[quote author="bltserv" date=1253057288][quote author="Nude" date=1253052402][quote author="bltserv" date=1253050915]<blockquote>What if you can?t afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to accept this as an option in our country.</blockquote>
This is the truth we accept in this modern world of the 21st century. We need to look at the past for what can happen if we go the other direction.
Back in the 30`s we had a government in Europe that understood what to do with those that were sick and didnt believe in the current form of government at the time.
I hear that in the background here. Its just a small step away from what you think is fair.
Lets put the weak, the poor and the sick in a camp. Then the next step up from that ? Well I think you see my point.</blockquote>
Don't go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don't need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.</blockquote>
Easy Nude. I was making an extreme point of how ignoring the fact we have millions of uninsured and those that never
get adequate care is a real issue in our modern society. What do you think we should do with the uninsured
or indigent in the case of extreme costly illness ? </blockquote>
I think the indigent are already covered under Medicaid, so nothing else needs to be done. I think we could cover those uninsured who can't afford or cannot get coverage for far less that it would cost for Universal health care. I also think that of the "millions of uninsured" there are millions who simply choose not to buy it even though they can afford it. I never paid a dime for insurance from 1988 to 2004 because it was cheaper to just pay my medical bills as they arose. Was I taking a risk? Yes, but it was my risk to take. You are intentionally, still, conflating care and insurance (as if they are interchangeable) in order to bootstrap your argument. Just stop.
<blockquote>
A couple of simple points. Inner City Hospitals. Like King Drew. Or in my Sisters case. Brotman in Culver City.
So if your unlucky enough to live in these areas. (My sister lives in Culver City and has full health coverage).
And you happen to have an accident or condition of some type. In my sisters case she had a stroke.
Because the inner city hospital is so inundated with emergency room cases that could have been handled by a regular
doctor if they were insured. My sister fails to get proper care because the admitting Nurse thinks she is on drugs.
Thank god my neice got out of school and got her over to UCLA or she might have died. She sat for sveral hours
that are critical in her case of stroke. All beacuse our system is broken. Emergency rooms were never designed
this way. </blockquote>
Under your proposal, Brotman Medical Center (a private hospital) wouldn't exist, forcing people into the E.R. at UCLA instead. You might have eased some of the crowding by reducing the number of patients that delayed minor conditions until they became emergencies (a dubious assumption) but that was more than offset by the overall reduction in Emergency Rooms and hospitals that closed when the for-profit model was displaced by government health care. And not to put too fine a point on it, but your issue should be with the admitting nurse. Your sister clearly made it that far, despite the overcrowding you claim, but the admitting RN failed to triage her correctly. Is that the fault of the private medical system or just poor judgment, because the ER was clearly not so busy that she was not seen by a nurse.
<blockquote>
Also looking at the 3rd world efforts of RAM. Except this time the 3rd world is in Inglewood.
Normally RAM would be in Africa or after some other natural disaster.
This is the strongest nation in the world. Yet we put more effort and money into making war than our own people ?</blockquote>
According to the Department of Health and Human Services 2008 Financial report, the Federal Government spent $657.9 Billion on Medicare and Medicaid services alone in that Fiscal Year. According to the White House, the TOTAL budget for the Department of Defense this year (FY2009) is $651 Billion, an increase of $68 Billion over 2008. The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars COMBINED wouldn't fund Medicare/Medicaid for even 4 months.
blt, your arguments are long on hyperbole, emotion, and propaganda and short on facts.
