Text 35842, 112 rader
Skriven 2009-09-08 07:36:16 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 35711 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: (1/2) Universal health insurance
========================================
Replying to a message of Robert Bashe to Bob Ackley:

 RB> Bob Ackley wrote to Robert Bashe on Sunday September 06 2009 at 05:22:

 RB>>> The idea of a hospital or doctor simply refusing to honor health
 RB>>> insurance is preposterous

 BA>> Actually it isn't.

 RB> In a system geared to serve patients instead of the financial
 RB> interests of hospitals and doctors it is.

 BA>> In this country we have (or had, anyway) something called freedom.

 RB> The freedom to suffer, the freedom to die, the freedom to be denied
 RB> health care...

 RB> Not to mention the freedom to financially gouge those in need of care.
 RB> I saw enough of that when I took care of my folks in the States.
 RB> Money, first, please - then maybe we'll have time to care for your
 RB> medical needs ;-/ Made me absolutely sick - and at times damned mad.

Contrary to the leftist propaganda spewing from proponents of the US
government's
attempt to take over the industry, people in this country are *not* being
denied
necessary care.  They may not (and probably don't) have the money to pay for
it, but
the care is provided.

Most hospitals in this country - the vast majority, in fact - are run by
religious
organizations, primarily Catholic but including Lutheran, Methodist and Jewish
systems.
A number of hospitals in this country are owned by a local 'hospital
authority,' which
is usually at the county level, or by a local government, again usually a
county.  Most
state universities own and operate at least one hospital. 

 BA>> The freedom to participate or not participate in a contract is
 BA>> included in that.

 RB> Which is a mistake, when you're referring to health care. That's just
 RB> not the same as buying a bushel of onions or serving people in a
 RB> restaurant. Sick or injured people _need_ health care, it's not a
 RB> matter of it "just being nice to have".

Nope.  It allows people to decide what they want - and what they want to pay
for.
Again, *nobody* in this country is denied needed care.

 BA>> That is why many providers are quietly dropping out of the US
 BA>> Medicare system (not accepting new Medicare patients). Medicare
 BA>> doesn't pay the bills and never has...

 RB> In that case, the solution is to reform Medicare, not to deny service
 RB> to those who have no other option. The weakest are getting hit here,
 RB> not those who can defend themselves.

 BA>> With fewer providers available, particularly in rural areas, the
 BA>> problem of finding a doctor that will accept you as a patient (if
 BA>> you're over age 64) is getting worse.

 RB> Another argument for universal health care. It's amazing to me that
 RB> people can simply ignore that.

How does universal care - or a single payer - increase the numbers of 
physicians available?

 BA>> In this country it is (or was) illegal to treat a Medicare eligible
 BA>> person outside of the Medicare system - (including providing
 BA>> treatment for *free*), even when that person is filthy rich and is
 BA>> perfectly capable of paying for the treatment up front in cash.

 RB> Another argument for reform of Medicare (if true - it sounds
 RB> preposterous).

There were several examples of such.  The bureaucracy wanted to prosecute
a physician in Southern California because he treated his Medicare eligible
patients and didn't tell Medicare or bill the patients (IOW, that care was
free).
He simply got tired of fighting with the bureaucracy.  Medicare is not and
never has been about health care for the elderly, it is and has always been
about *control* of health care for the elderly.

 RB>>> The story does, however, point out the shortcomings of the system
 RB>>> (such that it is) very nicely and gives the lie to people who rant
 RB>>> so emotionally against universal health insurance (which would be
 RB>>> worth the name and would be - must be - accepted by all medical
 RB>>> practicioners).

 BA>> So practitioners find another line of work.

 RB> Like repairing cars. That would be better for people who concentrate
 RB> on money instead of the patient. But naturally wouldn't make them
 RB> millions in a few years - life's rough.

What do you propose to do when and if the physician shortage becomes
critical?  What happens when hospitals close whole departments (several
hospitals have already closed their emergency departments) or simply close
their doors completely (that's happened too)?

 RB> On the other hand, real doctors who believe in their Hippocratic oath
 RB> will continue to devote their efforts to the sick and injured - and
 RB> presumably be glad to get rid of the moneygrubbers who have sullied
 RB> their reputation.

 BA>> What do you do when you can't *find* a physician?

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)