KRISTEN'S BOARD
Congratulations to 2024 Pervert of the Year Shiela_M and 2024 Author of the Year Writers Bloque!

News:

US Healthcare

AvatarofTruth · 14555

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline AvatarofTruth

  • Hero Protagonist
  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 768
    • Woos/Boos: +183/-47
    • Gender: Female
  • Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
on: August 21, 2009, 10:38:02 PM
RESOLVED: That it is immoral to make a profit off of the sick and dying.

Therefore, the federal government and state governments of these United States have every legal right and moral obligation to involve themselves in Health Care reform, and to ensure that all Citizens receive the same quality of care regardless of their ability to pay. We live in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world; no one should ever die because they could not afford medical treatment.   


Melissa

  • Guest
Reply #1 on: August 21, 2009, 11:15:45 PM
No one is turned down for medical care unless it's by unscruplous hospital officials.  Perhaps you're not aware of Michelle Obama's time with the University of Chicago Medical Center?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html

One question...

Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama: The University of Chicago Medical center hired her in 2002 to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting".

In 2005, the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317, 000 nearly twice what her husband made as a Senator.

Oh, I should mention her husband had just become a US Senator.  But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that possibly be??? Especially if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317, 000?

Let's throw another little tidbit in there...

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDM2OGNkMzhkZTQ1ZjJmM2NiYmU1MmRiODRlNTE1MTQ=

Quote
The University of Chicago's Gratitude To Senator Obama

One other note on the $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Hospital requested by Obama in 2006 — employees of the university were the number one contributor to Obama for the 2006 election cycle. Employees of the university donated $156,054 to him during that time period.

We shouldn't be entirely shocked by this; obviously, when your co-worker's husband is running for the U.S. Senate, you're probably a little more inclined to give him a donation. But as people have noted elsewhere — we're expected to believe that everyone involved in the decision to increase Michelle Obama's salary at the hospital by $195,052 between 2004 and 2005 did not take her husband's recent election to the Senate into account, and that the prospect of a Senator helping secure greater financial aid from the federal government never crossed their mind.



Offline AvatarofTruth

  • Hero Protagonist
  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 768
    • Woos/Boos: +183/-47
    • Gender: Female
  • Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
Reply #2 on: August 21, 2009, 11:59:16 PM
The discussion I was trying to start had nothing to do with Michelle Obama's career in Chicago. The digressive way in which you 'debate' is, in two words, fucking annoying. It's also fucking retarded, but I digress.

The only part of your post which even remotely addressed the topic was the first sentence. So let's address that, shall we?

Technically, in the case of life threatening situations, no one can legally be turned down for medical care, no matter how uninsured or unable to pay. However, they are still billed for care received. Many Americans would rather die than ask for help they are unable to pay for.

But it isn't even immediately life threatening medical situations that we're talking about. We're talking about routine care that leads to a better quality of life and a greater likelihood of reaching or exceeding our expected lifespans.

Millions of Americans live with undiagnosed life threatening problems such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease, because they cannot afford the medical insurance that would allow them to get a check-up. Even when they qualify for public assistance, many refuse it because they are more afraid of being stained by the stigma of Welfare than they are of dying. 

The way health care is conducted in this country needs to be fixed, because it currently serves to benefit only those who can afford it, and that is immoral.


Even if we disagree on the solutions, we must agree on the problem. If we do not, then we are not arguing on the same moral ground, which is to say we are not arguing at all. Just as I could not begin to argue with someone who felt that genocide was a perfectly moral choice, I cannot argue with someone who cannot see the immorality of profiting off the sick.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,158
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #3 on: August 22, 2009, 01:04:32 AM
There is no doubt in my mind we need Universal Healthcare. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

For Want of a Dentist
Pr. George's Boy Dies After Bacteria From Tooth Spread to Brain

Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.

Deamonte's death and the ultimate cost of his care, which could total more than $250,000, underscore an often-overlooked concern in the debate over universal health coverage: dental care.

Some poor children have no dental coverage at all. Others travel three hours to find a dentist willing to take Medicaid patients and accept the incumbent paperwork. And some, including Deamonte's brother, get in for a tooth cleaning but have trouble securing an oral surgeon to fix deeper problems.

In spite of efforts to change the system, fewer than one in three children in Maryland's Medicaid program received any dental service at all in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The figures were worse elsewhere in the region. In the District, 29.3 percent got treatment, and in Virginia, 24.3 percent were treated, although all three jurisdictions say they have done a better job reaching children in recent years.

"I certainly hope the state agencies responsible for making sure these children have dental care take note so that Deamonte didn't die in vain," said Laurie Norris, a lawyer for the Baltimore-based Public Justice Center who tried to help the Driver family. "They know there is a problem, and they have not devoted adequate resources to solving it."




Offline AvatarofTruth

  • Hero Protagonist
  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 768
    • Woos/Boos: +183/-47
    • Gender: Female
  • Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
Reply #4 on: August 22, 2009, 01:13:09 AM
Emilly-

Although I appreciate that you agree with my position on this, I really wish that you'd post your own opinions instead of one sentence followed by a lengthy quote from another person or article. For example, what do you think a solution might be for US health care? (In which I include dental care, obviously.)



Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1721/-57
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #5 on: August 22, 2009, 02:44:47 AM
RESOLVED: That it is immoral to make a profit off of the sick and dying.
 

It wasn't always that way. Only until Health Corporations began buying up hospitals and running them as a business, i.e. for profit, that the people who really needed care, i.e. the poor, were turned away or dropped off at a county hospital.  But yes, in a highly civilized society as ours, all people, regardless of standing, should have access to basic health care.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,158
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #6 on: August 22, 2009, 04:55:38 AM
Emilly-

Although I appreciate that you agree with my position on this, I really wish that you'd post your own opinions instead of one sentence followed by a lengthy quote from another person or article. For example, what do you think a solution might be for US health care? (In which I include dental care, obviously.)

The article was an example of why we need Universal Healthcare and thus central to my message.  I don't always have tons of time for posting.  I get a brief break at work, check things out, post, and then back to work.



Offline daporn

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 140
    • Woos/Boos: +22/-2
    • Gender: Male
  • Hit it
Reply #7 on: August 22, 2009, 05:00:05 AM
Just as I could not begin to argue with someone who felt that genocide was a perfectly moral choice, I cannot argue with someone who cannot see the immorality of profiting off the sick.

Wow, that is a pretty fucked up analogy. 

"Profiting off the sick is immoral".....that's a semantic loaded statement if I've ever heard one.  Is it immoral for a physician to charge for his knowledge?  He's the one that had the intestinal fortitude to stick with the education, that most people are incapable of doing.  Is it wrong that he is able to charge for that knowledge?

If that is acceptable....Is it immoral for a Doctor to have a practice where several Physicians practice together?  It is a business, so shouldn't it be able to make a profit?

That too is acceptable...you see where I am going with this? 

Healthcare is not a simple thing, and there are no simple answers.  Every year doctors make less money per procedure than they did the year before, why?  Haven't you wondered why your doctor has become so busy?  He is now having to triple book patients into the same time slots that he used to see only one patient in.

Yet the insurance companies every year have record profits, so is continuing to have our current big insurance companies continue the way they have been the answer?  I would absolutely say no, at the same time the Medicare/Medicaid format will continue to lead more doctors to see more patients in less time.

The answer will end up having to come from a multi-type insurance system. 

1.  Children need coverage, so set a basic amount of coverage for every child, have a supplemental type of insurance that can be purchased to go above and beyond that basic coverage, fees for this supplemental benefit should be based upon income, more you make...more you pay for the supplemental.

2.  Young adults need little coverage, have a basic amount of coverage with a low cost supplemental that stays lower in cost the longer they have it, and the less that they use it.  Let the discounts continue into middle age.

3.  Higher cost for supplemental to people who are smokers, or overweight.

4.  Fixed cost of benefits for anyone above the age of sixty, based upon health history, the less a person has used their benefits in the past lets them have a lower rate in their retirement years.  This promotes a healthier lifestyle for their entire lives.

Just my thoughts.



Offline ebilbob

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-27
    • Gender: Male
Reply #8 on: August 22, 2009, 05:02:24 AM
RESOLVED: That it is immoral to make a profit off of the sick and dying.

Therefore, the federal government and state governments of these United States have every legal right and moral obligation to involve themselves in Health Care reform, and to ensure that all Citizens receive the same quality of care regardless of their ability to pay. We live in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world; no one should ever die because they could not afford medical treatment.   

The thing that amazes me about your resolution isn't just the number of people that disagree with it, it's their rationalle for opposing health care for all and, more than that, the way they perceive themselves, or at least try to be perceived.

The people that don't believe it is immoral to make a profit off of people suffering from disease or injury will tell you that it is immoral to give something to someone who didn't, in their opinion "earn" it. Most of them genuinely believe that our Constitution prescribes that our economy be a capitalist one and that it is a moral imperative to ensure that profits are made no matter what the actual cost to the country or it's citizens. But they don't believe that providing health care and keeping people alive has anything to do with the inalienable right to "life."

Those same people who are so vehemently opposed to providing health care to all Americans are the exact same people that seem to wave their flags the fastest, proclaim their patriotism the quickest, and denounce anyone who disagrees with them as un-American. They literally believe they are being patriotic by treating their fellow countrymen with derision.

Finally, a significant percentage of them are purported Christians who have somehow decided that even though Jesus only lost his shit once and that was when he saw people trying to make a profit off of something he felt was inappropriate (God, specifically) and went around healing people at no charge, what he REALLY wanted his followers to get from his actions was that we should all pursue money above leave our fellow man to suffer from curable diseases, treatable injuries, and live lives of poor quality due to failing health before finally allowing them to die sooner than they should have.

This notion that every person doesn't deserve to have their medical issues addressed is contrary to everything a self-described patriotic Christian should believe in. So why are the most violent opponents of reform coming from the areas of the country populated by the poorest, most religious, most xenophobic regions of the nation where the percentages of people with adequate health care are the lowest?

The entire situation is just flabbergasting. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to explain to someone who can't get health insurance because they can't afford it or can't get covered because they need it so badly due to pre-existing conditions that this administration and this Congress is trying to make health care available to them only to have them shoot back at me that the system will be overrun by people who don't deserve it because if they'd just go out and get a job, they'd already have health care.

When I first started working to dispel all of the misinformation about health care reform, that type of thing made my head hurt. Now it just makes my heart ache.



Offline ebilbob

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 201
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-27
    • Gender: Male
Reply #9 on: August 22, 2009, 05:12:38 AM
Just as I could not begin to argue with someone who felt that genocide was a perfectly moral choice, I cannot argue with someone who cannot see the immorality of profiting off the sick.

Wow, that is a pretty fucked up analogy. 

"Profiting off the sick is immoral".....that's a semantic loaded statement if I've ever heard one.  Is it immoral for a physician to charge for his knowledge?  He's the one that had the intestinal fortitude to stick with the education, that most people are incapable of doing.  Is it wrong that he is able to charge for that knowledge?

If that is acceptable....Is it immoral for a Doctor to have a practice where several Physicians practice together?  It is a business, so shouldn't it be able to make a profit?

That too is acceptable...you see where I am going with this? 

Healthcare is not a simple thing, and there are no simple answers.  Every year doctors make less money per procedure than they did the year before, why?  Haven't you wondered why your doctor has become so busy?  He is now having to triple book patients into the same time slots that he used to see only one patient in.

Yet the insurance companies every year have record profits, so is continuing to have our current big insurance companies continue the way they have been the answer?  I would absolutely say no, at the same time the Medicare/Medicaid format will continue to lead more doctors to see more patients in less time.

The answer will end up having to come from a multi-type insurance system. 

1.  Children need coverage, so set a basic amount of coverage for every child, have a supplemental type of insurance that can be purchased to go above and beyond that basic coverage, fees for this supplemental benefit should be based upon income, more you make...more you pay for the supplemental.

2.  Young adults need little coverage, have a basic amount of coverage with a low cost supplemental that stays lower in cost the longer they have it, and the less that they use it.  Let the discounts continue into middle age.

3.  Higher cost for supplemental to people who are smokers, or overweight.

4.  Fixed cost of benefits for anyone above the age of sixty, based upon health history, the less a person has used their benefits in the past lets them have a lower rate in their retirement years.  This promotes a healthier lifestyle for their entire lives.

Just my thoughts.

Actually, I'll have to disagree on a few points. Health Care IS a simple thing. Everyone should have it and no one should have to pay for it. That's pretty fucking simple.

And the answer isn't a multi-insurance system. The answer is a single payer system. The insurance companies can make their profits selling supplemental insurance packages to those who can afford to pay to feel better than everyone else, but the baseline of medical services available to every single American should be coordinated through a single agency, just like Medicare is run now.

The Medicare format isn't what drives doctors to see as many patients as possible for as short of a period as possible. That's profit driven. If a single payer system sets up incentive pays appropriately and not just based on throughput, there's no reason why the system should conflict with a drive for quality over quantity.

Conversely, a profit-based system will always be driven by volume and price. We've already seen that the private industry has driven price up at a pace outstripping inflation by a factor of 5 so we know they're exploiting that revenue source. The only other way to drive up profits once you've approached the breaking point of price gouging that starts to drive your revenue stream away is to increase volume. The very nature of a profit generating venture is contrary to the requirements of an effective health care system. That's been the problem all along.



Offline AvatarofTruth

  • Hero Protagonist
  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 768
    • Woos/Boos: +183/-47
    • Gender: Female
  • Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
Reply #10 on: August 22, 2009, 05:28:49 AM
I am a medical student. I have worked my ass off for years to get into med school, and now I'm working my ass off the get my MD, so I can work my ass off in a residency to get board certified in a specialty (or three).

Did I decide on the medical track for money? Absolutely not. The majority of doctors, real doctors, the ones who work in unglamorous specialties like infectious diseases and oncology, do not care about money. They care about three things; knowledge, application of knowledge, and the patient in front of them. I know a doctor who is considered one of the best doctors in the world, Dr. Paul Farmer. The guy sleeps on a cot in a church, without a penny to his name. He is also a MacArthur Genius Grant Fellow and an associate professor at Harvard.

However, I'm not petulantly saying that doctors can't receive compensation for their services, I'm saying that no one should make a profit. That doesn't mean no one can make a living. 


Offline daporn

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 140
    • Woos/Boos: +22/-2
    • Gender: Male
  • Hit it
Reply #11 on: August 22, 2009, 05:58:41 AM

Actually, I'll have to disagree on a few points. Health Care IS a simple thing. Everyone should have it and no one should have to pay for it. That's pretty fucking simple.

And the answer isn't a multi-insurance system. The answer is a single payer system. The insurance companies can make their profits selling supplemental insurance packages to those who can afford to pay to feel better than everyone else, but the baseline of medical services available to every single American should be coordinated through a single agency, just like Medicare is run now.

The Medicare format isn't what drives doctors to see as many patients as possible for as short of a period as possible. That's profit driven. If a single payer system sets up incentive pays appropriately and not just based on throughput, there's no reason why the system should conflict with a drive for quality over quantity.

Conversely, a profit-based system will always be driven by volume and price. We've already seen that the private industry has driven price up at a pace outstripping inflation by a factor of 5 so we know they're exploiting that revenue source. The only other way to drive up profits once you've approached the breaking point of price gouging that starts to drive your revenue stream away is to increase volume. The very nature of a profit generating venture is contrary to the requirements of an effective health care system. That's been the problem all along.

Not only is your thought process, naive.  It is also ill informed.  I agree with your take on the profit-based system.  But to think that the current Medicare system is the way to go, is completely asinine. Have you ever asked a Doctor if he can survive in a practice where all he see's are Medicare/Medicaid patients?  The system is antiquated, understaffed, and they underpay the Doctors by at least 20% less than the worst private payers.

As someone that deals with this system every day, it is naive to think this is in anyway the answer to our problems.

I am a medical student. I have worked my ass off for years to get into med school, and now I'm working my ass off the get my MD, so I can work my ass off in a residency to get board certified in a specialty (or three).

Did I decide on the medical track for money? Absolutely not. The majority of doctors, real doctors, the ones who work in unglamorous specialties like infectious diseases and oncology, do not care about money. They care about three things; knowledge, application of knowledge, and the patient in front of them. I know a doctor who is considered one of the best doctors in the world, Dr. Paul Farmer. The guy sleeps on a cot in a church, without a penny to his name. He is also a MacArthur Genius Grant Fellow and an associate professor at Harvard.

However, I'm not petulantly saying that doctors can't receive compensation for their services, I'm saying that no one should make a profit. That doesn't mean no one can make a living. 

Tell me that in your 5th year of practice when you're having difficulty paying your 250k in student loans.  Of course you decided to pursue your career for altruistic reasons.  Yet, you still have to produce, unless you want to sleep on a cot in a church.  You can do that when you have no financial responsibilities, so of course that means no family for you.

I mean really, do expect me to believe that you don't have an interest in financial security for you and your family, after all of the work you've put in to get where you are?

Standardized pay for professions could be an answer, wouldn't a fair wage be a fix to the system?  Would you be happy with that.  I know I wouldn't be.  I would hate some dipshit that coasted his way through school made the same wage yet did little to earn it.

I guess Doc's could unionize.



Offline AvatarofTruth

  • Hero Protagonist
  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 768
    • Woos/Boos: +183/-47
    • Gender: Female
  • Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
Reply #12 on: August 22, 2009, 06:40:16 AM
Insofar as student loans go, I've never needed any, but I understand your point. However, there is a large difference between making a profit and making a living. Suggesting that people go into medicine for the money is like suggesting that firefighters do it for the pay. Both professions make a decent living, but there are easier ways to pay the bills. The underlying motive has nothing to do with monetary compensation. But actually we've gotten off the point.

My indictment of immorality was not directed at doctors, not really. It was primarily aimed at the insurance industry, with secondary targets being Big Pharma and greedy private hospitals. Take profit out of the equation and increase the number of insured patients to the 90 percentile, and you'll find that cost of care goes down significantly overall. What's driving up cost of care? Unfunded mandates. Fund the mandates, solve the problem.


Offline Grm

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,413
    • Woos/Boos: +456/-117
  • Goodbye KB
Reply #13 on: August 22, 2009, 09:57:01 AM
RESOLVED: That it is immoral to make a profit off of the sick and dying.
Morality isn't a permanent philosophy  and as such will change from society to society and from year to year. Is it immoral to make a profit from the sick and dying? If your morals are derived from the Christian philosophy of which many Americans are said to follow then it is obviously immoral. What is profit? this is not just that received by corporations but also any remuneration received for services, so if a doctor is paid they in fact are indeed profiting from the sick and dying, as are all the medical insurance companies and private hospitals.
What is clear is a well functioning society will provide a universal health care system for their citizens, not because it has a moral duty to do so but because any one of us can find ourselves in a position where our sickness is unaffordable, sickness itself can lead to the uninsured, to the job less. Life is a lottery, those or us not born without any genetic disposition to illness are very lucky and surprisingly quiet rare.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 11:53:01 AM by Grm »



Offline Grm

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,413
    • Woos/Boos: +456/-117
  • Goodbye KB
Reply #14 on: August 22, 2009, 11:06:40 AM


In the furious debate gripping America over the future of its health system, one voice has been lost amid the shouting. It is that of a distinguished gynaecologist, aged 67, called Dr Joseph Manley.

For 35 years Manley had a thriving health clinic in Kansas. He lived in the most affluent neighbourhood of Kansas City and treated himself to a new Porsche every year. But this is not a story about doctors' remuneration and their lavish lifestyles.

In the late 1980s he began to have trouble with his own health. He had involuntary muscle movements and difficulty swallowing. Fellow doctors failed to diagnose him, some guessing wrongly that he had post-traumatic stress from having served in the airforce in Vietnam.

Eventually his lack of motor control interfered with his work to the degree that he was forced to give up his practice. He fell instantly into a catch 22 that he had earlier seen entrap many of his own patients: no work, no health insurance, no treatment.

He remained uninsured and largely untreated for his progressively severe condition for the following 11 years. Blood tests that could have diagnosed him correctly were not done because he couldn't afford the $200. Having lost his practice, he lost his mansion on the hill and now lives in a one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs. His Porsches have made way for bangers. Many times this erstwhile pillar of the medical establishment had to go without food in order to pay for basic medicines. In 2000 Manley finally found the help he needed, at a clinic in Kansas City that acts as a rare safety net for uninsured people. He was swiftly diagnosed with Huntington's disease, a degenerative genetic illness, and now receives regular medical attention through the clinic.

So how does he feel about the way the debate in the US has come to be dominated by Republican-inspired attacks on Britain's NHS and other "socialised" health services which give people the treatment they need even if they cannot afford to pay for it?

"I find that repulsive and an absolutely bone-headed way to go," he says. "When I started out practising I certainly didn't expect this would happen. I thought the system would take care of everybody."

Over the last month President Obama's attempts to live up to his election promise to extend healthcare to all Americans has stalled in the face of a sustained rightwing guerrilla attack. Opponents of Obama's reforms have succeeded in distracting attention from Manley and the 46 million other medically uninsured, swinging the focus instead on to the "evils" of publicly funded healthcare. The fear tactics were epitomised by Sarah Palin's wholly inaccurate claim that the reforms would set up "death panels" that would force euthanasia on to older people.

Such scaremongering has dismayed and infuriated Sharon Lee, the doctor who now treats Manley in Kansas City. "I'm very angry, very angry," she says. "Many of the people I treat have already been in front of a death panel and have lost – a death panel controlled by insurance companies. I see people dying at least monthly because we have been unable to get them what they needed."

Lee's clinic, Family Health Care, is a refuge of last resort. It picks up the pieces of lives left shattered by a health system that has failed them, and tries to glue them back together. It exists largely outside the parameters of formal health provision, raising funds through donations and paying all its 50 staff – Lee included – a flat rate of just $12 an hour.

Poverty line

Lee has just opened an outpost of her clinic in the outlying neighbourhood of Quindaro, an area of boarded-up houses and deserted factories where work is hard to find and crack plentiful and a per capita income is $11,025. A third of the population is below the federally defined poverty line.

And yet the local health department has decided the only health centre in the area will be closed by the end of this year and moved 30 blocks west to a much more prosperous part of the city where income levels are five times higher. Before long, one of the poorest areas of Kansas – of America – will be left without a single doctor, with only Lee's voluntary services to fall back on.

Even that is academic. Many of the residents of Quindaro were unable to see a doctor in any case – because they were uninsured. In Kansas, anyone who is able-bodied but unemployed is not eligible for government-backed health insurance as is anyone earning more than 39% of federal poverty levels. That leaves a huge army of jobless and low-income working families who are left in limbo. "It's the working poor who are most at disadvantage," Lee says.

As a result, she sees the same pattern repeating itself over and over. People with no insurance avoid seeking medical help for fear of the bills that follow, until it is too late. "When people come in they are already very, very sick. They have avoided seeing the doctor thinking that something may clear up, hoping they may be getting better."

Beth Gabaree, who came in to see Lee for the first time this morning, has experiences that sound extreme but are in fact quite typical. She has diabetes and a heart condition. Until two years ago they were controlled through ongoing treatment paid for by her husband's work-based health insurance. But he was in a motorbike crash that pulverised his right leg and put him out of work.

That Catch 22 again: no work, no insurance, no treatment. Except in this case it was Beth who went without treatment, in order to put her husband's dire needs first. He receives ongoing specialist care that costs them $500 a go, leaving nothing for her. So she stopped seeing a doctor, and effectively began self-medicating. She cut down from two different insulin drugs to regulate her diabetes to one, and restricted her heart drugs. "I do what I think I need to do to keep four steps out of hospital. I know that's not the right thing, but I can't justify seeing the doctor when my family's already in money trouble."

The problem is that she hasn't kept herself four steps out of hospital. Her health deteriorated and earlier this year she became bedridden. Even then, it took her family several days to persuade her to go to the emergency room because she didn't want to incur the hospital costs. "It was hard enough without that," she says.

After an initial consultation, Lee has now booked Gabaree for a new round of tests for her diabetes and is arranging for free medication. "It's wonderful," Gabaree says. "I'm so blessed. I didn't know you could get this sort of help."

That she sees basic healthcare as a blessing, not as a right, speaks volumes about attitudes among the mass of the working poor. Also revealing is the fact that Gabaree has absolutely no idea about the debate raging across America. She hasn't even heard of Obama's push for health reform, nor the Republican efforts to prevent it. "I don't watch much television," she says.

That provides Palin et al with a massive advantage: the 46 million people who would most benefit from Obama's plans are also among the least educated and informed, and thus the least able to make political waves. All of which leaves Lee fearful about the prospects for change. She has, after all, been here before – in 1993 when Hillary Clinton's pitch to overhaul the health system foundered. That attempt ended up doing more harm than good from Lee's perspective. Many of her most important donors stopped funding the centre because they assumed that the White House was fixing the problems. After the Clinton reforms crashed, brought down by the same rightwing assault that Obama is now enduring, it took many months for the centre's funds to regain their pre-1993 levels.

Recession

Lee fears history could be repeating itself. This time round there is the recession more unemployed equals more uninsured people who come knocking on the door of Family Health Care. Last year Lee and one other doctor between them dealt with 14,000 visits, and the numbers are rising daily. All of which leaves Lee part despairing, part determined to fight even harder for the bare minimum of human dignity. The frustration is that every day she must beg and plead with other health providers for simple treatments for her patients. "It drives me crazy with frustration," she says.

She rattles off a litany of horror stories. There was the man who walked into the clinic with a brain tumour. It took Lee three months to get him an MRI scan and another two to get an appointment with a neurosurgeon. Or the patient whose nerves in his neck were pushed against his spinal cord so that he lost use of both arms; by the time Lee found a way of getting him an MRI he was so sick he had to be operated on immediately. Or the woman who had such heavy periods she would wind up in ER every three months requiring a blood transfusion. What she really needed was a hysterectomy. "It took us almost a year to beg hospitals until she finally did get a hysterectomy," Lee says.

These are the stories, the broken lives, that have been obscured by the fury generated by the Republican rump. Unless Obama finds a way to regain the political initiative, to remind Americans that only nine months ago they voted overwhelmingly for change, then the future of millions appears bleak.

"Here's what I'd like to ask Palin," Lee says. "People without health insurance are dying, here in America, right now. So I'd like to ask her: how does that fit into your vision of good and evil, Sarah Palin?"
Obama's plan: health of the nation

What is Obama trying to do?

The goal is to increase access to healthcare by regulating costs. His plan would guarantee all citizens eligibility for care, but the government is not proposing a "single-payer system", like the NHS. Instead, private health insurers would continue to operate under new rules that would lower premiums and remove loopholes that allow them to avoid paying for treatment when it is most needed. Per person, healthcare costs are higher in the US than in any other country, and have been rising faster than the level of inflation. The quality of care is less of an issue — although citizens with solid insurance may be frustrated by the paperwork and costs associated with the current system, they have fewer complaints about their doctors and hospitals.

Who's opposing Obama's plan?

Those who fear the government would introduce congressional "death panels" to make end-of-life decisions for the elderly. The insurance industry is worried about their bottom lines. Members of Congress and voters on the left and right are concerned about the future tax burden. Many Americans also object to any increase in government involvement in their personal lives.

How can healthcare costs get so out of hand?

Many insurance plans do not cover "pre-existing conditions", so it can be difficult for people who have a chronic ailment to secure cover. Loopholes allow insurers to refuse reimbursement even if the policyholder did not know they had a particular condition when they took out insurance. "Lifetime caps" allow insurers to set a maximum amount of cover.

Who are the uninsured?

Up to 46 million Americans are uninsured, because they are unemployed, or their employer does not provide cover, or because they do not qualify for existing government-funded healthcare. People 65 and older can qualify for Medicare, the poor can qualify for Medicaid, veterans and members of the military can qualify for Veterans Health Administration and Tricare and children can be covered under a programme called SCHIP. Those overlooked by the system include the young just entering the workforce, the self-employed, the unemployed and people who work for small businesses.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/21/healthcare-provision-us-uk







Melissa

  • Guest
Reply #15 on: August 22, 2009, 11:18:58 AM
Avatar, you're an idiot and a socialist pig.  There is no way in hell I or my daughters would go to you for medical services.  

Dig further and you'll find UCMC made a very constant habit of turning away those with no insurance or money.  This was in violation of federal law.

If you want to give away your money to pay for others, knock yourself out.  But, you and your fellow socialist pigs stay the hell out of my pocket.



Offline AvatarofTruth

  • Hero Protagonist
  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 768
    • Woos/Boos: +183/-47
    • Gender: Female
  • Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
Reply #16 on: August 22, 2009, 03:23:27 PM
Melissa, I'd rather be considered a socialist than a fascist. As for whether you'd take your daughters to me for medical services, I doubt you take them now.


Offline Poppet

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 492
    • Woos/Boos: +202/-32
    • Gender: Female
Reply #17 on: August 22, 2009, 03:26:13 PM
first - welcome back, AoT

second - there isn't any dabate with me, you're right. Healthcare should be "Free at the point of care" to those people who want/need/request it.

Dentists are an interesting example of what things might be like in any system that moves further forward on the path we are on. People who have "Dental", have such paltry levels of coverage that the services are essentially unaffordable without straightforward retail paying. I had a root canal and cap recently - the guy who  did the root canal charged 1500, which was my entire dental coverage for a year. The other work and the cap cost another 1500. Let's look forward to that for RA treatment or surgery (sorry - no coverage left for the anaesthesiologist? Don't worry, we can do the op anyway...).

In the much-vilified UK, healthcare is free for everyone (not dentists though - they charge a fortune, too), but people who can afford to and wish to, still pay for private medical treatment as a choice. The difference between there and here, is that there, everyone has healthcare as a right. Now, it's true that people have to wait for somethings, but they do get them. Many cosmetic procedures are covered too. Acute need is dealt with immediately. Oh and there aren't any death panels. In Scotland, where I'm from, prescription medicines are free, including those for chronic need, like asthma. All children are vaccinated. Prenatal care and classes are free.

It is simply shameful beyond words that people here advocate denying healthcare to poor people, simply because they are poor. It is shameful beyond words, raised to the nth power, that children, who are by definition incapable of having the resources or responsibility to protect themselves, that children of poor people are damned thus also (and don't give me crap about means-tested benefits - everyone knows poor people most of all resist means-tested benefits).

This is the richest country in the world. It claims to be the most civilized, although it is far from that. This country should pay for healthcare for every citizen and legal resident. Medicade for all, the government pays, no co-pay.

I read somewhere that the health insurance companies make more in profit tan they spend in healthcare. I read somewhere else that they made $230B profit in 2008. Well, what do they do for that? do they do the tests? No. DO they do the check-ups? No. Do they do the surgeries? No. Do they write the prescriptions? No. Do they deliver the babies? No. And So On. In short, they do nothing. Nothing at all except harvest huge amounts of money.

If doctors etc were paid directly, the same amounts as now, we could save $230B and spend that on additional services if we wanted.

One final thing - how would this be paid? In federal income tax of course. Everyone gets the same right, everyone pays who can according to their ability to pay - more salary more tax. The huge benefit that would ensue is that it would relieve employers of the burden of organizing healthcare for their employees and this in turn, would remove the insidious, pernicious temptation every employer feels to reduce coverage in order to save money.

It is time. It is time to create a society where all (sic) men are TREATED equal(ly) as well as being believed to be created equal.

Pop

Hippety Hop, It\\\\\\\'s Pippety Pop. I have guns...and...I give instruction..


Offline Grm

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,413
    • Woos/Boos: +456/-117
  • Goodbye KB
Reply #18 on: August 22, 2009, 03:47:55 PM
Avatar, you're an idiot and a socialist pig.
That seems a ultra subjective remark Melissa and one that inevitably brings your integrity and intellect into question.



Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1721/-57
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #19 on: August 22, 2009, 04:39:39 PM
Melissa, a good debate should not be reduced to name calling. It is the second time in two threads where you have brought yourself down by insulting people who may disagree with you. Not cool.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.