Dying for Socialized Medicine?

Never Let the Law or the Facts Get in the Way of Scaring Voters

By Mark I Posted in Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The famously disciplined candidate Senator Hillary!™ Clinton committed a rare gaffe today during the rollout of her much anticipated and ballyhooed health care initiative.

”Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick.

"I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for change. [my emphasis]

Really? People are dying while waiting to receive health care? Doesn’t the Senator know that there is a Federal law requiring stabilizing treatment for anybody presenting at a hospital regardless of their ability to pay?

“People are dying…,” is a very careless statement for a presidential candidate to make. First of all, it’s demonstrably false. Second, it takes the focus off the candidate’s initiative and puts it on the claim. Clinton doesn’t usually give her opponents this kind of opening.

Read on…

The Federal law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and was passed by Congress in 1986. The American Academy of Emergency Medicine characterizes the law’s requirements this way:

EMTALA requires hospital emergency departments to provide any individual coming to their premises with a medical screening exam to determine if an emergency condition or active pregnancy labor is present. If so, the hospital must supply either stabilization prior to transferring the patient or a certification (signed by the physician) that the transfer is appropriate and meets certain conditions

The law covers everyone, whether or not they are Medicaid eligible. It also covers all hospitals that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid systems. That’s nearly every hospital. That means that no one dies while waiting to receive health care because of their ability to pay. If a hospital denies treatment due to payment issues, it risks losing its Joint Commission accreditation. The inability to provide emergency care to all was a major issue in the closing of Martin Luther King, Jr.-Harbor Hospital in Los Angeles, just last month. Could Sen. Clinton really be unaware of this?

Certainly not. Clinton wants voters to focus on the emotions evoked by her image of emergency rooms filled with poor, dying patients. No such thing exists; at least not in this country. She then wants you to give up your ability to choose your doctor and the kind of care you receive, for the false “security” of the government paying the bill. What’s that Benjamin Franklin quotation the liberals are so fond of trotting out about the war?

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

It’s a bad trade.

If Sen. Clinton is so concerned about patients dying while waiting for care, perhaps she should propose to reform the health systems in Canada and Britain. Those countries have government run health care systems and, surprise, they have rationing and built in wait times. People really are dying while waiting for the government to care for them in those countries, not in the United States.

This is a major slip up for the vaunted Clinton message machine. This country is going to have a conversation about health care, and Sen. Clinton has poisoned the debate against her position by this descent into hyperbole. If there is a solid case to be made for universal health care in the United States, she should make it. The fact that Sen. Clinton has chosen to utilize hyperbole and appeal to emotion instead of marshalling the facts demonstrates that she has no real arguments to make.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | NH-SEN: Shaheen (D) to run in re-matchComments (20) »
Dying for Socialized Medicine? 73 Comments (0 topical, 73 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

People die for lack of preventive care, for deciding not to go to the doctor before it's too late because of lack of insurance, etc.

Given that the cost of preventative care is so freaking low, and given that insurance companies are now considering giving prizes to folks who actually do regular maintenance, you might almost imagine that "insured status" has nothing to do with this.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And die of cancer as a significantly faster rate than those with insurance. Screenings and follow-ups cost money, you know?

Until I started having children, I was a young person. True story.

Did you know they don't go for cancer screenings? And that they tend to be disproportionately uninsured? And that they generally care about neither?

Food for thought, Toby. Food for thought.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I'd be more than glad to share the stats with you. Can I have them?

You already do. You doubtless got them from the same publicly available database that's already been compiled on this, and which you're going to link to show the data that supports all -- and I do mean all -- of your blanket assertions in this thread.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

made here today:
Young people don't like to go to the doctor.

I wouldn't blame others if I was you. At least I used terms as "more likely".

you are disputing the line "young people don't like to go to the doctor"? wow, I will be more sweeping, I will say "people of all ages do not like to go to the doctor". And if you do, you have a screw loose.

Molon Labe!

When I am sick or hurt.
Mostly because I don't like to become MORE sick or MORE hurt because I tried to drive on while sick/injured (no calling in sick in my job).
But then, I have 100% coverage and have no incentive to try to figure it out on my own...

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

You're going to produce supporting links, or your time here will be shortened. I mean, I'm avoiding words like "certainly," but I hope I'm expressing my point well.

Bonus: Because you didn't do this when I first requested it, you're going to grab me a few public health studies, peer-reviewed, that show that young people -- let's say 30 and under, down to 18 -- engage in preventative care at the same rates as those older.

Good luck.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

[Retread. Disregard. - Moe Lane]

Uninsured women aged 50-64, compared with the insured, are:
• 2.1* less likely to have had a recent mammogram
• 1.9* less likely to have had a recent Pap test
• 2.1* less likely to have had a recent clinical breast examination

Uninsured women aged 40-49, compared with the insured, are:
• 1.5* less likely to have had a recent mammogram
• 1.9* less likely to have had a recent Pap test
• 1.9* less likely to have had a recent clinical breast examination

From the 1993 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Because it was stated that the uninsured were simply young people -- too careless to seek preventitive care.

But, of course, that's not true.

You can read but you obviously cannot comprehend.

Two things. It was stated that young people are less likely to be insured because they are less likely to see a doctor, get check-ups, etc. ... not that the uninsured are simply young people.

So you apparently went through all that effort to beat up a straw man.

Second, which is why I wonder if you have any intelligence, is that you're giving us comparative data on uninsured women of ages 40-49 and 50-59 as against "the insured" (of all ages) as a whole.

How this has anything to do with the original argument that young people are less likely to buy health insurance and constitute a huge percentage of the uninsured ... I still cannot see.

Use your brain. Don't just regurgitate stupidity you picked up from some idiot on the Leftosphere.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Other than reading talking points have you ever researched the self-insured (uninsured is a word too often utilized by leftists and insurance salesmen)? Do you have any idea who is and is not self-insured?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

For a family of four, how low is your idea of preventative medicine? Mothers need pap smears, fathers need a colonoscopy, and kids need regular visits and shots. There is no preventative medicine on kids breaking bones, which can run about $3000 for an emergency room visit. I just don't think we should underestimate the cost of even basic preventative medicine for a poor family. I'm not arguing with your other points, but don't think we should make it seem like preventative medicine is akin to getting an oil change.

I'll add that when I was in my early twenties, I never went to a doctor (and I had great insurance). We are invincible at that age in our minds and I would doubt people are getting the proper preventative care at that age.

I'm also all for inurance companies offering prizes/discounts for things. Stay below a body fat %, lower your cholesterol, stop smoking, etc should be used by insurance companies. Auto insurance companies give us discounts for airbags, age, and even good grades.

Stay below a body fat %, lower your cholesterol, stop smoking, etc should be used by insurance companies. Auto insurance companies give us discounts for airbags, age, and even good grades.

It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against males in pricing your insurance products. It's not OK to discriminate against females. If we priced health insurance the same way we do auto insurance, women, especially those around child bearing age, would have to pay a whole lot more for insurance than men would. Never going to happen.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

We wait with bated breath for your source that documents those two assertions. In particular:

    How many individuals died in the United States last year (or any recent year) from conditions or complications arising from conditions that could have been corrected had they presented in time, and (b) where said failure to present was due to a lack of medical insurance that spanned the entire time the condition could have been diagnosed before becoming an irreversible cause of death?

I ask for this because I suspect you of waving unsupported assertions in front of us.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Let's try a two sec google seach

18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

"By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deat...

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Because then they would've been cared for. Or maybe they should have bought health insurance, or gone to the doctor, or ate right, or stopped smoking, drinking, using drugs, or stopped engaging in high risk occupations, or looked for a job that provided health insurance or...

These are mainly individual choices. How does this become society's problem?

Let's try another google search

42,636 people died in car crashes in the United States in 2004.

Arguably, many of these deaths are preventable and stem from a poor choice to buy an unsafe car. Maybe the government should buy everyone an SUV?

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

Somebody's gotta do these things. So its ok if they just die?

Is that really so much to ask for?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

What are you talking about? n/t

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Sure, people can "choose" not to take jobs that are dangerous or don't provide health care. (Boy, there choices must be limited.)

But these jobs, whether it flipping burgers or printing the Weekly Standard, have to be manned by someone. So, under this rubric of "choice:, you're still condeming a sizable portion of the public who provide for the public good to an early grave.

Answer me this: is it ok that people that work hard at necessary jobs are denied even preventitive care while useless gasbags like Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guliani live to be 95?

As you ponder a response to carry the day among you're online comrades, try not to let that flickering pilot light in your heart go out. I'm rooting for you.

I wonder ... Are you under the misimpression that you care more about people who provide for the public good than anybody here?

Well, rest assured, you're not. We've had diaries upon diaries about healthcare here and practically everyone has contributed more to the discussion than you have in your short career at RS.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and a good heaping of ignorance, the latter of which you obviously possess in heavy abundance and yet you seem to be completely unaware of.

So until you rectify that, all you're doing here is empty moral preening. It may make you feel good, which may all you're really about, but it doesn't really do much in the real world.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

I'll point out this: there is no right to health care. Employers are not obligated to provide it. When I took a job, my decision was based partially on the salary, partially on the benefits. When I was young, I could have cared less if my job provided retirement - I wanted the money, then and now. Now I wouldn't touch a job without at least a 401K, unless I was desperate. Same goes for health care.

But you know what? People have a choice. It is a choice whether or not to go to school and get a degree that will provide a job that will pay, both salary AND health care. And don't whine to me about how expensive schools are - there's enough needs-based financial aid out there that anyone who wants an undergrad degree can get one (I have a senior in HS - I've seen every pitch and every brochure you can imagine). The "choice" is to sit on one's arse and not improve one's own prospects and to work in a dead-end job that pays less (YES, health care is PAY - it's part of one's compensation) OR take some initiative, get educated, and open an entirely new world of employment and compensation options.

Until someone writes a right to health care into the Constitution (or liberal judges pull a Roe and imagine one into it), this is how it will be.


...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."

Don't forget that while they are fewer than they once were, there are still numerous apprenticeship programs out there.

And there's always the good old Military...
...You said a Senior in HS? Gotten the pitch from my compadres out your way yet...? :)

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

and in fact that very thought crossed my mind a few moments after submitting the comment. I have several colleagues/friends who work with me who never set foot in a university, yet received good training that got them a good job.

I'm not sure if they've heard the military pitch yet. I do know that last year one of the seniors got a Naval Academy appointment - the first one in the (small private Christian) school's history.


...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."

If your Senior(s) has not heard the Military pitch yet, I am more than willing to drive to you and give said pitch. :)
Just drop me a line in my email. No promise of instant reply, but I'll get around to it shortly...

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

"Sure, people can "choose" not to take jobs that are dangerous or don't provide health care. (Boy, there choices must be limited.)"

#1  Straw man or ignorance?  Did you just create a straw man, or are you  ignorant of the many "means tested" socialized health insurance programs that already exist in this country?  

#2  The position that any individual holds in the US is the result of a life time of choices.  Many people make wise choices (study in school, apply themselves, practice industry, and thrift, etc.).  The aggregate results of wise choices are a healthier life and a greater standard of living.  This may not be utopian, but it is a reality.  Other people do not make wise decisions (they do not take their "schooling serious," become drunks, consume addictive substances, engage in criminal behavior, blow off their jobs, have unprotected sex, etc.), these unwise choices ultimately result in a unhealthy life and a lower standard of living.   

"But these jobs, whether it flipping burgers or printing the Weekly Standard, have to be manned by someone. So, under this rubric of "choice:, you're still condemning a sizable portion of the public who provide for the public good to an early grave."

#1  I realize that you were attempting to be witty with your printer comment, but all you really did was reveled your ignorance of printers.  Take a look at the incomes earned by printers today. 

#2  The reality of liberty is that a person is free to make their own choices.  All choices have consequences and we must all ultimately live with the consequences of our respective choices.  If a person makes poor choices (they do not take their "schooling serious," become drunks, consume addictive substances, engage in criminal behavior, blow off their jobs, engage in unprotected sex, etc.) they are going to have to live with the consequences (low standard of living, sickness, etc.) of their choices.  Now because there is some semblance of liberty left in this republic a person who has made bad choices through out their life is capable of learning from their mistakes, and parleying their new found wisdom into better future decisions and thus better future standards of living.       

"Answer me this: is it ok that people that work hard at necessary jobs are denied even preventative care while useless gasbags like Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani live to be 95?"

That is a heck of a false assumption.  People that are industrious and thrifty are able to leverage those qualities for greater standards of living.  Moreover, I know that Hilary looks old (even with the plastic surgery), and acts old (advocates tired and failed ideas), but I do not think that she has reached 95 years of age.  Additionally, I do not think Rudy has seen his 70th birthday yet, let alone his 95th.  

"As you ponder a response to carry the day among you're online comrades, try not to let that flickering pilot light in your heart go out. I'm rooting for
you."

What is that supposed to mean?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

and the lawsuits. You will see medical prices plunge to basically what people paid 50 or 80 years ago. Ok, we need SOME insurance, such as catastrophic injuries, and we need SOME legal liability, but the reason costs are so high are insurance and lawsuits.

This country has everything backwards. The idea that we will "fix" this problem by offering MORE insurance is a joke.

Molon Labe!

A senior citizen will hit you with their cane if you overcharge them 25 cents for a bag of groceries but they don't bat an eyelash and actually brag how much insurance paid for their $15,000 hip replacement. OPM.

There are two topics that often get confused and blended. Insurance doesn't necessarily reduce medical costs, but is a way to pay for them.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Surgery denied to smoker in UK

A smoker in the UK has been denied needed surgery for a broken ankle because he is a heavy smoker and is told that it will not heal well. He must quit smoking before he can have the surgery. He says he's tried, but can't. So he's on daily morphine for pain. (If he ever quits smoking, will they help him kick the morphine habit, too?)

Hillarycare and Romneycare plans have been analogized to auto insurance. You have to buy auto insurance, don't you? (Yes, if you own a car, you do.) So we can mandate health insurance.

But there is another aspect to car ownership: inspection. You cannot legally drive if you don't take it in for regular inspection and fix the designated flaws. Drive without the sticker, and eventually you could lose your driving privileges or maybe even your car.

Hillary's plan has some kind of incentives for preventative medicine and encouraging healthy lifestyles. Insurance plans do already include that.

But what is the analogy for the mandatory state car inspection? We may all have to pay for bad drivers in a pooled risk, but there are legal ways of getting them off the road. How do you force unhealthy, trans-fat eating, Camels-smoking couch potatoes "off the road"?

Thanks for the link. I am going to add it to my problems with socialism collection.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I am a BIG fan of the trans-fats and I am not unhealthy nor a couch potato.

(I won't touch the camel-smoking bit, because I leave that for the smokers here to be offended by)

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

Bad assumption in the analogy: here in Oklahoma, the government did away with auto inspections several years ago due to abuse of the system. All you have to have is proof of liability insurance and a valid drivers license...

But the chances of obtaining life-preserving health care are better here than, say, Canada.

Aspirin in Canada may well be cheaper, though.

I seriously doubt that's what she meant and if she did not mean what she actually said but rather, as you suggest, intentionally said what she did not mean then I must say, "Thank you," for adding to the mountain of evidence of her arrogant, pathological lies.

She said:

Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick.

Which is a bald-faced lie.

Hebrews 11:8
Jeremiah 33:3

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

"...they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick"

Reread your quote. There is a strong implication of immediacy in that latter half of the quote. Moreover, there is no hint
of prevention of ailment in the quote. The quote claims people are sick (they have a condition), and then blam, these same people cannot get be cured do their lack of medical insurance (the implication is that they are turned away by the sellers of medical services)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I honestly believe something must be done to get these uninsured folks some sort of coverage, but let's be realistic.....I don't want my health insurance premiums to go up any more because I now have to share risk with millions more. I want the cost to go down, at the very least steady and quit rising meteorically, and I want to be able to pick my own doctor. Of course I dont have the answer, but I do know one thing for sure.....government care is NOT going to be the answer!! They can't even get a passport done in a reasonable amount of time....now they want to take on my doctor? No friggin way.....sorry Czar Clinton, but it ain't happening....

A lot of the self-insured are that way by deliberate choice.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Also are such because they came here (of their own free will) illegally and therefore can not get a job that provides coverage or qualify for Medicaid.

Knock 12MM illegals off the number of self-insured, you are down to about 35MM, which you are right includes a high number of healthy young people who could have some level of coverage but choose not to.

She really does not have much to lose with these types of statements.Those who like her do so based on a feeling about her. Ya' know if Oprah likes her-sheesh, everthing else people say is false; no matter how factually grounded.

On the travel office, she was "tough" not mean or heartless; ditto for any other similar behavior. On Hsu, geez how could you expect her to control that (never mind her statements when it occurs on the other side...something about culture of corruption). Her last failed attempt at national healthcare? Oh my, have you never heard of the VRWC?

There is no rational basis for Hillary Detached Reality Syndrome (HDRS). Her admirers could find out she was stealing from the treasury and pass it off as Lgood intentions".
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Comment #2 with my Comment #12.....

Hebrews 11:8
Jeremiah 33:3

inconvenient babies, old folks who are dying anyway, residents of leftwing totalitarian regimes who have been abandoned because of antiwar liberals, registered Democrats because it assures they will continue to vote for Democrats and zero population growth because humans have such a negative impact on the far more deserving organic and inorganic aspects of this Earth. So whats with the healthcare for everybody thing? Don't they know that Death Row inmates already get full health coverage?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

“With each passing day, the collectivist nightmare that is a Hillary Clinton presidency is crystallizing with frightening clarity,” Mr. Toomey continued. “If Hillary is indeed elected, we can expect greater regulation, higher prices, higher taxes, and less individual freedom for all Americans.”

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/09/hillarycare_20.php

You seem to be suggesting that Mrs. Clinton's telling a bald faced lie will somehow be a problem for her in some way.

Have you been following these people for the past 15 years? If it hasn't been a problem for them so far, why would it be now?

(something I never, ever thought I'd write)

it actually seems that her proposal is a lot closer to Romneycare than to HillaryCare 1993 edition. In fact, if I were forced to make a universal healthcare proposal, it would probably involve a lot of tax incentives and such (incidentally, how many things are "repealing Bush's tax cuts for the "rich"" paying for these days?)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

Now, maybe there are all kinds of details CNN didn't cover about price controls on prescription drugs and such. But at first glance, this doens't look like the giant government run HMO that Hillarycare was.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

I'm no fan of RomneyCare, but a key difference is that RomneyCare was private insurance. HillaryCare 2.0 is government insurance.

From the article, it looks like it is tax credits and subsidies for private insurance. Again, hard to tell without reading the plan, but this looks infinitely better than the bureaucratic mess that was HillaryCare 1.0.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

Went into the ER here Friday with a fever and abdominal pains. 52 hours later with: 4 blood lab workups, 1 SonoGram, 5 Digital X-Rays, 1 CatScan and 1 MRI -- it was determined that I probably had a virus and should rest, exercise regularly, eat a low fat diet and don't abuse alcohol.

Sounds to me like we have too much health care.

I went into the ER with severe abdominal pain and vomiting. I had a blood workup, a Urine analysis (after an IV was started), an X-ray. I was given 2 different drugs for nausia and vomiting. At about this point, the PA said that it could be just a stomache virus, she had treated several cases the night before. But they ordered a CT scan to rule out an obstructed bowel. And THEN they gave me demoral for pain. The CT showed something in my gall bladder. So a sonogram was ordered. The Dr. came back and said that I had "a ton of gallstones" I was admitted to the hospital that night . The nurse practically had to lift me into the bed I was so drugged. I met the surgeon Sunday, and had my gall bladder removed Monday afternoon and was home Tuesday Morning. It would have been Monday but I had no appetite.

I often wonder how long this surgery would have taken in the UK or Canada. The reason I had to wait so long for the procedure is I had the misfortune of getting sick on the weekend. Otherwise the surgery would have been the next day.

For what turned out to be the same thing. Went home Saturday morning and had to go back on Monday because they don't do non-emergency surgeries on weekends and seeing as a gallbladder removal is rarely, if ever an emergency...

Anyway, why'd they do all that work? You told them where the pain was, right? Why didn't they just do the CTScan right away? That's what happened with me (right after they stuck the Morphine into my IV).

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

I told them exactly were the pain was. (The upper right quadrant for anyone whose interested). I think they were confused since I didn't have a fever which is apparently a very common symptom of gall bladder disease.

I think part of the reason they kept is they were concerned about gangegreen and they wanted me to have the pain meds available. I basically had demoral and phenigran on demand the entire weekend.

Besides all they did before the CT was an X-Ray. And gave me nausia meds every time I vomited.

The worst part was trying to drink the dye for the CT scan, when I was throwing up everything I ingested.

Mine was pretty controllable, thanfully.

But while fever is common for gallbladder Disease, it's not so much for Gallstones. But pain in the upper right would be odd, seeing as the gallbladder is usually in the middle left. Pain is often in the back (which is what threw my docs off, they thought it was a kidney infection at first).

And gangrene with gallstones?
Sounds more to me like they wanted to milk your insurance company for every penny they could get...
...Unless your pain and nausea were just THAT bad that they wanted to keep you drugged the whole time.

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

The EMTALA provisions were enacted in order to guarantee that those who were emergently ill, or in labor, would have access to a physician for assessment and stabilization. These provisions were put in place because of multiple cases of denial of access because of inability to pay.

In context, EMTALA is properly seen as a lefty-liberal measure to help those who, at least temporarily, are unable to care for themselves.

The citation, on this blog, of a law with such a pure liberal pedigree, is hysterical.

These provisions were put in place because of multiple cases of denial of access because of inability to pay.

In context, EMTALA is properly seen as a lefty-liberal measure to help those who, at least temporarily, are unable to care for themselves.

See, there is no problem. You guys already fixed it.

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

It's a little long, I know, but please bear with me.

A universal, taxpayer-funded system that covers everyone and is adminstered by the government is not the answer. Letting people who are unable to get health insurance die is not the answer either.

Yes, there are cases of this happening. Yes, a hospital will "stabilize" you enough to send you on your way but they will not fight to eliminate/treat the cancer or whatever underlying condition you may have. Eventually, you'll be back in the ER, and may not make it out alive.

Now before you break out the pitchforks and tie me to the stake, allow me to elaborate.

What is the answer? First, let's address the problem. There are 5 types of people in the US:

1. Those with insurance (like me). 100% covered by premiums paid by myself and my employer. My medical care is top-notch.

2. Those who are on Medicaid. A very lousy form of "insurance" - few doctors accept it because it pays so little. Finding a good doctor who accepts Medicaid is a nightmare.

3. Those who have no access to health insurance and are ineligible for Medicaid. I've been there, done that.

4. Those who are self-insured. They really do have the $$ to cover any health-care cost should it arrive so they have nothing to worry about. If I had a couple million in the bank, I would gladly count myself among these ranks.

5. Those who can buy health insurance but are too ignorant or too stupid to get health insurance. I used to be among these ranks - I thought I was invincible - until I really needed it.

For the sake of arguement, we can elimintate #'s 1, 2, 4, and 5. They all have access, in one way or another, to health care. Medicaid, as I've pointed out, is pretty lousy but it can (and should) be improved. This leaves only # 3, those who have no access to health insurance and are ineligible for Medicaid.

Now what do we do about these folks who cannot afford health insurance and are ineligible for Medicaid? I think the answer is rather simple. In fact, we can even take better care of those on Medicaid with this same idea.

Combine the Medicaid recipients with the unable-to-afford-insurance crowd and give them the ability to POOL THEIR MONEY and buy their own insurance plan. Granted, they don't have a lot of money to begin with, but I think a small monthly fee (say, $20 or $30?) paid by tens of millions of people can buy a fairly decent health plan. After all, not all of them are going to need a doctor. But when they do, at least they will have one they can go to.

Now I know this idea seems a little oversimplified and quite frankly I don't have to time nor expertise to research this thoroughly enough to know if such a solution is viable. However I do believe in the power of the free market. I also know that compound interest can make saved ("unused") money can grow like a weed.

What is the alternative?

Well, we could just expand (AND MEANS TEST LIKE CRAZY) Medicaid and Medicare. [By the way, means-testing Medicare and Social Security is something I think we should already be doing but that's another subject for another day.]

Or, we could do HillaryCare.

Given the choices between expanding Medicaid and enacting Hillarycare, I'll take the latter. I prefer my idea though - giving the poor the power to buy their own coverage by pooling their own money. Would it require gov't subsidy? Maybe, I don't know. But even if it did, I think the end result would be a much better idea than HillaryCare and I think it would be a much smaller burden on the taxpayer than what we currently have.

Whatever we do, we must do something. We MUST come up with a solution of SOME KIND. I'm talking about a solution we can sell to the electorate. We could always tell them, "stuff it - what we have now is good enough" but unfortunately that's not going to wash.

Democrats are experts at creating crises and victims and our party is often quite content to just say "forget it - nothing is wrong". While we are usually right, we must become better at offering SOLUTIONS that involve the private sector (rather than government) and we MUST become better at selling our ideas to (or educating) the general public. If we don't, we may as well prepare for 40 more years in the wilderness as the Socialists continue to take over the Democrat party, expand, and eventually rule us all.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Granted, they don't have a lot of money to begin with, but I think a small monthly fee (say, $20 or $30?) paid by tens of millions of people can buy a fairly decent health plan. After all, not all of them are going to need a doctor. But when they do, at least they will have one they can go to.

Multiply that $20 or $30 by about 15 and strike the words "fairly decent" and you have a much more realistic target. Of course if these people were willing to spend that kind of dough, they could get some kind of limited coverage right now. It's not going to be 15x cheaper because government is involved.

Well, we could just expand (AND MEANS TEST LIKE CRAZY) Medicaid and Medicare.

Medicaid is already MEANS TESTED LIKE CRAZY which is where your #3 point comes in. We would just eliminate Medicare if we were serious about means testing, since seniors can still qualify for Medicaid. There's no age limit on Medicaid.

Would it require gov't subsidy? Maybe, I don't know.

It would, and a massive one at that.

But even if it did, I think the end result would be a much better idea than HillaryCare

Expanding entitlement coverage is how we get to HillaryCare. A very large portion of our health care system is already socialized (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). At some point it will just make more sense to eliminate the competing government programs and roll them into one massive government takeover of health care. Then we can ration care to make ends meet. I'm not optimistic about ending up with anything other than a socialized system. It could've been averted in the 50s. Maybe even in the 60s. I think we are well past the point of no return now.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Multiply that $20 or $30 by about 15 and strike the words "fairly decent" and you have a much more realistic target. Of course if these people were willing to spend that kind of dough, they could get some kind of limited coverage right now. It's not going to be 15x cheaper because government is involved.

I don’t know about that. A company that employs 2000 people at a cost (shared by both employer and employee of about $300/mo. – a fair estimate) doesn’t have near the buying power of say, 40 million people. Can the theoretical 15 be eliminated by the sheer numbers of participants in the plan?

Well, we could just expand (AND MEANS TEST LIKE CRAZY) Medicaid and Medicare.

Medicaid is already MEANS TESTED LIKE CRAZY which is where your #3 point comes in. We would just eliminate Medicare if we were serious about means testing, since seniors can still qualify for Medicaid. There's no age limit on Medicaid.

Agreed.

Would it require gov't subsidy? Maybe, I don't know.

It would, and a massive one at that.

Perhaps, but I don’t think it would near the amount HillaryCare would. After all, we would have all that money coming in (AND BEING INVESTED) by the participants. And, as the crux of my plan, this would not apply to ALL Americans but only those (#3) and the ones on Medicaid.

I think we are well past the point of no return now.

Agreed. But does this mean we just give up? I think doing nothing is disastrous. The cat is already out of the bag. I would much rather go back to a system where we had people becoming members of private lodges that provided such benefits. Can we bring such a system back? I doubt it. But what can we do that's better than what we have?

The whole argument I present can be summed up with this: I think we can (and must) find away to cover those who cannot cover themselves and at the same time, allow those of us who can cover ourselves, continue to do so. For the most part, we already have this. It's the #3 folks that I cited before that are fuel for the fire for the liberal socialists. We must find a way to extinguish that fire without extinguishing everyone else in the process. We have to.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Buying power is moot. The problem is that the costs of medical care are skyrocketing. No amount of buying power will be able to keep up with the continuation of the current rate of increase in costs (in the long term). The situation will not get materially better until medical care becomes a free market, that is just an economic reality. In consequence I have constructing this list of changes to our current system that should apply downward pressure to medical costs via free market reforms.

1. Increase the availability of over the counter (OTC) products. If the product is not a narcotic, steroid, or antibiotic the product should be OTC legal. This will significantly lower the costs of many medications.

2. Tort Reform: damage caps and a loser pays system will lower health care costs be a few percentage points.

3. Remove legal restrictions that impede the creation of "Docboxes," such as Wall-Mart's Independent in Store Clinics and Walgreen's Convenient Care Clinics. These clinics provide cheap diagnosis and treatment of common medical problems.

4. Allow individuals to purchase what ever type of medical insurance that they want. Currently many states require consumers of health insurance to purchase many additional products under their health insurance plans (mental health coverage, birth control coverage, etc.) these requirements significantly increase the costs of those plans.

5. Expand the availability of HSAs.

6. Use "Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners...as primary care providers."

7. Increase transparency of medical prices.

P.S. I am always looking for additions to this list.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I don’t know about that. A company that employs 2000 people at a cost (shared by both employer and employee of about $300/mo. – a fair estimate) doesn’t have near the buying power of say, 40 million people. Can the theoretical 15 be eliminated by the sheer numbers of participants in the plan?

I work for a company that size and we pay over $1,000 a month for for family coverage (total cost). Single coverage is over $400 a month. And these are not great plans that pay for everything. There are much more expensive plans available.

"Buying power" is not the issue. The issue is $30 won't even begin to cover the payouts that would be required to cover that many people. Health care is extremely expensive. In any group there will be people who don't use it, but there will also be people racking up five and six figure health care bills. Unless of course, you put low lifetime reimbursement caps on the policies, but that kinda defeats the purpose, as you will have people who are capped out and without coverage.

And, as the crux of my plan, this would not apply to ALL Americans but only those (#3) and the ones on Medicaid.

Unless #3 is as awful as Medicaid, there will be lots of people dropping out of employer plans and lots of employers dropping their plans or cutting back on their contributions, as employees have a decent alternative that they won't have to pay for. You still get to the socialized system. It's just split into 4 separate plans with all the inefficiencies inherent in that, instead of being rolled into 1.

I think we can (and must) find away to cover those who cannot cover themselves and at the same time, allow those of us who can cover ourselves, continue to do so.

One way or another, that results in some kind of HillaryCare. A massive new government program or an expansion of an existing one to cover these additional people (and a whole bunch more that will come along for the ride, if it's cheap enough and usable) will lead to this. The more people you have receiving government health care, the more votes there will be to expand it. You don't defuse issues by surrendering on them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I know the MSM does not want anyone to know this, but a lot of the number three's have made a deliberate rational choice to be self-insured (better name than uninsured) I can afford and am eligible for a health scam, I mean health insurance plan, but I realize that it is not in my best interest. I am not alone in this choice, by the most conservative estimates I have heard there are at least 14 to 20 million of us in the USA.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Major medical plans run $75-$275 a month for a 40yr old man depending on deductible. Pretty cheap insurance against a major event. States such as Minnesota have programs for low income families. A family of 5 can get 3 people covered for 500 a month and the income limit allows you to make $5,000 gross income a month. Costs for this plan drop to less than $10 a month if you have little income.

Many people who say they can't afford health coverage just aren't looking real hard or just assume coverage is too expensive and don't even look.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

This has got to be one of the most uninformed RedState posts ever. People aren’t dying because they don’t have access to emergency care – people (in redstates AND bluestates) are dying because they cannot afford either health insurance coverage premiums or preventative care. EMTALA doesn’t cover mammograms or pap smears or colonoscopies or even a simple blood test. If you actually read the law, it specifically bars hospitals from refusing “emergency treatment.” It also provides hospitals with numerous loopholes which permit them to refuse treatment to dying patients if another hospital is better prepared to accept emergency patients. “No such thing exists; at least not in this country”… are you kidding? Seriously, have you never been to a rural hospital emergency room where folks are admitted with Stage 4 cancer under EMTALA, who might not be in need life-saving care if they could have afforded an annual physical? “People are dying” hardly seems like a careless statement for a Presidential candidate to make when it’s true (the author’s assertion that her statement is “demonstrably false” doesn’t make it so – especially when he fails to back it up with anything resembling facts). Hillary’s plan might be wrongheaded and unworkable but at least she’s addressing a real problem. Whoever wins the election next year better be able to get their head out of Iraq for a moment and get back to some of the real problems here at home. And, by the way, “hyperbole” is a device used to provide emphasis in a way that’s clearly not meant to be taken literally – like “it’s hot as hell.” Hillary’s statement is not hyperbole (although kudos to the author for trying to sound persuasive by using an SAT word). While it’s true that “People are dying” may well be dripping with pathos, it hardly invalidates her arguments. If that were true, the author’s argument would be on very shaky ground indeed.

Mary C

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service