A health care question...

I've been saving this because I usually don't put personal information on the internet but, my step son served in Iraq, he enlisted out of a sense of patriotic duty after the 9-11 attacks. He received permanent injuries while para-trooping that restrict his body movements and create a lot of pain.

Getting the VA to pay for his needed surgeries has been a constant and ongoing battle in which we have had to appeal to politicians etc. His ability to work and pay for it himself are restricted by his lack of physical movement. My wife helps as much as she can but her funds are restricted, she has permanent restrictive injuries too (non-war related). Her Mom is staying with her and is on a respirator. There is no extended family on their side, they are all they have.



Edited by Easy Money - March 22 2010 at 08:44

Epignosis wrote: A basic localized health care system is,  I guess, a moderate view.  I swing hard right on most things, but I in earnest think our health care is too expensive, but it's not because of greedy doctors or evil corporations (that's one popular reductive fallacy).  We need a combination of tort reform (first), so that doctors can lower their fees (and afford to be competitive rather than hamstrung because of malpractice insurance), and then I think we could explore letting local governments manage a health care system that would benefit whomever needed basic care (instead of being told, "Your child just has a ______; it will go away in a few days on its own.  That will be $200").

ClemofNazareth wrote: Epignosis wrote: A basic localized health care system is,  I guess, a moderate view.  I swing hard right on most things, but I in earnest think our health care is too expensive, but it's not because of greedy doctors or evil corporations (that's one popular reductive fallacy).  We need a combination of tort reform (first), so that doctors can lower their fees (and afford to be competitive rather than hamstrung because of malpractice insurance), and then I think we could explore letting local governments manage a health care system that would benefit whomever needed basic care (instead of being told, "Your child just has a ______; it will go away in a few days on its own.  That will be $200").   Rob,   I hope you don't think I'm singling you out because I'm not, but I have to take exception to this argument as well.  The Federal Government, healthcare insurance companies, academic experts and even physicians themselves acknowledge that malpractice suits add very little to the overall cost of healthcare.

With the one data point being my father who is an ex-OB/GYN, I assure you that malpractice suits have a unbelievable effect on the way medicine is practiced.  Malpractice insurance rates are a huge problem.  Practices in my state (Pennsylvania) often shut down completely because the malpractice insurance become unaffordable for the physicians, and it is illegal to practice without it.  This is especially true for the "high-risk" professions (obstetrics being the worst).

I'm not saying your studies are without merit, but I have first-hand accounting from the several physicians I know about how the threat of the lawsuit effects their practice of medicine.  And believe me, it is not insignificant.

But, I'm probably not changing anyone's mind, as usual.

Padraic wrote: With the one data point being my father who is an ex-OB/GYN, I assure you that malpractice suits have a unbelievable effect on the way medicine is practiced.  Malpractice insurance rates are a huge problem.  Practices in my state (Pennsylvania) often shut down completely because the malpractice insurance become unaffordable for the physicians, and it is illegal to practice without it.  This is especially true for the "high-risk" professions (obstetrics being the worst). I'm not saying your studies are without merit, but I have first-hand accounting from the several physicians I know about how the threat of the lawsuit effects their practice of medicine.  And believe me, it is not insignificant. But, I'm probably not changing anyone's mind, as usual.

........a doctor in Manhattan  saved a dying man for free, a brazillian grew a tree ..........It's a miracle ... By the graces of God Almighty, and the pressures of the marketplace, the human race has civilized itself, it's a miracle......

How about tort reform coupled with single payer health insurance?  I'm game.

lazland wrote: I've been following the health care bill debate from this side of the pond with great interest, and all I can say is congratulations to the House for passing such a momentous and historic bill last night. From my perspective over here, the election for Obama was a message that the majority of Americans had tired of the extreme neo-con ideals of Bush, Chaney, et al, so the passing of this bill would seem to accord with the wishes of the majority of ordinary people in USA. Of course, I am leaving myself wide open here to charges of Limey ignorance, but what the hell

I wouldn't say that...I'd say a lot of American voters don't know what the hell about much of anything, especially people under 27 (and also, I can tell you that a lot of conservatives were not particularly thrilled with the Republican nominee, so there was some vote splitting).

I can't tell you how many people I've encountered who had huge opinions either way about things but couldn't give good reasons for them.  It's just the way we are- concrete in our opinions, and paradoxically, easily swayed.

I have a litmus test that used to be kind of amusing:

"George W. Bush is the worst President we've ever had!"

"All right.  Could you name ten US Presidents for me?"

"Yeah.  Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, George W. Bush's daddy George Bush, George Washington...Abraham Lincoln, JFK...um....Roosevelt...um...some other George, I forget his name..."

Epignosis wrote: lazland wrote: I've been following the health care bill debate from this side of the pond with great interest, and all I can say is congratulations to the House for passing such a momentous and historic bill last night. From my perspective over here, the election for Obama was a message that the majority of Americans had tired of the extreme neo-con ideals of Bush, Chaney, et al, so the passing of this bill would seem to accord with the wishes of the majority of ordinary people in USA. Of course, I am leaving myself wide open here to charges of Limey ignorance, but what the hell I wouldn't say that...I'd say a lot of American voters don't know what the hell about much of anything, especially people under 27 (and also, I can tell you that a lot of conservatives were not particularly thrilled with the Republican nominee, so there was some vote splitting). I can't tell you how many people I've encountered who had huge opinions either way about things but couldn't give good reasons for them.  It's just the way we are- concrete in our opinions, and paradoxically, easily swayed. I have a litmus test that used to be kind of amusing: "George W. Bush is the worst President we've ever had!" "All right.  Could you name ten US Presidents for me?" "Yeah.  Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, George W. Bush's daddy George Bush, George Washington...Abraham Lincoln, JFK...um....Roosevelt...um...some other George, I forget his name..."

I love naming the presidents! I know them all in order. My current favorite is Grover Cleveland, rainy day president #22 & 24

Atavachron wrote:  ^ ^ it's one of the reasons an Electoral College exists, to avoid mob rule .. that said, the US is way too diverse and large to buy into the impression that the vast majority are knuckle-dragging buffoons--  there are many of those, and they make a loud noise, but they are easily startled by the truth

Not what I said at all.

I said strongly opinionated and easily swayed.  I did not imply barbarians (and how in the world does the Electoral College today prevent "mob rule?" ). 

And as for truth, that still exists here?

Epignosis wrote: Atavachron wrote:  ^ ^ it's one of the reasons an Electoral College exists, to avoid mob rule .. that said, the US is way too diverse and large to buy into the impression that the vast majority are knuckle-dragging buffoons--  there are many of those, and they make a loud noise, but they are easily startled by the truth Not what I said at all. I said strongly opinionated and easily swayed.  I did not imply barbarians   - didn't you ? (and how in the world does the Electoral College today prevent "mob rule?" ).     - "Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." And as for truth, that still exists here?    - it's a glib question, and difficult to answer other than in philosophic terms, so I'll ignore it.

Edited by Atavachron - March 22 2010 at 22:24