Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

My Friend Needs HealthCare.

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I have not read all the post, but I hope this help, you friend needs to find a none profit hospital that means no a private hospital, then as soon as he is seen by the doctor he needs to fill in the paper work for people that have not money to pay for the bill.

None profit hospital are best for people that are needy and have no insurance.



[edit on 7-9-2009 by marg6043]




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Funshinez

I know it wasn't addressed to me, but I have to toss my $0.02 (now worth 1.7 yen!
) into this:

How can a person die more quickly from relatively poor care than no care at all?


As experienced lawyers, we know that medical malpractice errors are responsible for between 44,000 and 98,000 wrongful deaths every year in American hospitals each year. More people die from medical mistakes than from all car accident deaths. Medical malpractice mistakes involving medication errors cause injuries to over 1.3 million persons a year.
Source: www.munley.com...

Medical errors are a major problem with the healthcare system as well as lack of access. How is it easier to die from poor care than form no care? How many news reports have you heard about people with tools left inside them, secondary infections from operations that became life-threatening (and fatal sometimes), or other obvious blunders?

One of my aunts recently suffered a stroke. the cause was an adverse reaction to medication she was on, not 'natural causes' or 'old age'.

All doctors and hospitals are not created equal. Some of them are little more than human butcher shops.


Great we'll just send the 42 million people without insurance to the charity hospital down the street. Well done, you've solved the problem.

Well, at least he's made a dent in it. Of those 42 million Americans you mention, how many are in desperate need of a hospital right now?

How many of those hospitals are there? Doc stated there is one in most large cities. We have a LOT of large cities in the US.

How quickly can a person get into one of those hospitals? Hours? Days? Weeks? Maybe a month or two? Now how long will it take for this bill to make a difference - any difference - in access? Oh, yes, the answer to the last question is 4 years.

Now, can you make a dent in the problem?


Who are you to make that decision?

Who are you to declare that all doctors and hospitals must do whatever anyone asks whenever anyone asks, and for no pay, no return? Last time I looked, that was called slavery. Are you advocating slavery for the healthcare industry?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

I agree that health care is not a 'right' of the individual, but nor is a priviledge either. It is an 'obligation' of an advanced society to ensure that all of it's members are healthy. It is not beneficial to that society to not do so.


I like the way you put that.
Have a star.

'Obligation on society'....


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Funshinez
How can a person die more quickly from relatively poor care than no care at all?

Unless you've been living in a hole in the ground your entire life, you should know that low quality healthcare frequently kills and otherwise destroys the lives of those who aren't terribly ill in the first place. Yes, it may surprise you to know that going to a bad doctor is worse than not going to a doctor at all.


Originally posted by Funshinez
Great we'll just send the 42 million people without insurance to the charity hospital down the street. Well done, you've solved the problem.

As usual, the socialists in the peanut gallery are intentionally exposing their ignorance. Who is to say that the "42 million people without health insurance" even WANT healthcare insurance? Millions upon millions of Americans simply choose NOT to carry insurance, just as millions upon millions of Americans choose NOT to vote.

Funny thing is, when they choose not to vote, we hear "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain." Same thing with those who carry no insurance. No right to complain.

The more important thing to remember is that over 258 million Americans DO HAVE health insurance, and they are satisfied with the level of their coverage. The "healthcare reformists" (socialists) have yet to make a case that "reform" is even needed.


Originally posted by Funshinez
Who are you to make that decision [that healthcare is not a "right"]?

I don't make the decision. When we're talking about "rights," we're talking about something bestowed upon us by the government. For example, the Right to Free Speech. The Right to Gather. The Right to Bear Arms. The Right to Worship Freely. Those are Rights.

Show me where our government has been charged with guaranteeing us a Right to Healthcare. There is no such right. And there shouldn't be.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   


He went to his doctor and paid $95 for the visit. The doctor sent him to an imaging center for an MRI, but he was turned away because he had to give $1,000 down for the test, which costs about $5,000. He could, and probably will, go to the emergency room, but there is no guarantee the hospital will run this test on him.


Tell your friend to go to the ER.

I don't know why his doctor didn't send him as a direct admit if he thought that he had a cerebral bleed or a brain tumor.

Most ERs will do a CAT scan and a MRI on anyone that comes in with a complaint of headache or head trauma.

The hospital may not like taking cases that they know they will not get paid for but so far the doctors and nurses are not required to treat to the bottom line. They care for the patient and they have no way of knowing who pays for what and they don't care.

The patient is their focus and the only draw backs comes in the form of lack of materials available and I will admit that we are finding more and more materials lacking to do the job the job the way it should be done.

That includes staffing. Lost of income for the hospitals translates into longer and poorly staffed shifts.

It is a double edged sword because hospitals operate on patient satisfaction which is impossible when one nurse has to care for ten patients and one aide may have to care for as many as thirty-four patients.

Yet it is more impossible still if they got no care at all which is where we may be headed.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I'd have to question that number from the "experienced lawyers", i've known many who have died in car accidents, but nobody who has died from a mistake in medical care. I think that is an exaggeration from the lawyers, they wish it was true though. They don't give a rats @ss about people, just money.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I agree that health care is not a 'right' of the individual, but nor is a priviledge either. It is an 'obligation' of an advanced society to ensure that all of it's members are healthy. It is not beneficial to that society to not do so.

I would like to see where that is written in stone. I have yet to see an "advanced society" of 300 million anywhere else in the world that ensures "all of its members are healthy."

No such society exists nor has ever existed. As I mentioned earlier, guaranteed healthcare is a pipe dream, a utopian luxury that we cannot afford.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by jam321
 


I have not read all the post, but I hope this help, you friend needs to find a none profit hospital that means no a private hospital, then as soon as he is seen by the doctor he needs to fill in the paper work for people that have not money to pay for the bill.

None profit hospital are best for people that are needy and have no insurance.



[edit on 7-9-2009 by marg6043]


I work for a huge "For Profit" hospital and we have a large number of indigents as patients. We also have some illegals that have taken up residence because we can't kick them out.

The hospital is for profit but it is still also an institution dedicated to the care of the patient. They do not deny anyone care and will admit anyone that requires it regardless to their ability to pay.

It hurts the hospital and the caregivers in the long run because you can only cut the slices of the pie so thin.

I don't know what the answer is but there has to be some help for the hospital and the caregivers or we are going to find ourselves in situation of our own making were there will not be enough for anybody.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


As I mentioned earlier, guaranteed healthcare is a pipe dream, a utopian luxury that we cannot afford.

After the tax cuts for the rich, the oil wars and the bailouts, I agree.
We are broke and paranoid, and cant afford squat now.
Thanks george. (and obama)

[edit on 7-9-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd

I can understand your concern jd. It took quite a bit of searching, but I finally found a site with data that is not a medical malpractice attorney site:

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.
Source: www.medicalnewstoday.com...

In fact, this is a medical industry study.

The very number of legal malpractice sites I came across to get to this one site is a clear indication that tort reform is indeed a major concern if we are to fix the problems with healthcare today.

In my searching, I came across that same number as in the original link I excerpted from, 225,000 patients per year, numerous times. I discounted every law firm website, however.

Now, can you disprove the 195,000 number?

TheRedneck


[edit on 9/7/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 



What we need more than a government healthcare plan is regulation of the prices in the united states medical business. Our medical bills are some of the highest in the world.


And IMO, this can only be achieved by compromising. Everybody has different ideas on what is needed and I feel nobody is incorrect. We just need to start addressing these issues rather than argue about them.

reply to post by AshleyD
 


I don't believe health care is a 'right,' but I do believe it's insanity to take care of some but not others while those others are paying for it.


Bingo. A lot of our tax money already pays for others to have insurance. Furthermore, we are all one illness or one accident away from having someone else take care of our insurance needs.

reply to post by calstorm
 



I would rather have no insurance than government insurance any day.


And that is your right. But I am not advocating a government run plan. I am advocating a compromised plan. I just find it hard to believe that the insurance companies have more power than the government.

reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Glad to hear your doctor took the necessary steps to save your husband.
The right to healthcare is debatable but I do believe that this country can help everybody get affordable insurance. However, Congress playing politics with the issue will get us no where.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 



Do you notice in this health care debate, NONE of the politicians have proposed regulating the insurance company? Putting some minimum rules down that you can't turn away someone who is sick because of no health insurance, or that you can't turn down someone for health insurance for pre-existing conditions?

Hell, right now, we can't even go over state lines for health insurance.....there is monopoly on health insurance......even if they lifted the restriction that you can't go shop for health insurance over state lines......that would be a cheap fix.


And this is the reason I asked..

Does the government not have the right to regulate businesses? Because when it comes to the heathcare industry, our government act as though the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals are untouchable.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by 27jd

I can understand your concern jd. It took quite a bit of searching, but I finally found a site with data that is not a medical malpractice attorney site:

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.
Source: www.medicalnewstoday.com...

In fact, this is a medical industry study.

The very number of legal malpractice sites I came across to get to this one site is a clear indication that tort reform is indeed a major concern if we are to fix the problems with healthcare today.

In my searching, I came across that same number as in the original link I excerpted from, 225,000 patients per year, numerous times. I discounted every law firm website, however.

Now, can you disprove the 195,000 number?

TheRedneck


[edit on 9/7/2009 by TheRedneck]


I don't dispute the claim made here.

Healthcare workers are not Gods and they are not infallible. But before I threw the baby out with the bath water I would have to ask how many of those people would have died if they had received no care at all.

Like always no matter how true a thing may sound you have to consider the source and unfortunately the motive.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dodadoom
After the tax cuts for the rich, the oil wars and the bailouts, I agree. We are broke and paranoid, and cant afford squat now. Thanks George.

C'mon, you can't keep blaming "George" for everything. Your guy is in the White House now, and your Congress has been rushing through indecipherable and wasteful legislation for the last 9 months that has driven us 9 TRILLION DOLLARS FURTHER IN DEBT over the next 10 years.

We can't blame the stupid and costly actions of our current administration on past administrations. When this nationalized healthcare scam finally passes Congress and costs us trillions more, I suppose you'll blame THAT on George, too, right?

Time to suck it up and take responsibility.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

Obama just addressed the insurance debacle on a live broadcast on CNN.
(if anyone even noticed)

It is up to US to act responsibly and enact some change that is in
the PEOPLES best interest. Not the corporations.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


A very thought provoking post.



I do believe that it is the role of the Federal government to regulate and in some cases oversee operations ("promote the general Welfare"), as well as to establish laws and regulations that encourage fair and equitable treatment among the people of all classes ("establish Justice").

So according to this reading, the only thing the government can forcefully do in the area of healthcare is to regulate, oversee, and make sure equity is maintained. It is unconstitutional for them to do anything more. The next question I have is, Can the Federal government, using the limited powers I just outlined, correct the problems with healthcare today?

I believe it is possible (notwithstanding the economic collapse). But to do so requires some thought, some reason, and quite a lot of honest open debate. That's why I flagged this thread, and why I am posting here.


Problem number 1 is that the government is not regulating. Problem number two is that they are not compromising or having those honest open debates.

I agree with your quote above especially the part about honest open debate. Just imagine what our country would be like today if our founding fathers had not had an open honest debate. Do you think our country would have been this prosperous without some serious debate, reasoning, and thought?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 

Cool! I agree wholeheartedly!
Look at my edit and other posts and you'll see I hold obama just as accountable.
I did not vote for him as I think it is all a sham to make you think you have some control.
This country was bought, sold and chopped up years ago.
The whole problem in a nutshell is we are apparently JUST NOW waking up to it!
I'm all for what helps people NOT corporations.
Corporations and insurance companies have proven they have no conscience, only a lust for profit.

BTW, no matter how you spin it, bush had a surplus when he started and he squandered it. Obama inherited a deficit which he is increasing.
Which brings us to where we are now.
Proof is in the bailouts which BOTH SIDES agreed to.
If that isnt a sign we are ALL being played, I give up
and can only say....good luck my friend.
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-9-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I agree that health care is not a 'right' of the individual, but nor is a priviledge either. It is an 'obligation' of an advanced society to ensure that all of it's members are healthy. It is not beneficial to that society to not do so.

I would like to see where that is written in stone. I have yet to see an "advanced society" of 300 million anywhere else in the world that ensures "all of its members are healthy."

No such society exists nor has ever existed. As I mentioned earlier, guaranteed healthcare is a pipe dream, a utopian luxury that we cannot afford.

— Doc Velocity


Holy smoke and mirrors, Batman! Where is the opposite 'written in stone'? The size of the society is irrelevant. As to whether they exist, perhaps you've heard of these:


Afghanistan*, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq*, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom

*Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Source

I did not know this previously, but now I can add citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq to those whom I pay for better health care coverage than I have. Fabulous! Wow, I can afford to pay for that 'utopian luxury' for other countries, but I'm way out of line to expect it for myself...


[edit on 7-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now, can you disprove the 195,000 number?


Well, i'm not really interested in disproving it. I was just giving my personal perspective, i've known several people in my lifetime who have died in car accidents, but nobody who died due to malpractice. I was just reading the quote from your post by the lawyer, i don't trust lawyers. That's all.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SpiritoftheNightSky

I agree; there is no way to know what the outcome would have been if those poor souls did not get any care. But the point I was making was that there is a problem with a very small percentage of doctors who simply make too many mistakes on a continual basis, and the only way to lower the malpractice insurance rates is to cut back on the amount of mistakes and the cost of those mistakes.

Malpractice insurance rates can easily exceed $1,000,000 per year, even if the doctor taking them out has no history of problems. The reason is that a few doctors make so many mistakes that the extreme cost of their litigation gets spread out among all the other doctors. That's socialization. That's what insurance can do if left unchecked. Now how do these doctors pay that insurance bill? By charging patients more.

The reason that I am so vehemently against the present group of bills being (semi)debated in Congress is not that I am against making our healthcare industry better or more accessible to everyone regardless of class structure, but because it is not a healthcare bill. It is a mandatory insurance bill. Insurance is the problem, not the solution. Insurance allows hospitals to get by with charging $20 for an aspirin. Insurance forces doctors to run tests they would otherwise deem as unnecessary simply to make sure their malpractice rates don't go up. Insurance regulates who gets into a hospital and who doesn't. Insurance allows all aspects of the medical field to make price increases, since the insurance company can spread that cost out and avoid a public backlash.

Insurance is the problem.

Insurance must be tightly regulated and made completely voluntary as it once was.

TheRedneck





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join