Health care - administrative incompetence

bookitty said:
She didn't. That's why she paid for insurance. When she was diagnosed with cancer, the insurance company called it a pre-existing condition and dropped her. It took time before she had disability/COBRA/medicaid sorted out. Then she got treatment. Of course it was stage IV when it was diagnosed so basically she died.
Click to expand...

Ok, so she was going to die anyway. Sorry, but she shouldn't expect free money so she could live a little bit longer.

bookitty said:
But how many children in the UK are uninsured, under-insured or don't have access to medical care? Zero. Compared to 11 million in the US.
Click to expand...

Please don't bring up the emotional appeal "What about the children?" **** the children, they are immaterial to the discussion.
 
TFian said:
Ok, so she was going to die anyway. Sorry, but she shouldn't expect free money so she could live a little bit longer.
Click to expand...

Actually, when she was diagnosed they gave her a 20% chance of beating it. By the time she got treatment it was 5%

She and her employers paid for health insurance for nearly 35 years. So yes, she should have expected coverage when she needed it.

Here's an article about her insurance company losing the legal battle to deny coverage to 700 patients. Of course, she was dead by then.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/01...a-restores-insurance-for-patients-it-dropped/


TFian said:
Please don't bring up the emotional appeal "What about the children?" **** the children, they are immaterial to the discussion.
Click to expand...

11 million children without access to a doctor is immaterial to whether or not the US needs universal health care?
 
TFian said:
And if she weren't taxed for third world NHS care, she would have afforded it just fine.
Click to expand...

The WHOLE NHS costs, per capita and in terms of GPD, what we pay for Medicare and Medicaid ALONE.

So, how does your hypothesis work?
 
I have to ask, whee does the 'government' get involved in healthcare in universal type systems?

I know in the UK and Canada, they have a (very long) list of things that are approved for care, but it is the doctors and the hospitals that make the decisions. As I understand, approval for treatment does not have to go to the government..

Unlike in he US, where approval does have to go back to the insurance company.
 
TFian said:
I do not know.
Click to expand...

Zero children in South Africa have no access to health care. Their public system is underfunded and short staffed but it is there. South Africa has managed to do this on 6% of their GDP or $437 per capita.

The US spends 15.2% of the GDP on health care, or $6,347 per capita and still can't get basic care for 11 million children.
 
bookitty said:
Zero children in South Africa have no access to health care. Their public system is underfunded and short staffed but it is there. South Africa has managed to do this on 6% of their GDP or $437 per capita.

The US spends 15.2% of the GDP on health care, or $6,347 per capita and still can't get basic care for 11 million children.
Click to expand...

We have too many kids anyway.
 
TFian said:
The world is overpopulated as it is. We're reaching ecological limits, in population and resource consumption.
Click to expand...

Either you're a troll, or you're one of the most sociopathic rightwingers I've ever encountered.

Is advocating the death of children for the purpose of population control via denial of health care even allowed by the forum rules?

Holy hell.

You have to be a troll.

Right?
 
TFian said:
The world is overpopulated as it is. We're reaching ecological limits, in population and resource consumption.
Click to expand...

Heard that before. A few billion people before. We figured out how to feed them, and other nations have figured out how to care for them. We're the ones falling behind, even Third World nations are catching up to us.
 
kellyb said:
Either you're a troll, or you're one of the most sociopathic rightwingers I've ever encountered.

Is advocating the death of children for the purpose of population control via denial of health care even allowed by the forum rules?

Holy hell.

You have to be a troll.

Right?
Click to expand...

I'm not "advocating for the death of children", I am simply stating that we have too many children. Because so, I don't think we should prioritize or fund child healthcare programs, which in the end help to kill our planet.
 
TFian said:
I'm not "advocating for the death of children", I am simply stating that we have too many children. Because so, I don't think we should prioritize or fund child healthcare programs, which in the end help to kill our planet.
Click to expand...

You have to be a troll. Actual rightwingers know about how (horribly and frighteningly) off the left wing was over the predicted population crisis.
 
kellyb said:
You have to be a troll. Actual rightwingers know about how (horribly and frighteningly) off the left wing was over the predicted population crisis.
Click to expand...

Then they were right. I'm not a "right winger', or a "left winger", those labels mean nothing to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom