This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Racism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
What I don't think a lot of people know, who don't live in the US, is that if someone goes to the emergency room in a hospital, the hospital is required to treat them- BY LAW- regardless of their ability to pay. They can still bill them afterwards, but they can't deny them treatment. Because of this people go there for things like toothaches, the flu, colds, etc. that would normally be seen by a general practitioner or a dentist. Also, many hospitals have internal programs to forgive a portion- sometimes a large portion- of medical bills if the patient can show that they are financially limited.
Also, Medicaid exists for people who accrue significant medical bills without insurance, people who have government assisted income, and live below a certain income level, in order to allow more regular treatment even if they can't afford it.
There are also a number of either Free or Sliding Scale health clinics in the US, that allow people to go and get seen and treated at fairly low costs, rather than having to pay monthly for insurance.
I know from personal experience that often doctors who know you have no insurance will give you a bunch of pharmaceutical samples they have, rather than a prescription, so that you don't have to pay for medication. Also, many pharmacies have programs and prescription cards that someone can qualify for if they have no insurance- and don't have to pay for at all- that allow them to get significant discounts on medications.
I agree that there needs to be a way to keep the medical industry in check, because between them and the insurance companies, the pricing has gotten way out of hand. I certainly agree that, as with things like roads, utilities, the post office, etc. this is an area where government regulation is in the best interest of the population as a whole. Not that they should provide it for free, but that they should rein in the inflated costs and bring the industry back under control. To some extent, they have programs that do this, but there needs to be more. But in a realistic approach to the situation, exaggerating things doesn't help anyone, and people who say that you can't get treated in the US without money or insurance is just not accurate. There are a lot of solutions already out there for people who look for them.
Post by
MyTie
-
Although I agree, I don't think this has anything to do with Racism.
Post by
Patty
Yeah, because I forgot that the UK, Canada, almost the entire EU, Australia, New Zealand etc. were all Communists. My bad.
Communists? Who said anything about communists. By the way I heard the UK is going back into another recession. How's that going for ya? OH, and Canadian politicans/rich people come to US for healthcare....
Oh, and the "EU".... That's funny.
Now let's get back on topic.
I agree that it's off-topic, because it's not
racism
. It's another form of discrimination. I felt the need to point out that a nationalised healthcare =/= lowered standards of care, because that's simply not true, as Scandinavian countries in particular have shown. And to be honest, where I live has continuously been in recession since early '09. I'm not a part of the mainland UK. But I doubt that the NHS is the reason for that any way. I like the way you qualified your point regarding the EU, it was very illuminating.
Post by
MyTie
Discrimination.... based on financial status I'm guessing? Not based on race?
Get out of my thread.
Post by
gamerunknown
you can't get treated in the US without money or insurance is just not accurate.
Where was that posted? I don't think facing bankruptcy due to being unable to afford medical costs is a better solution. My sister was born with cysts on her lungs and that's the option my family would have had if we were living in the US most likely: bankruptcy or death.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
you can't get treated in the US without money or insurance is just not accurate.
Where was that posted? I don't think facing bankruptcy due to being unable to afford medical costs is a better solution. My sister was born with cysts on her lungs and that's the option my family would have had if we were living in the US most likely: bankruptcy or death.
That's why my last paragraph was about how the government needed to step in and fix the inflated pricing.
I was responding to people discussing a case where a woman died because her "boob fell off" (their quote) because she couldn't afford to get treated, and I said I didn't think that was a likely scenario, or at least not without the woman not seeking treatment for other reasons (metal health, ignorance of the system, fear of doctors, etc). I agree that the medical system we have needs to be redone. I just don't like it when either side of an argument uses exaggerated claims to make things seem worse or better than they are, because it dilutes the actual argument.
A rational person doesn't choose to die rather than be fired, and the existing unemployment/medicaid benefits exist for precisely those situations.
Post by
gamerunknown
That's assuming that there's a rational choose involved. As far as I'm aware, one cannot apply for unemployment benefits if one is fired and she may have been unable to pay rent without her job. The article stated she did have medical insurance as an employee, yet it may not have covered the treatment she was seeking.
Also, do you have evidence that people are visiting emergency rooms for trivial illnesses? In the UK, GP visits are free too (with a nominal, government negotiated fee for prescriptions).
Post by
ElhonnaDS
That's assuming that there's a rational choose involved. As far as I'm aware, one cannot apply for unemployment benefits if one is fired and she may have been unable to pay rent without her job. The article stated she did have medical insurance as an employee, yet it may not have covered the treatment she was seeking.
Also, do you have evidence that people are visiting emergency rooms for trivial illnesses? In the UK, GP visits are free too (with a nominal, government negotiated fee for prescriptions).
Actually, you can ONLY claim unemployment if you're fired or laid off- not if you quit. If they disputed her claim, they'd have to show that she was fired for a good cause, and medical absence doesn't qualify.
In terms of people using the emergency room for non-insured visits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
Here's the law. Currently about 55% of all ER visits are totally unpaid for by anyone.
http://www.yourpublicmedia.org/content/c-hit/numbers-non-emergency-emergency-room-use
This study was in CT, which is one of the wealthiest states per capita in the USA but statewide they show almost half of all emergency room visits were for non-emergency problems.
Post by
gamerunknown
Unemployment benefits cover up to a maximum of 99 weeks, result in lower income and are
not guaranteed to individuals that are fired
. More to the point, her job was offering medical insurance, which she'd no longer be entitled to once she was fired (her employer would be required under law to provide COBRA, but she'd be unable to pay for it most likely). Which meant that she'd be incapable of paying the hospital bill... which is entirely the problem with US healthcare.
The non-emergency conditions which must be treated do not include
fevers or pregnancy
and being unable to pay does not preclude the hospital from billing an individual. In the UK, an outstanding bill of £300 is all that is required for civil litigation. I presume similar amounts could force an individual into bankruptcy in the US. Surgery can cost in excess of
several thousand dollars
. As far as I can tell, as Medicaid is means tested, she wouldn't be automatically eligible for it.
To get the thread back on topic, the thrust of the later point of the article is that there is a glaring disparity between healthcare outcomes for blacks and whites. According to
this article
, black men live 6 fewer years on average compared to white men and are 75% more likely to be uninsured.
So when it comes back to this:
There are a lot of solutions already out there for people who look for them.
Why don't these solutions have a meaningful impact on the infant mortality rate or lifespan expectancy? In fact, why does the US pay significantly more per capita on healthcare than every other industrialised country, for lifespan outcomes that are on a par with Cuba, a country that spends 1/14th of the amount?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortality_rates
Wiki article about comparing infant mortality rates. Apparently there is a degree of variation between countries in what constitutes a "live birth." A number of countries don't count children born prematurely if they're under a certain weight. In the US we count it as a live birth, regardless of gestation or weight, as long as it's showing any signs of life. In some countries where the "official" mortality rate is very low, there is speculation that infants who die within the first 24 hours are counted as stillborn, even though that's not the standard set by the WHO. Also, there are varying degrees of accuracy with which pre-natal infant mortality- miscarriages, etc.- are recorded, and in countries where they are more thoroughly documented, this can affect the official infant mortality rate.
I have already addressed the life expectancy question like 6 times on these forums, pointing out that the homicide rate in the US is 3-5 times that, per capita, in many European countries, which has quite an effect on the lifespan expectancy. Medical care can't do much about idiots with guns. I'm sure you've read it at least once, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Once again, I won't argue with the medical debt being an issue...which is why I keep saying that the government needs to do something about pricing and/or providing medical care themselves...which is why I don't understand why you keep arguing that with me. I wonder, once again, if you actually read my arguments or just see me discussing the available healthcare and fail-safes already in place, and assume that I must be saying what you're used to arguing against, and just give me the same canned answers you give everyone else.
So yes we need government intervention in healthcare, because people are going into debt because of it. But the current situation is NOT that people have no choice but to die in the streets, which is what some people want to argue. There is a serious problem, and it needs to be fixed, but I dislike when people need to exaggerate to make this point because it gives the other side a reason to scoff at us.
Post by
MyTie
Black on white assault perpetrator says he was angry over Trayvon case.
This should make the activists mad. It would make me mad if I was a black activist. This guy is giving a potentially positive movement a bad name.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Black on white assault perpetrator says he was angry over Trayvon case.
This should make the activists mad. It would make me mad if I was a black activist. This guy is giving a potentially positive movement a bad name.
There was another story like this yesterday- some guy chased off a bunch of kids playing at night in the street, and their parents and other people came back and put him in the hospital, and said it was justice for Trayvon. I hate when people use the most disconnected reason imaginable as an excuse to be disgusting. It's the same mentality of the people who went out and beat up random people who they thought looked Middle Eastern after 9/11, and the people who have had a bad experience with a criminal of a specific ethnicity, and use it as an excuse to treat all members of that ethnicity as criminals.
It's stupid.
Post by
gamerunknown
I have already addressed the life expectancy question like 6 times on these forums, pointing out that the homicide rate in the US is 3-5 times that, per capita, in many European countries, which has quite an effect on the lifespan expectancy. Medical care can't do much about idiots with guns. I'm sure you've read it at least once, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Because I've already pointed out, several times, that homicide is negligible as a cause of death when compared to heart disease. It's approximately half the rate of deaths due to automotive accidents for instance.
But the current situation is NOT that people have no choice but to die in the streets, which is what some people want to argue.
After accusing me of arguing against a strawman, no less. Where has anyone said this?
Edit: The UK isn't listed anywhere in the infant mortality rates, either. I've compared US and UK rates before while accounting for differing rates of obesity. If premature births are a cause of infant mortality, then why not address premature births from an epidemiological perspective?
Post by
MyTie
I'm glad they don't still immediately lock threads that go off topic.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Sorry MyTie- I'll be good now. I'll make a new thread and continue this later, when I'm not at work.
So racism- it totally sucks.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Sorry to double post, but I though this was on topic.
It's like using racist bait to catch racist fish.
Post by
Adamsm
Sorry to double post, but I though this was on topic.
It's like using racist bait to catch racist fish.
That is bad...but then again, there are people who say because
Metabee
was voiced by a black person, his obsession with watermelons was racist...completely and utterly forgetting that he is a Beetle type robot, and beetles like watermelons. /sigh Stupidity.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
The watermelon moment in question.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.