"Obamacare"

[John Lee Pettimore III]

Early primary care is another big thing. If you're insured and see a doctor routinely for check-ups you're far more likely to control your potential health problems before they become catastrophic (like hypertension, diabetes, etc).

There are a lot of people living with chronic, treatable illness and are asymptomatic, but not receiving preventive care. These people are the ones that end up in the ER with complications 10 years down the road.

It took like five minutes of digging, but I found a program where the local hospital offers assistance to people, where a group offers free cancer screenings, and the various insurance programs offered by the state.

 

[acropolis]

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

It took like five minutes of digging, but I found a program where the local hospital offers assistance to people, where a group offers free cancer screenings, and the various insurance programs offered by the state.

It takes more than random charity to get this to work. Plus, most people with cancer, hypertension, or diabetes are asymptomatic in the early, highly treatable stages. If they don't have a doctor they routinely see, they may not think to go to a random charity screening event.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What is your point, Acropolis? You don't like birth control? How would you keep the population from exploding and overwhelming the planet?

And 40,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance. "Obamacare" is a first important step to getting that insurance. Are you opposed to that because of concerns that health insurance can cover birth control? If that is your concern, why not just try to change that aspect, and still join in the cry that everybody should be covered with insurance?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It took like five minutes of digging, but I found a program where the local hospital offers assistance to people, where a group offers free cancer screenings, and the various insurance programs offered by the state.

A couple of free screenings for cancer is not universal screenings for all.

And universal screenings is not the same as universal coverage.

Meanwhile 40,000 die each year because they don't have health insurance. A couple of free screening won't fix that problem, will it?

 

[drjean]

Because of government regulations that went into effect Jan 1st... many chronic pain patients (including me) are without pain meds.

I now recall Mr Obama telling us (the aged and disabled) to go home and die...

He said what did it matter if we took the blue pill instead of the one we needed? and quit being a burden to society as we can't add anything of value...

already I don't like socialized medicine. Just my POV.

 

[cow451]

It took like five minutes of digging, but I found a program where the local hospital offers assistance to people, where a group offers free cancer screenings, and the various insurance programs offered by the state.

OK, get a free screening, find out you have an elevated PSA. Great, no insurance, too much income for Medicaid, etc. Guess I'll need to wait to get too sick to work, at which time I'll qualify for Medicaid and be at stage IV of an otherwise very treatable disease. Now, that's an interesting plan to keep costs down.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because of government regulations that went into effect Jan 1st... many chronic pain patients (including me) are without pain meds.

That is horrible. What government regulation went into effect on Januay 1 that resulted in you having to do without pain medicine? How did it prevent you from getting the pain meds you needed?

I now recall Mr Obama telling us (the aged and disabled) to go home and die...

Interesting. I did a search of the Internet and could not find anybody who says he said this.

If he really said this, don't you think somebody besides you would remember it?

Should the rest of us just trust your memory on this one?

He said what did it matter if we took the blue pill instead of the one we needed?

Excuse me, but what he actually said was, "If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?" (Emphasis added.) I find nothing here about not taking the red pill if that is the one that is needed.

Where are you getting your information?

...and quit being a burden to society as we can't add anything of value...

Oh, please, when did he say this?

Are you just making stuff up and pretending Obama said it?

Oh, and your Bible still commands not to bear false witness against others, correct? The last I checked that command was still there.

already I don't like socialized medicine. Just my POV.

But do you like universal coverage for all Americans? Or are you OK with many good American citizens dying because they have no means to get the heathcare they need?

 

[cow451]

Because of government regulations that went into effect Jan 1st... many chronic pain patients (including me) are without pain meds.

Which regulation? What can you not get?

 

[jgarden]

Young people are forgoing medical care because of cost. What does that mean for the future?
June 11th, 2012

..... A new report shows that millions of young adults are skipping necessary care because of rising health care costs.

The survey put out by Commonwealth Fund shows 41% of those between 19 and 29-years-old failed to get medical care because it's too expensive. When it comes to uninsured adults, that number jumps to 60%.

There a lot of implications to this - none of them good.

Young adults are not filling prescriptions, not getting recommended tests or treatments, avoiding doctor visits and not seeking specialist care they need.

Doctors say young adults often stop listening to medical advice once they hear how much treatment it will cost.

And those who actually do decide to get medical care wind up with loads of debt.

36% of young adults had problems paying off their medical bills - or paid the bills over time.

Some young people say they've used up all their savings to pay medical bills. Others have taken on credit card debt or have been unable to pay off student loans.

Still others say they've put off education or career plans because of medical money issues; or they say they haven't been able to pay for things like food or rent.

Experts say growing medical debt is in part due to "the tremendous cost shift" to patients because of high-deductibles, co-payments and co-insurance

Young people are forgoing medical care because of cost. What does that mean for the future? – Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs

Conservatives have branded Obamacare as an infringement on their Constitutional rights:
- the right to avoid doctor visits or specialist care
- the right not to get recommended tests or treatments,
- the right not to fill prescriptions,
- the right to postpone education or career plans,
- the right to choose between paying medical bills versus food, rent and student loans,
- the right to deplete all their personal savings to pay medical bills for themselves and loved ones,
- the right to go bankrupt,
- the right to get sick and/or die at a younger age than necessary

 

[doubtingmerle]

I now recall Mr Obama telling us (the aged and disabled) to go home and die...
already I don't like socialized medicine.

Oh dear. And should the government get its socialist hands off of your medicare?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because of government regulations that went into effect Jan 1st... many chronic pain patients (including me) are without pain meds.

I now recall Mr Obama telling us (the aged and disabled) to go home and die...

He said what did it matter if we took the blue pill instead of the one we needed? and quit being a burden to society as we can't add anything of value...

already I don't like socialized medicine. Just my POV.

Did he take the medication away or did he just force you to buy it yourself and if you can't afford it tough? There is a difference. If it is not there then no one can have it if it cost $500 a pop then if you make enough you CAN have it. By the way some disabled people CAN add value. I, for example, am disabled and intended to get off SSI ASAP after leaving school.

I am NOT saying that it is fair nor that it is the way it SHOULD be nor am I saying that I would not let someone like that out if I could but you and I both know that this is a SECULAR government that it IS true that usually the older you get or if you are disabled medical bills cost more and that there are only so many tax dollars ( which is how that stuff will be funded) Thus in a sense looking at it from a pure money standpoint he is right we cost more and you can't deny that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

you and I both know that this is a SECULAR government that it IS true that usually the older you get or if you are disabled medical bills cost more and that there are only so many tax dollars ( which is how that stuff will be funded) Thus in a sense looking at it from a pure money standpoint he is right we cost more and you can't deny that.

The fact that the government is secular does not mean it is stingy. You and I (and the others) own this government. We should decide how generous we want it to be.

(I vote for generous, but that's just the way us bleeding-heart liberals are.)

The fact that elderly and disabled cost more is a big reason why private insurance is not the total answer to healthcare. Private insurance companies do not want to insure the elderly and disabled. So if they are going to be insured, we must either require that they do that (such as through Obamacare) or the government must take care of insuring them.

 

[cow451]

Did he take the medication away or did he just force you to buy it yourself and if you can't afford it tough? There is a difference.

I wonder if drjean is going to get back with us. I'd like to know more about the circumstances brought up.

 

[doubtingmerle]

no do like we already do and treat them anyway

Right, we treat them at the hospitals when they come for emergency care without insurance.

This worked when almost everybody had insurance, and those few who did not could always at least have emergency room care.

It does not work when 50 million people are uninsured. Now the emergency rooms are jammed with uninsured people seeking their only means of coverage (at emergency rooms). And hospitals in poor neighborhoods are faced with huge bills that they are liable for. And many people could have been cured for much less money if they had had insurance to treat things early. And often it is too late when a person finally arrives at the emergency room. Thousands die.

The system does not work. Life expectancy is way down in poor states. 40,000 people die each year because they did not have health insurance.

You tell us to stick with what we have. In that system 40,000 people die each year because they do not have health insurance. I have asked you several times if you are OK with that. You have not answered. Why do you not answer that question?

I am not OK with 40,000 people dying of neglect (but that's just the way us bleeding heart liberals are). I notice that you will not tell us whether you are OK with that or not. I would love to know if you are OK with that, or if you think it should be changed.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The fact that the government is secular does not mean it is stingy. You and I (and the others) own this government. We should decide how generous we want it to be.

(I vote for generous, but that's just the way us bleeding-heart liberals are.)

The fact that elderly and disabled cost more is a big reason why private insurance is not the total answer to healthcare. Private insurance companies do not want to insure the elderly and disabled. So if they are going to be insured, we must either require that they do that (such as through Obamacare) or the government must take care of insuring them.

Well most people that am there mentally ( like able to understand things know) Common sense says I have seizures I cost more I should not use all the government's money if it will just keep costing for life and we can do nothing about it. Common sense tells my mentally stable grandparents 73 and 76 the same thing. If I KNOW I won't get better and have next to NO quality of life and will just have to keep taking out 1,000s of dollars and not putting ANY in with no hope of getting better it might actually be more ETHICAL for such people to refuse treatment. Also, no they could just start telling people at ERS and they are in places do NOT come here if it is NOT an EMERANCY until then do not show up. This cuts down on it A LOT If people know they can't get treated until they get bad they will not try. Does it need to be changed it would be nice but there comes a point when if YOU can''t afford it it is ETHICAL for you to refuse treatment. Let me asks you this before Reagan passed the bill requiring ERs to treat people before recently when people started ABUSING that system (going for things for which there was NO need. How did the people who were poor get doctor care? Well usually (according to father) who is a little younger than you. Someone would usually help them out IF they knew the person (in terms of how they handled their money and other duties. For example, if someone was a hard worker who had fallen on hard times they would help them (sometimes in the form of a loan) sometimes a gift) in other words not requiring payment back. On the other hand if someone was known to be a bum and/or waste their money on cigarettes, alcohol ECT those people would not get help because they managed their resources they DID have poorly. This is how health care and other government programs wel fare ECT should be it should be LOCAL. This way people are less likely to abuse the systems because people know who HONESTLY NEEDS the help and who needs it because they did not manage their resources/take care of themselves. I believe the federal and state government should offer very few wel-fare programs. Remember, you are talking to someone on SSI. Granted I want off BADLY but that is where I am right now

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Well most people that am there mentally ( like able to understand things know) Common sense says I have seizures I cost more I should not use all the government's money if it will just keep costing for life and we can do nothing about it. Common sense tells my mentally stable grandparents 73 and 76 the same thing. If I KNOW I won't get better and have next to NO quality of life and will just have to keep taking out 1,000s of dollars and not putting ANY in with no hope of getting better it might actually be more ETHICAL for such people to refuse treatment. Also, no they could just start telling people at ERS and they are in places do NOT come here if it is NOT an EMERANCY until then do not show up. This cuts down on it A LOT If people know they can't get treated until they get bad they will not try. Does it need to be changed it would be nice but there comes a point when if YOU can''t afford it it is ETHICAL for you to refuse treatment.

Money shouldn't be an issue when dealing with a persons last days, weeks or months. Nobody should have to refuse treatment because they can't afford it.

People are more important than money.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Money shouldn't be an issue when dealing with a persons last days, weeks or months. Nobody should have to refuse treatment because they can't afford it.

People are more important than money.

While this is true, the fact is that the more people are on a system the more it costs. I am NOT talking about people who need medical treatment and will recover. I am talking about those for whom treatment is just making them live with ZERO hope of getting better. Those are the ones I say are abusing the system are when people are spending money racking up bills but they will NOT get any better. Now what is also different is if someone is making himself herself comfortable during her last days pain medications Hospice ECT.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

While this is true, the fact is that the more people are on a system the more it costs. I am NOT talking about people who need medical treatment and will recover. I am talking about those for whom treatment is just making them live with ZERO hope of getting better. Those are the ones I say are abusing the system are when people are spending money racking up bills but they will NOT get any better. Now what is also different is if someone is making himself herself comfortable during her last days pain medications Hospice ECT.

Well technically anyone with a terminal illness will not get any better. They may have days where they feel better or have more function but they are on a downwards slope leading to death.

Who are you to deny them perhaps some more time or happiness because they are racking up the bills? Not everyone thinks there is a afterlife, so they want to cherish every minute of this short life they can.

 

[TScott]

Because of government regulations that went into effect Jan 1st... many chronic pain patients (including me) are without pain meds.

What regs? Are you referring to the regs in Washington state? Excatly what regs are you talking about?