5 faces of the uninsured

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The question remains, should you decide to address it.

Under the facts as you presented them, the cost to society seems roughly the same, since he's not gonna see a doctor or take off from work.

In fact, more, because resources will be depleted insuring a guy who won't utilize it, anyway.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

The question remains, should you decide to address it.

Under the facts as you presented them, the cost to society seems roughly the same, since he's not gonna see a doctor or take off from work.

In fact, more, because resources will be depleted insuring a guy who won't utilize it, anyway.

You are good at distorting the scenario to avoid answering the question, aren't you? There's no reason to believe that he won't see a doctor if he could afford to pay for the visit. I apologize for not writing a novel in order to enable you to visualize the hypothetical situation.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

can't think of a more objective source. Perhaps now he (Keith Hennessy) can direct us on his thoughts on gay marriage, mandatory religion in schools and tell us how the ruch are being stripped in this 94th country in distribution of wealth.

Please guys, keep it up, I want a bigger cushion in congress.

No real citation other than the word of a hardcore Republican.

Hennessey holds a B.S. in Mathematics and Political Science from Stanford University as well as a Master of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.[1] The title of his Harvard public policy thesis was Unintended Consequences: Critical Assumptions in the Clinton Health Plan.

Yep...just another stoopid Harvard Grad. Wait...where did BHO go to school?

Yea....just not sure where I said he was stupid? Hmmmm, had you read what I wrote you would see that I made the claim that he is strongly biased. Of course you made no defense to that. He's a Bushy, why not use objective data? In fact, he didn't even provide sourced data, just his interpretation of the numbers. But of course you have to bring Obama into it and use the BHO; were you one of the Bush-lovers crying about the Bush chimp dialogue?

Go find objective data or criticize my objective data.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I understand you're defending your brother for posting data with no source. Point taken, dismissed with the rest of people who just want me to believe their diddy, just as they did.

I already stuck up for Mike - at this point, I was being playful with you, my friend

but you are a bit somber

Yea, whatever. Address the data or move along

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

This is just the sort of shit that people are out there looking to subsidize. Isn't that great? The wonders of society where this guys should be rewarded!

I ask this - will the government pay his bypass bill? Or will it make sure that the only people who deserve to get paid end up shafted?

Just a small correction: this is just the sort of shit that WE ARE subsidizing right now. This is not something in future - you and me, we are already paying for his bypass.

At least with the bill he'd probably not drop his coverage to finance a Hawaii vacation or so.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

(long conversation with the hypothetical Adam)

That's probably not too inaccurate. Consider, however, that Adam might be scared of having the doctor prescribe a bunch of tests that he can't afford, and he doesn't know that the doctor can, in fact, see someone for only $50, and that the patient has the right to decline tests.

Let's say that Adam, being a minimum wage worker, isn't hte sharpest or most motivated guy on the block.

So what is the best way to educate people as to how to make good choices? Obviously parents aren't always doing it, but it's in a whole lot of people's best interest to have this kind of information known.

A few months ago I thought I was coming down with a sinus infection, and called the local open-on-Saturday clinic. They don't take my insurance, and the cost was $250. That sure made it not worth it, and I make decent money. Fortunately, I didnt' die , but I can understand someone having trouble finding a doctor that will work with them on their own terms.

And, of course, the $50 doctor might end up not being willing to keep doing it if enough impoverished patients who don't get tests get sue-happy

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There's no reason to believe that he won't see a doctor if he could afford to pay for the visit.

Your scenario stated explicitly that he cannot afford to take time off from work.

Those are your facts that you stated. You did not state, "he cannot afford to take time off of work except if he is sick.". In fact, you made a point of saying that he would suck it up. Meaning he would not only visit a doctor, but continue working while contagious even if treated.

I suppose I should have assumed you meant that he could afford to take time off work only for medical reasons. But you did not so limit.

Therefore, I went off the facts that YOU gave. Perhaps the facts that you provided blew up on you because you had not thought it through.

I answered your question. I recommend that you look past you subjective feelings and actually think. Word have meaning. Words are how we communicate.

I believe that when you set forth words they have the meaning given. Thus, when you say he can't afford to take time off from work, I believe that you mean it.

Avoiding the answer? I answered it. You have given ZERO response other than I have not answered.

No. I did not give the answer you wanted to hear.

"What does 2+2 equal?"
"4."
"Quit spinning the facts and answer the question."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Your scenario stated explicitly that he cannot afford to take time off from work.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. He cannot afford to take a few days off sick. That doesn't imply that he would be unable to see a doctor if he had the extra money to pay for a visit to the doctor's office.

So, we have as given (i.e. not subject to debate):

He cannot afford medical insurance, due to low income, not wasteful spending. He would see a doctor if he could afford the visit. Since he can't afford the visit, he suffers publicly from a contagious illness for an unnecessarily long duration, exposing others unnecessarily.

How does the cost to society from Adam avoiding the medical attention that he can't afford compare to the cost to society if he had simply been able to go see the doctor under a universal healthcare plan?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Consider, however, that Adam might be scared of having the doctor prescribe a bunch of tests that he can't afford, and he doesn't know that the doctor can, in fact, see someone for only $50, and that the patient has the right to decline tests

Right. Nobody is putting that out there. He doesn't know because all he hears is that it is too expensive and he can't afford it.

And maybe he'll have tests that cost too much. Much more than insurance would have coat him.


[Reply]Let's say that Adam, being a minimum wage worker, isn't hte sharpest or most motivated guy on the block.

Bingo. The program is proposed to protect the ignorant, to keep them ignorant, and provide positive reinforcement for the making of costly decisions.

Hence, a guy who cancels his insurance less than 2 months prior to having a heart attack (one who sent his kids to the finest schools, etc.) is one of the faces of the uninsured.

Wendy - what if NASA cut corners because they didn't think the event would happen? Oh yeah. We've seen it.

Twice.

Is the response to say, "it's okay. There was no way you good have known about the damage on the wing."
Story Musgrave: "put on the suit and do a spacewalk. Visualize it."

Is Story considered heartless for his proposed solution? Or is he considered another input in the proposed solution.

I do not tolerate people putting themselves through deliberate acts in bad situations and sobbing about the results. If I hear of another skydiver fracturing a pelvis without insurance I will erupt. The jumper could afford a rig, lift tickets, etc., but not insurance.

I wonder if I've stayed out of the air because I didn't trust the judgment of such people...

[Reply]So what is the best way to educate people as to how to make good choices?

By letting them deal with the consequences of bad choices. Our own billvon says, "I hope he femurs in."

Give them something that will hurt badly, but is recoverable. Then they'll learn.

But too many suggest, "we cannot have a person actually held responsible for his decusions!" The equivalent of "Don't let him feel the pain of the fractured femur. Spread that pain to everyone else, and nobody will even notice it."

It's a recipe for a crater looking for a grid coordinate.

We tolerate it noplace else. Noplace. Except in politics.


[Reply]Obviously parents aren't always doing it, but it's in a whole lot of people's best interest to have this kind of information known.

Ever try edcuating someone who just doesn't get it? We all know how not to get HIV. We are all educated. But people don't think rationally and they get it.

Education takes people only so far. But learning the lesson requires effort and restraint. "She's hot. Nah, she can't have HIV. I'm going for it."

People are good at kidding themselves. Like the guy in the original post who thought it wouldn't happen to him.

He knew the risks. He disregarded them. Subjective thought overcame rational thought. Which is the story of social healthcare. Feeling bad for people who do stupid things and making sure they don't suffer by passing it on to others.

[Reply]A few months ago I thought I was coming down with a sinus infection, and called the local open-on-Saturday clinic. They don't take my insurance, and the cost was $250. That sure made it not worth it, and I make decent money.

Was that based on ruling it out? Had it been a carcinoma would your viewpoint have changed?

[Reply] Fortunately, I didnt' die ,

Your one ofmy favorite people, Wendy. I hope you never die.

[Reply] but I can understand someone having trouble finding a doctor that will work with them on their own terms.

Yep. I can't purchase a burger on my terms. If I want a Whopper for 50 cents, I'm not getting it. I think Karen and Dawnmarie deserve every cent.

Even McHealthcare would require prices some are willing to pay. Should we set the price nice and low so that McDoctors suffer? I actually want physucuans to prosper. Except Dr. Oz. May he burn in hell.

[Reply]And, of course, the $50 doctor might end up not being willing to keep doing it if enough impoverished patients who don't get tests get sue-happy

Which is why tort reform is so vital.

But those who are changing the system have been heavily greased by my kind. And I think it's despicable.

Health care reform is nothing more than picking winners and losers. The losers are the ones the political leaders are lambasting.

And ultimately you and me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Thank you.

[Reply]He cannot afford to take a few days off sick.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So he'll go to work while still contagious and spred it.

Without medical attention, he'll be contagious longer and infect more people. Thus, he'll cost society more money.

Quote

Because he can't afford to take days off of work, he won't take days off work and therefore spread it to people whether he is covered or not.

See above.

Quote

Healthcare aint the problem in your hypo.

Yes, clearly it is the problem, second only to poverty.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

In Reply To
Healthcare, if passed, could mean the end of the Republican Party. Once people get it, the 40 some million helped immediately, plus the others allowd to retire due to it, etc will be in such love with the new HC that anyone who runs under a platform of HC retraction will go the way of Ron Paul, and the distrust that people will have in any Republican promising not to retract / contract HC will make them unlikely to be elected.

this is true. even thatcher didn't have the balls to mess around with or sell off any bits of our nhs (after all we'd fought a world war to get it)

I predict that the Republican Party, even with opposition to Single Payer Health Care, will eventually see that this IS GOING TO HAPPEN, regardless of their position - at which time, they will jump on board, write a bill, pass it then claim that THEY were the ones that brought it to the American Public....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

In Reply To
Healthcare, if passed, could mean the end of the Republican Party. Once people get it, the 40 some million helped immediately, plus the others allowd to retire due to it, etc will be in such love with the new HC that anyone who runs under a platform of HC retraction will go the way of Ron Paul, and the distrust that people will have in any Republican promising not to retract / contract HC will make them unlikely to be elected.

this is true. even thatcher didn't have the balls to mess around with or sell off any bits of our nhs (after all we'd fought a world war to get it)

I predict that the Republican Party, even with opposition to Single Payer Health Care, will eventually see that this IS GOING TO HAPPEN, regardless of their position - at which time, they will jump on board, write a bill, pass it then claim that THEY were the ones that brought it to the American Public....

Reasonable theory, but I think they will fight it, it will pass, at least some form of it, and they will look for the flaws and exaggerate all the harm of the Democrat-sponsored Bill/Law and use this as the basis forr their subsequent elections.

[tkhayes 348]

and possibly all that too. Apparently something like that happened in Switzerland when they switched to Universal Health Care. The right was against it, saw the wave coming, then jumped on it right before an election and made it theirs.

It is still afterall about getting elected or re-elected (at least to some part)

I do not underestimate the Republican Party. There are enough smart people in there to see that the far-right, if it brings down the party, will have to go in order to survive. Not just the Republicans - any organization out there is most likely willing to cut off an arm to save the rest of the body.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Go find objective data or criticize my objective data.

Estimates aren't objective data.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

So what is the best way to educate people as to how to make good choices?

Quote

By letting them deal with the consequences of bad choices. Our own billvon says, "I hope he femurs in."
Give them something that will hurt badly, but is recoverable. Then they'll learn.

As long as the consequences to society as a whole aren't worse than the consequences to the individual. I'm not sure that's the case right now.

We cannot eliminate irresponsible people (not even with shotguns ). But if a more responsible path is easier, the merely lazy are fairly likely to take it.

And tort reform is good, but it does cut both ways. It hurts some folks along with helping doctors. There really are serious medical mistakes or errors in judgment that cost the care recipient for the rest of their life.

Life is harder if you're ignorant and/or not real smart. Ignorance can be fixed (as long as someone isn't fighting against fixing it, either society or the individual). Stupidity is harder.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

As long as the consequences to society as a whole aren't worse than the consequences to the individual. I'm not sure that's the case right now.

Then this...

[Reply]And tort reform is good, but it does cut both ways. It hurts some folks along with helping doctors. There really are serious medical mistakes or errors in judgment that cost the care recipient for the rest of their life.

The first paragraph you mentioned the benefit to society outside of the cost to the individual being important.

The next paragraph you mentioned the cost to the individual outweighing the benefit to society.

Which is at the crux. We all have our preferences in things. We all (myself included) see times when society should take a back seat to the individual and vice versa.

The dichotomy between these two ideas is wanting to eat the cake and have it. The tension between tort reform (at the cost of some idividuals (lawyers and plaintiffs and to benefit of providers and society) being unwise and social health care (to the cost of indivuals and to the benefit of society) is irreconcilable.

Thus, no solution will "work."

[Reply]Life is harder if you're ignorant and/or not real smart.

In some ways yes and in some ways no. Frankly, mentally disabled people are usually happier than the highly intelligent. Ignorance can be bliss. People with Down's don't commit suicide. Those of average intelligence and above do because they recognize problems.

Idiots also are unable to finagle their way out of responsibilities. They don't cheat because they cannot figure out ways to do it.

In a sense, they are more easily brought up to speed on things. They follow directions and are happiest with the smallest of successes. Versus others who are unhappy with anything less that complete success.

[Reply] Ignorance can be fixed (as long as someone isn't fighting against fixing it, either society or the individual).

Individuals will always fuck up society's plans. Our little society tries to teach safety. Some individuals (smart ones) do not heed the warning and will not. Not until they break a femur.

Some would accuse Bill of being uncaring. I'm not one of them. Some would say that we need to educate them more. I think that you may only educate those who are willing to learn. Hoping they break a femur means bill has concluded the jumper cannot be gotten through to.



[Reply]We cannot eliminate irresponsible people (not even with shotguns ). But if a more responsible path is easier, the merely lazy are fairly likely to take it.


My proposal is to simply let them hurt. What happens if a person is uninsured, gets sick and doesn't pay? Very little, actually.

What used to happen if a person gott sick, was uninsured and didn't pay? They paid up or went to debtor's prison. This was not seen as enlightened, so they didn't pay up and didn't go to prison.

Now, if a person is uninsured - doesn't event have to be sick - that person pays a hefty fine and/or goes to jail. Only the government does it.

The only way to force people to be responsible is to make them hurt. The government stripped the pain brought by private citizens. Now the government is proposing bringing the pain itself.

It's now the middleman. And the henchman.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

So he'll go to work while still contagious and spred it.

Without medical attention, he'll be contagious longer and infect more people. Thus, he'll cost society more money.

Without medical care he'll be prostrate in 36 hours - unable to infect others except those responding. Under your scenario he's got and extra day or two to infect people.

For the good of society, he should be allowed to "self quarantine" (that's what we'll call it) on the floor of his apartment.

If your goal is to prevent him from infecting others (which I am gathering is your point) then under the facts stated he should simply be discovered a week later. This is actually to society's benefit. The individual DOES NOT MATTER in socialist thinking. This person is a drain on resources that could be otherwise utilized. For the benefit of society (monetarily speaking) he should die.

You are talking about cost to society. I am explaining how treating a person who will willingly spread disease to others is a cost to society.

Or is the individual more important than you will admit?

Make a choice - society or individual. I've made mine. Individual. And the right of an individual to fuck up and face the consequences.


[Reply]

Quote

Healthcare aint the problem in your hypo.

Yes, clearly it is the problem, second only to poverty.

[Lucky... 0]

Even tho Switzerland is in W Europe, they are similar to the US in ways. But they still are W Europe, so they are more social, hence they would be quicker to jump on the socialist bandwagon if the country went that way.

But we're the US and we're not pro-social, so there is a much stronger hold on anto-social programs and these guys will hang on to the bitter end. Ever go to the south and hear the kooks ramble about the civil war? You'd think it was still ongoing.

Quote

I do not underestimate the Republican Party.

Or as Bush puts it, don't misunderestimate the party.

Quote

There are enough smart people in there to see that the far-right, if it brings down the party, will have to go in order to survive.

They don't operate off of a protocol of intelligence tho, ever listen to them? They operate off of intimidation, a very linear, unwavering set of principles that either you completely follow and be with them, or stray 1% and be against them.

Quote

Not just the Republicans - any organization out there is most likely willing to cut off an arm to save the rest of the body.

Logically true, but they just don't operate like that. They just lost the last 2 elecctions and are more resolute than ever before, rather than learning from it, they are drifting even further right. Look at Senator Arlen Specter, the party was going too nuts for him so he bailed, but show me other Republicans considering that. They simply operate off of a protocol that is unusual and then defend it with flip-flop rhetoric when asked why they don't change / evolve.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Go find objective data or criticize my objective data.

Estimates aren't objective data.

Objetive means there is no slant, what you mean to say is that some of the financial data is an estimate, so it isn't reliable, has 0 to do with the bias that goes into interpreting the data.

Now, which data is an estimate? And whatever data you claim is an estimate, how is it off and or far off?