BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   Food for the thoughts of those who can think (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/106921-food-thoughts-those-who-can-think.html)

jps June 13th 09 04:26 AM

Food for the thoughts of those who can think
 
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:10:35 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:48:30 -0400, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:56 -0400, wrote:

That is the part they don't want to talk about. People expect the same
level of service but they deny how much it will cost. If you add
41,000,000 uninsured to the system, at the same level of service,
overall cost will go up by a proportional amount. If you assume a
significant number of these families can't afford $8,000-10,000 a
year, that will get passed along to those who can. Even Obama is out
there trying to tell people this is not going to be "free" medical
care, but they won't actually put real numbers to it.

I've heard the Reps say that there "EVERYBODY ALREADY HAS HEALTH
CARE!!" Nobody is turned away from the emergency room.


*That* is absolutely bull****.


Must not be getting publicized if it's happening.
Last time I heard about it was in late '80's, under Bush I.
A young guy - early 20's I think - went to an E-room in Tennessee or
Kentucky. Indigent, and diabetic. Needed a shot of insulin.
Hospital had seen him before, and the claims boss told a nurse crew
to put him in the local park. He was a deadbeat.
They propped him under a tree, where he died a bit later.
Passers-by found him there.
Smile on his face probably, leaves mirrored in the faded light of his
eyes.
Not a bad way to go, under a tree. The hospital gets kudos for that
touch. There was probably a dumpster closer by.

--Vic


For them that have, it's easy to ignore or refuse those who haven't.

When it affects the selfish personally, it's a whole other story.

Come to Jesus.

jps June 13th 09 08:57 AM

Food for the thoughts of those who can think
 
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:03:10 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:56 -0700, jps wrote:

Agree with most but allow me to add that treating smokers for cancer
and emphysema likely costs the system more that if they lasted years
longer healthy and then croaked quickly.

Don't know the difference in cost between managing smoking related
illnesses to succumbing to other end of life maladies.


I have had 2 family members die from smoking related diseases and one
is on the roof as we speak.
They all tended to avoid the doctor and lie to themselves about how
sick they were until the end. Then they went pretty quickly. That is
nothing compared to my non-smoking grandfather who lived to 99 and was
at the doctor all the time for 40 years. (hips, cataracts etc).


Not that I don't appreciate your anecdotes, but I'd prefer to know the
real epidemiology.

Smoking is next to heroin for quitting. My wife quit nearly 20 years
ago and it was among the most difficult things she's done.

The other is marriage.

jim 001 June 13th 09 10:13 AM

Food for the thoughts of those who can think
 
HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:48:30 -0400, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:56 -0400, wrote:

That is the part they don't want to talk about. People expect the same
level of service but they deny how much it will cost. If you add
41,000,000 uninsured to the system, at the same level of service,
overall cost will go up by a proportional amount. If you assume a
significant number of these families can't afford $8,000-10,000 a
year, that will get passed along to those who can. Even Obama is out
there trying to tell people this is not going to be "free" medical
care, but they won't actually put real numbers to it.
I've heard the Reps say that there "EVERYBODY ALREADY HAS HEALTH
CARE!!" Nobody is turned away from the emergency room.
*That* is absolutely bull****.


Must not be getting publicized if it's happening.
Last time I heard about it was in late '80's, under Bush I.
A young guy - early 20's I think - went to an E-room in Tennessee or
Kentucky. Indigent, and diabetic. Needed a shot of insulin.
Hospital had seen him before, and the claims boss told a nurse crew
to put him in the local park. He was a deadbeat.
They propped him under a tree, where he died a bit later. Passers-by
found him there.
Smile on his face probably, leaves mirrored in the faded light of his
eyes.
Not a bad way to go, under a tree. The hospital gets kudos for that
touch. There was probably a dumpster closer by.

--Vic



It's a wonderfully kept secret. The uninsured are underserved. Many
hospitals have shut down their ER's just so they don't have to deal with
indigent patients. Others deliberately make the indigent sit in waiting
rooms for hours and hours, in the hope they'll leave. And if they do get
seen and happen to have a really serious ailment, they'll get minimal
attention, treatment and medication.

Many of the newly jobless and now newly without health care insurance
haven't yet qualified for medicaid, and they may not qualify at all for
several reasons.

The safety net that used to help the poor was pretty much ripped asunder
when community owned hospitals gave way to make room for private,
for-profit hospitals, or were turned into the latter. There's something
really repugnant about the sorts of profits insurance and pharma
companies earn in this country. There are very few other places on earth
where such is tolerated.

Your "diabetic case" refers to patient dumping. It's common.





One of the major hospital systems in Florida is run by the Adventists.
The homeless and illegals fill the emergency rooms. They get admitted
and treated the same way a paying or insured gets treated. Some of them
are treated so well that they don't want to leave. Many are repeat
customers, feigning illness to get free room and board. Thank god for
religeous based medical care institutions. Eh Krausie.

John H[_2_] June 13th 09 08:50 PM

OT smoking - was Food for the thought...
 
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:25:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:57:45 -0700, jps wrote:

I have had 2 family members die from smoking related diseases and one
is on the roof as we speak.
They all tended to avoid the doctor and lie to themselves about how
sick they were until the end. Then they went pretty quickly. That is
nothing compared to my non-smoking grandfather who lived to 99 and was
at the doctor all the time for 40 years. (hips, cataracts etc).


Not that I don't appreciate your anecdotes, but I'd prefer to know the
real epidemiology.

Smoking is next to heroin for quitting. My wife quit nearly 20 years
ago and it was among the most difficult things she's done.

The other is marriage.


It is really hard to get any unbiased research on smokers because
everyone involved starts out with the conclusion and works backward
through the data to prove it. That seems to be the definition of a
"study".
I also believe there are lots of smokers who deny it.
I agree it is certainly an addiction. My wife gave up the cigarettes
but she still has a $125 a month gum habit. We buy it from New Zealand
for about half what it costs at the local discount places.
I took the lesson from my grandfather and don't have the nicotine
habit. I do understand the original "buzz" aspect and occasionally I
will smoke a good cigar but I understand that "high" will not happen
if you smoke more than about one a month. You just end up being a
maintenance addict. I actually end up with something like 4 or 5 a
year so I don't mind buying a $10-15 cigar for those special
occasions.


I had the gum habit for several years. Then Nicorette started candy
coating their gum. That was all it took to wean me from it. I switched
to the Orbit gum, which has many of the characteristics of the
Nicorette, but no nicotine. It was actually the chewing of gum I was
addicted to. I had no problem with the switch.
--
John H

"Vote for a Democrat, it's easier than working!"

DK June 14th 09 01:47 AM

Food for the thoughts of those who can think
 
HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:48:30 -0400, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:56 -0400, wrote:

That is the part they don't want to talk about. People expect the same
level of service but they deny how much it will cost. If you add
41,000,000 uninsured to the system, at the same level of service,
overall cost will go up by a proportional amount. If you assume a
significant number of these families can't afford $8,000-10,000 a
year, that will get passed along to those who can. Even Obama is out
there trying to tell people this is not going to be "free" medical
care, but they won't actually put real numbers to it.
I've heard the Reps say that there "EVERYBODY ALREADY HAS HEALTH
CARE!!" Nobody is turned away from the emergency room.
*That* is absolutely bull****.


Must not be getting publicized if it's happening.
Last time I heard about it was in late '80's, under Bush I.
A young guy - early 20's I think - went to an E-room in Tennessee or
Kentucky. Indigent, and diabetic. Needed a shot of insulin.
Hospital had seen him before, and the claims boss told a nurse crew
to put him in the local park. He was a deadbeat.
They propped him under a tree, where he died a bit later. Passers-by
found him there.
Smile on his face probably, leaves mirrored in the faded light of his
eyes.
Not a bad way to go, under a tree. The hospital gets kudos for that
touch. There was probably a dumpster closer by.

--Vic



It's a wonderfully kept secret. The uninsured are underserved. Many
hospitals have shut down their ER's just so they don't have to deal with
indigent patients. Others deliberately make the indigent sit in waiting
rooms for hours and hours, in the hope they'll leave. And if they do get
seen and happen to have a really serious ailment, they'll get minimal
attention, treatment and medication.

Many of the newly jobless and now newly without health care insurance
haven't yet qualified for medicaid, and they may not qualify at all for
several reasons.

The safety net that used to help the poor was pretty much ripped asunder
when community owned hospitals gave way to make room for private,
for-profit hospitals, or were turned into the latter. There's something
really repugnant about the sorts of profits insurance and pharma
companies earn in this country. There are very few other places on earth
where such is tolerated.

Your "diabetic case" refers to patient dumping. It's common.






Sure it is.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com