- advertisement -

Interested to read Sup. Ct. healthcare decision

Discussion in 'Parents Off Topic' started by virgo39, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. Mish

    Mish Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,393
    Oh, the sky hasn't fallen since we allowed same sex marriage here either. ;)
    Not coincidentally, that also happened under Romney's term as Governor.

    (not that he supported it, he was too busy raising taxes on other things, like, how much it cost to renew our drivers licence and pump gas and slashing aid to cities and towns so that school budgets were decimated....while private corporations got rich fast.)
     
  2. Ed2009

    Ed2009 Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    261
    Didn't you forget heart bleedin' ? :D
     
  3. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    I thought that would be redundant with "liberal elitist" in there. :p
     
  4. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    Actually it has everything to do with health care. One of the main thrusts of the bill and a huge cost savings will come from prevention. Early detection and prevention will save lives and money.
     
  5. Mish

    Mish Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,393
    Just since we're all being honest, I'm going to laugh heartily now. :D:D:D

    Sue, please, every post you post in gets locked down due to your one track insistance on turning it to your pet-agenda of vaccines which Jeff has already indicated are off topic here.
     
  6. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    ??? Prevention is a bad thing in your book? Yes I am honest.
     
  7. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    For example mammograms will now be covered with no out of pocket. You would prefer women not be able to have mammos and die Instead? Well that would be poor women of course. Better to save the money?
     
  8. Mish

    Mish Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,393
    Pretty much. Just "not her".

    I recently lost a cousin due to (wait for it) undiagnosed diabetes (unknown type) She died in DKA. She was over 50, had no health insurance, and had been sick for a while and she was worried about the cost of going to the ER. One of the last facebook conversations we had, 2 days before she died, was about how she had felt sick for months and that in the past few days had lost tons of weight. A few of us urged her to go to the ER to get checked (and others even offered to send her the money to do so) but she didn't want to burden anyone.

    She was poor, had no insurance, was trying her best to support herself and her grandchild on the tiny salary she made delivering newspapers and she was too proud to take any outside assistance other than whatever she got for the baby.

    And now she's dead.
     
  9. Mish

    Mish Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,393
    oh Sue, I'm referring to your signature which now pollutes every thread.
     
  10. Illinifan

    Illinifan Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,405
    So the logic is this: Get a mammogram and you'll live and don't get a mammogram and you'll die?

    C'mon, let's at least be reasonable about this. What we are talking about here is trying to increase the probability of early detection so that we can implement treatment earlier to increase the probablity of a longer life span. The formula is more complicatd than "Do this and live or don't do it and die".

    Yes, the healthcare insurance system in this country needs to be improved. But this Act, while Constitutional accord to the SCOTUS, is bad legislation. It was passed too fast, read by too few and understood by less. Add in the Law of Unintented Consequences and the potential exists for huge problems.

    If Obama is re-elected and this law stands as is, we'll see how it turns out. 5, 10 years from now we'll know who was right.
     
  11. Illinifan

    Illinifan Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,405
    Mish, I grieve for you and your cousin, but the current state of the healtcare insurance system in this country didn't kill her.
     
  12. Mish

    Mish Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,393
    yes, that's pretty much how it works. On behalf of all women with breast cancer, I'm going to mentally kick you in the balls now.
     
  13. Mish

    Mish Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,393
    yeah, it pretty much did. When you have no insurance and no option to pay for an expensive visit AND you're the type of person who refuses to take a handout, then yes, the system pretty much is what killed her in the end. There are million s of uninsured yet working people who are just like her - they're not flooding the ERs getting "free" care, they're simply staying home and NOT getting care. That is one thing that was learned from the MA system. Preventative care has risen drastically among those who were previously uninsured. The same will hold for the country.
     
  14. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    And those poor women, they probably wouldn't want to live longer anyway, right? Once again, sorry I didn't take the time to use acceptable language. I think my point was understandable though, as is your's.
     
  15. Lance

    Lance Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Common sense would say that, but since common sense was tossed out here:
    and here...
    The assumption that "early detection.. will save lives and money" may not be true. There is evidence here that treating some things is absolutely less expensive.
     
  16. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    I'd like anyone else who thinks that my throwaway line about vaccines was an "attempt to shut down the discussion due to [my] lack of knowledge on the topic of healthcare reform" to go ahead and pipe up now. Since "we" can all see through me on this and all. :rolleyes: I mean, seriously. Some of the numbnuts things that have been said in this thread by people on your side of the argument, and you call ME out for having a lack of knowledge? Please.

    Here's a thought: Not everyone who disagrees with you on a topic is ill-informed, misled, a bleating sheep, or believes everything that the government tells us.

    I, for one, hope you keep your signature. I think it's good for people to know exactly what they're dealing with when they engage you on topics.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2012
  17. Mish

    Mish Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,393
    I didn't realize you were sensitive about it. if you want to put it out there as a jab at people's intelligence, then don't feel bad about it being called into question.
     
  18. Mish

    Mish Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,393
    Without being a strawman (cause we know how Swellman hates that) are you advocating that less expensive = better and that some people are too costly to allow to live?
     
  19. caspi

    caspi Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,134
    To take this one step further, trying to obtain insurance when you are uninsured is a nightmare itself. My MIL had to obtain private insurance after her husband died and was penalized because she had seen a doctor a year before for - get this - a cold. She had never been hospitalized (except for childbirth) and was in excellent health. Now imagine trying to add a pre-existing condition to the mix and it's close to impossible unless you're wealthy. There are millions of Americans that fall between the cracks of not being able to qualify for Medicaid and not being able to afford the high health insurance premiums.
     
  20. Illinifan

    Illinifan Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,405
    Apparently not. My dad is a cancer survivor x2 (prostrate and lung). His prostrate cancer was detected early and he had surgery and the highly skilled surgeon got all of the cancer and he never needed radiation.

    However, by the time they found the tumor in his lung, it was the size of a large softball and they took 2 of the 3 lobes of his right lung. Again, a skilled surgeon got all of it and he had a minimum of radiation.

    So, the same guy, two cases of cancer. One detected early and one detected late. The timing of the detection wasn't the only factor in his survival; it was one.

    It's still all about increasing the probablity of survival. To call it black and white is ignoring how we were created.
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice