fact. Practically everybody does this, and if they're not doing it for lack of money, they're doing it for lack of time.

One of the many reasons that we're screwed with our current system is that people biatch, "I don't want my tax dollars paying for some poor working person's insulin!" Well that's great, except that impoverished person's diabetes went untreated and now they need a kidney transplant, which of course has to be paid through Medicaid. So instead of the taxpayers spending $100 a month on insulin, they're paying $150,000 grand for the operation and $500 a month for immunosuppressants*. Way to go, geniuses.

To fix our system, we need to either go full Randian and let poor people die in the streets or implement some sort of baseline universal health care system. The whole "have your cake and eat it too" system we have currently is simply not sustainable.


*numbers are made up, but you get the point

Korovyov: namatad: either let them die or force them into preventive care to save me money

Mm. How would you force them? How would you set standards of minimum care (what, schedule for physical / dental / vision exams?), would transportation be provided, and how would you verify that they'd actually met those standards when somebody's being rolled into an ER? Massive national database + national ID cards?

sry, was on a rant
and yah, I have read about some companies setting premiums based on how healthy the employee is.
so fat asses like me would have to pay more and health nuts like my boss would pay less.
would give me great incentive to get in shape and stay there

the companies have saved money on healthcare, the employees, on average are now healthier ....

but, the bottom line is that we are already paying for healthcare for the people who cant afford it, I would rather that we be a little smarter about HOW we do it, which saves tons of dollars in the long run

/sigh, either way, my dollars are getting spent helping people who dont have the money (via taxes and higher prices for my care)

bunner: namatad: um, idiot
that 13$ tylenol, pays for yours and the next 20 people who come to ER without insurance

Um, idiot, it shouldn't HAVE to.

And as far as your manners, go fu*k yourself, you mouthy ass punk.
sideways.

hahahahaha
1) you dont HAVE to, dont go to the hospital and they wont charge you for anything
2) manners? from the tard who cant even spell fark?

Fano: Nocens: highwayrun: Nocens: anniepoonanny: If you can't take time off of work to take care of your damn self, then maybe you should focus your energy on getting a better job instead of complaining about your situation.


I dunno, I have a great job. I went to see a doctor for an eye exam. Preventive visit, glaucoma is a hereditary beast in my family. Took off work and was an hour early for the appointment. SEVEN hours later I finally got in. I reamed his ass, he didn't give a fark. He cost me 5k that day. He sent me his bill. I sent him mine.

Now the lawyers get to make the money.

There's a LensCrafters in your local mall that would have seen you on a walk-in basis. Why wouldn't you just go there? Heck, even Wal-Mart has an optometrist.


They sent me to the specialists years ago. I have a birth defect in my eyes. Something in the back didn't close properly in both of them. Mall doctors look in, go WTF, and won't finish the exam.

So you have a coloboma, big deal.


Apparently it is if I can't get a regular eye guy to finish an exam, chief.

Dr. Nick Riviera: or implement some sort of baseline universal health care system

I remember reading about oregon doing this a number of years back.
they ranked procedures, cost/benefits, preventive vs reactive.
they drew a line, below this, we wont do the procedure, we have run out of money.
people complained about the rank order, they made some changes, but in the end, they spent their money a litte more wisely

and yah
we should pay for the insulin and not the transplant
sry, but no matter HOW we fund this, we dont have an infinite amount of money
nor are people immortal

hard, but true, if you are getting FREE care, it is crazy to expect infinite care

ban_sidhe: If "living within our means" is defined as somehow managing to own one's house and car outright and having no children or pets, then you're probably right. Most of us can't live within our means.

If Americans started living within their means, several, bullsh*t, made up, fly-by-night financial industries would go *f0op* and cease to exist.

Jesus Christ, the federal government can't even manage to keep the lights on without amassing more debt than the universe has stars.

We just shouldn't pay for metformin or any other meds that are needed due to a completely preventable disease, nor their transplant operation.

Sounds unfair? Well, maybe it will make the next person get on a treadmill or eat some veggies for once.

It's hardly fair to make those who are responsible pay for the irresponsible.

The_Terminator: We just shouldn't pay for metformin or any other meds that are needed due to a completely preventable disease, nor their transplant operation.

You realize a lot of transplants aren't required on account of preventable conditions right?

BobtheFascist: Or will the bureaucrats say "Sorry, pal. You didn't come in for annual check-ups so your warranty is void. You'll have to pay for this out of pocket."?

you know, this is HARD thing to say, but sure. let's do it.
set up the "system"
give everyone who is planning on using the FREE system, say 1,2,3 years to go to the doctor.
when they show up 10 years later in cardiac arrest, diabetic, in full renal failure, and then say "dont like pill machines", we save ourselves a ton of money by saying, "we offered you free care for life and you said dont need it. well now you need it and you die. sry. too stupid to live."

/yah, we would probably LIE about meeting the DEADLINE. have tons of grace periods and amnesties. but, after a few public cases of "too stupid to live" people would get the picture.
/"too stupid to live" would make a great reality show.

WhyteRaven74: You realize a lot of transplants aren't required on account of preventable conditions right?

Yes I do.

However, the example was a diabetic whose heart went kaput. DM2 = preventable.

Hagbardr: basemetal: Much like dentistry, over half of the medical problems in this country are preventable.

I'll brush my teeth but I'll be damned if you get me to floss.

Just floss the ones you want to keep.

WhyteRaven74: You realize a lot of transplants aren't required on account of preventable conditions right?

would be interesting to see what the numbers actually are.
heart transplants due to congential/genetic causes and transplants due be a fat tub of lard who did do the right thing

how many lung problems/cancers are caused by smoking versus environmental/genetic ...

/why should my insurance be higher to cover people who smoke?
/sigh, at least we are talking about this and trying to fix it ... and yes I know that the government will screw it up, but ... can it possibly get WORSE than it currently is?

The_Terminator: However, the example was a diabetic whose heart went kaput. DM2 = preventable.

I'm diabetic. 20 units of Novolin 70/30 a day, forever.

I eat good, get exercise when I can ("desk" job) take care of myself, don't smoke... My toes are already numb from diabetic neuropathy... and I have to use a scrub brush on them that could remove paint just to keep the blood flowing.

You'd be surprised what is and isn't preventable.

Oh, and the diabetes was courtesy of my mother's side of the family, where it's rampant. Sorry, genetic predisposition isn't quite actually preventable.

Dr. Nick Riviera: To fix our system, we need to either go full Randian and let poor people die in the streets or implement some sort of baseline universal health care system. The whole "have your cake and eat it too" system we have currently is simply not sustainable.

In the case of the TFA (well, the region discussed) perhaps the main problem is low population density + poverty + difficulty transportation. There are inexpensive clinics there; however, getting people to them is not necessarily easy. There is a hospital in that area, vaguely, but it's a helicopter ride away -- very expensive. It would, presumably, be insanely expensive to build a mass-transport system out to everybody's house there. Subsidizing and encouraging a move to (probably not already existing and thus needing to be built) accessible, affordable housing closer to essential services (if not *really* near by, then at least connected through... shuttle bus or something like that) might have to be part of the solution. This is probably not the only community with a similar problem.

Other areas may have other problems. In MA, it's more the lack of GPs than insurance (although there are still uninsured); in other areas, there may be excessive capacity that's being used inefficiently (see Medicare studies noting cost increasing with capacity, but not necessarily with effect). The GP-vs-specialist balance may require other measures to address. There are neighborhoods where fast food is ubiquitous while remotely healthy fare is rare. If kids are spending much more time on homework than before (recall reading that they do, but could easily be wrong), they may be getting too little exercise. And so forth. Not particularly confident in applicability of large-scale, top-down solutions, especially ones that focus solely on the health care system itself.

dipdunk: we get a generation of WoW addicts with few skills usable in the workplace

/lol
I resemble that remark.

strangely enough, some of those wow addicts are actually learning useful skillz

people learning to lead a 25 or 40 man raid is educational to say the least
watching people learn to run a guild with dozens of different goals and personalities
well, at least SOME of us are learning things from video games

I love the health care debate. The pro choice people are pro life and the pro life people are pro death.

Fabulous hypocrisy.

Befuddled: I have constant pains on the right side of my abdomen. I would really like to get my doctor to take it seriously but his attitude is the same as all the other doctors I've met; if it won't kill me within 48 hours, they won't do anything as they are in the clear liability-wise. They probably avoid doing any sort of test as then that could be construed as acknowledging the potential seriousness in a future trial; without tests there's always deniability as they can claim I didn't make the problem known. Even with insurance, there's no preventive medical care in the US, at least not in my experience.

um, wow
1) get a new doctor?
2) report your current doctor to the AMA
3) I have insurance, get annual physicals and tons of "preventive" care

FrankenPC: I love the health care debate. The pro choice people are pro life and the pro life people are pro death.

Fabulous hypocrisy.

wow
you win the thread!!
/seriously, hadnt thought of this

SynthLord: TFA: Carl and Elizabeth Walls share that concern. They have worked and paid taxes all their lives and say that if the government is going to spend billions on health care reform, then covering people like them "should rate pretty high," Elizabeth said. But, like Chouinard, they worry about falling through the cracks. "You know, we have worked all our lives and tried, and we can't seem to get any program that works for us," Elizabeth Walls said. Their worries might not make sense to those promising universal, or near-universal, access in Washington.

Working hard and paying your taxes all your life doesn't get you squat.

Did you save your money, or did you spend it all? Did you invest anything, or did you just expect that there would be a pile of Medicare and Social Security money waiting for you as some kind of door prize for existing? Did you look into every health insurance plan available, or did you just accept what your employer(s) offered you?

Working hard is great, but you have to do more than break your back at the mill for decades on end if you want the happiness that comes with being able to survive a major health issue. And if you're stupid enough to believe that all that money you paid in taxes was going to pay you back someday, you've been suckered by one of the greatest political lies in our nation's history. Every time I saved enough money I went to the club/bar to spend it all. Isn't that why you save money for a week? A week is a long time.

The government does not, never has, and will not care for you. Politicians only care about what you're worth to them in tax revenue or political capital. Obama loves me! Change!

Your survival, health, and long-term prosperity is your own responsibility, no one else's. Depend on others -- particularly self-serving politicians -- and you're going to get screwed. Everyone else owes me something.

/I agree with you
//Edited to reflect popular opinion

Korovyov: It would, presumably, be insanely expensive to build a mass-transport system out to everybody's house there. Subsidizing and encouraging a move to (probably not already existing and thus needing to be built) accessible, affordable housing closer to essential services (if not *really* near by, then at least connected through... shuttle bus or something like that) might have to be part of the solution. This is probably not the only community with a similar problem.

Back before all somebody had to do to eradicate something useful from our lives was to smirk haughtily and say "nobody does THAT anymore", there used to be house calls.

Doctors came to you.

Here's a plan:

A bunch of old school buses, (cheap, built like tanks for the snowflakes and diesel powered and easily fitted with generators) laid out with an array of medical gear and staffed, per bus, according to what it did. Dentist bus, x-ray bus, diabetic bus, pulmonary and kidney treatment bus, trauma and ER triage bus...

Get it?

Put some of this stuff just lying around rusting to use and get people with an interest in DOING something they studied for instead of finding a way to immediately make enough money to distance themselves from those who NEED them to practice what they studied, and do something concrete and useful that doesn't cost a fortune.

Oh.. wait..

There's no quick buck in that.

Certainly not the kind you get from doing 7,000.00 tests at huge hospitals with a huge - and mostly made up - overhead.

bunner: A bunch of old school buses, (cheap, built like tanks for the snowflakes and diesel powered and easily fitted with generators) laid out with an array of medical gear and staffed, per bus, according to what it did. Dentist bus, x-ray bus, diabetic bus, pulmonary and kidney treatment bus, trauma and ER triage bus...

Perhaps possible, but if the physicians are spending time traveling to patients, that's time they're not dealing with walk-ins and the like. Seems less efficient in the long run.

Korovyov: Perhaps possible, but if the physicians are spending time traveling to patients, that's time they're not dealing with walk-ins and the like. Seems less efficient in the long run

Actually, no, because there will still be a walk in brick and mortar building for a clinic wherever the hell that building already is and it will do what it does for those blessed with proximity while the practitioners in those ever so useful, goldurn hippie buses fling themselves into the weeds to heal those who cannot heal themselves nor drag their bee hinds to said clinic.

The healing and treatment, cost scale studies and logistic study opportunities alone are awesome on this model.

And maybe grandma will make it to Christmas. : )

FrankenPC: I love the health care debate. The pro choice people are pro life and the pro life people are pro death.

Fabulous hypocrisy.

Nice one! Did you come up with that? Because I would like to use it, and I like to give credit where it's due.

bunner: Actually, no, because there will still be a walk in brick and mortar building for a clinic wherever the hell that building already is and it will do what it does for those blessed with proximity while the practitioners in those ever so useful, goldurn hippie buses fling themselves into the weeds to heal those who cannot heal themselves nor drag their bee hinds to said clinic.

Hm, true. It occurs to me that it's actually been done (at least partly, on a small local scale) -- some RotaCare clinics have a mobile unit meant for treating minor illnesses. Volunteer staff, funded by local money or from foundation grants (it's apparently against RotaCare policy to request funding from federal or state governments).

bunner: 20 units of Novolin 70/30 a day, forever.

Ask your doctor about Lantus and Novolin; they'll keep your sugar lower, longer without the rollercoastering that Novolin can do to you. And srsly, I was taken on 70/30 years ago and then my new doctor was all like, "who prescribes this old stuff anymore". There are better treatments out there now...provided you can afford them, of course. Novolin is cheap.

Well when you can only afford to go when it is an emergency you don't really have much choice.

The_Terminator: WhyteRaven74: You realize a lot of transplants aren't required on account of preventable conditions right?

Yes I do.

However, the example was a diabetic whose heart went kaput. DM2 = preventable.

I'm a type 2 diabetic thanks to 2 pregnancies with gestational diabetes (not a preventable form of the condition) and a family history of type 2 diabetes (usually hit after 70 years old but not for me) but thanks for making us all out to be fat, lazy farks.