News and Politics Forum

axe wrote:

Do you see this as any worse than basing the quality of treatment upon a person's ability to cough up money? Would you be so nonchalant about the rich guy with Parkinson's getting outstanding care, while a single mother can't get treatment for her breast cancer?

What is the single mother's name?  The one who is not getting care for her breast cancer?

Paul, just those issues play out in Parialment.

axe wrote:

Do you see this as any worse than basing the quality of treatment upon a person's ability to cough up money?

It doesn't differ the the way you suggest.  In the single payer system, all care is contingent on the ability to "cough up" money.  The difference is that the government takes your money, then decides whether it will "cough up" for the treatment you think you need.

Having the government decide what you need is much worse than you deciding what you need.

Do you see this as any worse than basing the quality of treatment upon a person's ability to cough up money?

Yes.

A person's ability to cough up money is generally based on two things - their contributions to society, and that of their family members/loved ones.  It's not a 100% rule, sometimes people with no social value are rich, but that's usually because someone they were related/close to gave it to them.  I don't think it is inappropriate that a person's contributions to society and capacity to be productive members of society be a factor in receiving those limited resources.

It's a hell of a lot better than a nameless government bureaucrat deciding it based on which way today's political winds are blowing.

Qwinn

P.S.  In total agreement with zuk's point as well, in fact, his point is definitely a superior argument to mine.

Last edited by Qwinn (07-24-2008 02:43 PM)

axe wrote:

Raoul Duke wrote:

What is the single mother's name?  The one who is not getting care for her breast cancer?

http://www.reality-check.ca/images/smilies/confused.gif

And who changed my user title to "Pierre"? What does that even mean?

I'm just curious about specific instances where a single mother with breast cancer is getting no care due to her inability to pay.  I figured since you mentioned a single mother who doesn't get treatment you must have a specific case.

ETA:  I hear scenarios like this - always with very sympathetic protagonists - where people are not getting any care for serious conditions and just would like to see the specifics of the cases.

Last edited by Raoul Duke (07-24-2008 02:44 PM)

The biggest problem with our HC system is a shortage of doctors resulting in long waiting lists, not the outright absence of care.

lolwut?

EDIT:  Yeah, sorry, I didn't get that because I also fail to see the distinction between care delayed and care denied.

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (07-24-2008 02:45 PM)

NPR did a story this morning comparing two people with MS and the treatment they received; one in the US and one in the UK. The piece was very sympathetic to the UK model - surprise, surprise... But here's my question:

The person in the US lost his job after his illness was diagnosed and as a result, lost his health insurance which in turn led to him paying out of pocket, lost his home, etc, etc... Now... Is it legal, even in right to work states, to fire an employee because of a disability? Because everything bad that happened to him (besides the actual disease of course) seem to hinge on him losing his job.

Qwinn wrote:

I take it you didn't read the article by William Saletan then that Mona Charen linked to?  Or is it that one that you think makes no sense?

Qwinn

Because the opinion of one random American on the innartubes carries a lot of weight?..

T wrote:

Seabird wrote:

Now... Is it legal, even in right to work states, to fire an employee because of a disability? Because everything bad that happened to him (besides the actual disease of course) seem to hinge on him losing his job.

You can't fire someone for being sick or having a disability. The FMLA protects you and your immediate family and dependants.

If that's true, then there's something about their story that doesn't add up.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … d=92067101

He eventually lost his job, and he couldn't pay for his health insurance on his own.


I skimmed the article but it doesn't seem to mention why he lost his job.

The article says he has MS

This is what I have a problem with

Rubin did get Medicaid, state medical assistance, but none of his doctors belonged to the program.

Get new doctors.

When he went to fill his prescriptions, the pharmacies said he wasn't covered.

Uh...what? It says right there you have medicaid and state medical assistance. Why didn't you figure it out or go to a different pharmacy who would help you?

He stopped paying his mortgage so he could pay some of his medical bills. Then the mortgage company claimed his house.

Most mortgage companies have a rider on your contract that gives you over a years worth of deferrance on your loan if you encounter a medical hardship. It's not hard to do, just call them and ask.

It sounds to me like someone didn't do their homework. I feel for the guy but I have a feeling some of this could have been prevented by use of common sense and a telephone.

edit- ANOTHER thing

Recently, Kristin Rubin got a job with the charter school the kids attend, and the family now has health insurance through her job. But the insurance comes with co-payments, and since Jeff gets a lot of care, the co-payments add up.

If she is a teacher, chances are she has a PPO, which has a maximun out of pocket expense for co-pays and for prescriptions/procedures. It's usually less than 1500 dollars or so. So after that is paid, you shouldn't have to pay much at all, if anything.

This article is one of the worst I have ever read.

Last edited by T (07-24-2008 03:26 PM)

Thundersnow wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

If that bureaucrat concludes that there need only be one MRI machine for every 200,000, you aren't going to get an MRI the day it is prescribed.

This assumes an arbitrary decision without factual basis.

No, it doesn't.

Who decides how many MRIs there will be in Canada (for people, not animals)?  The government.

Do you have to wait more than a day for your needed MRI in most of Canada?  Yes.

Why?  There aren't enough.

Why?  See first answer above.

zukiphile wrote:

Who decides how many MRIs there will be in Canada (for people, not animals)?  The government.

Do you have to wait more than a day for your needed MRI in most of Canada?  Yes.

Why?  There aren't enough.

Why?  See first answer above.

The government health board is made up of doctors and people who are qualified to administer health care. A lack of needed equipment could be attributable to a lack of funds. 'Government' often implies uninformed politico, which may not be the case.