From: Jack Hollis on
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:38:51 -0500, "R&B"
<none_of_your_business(a)> wrote:

>Do a little digging. You'll find that the only way it ever happens is
>if the person first divests himself of all his assets. ALL his assets.
> Home. Car. Belongings. EVERYTHING. Only then will they take you.
>You have to be completely destitute before the city (or county)
>hospital will take you. And there are plenty of other hospitals that
>simply won't.

This is complete rubbish.

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. �
1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as
part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It
requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone
needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship,
legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.
As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be
discharged only under their own informed consent or when their
condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to
administer the treatment."
From: Jack Hollis on
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:53:30 -0500, "R&B"
<none_of_your_business(a)> wrote:

>So in effect, a 40-seat minority in the Senate has effectively blocked
>the will of the people that was expressed on election day 2008, when we
>voted for sweeping change, and, for all intents and purposes, somehow
>reversed the outcome of the election.

Forty senators can't block anything. It was the Democrats that failed
to get things done. They had a sixty vote majority and didn't need
even one Republican vote to pass anything they wanted to pass.
From: R&B on
On 2010-01-20 18:08:47 -0500, dene said:

> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
> news:2010012017385143658-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>> On 2010-01-20 14:45:13 -0500, Howard Brazee said:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:37:09 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
>>> <frostback2002(a)> wrote:
>>>> With respect to reality, about 85% or so of Americans have health
>>>> insurance, and about that same number, 85% are happy with it. About
>>>> 10% or so can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it,
>>>> leaving about 5% or so who want the insurance but can't afford it. So
>>>> how much do we sell out the interests of the 95% for the sake of 5%?
>>>> If *YOU* want health insurance, *YOU* can buy it. Who else is supposed
>>>> to pay for your insurance?
>>> Don't forget that the 10% without health insurance get treated anyway
>>> when they need expensive care, and the hospitals include their costs
>>> in what they charge the rest of us.
>> This is one of the great myths out there.
>> Do a little digging. You'll find that the only way it ever happens is
>> if the person first divests himself of all his assets. ALL his assets.
>> Home. Car. Belongings. EVERYTHING. Only then will they take you.
>> You have to be completely destitute before the city (or county)
>> hospital will take you. And there are plenty of other hospitals that
>> simply won't.
> Name the hospital that turns away people at the door.

The hospital near me is one such hospital.

Here in the Atlanta area, everyone knows that if you're uninsured and
need a procedure, the only place you can go is the city hospital (I
forget the name of it -- it's downtown).

> While you are at it, explain why this person doesn't have health insurance
> or public assistance?

A colleague of mine died recently at this city hospital. I'd known OF
him years ago, though we were never friends. Someone I'd known of in
radio, who, at one time, was something of a big name guy in radio.
Sad, but his career spiraled downward, and then I (and probably a lot
of other people) lost track of him. Then I heard that he'd died
recently. Word was, he could no longer find employment in his field
(not surprising, given how the radio industry has been downsized since
the Reagan Administration's decisions gutted the industry to where it's
now just a shadow of its former self). Story I heard from his friends
was that he had to go through a process of losing everything before
they'd admit him.

For the record, I had double surgery myself a few months ago. This is
the first time I've mentioned it publicly. So I have become intimately
familiar with the health care system. I'm still going through the
process of finding out how much, if any, my "limited benefits" plan is
going to pay. But during the lead-up to surgery, I explored all
options. That's when I learned about the whole
you-have-to-be-totally-broke-before-they'll-take-you thing. Needless
to say, that wasn't an option for me. I've worked too hard and too
long building up my assets (studio equipment, all my belongings, etc.)
just to sell it all off and declare bankruptcy so I could be admitted
to a hospital. Instead, I figured that if my "limited benefits plan"
even refuses to pay a dime, the worst that can happen is that I'll have
what amounts to a second car payment for a few years while I pay it
down. There are worse things that could happen to me. But I'm lucky.
I actually have an income that can withstand such a hit. Not everyone
is so fortunate.

And unlike you, I actually care about them.

> Do some digging of your own instead of repeating
> liberal rhetoric.

Dene, I've actually lived through it. I've been to hell and back in
the past few months dealing with the health care system. And I'm still
dealing with it now. And no, while I know this will disappoint you, my
procedures were in no way life-threatening. They were, however,
painful as hell from which to recover. I was in bed for the better
part of five weeks. Still dealing with a few side-effects, although
I'm much, much better now.

> The answer is quite common and simple. They were rolling
> the dice and lost.

That is such an unfair generalization.

The fact is, Dene, for people who work for an employer who provides
health care, it's pretty easy. The benefits are either paid for by
their employer, or a portion of the premium comes out of their gross
salary. Either way, it's out of sight, out of mind. Easy. But for
those of us who are self-employed and don't have the buying power of a
major corporation, we deal with all the exclusions -- no pre-existing
conditions, etc. -- that "employer-based health care" does not.

The very fact that this hits the small businessman, like myself, the
hardest is ironic, considering the fact that it is, in essence, a "tax"
on small businesses, or worse, is simply a deterrant to being an
entrepreneur in the first place.

> Meanwhile, if a person is in need of a transplant, I'm not sure exactly
>> how he's going to go through the process of selling everything he owns
>> on eBay and moving (to live under a bridge?) just so the hospital will
>> take him.
>> You guys who keep using this argument don't know the first thing about it.
> People who render service have the right to be paid for their services.

Of course they do. No one has argued otherwise.

The question is who should pay for it.

I believe we're all better off if we all share that cost. The fact is,
we all share the cost already. It's just that right now, the cost is
exhorbitantly higher because the system encourages people to remain
outside the system, and then we end up paying the highest possible cost
when they show up in the emergency room. That's why I believe in
single payor. Do I believe there are concerns about single payor that
would have to be hammered out before the nation would be willing to buy
into such a plan? Absolutely. But I think that if single payor is the
starting point, we could get there. I don't think we can get there
from the system we use now.

By adopting single payor, everyone would have equal access to the same
quality of health care, instead of giving preferential treatment to
those who earn the most money. In situations where the patient is
battling life-threatending disease, it's simply wrong to deem that a
rich Bernie Madoff (before he went to jail) should have preferred
access to a higher quality of health care than an honest, hard-working
mother of 3 who earns only $25,000 a year. That's just immoral and
wrong at its core. Yet that's exactly what we have right now, and it's
exactly what we'll always have as long as we're operating within an
insurance-based health care system.


From: R&B on
On 2010-01-20 18:36:01 -0500, dene said:

> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
> news:2010012017594311272-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>> On 2010-01-20 15:42:22 -0500, MNMikeW said:
>>>> There isn't a hell hot enough for the likes of you. But I'm betting
>>>> one > is being prepared for you right now.
>>>> Randy
>>> You do realize your credibility goes right down the toilet with your
>>> textbook rants like this. Not that you had much to begin with.
>> I stand by every word of it.
>> Insurance companies are responsible for more American deaths each year
>> than the terrorists. Through recission, exclusion and discriminatory
>> policies that prevent Americans from receiving the health care the
>> need, companies like Aetna, United, Blue Cross and the rest render
>> "death panel" decisions that play a direct role in more American deaths
>> each year than you can attribute to terrorists. That's an irrefutable
>> fact, sir.
>> But at least the terrorists do it for some religious belief, however
>> perverted it might be. Insurance companies do it for money.
>> The fact that you don't find such a thing reprehensible tells me all I
>> need to know about you.
>> Randy
> Again....pure unsubstantiated, irrational rhetoric. It's like saying all
> cops are bad because there are a few bad ones out there. The fact is that
> virtually all claims are paid without question, which is precisely why the
> vast majority of Americans are happy with their plan and want to keep it as
> is. They just want lower premiums.

Wait a minute.

Most claims are filed on routine health care procedures. Routine
physicals. Put a cast on the kid's broken arm. Stitch up the leg
where it sustained a wound.

There's no reason why people wouldn't be happy with their health
insurance as long as it pays on those procedures.

What I'm talking about is when the patient is suffering from real
life-threatening illness. That's when insurance companies get the
jitters and start looking for ways to get out of the deal. You and I
both know this is true. Hell, the insurance company executives
ADMITTED IT UNDER OATH in front of Congress last year!!!!!!!!!!!! And
when pressed by Congressional questioners as to whether they would stop
the policy, these same insurance company executives said they would NOT.

So don't tell me this stuff doesn't happen. Insurance companies
themselves have admitted they do.

> Frankly, your rant is hypocritical. By your own admission, you choose to
> not buy health insurance, therefore becoming a problem instead of being part
> of a solution.

That's simply factually false.

> Who is going to pay for your stroke, i.e. your decision to
> overeat and hyperventilate? Me....along with millions of responsible,
> insured Americans. You have no business criticizing any insurance company
> or those who are willing to provide insurance for themselves, dependents, or
> employees.

My suggestion to you is, if you're going to use someone as an example,
try talking about someone about whom you have actual knowledge, rather
than imagined information. You don't know me. We've never met. And
you have no idea what my health situation is, was, or will be.


From: Howard Brazee on
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:18:35 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
<frostback2002(a)> wrote:

>> Don't forget that the 10% without health insurance get treated anyway
>> when they need expensive care, and the hospitals include their costs
>> in what they charge the rest of us.
> So someone gets run over by a bus and we are supposed to leave them
>on the street? Or somehow we are going to not send them to an
>emergency room? What fraction of that 10% needs such care per year
>anyways? It's a very small fraction of the total cost of healthcare,
>and no reason to sell out the interests of the 90%.
>IMHO, just pass a law that says you can't bankruptcy your way out of
>hospital bills and make 'em pay.

If the poor can't bankruptcy themselves out of bills, then the rich
will have a harder time persuading Congress that they should be able
to do so.

Nah, won't happen. So with the current system, we are paying for
them. Saying that we need to keep our old system so we don't have
to pay for them in a new system doesn't make sense.

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison