U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2013, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Northern NH
4,551 posts, read 9,863,075 times
Reputation: 3782

Advertisements

I fully believe that your health insurance should have no bearing in how you are treated, however, my mom stated that welfare people don't deserve the same kind of care. What are some opinions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2013, 08:43 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,030,761 times
Reputation: 17978
Bascially it mre a case of mediciad not coverign all cost j same as privte insurance.But tis the same for medicaire .bascially they pay less tha average priavte insurance.So its ore what the governamnt will pay for actually. if you have enough cash you ca egt whatever you want in medial care anywhere in the world.I thnik that no oneshould be restrict to less ebcause some can't apy and toehr can.It a matter of cost and what can be affrord governamnt free care or private really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2013, 09:23 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,694 posts, read 64,172,365 times
Reputation: 68481
Human beings all deserve the same level of medical care. It sounds like your mother is assuming that "welfare people" choose to be on welfare and mooch off the state, and so don't "deserve" a hand-out. That's an erroneous assumption. I don't know how someone could in good conscience deny another fellow human effective care. That sounds medieval, almost Dickensian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2013, 10:36 PM
 
Location: central Oregon
1,856 posts, read 2,026,086 times
Reputation: 2377
Yes they do.

I once got a doctor kicked off the medicaid roller coaster. He was my doctor (and I did have medicaid.) I went to his office for five years and only saw him two times in all those years. (I saw his FNP all the time and I loved her.)

The first time I actually saw this doctor I was in the hospital with a stomach bleed from too much Motrin. He had to do rounds and come see me (who he had never seen before). He briefly looked at my chart, asked me a couple dumb questions and turned his back on me to write something on my chart. When I asked him what would cause the stomach bleed he replied without turning around, "It's because you smoke!" Then he just left and I did not see him again for a few years.
I was ticked, but not mad enough to do anything about it.

The next time I saw him at his office - the FNP had called in sick that day and he could not reschedule all of us. I saw him for a recurring knee problem. He came into the room, asked what the problem was and then squeezed my knee. He left and did not close the door all the way. Whole thing lasted less than 30 seconds.
I sat there waiting and overheard him tell the nurse, "That is how I like to treat my welfare patients... in and out in less than a minute." Never saw him after that. But this incident ticked me off to the point where I called and reported him.
My FNP knew of both problems and backed me.
I had to stop seeing her, but at least he was no longer free to treat anyone else with such a lack of dignity.

I got a children's dentist outed the same way.

We are poor, but we are also as human as the rich people. We bleed the same color blood. We deserve equal medical care.

Most of the time we get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2013, 11:07 PM
 
9,454 posts, read 15,020,411 times
Reputation: 15409
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani View Post
Yes they do.

I once got a doctor kicked off the medicaid roller coaster. He was my doctor (and I did have medicaid.) I went to his office for five years and only saw him two times in all those years. (I saw his FNP all the time and I loved her.)

The first time I actually saw this doctor I was in the hospital with a stomach bleed from too much Motrin. He had to do rounds and come see me (who he had never seen before). He briefly looked at my chart, asked me a couple dumb questions and turned his back on me to write something on my chart. When I asked him what would cause the stomach bleed he replied without turning around, "It's because you smoke!" Then he just left and I did not see him again for a few years.
I was ticked, but not mad enough to do anything about it.

The next time I saw him at his office - the FNP had called in sick that day and he could not reschedule all of us. I saw him for a recurring knee problem. He came into the room, asked what the problem was and then squeezed my knee. He left and did not close the door all the way. Whole thing lasted less than 30 seconds.
I sat there waiting and overheard him tell the nurse, "That is how I like to treat my welfare patients... in and out in less than a minute." Never saw him after that. But this incident ticked me off to the point where I called and reported him.
My FNP knew of both problems and backed me.
I had to stop seeing her, but at least he was no longer free to treat anyone else with such a lack of dignity.

I got a children's dentist outed the same way.

We are poor, but we are also as human as the rich people. We bleed the same color blood. We deserve equal medical care.
Most of the time we get it.

Not so poor you can't afford to smoke!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2013, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,530,139 times
Reputation: 3962
So, everyone is saying here:

You have Person A who has paid 500 a month for their health insurance, every month, for 30 yrs. He/she gets a heart attack. Then you have Person B who has never paid for health insurance their entire life get a heart attack and both should be treated equally? Possibly the person who has been paying for health insurance gets a private room and say extra nurses on his floor? But nothing? Zip. Zilch?

You understand this line of thinking is what is dividing this country as we speak. The haves are getting tired of taking care of the have nots. Know matter what their situations are. There are just too many incidences of abuses of the system which are upsetting people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2013, 01:01 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,698 posts, read 1,824,894 times
Reputation: 1125
Interestingly my mother said the same thing to me last week. She is resentful, and I don't hold it against her all that much. She has worked a low wage retail job for most of her life and during that time has had a plan that is relatively expensive, not just for the monthly premiums, but also the office visit copays, deductible, prescription costs, etc., and it takes up a good percentage of her income. That doesn't even include dental, or vision, both of which are rolled into Medicaid plans, at least in this state.

She works with some people who receive SSI - they work only a certain number of hours every month so they don't go over their "earnings limit" and lose their benefits - and they receive state Medicaid. They aren't shy about discussing the details of the program: no premiums to pay, no office visit copays, and prescription costs are $1, $3 or $5 for the "expensive" drugs. Of course they have access to the same doctors and treatments at the large Pittsburgh university hospital system as anyone else with private commercial insurance, and - as long as the doctors and other staff are performing ethically anyway - receive the same standard of care.

She's one of those people who was a lifelong Democrat but lost interest years ago when the Party, by all practical measures, stopped caring about workers like her and instead poured all the government social welfare spending into programs for those who made a lifestyle out of not working at all, or who worked just as little as possible. The manufacturing jobs sure disappeared from Pittsburgh and other cities without a whimper of political action, and, in fact, after any market corrections are taken into account, were pretty much told by NAFTA to not bother ever coming back. Who worked in those jobs? White males with high school educations. What group deserted the Democrats?

Anyway, I tried telling her that instead of wanting to deny services to those other people, and regardless of how she fees about them, she should instead want to have her own costs reduced so they are more affordable and not be overly concerned with taking away benefit from others (because she would experience no material gain if they were to lose their coverage). It didn't take. She and so many others have been conditioned to expect nothing but scraps that it's more satisfying and less disappointing to take others down...and who better to take down than the smug welfare recipient you see everyday while working your menial job?

I suppose "Obamacare" is intended to address some of the wildly skewed benefits afforded to the poorest of the non-working poor but denied low wage workers for the past 25 years or so. But, we'll see how it actually turns out; I doubt it will significantly reduce costs for market rate customers, and suspect it will be little more than an opportunity for medical providers and insurers to make even more money - but on the taxpayers dime. Some people will be placated for a bit as they no longer have to pay as much, but the aggregate costs will continue to disproportionately climb and we'll be spending 2, 3, 4 of every 10 dollars on healthcare with no real benefit from it, and will become even more loaded with unproductive debt. Oh well...the chance to get all this stuff right came and went decades ago.

Last edited by Clint.; 05-04-2013 at 01:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2013, 03:12 AM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,530,139 times
Reputation: 3962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint. View Post
Interestingly my mother said the same thing to me last week. She is resentful, and I don't hold it against her all that much. She has worked a low wage retail job for most of her life and during that time has had a plan that is relatively expensive, not just for the monthly premiums, but also the office visit copays, deductible, prescription costs, etc., and it takes up a good percentage of her income. That doesn't even include dental, or vision, both of which are rolled into Medicaid plans, at least in this state.

She works with some people who receive SSI - they work only a certain number of hours every month so they don't go over their "earnings limit" and lose their benefits - and they receive state Medicaid. They aren't shy about discussing the details of the program: no premiums to pay, no office visit copays, and prescription costs are $1, $3 or $5 for the "expensive" drugs. Of course they have access to the same doctors and treatments at the large Pittsburgh university hospital system as anyone else with private commercial insurance, and - as long as the doctors and other staff are performing ethically anyway - receive the same standard of care.

She's one of those people who was a lifelong Democrat but lost interest years ago when the Party, by all practical measures, stopped caring about workers like her and instead poured all the government social welfare spending into programs for those who made a lifestyle out of not working at all, or who worked just as little as possible. The manufacturing jobs sure disappeared from Pittsburgh and other cities without a whimper of political action, and, in fact, after any market corrections are taken into account, were pretty much told by NAFTA to not bother ever coming back. Who worked in those jobs? White males with high school educations. What group deserted the Democrats?

Anyway, I tried telling her that instead of wanting to deny services to those other people, and regardless of how she fees about them, she should instead want to have her own costs reduced so they are more affordable and not be overly concerned with taking away benefit from others (because she would experience no material gain if they were to lose their coverage). It didn't take. She and so many others have been conditioned to expect nothing but scraps that it's more satisfying and less disappointing to take others down...and who better to take down than the smug welfare recipient you see everyday while working your menial job?

I suppose "Obamacare" is intended to address some of the wildly skewed benefits afforded to the poorest of the non-working poor but denied low wage workers for the past 25 years or so. But, we'll see how it actually turns out; I doubt it will significantly reduce costs for market rate customers, and suspect it will be little more than an opportunity for medical providers and insurers to make even more money - but on the taxpayers dime. Some people will be placated for a bit as they no longer have to pay as much, but the aggregate costs will continue to disproportionately climb and we'll be spending 2, 3, 4 of every 10 dollars on healthcare with no real benefit from it, and will become even more loaded with unproductive debt. Oh well...the chance to get all this stuff right came and went decades ago.
Very well said Clint and my point exactly. People who pay for these services are resentful and downright HATEFUL of persons who get the same as them, and have never paid or dime, or very little. It is one of the major reasons of the divide of this country.

Since an early age in this country, we were brought up to believe: If you work hard, you will prosper. However, that is no longer holding true. You can work very hard and end up with nothing or very little. While someone else worked very little and end up with the same as the hard worker.

We could take my scenario one step further: Say Person A needed a liver transplant and so did Person B. People are truly saying Person B should get it over Person A? They say this, however if it were THEM and they paid all that money, all those years, and the other person paid nothing, you can bet your bottom dollar they would want that transplant before Person B.

The bottom line in this whole argument is, like it or not, address it or not, bury your head in the sand or not, there are LIMITS on the amount of resources we have. SOMEONE is NOT going to get "their fair share." That is the way life works and there is no way around it. Yes, it includes medical care too. Every socialized medicine country has private insurance too. Which the "rich" folk can afford and they get better medical care and services then everyone else. Again, that is life and it will happen here in the US too.

Life is NOT fair and for anyone who believes it is, is just fooling themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2013, 03:16 AM
 
Location: NW Arkansas
1,202 posts, read 1,607,349 times
Reputation: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint. View Post
Anyway, I tried telling her that instead of wanting to deny services to those other people, and regardless of how she fees about them, she should instead want to have her own costs reduced so they are more affordable and not be overly concerned with taking away benefit from others (because she would experience no material gain if they were to lose their coverage). It didn't take. She and so many others have been conditioned to expect nothing but scraps that it's more satisfying and less disappointing to take others down...and who better to take down than the smug welfare recipient you see everyday while working your menial job?
Well said. I do feel that medicaid patients should receive the same level of care, but I can understand the resentment when everyone who is not on medicaid are being eaten alive by healthcare costs.

Arkansas just voted to expand medicaid in 2014 via the ACA. But because the Republicans control congress here, they ended up with a compromise. Now they are going to try to use the medicaid funding to pay for a private insurance company (I think BCBS). This would solve the problem of discrimination in care because the medicaid recipients will have the same insurance as anyone else. And the doctors will be payed the same amounts, unlike with medicaid. This could set up a government funded monopoly, though, for whatever insurance company the state chooses to use. And it probably will cost tax payers more. But another good thing is that if and when medicaid recipients move pass the income thresholds and no longer qualify, they can continue to keep their insurance. They will just have to start paying the premiums themselves. But that would be a lot easier transition that may make it more likely that people will eventually get off of it.

Last edited by soanchorless; 05-04-2013 at 03:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2013, 04:19 AM
 
11,686 posts, read 13,083,410 times
Reputation: 30973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint. View Post
Interestingly my mother said the same thing to me last week. She is resentful, and I don't hold it against her all that much. She has worked a low wage retail job for most of her life and during that time has had a plan that is relatively expensive, not just for the monthly premiums, but also the office visit copays, deductible, prescription costs, etc., and it takes up a good percentage of her income. That doesn't even include dental, or vision, both of which are rolled into Medicaid plans, at least in this state.

She works with some people who receive SSI - they work only a certain number of hours every month so they don't go over their "earnings limit" and lose their benefits - and they receive state Medicaid. They aren't shy about discussing the details of the program: no premiums to pay, no office visit copays, and prescription costs are $1, $3 or $5 for the "expensive" drugs. Of course they have access to the same doctors and treatments at the large Pittsburgh university hospital system as anyone else with private commercial insurance, and - as long as the doctors and other staff are performing ethically anyway - receive the same standard of care.
Bottom line, if the person receiving SSI were to work even a few more hours they would lose the insurance benefits, but would be highly unlikely to earn even the amount of money your mother does and be able to afford the level of benefits she struggles with.

Thus, they earn a small amount of salary more, and have no insurance. Not a great choice if you are already in the position of having qualified for SSI.

Supplemental Security Income

I don't think most people would willingly want to live at the level of those who qualify for SSI as it is described on the above site.

Quote:
She's one of those people who was a lifelong Democrat but lost interest years ago when the Party, by all practical measures, stopped caring about workers like her ....manufacturing jobs sure disappeared from Pittsburgh and other cities without a whimper of political action, and, in fact, after any market corrections are taken into account, were pretty much told by NAFTA to not bother ever coming back. Who worked in those jobs? White males with high school educations. What group deserted the Democrats?
The radical shift in emphasis in Dem party was the result of the Dem party's McGovern Commission, organized after the 1968 election - and implemented in time to cause the 1972 Dem debacle. The commission was honchoed by Fred Gary Dutton and the then Dem party chairman, recreated the party in the image we now see...and in the process essentially turned its back on the white working class that Roosevelt had made sure stayed the party's core. The exodus of white working class people began immediately and in large numbers, without it Nixon would have lost the 1968 election which he barely won as it was. Your Mom hung with the Dems a long time if she waited for NAFTA. In any case, the imported steel that has gutted American manufacturing does not come from NAFTA countries.

However, America's insurance woes are the result of the fact that the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries are voraciously profit oriented, and caring for the sick is an entirely secondary consideration....if that high on their list. Health care is a for-profit part of the American system.

If Americans can accept that those unable to afford insurance - whatever their color, class or creed, and for whatever reason - should get little or no medical care. No problem, that's equality. Living with the reality of this type of equality would require some adjustment in the American psyche presumably, (perhaps I would over estimate how much) in order to get used to seeing the indigent and the chronically and terminally ill dying in public places and in public view. We would simply have to adopt the attitude toward health care that is evident in places such as India and sub-Saharan Africa.

Last edited by kevxu; 05-04-2013 at 04:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top