thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.


That is correct...if that.

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:06:00 -0400, H the K wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.


That is correct...if that.

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care.
At what point is someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved ones by
putting them in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
t...
It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care.
At what point is someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved ones by
putting them in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

Eisboch




Why should a family have to go into hopeless debt or bankruptcy for
medical care for a loved one, so long as there is a chance of prolonging
some sort of reasonable life for someone already here?

That's such an anti-life position...be careful or the crazies will soon
be picketing outside your store, calling you an anti-lifer.


Oh, wait...*they* only care about fetuses...once you're here, they don't
give a **** whether you live or die...


:)

H the K wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
t...
It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care.
At what point is someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved
ones by
putting them in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

Eisboch



Why should a family have to go into hopeless debt or bankruptcy for
medical care for a loved one, so long as there is a chance of prolonging
some sort of reasonable life for someone already here?

Your real issue is not with access it is with cost. The solution is not
insurance but with addressing the reason that the cost of health care is
increasing at such a steep rate.

That's such an anti-life position...be careful or the crazies will soon
be picketing outside your store, calling you an anti-lifer.

People fall down and hit there heads and die every day. It is noones
fault but there own.

Oh, wait...*they* only care about fetuses...once you're here, they don't
give a **** whether you live or die...

Right. Kill the innocent and let those guilty of killing others live.

"H the K" wrote in message
...

Why should a family have to go into hopeless debt or bankruptcy for
medical care for a loved one, so long as there is a chance of prolonging
some sort of reasonable life for someone already here?

That's such an anti-life position...be careful or the crazies will soon be
picketing outside your store, calling you an anti-lifer.


Oh, wait...*they* only care about fetuses...once you're here, they don't
give a **** whether you live or die...


:)

I hardly think anyone will be picketing outside my shop. At least not about
that subject.
The answer lies in the fact that most people make private, responsible
decisions.
I have. Have you?

Eisboch

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:40:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
t...

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement,
regardless of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency
room without insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is
a leading cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care. At what point is
someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved ones by putting them
in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

If someone has a terminal illness, I might balk at spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars, for a few weeks more life. Short of that, I value
life far more than dollars. I understand your point. The last few
months of a life, probably cost more, medically, than the entire rest of
that life, but ...

Both of my folks, both in their nineties, are still going *relatively*
strong. My Mom just had a carpal tunnel operation. Now, some people
might say that's excessive. Not me, I saw the pain she was in.
Fortunately, they have good insurance, but if they hadn't, I wouldn't
have hesitated to pick up the tab.

Personally, I don't want to be calling those shots. Nor do I want the
insurance companies, nor the government calling them. I'll leave those
calls in the hands of a doctor. Anything short of that, smacks of
eugenics.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:40:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
t...

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement,
regardless of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency
room without insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is
a leading cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care. At what point is
someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved ones by putting them
in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

If someone has a terminal illness, I might balk at spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars, for a few weeks more life. Short of that, I value
life far more than dollars. I understand your point. The last few
months of a life, probably cost more, medically, than the entire rest of
that life, but ...

Both of my folks, both in their nineties, are still going *relatively*
strong. My Mom just had a carpal tunnel operation. Now, some people
might say that's excessive. Not me, I saw the pain she was in.
Fortunately, they have good insurance, but if they hadn't, I wouldn't
have hesitated to pick up the tab.

Personally, I don't want to be calling those shots. Nor do I want the
insurance companies, nor the government calling them. I'll leave those
calls in the hands of a doctor. Anything short of that, smacks of
eugenics.


I certainly don't think a carpal tunnel operation qualifies for the
decisions I alluded to.
Good for her.

I was thinking more of terminal conditions and the costs associated with
keeping people alive for a relatively short period of time. My father
developed stomach cancer back in 1998. He knew, as did I, what the
prognosis was and although he had health insurance coverage for all kinds of
treatment attempts, he made the decision to forego them and lived his final
months with some dignity.

Like I mentioned to Harry, it becomes a personal, responsible decision.

Eisboch

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:14:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


I was thinking more of terminal conditions and the costs associated with
keeping people alive for a relatively short period of time.

I understand that, and that's where decisions get very difficult. As
national policy, however, I would be looking to save costs in other
places, rather than life and death decisions. I have yet to hear a valid
reason our health costs are nearly twice that of other industrial
nations. There has to be considerable savings to be found in that 7-8%
GDP.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:30:25 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


There are lots of reasons why we have higher health costs. We generally
have less healthy lifestyles and diet. We invented "extreme sports" and
generally stupid human tricks people do, that result in a lot of
expensive injuries. We have a lot more violence in our cities that clogs
ERs every night and we have a big appetite for elective procedures.
We also have a huge lawyer tax. Ask your doctor what his insurance bill
is. Compare that to a Canadian doctor. Add in all the extra tests to
show "due diligence" that causes and you start to understand why we are
#1 in cost.

All of the above sound reasonable, although it does smack of blaming the
victim. I found this report that was made for Congress. It seems well
balanced, and contained several surprises for me.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

There are two main cost savings that jump out at me. Administrative
costs, we spent 20-25% of our health care dollars on administration. The
second would be, more professional health care workers, supply and
demand. I would also consider reducing the educational debt load that is
carried by our health care professionals. Perhaps even a free education,
for doctors.

One of the surprises was pharmaceuticals. We tend to pay more for new
drugs, but considerably less as the drugs get older. Overall, our
pharmaceutical spending, as a percentage of total health spending is
relatively low.

A second surprise, more visits to doctors, tend to keep the overall cost
of health care down. On first glance, perhaps counter-intuitive, but not
after thinking about it.

This country's obesity, as you pointed out above, is a problem.