to smoke or not to smoke, that is that question?
-
That only applies to ER care. Typically that means enough to stabilize and discharge or transport, not extensive care or corrective surgery. The stabilize and discharge gets abused pretty heavily, causing the ER waiting areas in most hospitals to be filled with folk waiting for "emergency" care for the flu, etc. Cuts, bullet wounds , and broken bones, influenza and a bad cold all get treat and release free care if the person can't pay. A non-paying, non-insured patient needing Chemotherapy for cancer is likely to only get a handful of free painkillers (unless of course the are over 65, in which case they get the chemo free, paid for by the taxpayers). Some hospitals have gotten smart, and just set up free clinics to reduce the ER traffic burden and treat the "emergency" walk-ins with lower cost staff and facilities.
So the incentive to pay then is for needed things that would otherwise not be taken care of as treat and release? What about known conditions then being not treated when insurance is being paid for because the 'preexisting condition' some coverage has? If you can't get your insurance company to cover a procedure that you need and your only option is paying for it yourself then, go bankrupt? My concern is, how do people paying for health care get what it is they need and are paying for. I guess I should replace health care with health insurance because the way insurance company's make money is through you not using the coverage. We don't use health insurance the same way we do life insurance or car insurance or home insurance. It's not for a 'just in case' scenario like the others. I guess the real question is what are you really paying for when you get health insurance, because heath care isn't quite it, IMHO.
-
What would you do then about those who get care and don't pay for it, regardless of whether or not they're citizens? If hospitals can't turn anyone away because they can't pay then what incentive is there for people who pay now to continue doing so?
wolfbinary wrote:
What would you do then about those who get care and don't pay for it
if they can't afford it, they shouldn't get it.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
So the incentive to pay then is for needed things that would otherwise not be taken care of as treat and release? What about known conditions then being not treated when insurance is being paid for because the 'preexisting condition' some coverage has? If you can't get your insurance company to cover a procedure that you need and your only option is paying for it yourself then, go bankrupt? My concern is, how do people paying for health care get what it is they need and are paying for. I guess I should replace health care with health insurance because the way insurance company's make money is through you not using the coverage. We don't use health insurance the same way we do life insurance or car insurance or home insurance. It's not for a 'just in case' scenario like the others. I guess the real question is what are you really paying for when you get health insurance, because heath care isn't quite it, IMHO.
wolfbinary wrote:
So the incentive to pay then
It is like any other business contract. You purchase medical care as a service, and agree to pay the amount charged. If you have insurance, it will cover some (often the majority) of the cost, but usually not all of it. it is typical to have an 80/20 split, with some annual maximum cost to the insured. If you have no insurance, and don't pay, you get sued and may have declare bankruptcy to satisfy the debt (losing any property that can be sold to apply to the debt in the process). The poor (up to 4x the federal poverty level) are typically covered by state/federal supplied medical insurance, paid for by taxes. Most others get their medical insurance through their employer and an untaxed benefit with the employer often paying 80% of the premium.
wolfbinary wrote:
We don't use health insurance the same way we do life insurance
I disagree. Medical insurance spreads the cost over a wider group and time, so that the burden of a large expense is spread over years of premium cost. The main benefit is the just in case catastrophy/chronic illness coverage. The "routine" care part functions more as a forced savings/ care management and cost negotiation which is paid for out of the regular premium plus a small "co-pay" by the insured. That "routine" part seems different than life or auto insurance, but it is not the primary benefit.
-
Oakman wrote:
The simplest, and in many ways, most humane, thing to do is to perform triage on folks of any age who contract serious illnesses, but especially on folks over 50.
Isn't this what they do in Europe that has people here so against universal health care?
Oakman wrote:
Where is the religion or ethical philosophy that teaches that death is a consummation, not failure?
Kevorkian got put in jail. There is no right to die apparently. At least people have the option of saying in writing they don't want to be kept alive artificially. Not sure how well that works.
-
That only applies to ER care. Typically that means enough to stabilize and discharge or transport, not extensive care or corrective surgery. The stabilize and discharge gets abused pretty heavily, causing the ER waiting areas in most hospitals to be filled with folk waiting for "emergency" care for the flu, etc. Cuts, bullet wounds , and broken bones, influenza and a bad cold all get treat and release free care if the person can't pay. A non-paying, non-insured patient needing Chemotherapy for cancer is likely to only get a handful of free painkillers (unless of course the are over 65, in which case they get the chemo free, paid for by the taxpayers). Some hospitals have gotten smart, and just set up free clinics to reduce the ER traffic burden and treat the "emergency" walk-ins with lower cost staff and facilities.
Rob Graham wrote:
(unless of course the are over 65, in which case they get the chemo free, paid for by the taxpayers).
Medicare pays for the first 2,000 or so in expenses and anything over 10K. There's a big hole in the middle that has proved to be a bonanza for insurance companies. You don't see all those ads from Humana and others because they're not making money hand over fist. Someone under 65 who needs chemo may find himself facing a bigger problem. When he becomes too sick to work and is terminated, he's got 18 months on CORBA and then he'll be on his own - unless of course, there's a company who will hire him knowing he is being treated for cancer. Which shouldn't be a problem at all. . . Someone else made this point awhile back in here, but the more I've thought about it, the more sense it has made. One of the biggest problems American companies have in competing with their overseas counterparts is the medical care that they provide for their employees (even Walmart does) that is not part of the cost of doing business in most other Western nations.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Religious people should be happy to die to save the non-religious money?
Nope. That old geezers like you should be willing to die sooner to save my kids money. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sorry. If they give me universal publically supported health care, I'm going to demand every last possible moment of life at your children's expense.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Sorry. If they give me universal publically supported health care, I'm going to demand every last possible moment of life at your children's expense.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they give me universal publically supported health care, I'm going to demand every last possible moment of life at your children's expense.
You are usually part of the problem, not part of the solution, aren't you. ;P
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they give me universal publically supported health care, I'm going to demand every last possible moment of life at your children's expense.
You are usually part of the problem, not part of the solution, aren't you. ;P
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sometimes being part of the problem is being part of the solution... ;P
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
(unless of course the are over 65, in which case they get the chemo free, paid for by the taxpayers).
Medicare pays for the first 2,000 or so in expenses and anything over 10K. There's a big hole in the middle that has proved to be a bonanza for insurance companies. You don't see all those ads from Humana and others because they're not making money hand over fist. Someone under 65 who needs chemo may find himself facing a bigger problem. When he becomes too sick to work and is terminated, he's got 18 months on CORBA and then he'll be on his own - unless of course, there's a company who will hire him knowing he is being treated for cancer. Which shouldn't be a problem at all. . . Someone else made this point awhile back in here, but the more I've thought about it, the more sense it has made. One of the biggest problems American companies have in competing with their overseas counterparts is the medical care that they provide for their employees (even Walmart does) that is not part of the cost of doing business in most other Western nations.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I think I was the one that pointed out that little recognized "side-effect" that our health care system has in competing with Europe (in particular). Of course Obama wants to make it worse by taxing that benefit to pay for the uncovered.
-
Sometimes being part of the problem is being part of the solution... ;P
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sometimes being part of the problem is being part of the solution
That sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say. You know: like the best way of getting us out of the mess easy credit got us into, is to insist that banks provide easy credit? Or maybe, the best man to put in charge of the IRS is a tax-cheat?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I think I was the one that pointed out that little recognized "side-effect" that our health care system has in competing with Europe (in particular). Of course Obama wants to make it worse by taxing that benefit to pay for the uncovered.
Rob Graham wrote:
I think I was the one that pointed out that little recognized "side-effect" that our health care system has in competing with Europe (in particular).
It seems to me - yes. It was you. No wonder it made sense to me, once I thought about it.
Rob Graham wrote:
Of course Obama wants to make it worse by taxing that benefit to pay for the uncovered.
In the army we used to have a saying: If it moves, salute it; if it doesn't move, paint it. Obama has adapted it so it now comes out: If it moves, tax it; if it doesn't move, tax it anyway.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Personally I'm hoping for an exit like my maternal grandfather. In excellent health (multi-mile seafront walks) until he was in his late eighties, then pretty darn good health for several years after that. Suddenly one day at home: Bam, unconcious. One brief moment of lucidity in hospital and then gone within 48 hours. He was retired for nearly 3 decades!
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
MidwestLimey wrote:
Personally I'm hoping for an exit like my maternal grandfather.
That reminded me of the old joke: I want to die like my granfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sometimes being part of the problem is being part of the solution
That sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say. You know: like the best way of getting us out of the mess easy credit got us into, is to insist that banks provide easy credit? Or maybe, the best man to put in charge of the IRS is a tax-cheat?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say.
Actually, it doesn't sound anything like that. But Obama is a wise man, after all, so I suppose I should be flattered at the comparison. The problem is collectivism. The solution is stopping it. If one has no means of doing that by participation in some application of direct force, than simply adding one's own mass to society's burden should work well enough. It is an unworkable system, it will fail it direct proportion to the extent of its application.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Isn't this what they do in Europe that has people here so against universal health care?
I have no idea. My concerns about universal health care come from watching it work in Canada. From what I've heard, Oz has a much more flexible system than that, but I've never heard that they show any more intelligence than we do when it comes to letting folks head for Valhalla once they can see the rainbow bridge.
wolfbinary wrote:
Kevorkian got put in jail.
A hangover from the Catholic Church. I suspect that the prohibition against suicide was instituted at the behest of the nobles not wanting the peasants to take the easy way out.
wolfbinary wrote:
At least people have the option of saying in writing they don't want to be kept alive artificially
My step-father was dying of advanced old age in a hospital. A DNR was clearly attached to the foot of his bed and still my mother walked in one day to discover an intern crouched over him giving him oxygen and a heart massage. We got him out of there as soon as we could, but ironically, on the day his transfer to a hospice came through, where he would have been allowed to go off with dignity, he died in the ambulance during the transfer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
A hangover from the Catholic Church. I suspect that the prohibition against suicide was instituted at the behest of the nobles not wanting the peasants to take the easy way out.
And I suspect that it is a result of the rather obvious conclusion that suicide is murder - the wilful destruction of a human life.
Oakman wrote:
My step-father was dying of advanced old age in a hospital. A DNR was clearly attached to the foot of his bed and still my mother walked in one day to discover an intern crouched over him giving him oxygen and a heart massage. We got him out of there as soon as we could, but ironically, on the day his transfer to a hospice came through, where he would have been allowed to go off with dignity, he died in the ambulance during the transfer.
Thats one kind of error. The other kind would be getting whacked over the head by a government agent at the behest of your closest kin while pleading "I'm not dead yet - I feel happy!"
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No. The way the article put the costs is what struck me. The article is about smoking costs not 'justifying termination of human life'.
wolfbinary wrote:
The article is about smoking costs not 'justifying termination of human life'.
No, the article is about 'justifying termination of human life'. The smoking statistics merely support the conclusion that the earlier people die, the more economic benefit to the health care system for every one else. The real conclusion is that it is some kind of duty on the part of a loyal citizen to not linger too long for the good of the collective. Jon's conclusion was that religious people should be happy to go first.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
A hangover from the Catholic Church. I suspect that the prohibition against suicide was instituted at the behest of the nobles not wanting the peasants to take the easy way out.
And I suspect that it is a result of the rather obvious conclusion that suicide is murder - the wilful destruction of a human life.
Oakman wrote:
My step-father was dying of advanced old age in a hospital. A DNR was clearly attached to the foot of his bed and still my mother walked in one day to discover an intern crouched over him giving him oxygen and a heart massage. We got him out of there as soon as we could, but ironically, on the day his transfer to a hospice came through, where he would have been allowed to go off with dignity, he died in the ambulance during the transfer.
Thats one kind of error. The other kind would be getting whacked over the head by a government agent at the behest of your closest kin while pleading "I'm not dead yet - I feel happy!"
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The other kind would be getting whacked over the head by a government agent at the behest of your closest kin while pleading "I'm not dead yet - I feel happy!"
Actually, he'd been pleading with me to kill him for a couple of years. But I didn't have the guts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
That sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say.
Actually, it doesn't sound anything like that. But Obama is a wise man, after all, so I suppose I should be flattered at the comparison. The problem is collectivism. The solution is stopping it. If one has no means of doing that by participation in some application of direct force, than simply adding one's own mass to society's burden should work well enough. It is an unworkable system, it will fail it direct proportion to the extent of its application.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is collectivism
Well, I suppose that's true. And since I have heard you argue again and again for a dictatorship of the majority (as long as it was for Indiana, not the U.S.) I suppose you are, indeed, part of the problem.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is an unworkable system, it will fail it direct proportion to the extent of its application.
Which is why you have labeled it Jeffersonianism and advocate it so strongly? Very clever.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is collectivism
Well, I suppose that's true. And since I have heard you argue again and again for a dictatorship of the majority (as long as it was for Indiana, not the U.S.) I suppose you are, indeed, part of the problem.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is an unworkable system, it will fail it direct proportion to the extent of its application.
Which is why you have labeled it Jeffersonianism and advocate it so strongly? Very clever.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And since I have heard you argue again and again for a dictatorship of the majority
I've never made any such argument. I've only argued that allowing the courts to assume dictatorial authority is more onerous than dictatorship by a majority.
Oakman wrote:
Which is why you have labeled it Jeffersonianism and advocate it so strongly? Very clever.
I have no clue what that means. Jeffersonian democracy is defined by the distribution of political authority to the people in their states and communities with only certain strictly defined powers allowed to be exercised by the central government.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The other kind would be getting whacked over the head by a government agent at the behest of your closest kin while pleading "I'm not dead yet - I feel happy!"
Actually, he'd been pleading with me to kill him for a couple of years. But I didn't have the guts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But I didn't have the guts.
So, therefore, what? We should err on the side of people committing suicide just to get themselves out of the way and save the rest of society some money?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
And since I have heard you argue again and again for a dictatorship of the majority
I've never made any such argument. I've only argued that allowing the courts to assume dictatorial authority is more onerous than dictatorship by a majority.
Oakman wrote:
Which is why you have labeled it Jeffersonianism and advocate it so strongly? Very clever.
I have no clue what that means. Jeffersonian democracy is defined by the distribution of political authority to the people in their states and communities with only certain strictly defined powers allowed to be exercised by the central government.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've never made any such argument.
Sure you have. There's no room for any wide variance from the norm (as you and your neighbors define it) in your distopia. Gays not wanted; liberals not wanted; Muslims not wanted; coastal-dwelling Americans not wanted. . .
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no clue what that means.
Sorry. I was pointing out the irony of espousing a collectivist statism and labelling it with the name of our most libertarian President.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface