Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Healthcare Healthcare Forum - For topics and discussions about health care, health policies, and health care systems


Thanks Tree62Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 4th, 2017, 03:07 PM   #41
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Funny how you changed your approach on the issue...
Earlier you were talking about accurate and instead of answering that question you instead decided to give the propagandic one.



I believe you're thinking about school vouchers.
You interjected capitalism into the conversation.

Nope. What is your obsession jumping from thread to thread? That is almost as disingenuous as your argument technique.

Again I ask

What is the positive gain for society to steel from the productive to prolong the lives of the unproductive?
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 03:14 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toefoot View Post
@imaginethat

Sorry, typed this on my Ipad when I was in Denver this morning and before my coffee. I meant Medicaid.

Medicaid has a problem with treating systemic issues and not the root cause. Medicaid also denies certain treatment/Surgeries that in some cases is mainstream in private sector.

In my case my daughter in California had a terrible accident. Her husband walked out on her one year prior and became a bum in a different state, no income, no Healthcare for his family.

I flew to California and enrolled my daughter in Medi-Cal prior to the accident, she was to proud and embarrassed to enroll until I made her.

Her accident:

She passed out while standing up at home in her bedroom after she put the 2 kids to bed. When she went down she landed on her knees in a praying position upright and legs folded underneath her, cutting most circulation off to her lower extremities. Doctors believe she was in this position for about 8-9 hours.

3 years later and she is still in a wheelchair. 2 Different types of surgery exist and she would be able to walk again but Medi-Cal does not cover it.

Doctors/Surgeons still do not know what caused her to pass out and for so long. No drugs or alcohol was involved.

After 3 months and 7 surgeries in the Hospital they transferred her to a Geriatric facility (A place for old people to die) for 2 months of rehab. Terrible place. 5 months total hospital time.

Being stuck in a wheelchair and laying in bed/or sitting on the couch brings on many different health issues in and of itself.

I fought Medi-Cal with no wins.

What I did learn was Medi-Cal is crap, overburden, terrible treatment options, understaffed and many....many Doctors and Surgeons in California refuse to accept Medi-Cal and you are very limited.

This does have a happy ending but California and Medi-Cal had nothing to do with it.

As I talked with other Medi-Cal patients in the waiting rooms I would ask them very pointed questions about Medi-Cal and the over whelming majority hated it for obvious reasons. Medi-Cal is the lowest of the low hanging fruit.

I had to go purchase leg wraps, guaze, tape, Arm wraps, antibiotic ointments to change her dressings. Seems the outpatient clinic she had to go to was always under stocked.

Yes, Government Healthcare and policy does pick winners and losers, had she private insurance or a policy that our elected officials have more than likely the 2 surgeries she requires would have been covered and she would be walking.

Some will say I am ungrateful, the state saved her life. The way I look at it is yes they saved her life but stopped all other treatment and surgeries after that without consideration of quality of life or ongoing medical treatment that will be required for being in a wheelchair and a sedimentary lifestyle.

To wrap this up, I do not trust government ran large healthcare programs because government has shown me and many others it can not run a National budget, run a Post office, run Education, run Energy or conduct war correctly and constitutionally let alone protect or borders.

Everything today is a political football and subject to revolving administrations.

My daughter is not alone in this experience, to many to even try and list here.
Thanks Toefoot.

I'm sorry to hear that about your daughter.

Medicaid in Colorado is as mainstream as insurance or Medicare. I know because I've "been in the system" for about 15 months now. I've missed so much work, I qualify for Medicaid. My copay sometimes is much, much less that 20 percent even with Medicare only.

California is a really screwed up place.
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 03:25 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Sure. I would pull the plug.


I didn't miss her point, it was poorly made. How would any of my statments apply to a 90yr who was out playing kick the can w/ their geriatric buddies


I will not accept an organ transplant, go on life support now and I am in great shape. I have a DNR and am thinking about it being my next tattoo.

Furthermore I am not on the public dole and if I were to choose to liquidate in a selfish attempt to prolong my life in the golden years that would be my choice, though I personally would not.
The US medical establishment excels at pulling off incredibly expensive "miraculous" procedures that have no possibility of universal application. My oldest daughter had a breech baby for most of her third trimester. That child cost almost $300K to deliver.

A friend of mine runs a midwifery clinic in a large metropolitan area. She's done this all her life and she's in her sixties. I don't see her all that often, only when she comes to my area to get away.

I didn't think to call her. I told her about my daughter after the fact. She said, I've dealt with breech babies for decades. You can coax them to turn around. It usually takes several tries, but the babies once they get head first like it better than being breech.

During the Soviet days, my wife says a list of what to do always accompanied a visit to the doctor, what to do so that you didn't return to the doctor.

Medicine + profit is a vile mixture. These oldsters are being milked by the system that doesn't care one iota for "quality of life."
Thanks from Sabcat
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 03:48 PM   #44
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
The US medical establishment excels at pulling off incredibly expensive "miraculous" procedures that have no possibility of universal application. My oldest daughter had a breech baby for most of her third trimester. That child cost almost $300K to deliver.

A friend of mine runs a midwifery clinic in a large metropolitan area. She's done this all her life and she's in her sixties. I don't see her all that often, only when she comes to my area to get away.

I didn't think to call her. I told her about my daughter after the fact. She said, I've dealt with breech babies for decades. You can coax them to turn around. It usually takes several tries, but the babies once they get head first like it better than being breech.

During the Soviet days, my wife says a list of what to do always accompanied a visit to the doctor, what to do so that you didn't return to the doctor.

Medicine + profit is a vile mixture. These oldsters are being milked by the system that doesn't care one iota for "quality of life."
I fully agree and the state is partners in crime every step of the way. If you are approaching 60 and have not worked how you are going to liquidate so the state cannot confiscate your estate you need to.

Just imagine when the whole system is compulsory there will be almost no way to avoid the state eliminating generational wealth.


Sabcat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 05:51 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I would suggest you re-check revenue stream priorities and spending priorities.

Canada's cost per patient for healthcare in USD normalised for purchasing power is $4608.

In the UK it is $4003.

Currently the US is listed there at $9451.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ure_per_capita

The World Bank publishes them as Canada -5292USD, UK-3935 and US-9403.

Health expenditure per capita (current US$) | Data

Check out both those sites for more data.
It should be noted that the year Canada switched to single payer, their health care costs were almost identical to those of the US.
Since that time costs for both have risen, but the costs have risen faster in the US.
goober is online now  
Old May 4th, 2017, 05:53 PM   #46
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
You interjected capitalism into the conversation.

You were talking about a criticism of "socialized" medicine, so I wanted you to explain how the same metric would judge the version of medicine that wasn't socialized.
I can understand why you don't want the same standard applied, but it's gotta be done.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Nope. What is your obsession jumping from thread to thread? That is almost as disingenuous as your argument technique.
Jumping from thread to thread?

Do you not understand how different threads on message boards work?

And why would you think that posting on multiple threads is "disingenuous"?
Unless that attack is just a standard ad hominem attack you throw out there...

Or maybe it's just a thinly veiled method to avoid the point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Again I ask
What is the positive gain for society to steel from the productive to prolong the lives of the unproductive?
First off, your reply is making a lot of assumptions.
You appear to be equating capability to pay with "productive". They aren't the same thing. As such, the question is innately flawed.

Even if I blindly go with that bad assumption, you still fail to recognize that the status quo before Obama took office included the same situation.
If a bum off the street had an urgent health problem and went to emergent care, he would get treated even though he couldn't pay. And the taxpayer would pick up the dime.
The concept right-wingers can't seem to grasp is it's more cost effective to treat BEFORE it becomes an emergency. Thus, it's cheaper.
So unless you're pushing for an ideology that says the hospital kicks the guy out who can't pay, you're really missing the point.

But the parallel should be addressed without some lame ad hominem attack on your part. Because the concepts involved are relevant.
HOW does the right justify taking money from taxpayers to educate offspring of "nonproductive" (or rather parents who can't pay for alternatives to public school education) via non-public school methods?
Thanks from Clara007

Last edited by foundit66; May 4th, 2017 at 06:09 PM.
foundit66 is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 06:42 PM   #47
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

You were talking about a criticism of "socialized" medicine, so I wanted you to explain how the same metric would judge the version of medicine that wasn't socialized.
I can understand why you don't want the same standard applied, but it's gotta be done.



Jumping from thread to thread?

Do you not understand how different threads on message boards work?

And why would you think that posting on multiple threads is "disingenuous"?
Unless that attack is just a standard ad hominem attack you throw out there...

Or maybe it's just a thinly veiled method to avoid the point.



First off, your reply is making a lot of assumptions.
You appear to be equating capability to pay with "productive". They aren't the same thing. As such, the question is innately flawed.

Even if I blindly go with that bad assumption, you still fail to recognize that the status quo before Obama took office included the same situation.
If a bum off the street had an urgent health problem and went to emergent care, he would get treated even though he couldn't pay. And the taxpayer would pick up the dime.
The concept right-wingers can't seem to grasp is it's more cost effective to treat BEFORE it becomes an emergency. Thus, it's cheaper.
So unless you're pushing for an ideology that says the hospital kicks the guy out who can't pay, you're really missing the point.

But the parallel should be addressed without some lame ad hominem attack on your part. Because the concepts involved are relevant.
HOW does the right justify taking money from taxpayers to educate offspring of "nonproductive" (or rather parents who can't pay for alternatives to public school education) via non-public school methods?


If you are going to insist on jumbling threads up in attempt to strengthen your point try and recall that my base position on education is to completely dissolve the department of education. My position on the voucher system is an attempt to work w/in that position. I fully believe that the education system is broken and that if we are going to take wealth from the population for the soul purpose of educating children we should allow open competition for those funds. What we have been doing clearly has not been working.


Jesus fuck. Wrong thread.


Talk about making assumptions!!! When did I ever say anything about pre Obama or post Obama? Now, to try and avoid another bipolar post from you I will try and slow this down a bit. My point, question from the moment I posted on this thread was/is what does society gain from taking resorces by force from the young and able part of society to keep the old and dying alive?



Quote:

pro·duc·tive
prəˈdəktiv/
adjective

producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities.
"the most productive employees"
synonyms: fertile, fruitful, rich, fecund
"productive land"

relating to or engaged in the production of goods, crops, or other commodities.
"the country's productive capacity"

achieving or producing a significant amount or result.
"a long and productive career"

synonyms: prolific, inventive, creative; More



https://www.google.com/search?client...k1.WI9aXA8xMVU

Last edited by Sabcat; May 4th, 2017 at 06:48 PM.
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 07:16 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
I fully agree and the state is partners in crime every step of the way. If you are approaching 60 and have not worked how you are going to liquidate so the state cannot confiscate your estate you need to.

Just imagine when the whole system is compulsory there will be almost no way to avoid the state eliminating generational wealth.
Please explain that Sab, and why it matters in a healthcare discussion.

As I see it, the corporations, insurance and pharmaceutical, the HMOs et al, the greed of some healthcare professional and the ever-circling legal vultures are the main partners in crime. As you note, the state for sure plays the role of enabler and financier.

Prescription drug spending hit $425 billion in 2015. I've been dealing with a Canadian pharmacy and just recently a New Zealand pharmacy. From that pharmacy, 2 grams of acyclovir cream is $5.46. In the US, unless you do some looking. Acyclovir is more than $150/g. It can be more. How many people with insurance try to find a bargain. Precious few.

About the only drugs that aren't dramatically cheaper overseas are ED drugs, cuz ever guy wants a boner that lasts, as do most women.
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 08:04 PM   #49
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Please explain that Sab, and why it matters in a healthcare discussion.

As I see it, the corporations, insurance and pharmaceutical, the HMOs et al, the greed of some healthcare professional and the ever-circling legal vultures are the main partners in crime. As you note, the state for sure plays the role of enabler and financier.

Prescription drug spending hit $425 billion in 2015. I've been dealing with a Canadian pharmacy and just recently a New Zealand pharmacy. From that pharmacy, 2 grams of acyclovir cream is $5.46. In the US, unless you do some looking. Acyclovir is more than $150/g. It can be more. How many people with insurance try to find a bargain. Precious few.

About the only drugs that aren't dramatically cheaper overseas are ED drugs, cuz ever guy wants a boner that lasts, as do most women.
If this does not clear it up I can expand if you like


Quote:

If you're over 55 years old, Medicaid can come after your home and assets when you die to pay for your medical expenses. It's the most under-publicized flaw in the Affordable Care Act — though it has been covered by bigger news sites like The Seattles Times and, on Friday, The Washington Post — due to long standing estate recovery laws, the assets of deceased low-income seniors are fair game. It's also one of the least clear. Different states have different estate recovery laws, and some are changing those laws to protect new enrollees.

Is this Obamacare's fault?

No, Medicaid has been allowed to seize assets since 1993. As per the Post:

In 1993, concerned about rising Medicaid costs, Congress made it mandatory for states to try to recover money from the estates of people who used Medicaid for long-term care, which can cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per person. They included exceptions in cases in which there is a surviving spouse, a minor child and other situations.

Congress also gave states the option to go further — to target the estates of all Medicaid recipients for any benefits they received after age 55, including routine medical care.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ou-die/357357/
Thanks from imaginethat and Jimmyb
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 08:13 PM   #50
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
If this does not clear it up I can expand if you like





https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ou-die/357357/
Rule of thumb: every penny that Medicaid spends on someone can be levied against their estate. Moving the estate to a trust does not help because Medicaid can go back at least five years to get their money.
Thanks from Sabcat
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Tags
american, sickness



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Sickness Spreadd Ishmael Pequod Political Talk 31 April 24th, 2014 12:14 PM
American Slaves,Not American Citizens Noska Americas 6 April 20th, 2014 10:49 AM
Presidential Proclamation -- Pan American Day and Pan American Week, 2014 The White House The White House 0 April 11th, 2014 12:50 PM
Presidential Proclamation -- Pan American Day and Pan American Week, 2013 The White House The White House 0 April 15th, 2013 06:41 AM
Pc Sickness In America Tony Perkins Current Events 4 January 20th, 2012 05:49 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.