Post by: roo_ster on January 27, 2008, 05:46:13 PM
Gotta love socialized medicine.
What was the old saying? "The compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Post Office, at Pentagon prices."
Quote
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
You can't make this *expletive deleted*it up.
I wonder, are these the same folks who think illegal immigrants ought to be treated for free by taxpayers?
Post by: doc2rn on January 27, 2008, 06:12:56 PM
Quote
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
If food that was unhealthy wasnt cheaper than fresh fruit and veggies, maybe, obesity would not be an economic problem for the poor. It should be subsidized by the state. I would eat healthier if I could afford it. I did a paper on this last semester, and I kept track of food receipts for a ballanced diet for a month vs fast food for the following month. It showed a 39% increase to eat healthy.
Of course they don't want to treat people, they need to reduce the population of baby boomers so that when they retire there will still be a social service program.
Post by: Scout26 on January 27, 2008, 06:13:03 PM
Quote
"The compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Post Office, at Pentagon prices."
I am so stealing this and using it in my next LTTE of the local fish wrap. There have been several LTTE recently calling for "Single Payer" or "Univerisal Coverage".
Post by: wooderson on January 27, 2008, 06:31:46 PM
Quote
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations
Wait, "some operations"?You mean, doctors didn't say "don't treat the old and unhealthy," they said don't make the state pay for some treatments for self-induced conditions? Instead push that onto private care (which would be, uh, an awful lot like the way our entire system works...)
Why, those look almost like two entirely different statements. Fancy that.
Quote
I wonder, are these the same folks who think illegal immigrants ought to be treated for free by taxpayers?
Hard to say whether or not these British doctors hold any firm opinion on illegal immigrants in the US....
...
...
But you never know.
Post by: Bogie on January 27, 2008, 07:00:52 PM
Can't say that about USPS... Some of that crap is still gone...
Post by: Scout26 on January 27, 2008, 07:07:14 PM
Quote
You mean the better-than-FedEx or UPS service, at prices less than what anyone else in the world pays for basic postal service?
http://cbs2chicago.com/consumer/u.s.postal.2.337340.html
Quote
Residents Sound Off About City's Poor Mail Service
Customers, Mail Carriers, Local Politicians Testify At Congressional Hearing
by Rafael Romo
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Problems run deep with the Post Office in Chicago. Service here is the worst in the nation. But that may be changing.
CBS 2's Rafael Romo explains what happened Thursday that could improve service.
The U.S. Postal Service has hired an additional 206 mail carriers to improve service here in Chicago; but, by their own admission, it is only the first step in solving a big problem of poor service that had to do with culture and accountability.
For David Barlow, opening his mailbox is almost always an adventure.
"What mail am I not getting? Who's getting my mail and what are they doing with it? Are they throwing it in the can or are they putting it back in the mailbox hoping that it might get to the right owner?" Barlow asked.
Fed up with a mail delivery service that is ranked the worst in the nation, he decided to take action.
Today he testified at a congressional hearing along with other unhappy customers, mail carriers, and elected officials.
Newly elected Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd) said, "Increased postal rates coupled with poor mail delivery service sets the U.S. Postal Service on a course for a train wreck."
U.S. Postmaster General Jack Potter admitted that some managers created the problem by cutting costs.
"They obviously had expectations that were beyond what they were able to achieve and as a result we saw a decline in service performance," Potter said.
Union leaders representing mail clerks and carriers said the cuts have created an environment in which managers put a lot of pressure on them.
More than 140 postal experts from around the country have been deployed to Chicago to revamp operations and systems. But they're still very far from finishing their task.
(? MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Customers, Mail Carriers, Local Politicians Testify At Congressional Hearing
by Rafael Romo
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Problems run deep with the Post Office in Chicago. Service here is the worst in the nation. But that may be changing.
CBS 2's Rafael Romo explains what happened Thursday that could improve service.
The U.S. Postal Service has hired an additional 206 mail carriers to improve service here in Chicago; but, by their own admission, it is only the first step in solving a big problem of poor service that had to do with culture and accountability.
For David Barlow, opening his mailbox is almost always an adventure.
"What mail am I not getting? Who's getting my mail and what are they doing with it? Are they throwing it in the can or are they putting it back in the mailbox hoping that it might get to the right owner?" Barlow asked.
Fed up with a mail delivery service that is ranked the worst in the nation, he decided to take action.
Today he testified at a congressional hearing along with other unhappy customers, mail carriers, and elected officials.
Newly elected Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd) said, "Increased postal rates coupled with poor mail delivery service sets the U.S. Postal Service on a course for a train wreck."
U.S. Postmaster General Jack Potter admitted that some managers created the problem by cutting costs.
"They obviously had expectations that were beyond what they were able to achieve and as a result we saw a decline in service performance," Potter said.
Union leaders representing mail clerks and carriers said the cuts have created an environment in which managers put a lot of pressure on them.
More than 140 postal experts from around the country have been deployed to Chicago to revamp operations and systems. But they're still very far from finishing their task.
(? MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Uh, yep that crappy mail service. With UPS/Fedex/DHL, I've got a tracking number and insurance, with USPS, I get "Sucks to be you.".
Post by: nico on January 27, 2008, 07:15:04 PM
Post Office efficiency? You mean the better-than-FedEx or UPS service, at prices less than what anyone else in the world pays for basic postal service? The horror, the horror, the horror.
that's EXTREMELY debatableQuote
Quote
I wonder, are these the same folks who think illegal immigrants ought to be treated for free by taxpayers?
Hard to say whether or not these British doctors hold any firm opinion on illegal immigrants in the US....
...
...
But you never know.
Post by: GigaBuist on January 27, 2008, 07:21:06 PM
It's a pretty rural road, and everybody has lived in the same houses for about 30 years with very few exceptions.
Recently an elderly neighbor put a zip-tie around her mail box to stop them from delivering mail while she was in Florida. The postal worker just shoved it all into the mailbox four houses down.
My girlfriend once had her mail delivered covered on blood. The postal worker cut his hand but didn't bother patching it up.
A few months later she had moved in with me and let her mailbox get too full. Post office stopped delivery and slapped a neon-yellow "VACANT" sign on her mailbox. The reason they did that is so that mail doesnt pile up and leave a sign that the house isn't occupied. I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through. When she went to pick up her mail they asked if she had submitted a change of address form yet. She had the day prior. They then informed her that she couldn't pick up her mail as it would be forwarded on in about 10 days. She was pissed.
About the only good USPS story I have was well before I was born in 1980. Seems my grandpa got a letter delivered to him that was address as:
"Uncle Jack
Allendale Michigan"
It got there. Even though his name was Robert, not Jack. I'm not sure how he got that nickname.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 07:24:24 PM
What about if they look like they are broke and in the ER? Lets say they have no cash or credit cards on them and they have no money but they were the victim of a car accident. Do you turn them away? You cannot be sure they have the money so is it a risk your taking as a doctor or hospital administrator giving someone service they are not able to pay for?
Post by: wooderson on January 27, 2008, 07:38:09 PM
Quote
Uh, yep that crappy mail service. With UPS/Fedex/DHL, I've got a tracking number and insurance, with USPS, I get "Sucks to be you.".
If you pay for any equivalent level of service, you get a tracking number and insurance. Actually, you can get both on lower levels of service than are available through UPS/Fedex/DHL.In the last couple of years I've shipped a ton of stuff through Ebay - until it gets into ridiculously heavy packages (an amp I sold, etc.), USPS First Class or Priority are faster, cheaper and more convenient than anyone else.
No better way to ship something small and heavy than Flat Rate Priority. Up to 70 pounds in a free box for $9.
Post by: wooderson on January 27, 2008, 07:39:28 PM
Quote
Last I checked, it was possible to enter to just about any country illegally, and the poster you quoted didn't say anything about the US.
Except he's talking about 'taxpayers' covering 'illegals.' This is an American issue, often raised as the looming specter of the Great Immigrant Menace etc..In the UK, taxpayers cover 'everyone.'
Post by: SomeKid on January 27, 2008, 07:49:19 PM
The question, for some, is then, do you think healthcare is a right? I mean if an illegal immigrant comes in with a life threatening injury or sickness would you turn her or him away because they do not have the means to pay? Does it even have to be an illegal immigrant? What about a regular person off of the street who is diagnosed with cancer? Will you turn them away? How do you look at someone and condemn them?
What about if they look like they are broke and in the ER? Lets say they have no cash or credit cards on them and they have no money but they were the victim of a car accident. Do you turn them away? You cannot be sure they have the money so is it a risk your taking as a doctor or hospital administrator giving someone service they are not able to pay for?
What about if they look like they are broke and in the ER? Lets say they have no cash or credit cards on them and they have no money but they were the victim of a car accident. Do you turn them away? You cannot be sure they have the money so is it a risk your taking as a doctor or hospital administrator giving someone service they are not able to pay for?
First, health care is NOT a right. If it was, are people who do not live in areas with access to physicians and nurses being denied their rights? Keep in mind, health care is provided by people. We are not slaves, we have the right to fair compensation for our time and expertise. Anyone who thinks health care is a right either supports slavery, or is an idiot. That said, moving on.
If someone shows up at the ER with an emergency, you treat first. Really, for the health care industry to work we pretty much have to keep you alive, so letting you die while we verify if you can pay is just stupid. So, ensure you live first.
However I could turn away non-emergency patients without a second thought. The first day I was in an ER I got flat out sick, not by what I saw, but why they came in. "My baby has the sniffles" "I don't feel good" and the crap goes on...
I expect your next line will be about people who cannot pay. Question: Should I work for free? If the answer is no, because I deserve just compensation, then you agree that people who cannot pay should be turned out. If you think I am a slave who should give away my time and abilities for some lazy slob who has no insurance or money saved for health care, then (insert very very impolite feelings that I have towards you here).
Now, here is where you simply say the government should pay for it. Basically, by saying the gov should pay for healthcare, you say that I, a health care worker, should pay taxes, that earn through providing health care, so other people can get free health care. Sounds sort of like I am paying for someone else's health care. Like a slave. Oh, you say it would not be like that? The government would set prices, and keep costs down. In other words, the government will determine what I am worth. Like a master determines what a slave is worth.
No matter how you cut it, government is not the solution, it is just more and more problem. Maybe I have read the constitution, and my spirit of freedom is strong. Maybe I have just read too much Heinlein, and have a low tolerance for any form of oppressive idea. But the fact is, government involvement is just plain bad. Its current involvement makes the problem, added participation by the gov will only make it worse.
Man that was a good vent.
Getting back on topic. This is not surprising. The old and those who made their conditions worse are the most expensive patients to treat. A good friend of mine used to work for a local (and large) insurance company. He said something like 50% of all health care costs a person has, are in the last 6 - 12 months of the persons life. So, if you knock out treating old people, you knock out their most expensive part of treatment. On top of that, you shunt health care towards younger people, who tend to work and pay taxes, and will pay taxes after they receive health care. Whereas old people will not. Sort of like a farmer letting worthless crops die, and only replanting good seeds. Isn't it nice when the government plays Master?
Post by: wooderson on January 27, 2008, 08:27:54 PM
Quote
However I could turn away non-emergency patients without a second thought. The first day I was in an ER I got flat out sick, not by what I saw, but why they came in. "My baby has the sniffles" "I don't feel good" and the crap goes on...
This is horrible policy on all levels.
"My baby has the sniffles" - a cold, something easily treatable, cheaply - gets turned away.
Comes back two weeks later, baby has pneumonia - now grossly expensive and potentially fatal.
Well, done - your fundamentalism has either killed a baby or cost the hospital/taxpayers a great deal of money (given that a parent whose first recourse is the ER won't have the money to foot the bill).
Post by: SomeKid on January 27, 2008, 08:42:48 PM
A cold should go to a family physician or FNP whose office is designed to deal with that. Do you know what ER stands for? Emergency Room.
Secondly, you say the hospitals or taxpayers have to foot the bill if she comes back. Why can't the mother you know, work, and pay for the child herself? Does being an unwed minority single mother (assuming the worst scenario) give her special privileges?
Thirdly, and you will jump all over this and wring your hands, but babies die a lot. Ever been in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or a pediatric ICU (PICU)? Check it out sometime. Be thankful for your good health.
Fourthly, if the mother has no desire to pay and is using the ER as a free office, why on earth should the hospital be forced to provide her with it? Are women and children the queens of masters of society, deserving free services? No, of course not. Nurses, physicians, techs, all providers need just compensation for their services. The hospitals are businesses. They cannot give out free services just to appease your bleeding heart unless you like the idea of more hospitals going under. Personally, I would rather pay for health care than have no access at all.
Oh, and fifthly. Colds are caused by a virus. There is no special drug a hospital can give that will magically treat it.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 28, 2008, 02:15:50 AM
Uh, yep that crappy mail service. With UPS/Fedex/DHL, I've got a tracking number and insurance, with USPS, I get "Sucks to be you.".
The one and only time I had to use insurance with a shipped package, it was with USPS, they covered it without question.
The only issue I have with USPS is that you can't count on a given level of shipping service to be quite as rapid as they claim. If it's time critical, you need to go up to the next level. UPS/FedEx's delivery schedule is what they say it will be and even cheaper on the low end of the scale.
As for the quality of the employees, I've run into some real bozos via UPS and Fed Ex (my BIL works for FedEx, I've heard some horror stories to go along with my personal experience). Postal Employees, for all their problems, tend to be pretty professional about their job.
Chris
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 28, 2008, 02:37:41 AM
Quote
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
If food that was unhealthy wasnt cheaper than fresh fruit and veggies, maybe, obesity would not be an economic problem for the poor. It should be subsidized by the state. I would eat healthier if I could afford it. I did a paper on this last semester, and I kept track of food receipts for a ballanced diet for a month vs fast food for the following month. It showed a 39% increase to eat healthy.
Of course they don't want to treat people, they need to reduce the population of baby boomers so that when they retire there will still be a social service program.
I love it. Tax incentives to companies that produce good food. Higher taxes on truely bad food such as fast food. Why not, we tax the hell out of cigarettes and booze.
Post by: HankB on January 28, 2008, 03:54:11 AM
Quote
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Problems run deep with the Post Office in Chicago. Service here is the worst in the nation. But that may be changing.
Many years ago, only FFL holders could ship guns, and when they used USPS, they had to put "FIREARM" in 1" letters on the package. My late father told me of two FFL dealers he knew in the Chicago area who, after losing some guns with the required "STEAL ME" label, started sending small (pistol-sized) boxes of scrap metal to one another, heavily insured. Virtually NONE made it through the Chicago post office, and USPS, not wanting to shine a light on their crooked employees, simply kept paying them over . . . and over . . . and over. (Not saying it's right, but I have little doubt it happened.)Quote
. . . the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations,
If an elderly family member perished because they were denied treatment due to rationing based on age . . . the doctor/bureaucrat responsible would not be long for this world. Quote
I mean if an illegal immigrant comes in with a life threatening injury or sickness would you turn her or him away because they do not have the means to pay?
I have no sympathy for illegal aliens, but since we ARE a humane nation, we ought to provide emergency treatment - and as soon as the illegal is stable enough to travel, back home he goes.
Post by: Iain on January 28, 2008, 04:38:39 AM
Quote
Telegrap article
...Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment...
...One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements...
...Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment...
...One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements...
This is the latest evidence of the evils of the NHS?
I doubt one person here thinks 'social abortions' should be paid for by any form of government program, doubt many would support fertility treatment, and that includes me - fertility treatment is expensive, and if I want kids I'll have to use it, and I'll pay.
Organs are in short supply - do they go to unrepentant alcoholics in the US? I doubt any treatment denied to the elderly would be of the palliative, or make life comfortable variety - every system has cost/benefit considerations, except for those who can pay, and they can do that here. No qualification on 'for long' either - do we mean spend ?100,000 for an extra week, or ?10 for an extra hour or ?1m for an extra month? Not sure about smokers and heart bypasses, or the obese and hip replacements - see my later comments about views of doctors, not NHS policy.
Quote
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
Higher risk of complications, so therefore potentially a bad risk. Bad risks are always going to be avoided, whether it's to save money or mortality stats. I'd expect both considerations come into play in the US and in the UK.
Lastly these are the views of doctors, they are not policy. If these views were collected from a poll of US doctors they would likely not have made this board, and if they had there would have been general agreement, especially on the abortion and fertility, and more than likely with doctors and hospitals not taking on bad risks and so driving up the cost of insurance.
This is a very flimsy stick to try beating anything with.
Post by: roo_ster on January 28, 2008, 04:46:03 AM
The USA is not the only country with an illegal alien problem and taxpayers who despise footing the bill for their care.
Post by: Iain on January 28, 2008, 05:15:22 AM
wooderson:
The USA is not the only country with an illegal alien problem and taxpayers who despise footing the bill for their care.
The USA is not the only country with an illegal alien problem and taxpayers who despise footing the bill for their care.
I believe the estimation is around half a million in the UK, of a population of 60 million.
The only reason its an issue here is the usual tabloid stirring and recent case in which a woman who had overstayed her visa and was now dependent on dialysis was deported to somewhere she would not be able to begin to afford the costs of her treatment. Unpleasant dilemma, and has led the usual credulous conclusion jumpers to assume that this a is a problem across the NHS and is bankrupting it. Also known as 'they took our dialysis'.
Post by: wooderson on January 28, 2008, 05:39:39 AM
Quote
A cold should go to a family physician or FNP whose office is designed to deal with that. Do you know what ER stands for? Emergency Room.
And a parent who can afford this takes the baby there. A parent who cannot, uses the ER.Did you miss that part of my post, or just ignore it because it was inconvenient?
Quote
Secondly, you say the hospitals or taxpayers have to foot the bill if she comes back. Why can't the mother you know, work, and pay for the child herself? Does being an unwed minority single mother (assuming the worst scenario) give her special privileges?
(The worst scenario is that an unwed black woman has a child? Uh, ok...)You're right - the mother should work and pay for the child herself. And to ensure that, we'll take punitive measures against the child - like refusing to provide care.
Brilliant.
Quote
Thirdly, and you will jump all over this and wring your hands, but babies die a lot. Ever been in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or a pediatric ICU (PICU)? Check it out sometime. Be thankful for your good health.
An absurd statement - babies die, so we're justified in refusing care if a parent cannot pay or chooses a less than ideal care delivery system.Quote
Fourthly, if the mother has no desire to pay and is using the ER as a free office, why on earth should the hospital be forced to provide her with it?
She's not being provided with care, the child is. Duh.Quote
Colds are caused by a virus.
Colds are a colloquialism for unidentified upper-respiratory illnesses. You don't know what it is, for sure, until a doctor looks - particularly with infants and children. Hence the desire for care.
Post by: K Frame on January 28, 2008, 06:51:41 AM
Quote
However I could turn away non-emergency patients without a second thought. The first day I was in an ER I got flat out sick, not by what I saw, but why they came in. "My baby has the sniffles" "I don't feel good" and the crap goes on...
This is horrible policy on all levels.
"My baby has the sniffles" - a cold, something easily treatable, cheaply - gets turned away.
Comes back two weeks later, baby has pneumonia - now grossly expensive and potentially fatal.
Well, done - your fundamentalism has either killed a baby or cost the hospital/taxpayers a great deal of money (given that a parent whose first recourse is the ER won't have the money to foot the bill).
Emergency rooms are just that. For emergencies.
FAR too many people treat the emergency room as if it is their primary care physician's office.
Those people SHOULD be turned away and referred to either a physician or a non-emergency clinic.
Post by: Marvin Dao on January 28, 2008, 09:23:49 AM
If food that was unhealthy wasnt cheaper than fresh fruit and veggies, maybe, obesity would not be an economic problem for the poor. It should be subsidized by the state. I would eat healthier if I could afford it. I did a paper on this last semester, and I kept track of food receipts for a ballanced diet for a month vs fast food for the following month. It showed a 39% increase to eat healthy.
You're doing it wrong. It is possible to eat unhealthy for less than eating healthy (ramen noodles at $0.50/day), you're not doing it with fast food. The cost efficiency isn't there. Cheapest I can think of to provide daily calorie limits is 5 McDonald's Double Cheeseburgers (Total: 2250 kcal) at $5.
Even $3/day buys fairly high quality meals from a nutritional standpoint when shopping carefully. Rice is an extremely cost efficient method of providing calories. Beans, tofu, and eggs provide inexpensive proteins. Chicken isn't too bad either. Fresh vegetables are cheap when they're in seasons, and frozen vegetables are cost effective regardless of season. Throw in your choice of seasonings and you're still well under $3. In season fresh fruit can take up the rest of the balance. Bring it up to $5/day and other meats enter the equation along with wider availability of fresh fruit, greater meal variety, and a can of beer or glass of wine. Sure you'll get tired of it, but not as quickly as you'll get tired of 5 double cheeseburgers a day.
I really don't see any economic issue with eating reasonably healthy on a low budget.
Quote from: Mike Irwin
Emergency rooms are just that. For emergencies.
FAR too many people treat the emergency room as if it is their primary care physician's office.
Those people SHOULD be turned away and referred to either a physician or a non-emergency clinic.
FAR too many people treat the emergency room as if it is their primary care physician's office.
Those people SHOULD be turned away and referred to either a physician or a non-emergency clinic.
A big part of the problem is access.
If I manage to do something stupid on Friday night, nearest time spot to see my PCP is around Wednesday the next week. This is with pretty good insurance. Luckily, there are non-emergency clinics that take my insurance around this area, but that isn't true everywhere. When I was in College Station, no one took the insurance my parents had (large HMO) and the only affordable treatment regardless of type was through the local ER. Stupid? Yep, but that's how it worked out.
The new trends towards retail medical clinics should help out in this respect, but regulations have pretty much hobbled them in Texas.
Post by: wooderson on January 28, 2008, 10:34:56 AM
Quote
Emergency rooms are just that. For emergencies.
Ideally, yes.Quote
FAR too many people treat the emergency room as if it is their primary care physician's office.
Why is that? Do they 'choose' to wait for hours on end and receive a multi-thousand dollar bills that will cause them much grief to pay or get out of paying?Why would they do that?
Quote
Those people SHOULD be turned away and referred to either a physician or a non-emergency clinic.
Yes, because this option doesn't, at all, ignore why so many people turn to the ER. We wouldn't want to get into a sticky issue like that.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 28, 2008, 12:44:21 PM
Post by: wooderson on January 28, 2008, 01:06:50 PM
Quote
What does it cost to visit a family doctor for the "sniffles" without health insurance? Or a pediatrician? It is not thousands.
$125+, assuming there are no other services required except for seeing the doctor. (Of course, how many people without insurance have a 'family doctor' in the first place?)
Which is not thousands, but it is a significant amount of money for many young parents. (Many young people in general, actually.)
The reliance on ERs is obviously not a good thing. It's a primary cause of the ridiculous percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in the US - people either wait too long to see someone and costs blow up, or people rely on ERs for care in general (and the cost gets written off down the road, or they go into deep debt to pay it off).
The solution is not to simply refuse care to the ill, particularly infants and children. Not that basic medical ethics would allow this anyway.
Post by: SomeKid on January 28, 2008, 01:27:55 PM
Quote
If an elderly family member perished because they were denied treatment due to rationing based on age . . . the doctor/bureaucrat responsible would not be long for this world.
Yes they would be long for this world, for one reason. You would never meet the bureaucrat who decided your elderly family member needed to die. You would however become rather livid with your nurses, who did not have a hand in the decision. While those of us on this board would never shoot up a hospital, I can see rationing causing a LOT of anger, and more than a few people might take it out on us grunts.
Quote
I have no sympathy for illegal aliens, but since we ARE a humane nation, we ought to provide emergency treatment - and as soon as the illegal is stable enough to travel, back home he goes.
I am with you at Emergency. I say give everyone emergency Tx, because you don't know who should get it or not. Sure, some who cannot pay get service they don't deserve, but you cannot wait. HOWEVER, once I find out a pt is illegal, I say we send them back. Pull the plugs, everything. If they die immediately, I do not care. The only exception, would be if Mexico (or country of origin) agreed to pay their bills. I would take the time to determine where the bill goes, give them a brief chance to accept, and then provide services. If the country of origin, family, whoever refuses to pay, pull the plug.
Iain,
Quote
I doubt one person here thinks 'social abortions' should be paid for by any form of government program, doubt many would support fertility treatment, and that includes me - fertility treatment is expensive, and if I want kids I'll have to use it, and I'll pay.
Over here we pay for more than just elective abortions. Some states go so far as to provide sex change operations for certain people.
Wood,
Quote
And a parent who can afford this takes the baby there. A parent who cannot, uses the ER.
Did you miss that part of my post, or just ignore it because it was inconvenient?
Did you miss that part of my post, or just ignore it because it was inconvenient?
Did you ignore my point? Even Mike is trying to help you here. EMERGENCY Room. Not, I am poor and want something Room. EMERGENCY. Would it be nice if every child had access to the same care the POTUS gets? Sure. It is a nice utopian dream. I cannot afford a 5000 acre mansion with my own gun ranges. I go without. If a family has made poor decisions, and cannot afford the office visit, they need to re-evaluate priorities. Do they buy cigarettes, alcohol, cable TV (or sat), cell phones, other luxuries? Yes, they do. I am not guessing either. It is easy to tell, when they have a cell phone dangling from their ear at the same time they tell you they fish a cigarette out while telling you how bad it is that their cable is out because of the storm and that office visits are so expensive. A parent who cannot afford an office visit should not go to the ER, unless it is an honest and factual EMERGENCY.
Quote
You're right - the mother should work and pay for the child herself. And to ensure that, we'll take punitive measures against the child - like refusing to provide care.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
So, to fulfill your bleeding hearts wish, we should enslave nurses to provide free care.
Brilliant
Remember, TANSTAAFL. If they don't pay, we eat the cost. When you do something without compensation, you are a slave. Nice to see someone in modern day America supports slavery.
Quote
An absurd statement - babies die, so we're justified in refusing care if a parent cannot pay or chooses a less than ideal care delivery system.
The point, which went over your head, was that you cannot save everyone. Don't cry about how since someone died, we should socialize medicine to save someone else. It is a dream. Babies die. They are weak. If you are worried, take them to a physician, PNP, or FNP. Let them check the kid over. Maybe it will help. If they cannot afford it, tough. But stop wasting my time with your pitiful strawman that if we let them take non-emergency cases to the ER, things will be oh so much better.
Quote
She's not being provided with care, the child is. Duh.
And if the mother does not pay, we are slaves to the child. Duh.
Quote
Colds are a colloquialism for unidentified upper-respiratory illnesses. You don't know what it is, for sure, until a doctor looks - particularly with infants and children. Hence the desire for care.
Buzz! No, we are sorry, that is incorrect and your ignorance and laziness to use the dictionary is showing. Perhaps you will believe the dictionary, if not me, Hmm? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/common+cold Like I said. A virus.
Marvin,
Quote
A big part of the problem is access.
If I manage to do something stupid on Friday night, nearest time spot to see my PCP is around Wednesday the next week. This is with pretty good insurance. Luckily, there are non-emergency clinics that take my insurance around this area, but that isn't true everywhere. When I was in College Station, no one took the insurance my parents had (large HMO) and the only affordable treatment regardless of type was through the local ER. Stupid? Yep, but that's how it worked out.
If I manage to do something stupid on Friday night, nearest time spot to see my PCP is around Wednesday the next week. This is with pretty good insurance. Luckily, there are non-emergency clinics that take my insurance around this area, but that isn't true everywhere. When I was in College Station, no one took the insurance my parents had (large HMO) and the only affordable treatment regardless of type was through the local ER. Stupid? Yep, but that's how it worked out.
If you get dumb Friday night, and it is an emergency, that is what the ER is for. If it is not an emergency, it should keep till the following Wednesday. Of course, you could always show the initiative, to either provide for yourself with different insurance, or bite the bullet and pay full cost. Of course, leeching off Mommy and Daddy and then complaining about your free lunch seems to be your preferred route. If the laws were set up better, you wouldn't have the option to show initiative, you would be punished for failing to show it.
Wood,
Quote
Ideally, yes.
No, not ideally. ALWAYS. Operating Rooms are not supposed to be lunchrooms, lounges, or sex parlors. They are for operating. ERs are not for convenience. They are not because you made bad decisions and are too much of a lazy worm to go to/have a PCP. They are for emergencies.
Quote
Why is that? Do they 'choose' to wait for hours on end and receive a multi-thousand dollar bills that will cause them much grief to pay or get out of paying?
Why would they do that?
Why would they do that?
Would you make up your mind. Earlier you state they go to the ER because they cannot afford office visits, but now they go there in spite of the high cost? My inconsistent and BS alarms are going nuts.
Quote
Yes, because this option doesn't, at all, ignore why so many people turn to the ER. We wouldn't want to get into a sticky issue like that.
Here, pay attention, the clue train is on its way. People make bad decisions and will continue to do so because they are coddled. Start turning people away, and letting stupidity actually hurt and they will realize they need to make better choices in life, or else they get to suffer. Make it easy to leech, people will leech. You are making it easy to leech.
Quote
What does it cost to visit a family doctor for the "sniffles" without health insurance? Or a pediatrician? It is not thousands.
Mech,
Significantly less. Around here, I can get a full fledged visit for $50. We also have multiple walk-in centers (slightly more expensive) that are open 6 days a week with wide hours. If you even put forth a modest amount of effort, you WILL get access to health care. Only the true slime of humanity cannot find a way to earn and pay for their own access one honest way or another.
Wood,
Quote
$125+, assuming there are no other services required except for seeing the doctor. (Of course, how many people without insurance have a 'family doctor' in the first place?)
Which is not thousands, but it is a significant amount of money for many young parents. (Many young people in general, actually.)
The reliance on ERs is obviously not a good thing. It's a primary cause of the ridiculous percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in the US - people either wait too long to see someone and costs blow up, or people rely on ERs for care in general (and the cost gets written off down the road, or they go into deep debt to pay it off).
The solution is not to simply refuse care to the ill, particularly infants and children. Not that basic medical ethics would allow this anyway.
Which is not thousands, but it is a significant amount of money for many young parents. (Many young people in general, actually.)
The reliance on ERs is obviously not a good thing. It's a primary cause of the ridiculous percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in the US - people either wait too long to see someone and costs blow up, or people rely on ERs for care in general (and the cost gets written off down the road, or they go into deep debt to pay it off).
The solution is not to simply refuse care to the ill, particularly infants and children. Not that basic medical ethics would allow this anyway.
$125 is a bit high, but fine, hell, lets knock it up to 200. If people had to pay 200 a visit, are they going to waste time on the sniffles, or will they learn what to watch for themselves so they can observe for what actually needs a visit? My Mother was smart enough to do that. When I went to the physician (and we never had health insurance), it was because I needed to go. Here is the positive side though. At 200 a visit, people would go less. Physicians would make less (fewer customers), and lower prices to get people to come in more often. Capitalism is your friend.
You almost had something in your second paragraph. Costs are so high, because people are not being made to pay for what they take. You want to see costs lowered? Make people pay for their own services. Smart people will see the wisdom in buying insurance, and taking care of themselves. Darwin will hopefully weed the rest out, as we should stop helping those who don't help themselves.
Your infants and children line is emotional tear jerking. My ethics do not at all compel me to enslave myself to someone else's children. Pay me for my services, or find yourself some other sap who will provide you with health care at a slave's wages.
Post by: Marvin Dao on January 28, 2008, 02:32:32 PM
If you get dumb Friday night, and it is an emergency, that is what the ER is for. If it is not an emergency, it should keep till the following Wednesday. Of course, you could always show the initiative, to either provide for yourself with different insurance, or bite the bullet and pay full cost. Of course, leeching off Mommy and Daddy and then complaining about your free lunch seems to be your preferred route. If the laws were set up better, you wouldn't have the option to show initiative, you would be punished for failing to show it.
If by leeching you mean "I paid my parents last year to get good health care coverage through their workplace because it's $2k/year cheaper than getting it through my workplace", then yeah, I'm leeching. It's also hardly rational to spend $2k/year to get coverage in a place that I spend two or three weekends a year in. But hey, it's your prerogative to be an ahole about it.
There are also things that aren't emergencies, but probably shouldn't wait a week until a PCP can schedule me. Cuts that require a some sutures fall into this category for me. Keeping it clean and uninfected overnight or so is fairly simple. A week? Not risking it. If there isn't an urgent care center that takes my insurance nearby, it's off to the ER for stitches and drugs. Broken arm or leg? Same deal. Not an immediate issue, but the thing could hurt like a bitch and possibly get worse during the time it takes me to see a PCP. Might as well get some drugs and something to stabilize it before I'm able to get an appointment with the local orthopedic surgeon. Sure I could pay triple or more to go to doc that my insurance doesn't cover, but why? Hardly my fault that the economic structure of health care is screwed up in many places.
Post by: wooderson on January 28, 2008, 03:19:11 PM
Quote
Did you ignore my point? Even Mike is trying to help you here. EMERGENCY Room. Not, I am poor and want something Room. EMERGENCY.
Yeah, I answered that.Quote
If a family has made poor decisions, and cannot afford the office visit, they need to re-evaluate priorities. Do they buy cigarettes, alcohol, cable TV (or sat), cell phones, other luxuries? Yes, they do. I am not guessing either.
Well, since we're talking about your fictitious ER visitors - yes, you are 'guessing.' But once again, you're punishing a child for the parents' lifestyle. You keep referring to the "minority mother" and "the family" and their decisions - trying to shift the individual being provided care away from the infant or child.
Your argument is abhorrent on a human level and unworkable as policy.
Quote
A parent who cannot afford an office visit should not go to the ER, unless it is an honest and factual EMERGENCY.
A parent is not a doctor, a parent does not know what constitutes 'an honest factual EMERGENCY." That's why they want to see a doctor. Is this difficult to comprehend?But I already explained the pitfalls of your refusal of care - possibly fatal for the child, or if the condition simply worsens to the point that it is a true emergency, you've cost everyone a great deal more money.
Well done.
Quote
So, to fulfill your bleeding hearts wish, we should enslave nurses to provide free care.
Yes, that's exactly the outcome of treating children who come into the ER - nurses sold into bondage.Quote
The point, which went over your head, was that you cannot save everyone.
Your point was, then, exactly as I phrased it. Your argument remains inane - some babies die, so we're justified in denying care at our leisure.Out of curiosity, do you know what colloquialism means?
Post by: SomeKid on January 28, 2008, 03:30:08 PM
If you get dumb Friday night, and it is an emergency, that is what the ER is for. If it is not an emergency, it should keep till the following Wednesday. Of course, you could always show the initiative, to either provide for yourself with different insurance, or bite the bullet and pay full cost. Of course, leeching off Mommy and Daddy and then complaining about your free lunch seems to be your preferred route. If the laws were set up better, you wouldn't have the option to show initiative, you would be punished for failing to show it.
If by leeching you mean "I paid my parents last year to get good health care coverage through their workplace because it's $2k/year cheaper than getting it through my workplace", then yeah, I'm leeching. It's also hardly rational to spend $2k/year to get coverage in a place that I spend two or three weekends a year in. But hey, it's your prerogative to be an ahole about it.
There are also things that aren't emergencies, but probably shouldn't wait a week until a PCP can schedule me. Cuts that require a some sutures fall into this category for me. Keeping it clean and uninfected overnight or so is fairly simple. A week? Not risking it. If there isn't an urgent care center that takes my insurance nearby, it's off to the ER for stitches and drugs. Broken arm or leg? Same deal. Not an immediate issue, but the thing could hurt like a bitch and possibly get worse during the time it takes me to see a PCP. Might as well get some drugs and something to stabilize it before I'm able to get an appointment with the local orthopedic surgeon. Sure I could pay triple or more to go to doc that my insurance doesn't cover, but why? Hardly my fault that the economic structure of health care is screwed up in many places.
Marvin,
Your previous post indicated you were riding on your parents. No indication was made that you are paying for it. You worded it in a way that made it sound like you were enjoying a free ride. Kill the aggrieved routine.
Now, your second paragraph. If you receive a cut, and manage to keep it clean one day, odds are it will have already formed a scab and will keep infection out on its own. Unless you cut yourself really bad, it will without a doubt have sealed itself off before a week passes. The human body has fantastic abilities towards survival. However, as a rule, if you think the cut is bad enough to require stitches, it needs them sooner rather than later. (I leave the need up to your judgment.) As for the broken arm, either that is the worst example ever, or you just don't know. Broken bones ought to be taken to an ER if you cannot go to a PCP, immediately. Some broken bones should go straight to the ER (skull, femur).
It is also true that it is hardly your fault that the economic structure of HC is messed up in many places. However, it will be unless you take steps to help fix it. You can in fact take those steps. Move for LESS government involvement. The more gov involvement, the more screwed up.
Wood,
Quote
Well, since we're talking about your fictitious ER visitors - yes, you are 'guessing.'
Wrong. Go back and read the following sentence. You know, the one you snipped off because it did not suit your post. Second, my fictitious ER patient is based on real ones I encountered.
Quote
But once again, you're punishing a child for the parents' lifestyle.
Strawman strawman, but I will bite. Do you support banning smoking around children? What about punishing parents who eat non-nutritious food, or set bad examples? Do you support one form of punishing a child for their parents lifestyle but not another?
Quote
Your argument is abhorrent on a human level and unworkable as policy.
You are the one pushing an evil slavery inducing socialist policy. And you call MINE unworkable. I however am NOT sorry that my solution offends your leftist sensibilities.
Quote
A parent is not a doctor
Legally, you are correct. However, a parent is MANY things they are not considered. One of them, is the ability to doctor their children. A parent who cannot distinguish emergency from non is likely to be such an awful parent that she will kill the child through her own incompetence anyway.
Quote
Yes, that's exactly the outcome of treating children who come into the ER - nurses sold into bondage.
Another strawman. Treating children for emergencies, good. Treating children for non-emergencies that the parents won't pay for, bad. Tell me, what experience do you have with any of this? Are you just running off blind uncontrolled womanly feelings? In case you do not know, free people are compensated for their labor. What you propose in uncompensated labor, or slavery.
Quote
Your point was, then, exactly as I phrased it. Your argument remains inane - some babies die, so we're justified in denying care at our leisure.
Out of curiosity, do you know what colloquialism means?
Out of curiosity, do you know what colloquialism means?
Denying at our leisure. Is that honestly what you read? How old are you? Anyone who simply denies Tx because he feels like it deserves to be hung. Of course, in your eyes, that includes me because I dare to refuse to work for free. As to your question, yes.
The following question is for our lurkers, who read but don't post. Am I failing to explain this clearly enough, or is wooder simply denying reality in his dream for a socialist utopia, so that we can have great medical care in his world, for the children?
Post by: wooderson on January 28, 2008, 04:10:42 PM
Quote
Wrong. Go back and read the following sentence. You know, the one you snipped off because it did not suit your post.
The 'following sentence' about your fictitious ER visitors? That one?Quote
Second, my fictitious ER patient is based on real ones I encountered.
Law and Order is 'ripped from the headlines,' or so I hear. Don't make it any less a work of fiction.
Quote
Strawman strawman, but I will bite.
Not even vaguely a strawman. You've stated, with no qualms, that an ER does not have to serve a child whose parents choose to take him there rather than pay for a different doctor.Quote
Do you support banning smoking around children? What about punishing parents who eat non-nutritious food, or set bad examples? Do you support one form of punishing a child for their parents lifestyle but not another?
A third party isn't involved in punishing children there - they are being 'punished' by proximity to those parents.The proper analogy, if you wanted to make one, would be denying privileges to children because their parents smoke, right?
And no, I don't support that. I would say that's pretty bloody stupid, actually.
Quote
You are the one pushing an evil slavery inducing socialist policy. And you call MINE unworkable.
In the sense that your policy would be:
inhumane
horribly costly
and not in a million years supported by the body politic.
Yeah, unworkable.
I'm comfortable with that assessment.
Quote
Another strawman.
A strawman?Really?
You didn't write "we should enslave nurses to provide free care"? I believe that's exactly what I quoted.
Do you understand that bondage and slavery are the same thing?
Or is it just that when you type an emotionally-charged word like "enslave" or "slavery" - you don't actually mean "enslave" or "slavery"?
Quote
Denying at our leisure. Is that honestly what you read?
Yes, denying at our leisure. You've repeatedly argued that individuals who turn up at the ER with what you believe to be non-emergent (note that you've chosen to make this determination without them seeing a physician) should be turned away. Including infants and children. And for that latter class of individual, you've specifically argued that they should be turned away because their parents are making bad financial decisions.
Post by: Marvin Dao on January 28, 2008, 05:05:26 PM
Your previous post indicated you were riding on your parents. No indication was made that you are paying for it. You worded it in a way that made it sound like you were enjoying a free ride. Kill the aggrieved routine.
I felt that you made an invalid assumption in order to insult me and discredit my point. I doubt anyone would interpret "leeching off Mommy and Daddy and then complaining about your free lunch seems to be your preferred route" as anything but an insult.
I specifically noted "my parents insurance" in that paragraph to differentiate it from "my insurance", also mentioned in that paragraph, which does cover that sort of thing. I don't see any indication that I was freeloading off of my parents other than the mention that it was my parents' insurance. As there are plenty of reasons why someone would be covered under their parents' insurance at that age, low cost and high quality of care are the big ones, I don't see why it implies that I am a freeloading leech as you assumed. A bit of common courtesy is never out of place.
Quote from: SomeKid
As for the broken arm, either that is the worst example ever, or you just don't know. Broken bones ought to be taken to an ER if you cannot go to a PCP, immediately. Some broken bones should go straight to the ER (skull, femur).
I use this set of criteria (link) to determine whether or not I need to go to the ER for a broken bone. Under that set, there are quite a few bones in the arm or leg I could break, or think that I have broken, and not necessarily need to go to the ER immediately. Course, it's possible that it is flat out bad advice.
Quote from: SomeKid
It is also true that it is hardly your fault that the economic structure of HC is messed up in many places. However, it will be unless you take steps to help fix it. You can in fact take those steps. Move for LESS government involvement. The more gov involvement, the more screwed up.
The issue I had was an HMO issue, not a government issue. The emergency care physicians in the area boycotted the HMO that I was covered under as they demanded more pay than the HMO would pay them. The only way to break such a stalemate is to apply economic pressure to the HMO and depriving the emergency care physicians, which means going to the ER when a emergency care physician would work just as well.
Course, I don't disagree with you at all on that point. I personally favor complete deregulation of the health care field and believe that it's the only way to provide top notch health care to those that can afford it while increasing quality of care for those lack the necessary funds for top notch health care.
Post by: SomeKid on January 28, 2008, 06:08:09 PM
You conveniently ignore a few questions I particularly wanted answered. I will give them to you one at a time now.
What experience do YOU have with the Health care industry, other than as a demanding patient?
Every argument you make is emotional, and unreasoned. I am curious as to what your opinion is based, if anything other than your bleeding heart wants.
Marvin,
Quote
I felt that you made an invalid assumption in order to insult me and discredit my point.
Fair enough. I re-read it, and while that was not my point, I see where you conclusion came from. Whether you saw my side, I see yours. My point was that (as I understood your post - based on the reference to your parents insurance) you had a free ride, and little to complain about. On further input from you (their policy, your money), it changed.
That link was interesting. I am glad someone I speak with on this thread backs up his opinion with something. As you noted, it was advice. The advice in that link is similar to mine (from a cursory view). The only problem I saw from what I did see, was that it was rather lengthy. Lengthy is not a problem for ME to remember in bad situations, I am supposed to. However, if someone breaks a bone and is in pain, they likely won't remember a checklist. Hence why my version was so much shorter. If it is a major bone/area (femur, or head) go to an ER first. If it is non major (hand) go to a PCP first, or if unavailable, ER. If someone comes in at 2AM with a smashed hand, sure it is not life-threatening, but it needs prompt treatment.
Post by: Regolith on January 28, 2008, 06:36:05 PM
Quote
The following question is for our lurkers, who read but don't post. Am I failing to explain this clearly enough, or is wooder simply denying reality in his dream for a socialist utopia, so that we can have great medical care in his world, for the children?
Nope, you're making perfect sense to me. But then I'm one of those evil heartless Capitalistic bastards, so I probably don't count.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 28, 2008, 06:39:48 PM
Quote
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
If food that was unhealthy wasnt cheaper than fresh fruit and veggies, maybe, obesity would not be an economic problem for the poor. It should be subsidized by the state. I would eat healthier if I could afford it. I did a paper on this last semester, and I kept track of food receipts for a ballanced diet for a month vs fast food for the following month. It showed a 39% increase to eat healthy.
Of course they don't want to treat people, they need to reduce the population of baby boomers so that when they retire there will still be a social service program.
I love it. Tax incentives to companies that produce good food. Higher taxes on truely bad food such as fast food. Why not, we tax the hell out of cigarettes and booze.
Post by: roo_ster on January 28, 2008, 06:46:52 PM
Quote
What does it cost to visit a family doctor for the "sniffles" without health insurance? Or a pediatrician? It is not thousands.
$125+, assuming there are no other services required except for seeing the doctor.
Well, if you will hold your nose and deign to enter Wal-mart, the cost for the non-ER visits being discussed here would cost the princely sum of $60.
A review by a user:
http://freemanhunt.blogspot.com/2008/01/rediclinic-review.html
Post by: K Frame on January 28, 2008, 06:55:45 PM
The rest of you, do the same thing.
Post by: wooderson on January 28, 2008, 06:59:02 PM
Quote
Locations near: 76015
No store found.
No store found.
And I live dead center in the fourth-largest metropolis in the country...
Post by: wooderson on January 28, 2008, 07:00:51 PM
Quote
Every argument you make is emotional, and unreasoned.
I haven't made any argument. Maybe you missed that. I've replied to your various statements that the solution is to cut off ER access to undesirables and those who are 'misusing' the privilege.
Post by: HankB on January 29, 2008, 07:14:57 AM
I'm surprised we haven't seen "It's for the children" yet in this thread.
Still, heartless so-and-so that I am, I have to ask . . . since when did stranger's children, who I had no part in conceiving and have no authority over, become MY responsibility in any way, shape or form?
It used to be that "rights" were almost synonymous with freedom . . . it really twists the concept of "rights" out of all recognition if someone's "rights" involve involuntarily imposing an obligation on someone they have no connection to.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 08:54:32 AM
Post by: Glock Glockler on January 29, 2008, 09:10:46 AM
Out of curiosity, do you think males should have to pay child support for a child they want aborted? Right now it doesnt matter what the male wants as far as abortion goes, women get exclusive choice but males have to pay regardless of where they stand on the question.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 29, 2008, 09:18:00 AM
If your against helping children because their parents cannot afford it, then you should not deny their parents abortion in any form. Imagine how many children would not be burdening the system because the system prevented them from terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
Right! If we can't pass off the burden of caring for our children onto the tax payers, then we need to make sure that we can all choose to kill off our children before they're born. Honestly, what other alternative do we have? It's not like we can stop screwing around and, you know, behave responsibly.
Post by: Marvin Dao on January 29, 2008, 09:43:30 AM
RediClinic looks like a great service, but according to their website...
And I live dead center in the fourth-largest metropolis in the country...
Quote
Locations near: 76015
No store found.
No store found.
And I live dead center in the fourth-largest metropolis in the country...
MedBasics would be what you're looking for in the DFW area, but they don't take insurance. Still comes out to ~ $50/visit. Texas has the nation's most restrictive laws on nurse practitioner based clinics and requires significantly more physician oversight than other states. This has a rather stifling effect on this sort of business as it increases cost and makes it harder to start up.
House and Senate bills relaxing these restrictions were introduced last year, but they died in committee. Unsurprisingly, business groups testified for it, medical groups testified against it.
Post by: wooderson on January 29, 2008, 10:30:42 AM
Quote
"punish the child" . . . "you're punishing the child" . . . "the rights of the child" etc. etc.
I'm surprised we haven't seen "It's for the children" yet in this thread.
I'm surprised we haven't seen "It's for the children" yet in this thread.
You should read more carefully. The specific example offered was an infant brought into the ER for reasons SomeKid didn't think worthy, or simply thought inappropriate. He wished to deny the child care because, in his words, the parents could afford a regular doctor but were blowing it on cell phones.
Denying a child care is, rather explicitly, punishment - for the (alleged) sins of the parent.
And, as I've noted numerous times, it's simply bad policy in an economic sense.
Quote
Still, heartless so-and-so that I am, I have to ask . . . since when did stranger's children, who I had no part in conceiving and have no authority over, become MY responsibility in any way, shape or form?
Unless you're an ER doc - for the issues raised in this thread - they haven't.
Post by: roo_ster on January 29, 2008, 11:08:38 AM
Quote
"punish the child" . . . "you're punishing the child" . . . "the rights of the child" etc. etc.
I'm surprised we haven't seen "It's for the children" yet in this thread.
I'm surprised we haven't seen "It's for the children" yet in this thread.
You should read more carefully. The specific example offered was an infant brought into the ER for reasons SomeKid didn't think worthy, or simply thought inappropriate. He wished to deny the child care because, in his words, the parents could afford a regular doctor but were blowing it on cell phones.
Denying a child care is, rather explicitly, punishment - for the (alleged) sins of the parent.
And, as I've noted numerous times, it's simply bad policy in an economic sense.
Quote
Still, heartless so-and-so that I am, I have to ask . . . since when did stranger's children, who I had no part in conceiving and have no authority over, become MY responsibility in any way, shape or form?
Unless you're an ER doc - for the issues raised in this thread - they haven't.It is more than just ER doc's problem. If the hospital is public, taxpayers get it in the jimmy. If it is private, responsible folks who arranged their lives so that they and their children have health insurance take it in the jimmy.
Their is no such thing as free lunch or free health care. Somebody pays.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 06:51:29 PM
Tecumseh,
Out of curiosity, do you think males should have to pay child support for a child they want aborted? Right now it doesnt matter what the male wants as far as abortion goes, women get exclusive choice but males have to pay regardless of where they stand on the question.
I don't think they should. However then, they should never have the right to see that child unless the mother allows it or the child becomes an adult and wants to meet the father.
Out of curiosity, do you think males should have to pay child support for a child they want aborted? Right now it doesnt matter what the male wants as far as abortion goes, women get exclusive choice but males have to pay regardless of where they stand on the question.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 06:52:51 PM
If your against helping children because their parents cannot afford it, then you should not deny their parents abortion in any form. Imagine how many children would not be burdening the system because the system prevented them from terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
Right! If we can't pass off the burden of caring for our children onto the tax payers, then we need to make sure that we can all choose to kill off our children before they're born. Honestly, what other alternative do we have? It's not like we can stop screwing around and, you know, behave responsibly.
What if they want a child and then during the third trimester they decide they no longer want the child but since third trimester abortions are illegal they are forced to have it?
So I take it since you are against screwing around, you feel sex should only be used for procreation?