I can t figure out how to make quotes, so youll just have to piece it together, but: yes, people do get denied medical attention in this country, and I have been one of them. Let a philly buck me off once, on a paved road, then she planted both front feet in my gut. Made my way to the doctor, and he said "Do you have insurance? This looks serious." I said "No sir, Im afraid I dont." He said "Well Im afraid I cant treat you." I didnt know what else to say so I jus twent home. Spent two weeks in bed. It still hurts if I move the wrong way. Not sure that I want the gov't to take control of things either, but they damn sure get better than what they are now. By the way the best quote Ive found on health care runs right around $1,000 a month. Kinda steep to me, but maybe Im just not budgeting myself right.

HoustonFarrier in gray

Tom S...did you READ that 2004 article you told me to read.....I mean, REALLY read it......I hate to say, but it backs up what I have already said...

Bold is by me for emphasis....

In contrast, emergency rooms are open 24 hours a day, and on weekends. By federal law, no ER, public or private, can turn anyone away, whether or not they can pay for treatment. The Medicaid co-payment for non-emergency services delivered at the emergency room is a bargain at $3... And for the uninsured and indigent, ERs routinely waive fees due to inability to pay.

Yessir, I really read it. Especially the part about the Act mandating emergency care. That's all, just emergency care. No ER is required by federal statute to provide routine, preventative, or any other form of non-emergency medical care for anyone unwilling/unable to pay for their services. Many public hospitals here in Texas choose to do so, but that does not alter the fact they are not required to do so, or the fact that public hospitals in some states do not offer ER non-emergency care, or the fact that many private hospital ERs througout the US routinely turn away anyone unable to pay for non-emergency care.

Now, we can argue all day about how long one must wait for service... but... if one is NOT paying for a service, what difference does it make?

That would depend on the individual's circumstances.

See, the "health care crisis" is not really a crisis...it's just another "haves vs have nots" argument....bolstered by the liberal left of this country....in order to bolster THEIR voting block....IMHO

Where does someone living under a bridge who has no money and no insurance go to find medical care for cancer? Heart disease? TB? Diabetes? HIV? Kidney disease?

No one in the United States is turned away from any hospital for the lack of ability to pay....PERIOD.

Wanna bet? Because of federal law, nobody is turned away from any ER when seeking emergency care, but the indigent, uninsured, and underinsured are routinely turned away from the ERs of many private and public hospitals when seeking non-emergency care because such care is not mandated by federal law.

The health crisis ain't just a liberal fantasy, it affects everybody - and yessir, I think the government could do a helluva lot better job than the money-grubbing, multinational insurance companies and HMOs who've managed to insert themselves between the doctor and the patient in my lifetime - they sure as hell couldn't do any worse!

cowboy_bc wrote:Like anyone else who you owe money. A lien can be placed on your property. However, most hospitals will work with you to help you find a way to pay.

My sister in-law had surgery a while back(she had no health insurance) the hospital worked with her. They reduced her bill and helped her exstablish a payment plan. They also place a lien on thier home until its payed off.

Our system damn sure has it's drawbacks, but let me give you my experiences with socialized medicine. Several years ago in Canada, I had a hand flare up. Went to a downtown clinic where I waited over four hours to see a Dr. He asked when I was returning to the US. "Oh, just a few days", well it's obviously inflamed and may be infected so here's a perscription for an anti biotic and an anti inflamatory, See someone when you get home. Since, I wasn't Canadian, that cost $150 bucks.

My partner has some family in Latvia - you know, one of the former socialist republics. A few years ago, two of her aging cousins needed cataract surgery. First cousin, first eye, A surgery that sounded like 50 years ago and she lost sight in the eye. Terrified of a second surgery as was her sister, but if they could come up with some money, they could have a better Dr and better care. We sent money and all went well with the next surgeries.

A Russian that I knew had a similar story. Chemical poisoning, she was placed in a back ward to die untill her parents sold some belongings and came up with money to have her treated. Yep! that's a great system - we'll take care of everyone, but better care of those with money.

I've also known a Canadian who came down here to get Knee surgery, because the Canadian system considered it to be elective and had him on a three year waiting list. I don't know the answer, but socialized medicine has it's own drawbacks.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
THEY GET A JOB!!!!!! I know....that's one hell of an odd thing to say, huh LOL I know it's cruel wanting a homeless person to get a job...but you have to admit...it IS a novel idea:D BTW - most of the "homeless" folks I see on street corners begging for money, wear better shoes that I do !

My daughter has Type I diabetes (insulin dependent)...she did just fine when she was working, paying her own insurance. Now that she is unemployed, Medicare pays for her......I STILL don't see the problem??? I still see tons of folks in hospitals in Texas getting non-emergency care in ER's DESPITE what you claim....I have SEEN them with my own eyes, so I know what is happening. You can deny it all you want....but it IS happening. People ARE getting care that they need it or want.

In a perfect world, hell we'd all get everything for free.....but, as you are fond of saying..."that dog don't hunt.."

I'd sure like to entertain a health care system as YOU would implement it...and make sure you let us know how you'd pay for it WITHOUT hiking my taxes to the moon.....I'm already at 33% or so...I think I'm giving my fair share.

Steve

HoustonFarrier in gray, my old stuff in brown

Where does someone living under a bridge who has no money and no insurance go to find medical care for cancer? Heart disease? TB? Diabetes? HIV? Kidney disease?

THEY GET A JOB!!!!!!

What if there are no jobs to be had? What if they're unable to work?

I know....that's one hell of an odd thing to say, huh

No, but it's a kneejerk answer that's obviously overly simplistic.

LOL I know it's cruel wanting a homeless person to get a job...but you have to admit...it IS a novel idea:D

There's a difference between wishful thinking and reality. In reality, many homeless folks can't get any kind of a job.

BTW - most of the "homeless" folks I see on street corners begging for money, wear better shoes that I do!

Better shoes? I guess that settles it.

My daughter has Type I diabetes (insulin dependent)...she did just fine when she was working, paying her own insurance. Now that she is unemployed, Medicare pays for her......I STILL don't see the problem???

I'm not quite sure I follow your argument: Are you saying it's okay for medicare to pick up the tab for you daughter now because she was once self-supporting, but you'd deny a homeless person the same opportunity because you feel he has better shoes? Or, was it a cell phone?

I still see tons of folks in hospitals in Texas getting non-emergency care in ER's DESPITE what you claim....I have SEEN them with my own eyes, so I know what is happening.

No hospital is required by federal law to provide non-emergency treatment. Here in Texas, some state hospital districts provide ER non-emergency medical care for folks who can't pay, some don't. Many, perhaps most, private hospital ERs routinely turn away indigents, underinsured, and uninsured because they are not required by law to treat non-emergency patients.

You can deny it all you want....but it IS happening. People ARE getting care that they need it or want.

Nossir, your protests to the contrary, folks without money or insurance are not getting the medical care they need. If you really think they are, ask any medical professional.

In a perfect world, hell we'd all get everything for free.....but, as you are fond of saying..."that dog don't hunt.."

In a perfect world, there would be no multinational insurance company or HMO standing between the patient and the doctor.

I'd sure like to entertain a health care system as YOU would implement it...and make sure you let us know how you'd pay for it WITHOUT hiking my taxes to the moon.....I'm already at 33% or so...I think I'm giving my fair share.

We could start by bringing our troops home from a war we started without provocation that's costing US taxpayers a little more than $340,000,000 a day and has damn near bankrupted this country. That little dab of chump change could buy a few bandaids.

cowboy_bc wrote:
Numbers in the table were monthly. My $600 increase is for the year- I think of increases in yearly terms to better remind myself how the little things add up.

One thing I've learned from this thread is that I should go to farrier school.

33% tax bracket? Whooeee! I gotta get me some of that.

The other thing I've realized that I need to learn is when the last time was that we ever had a flat tax here in the US. All this talk about socialist Obama spreading the wealth- since when have we NOT had a progressive tax rate?

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:Tom,

I have watched your efforts in this thread with admiration. Your willingness to stand up for that which is right sets and example that is worth following. Unfortunately I do not believe that you can teach or lead greedy, selfish, self centered people into anything that would help anyone but themselves. They do not care about the sick, hungry or destitute and they don't care that Republican lead government and companies have driven so many into poverty. What is really sad is that they are too ignorant to realize that they are, for the most part, in the very group that is getting screwed.

Keep up the good fight.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
I think you make some incorrect and even insulting assumptions here.

First of all you presume to be able to dictate "that which is right". We are all argueing for what we think is right.

Second, you claim that someone here doesn't care about the poor or the sick. I don't think that's true. The disagreement is centered on who's responsibility it is to take care of them.

I've said it a thousand times but I'll say it again. Charity is a fine thing. However, when money/resources are taken from one by force to be given to someone else, that isn't charity. It's the forced redistribution of wealth. It's the government (and you?) presuming to know better how to use the fruits of my labor than I do. When my resources are taken from me it deprives my family.

You're right, we all get screwed. I have trouble enough taking care of my own family. Part of the problem is the off-the top cut that the government takes...not to mention the way ist's wasted and the insuffucient return. The difference between us is that you look to the government to take care of you and all I want is for the government to let me keep more of what I earn so that I can better take care of myself and my family in the way that I see fit.

So far, in this thread, you have made accusations of racism and now this. You haven't presented a single good argument for the policies that you advocate.

As long as we're going to get insulting...what's going on here is that there are so many without the courage to take responsibility for themselves and hence advocate policies that are dangerous and down-right un-American.

This socialist nonsense is treason and endangers the very core of our way of life! The cold war isn't over. The communists are here.

Ronald E. Kramedjian in gray

I have watched your efforts in this thread with admiration. Your willingness to stand up for that which is right sets and example that is worth following. Unfortunately I do not believe that you can teach or lead greedy, selfish, self centered people into anything that would help anyone but themselves.

I'm not arguing with "greedy, selfish, self centered people," I'm arguing with folks I respect who have ideas and concepts different than mine.

They do not care about the sick, hungry or destitute and they don't care that Republican lead government and companies have driven so many into poverty.

Because I'm not clairvoyant, I could not possibly know why someone has an opinion that differs from mine, but I don't believe - will never believe - the folks on the other side of the debate don't care about others. As I see it, the gist of the debate has been how to go about providing for folks who need help of some sort, not whether or not help needs providing. No one has suggested we leave the old folks out on the ice.

What is really sad is that they are too ignorant to realize that they are, for the most part, in the very group that is getting screwed.

Nobody paying taxes is ignorant of the hosing society is taking, from top to bottom.

Keep up the good fight.

I'm not fighting, I'm debating the issues from my viewpoint. I'm sure as hell not suggesting the other fellow is an insensitive ignoramus because he doesn't see things as I do, I'm trying to convince him that we need to find some middle ground and get things turned around before our society becomes so polarized it'll need major surgery to get it righted.

All good points Tom.

One of the truly great things about this country is that we can openly express our views and debate the issues. Not everyone in the world has that freedom. That freedom was won at great cost and there are those who would take it away if we let them.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
Actually, I think I did.
Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
That being the case and if their family unit is unable to provide for them, then its time for the Missa pro defunctis or, Mourner's Kaddish, etc, depending on your religious persuasion or lack there of.....

Rick Burten wrote:
Maybe but I'll bet you've chosen to help a few others at various times.
The chain of "responsibility" that I would propose is pretty simple. The first one responsible/decision making power for the well being of an individual, is the individual, then the family, then the local community.

As they say, charity begins at home and the more that's taken from me, the less I have to help at home or close to home.

What happened to that right to choose? The same folks that argue for the right to choose in one breath are trying to take away my right to choose in the next.

LOL, I get it, they want to be the one to decide who gets the right to choose, what they get to choose and when. Sounds like good old fashioned oppression to me.

Mike Ferrara in gray

The chain of "responsibility" that I would propose is pretty simple. The first one responsible/decision making power for the well being of an individual, is the individual, then the family, then the local community.

What if none of this utopian infrastructure exists? It's nonexistent for many folks, so what then?

As they say, charity begins at home and the more that's taken from me, the less I have to help at home or close to home.

Your argument presumes everyone's willingness to "help" at home, something not in evidence and often sorely lacking throughout society. For starters, the homeless don't have homes and are often invisible to a society that likes to pretend they don't exist, or need a helping hand, or need medical care, or could get a job if they really wanted to. In reality, they do exist, they do need a helping hand, they do need medical care and they can't always "get a job."

What happened to that right to choose? The same folks that argue for the right to choose in one breath are trying to take away my right to choose in the next.

You have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion; you don't have the right to choose whether or not someone else can have an abortion. You don't get to choose whether or not to pay your taxes, but you do have the right to vote for the scoundrels who make the laws - unfortunately, it's difficult to throw the rascals out when they're sitting on both sides of the aisle and in bed with multinationals that provide huge campaign contributions via PACs and similar subterfuges.

LOL, I get it, they want to be the one to decide who gets the right to choose, what they get to choose and when.

No one has interfered with your right to choose to abort your fetus, but - as badly as it appears to discombobulate you - you don't get to interfere with someone else's right to abort their fetus. If you feel the laws should be changed, lobby your congressrat, it's the American Way!

Sounds like good old fashioned oppression to me.

Oy vey! Not even the rightest of the Right could justify such apples and oranges illogic!

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:The jobs are there you just have to look for them and be willing to do the work. Not everyone can have a $20 hr job.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:There are already programs in place to help these people.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:I don't think so. The hispanic community does seem to have any problems finding a job. I see them all the time at fast food restrants, hotels, ect.. If they can find a job why can't everyone else. I know its beneth the average white american to work such so call demining type labor. But it a job. and its not overly simplistic.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:This is true many homeless folks have mental problems where they can't function well in society. However, many homeless folk don't work because it more profitable to stand at the exit of walmart and get a hand out. And you don't have to pay taxes.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:If a problem exsits that qualifies one for medicare then they should recieve it. Thats what the program is for.

As for the cell phone. If you can't afford to feed yourself you have no buisness paying for cell phone service.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:What don't you understand about the term Emergency Room. Its there only for emergencies it not there so you can see a Doc after office hours unless its an emergency. I have a sister in law who works in the local hospital of our small town. They have lots of folks come into the ER, after the Doc office have closed, seeking routine care the main reason is because medicare will pay for an ER visit and not for routine care.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:So no one ever guranteed anyone healthcare or health insurance. Beyound Emergency care. And thats the way it should be. People need to learn to be self reliant. They can not learn this if you give them everything they need.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:If the government takes over the health care there will still be insurance companies and HMO that dictate to you what you can and can't have. Its just the tax payers will be flipping the bill.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:What ever!!!!!!!!