If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Doctors are preparing for the massive influx of patients once Obamacare goes into full effect. "It's like we're handing out bus tickets and the bus is already full"   (bloomberg.com) divider line 319
    More: Obvious, obamacare, American Academy of Family Physicians, Holy Cross, Medicine study, San Francisco General Hospital, Commonwealth Fund, George Washington University in Washington, health law  
•       •       •

3849 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2013 at 9:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



319 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-24 01:26:46 PM  

Kit Fister: mwfark: Nobody owes you healthcare. Act like a grown-up and take care of yourself.

On the flip side, as a nation, it's pretty damn shiatty to game the system so that people can't afford to purchase it. I don't agree that it must be *given* to people, but at least find a way to make it so most people can afford it. That way, they actually pay what they can and have access to it.

This is where I agree having a baseline program that one pays for as part of their taxes (medicare?), with supplemental insurance available if one wants more coverage.


I partially agree but blame the government, Medicare, and cronyism for the high costs in the first place, so more government is not the answer in my estimation.
 
2013-09-24 01:27:11 PM  

Kit Fister: RedTank: Fair enough, but morality should define those and it does not because there is no morality in capitalism because there is no morality in money.

And you confuse personal morality with societal values.  Your morality is not mine, nor much of society's.


But we as a society should have common moral and ethical standards which include caring for the sick at whatever the cost.  I'm sorry your personal code doesn't include that but I guess you are also suggesting that I'm somehow a small minority and that all whom support universal healthcare are doing it solely for their own greed and selfishness?  Because that's what you would do in their position....?
 
2013-09-24 01:30:09 PM  

doyner: mwfark: Nobody owes you healthcare. Act like a grown-up and take care of yourself.

I know, right?  Part of taking care of yourself is not having a childhood illness that is deemed a pre-existing condition.  Another part is not having your insurance recinded.  Another part is having a job that allows you to afford insurance...  It's so obvious!  Why is this so hard for people to understand?


I'll grant you pre-existing conditions, but that could have been addressed without the full implementation of the leviathan that is Obamacare. But if you want a better job with better benefits, then pursue it. Again, nobody owes you a thing.
 
2013-09-24 01:31:36 PM  

doyner: mwfark: Nobody owes you healthcare. Act like a grown-up and take care of yourself.

I know, right?  Part of taking care of yourself is not having a childhood illness that is deemed a pre-existing condition.  Another part is not having your insurance recinded.  Another part is having a job that allows you to afford insurance...  It's so obvious!  Why is this so hard for people to understand?


Not to mention those lazy 5 year olds who aren't out working for their insurance.
 
2013-09-24 01:34:00 PM  
Is the government still paying medical schools not to produce doctors?

/Another brilliant Republican initiative
 
2013-09-24 01:36:18 PM  

dywed88: doyner: mwfark: Nobody owes you healthcare. Act like a grown-up and take care of yourself.

I know, right?  Part of taking care of yourself is not having a childhood illness that is deemed a pre-existing condition.  Another part is not having your insurance recinded.  Another part is having a job that allows you to afford insurance...  It's so obvious!  Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Not to mention those lazy 5 year olds who aren't out working for their insurance.


I work to insure my son, 3 years old, so he doesn't have to "work." If a parent is not taking care of their kid, them is the problem with healthcare or the parent?

I do think healthcare is staggeringly too expensive, but this law is increasing costs and killing jobs. That is a fact; it is only exacerbating the problem.
 
2013-09-24 01:41:09 PM  
But they said there weren't actually any people without health care. They promised.
 
2013-09-24 01:42:18 PM  

mwfark: killing jobs


This term is Luntz approved!
 
2013-09-24 01:42:33 PM  
Health care, the only business that can freely alienate customers due to complete control over the supply / demand ratio. Don't want to work as hard? Charge your few customers double without retribution.My brother in law is on gov health care. His wife had a kid, at a total cost out of pocket of $250. My wife had a kid few months later, under our above average BCBS plan. Our cost? $7500 out of pocket.
 
2013-09-24 01:43:39 PM  

mwfark: dywed88: doyner: mwfark: Nobody owes you healthcare. Act like a grown-up and take care of yourself.

I know, right?  Part of taking care of yourself is not having a childhood illness that is deemed a pre-existing condition.  Another part is not having your insurance recinded.  Another part is having a job that allows you to afford insurance...  It's so obvious!  Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Not to mention those lazy 5 year olds who aren't out working for their insurance.

I work to insure my son, 3 years old, so he doesn't have to "work." If a parent is not taking care of their kid, them is the problem with healthcare or the parent?

I do think healthcare is staggeringly too expensive, but this law is increasing costs and killing jobs. That is a fact; it is only exacerbating the problem.


So because someone has poor parents they don't deserve healthcare?

Yet there are at least as many studies saying that the ACA will decrease costs.

Single payer is the way to go, but politically infeasible. This is a half-assed step forward. As a different poster said, you don't put a bandaid on a severed limb, but if it slows the bleeding it is better than nothing.
 
2013-09-24 01:44:05 PM  

mwfark: dywed88: doyner: mwfark: Nobody owes you healthcare. Act like a grown-up and take care of yourself.

I know, right?  Part of taking care of yourself is not having a childhood illness that is deemed a pre-existing condition.  Another part is not having your insurance recinded.  Another part is having a job that allows you to afford insurance...  It's so obvious!  Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Not to mention those lazy 5 year olds who aren't out working for their insurance.

I work to insure my son, 3 years old, so he doesn't have to "work." If a parent is not taking care of their kid, them is the problem with healthcare or the parent?

I do think healthcare is staggeringly too expensive, but this law is increasing costs and killing jobs. That is a fact; it is only exacerbating the problem.


We will all pay for healthcare one way or another.  Either the government sets it themselves and we pay with jobs, higher taxes, and lower quality.  Or we have high quality highly expensive healthcare available to a select sect of society because poor people don't pay their medical bills.

There are no other options, those are the two extreams and we either pick one or we combine them.  Either way someone pays.  So this whole notion of not wanting to pay for people in a universal healthcare system is moot because you will pay for them in a system where they are excluded and unable to pay their bills.
 
2013-09-24 01:44:34 PM  

mwfark: dywed88: doyner: mwfark: 
I do think healthcare is staggeringly too expensive, but this law is increasing costs and killing jobs. That is a fact; it is only exacerbating the problem.


Would you be for ACA if the opposite was true? that it wasn't too expensive, and there were no statistical inference that costs were increasing and jobs were being killed?
Plus all the stuff that is actually in the law that isn't being brought up here.

Honestly, ask yourself if you would.
 
2013-09-24 01:44:35 PM  
You're a bunch of evil communists.  Healthcare is only for those who can afford it.  Why are so many of you so un-American?
 
2013-09-24 01:54:23 PM  

TNel: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle:

I do.

Same here.

Good thing your employer is nice, I pay $100 a month for family coverage because my employer cares about it's people.  My wife's work wanted like $400 for single person and like $750 for family.


I'm paying about $800/month for AETNA HMO for my 48 year-old self, my wife, and my kids. My current company's a cheap-ass contractor mill and they suck real hard, but I can't buy my own health insurance outside of the Patriotic Homelander Employee-Provided model that's any cheaper. I've had to pass up good job opportunities because they didn't include health insurance or pay enough to make it worth my while to buy my own. No goddamn good.

I work with a late-20s single guy who pays about $100-$150/month, but then young, single, etc. I think he pays more for car insurance than I do.
 
2013-09-24 01:57:24 PM  

RedTank: But we as a society should have common moral and ethical standards which include caring for the sick at whatever the cost. I'm sorry your personal code doesn't include that but I guess you are also suggesting that I'm somehow a small minority and that all whom support universal healthcare are doing it solely for their own greed and selfishness? Because that's what you would do in their position....?


No, they do it for the right reasons. But one of the key things here is you suggest we should care for the sick whatever the cost. I agree, but there comes a point at which other conversations come up, like at what point you let the patient decide whether a quick and painless death is preferable to painful treatments that cost shiatloads of money that buy them an extra six months.

One of my reasons that I disagree with your morality is because it assumes a lot about what defines quality care. An example: I have an uncle who is alive, technically, but is locked in a completely paralyzed body. He can blink his eyes and wiggle his toes a bit. "Caring for the sick whatever the cost" got us to the point where we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep him alive in a hospital instead of the five minute decision to mercifully just allow him to go with a quick OD of morphine.

So, until we address some of the more fundamental issues the position of health care at all costs brings up in the morality of life and death and treatment, I'll question the motives and morality of how we approach healthcare entirely.  But that's not what we're discussing.
 
2013-09-24 02:03:28 PM  

AngryDragon: Quick!  Somebody expand the H1B pool!


Maybe an excessive tax on H1B's?
 
2013-09-24 02:05:22 PM  

Molavian: AngryDragon: Quick!  Somebody expand the H1B pool!

Maybe an excessive tax on H1B's?


I'm OK with this.
 
2013-09-24 02:10:00 PM  

CrazyCracka420: You're a bunch of evil communists.  Healthcare is only for those who can afford it.  Why are so many of you so un-American?


Oh shut up.
 
2013-09-24 02:10:04 PM  

RedTank: Nabb1: olddeegee: doubled99: Necessary medical care is a basic human right.

Quite obviously and demonstrably it is not.

There is a segment of our population that will never understand that medical care is a right. Our society will soon hit a time when we must re-evaluate what is subject to capitalism. Necessities shouldn't be. Capitalism is awesome, but tying it to things that you need simply to live is barbaric. Obviously, you also have those who will fight this. I mean, what fun is it to be rich, unless there are poor people?

It's not a right. It's the product of someone else's labor. It's no more your right than the products of your labor are anyone else's right. We should provide things like food, shelter, clothing and medicine for those unable to provide for themselves because it is right to do so and betters us as a society, but nine of those things are rights.

Ok, so the distinction you are trying to make is that there are rights and then there are certain products that a society has the right to provide?  Why does that distinction matter in this case?  Seems like you're splitting hairs a bit and missing the point.


"Rights" are negative obligations - limitations on the power of the state in terms of what it can do to you or expect from you. They are not tangible things you are entitled to receive. We may all need food, shelter, medicine, etc., but these are not "rights." The fact that something is a "necessity" does not make it a right. The state is not obligated to provide you with anything tangible by virtue of your existence. It is, however, obligated to recognize your autonomy, self-determination, and freedom so long as your exercises of those do not inflict unwarranted harm on those around you. Helping people, although noble, laudable, and the hallmark of a civil society, are not "rights." Quality healthcare is a luxury afforded to us by virtue of living in an advanced society with a deep base of knowledge of science and medicine. That's it. People use the term "right" cheaply these days.
 
2013-09-24 02:13:57 PM  
Necessary medical care is a basic human right.

Quite obviously and demonstrably it is not.

There is a segment of our population that will never understand that medical care is a right. Our society will soon hit a time when we must re-evaluate what is subject to capitalism. Necessities shouldn't be. Capitalism is awesome, but tying it to things that you need simply to live is barbaric. Obviously, you also have those who will fight this. I mean, what fun is it to be rich, unless there are poor people?


So your "rights" are things you feel you should have.   You have made the word  vague and meaningless
 
2013-09-24 02:14:25 PM  

Kit Fister: RedTank: But we as a society should have common moral and ethical standards which include caring for the sick at whatever the cost. I'm sorry your personal code doesn't include that but I guess you are also suggesting that I'm somehow a small minority and that all whom support universal healthcare are doing it solely for their own greed and selfishness? Because that's what you would do in their position....?

No, they do it for the right reasons. But one of the key things here is you suggest we should care for the sick whatever the cost. I agree, but there comes a point at which other conversations come up, like at what point you let the patient decide whether a quick and painless death is preferable to painful treatments that cost shiatloads of money that buy them an extra six months.

One of my reasons that I disagree with your morality is because it assumes a lot about what defines quality care. An example: I have an uncle who is alive, technically, but is locked in a completely paralyzed body. He can blink his eyes and wiggle his toes a bit. "Caring for the sick whatever the cost" got us to the point where we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep him alive in a hospital instead of the five minute decision to mercifully just allow him to go with a quick OD of morphine.

So, until we address some of the more fundamental issues the position of health care at all costs brings up in the morality of life and death and treatment, I'll question the motives and morality of how we approach healthcare entirely.  But that's not what we're discussing.


I agree totally with this.  I think the discussion of the high costs of end of life treatment should be discussed and I have no moral issue with letting someone die whom wishes to die.  I would rather die than bankrupt my family, and I would refuse for them to make that decision for me out of their own selfishness to keep me alive.  But these situations are in the minority when compared to access to basic healthcare, which is what this conversation  (at least for me) is mainly about.  I do realize that those end of life costs are probably very high comparatively.  But I see a distinction between the two, it's an issue which will exists no matter who controls our healthcare.

My point is that I'm merely speaking to the ethics of letting people die whom do not wish to die.  The choice that has been taken away because they don't have the money.
 
2013-09-24 02:14:57 PM  

Nabb1: "Rights" are negative obligations - limitations on the power of the state in terms of what it can do to you or expect from you. They are not tangible things you are entitled to receive. We may all need food, shelter, medicine, etc., but these are not "rights." The fact that something is a "necessity" does not make it a right. The state is not obligated to provide you with anything tangible by virtue of your existence. It is, however, obligated to recognize your autonomy, self-determination, and freedom so long as your exercises of those do not inflict unwarranted harm on those around you. Helping people, although noble, laudable, and the hallmark of a civil society, are not "rights." Quality healthcare is a luxury afforded to us by virtue of living in an advanced society with a deep base of knowledge of science and medicine. That's it. People use the term "right" cheaply these days.


And lo, the clouds parted and the angels sang as a voice of reason rang forth...
 
2013-09-24 02:15:00 PM  

Kit Fister: CrazyCracka420: You're a bunch of evil communists.  Healthcare is only for those who can afford it.  Why are so many of you so un-American?

Oh shut up.


Well I tried.
 
2013-09-24 02:15:22 PM  

doubled99: Necessary medical care is a basic human right.

Quite obviously and demonstrably it is not.

There is a segment of our population that will never understand that medical care is a right. Our society will soon hit a time when we must re-evaluate what is subject to capitalism. Necessities shouldn't be. Capitalism is awesome, but tying it to things that you need simply to live is barbaric. Obviously, you also have those who will fight this. I mean, what fun is it to be rich, unless there are poor people?

So your "rights" are things you feel you should have.   You have made the word  vague and meaningless


What makes something a right in your opinion?
 
2013-09-24 02:17:39 PM  

Nabb1: "Rights" are negative obligations - limitations on the power of the state in terms of what it can do to you or expect from you. They are not tangible things you are entitled to receive. We may all need food, shelter, medicine, etc., but these are not "rights." The fact that something is a "necessity" does not make it a right. The state is not obligated to provide you with anything tangible by virtue of your existence. It is, however, obligated to recognize your autonomy, self-determination, and freedom so long as your exercises of those do not inflict unwarranted harm on those around you. Helping people, although noble, laudable, and the hallmark of a civil society, are not "rights." Quality healthcare is a luxury afforded to us by virtue of living in an advanced society with a deep base of knowledge of science and medicine. T ...


It's a moral and ethical responsibility for a society to provide for it's sick.  I could care less what you call it.
 
2013-09-24 02:20:29 PM  

doyner: doubled99: Necessary medical care is a basic human right.

Quite obviously and demonstrably it is not.

There is a segment of our population that will never understand that medical care is a right. Our society will soon hit a time when we must re-evaluate what is subject to capitalism. Necessities shouldn't be. Capitalism is awesome, but tying it to things that you need simply to live is barbaric. Obviously, you also have those who will fight this. I mean, what fun is it to be rich, unless there are poor people?

So your "rights" are things you feel you should have.   You have made the word  vague and meaningless

What makes something a right in your opinion?


We don't have rights in this country.  They're not rights if they can be taken away.  They are privileges.
 
2013-09-24 02:21:24 PM  

RedTank: My point is that I'm merely speaking to the ethics of letting people die whom do not wish to die. The choice that has been taken away because they don't have the money.


I think that we as a society should provide whatever we can in a basic availability sense, so that the very basics of preventing illness and death in those that are afflicted are there and available cheaply. This is a common good thing that also serves to prevent the prevalence and spread of communicable diseases and helps improve the health of everyone as a whole (and that gets into a whole different discussion about our attitudes towards what makes us healthy, but I digress).

But, as you say, working with what is considered basic care and what is and isn't the benchmark of what people consider basic care to be is where we need to work on the benchmarks. Being treated for disease and getting basic checkups to give you a status report is a far cry from people that run to the doctor with every little ache, pain, and sniffle leading to overmedication.
 
2013-09-24 02:21:50 PM  

RedTank: Nabb1: "Rights" are negative obligations - limitations on the power of the state in terms of what it can do to you or expect from you. They are not tangible things you are entitled to receive. We may all need food, shelter, medicine, etc., but these are not "rights." The fact that something is a "necessity" does not make it a right. The state is not obligated to provide you with anything tangible by virtue of your existence. It is, however, obligated to recognize your autonomy, self-determination, and freedom so long as your exercises of those do not inflict unwarranted harm on those around you. Helping people, although noble, laudable, and the hallmark of a civil society, are not "rights." Quality healthcare is a luxury afforded to us by virtue of living in an advanced society with a deep base of knowledge of science and medicine. T ...

It's a moral and ethical responsibility for a society to provide for it's sick.  I could care less what you call it.


Words have meaning. Labeling something a "right" when debating this sort of issue is not insignificant, nor is it done without knowledge by many of those phrasing it that way. To call something a "right" implies to those people to whom you are trying to appeal for something that something to which they are entitled is being denied them by the state or by those who disagree. This is not an accident. It is by design that people attempt to frame the debate that way. Most reasonable people agree that it is right and good to help the most vulnerable in society. After that, it gets complicated. Trying to invoke the absolute, across the board entitlement conferred by a "right" is a very calculated choice of phrasing.
 
2013-09-24 02:23:11 PM  

Nabb1: RedTank: Nabb1: "Rights" are negative obligations - limitations on the power of the state in terms of what it can do to you or expect from you. They are not tangible things you are entitled to receive. We may all need food, shelter, medicine, etc., but these are not "rights." The fact that something is a "necessity" does not make it a right. The state is not obligated to provide you with anything tangible by virtue of your existence. It is, however, obligated to recognize your autonomy, self-determination, and freedom so long as your exercises of those do not inflict unwarranted harm on those around you. Helping people, although noble, laudable, and the hallmark of a civil society, are not "rights." Quality healthcare is a luxury afforded to us by virtue of living in an advanced society with a deep base of knowledge of science and medicine. T ...

It's a moral and ethical responsibility for a society to provide for it's sick.  I could care less what you call it.

Words have meaning. Labeling something a "right" when debating this sort of issue is not insignificant, nor is it done without knowledge by many of those phrasing it that way. To call something a "right" implies to those people to whom you are trying to appeal for something that something to which they are entitled is being denied them by the state or by those who disagree. This is not an accident. It is by design that people attempt to frame the debate that way. Most reasonable people agree that it is right and good to help the most vulnerable in society. After that, it gets complicated. Trying to invoke the absolute, across the board entitlement conferred by a "right" is a very calculated choice of phrasing.


Favorited.
 
2013-09-24 02:23:22 PM  

Kit Fister: RedTank: But we as a society should have common moral and ethical standards which include caring for the sick at whatever the cost. I'm sorry your personal code doesn't include that but I guess you are also suggesting that I'm somehow a small minority and that all whom support universal healthcare are doing it solely for their own greed and selfishness? Because that's what you would do in their position....?

No, they do it for the right reasons. But one of the key things here is you suggest we should care for the sick whatever the cost. I agree, but there comes a point at which other conversations come up, like at what point you let the patient decide whether a quick and painless death is preferable to painful treatments that cost shiatloads of money that buy them an extra six months.

One of my reasons that I disagree with your morality is because it assumes a lot about what defines quality care. An example: I have an uncle who is alive, technically, but is locked in a completely paralyzed body. He can blink his eyes and wiggle his toes a bit. "Caring for the sick whatever the cost" got us to the point where we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep him alive in a hospital instead of the five minute decision to mercifully just allow him to go with a quick OD of morphine.

So, until we address some of the more fundamental issues the position of health care at all costs brings up in the morality of life and death and treatment, I'll question the motives and morality of how we approach healthcare entirely.  But that's not what we're discussing.


I would argue that proper care includes following the patient's wishes with regards to end of life. The only stipulation I would make is that only the individual can demand active steps be taken to end their life (either through a living will or directly). No PoA should cover that, they should only allow for refusal of actions to extend life.

But you are talking about a separate issue. That should be discussed and taken care of separately.
 
2013-09-24 02:23:58 PM  

CrazyCracka420: doyner: doubled99: Necessary medical care is a basic human right.

Quite obviously and demonstrably it is not.

There is a segment of our population that will never understand that medical care is a right. Our society will soon hit a time when we must re-evaluate what is subject to capitalism. Necessities shouldn't be. Capitalism is awesome, but tying it to things that you need simply to live is barbaric. Obviously, you also have those who will fight this. I mean, what fun is it to be rich, unless there are poor people?

So your "rights" are things you feel you should have.   You have made the word  vague and meaningless

What makes something a right in your opinion?

We don't have rights in this country.  They're not rights if they can be taken away.  They are privileges.


Such is the authoritarian mindset. Our government was born out of the philosophy that the state is of limited, not unlimited, power and such power can only come from the consent of the governed. Hence, our notion of "rights" as evidenced by the Bill of Rights, which expressly states that the list of rights contained in it is not exhaustive, and any powers not expressly granted are reserved to the states and the people.
 
2013-09-24 02:25:35 PM  

Nabb1: It's a moral and ethical responsibility for a society to provide for it's sick.  I could care less what you call it.

Words have meaning. Labeling something a "right" when debating this sort of issue is not insignificant, nor is it done without knowledge by many of those phrasing it that way. To call something a "right" implies to those people to whom you are trying to appeal for something that something to which they are entitled is being denied them by the state or by those who disagree. This is not an accident. It is by design that people attempt to frame the debate that way. Most reasonable people agree that it is right and good to help the most vulnerable in society. After that, it gets complicated. Trying to invoke the absolute, across the board entitlement conferred by a "right" is a very calculated choice of phrasing.


That's all good and well.  I don't personally refer to healthcare as a right but I do refer to it as a responsibility and a burden we must all share.  Meaning I'm not interested in discussing the legality of terms and applications rather I'm more interested in people caring for each other and not hiding behind the walls of words on either side.
 
2013-09-24 02:27:47 PM  

RedTank: That's all good and well. I don't personally refer to healthcare as a right but I do refer to it as a responsibility and a burden we must all share. Meaning I'm not interested in discussing the legality of terms and applications rather I'm more interested in people caring for each other and not hiding behind the walls of words on either side.


Unfortunately, most have neither the time nor the interest in caring for others outside of their own tribal associations.
 
2013-09-24 02:28:33 PM  
I have had lifelong health issues, totally unrelated to my or my parents behavior or financial status, among other things I am a cancer survivor.  I am 46, college educated and fully employed all  my adult life, I cannot participate in any company plan due to my condiditions, I spend $1500 a month for my , my wife and my 2 year olds health care.  I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe that everyone has a right to health care (it is in the constitution, it's called equal protection under the law").  Instead of arguing over whether this law sucks (it does in my opinion, although I fully support it because it is the best we have right now) we should be fixing our nations attitudes toward civil discussion of government, letting two parties prevent each other from coming up with a good solution and settling for the pathetic best compromise is ridiculous.
 
2013-09-24 02:34:04 PM  

Capo Del Bandito: Highroller48: The notion that ability to pay should ever impact necessary medical care in any way is laughably stupid. Necessary medical care is a basic human right. Unless you're conservative, in which case the only truly inalienable human right is to make as much money as you can off, of whomever you can, for as long as you can, by whatever means you can, because FREEDOM!

I never understood your kind. Too much compassion or empathy or something. The idea that anyone has a 'right' to any sort of extension on their life, or to be 'well' is laughable.


As compared to having to much Apathy like you farkers? Ill take too much empathy anytime.
WTF is wrong with conservatives? Are they all psychopaths?
 
2013-09-24 02:34:10 PM  

Kit Fister: I think that we as a society should provide whatever we can in a basic availability sense, so that the very basics of preventing illness and death in those that are afflicted are there and available cheaply. This is a common good thing that also serves to prevent the prevalence and spread of communicable diseases and helps improve the health of everyone as a whole (and that gets into a whole different discussion about our attitudes towards what makes us healthy, but I digress).

But, as you say, working with what is considered basic care and what is and isn't the benchmark of what people consider basic care to be is where we need to work on the benchmarks. Being treated for disease and getting basic checkups to give you a status report is a far cry from people that run to the doctor with every little ache, pain, and sniffle leading to overmedication.


I can agree to that assessment overall...  But again personally I'd rather payer higher taxes with a minority (even majority in some cases) percentage of that going to people whom abuse the system rather than live in a country that refuses to help the sick because they are afraid of the overhead costs of abuse.
 
2013-09-24 02:37:14 PM  

Kit Fister: RedTank: That's all good and well. I don't personally refer to healthcare as a right but I do refer to it as a responsibility and a burden we must all share. Meaning I'm not interested in discussing the legality of terms and applications rather I'm more interested in people caring for each other and not hiding behind the walls of words on either side.

Unfortunately, most have neither the time nor the interest in caring for others outside of their own tribal associations.


Right, which is why faith in humanity in the best course of action against that.  Humanism... rising above those petty narrow minded associations.
 
2013-09-24 02:37:51 PM  
When I start to see doctors driving around in rusted out Pintos, then I'll worry. Until then, STFU, GBTW and work a full day on Fridays doc.
 
2013-09-24 02:41:58 PM  

RedTank: Right, which is why faith in humanity in the best course of action against that. Humanism... rising above those petty narrow minded associations.


I'm afraid, in that, I'll disagree with you because I will fight for the people I know and care about before anyone else. It's always going to be that way.
 
2013-09-24 02:43:06 PM  
. "The shortfall of primary-care access is not an insignificant problem

Can't you just say "The shortfall of primary-care access is a significant problem "?

Wouldn't that be easier Mr Doublenegatives?
 
2013-09-24 02:44:27 PM  

Kit Fister: RedTank: Right, which is why faith in humanity in the best course of action against that. Humanism... rising above those petty narrow minded associations.

I'm afraid, in that, I'll disagree with you because I will fight for the people I know and care about before anyone else. It's always going to be that way.


And that's fine - I am the same, but I just want to strive to be better.
 
2013-09-24 02:49:10 PM  
All we have to do is make every illegal immigrant a citzen, and allow them to use the healing beds.
assets.nydailynews.com
How hard is that?
 
2013-09-24 02:49:29 PM  

MythDragon: . "The shortfall of primary-care access is not an insignificant problem

Can't you just say "The shortfall of primary-care access is a significant problem "?

Wouldn't that be easier Mr Doublenegatives?


but he sounds more erudite by using double negatives.
 
2013-09-24 02:57:11 PM  
1. People still can't afford to go after paying thousands for coverage.

2. Tons of money is still being wasted going thru insurance middlemen, as usual.

3. The system is already overloaded. There needs to be more support staff trained and available to handle increased workload, but corporations are still in "understaffing orgasm mode". (When I'm dead I'm going to kick the inventor of understaffing in the privates for driving real customer service straight into the toilet.)

4. Has anyone pointed out all the doctors who have said they are quitting the profession due to the cuts in payments?
 
2013-09-24 02:57:56 PM  

Kit Fister: MythDragon: . "The shortfall of primary-care access is not an insignificant problem

Can't you just say "The shortfall of primary-care access is a significant problem "?

Wouldn't that be easier Mr Doublenegatives?

but he sounds more erudite by using double negatives.


Well, he certianly doesn't NOT sound less erudite for not using double negatives.
 
2013-09-24 03:18:07 PM  

Highroller48: Kit Fister: MythDragon: . "The shortfall of primary-care access is not an insignificant problem

Can't you just say "The shortfall of primary-care access is a significant problem "?

Wouldn't that be easier Mr Doublenegatives?

but he sounds more erudite by using double negatives.

Well, he certianly doesn't NOT sound less erudite for not using double negatives.


I just don't think it's a very cromulent way of doing things.
 
2013-09-24 04:01:27 PM  

Pharmdawg: 4. Has anyone pointed out all the doctors who have said they are quitting the profession due to the cuts in payments?


Probably roughly the same percentage as the voters who leave the country when their presidential candidate loses.

Disclaimer - I'm a surgical resident, got less than 2 years until I'm done

That said, here's a little anecdote about how broken the healthcare system is. Some time back my wife swore that our infant son had swallowed a couple of dimes. After not finding any loose change in his poop, she got a bit more panicked, and I agreed that we should get an x-ray. Now, I work as a doctor in the largest hospital in the state - it is also a state institution. I've got health insurance for myself and my two children through this hospital (my wife works elsewhere and has her own plan through that job), and I do not skimp on our coverage. I consider our situation to be above the norm in terms of access to healthcare, and I'm aware that we're lucky. However, we hadn't come anywhere near our deductible of $1000. Yes, I know I could lower the damn thing, but generally that us costs more than it would save. Should I have 1000 bucks for stuff like this? Absolutely, and I did; this kind of shiat is the reason you put money aside. Again though, I'm aware that many people don't have this.

So if a patient had walked in the door with this problem I'd have probably gotten an xray that day. Instead we waited awhile longer for him to pass the coins as he was feeling fine, and no one had actually seen him swallow them. Eventually I got him imaged, off the books with a friend/colleague at the hospital, and there were no coins to be seen, but the point is this: I am more apt to provide healthcare for people without insurance and without the ability to pay back a single cent than I am to my own family while working as a doctor for the same hospital. This can't be right! We treat people who eat themselves to death, people who shoot at the cops, people who get drunk and wreck into families. We treat them all at the academic hospital without any expectation or talk of reimbursement. I've seen outstanding bills into the seven figures on patients to whom we are currently providing even further care. Then when I need 2 minutes of exam time and one plain abdominal film, I balk at getting them immediately and then do it under the table. I can't imagine what it must be like if you don't know literally hundreds of other doctors that can lend a hand and don't have "good insurance."

As far as how to fix that shiat, I have no idea. I'm not ranting that our patients can't pay, I actually don't blame them.
 
2013-09-24 04:20:49 PM  
Whether or not healthcare is a right is irrelevant to this conversation. Emergency card has been determined to be a right in the US for some time. It makes no sense to not include preventative care also that will decrease overall cost in the long term? Agree?
 
2013-09-24 04:41:25 PM  

cards fan by association: Whether or not healthcare is a right is irrelevant to this conversation. Emergency card has been determined to be a right in the US for some time. It makes no sense to not include preventative care also that will decrease overall cost in the long term? Agree?


Yes that's the pragmatic logic that I don't think anyone can really argue with.  Either we pay for their preventative care, or we pay more for their emergency care.

Solutions to these problems are varied however.  I personally believe having insurance just drives up costs (having a middle man always does, it's a no brainer).  But health care costs themselves are down right ridiculous and over priced.
 
2013-09-24 04:53:12 PM  
Wow.  Six pages of argument over something that has already been decided.  Enjoy stewing in your own bile, righties.

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: Capo Del Bandito: Highroller48: The notion that ability to pay should ever impact necessary medical care in any way is laughably stupid. Necessary medical care is a basic human right. Unless you're conservative, in which case the only truly inalienable human right is to make as much money as you can off, of whomever you can, for as long as you can, by whatever means you can, because FREEDOM!

I never understood your kind. Too much compassion or empathy or something. The idea that anyone has a 'right' to any sort of extension on their life, or to be 'well' is laughable.

As compared to having to much Apathy like you farkers? Ill take too much empathy anytime.
WTF is wrong with conservatives? Are they all psychopaths?


I assume that's a rhetorical question...
 
Displayed 50 of 319 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report