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.
When a system, like Canada's, decides that someone is not worth the treatment, I say that is wrong?
You?
Well.. here's another example.
My father had kidney cancer that basically had metastacized all over his body.
He had a tumor in his spine.. that was compressing his spinal chord
Dr.s at Sloan Kettering called us in to have him come in so they could do very complicated and VERY expensive surgery. Basically he had to have noe surgery to kill the tumor by cutting off blood flow then have his spinal chord removed nad replaced with a metal rod.. We're talking ooober expensive here. Health insuranced paid a portion, I believe, but we were responsible for the remaining.
However, they didnt bother to tell us that his liver was completely covered AND he now had tumors in his lungs. My mom only happened to be holding the xrays that she took over with her from one hospital to another (one surgery had to be performed in NYU). She looked and noticed "spots". Then they told her.
Well... this was March.. he died in MAY following that surgery, although he lived through the surgery. The hospital bills were enormous.. as the two surgeons that performed this surgery were world renowned.
At this point there was no hope for my father's recovery.. treatment with interfuron and radiation treatment did nothing.. cause basically he was too far gone by the time it was detected and there isn't really a remissino from kidney cancer that is found in the late stages. Of course, we were swept up in it all and couldn't really see.. but they saw.. So why did he have to have 100's of thousands of dollars of surgery when there was absolutely NO hope for recovery and all it would do was .. well nothing! It didn't extend his life any. Maybe if someone had said "there is NO hope" and "we'll make him comfortable" it could have saved a lot.
In the uk if you are Self Employed, you pay so much a week in National Insurance. That goes towards your health care etc. At the end of the financial year you are assessed on earnings and then it is decided if you need to pay more. If your business fails you have still contributed. so you do not get away from paying. Cash in hand is the same all over the world. Naughty people who do not want to pay tax. Not a great reason for no UHC
Yes - the taxpayers will have to fund it. No question. BUT, the cost to the taxpayers would be far, far, far, far less than your scheme.
PLUS, there would be no need for a whole new government bureaucracy - people would get health insurance - of their choosing - the very care you want would be given -
And remember - this would be coupled with a provision that all pre existing conditions would be covered - exactly what your entire argument is built around.
Far far far less is.. well underfunded really. Underfunded and half assed basically will lead to failure..
You can't do someting halfway and then expect it to work.
My entire argument is NOT only built around pre-existing conditions. My arguement is built on the ridiculous prices EVERYTHING and EVERYONE pays for anything..
My arguement is ALSO built around the fact that decisions for heatlhcare are made out of GREED.. NOT medicine for hte patient..
Your system of "grants" would be weak at best, inefficient and therefore ineffectual.
No one is denied Emergency treatment but yes they are denied treatment if they can't pay. Cancer is NOT classed as a emergency and yes you will die if not covered
Well.. here's another example.
My father had kidney cancer that basically had metastacized all over his body.
He had a tumor in his spine.. that was compressing his spinal chord
I am very sorry for your loss - I really am.
But, as you describe it, you have a medical malpractice issue - not an insurance issue.
If the doctors had properly disclosed to the patient and the patients family, the entire condition - and the long term prognosis, then, the patient and the patients family could have made the choice.
If you have not already done so, I might suggest consuting with counsel who deals with Med MP litigation.
Just out of curiosity which French people are shunning the system ?
I'm French and have never, ever heard that. I don't know anyone rich or poor who is not happy with the system ?
I believe the French also have as system that awards Dr's when they manage to work with a patient to bring down cholesterol levels or help them manage their diabetes.. or gets their patients to lose weight (thereby being healthier)
Current American system rewards Dr's that work for insurance companies when the deny coverage for a treatment a patient needs.
No one is denied Emergency treatment but yes they are denied treatment if they can't pay. Cancer is NOT classed as a emergency and yes you will die if not covered
You are totally mistaken sir
While it might prove to be somewhat inconvienent to some, no one is denied healthcare in this country. And, inasmuch as cancer is life threatening, some of the finest facilities in this nation are available - regardless of the ability to pay.
One of note, St. Judes Childrens Hospital -- where no child is ever turned away. And that is but one - children and adult -
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.
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.
