My Friend Needs HealthCare.

reply to post by jam321


I dont think anyone should be given anything for free, especially when there are millions of people who have been struggling to pay for their private insurance for years.

The only thing that needs to be addressed, (at least in my opinion), are the insurance providers themselves. as it stands, they give insurance to anyone they deem healthy enough to cost effectively support. God forbid they have some sort of illness, because as well all know, that usually means the insurance companies will not DO THEIR BASIC FUNCTION to provide someone with the basic coverage.

If we have to spend government money, I would much rather we spend it in our own back yard.

Originally posted by radio_for_peace

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by jam321

 

This is sad to know, that here in America a person can die for lack if insurance.

That is a flat-out lie. No one can die from lack of insurance. It is illegal for hospitals to turn you away if you are dying.

Really? Perhaps you had better look around before making such a bold statement like that. (5 minutes to find these links...)
Lack of insurance blamed for deaths, study shows
/nrr86c

Lack of Insurance Raises Abused Babies' Death Risk
/n4b6n4

Report Links Deaths In California To Lack Of Insurance
www.kolotv.com...

Lack of Basic Health Insurance Kills 18,000 Americans Every Year: Sick and Getting Sicker www.worldproutassembly.org...

I know some people that will not go to a doctor or hospital because they have no insurance. Personally know. I know some medical offices that will not talk to you unless you have a medical card, period. Right now in our town our local, not-for-profit hospital is merging with another company. I was researching this a little bit and discovered that the parent company is a litigation team, a group of lawyers. Anyway, right now, with the merger, and the healthcare debate, it is hard here to get services for some of the HMOs, like Care Source and Unison. It is hard, and it gets only harder from here on out. don't kid yourself, people do die from lack of health care every day in America.

All healthcare needs to be non-profit (from the doctors, to drug companies, to the equipment vendors). Medicine should be an honorable profession one enters to help and serve, rather then to get rich. Keep the focus on service rather then money & we would be taking a big step to getting back to the days of house calls.

S&F. This topic seriously needs to be addressed in an intellectually honest manner.

First off, what is my obligation to my fellow man? Am I required to feed him if he's hungry, clothe him if he's naked? NO. Not in this society. It simply doesn't work that way. Now, if we change the question around a bit, the answer changes. Does it behoove me to feed him if he's hungry and clothe him if he's naked? YES.

I see a huge difference between the two questions above. In the first, I am required to do for him, even though I may be having trouble doing for myself. In the second, I am empowered to be able to make a decision that may benefit my fellow man without endangering my well-being. The first makes me a slave to the needs of others; the second makes me free and able to do more with my limited means, simply because I am able to administer the help I give directly. The second is charity, and a sign of true love. The first is not.

We live in a country where our way of life, our customs and traditions, are based on a single document penned over 200 years ago by some very wise (IMO) individuals. That document is the US constitution, and under its guidance we have, as a nation, gone from a rag-tag band of colonists to the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth in our short existence. For that reason, I bring up that singular document here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Source: www.usconstitution.net...

In this one opening statement, the entire scope of the Federal government is established. According to this, what duties and abilities would our Federal government have in the present situation as it applies to healthcare?

• "To form a more perfect union" - nope, doesn't really seem to apply here... unless of course, someone can find evidence that there is some sort of de facto ban on healthcare across state lines.
  
  
• "establish Justice" - considering the malpractice insurance problem, as well as the reason for the malpractice insurance problem (poor doctors who are allowed to continue practicing), this could be seen as applicable. Justice implies fair and equitable treatment, so obviously if someone is being harmed by the actions of others, it would be in the interest of Justice to correct that oversight to the best we can.
  
  
• "insure Domestic tranquility" - I can see where this might be used to insure people didn't get angry enough to riot or something to that effect, but I honestly don't think that was what the framers had in mind. I see this more as preventing domestic violence, so in that light it would not be applicable.
  
  
• "provide for the common defense" - Nope, not applicable.
  
  
• "promote the general Welfare" - Ah, here we have something that is applicable. Notice, however, that where the previous item used the word "provide", this one uses the word "promote". To provide something, one must create and distribute it; to promote something, one must simply make it possible for others to do so.
  
  
• "secure the blessings of Liberty" - Hmmm, this could be seen as affecting healthcare reform in several ways. For example, if one is not able to get the best healthcare they can afford, would that not be denying someone the blessings of their liberty?

So, based on the information above, my next question is, What role (if any) does the Federal government have to play in healthcare? My personal belief is that it is not the place of the Federal government to acquire healthcare, insurance, or any other privately-administered product for anyone, unless that person is ready and completely willing to accept such offerings on the basis of charity. To do so, especially in the arena of healthcare, without such willingness on the part of the individual, goes against the principle of "secure the blessings of Liberty" by removing the liberty of the persons involved.

I do believe that it is the role of the Federal government to regulate and in some cases oversee operations ("promote the general Welfare"), as well as to establish laws and regulations that encourage fair and equitable treatment among the people of all classes ("establish Justice").

So according to this reading, the only thing the government can forcefully do in the area of healthcare is to regulate, oversee, and make sure equity is maintained. It is unconstitutional for them to do anything more. The next question I have is, Can the Federal government, using the limited powers I just outlined, correct the problems with healthcare today?

I believe it is possible (notwithstanding the economic collapse). But to do so requires some thought, some reason, and quite a lot of honest open debate. That's why I flagged this thread, and why I am posting here.

We have to remember as well that we live in a capitalistic society. People make money as a result of their (supposed) contribution to society, and they then use that money to obtain the rewards they get from their service. It is a system that works fine as long as the people involved are on the middle level of the scale. Capitalism only falls apart when one becomes either immensely wealthy or desperately poor.

Some mention of the concept of socialized healthcare is appropriate here. We already have socialized healthcare; it is called health insurance. If you are in favor of 'socialized healthcare' then you have no complaints; go buy insurance. I personally find it ironic that the debate frequently turns to people clamoring for socialized healthcare and in the same post screaming about how unfair the insurance companies are. Insurance = socialization. What these people are typically saying is that they want in the 'club' of having insurance, even though they are not willing to make any sacrifices for it, like everyone else with insurance does.

OK, fingers are getting tired, so I'll stop here for now and let everyone get their flames off.

TheRedneck

I have always wondered about health related issues in America, and how the system clearly doesn't work.
All residents of the Netherlands are obliged to take out health insurance, and this works just fine.

The system is a private health insurance with social conditions. The system is operated by private health insurance companies; the insurers are obliged to accept every resident in their area of activity. A system of risk equalisation enables the acceptance obligation and prevents direct or indirect risk selection.

The insured pay a nominal premium to the health insurer. Everyone with the same policy will pay the same insurance premium. The Health Insurance Act also provides for an income-related contribution to be paid by the insured. Employers contribute by making a compulsory payment towards the income-related insurance contribution of their employees.

Now I know people in America are usually somewhat reluctant (to put it mildly) when it comes to this system, but it works. Everyone is provided with basic healthcare and no one has to pay any bills for just visiting their doctor or emergency room. Of course there are always people b#ing about certain things, but then again there are just people that like to b# so there's really nothing you can do about that.

I think our health insurance system is one of the (few) things that work very well around here.

About inmates getting medical care: of course they are. The state is resposible for these people, so the state pays up when one of them is ill. I'm not saying it is fair, I just think that's the way it works. And it clearly doesn't work

reply to post by jam321


You're right, jam, we need to get real and stop making this a political issue and start making it a humanitarian issue.

S & F

It is good to see all on this thread democrat/republican all really want the same thing... so why can't we see eye to eyean ? -Because we are programed to disagree with each other. It needs to be a marriage with compromise.

-great thread that has a great potential for actual discourse

-anyone

p.s. It is a lot easier for people to see and understand why we need reform when we see the effects first hand. It's like the fallacy of what you can't see wont hurt you. I hope your friend gets the help he needs.

reply to post by jam321


Where does your friend live? There are programs avaliable. If you'd like U2U me and I can do a search for agencies (pateint advocate and such) in their area.

Im sorry your friends are ill.

You are being forced to choose between two crappy systems. The only debate is will you get screwed slow or quick.

Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize winner, inventor of Pauling therapy could maybe, if not probably, sort out your friends heart- but neither party will tell you about him.

Im not getting dragged into this false debate any more.

Good luck.

I also am giving a Star & Flag for this wonderful thread.

I don't want to brow beat either poltical party
I just want to know how every member of congress votes
on this important legislation for every American.
If they vote NAY.......
I will be voting NAY for them , in a very loud voice
come next election.





[edit on 9/7/2009 by Ex]

reply to post by jam321


Your friend can go to any charity hospital and receive healthcare free of charge. Charity hospitals already exist in nearly every large city in America. These are the healthcare facilities where the homeless and indigent are taken when they're found sick and dying in the streets, and they are not expected to "pay back" anyone for the treatment.

I suspect, however, that your friend is not so desperate for healthcare as you claim.

Even with fast-track federal legislation, the so-called "healthcare reform" (socialism) movement in America would not actually see any reform until about 2013. That's right, even if every American was in favor of "healthcare reform" and there was no opposition to the legislation and President Hussein signed the thing into law today, the actual reform would not even begin for another 4 years.

So your friend with a "possible brain hemorrhage" is out of luck for another 4 years, if he's waiting for nationalized healthcare... Unless, of course, your friend does the sensible thing and goes to a charity hospital which is already available to assist him.

I also suspect that this isn't about "healthcare reform" (socialism) anyway; this whole controversy is about the fantasy of free healthcare for everybody, which is ridiculous. Healthcare is not a right. We do not have a right to healthcare, and the government should not be obligated to provide free healthcare to anyone.

What we do know about government-run programs is that they are consistently under-funded and provide the lowest quality of service to the recipients. Your friend with a "brain hemorrhage" would probably die that much more quickly under nationalized healthcare — again, if he wants to live, he should seek the services of a charity hospital.

Charity hospitals, by the way, are funded by charity. That means the people who can afford it voluntarily make charitable donations to provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it.

The key word is voluntarily.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 9/7/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Tell your friend to go to the hospital emergency. Use what he has to even if he has to exaggerate a little then once in...... the hospital can get him insurance (good insurance) and it can be back dated 90 days. Doesn't matter if he has job or is collecting anything.

If you are seriously ill and go to energency they can't refuse you because they will be in deep #..................don't fall for what they are saying about this Healthcare crap cause they want to get rid of this tort of being able to sue after you end up getting crappy medical care.

Also remember everything they do is timed and in transcript and you can get a copy by asking.

Fight for your healthcare rights.






[edit on 7-9-2009 by observe50]

reply to post by Ex

I don't want to brow beat either poltical party
I just want to know how every member of congress votes
on this important legislation for every American.
If they votes NAY.......
I will be voting NAY for them , in a very loud voice
come next election.

May I ask one simple question?

What is it about this present bill (or the many versions thereof) that makes you believe it is so indispensable to solving the healthcare crisis? Do you like the bill itself, or do you simply think that we can't possibly do any better than it?

TheRedneck

reply to post by jam321


Hi there. Love your post.

Depending upon where he lives there may be free health clinics and/or health cooperatives.

www.socialmedicine.org...

We didnt see people coming out of the woodworks talking about sick friends a few years ago... Instead of changing HC wich doesnt seem to create any jobs, why not push somthing that would create a few million jobs?

Its not helping companies are encouraged to pack up and move to other countries.. I just get the feeling there would be alot of abuse to a nationalized HC system.. Just like the other systems in place.. Maybe it should only cover those that are diagnosed with a life threatening illness.

Originally posted by observe50
Fight for your healthcare rights.

At the risk of repeating myself, healthcare is not a "right"... We do not have a "right" to healthcare, and the government should not be obligated to provide free healthcare to anyone.

Rather than admonishing people to "fight for your healthcare rights" (which don't exist), we should admonish the ignorant masses to "educate yourself" about the free and nearly-free healthcare services that already exist.

The current hysteria surrounding the issue of "healthcare reform" has been fabricated to incite fear and division in this country by those who thrive on fear and division.

Healthcare reform is not a dire issue. It is a luxury. It is a wet-dream. It is NOT something we cannot live without. More than anything, "healthcare reform" is NOT something we can afford.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
reply to post by jam321

 

What we do know about government-run programs is that they are consistently under-funded and provide the lowest quality of service to the recipients. Your friend with a "brain hemorrhage" would probably die that much more quickly under nationalized healthcare — again, if he wants to live, he should seek the services of a charity hospital.

How can a person die more quickly from relatively poor care than no care at all?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Charity hospitals, by the way, are funded by charity. That means the people who can afford it voluntarily make charitable donations to provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it.

The key word is voluntarily.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 9/7/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Great we'll just send the 42 million people without insurance to the charity hospital down the street. Well done, you've solved the problem.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by observe50
Fight for your healthcare rights.

At the risk of repeating myself, healthcare is not a "right"...

Who are you to make that decision?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Funshinez]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Funshinez]

if you got said reform tho, couldn't your friend be put on a 2 year waiting list?

wouldn't it be faster to save 5G then wait 2 years?

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

The real problem with healthcare in America?? GREEEEEEEEED! Why is it so damn expensive here? Administration costs.

You have stated a problem that very well could be part of the problem. Now, how do you solve it.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Thank you for your concern. He is in the process of getting help.

reply to post by mblahnikluver

Sorry to hear about your ER nightmare. I thought hospitals had to stabilize you. I know the low life treatment because I used to not have insurance.

reply to post by radio_for_peace

I have to say it: Your friend is an idiot. An MRI costs 5000? I got some fancy tap water for 20/gallon. He wants to buy that? It's called shopping around. You don't just go out and buy the first thing you come across, do you? Then why is it okay to go to the first MRI lab, especially if you don't have insurance. You can get a full body MRI for around 400 bux.

You mean to tell me that you can't say all of this without insulting my friend. Appreciate your advice anyway. Do you think somebody can get a full body MRI for 400 bucks in a rural area?

reply to post by autowrench

Medicare pays $0.80 on the dollar, people could get supplement insurance to take up the slack, and everyone is happy. Medicare is already in place, and already proven to work.

You offer a solution. That's great. Like I said the main thing is that everybody get involved and help compromise on the best plan possible.


Will address more responses later, Thanks.

Originally posted by AshleyD
I don't believe health care is a 'right,' but I do believe it's insanity to take care of some but not others while those others are paying for it.

I agree with the rest of your post, and mostly agree with this part, but...

I agree that health care is not a 'right' of the individual, but nor is a priviledge either. It is an 'obligation' of an advanced society to ensure that all of it's members are healthy. It is not beneficial to that society to not do so.

In my situation, the 'insurance' offered through my employer will only pay out $10,000 per year. Good for simple emergencies or simple illnesses, but as I am getting close to 50, I'm in prime coronary years, and various forms of cancer. This 'insurance' would be exhausted the first day should I need hospitalization for one of these. Getting my own insurance is cost prohibitive, unless I want to live in a refrigerator box, as there wouldn't be enough money at the end of the month for housing costs.

I pay taxes, thus I pay for the health care of those who are imprisoned, on medicaid, on medicare, etc. I pay for some to get better health care than what I can afford. (In this way we are in perfect agreement)

The 'straw man' in this debate is the delusion that some government program will somehow take away our 'choices'. Well, I can only speak for myself, but I only have two choices: Waste money on a 'bandaid' insurance policy and don't get really sick or injured, or save the money and don't get really sick or injured. Not really much of a choice if you ask me. I sure that I'm not alone in this situation....

[edit on 7-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

Jam, you better help them to move to canada or mexico!
They certainly wont find AFFORDABLE treatment here!
Only paranoia and greed. And nothing will ever change either.
We pride ourselves on it apparently.
We are selfish and self righteous beyond words.
They could also just become rich real quick!
Thats always apparently just a "choice" one makes!

Just look at everyone freaking out over socialism!
Not like we dont have medicaid or medicare or SOCIAL security already!
Wonder how many would give theirs up because of the "s" word!

My, arent we a compassionate country!
The only right we have is the right to remain silent and put up.
Guess we need another war to distract us.
Seems to work pretty well....


[edit on 7-9-2009 by dodadoom]