Wipqzun:
should babies die because the parents can't get, afford or don't want insurance?

Maybe not, but I shouldn't be responsible for them either.

I don't feel like buying clothes or food for my kids, I think you and your friends should support them.

So far, Pretnar is the only one to grasp the obvious:

The current system bears no resemblence at all to a market economy.

There is no transmission of information about quality (in any kind of objective way).
There is minimal (at best) transmission of information about cost.
Therefor, cost/quality trade-offs by the consumer are nearly impossible.

So if it's not a market, what is it? Lord if I know. Should it be more like a market? Certainly in some ways.

Any discussion about solving the problem shown in the article (a real problem, no doubt) needs to keep in mind that the stupid old labels are especially stupid in this debate.

"What are insurance companies forced to cover now? Let's see, there's sex change operations, liposuction, covering people that should not legally be on policies, illegal immigrants,..."

Don't forget poor decisions (alcoholism and substance abuse counseling and therapy), and coming soon mental illnesses. And in most states insurance companies have a cap on how much they can rate up unhealthy groups. So if you've got a morbidly obese, diabetic, alcoholic buncha losers with flocks of poorly disciplined kids who are on Ritalin for their attention deficit disorder, either the group is denied coverage, or healthy responsible people pick up the greater part of the cost. Either way - less people uninsured, or rates going through the roof - it's more ammo for the socialized healthcare crowd.
Bullshiat.

There's should be a box you can check when you get a job. All the bleeding heart liberal anti-us socalist hippies can check the box and choose to have their entire paychecks distributed among the country for the common good.

I guess the only problem is, these socalist hippies don't have jobs or any workable job skills to begin with.

Pretnar, You know, thats not that far off. I work at a hospital in Canada and you should see the number of Americans that come up here to get lifesaving operations that they couldn't afford or their insurance wouldn't cover in the US. There are families who come here because they can't afford the insulin for their child and they know that even though we will charge them for it eventually because they dont have our Medical Coverage we wont deny them it and allow their children to die.

Isn't the IOM a liberal lobbyist group? Wouldn't that imply that they may have some sort of agenda here?

I say if you don't have car and health insurance, your citizenship should be revoked. No card, no vote.

Torchsong's comments paid for by the good people of Allstate. You're in good hands.

Wipqzun: At age 1 you cant get insurance or take responsibility for your life, should babies die because the parents can't get, afford or don't want insurance?

If people can't afford the responsibilities that come with being a parent (like health care for their child), they probably shouldn't be having kids. That would be the responsible thing to do (or not do, in this case).

Since you're talking about responsibility, of course.

No country is civilized. They all have flaws. I don't sit around moping about British soccer hooligans and wishing that all the Brits were dead as a result. Nor do I sit meditating about the sorry state of France in general and wish they would disappear (though, it's a thought). I don't care that Canadians.....well, I don't know what Canadians do that is so bad...but there has to be something.....

Still, every time I see one of those idiotic "less Americans is better" comments, I have to wonder if these are the same people claiming to be civilized. Or if they are the same ones who chastise Americans about being uncaring. Or if they are the ones who think they have it so great, then envy everything a US citizen has and they can't afford.
No life is so special, so different or so great that it is more highly valued than another. No nation is, either. We have a great life in the US. 18,000 "deaths due to lack of insurance" is a statistical aberration on several levels. It doesn't say how many were saved who didn't have insurance. It doesn't say how many would have died regardless of whether they HAD insurance. It doesn't say how many died as a result of poor living habits.
I want more information before a number gets shoved down my throat to support some lame brained, half-assed, idiotic welfare program.

Miles_OToole:

I'm cuious -- what about kids born to people who can't meet your minimum expectations -- should the government take those kids away, and/or force an abortion?

How about putting the father to work in a slave labor camp until the kid is 18 to pay for the cost of the kid?

Or do you have some other idea, given, as is reality, that people get pregnant all the time that don't intend to?

"Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year "


isn't that total a little exact for an estimate? I wish they said what statistics they used. a lot of times they'll total up one year's findings and then assume it will be the same every year. there is lots of ways to make statistics say what you want them to say...

Thinning the herd

Wipqzun...if you work in a hospital (and you probably do), perhaps you can tell us how many cases get shipped off to the US? I know it is fairly high. My dad treats quite a number.
As for Americans going to Canada...I can only believe what you are seeing is an aberration. Mainly because they would have to live near the Canadian border, which implies a certain amount of rural regions...not known for much in the way of good hospital care (anywhere...not just the US).

...so the implication is: We pay to keep ourselves alive?

...Jives with this whole death-oriented neurotic scared-like-rabbits-and-running society...

Me and my wife spent some time uninsured when I was without a job, and let me tell you, it's not hard to get medical care. A big reason waits are so long in the ER is because that's where poor people with no insurance go to get routine medical care, because the ER is required by law to take them. Furthermore, at least where I lived, it's ILLEGAL to charge interest on medical bills. I had bills that I didn't pay a dime on for over a year and they still showed the exact same amount owed. Occasionally I would get a one time "service fee" when the thing was turned over to a collection agency, but even the collection agency can't charge interest on the balance if it's a medical bill.

Hospitals have all sorts of regulations requiring them to administer to people regardless of their ability to pay. We were never denied any necessary health care from any hospital we went to, and having edxperienced insured life and uninsured life, I can't say that we got worse care, or that we were denied care, when we were uninsured. The only real difference was we were unable to do the routine checkups and whatnot that insured people are able to do.

Having said that, there is always the possibility that you will die of something like cancer that may have been cureable had you been able to get a routine physical and detect it earlier, so you should obviously have medical insurance if you can possibly afford it, especially if you have children. With all of the state child health insurance programs out there, it's inexcusable to not carry health insurance at least on your children.

I know of no doctor or hospital that will fail to treat life-threatening illness. It is usually each uninsured patient's responsibility to get the medicine they need. Each pharmaceutical company also has dicount programs for uninsured. It's just lots of paperwork... Tadpole, MD

Almighty,

But it's so much simpler to just not make the effort at all, and blame the American government for not taking care of every aspect of your life for you.

Miles_OToole

What about the case of someone who could support their child with clothes, food, healthcare etc., then suddenly couldn't. ie. they get laid off and their child gets sick before they can get independant insuracne or a new job.

If their kid dies it's not their fault, they were responsible: they could support their kid at the time and thought they would be able to in the long run.

So should the kid die because the CEO of the company thought he should up his profits for the next quarter?

We're gonna get to the point where people will be clamoring for gov't-provided street-crossing assistants that will look both ways for you, because way too many people die needlessly in street-crossing accidents every year and THESE DEATHS ARE PREVENTABLE.

Wipqzun,

So should the kid die because the CEO of the company thought he should up his profits for the next quarter?

Bad timing is bad timing. You don't call all cars evil because you stepped out into the street at the wrong time. shiat just happens, people lose jobs and people get sick. Sometimes they happen at the same time. That's life. Suck it up, be a man and fix your problems. You can't expect the government to setup a safety net for every conceivable bad event that may happen in your life.

Although, your scenario is rather preposterous.

1. Medical insurance does not immediately end the second you are laid off. By law, your insurance carries over for a few months to allow for you to find a new job/replacement insurance.

2. No hospital is turning away a dying baby, insurance or no. Get a grip.

Damnit forgot the /b, sorry for the bolding

Wipqzun -

If the kid dies after the guy gets laid off because he didn't carry insurance on the kid, it IS is fault. Every state in the union has all sorts of programs designed for just such an occurrence, to give kids health care, to give the family food stamps to feed their children, unemployment payments to the laid off worker so they're not living in a dumpster, etc etc.

All the guy has to do is visit his local unemployment office and get information on all of these programs, apply, and if he has an emergency case (like he has no savings or his child is currently sick), he can usually receive benefits the same day.

So, even in your scenario, the kid would not die because the CEO is greedy, he would die because his parents are lazy and don't care about their children enough to make sure they get all the benefits they can to protect them.

There is minimal (at best) transmission of information about cost.

That is the EXACT reason why no one knows how much it costs and why everyone thinks they are entitled to it. If more people saw the TRUE cost of their employer's insurance plan and were to pay for it themselves, you'd see a FAST reduction in insurance costs because the market(the purchasers) would demand it. Show a card, pay $15 or whatever, and most people think that's all it costs. Idiots.

Additionally, if people were to buy their own insurance, they wouldn't demand the Rolls-Royce health plans that they now demand from their employers. They'd look for something more economical, further driving down prices. Do you REALLY need a plan that pays for every little cut, scrape, and bloody nose? Fark, I pay for most of the cost of my dental work out of my own pocket. You don't hear me biatching about not being able to pay $10 and walk out of the dentist office! But yet so many people think that they SHOULD be able to do that.

Tort reform is badly needed in the medical field in general, but that's another argument for another thread. Some reregulation of the insurance companies would be a good idea, too.

I should also add that the numbers of the "uninsured" are inflated because many of those who are uninsured CHOOSE to be uninsured. A large number of people in the 20-29-year-old age group fall into this category. The fact that they are uninsured doesn't mean they want to be insured.

"Mainly because they would have to live near the Canadian border, which implies a certain amount of rural regions...not known for much in the way of good hospital care (anywhere...not just the US).

I know this isn't related but... if you are saying that the US is rural near the Canadian border then you need a geography lesson. =) Detroit and Buffalo are less than 30 mins away and Seattle, Chicago, Cleveland and Boston aren't too far either.

"So should the kid die because the CEO of the company thought he should up his profits for the next quarter?"

That statement is so economically illiterate it's not funny.
Do you really think companies can so easily increase their profits just by laying off employees left and right? If that were the case it was nothing more than a favor to hire them in the first place! Talk about charity!

Elrond: Somehow your english skills are extremely weak. the phrase "due to the lack of insurance" plainly means that this is directly attributed to the lack of insurance. The number 18,000 represents the number of people who would have lived had they been covered by medical insurance. Instead they died.
Are you people really this obtuse?!

"I know this isn't related but... if you are saying that the US is rural near the Canadian border then you need a geography lesson. =)"

Oh yeah, there're all those vast metropolises in Montana and North Dakota.

"If the kid dies after the guy gets laid off because he didn't carry insurance on the kid, it IS is fault. Every state in the union has all sorts of programs designed for just such an occurrence. . . "

Yeah, it's called COBRA down here in the states, and mandates continuation of coverage for EIGHTEEN MONTHS after termination.

05-22-02 12:29:44 PM Pretnar
"So should the kid die because the CEO of the company thought he should up his profits for the next quarter?"

That statement is so economically illiterate it's not funny.
Do you really think companies can so easily increase their profits just by laying off employees left and right?

Yes, Pretnar, it IS that easy. Go talk to the chief financial officer of any company. Go talk to an economist. They'll tell you that any business's single-biggest expense is labor - the workforce. Why the fark else do you think layoffs are the first thing to occur when a company starts losing money?!

If that were the case it was nothing more than a favor to hire them in the first place! Talk about charity!

No, it's not charity - it's a matter of the company needing labor to provide its product or service.

9/10 -

Good point. When I got laid off 6 months ago, they sent me a letter detailing how much it would cost to continue my insurance through COBRA, and it was close to $800 a month, and that's under the company's group rate. I can't even imagine how much a single person would need to pay without a group plan. I know of very few people who could realistically afford it.

"Anyway I don't see how that is a big deal since the Canadian Governmant pays the US hospital bills for those patients. Would you say Burger King isn't as good as McDonalds because they contract out their bun production?"

I don't think Burger King is nearly as in debt as the Canadian healthcare system.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Almighty,
Hehe, I didn't think about that. I am so used to Canada's safety net that, since the US's is so much smaller, I sometimes forget you guys even have one. Still emergency aid probably wont cover major, lifesaving operations. Sure no doctor is going to turn away a baby who is bleeding from his jugular but they probably wont cover a major operation for free either.

Pretnar,
Yeah, I'm economically illiterate, what of it?

"Why the fark else do you think layoffs are the first thing to occur when a company starts losing money?!"

There's a big difference between trimming the size of a company that's losing money so the rest of it can stay afloat, and increaing profits.

"No, it's not charity - it's a matter of the company needing labor to provide its product or service."

I know you dumbass, I wasn't making that argument! Christ, go back and read it again!

Corps and govt exist (or should) only because they benifit 'the people'. When this is no longer true it is time for a change.
What could be more important than being alive?

Wipqzun -

Actually, insured or not, if an operation is required to save a patient's life, a hospital is required by law to perform it. A hospital cannot, under any circumstances, allow a patient to die by neglecting to perform a procedure that is known to be lifesaving in that case. Even if that weren't the case, the Hippocratic (sp?) oath that all doctors are required to take precludes them from doing harm, or by inaction causing harm to fall on a patient in their care.

LudovicoTechnique
Yes, the taco stand I own exists only because it benefits the people. The requirement that I get a job or start a business to feed and clothe myself and my family is irrelevent.

Impaler you should go into stand up comedy, that troll was, without a doubt one of the funniest things I have heard on Fark in a long while. Ignoring all facts and common sense you have created a comical alternate universe that no one, not even after injecting a syringe full of god knows what into their veins, could think even slightly resembles real life. Through doing that you have, besides causing quite a few laughs, proved the point of every left leaning person on this thread, even the wackos.

Bravo!

Wabbitoid: I'm cuious -- what about kids born to people who can't meet your minimum expectations -- should the government take those kids away, and/or force an abortion?

The government already does take children away from parents who are unable to take care of their children in a responsible matter. I know...my own sister (worthless piece of welfare garbage that she is) has had 5 children taken from her by the state for just those reasons. They were given to couples who were unable to have children of their own, and had the financial resources to take care of a child responsibly.

Forced abortions? I don't think so....but with so many couples unable to have children of their own, what's wrong with putting your child up for adoption if you can't take care of her/him?

How about putting the father to work in a slave labor camp until the kid is 18 to pay for the cost of the kid?

Interesting idea. Reminds me of debtors prisons.

Wipqzun: What about the case of someone who could support their child with clothes, food, healthcare etc., then suddenly couldn't. ie. they get laid off and their child gets sick before they can get independant insuracne or a new job.

In that case, hospital emergency rooms (as so many people here have pointed out) are required to take people even if they're incapable of paying. Putting that in bold since you seem to have missed it all the times that people have written it.

If their kid dies it's not their fault, they were responsible: they could support their kid at the time and thought they would be able to in the long run.

If their child dies when every emergency room in the country is required to not turn away patients regardless of financial situation....then yes, it is the parents' fault.

So should the kid die because the CEO of the company thought he should up his profits for the next quarter?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but all I expect from the CEO of the company that I work for is my paycheck. If I can get group healthcare at a reduced rate through the company, then even better. But health care isn't a "right".

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....and the most important part is pursuit. You're not entitled to happiness....you have to go out and get it yourself. It doesn't say "if you can't find happiness on your own, the government or your employer will supply it for you".

Almighty "Even if that weren't the case, the Hippocratic (sp?) oath that all doctors are required to take precludes them from doing harm, or by inaction causing harm to fall on a patient in their care."

Doctors break that oath so often that sometimes I wonder why they even take it. Euthinasia, Do Not Resusitate Orders and Abortion are the best examples. (BTW I am not against abortion, DNR orders or some cases of euthinasia, I'm just using them as an example) Plastic Surgery, which does harm for no medical benefit is another example. Of course the most obvious example I could bring up is of all of the MDs who have worked on Biological and Chemical Weapons.

I find that most liberal and socialist views are backed by people with little economic knowledge. Macro economics should be a required course in all schools.


Ill bet that there are absolutely no death certificates with 'lack of insurance' listed as the cause of death.

We went through pregnacy and birth without insurance, and we regularly go to the dentist and eye doctors. The monthly payments we made were less than insurance premiums.

Health insurance is the single biggest scam in the US today, but socialized health care would is worse.

Wipqzun:
Good post. I never thought about all that as it relates to the Hippocratic Oath.
However, if a couple brings a dying kid into a hospital I don't think the doctor isn't gonna give him breast implants.

Heh heh. I meant "is".
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
*bangs head against desk*
Ow.

Making you wait for free health care, since 1998.
(note: date not that of inception)

Miles_OToole

I saw all of those posts and even responded to them above. Maybe I should have put it into bold for you?

"But health care isn't a "right"."

That attitude is the problem, as I see it, with most of the people on this board. If it isn't a right where you live then it should be. I support people who make their lives better through their own efforts, that is what capitalisim is all about. (I know Canada is semi-socialist but we still have a capitalistic economy) But when people start making money through the deaths of others thats when the government should step in. And thats what you are doing when you say that your taxes shouldn't go to pay for medical care for someone else because you want that money. You are saying that having a larger paycheck is more important to you that saving a human life.

I hope the people that oppose socialized medicine are laid off when they are 'past it' (40s-50s), lose their insurance coverage and die a horrible death in a gutter some where because no hospital will treat them.

I've got an idea. How about the government take the money of those that *can* afford insurance, and give it to those who can't?
;)

-A