 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / March 2006The Health Care System, and A Right to Health Care.
Hello to the Medical Community, What I have to say is simple. If you don't provide, you'll get sued, because of the Ammended Bill of Rights. You must take this very seriously in the billing office, and take a statistical census of your local areas based upon income. Then charge for care based upon Income. Basically, the complaint that the tax system has each tax payer, paying for the Health and Welfare of the poor and disabled, is a complaint that Government has now handed down to the medical community, and billing office. Therefore, paying on a curve, where a procedure has no flat rate, but is based upon income in order to maintain overhead, is the only real practical solution. The rich will have to pay more in order for the Hospital to operate within the limits of the law, and adhere to the Pateints Rights. Pass this not on to the book keeping office, and your Administrations Doctors.. The Flavored Coffee Guy. > Hello to the Medical Community, This is Usnet and not a medical community. Anybody including you can post here and tell others what to do. > What I have to say is simple. So the assumption is that simple answers are not always sought by the medical community and so they aren't aware of it? Calling a problem simply does not make it so and nor does it become more acceptable. If you don't provide, you'll get sued, > because of the Ammended Bill of Rights. Oversimplification. Emergency rooms must provide services to all emergencies. Other services need to be for all. Private hospitals are private and may see only patients they want to see. If they don't want Medi-Aid state money for the poor in the state they may refuse such patients. You must take this very > seriously in the billing office, and take a statistical census of your > local areas based upon income. ???? Hospitals don't know where they are located? Here's a clue. A hospital in a wealthy area of town will see more paying patients and a hospital in the poorer part of town will see poorer patients. You don't need a census after a hospital is built but before it is built. Everybody knows where the wealthy are and they don't need a census. You can see with your own eyes. Then charge for care based upon Income. That is already being done. Somebody who does not pay a dime for care will be paid for by those who can afford to over-pay for all. > Basically, the complaint that the tax system has each tax payer, > paying for the Health and Welfare of the poor and disabled, is a > complaint that Government has now handed down to the medical community, > and billing office. Therefore, paying on a curve, where a procedure > has no flat rate, but is based upon income in order to maintain > overhead, is the only real practical solution. Who ever said it was a flat rate for everyone? There is a rate for state paid patients a rate for Medicare and a rate for private insurance and a rate for no insurance in which one pays out of pocket. All rates are negotiated by the hospitals with state and federal healthcare agencies. It is regional or area specific. It is not even the same rate within a state. The rich will have to > pay more in order for the Hospital to operate within the limits of the > law, and adhere to the Pateints Rights. ?????? Don't worry about the rich as they will pay what ever they want to pay and go to what ever hospital they want to. Trauma centers are regional and they take patients to the hospital based on region. If the hospital is located in the ghetto then guess where all those gunshot cases are going to and who will pay for them? The answer is eliminate the trauma center there or get state and federal relief for expenses. Insurance companies negotiate rates also so if all the burden is placed on paying insurance patients then the insurance companies will seek other hosptials where they can get reduced rates for their clients and save money for them. So your answer doesn't make sense because patients will go where the quality of care is good and get the biggest bang for their buck. The poor go to where they are told. The rich are not going to go to a ghetto hospital and pay outrages rates to cover the uninsured. Why would they? > Pass this not on to the book keeping office, and your Administrations > Doctors.. What kind of work do you do so I can speak to them and tell them how to do business. I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express and know all about it. > The Flavored Coffee Guy. Stay in the Coffee business Guy. > > Hello to the Medical Community, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Medi-Aid state money for the poor in the state they may refuse such > patients. This doesn't solve a problem that only a census and a statistical evaluation of the situation would allow. The only reasonable solution is paying on a curve, or on a linear scale based upon percents. If a person can afford the cost of procedure, than fine. But, if the income bracket allows them to pay twice without dissolving a house to live in, transportation to and from work, and enough money over the cost of living to support a family, the they must pay twice as much. At the point that some-one could easily afford to pay ten times the cost of any given procedure, then they should be paying ten times more. Why? Because, anyone that needs help, now has a Right to Health Care, and if anyone pursues that by law, any doctor not preforming the procedure, heart surgery, cancer therapy, the real expensive procedures that can save lives, then they can afford to keep doing that, or specializing in it. But, if they don't then the people's rights are being violated. So, in order for a Hospital to do all that the law demands, it must charge more based upon a higher income bracket. If you know anything about the billing office, government isn't willing to pay half, even if it is medicaid, or medicare. My sister has worked in the billing office for several years, and all the government does is pay half, or less than half, and so the medical community is still forced to compensate for the differences. If they use a system of equal distribution we all pay more. But, then that will give anyone who cannot afford the procedure, of what ever kind, a bad credit rating. That wounds the individual's ability to make money, earn money, and it costs more comparatively for every credit card transaction, and loan compared to anyone with a good credit rating. If you have a bad credit rating, all you are faced with is sharks. > You must take this very > > seriously in the billing office, and take a statistical census of your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Everybody knows where the wealthy are and they don't need a census. You can > see with your own eyes. The Ambulance, doesn't care how much you get paid, it just takes you from the accident to the nearest hospital, sight seer, or bum, it don't matter. It doesn't stop a concert from going wrong, and to assume that, is only reason to be doing the same thing, and supporting a small town somewhere farther away full of farm hands, and such. There are still people who need the help, but in the same hand, the doctors cannot afford the help they are trained to give in some places. Supplies are becoming an issue, if not just transportation to the places that have the fasilities. Just because, you don't want to pay more, doesn't mean that it wasn't that way before the tax cuts, and doesn't need to be that way to keep bodies from piling up. But, are you going to wait that long? I'm sure that cutting laborer short, will help control inflation from your perspective, and they may never have any place that they can afford to live. But, your attitude is killing Americans, and more of them that Usama Bin Laden. In the past, that attitude killed, and it still costs poor people their lives today. They work, but never for enough to pay their own bills, and none of you are willing to pay more, where more must be paid, or you just the fuckin' thief. They work as many hours or more, they work physically harder than most of the higher education jobs, and as you sit on your a.s and generate an attitude as if they are all dumb, when they all get the bird flu and die because they can't afford the vaccine or the cure, then you'll be wondering who'll wait on your tables, clean your office, and looking around wondering why the hell no-one ever cleans the toilet, and you always have to get your toilet paper. Those services cannot be provided, if those people are not given the consideration, to have a place to live, shower, support themselves, and thier families. If you can't give them that, you don't derserve what you have. In the Physical sense, they work, and you sit on your a.s. > Then charge for care based upon Income. > > That is already being done. Somebody who does not pay a dime for care will > be paid for by those who can afford to over-pay for all. Well, if you paid a living wage, and taxes were added to that wage, then when you looked at the books, it would like the government took a big chunk. But, then added to the living wage, is the same premium you pay for health insurance, and that covers all of the full time workers. Then when you analyze the statistics, we all contribute alot for ourselves, and a little form some-one else. The disabled are really only about 1 in 100. That means 99 people to support one. They talk about baby boomers, and if they didn't keep changing how they did the books, this problem wouldn't exist. They change everything about it every few years. How can possibly save money, when you're dealing over a thousand people trying to find a reason to spend it now? There are over a Thousand people in congress and senate. Have you ever considered what could happen to you? What if, tomorrow you had to work at burger king? Can you manage your expenses on that pay check? Can you find anywhere to live? Can you afford food if you pay rent? If can pay for rent and food, can you turn on the lights? Can you afford to cook your food? Can you afford to get back and forth to work, and live there? All too often you take too much, or the government does, and then they demand more than is humanly possible, under the circumstances. If the insurance companies go bankrupt because of a volcanic eruption that spawns a fire. Or some terrorist group figures out how to better burn things. Then it would be more and more difficult for the rich to recover from the damages. Or worse, they target the Federal Reserve, or find a virus that can be spread by handling money. Frankly, I'm surprised that they haven't tried ecoli, and one dollar bills. They could ask for that many ones. You handle the money, you buy something to eat, and the next thing you know, you're sick as hell. Maybe, they'll take a slow methodical method and use it. Like making sure that there's lead in most of your paint on dishes they make. It could be specifically tested to make rats go insane. There's toxic mold and mildew, and yet, as long as everyone is searching for the ideal weapon, there's been no real threat to reach our shores. But, if they were more willing to improvise on all wavelengths, you'd be in sh.t creek. Every time you turned around, you or some-one you knew would be sick. > > Basically, the complaint that the tax system has each tax payer, > > paying for the Health and Welfare of the poor and disabled, is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > negotiated by the hospitals with state and federal healthcare agencies. It > is regional or area specific. It is not even the same rate within a state. Like I said, the government doesn't like to pay anything, and they don't use statistics like an insurance company. If they did, then they'd profit. > The rich will have to > > pay more in order for the Hospital to operate within the limits of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > eliminate the trauma center there or get state and federal relief for > expenses. The Federal Government is run by a bunch of fruitloops. They won a popularity contest, and their position has nothing to do with thier education or point scored on an IQ test. > Insurance companies negotiate rates also so if all the burden is placed on > paying insurance patients then the insurance companies will seek other [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Stay in the Coffee business Guy. "The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elgersmad@rock.com> wrote in > evaluation of the situation would allow. The only reasonable solution > is paying on a curve, or on a linear scale based upon percents. If a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > point that some-one could easily afford to pay ten times the cost of > any given procedure, then they should be paying ten times more. Why? Let me do the same for you and simplify it in your terms so you will understand it. I want you to open up a coffee shop and sell your coffee based on what a person is capable of paying. Charge a homeless person five cents for a cup of coffee and an average person $5 and a rich person $20 for a cup of coffee. After all the poor homeless hear about your coffee they will go there and stand in line and maybe pee in their pants waiting in line. Why would a rich man go there and wait in line to pay $20 for a cup of coffee and have a homeless person pee on him? It is a business and not a charity organization. Most hospitals are non-profit organizations with some being strickly for-profit organizations. They want to keep paying patients. The poor who are on government stipends pay poorly. A person already pays taxes based on income. If they don't have a job then they get shitty government health coverage. Most people have job supplied insurance. The rich have top of the line coverage and then some. They can fly around the world and be billed thousands of dollars for minor surgery. They are already paying outrageous amount for plastic surgery. That already exists. There are clinics who charge strickly based on what a person is capable of paying but government then takes up the slack so the poor are charged less but in the end the tax payer payes for the rest. > Because, anyone that needs help, now has a Right to Health Care, and if > anyone pursues that by law, any doctor not preforming the procedure, > heart surgery, cancer therapy, the real expensive procedures that can > save lives, then they can afford to keep doing that, or specializing in > it. But, if they don't then the people's rights are being violated. There is no right to health care. I don't know where you got that from. There is a right to emergency care at an emergency room. The answer to some was to close down the emergency room or trauma center so as to avoid accepting non-paying patients. There are government programs such as state medical programs in which some hospitals have left and stopped accepting patients under that program. Do people have a right to food? A right to a job? A right for housing? Those are not rights. Those are government programs and if you need a heart transplant you don't a right to one. You have to ask the government for one. It's a privilege and not a right just like a driving license. The role of government is to provide for those who can't provide for themselves. > So, in order for a Hospital to do all that the law demands, The government is in no position to demand anything from the hospitals. Hospitals are leaving state programs like crazy and people are having to travel great distances for care in finding a hosptial that will take them. Doctors are not accepting such patients either. it must > charge more based upon a higher income bracket. If you know anything > about the billing office, government isn't willing to pay half, even if > it is medicaid, or medicare. Private insurance companies are not stupid. They wont' pay higher than what government pays. People will leave if you over charge them and don't have a good product. Hosptials are private. My sister has worked in the billing > office for several years, and all the government does is pay half, or > less than half, and so the medical community is still forced to > compensate for the differences. They compensate by getting tax money and by having a high ration of private insurance patients. It is a service orientated business in which the patient is the customer much like a hotel. If they use a system of equal > distribution we all pay more. But, then that will give anyone who > cannot afford the procedure, of what ever kind, a bad credit rating. > That wounds the individual's ability to make money, earn money, and it > costs more comparatively for every credit card transaction, and loan > compared to anyone with a good credit rating. If you have a bad credit > rating, all you are faced with is sharks. The healthcare system is not one monolithic system that looks after the interest of any particular individual. Hospitals are single entities. They compete with each other for business. > > Everybody knows where the wealthy are and they don't need a census. You can > > see with your own eyes. > > > The Ambulance, doesn't care how much you get paid, it just takes you > from the accident to the nearest hospital, sight seer, or bum, it don't > matter. Two points to that is that trauma systems divide cities geographically. You can one block from a community hospital with an emergency room but unless it is a trauma center then you will be taken to the nearest trauma center and not the nearest hospital. The other part to that is In sharp contrast, the physician-owned limited-service hospitals currently operating in Los Angeles offer no trauma care and only severely limited emergency services if anything at all. In my opinion, they should not even be called hospitals - but rather limited-access facilities. The physicians who own these limited-access facilities carefully select only patients with the right type of health insurance coverage - private or commercial insurance or Medicare - and then refer them to those facilities that they own. Poor patients covered by Medi-Cal or those without insurance at all are not welcome. These limited-access facilities also offer only high-revenue-producing surgical procedures. They do not offer the many services that we and other full-service community hospitals do that are seldom self-supporting, such as pediatric and obstetrical care, mental health programs, or services specifically targeting care for the poor and the elderly. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=2532 It doesn't stop a concert from going wrong, and to assume > that, is only reason to be doing the same thing, and supporting a small > town somewhere farther away full of farm hands, and such. There are > still people who need the help, but in the same hand, the doctors > cannot afford the help they are trained to give in some places. That is the role of government. > Supplies are becoming an issue, if not just transportation to the > places that have the fasilities. That is the role of government. Just because, you don't want to pay > more, We are paying more. doesn't mean that it wasn't that way before the tax cuts, and > doesn't need to be that way to keep bodies from piling up. But, are > you going to wait that long? I'm sure that cutting laborer short, will > help control inflation from your perspective, and they may never have > any place that they can afford to live. But, your attitude is killing > Americans, Don't blame the hospital worker for that. Those are policy issues that have nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of running a business or government. and more of them that Usama Bin Laden. In the past, that > attitude killed, and it still costs poor people their lives today. Poor people have always died, will always die and is a definition of being poor. Poor people starve to death and health can relate directly to income. > They work, but never for enough to pay their own bills, and none of you > are willing to pay more, where more must be paid, or you just the > fuckin' thief. They work as many hours or more, they work physically > harder than most of the higher education jobs, and as you sit on your > a.s and generate an attitude as if they are all dumb, This country has many programs that other countries don't have. The workers are happy for the jobs so I don't know where you are going with that. There are many illegals coming here to work. There is an influx of workers coming here. when they all get > the bird flu and die because they can't afford the vaccine or the cure, > then you'll be wondering who'll wait on your tables, clean your office, > and looking around wondering why the hell no-one ever cleans the > toilet, and you always have to get your toilet paper. Those services > cannot be provided, if those people are not given the consideration, to > have a place to live, shower, support themselves, and thier families. I don't know what you mean by not given consideration to have a place to live etc. The bird flu does not descriminate. As an immigrant from a poor country coming hear and listening to you talk about the people here really sounds funny. The poor here live like that rich back at the old country. We had well water and an out-house with a big hole not a toilet. We had to bang on a tin pot walking in there to scare off all the rats first. That guilt trip stuff might work with some US people but if you ask us immigrants then that sounds funny sorry. Americans don't know what poverty is. Patient's Bill of Rights. http://www.consumer.gov/qualityhealth/rights.htm The law just gives you the option of what ever treatment you need. Doctors, Hospitals, etc. have no right to turn you away, private or public. The link you provided is from LA. I know about LA, and what goes on there. There's legalized slavery running right out of Salvation Army's Distribution Center. Nearly every cent they earn, goes right back into the building that they are staying in. They can't stay unless they sign a contract. The contract deducts all of the money that they earn as living expenses. As a result, they only make about 20 bucks a week. At least it was that way in 2000, when I was there. They are not helping people at all. They claim to be helping but they are taking in both State and Federal Funds, and very calculatively making sure that no-one can pay rent to live anywhere else. The time arrangements are also fine tuned and caculated to insure that you won't have a place to stay if you find a job because, getting to that first paycheck, will have you living somewhere else. First months rent, last months rent, and the deposite add up to almost 3 grand, at least in that area. Can you do that with 400, or 900 bucks in your first paycheck? They'll put you right back out on the street. Even though they know that it's practically impossible to save 3 grand, without other expenses coming along. Are you going to fast at lunch, or are you going to quit your job to get to a feed line, or are you going to find another line with bag lunches that you're work schedule overlaps? There is a monopoly on the poor people in Long Beach. They keep the poor out of work and keep their jobs, by acting like they are helping, but at the same time, making sure that they don't. That way, the federal money, and the state money keeps rolling in to employ those individuals pretending to help. Until, you have needed that help, you wouldn't know how that monopoly, and system works. I bought a bus ticket, and went to a small town, that really helped people. In fact, the number of unemployed, is only equal to the Handicapped, and Elderly, or the people that are too young, too old, too crippled, or just can't work. But, there's no staffed building of secretaries, book keepers, social service adminstrators. There's no building filled with the pretenders. A giant chunk of the money is all going into the hands of staffed attorneys and lawyers at the Social Security Building, and those that are circling it like vultures. When or loose, they always get paid. I won't even shop at Salvation Army for junk, and it is because, I was there, and saw for myself, what was going on in Long Beach. I lost all respect for that operation, and the Salvation Army, as a whole. I went to Ross Dress For Less, and got new clothes, for less than the used clothes I seen on the racks at the Salvation Army. They don't pay labor, for manufacturing, but they pay to ship the stuff several times to avoid embarrassing anyone who recieves donated clothes. LA, is over a million people large. If you did see some-one wearing your clothes, would you be all that sure that they were? So, Salvation Army, explains all of this bullshit, away by the shipping costs claim, and overhead. They rent big buildings, and of course, garbage collection bills. They are so dissorganized, that they can explain everything. All of the Politicians have money, and what would their friends say? Oh, I saw you in the Salvation Army. Giving them money? The network is corrupt, and the paperwork is all there to prove that it was spent on something. Ya' know, something stupid based upon popular demand.. A bunch of bums worried about some-one recogizing their clothes. Hell, the bums can't afford em' and they are typically cheaper new.. Coffee isn't a survival issue, and water you would have a right to. If you were going to charge anyone, and everyone for water, like the people who send you your water bill, then maybe, if people were stingy enough, they'd write a law granting you a right to a glass of water. The War Against Poverty, was fought in America, because corporations, and businesses were not paying the employees enough to live or survive. In part that was a reason. Alot of people died during the Great Depression. But, the cause, that lead up to that, was an attitude that distanced the rich from the poor, and attempted to treat the poor like animals. A president stood in their defense. Bully. > Patient's Bill of Rights. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Doctors, Hospitals, etc. have no right to turn you away, private or > public. There is no legal right to health care. Robert is correct in that an emergency department must provide "stabilization" care and resolve the emergency, but you don't have a universal right to have your hernia fixed - somebody has to pay for that. HMc > Patient's Bill of Rights. > > http://www.consumer.gov/qualityhealth/rights.htm These are not rights. These are recommendations by the federal government. "This document was intended to serve as a blueprint for how systems and procedures that aim to protect consumers and ensure quality of care could be improved. In particular, the Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities expressed three goals:" These are not rights being granted by law. "Many health plans, including all of the plans sponsored by the Federal government, have adopted these general principles. The Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities also lists specific rights and responsibilities that Federal health plans and others have also adopted." If you or any organization has to adopt it then it's not a right. Some of the specific rights have been enacted by specific law. A person does not have a right to "healthcare". They can not descriminate is based on the US Bill of Rights. > The law just gives you the option of what ever treatment you need. > Doctors, Hospitals, etc. have no right to turn you away, private or > public For emergency care the federal law was established. It is not a right to all healthcare for what ever reason. There is no universal healthcare system established by federal law. Federal law made the states give healthcare to poor people who can not pay. Federal law established Medicare for those after you reach a certain age. There is federal law ensuring privacy of information concerning your health etc. . > else. The time arrangements are also fine tuned and caculated to > insure that you won't have a place to stay if you find a job because, > getting to that first paycheck, will have you living somewhere else. > First months rent, last months rent, and the deposite add up to almost > 3 grand, at least in that area. Can you do that with 400, or 900 bucks > in your first paycheck? It is not the role of healthcare institutions like hospitals to care for all living related issues. > overlaps? There is a monopoly on the poor people in Long >Beach. There is poverty in the Phillipines where people live in open land and die from mud-slides. The only distended abdomens you see in Long Beach is from alcohol induced ascites. > individuals pretending to help. Until, you have needed that help, you > wouldn't know how that monopoly, and system works. Third world countries don't have that help and have never had that help. If you can't afford a simple IV antibiotic in a third world country you will die. If you have the money to pay for that antibiotic then you live. The hospital is not forced to provide it to all. There is no guilt on the part of the hospital or on the part of the family. It's a matter of living or dying in this world. Those are hard issues people learn to deal with very early on. Only people born in the US believe it is a right to have a liver transplant or everything else. Try that guilt trip on those people from third world countries. Do people in the US have more rights here compared to the Phillipines or in Africa? The rest are social issues that hospitals are not responsible for. Try living under a corrupt dictator in Africa before you start complaining. > The War Against Poverty, was fought in America, because corporations, > and businesses were not paying the employees enough to live or survive. The War would be better off to send these people claiming to be poor to a poor country and seeing what poor really is. Complaining about how late the state check in the mail was is not being poor. > In part that was a reason. Alot of people died during the Great > Depression. But, the cause, that lead up to that, was an attitude that > distanced the rich from the poor, and attempted to treat the poor like > animals. A president stood in their defense. Bully. There will always be poverty. So, how has anyone proven me wrong? I kept saying that the government didn't like to pay half, or any of it. But, they are initiating the law, and insist that there is a Right to Health Care. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/15/healthcare/index.html You have a Right to Healthcare by law. But, you cannot sue as a result of it. It was almost that way. Big Fruadulent Political Claims were made about A Right to Healthcare. The same people cut tax spending on medicare, medicaid, and other medical programs. That is fraudulent. If politicians didn't lie so damn much, people like me would know their a.shole from a hole in the ground. With Inflation, and an increasing Population, there is no real way Healthcare could cost less next year, nor the year after that. Politicians are just dumb enough to think so. After all, all they did was win a popularity vote, and weren't elected for their educations or points on an damn IQ test. f.cked up at how we both wind up right, arguing about f.cking politics. I've never known a way to pay half of the bills, but politicians seem to think it can be done. But, they were elected, and not hired. A fool could be so love, and popular, after all Howard Stern Was the Mayor of New York City. Think about it, popularity is everything to getting or being elected. Popular ideas, popular notioins, popular projects, and they all get slung over the shoulder of assbite popular rich person that can't feel important without spending a few million on becoming a politician, or being one. In other words, the rest is commercializm and travel expenses. America, is f.cking sinking down a dark hole and the only graffiti you see on the sides of that hole is repeatedly all the same word over an over again all the way down, STUPID. Here's the problem. We keep watching these electorial parties, the Democrats, Republicans, and Liberals, all fight over who gets to do what right. It's one thing to watch a football game, and see people fight over the ball. But, when it comes down to doing something right, or doing nothing at all, the Teams are not all on the same side, and want all the credit for every good deed. So, they vote on this sh.t line by line for the sake of crippling the opponent. If the Democrats have a great idea, the Republicans pick it appart. If the Republican's have a good idea, the Democrats pick it appart. Either side is working hard to glorify themsleves, and step on the opposing team, as if law, order, taxes, politics, and healthcare were all just fun and games, and no lives were at stake. It really is f.cked up that Americans, can't even give a flying f.ck about their own people, as to say"These Americans belong in the trash, because we voted in politicians that took out the standard of living, and a living wage, to settle for a substandard minimum wage that won't allow anyone to work an entry level job, to pay their own way through college with anywhere to live, independantly." So, it's f.ck the responsible respectable self-motivated Americans, and put them together with the lazy, the lame, and elderly, in somuch as to keep pulling the carpet from under the feet of the poor, and say, "Too bad you can't afford to fix that knee, or too bad that nasty fall wrecked your back." But, you rich lazy desk jockeys, won't have anyone left to pick up your messes until you pay them better. If they can't afford soap and rent, they'll stink like the people you made into bums. >So, how has anyone proven me wrong? I kept saying that the government >didn't like to pay half, or any of it. But, they are initiating the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You have a Right to Healthcare by law. But, you cannot sue as a result >of it. It was almost that way. Which law? -- "Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby." --PJ O'Rourke > >So, how has anyone proven me wrong? I kept saying that the government > >didn't like to pay half, or any of it. But, they are initiating the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Which law? I think he is confused with Canada that has socialized medicine and does everything he hates and is complaining about. > So, how has anyone proven me wrong? I kept saying that the government > didn't like to pay half, or any of it. But, they are initiating the > law, and insist that there is a Right to Health Care. > > http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/15/healthcare/index.html Once again you got it wrong. This was in 1999 and it states: "The Senate gave final approval Thursday night to a "patients' bill of rights" that would give millions of Americans covered by managed care plans increased access to specialists and emergency room care." It does not state that all people insured and uninsured has a right to healthcare. It states that "those on mamaged care plans", meaning those WITH insurance would have certain rights. > You have a Right to Healthcare by law. But, you cannot sue as a result > of it. There is no Right to Healthcare. Patients have Rights which is not the same thing. In order to have rights as a patient you first must be on a healthcare plan. It was almost that way. Big Fruadulent Political Claims were > made about A Right to Healthcare. The same people cut tax spending on > medicare, medicaid, and other medical programs. The same thing would happen under a universal national healthcare program. It would all be under political control. That is fraudulent. > If politicians didn't lie so damn much, people like me would know their > a.shole from a hole in the ground. With Inflation, and an increasing > Population, there is no real way Healthcare could cost less next year, > nor the year after that. Politicians are just dumb enough to think so. They are not dumb only playing dumb. Where will the money come from? You end up either denying services or having delays. > After all, all they did was win a popularity vote, and weren't elected > for their educations or points on an damn IQ test. f.cked up at how we > both wind up right, arguing about f.cking politics. I am always amazed who people complain about politics and then want to place all healthcare under them and think that solves anything. > So, how has anyone proven me wrong? I kept saying that the government > didn't like to pay half, or any of it. But, they are initiating the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > made about A Right to Healthcare. The same people cut tax spending on > medicare, medicaid, and other medical programs. You'd do well to actually read the articles you are quoting. They say nothing about a right to health care, they simply suggest a set of rights that people who already have managed health care plans ought to have. HMc Why don't you just admit that the Patient's Bill of Rights, was fraudulent, and when President Bill Clinton, started reducing spending in the direction of health care, had a smoke screen up that convinced most people that the health care system would do more for less. In reality, the population typically nearly doubles every 20 years, and in reality we have inflation. So, in reality, there is absolutely no way to improve the healthcare system by cutting spending, when everything costs something, with every year that passes everything costs more, and with every year that passes there are more people to require those services. In reality, he pulled the wool over your eyes, put up a smoke screen, didn't give you a right to anything, and made it that much harder for you to get help when you needed it. >Why don't you just admit that the Patient's Bill of Rights, was >fraudulent, and when President Bill Clinton, started reducing spending >in the direction of health care, had a smoke screen up that convinced >most people that the health care system would do more for less. > >In reality, the population typically nearly doubles every 20 years, The population of the US in 2006 is approximately 24% larger than it was in 1986, idiot. It takes about one minute to look this up. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > Hello to the Medical Community, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Pass this not on to the book keeping office, and your Administrations > Doctors.. People don't have a right to health care in a system where most of that care is provided by private businesspeople. THAT is simple. There is no law that includes such a compulsion, no basis even for civil litigation. Not that there shouldn't be... HMc |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.