I guess I'll never understand your side of the argument.
Finally! We agree on something!
samhill wrote: But to ask a question of jpete, why don`t you do some research on Japans UHC ? From everything I`ve been able to find It`s a pretty good system.
More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three times by Japanese hospitals before getting treatment in 2007, according to the latest government survey. In the worst case, a woman in her 70s with a breathing problem was rejected 49 times in Tokyo
stockingfull wrote:All this happened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the good old United States of America, under the wonderful private healthcare system that all the freepers here think is so freaking great.
stockingfull wrote:I'm sorry for your loss too, Jim.
My best friend died 12 yrs ago, age 45, from multiple myeloma. He was a partner at one of the BIG accounting firms, making a ton, and supposedly had great coverage. Took a while to diagnose it because he wasn't in the statistically likely age group. Bottom line: he needed a bone marrow transplant and the HMO kept him waiting for what proved to be fatal weeks while they "investigated" whether the (very expensive) treatment was "efficacious."
By the time they approved it, he had lost critical time and was too weak to survive it. He died in the hospital, two days after the procedure.
All this happened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the good old United States of America, under the wonderful private healthcare system that all the freepers here think is so freaking great.
He left a wife and three daughters. They're OK, but he never got to know his (now six) grandchildren.
But I bet he's smiling somewhere if he can see all the insurance boyz, as Rush puts it, "grabbing their socks."
samhill wrote:I got my info from a NPR(national public radio) website & it claims no system is perfect but does give a lot of pro`s to it, the biggest problem according to the article is that it`s too cheap so it is hurting some hosipitals. I was just curious as to where you get all your info about how many times people were rejected & the such?
samhill wrote:I read that. Then I checked the msn site for other articles & my site was listed there so I guess it all depends on where or when you look. At least that guy was picked up & they tried to find him a hospital. Where was it N.Y. city or somewhere here in the states where they just let a guy lay & tried to drive around him.
AUSTRALIANS have been refused insurance protection because of their genetic make-up, researchers have shown in the first study in the world to provide proof of genetic discrimination.
coalkirk wrote:Jon your example is exactly the reason that a Universal Healthcare system would be a disaster. Imagine that senario or similar ones multipled by millions. That's not idle speculation. People who can afford it travel here from other countries with socialized medicine because they can't get the care they need in a timely manner. The others, well they die.
Oh and why was Jims' buddies bill $28,000.00 per day? Here's a couple reasons. Because we're paying for healthcare for 30 million illegal aliens and because docs are afraid not to run every test known to them to avoid getting sued by a damn lawyer. Immigration reform and tort reform would go a long way toward solving our healthcare problems. Think that's going to happen under Obama, Pelosi and Reid? And before anyone gets in a snit, Bush was just as bad on immigration. Too much political correctness is contributing to bringing out country to its knees.
stockingfull wrote:Actually, Terry, first we're not talking about "socialized medicine." We're talking about preventative care provided with the insurance company profits taken off the top. Second, I'd match those insurance company profits against the aggregate cost of tort cases, to say nothing of whatever savings "tort reform" measures might claim. It's the classic con by the chamber of commerce and it's not going to fly this time.
I'm glad to see you read your "Rom" talking points memo regarding not referring to this system as socialized medicine.
Would UHC have made the difference for my late buddy? Who knows? But it sure wasn't some "gov't bureaucrat" who killed him, it was some faceless clown in Dayton, Ohio, paid by a profit-making insurance company to say "no." So enough with the BS that only "socialized" systems ration care.
Sure, all insurance companies, including the one you work for, are profit making. The point is the percentage of health care recipients who are rationed care will by many times higher. And to be completley accurate, I don't think anyone killed your friend. Sadly his cancer caused his death. The faceless clown in Dayton, Ohio may have hastened it and that's tragic. I'm worried about all the additional hastenings that will be part of rationing care under "Universal Health Care"
Regarding the UHC debate, to me, the greatest gift this President brings to the office is what he exhibited when he went to dinner with Kristol, Will, Krauthamer, Brooks, et al, back in January. Because he's trained in forensics and able to absorb material so quickly, he can go toe to toe with his adversaries, just like he used to do with the conservatives at the Harvard Law Review. So he'll invite the insurance companies into the room, just like he did last week, but that doesn't mean that he'll buy everything they're selling. This time around, it's not lobbyist vs. lobbyist; facts will talk and BS will walk.
Damn!!! He sounds like a Maverick!!
That's why the insurance companies are "grabbing their socks," as Rush puts it.