 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 4:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:42:01 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> The only sane answer is that I would not force a hospital to do any of
>> these. I would let the hospital decide.
>
> So, how would you fix the healthcare problems in the US?
>
> Jim
>
He wouldn't. You can't "not" force someone help others, and not have
people die as a result. What pisses me off a whole lot, are the ones
that will assert all the things no one should be "forced" to do, then,
when its them in the situation, praise the same rules they think
shouldn't exist, which resulting in them being saved.
Its also a false equivalence. Preventative care means "less" emergency
care, since a great many cases never reach the state in which they "are"
an emergency. Since such emergency care costs more, and has higher
risks, liabilities, and thus... again, costs more, reducing the number
of cases that reach that stage actually "increases" the available
resources to deal with emergencies. If you ignore this, you get idiot
shit like in my city, where the hospital can't handle some emergencies
at all, so has to, as extreme expense, ship people hundreds of miles, by
chopper, to some place that can. Basically - don't make the mistake of
having a major heart attack, or anything else untreatable here, in the
same 3-4 hours it takes for them to ship the last patient off, refuel,
and come back. If you do... you're dead. Which is just insane, except..
they also fail, miserably, at "preventative care" as well, so... odds
are, if you have a problem, it "will" progress to the point, eventually,
where you need that airlift.
All of the other arguments about "forcing" people are similar idiocies.
Its not the damn hospitals forcing people to not do care, or forcing
them to pick between expensive, one shot, high death, "emergency care",
instead of preventative care. Its insurance companies telling people,
"We will pay to replace your kidney, assuming we can bloody find one in
time, but we **won't** pay for the care needed to prevent kidney failure
in the first place." But, I suppose, Shay thinks its "inappropriate" to
"force" insurance companies to actually pay for procedures, which the
doctors **would provide**, if the insurance didn't deny them?
Because, I know for a damn fact that you won't find a single competent
doctor, unless they are some high paid idiot for the stars/certain
politicians, or a specialist, who knows that preventative care would cut
into the number of open heart surgeries, or the like they could charge
people for, who thinks "preventative care" is a bad if idea, and they
would be "forced" to give up emergency care to get it. First off, the
people providing the emergency care are often experts "at" that kind of
care, not the family doctors you go to, in order to get preventative
care. Second, most emergency wards are overworked, dealing with crap
that "should be" preventative. If you go in with a damn cold, odds are,
instead of going to a regular doctor, or a care center that deal with
basic prevention, you may find yourself waiting in line with someone who
needs their arm reattached, do to some serious accident.
But, this was **never** the way it was supposed to work. It wasn't the
way it worked before, and it only reached this point precisely because
less and less "preventative" medicine has been practiced, leaving anyone
from someone in needs of a damn bandaid, to people in need of major
surgery, from a car accident, all shoved into the "emergency room". The
one damn place that the former ***doesn't belong in the first place,
except, they can't afford a family doctor, or find anyone working, on
the day they need "basic care". And, given how many don't have doctors
at all, most of these people would have never ***had to*** go to the
emergency room, to look for even "basic care", if they had been able to
go to/find a regular doctor, to get "preventative care", to keep their
chest cold, for example, from progressing from something a few pills
would have cured, to full blown pneumonia.
"Preventative care" saves costs on unneeded "basic care".
Having "basic care" handled properly by places that **just** deal with
such non-emergencies saves money that would be better spent on
"emergency care".
And, if you are not messing with "basic care" right along side of bloody
"emergency care", in the same damn place, fewer people die, because
doctors, nurses, etc. who work in the emergency rooms, are over worked,
over stressed, and trying to deal with 500 problems an hour, instead of 50.
All of which hinges not on "doctors" being "forced" to provide such
things, but on an unwillingness of insurance companies to pay for proper
"preventative care", agree on the best "basic care", or, sometimes, even
pay for "emergency care", if it falls into some category of, "Well,
there is a cheaper, inferior, solution, which you will probably die from
sooner, saving us, the insurance company, money." Except, because the
insurance companies are the ones making these decisions, on what is, or
isn't, paid for, and the "preventative care" is the one they are
***least likely*** to pay for.. it was decided to, instead of fixing the
fucking problem, to instead "require" any and all problems, no matter
how trivial, which come into an emergency ward, to be "treated", for
free. The only "forcing" being done, sadly, being done "purely" to treat
as many people as possible, including the ones that are there
**because** they never got preventative, or basic, care, until a minor,
cheaply fixed, trivial, infection, or other problem, has **escalated**
into a full blown emergency (assuming, of course, that they don't come
in before it gets to that point, get handed a few pills, told to go to a
regular doctor, which they don't have, to continue treatment, and thus,
never do, leading, again, to them "eventually" actually ending up in the
emergency room because they are not not just sick, but possibly dying.)
Yeah, I have absolutely no bloody patience with people that think fixing
this idiot mess is a bad idea, or that someone more people will die, by
making sure more people don't get to the point they are dying in the
damn first place.. It shows a complete, and total, oblivious ignorance
of what is going, on, what doctors themselves say on the subject, what
the actual problems are, or why the fuck they got that way, in the first
place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 09:45 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Yeah, I have absolutely no bloody patience with people that think fixing
> this idiot mess is a bad idea,
The same way we fixed the idiot messes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet
Nam? Have we since tuned up our magic wand?
> or that someone more people will die, by
> making sure more people don't get to the point they are dying in the
> damn first place..
I have absolutely no bloody patience for people who go on for paragraphs
about preventive vs. trauma care while obviously having no idea what
trauma care is.
Too bad that guy's head went through a windshield. Maybe if we'd given
him some antibiotics ...
> It shows a complete, and total, oblivious ignorance
> of what is going, on, what doctors themselves say on the subject, what
> the actual problems are, or why the fuck they got that way, in the first
> place.
Complete AND total? Do go on.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:32:57 -0500, Shay wrote:
> A typical authoritarian question.
That pretty much tells me what I need to know, thanks.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 11:26 PM, Shay wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 09:45 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, I have absolutely no bloody patience with people that think fixing
>> this idiot mess is a bad idea,
>
> The same way we fixed the idiot messes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet
> Nam? Have we since tuned up our magic wand?
>
Yeah, because that is **exactly** the same thing. And people claim I am
bad at analogies sometimes...
>> or that someone more people will die, by
>> making sure more people don't get to the point they are dying in the
>> damn first place..
>
> I have absolutely no bloody patience for people who go on for paragraphs
> about preventive vs. trauma care while obviously having no idea what
> trauma care is.
>
> Too bad that guy's head went through a windshield. Maybe if we'd given
> him some antibiotics ...
>
WTF? No, its - lets ship this guy 50 miles to another hospital, because
we are too busy given 10 idiots, who should have gone to a regular
doctor, but couldn't, antibiotics, for shit that could have been treated
with a damn bandaid three weeks earlier. But, yeah, I get that you have
no damn clue what the problems really are, or how they got to be such a
damn mess in the first place. Worse, you think that actually making sure
people get the bandaid - note, not forcing doctors to hand out bandaids,
but just making f-ing sure they can get to a primary doctor, for one, is
"forcing" those non-specialist, non-trauma care, non-emergency room,
doctors to do things, while somehow taking away the ability of the ones
that "are" in those emergency care locations to deal with the real
trauma cases, which they can't right now, because they are too busy
dealing with crap that should have never gotten to them in the first place.
How does that make any damn sense? Next you will be telling me that
hiring more school nurses will "take away necessary staff from, and
further overload emergency responders, by **forcing** them to work in
schools, instead of driving ambulances." It makes about as much damn
sense as claiming that trauma care professionals are going to be somehow
"forced" to hand out antibiotics to people who can, with actual fraking
health care coverage, now see regular doctors.
Now, **if** you are claiming that there might be an increase in idiots
showing up in places they shouldn't, **instead of** going to primary
care physicians, then you would have a point. Not much of one though,
since ***they are already doing that, because its the only care, without
insurance, they can get right now***.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/12/2013 10:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:32:57 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> A typical authoritarian question.
>
> That pretty much tells me what I need to know, thanks.
>
Dismissive for a third time. No surprise there.
I contrasted my position with yours to provide an opportunity for
understanding. I can't make you take that opportunity.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/12/2013 11:14 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 11:26 PM, Shay wrote:
Yes, the world is full of stupidity, and, yes, maybe YOU could improve
some of it if you had infinite, incorruptible power at your disposal.
But this is a fantasy, and no amount of problem-pointing-out makes it
any less of a fantasy.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 22:02:56 -0500, Shay wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 10:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:32:57 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> A typical authoritarian question.
>>
>> That pretty much tells me what I need to know, thanks.
>>
>>
> Dismissive for a third time. No surprise there.
>
> I contrasted my position with yours to provide an opportunity for
> understanding. I can't make you take that opportunity.
You assume that my position is an authoritarian position, and then you
constructed a debate against that assumed position. You also assumed
what answer I wanted, and then "graciously" provided that answer, rather
than actually answering the question.
I'm not going to get into a strawman debate on the issue.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/12/2013 10:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 22:02:56 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2013 10:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:32:57 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>>> A typical authoritarian question.
>>>
>>> That pretty much tells me what I need to know, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>> Dismissive for a third time. No surprise there.
>>
>> I contrasted my position with yours to provide an opportunity for
>> understanding. I can't make you take that opportunity.
>
> You assume that my position is an authoritarian position, and then you
> constructed a debate against that assumed position. You also assumed
> what answer I wanted, and then "graciously" provided that answer, rather
> than actually answering the question.
>
> I'm not going to get into a strawman debate on the issue.
>
And here we are, right back in the middle of every argument you've ever
had with Warp ... at the "Strawman" strawman.
If you're EVER interested in understand the case for limited government
beyond "some people hate the poor," let me know.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 07:31:59 -0500, Shay wrote:
>> I'm not going to get into a strawman debate on the issue.
>>
> And here we are, right back in the middle of every argument you've ever
> had with Warp ... at the "Strawman" strawman.
>
> If you're EVER interested in understand the case for limited government
> beyond "some people hate the poor," let me know.
<shrug>
That's really just complete nonsense, that the "strawman" is itself a
strawman. You've decided what question I asked and answered that, rather
than answering the question I actually asked.
You had the debate you wanted to have, answered the question you wanted
to answer, and ignored my question.
When you're interested in having a discussion about reality rather than a
hypothetical situation that actually isn't reflected in reality, you let
*me* know.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/13/2013 03:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 07:31:59 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>>> I'm not going to get into a strawman debate on the issue.
>>>
>> And here we are, right back in the middle of every argument you've ever
>> had with Warp ... at the "Strawman" strawman.
>>
>> If you're EVER interested in understand the case for limited government
>> beyond "some people hate the poor," let me know.
>
> <shrug>
>
> That's really just complete nonsense, that the "strawman" is itself a
> strawman. You've decided what question I asked and answered that, rather
> than answering the question I actually asked.
>
> You had the debate you wanted to have, answered the question you wanted
> to answer, and ignored my question.
>
> When you're interested in having a discussion about reality rather than a
> hypothetical situation that actually isn't reflected in reality, you let
> *me* know.
>
I answered your questions, Jim. Both of them. Only after pointing out
the inferences loaded into them, but I did answer them. You'll do
anything to avoid actual discussion of this topic. It's transparent.
I don't know if you spend your days surrounded by children or idiots who
fall for that kind of crap, or if you just *think* you do. But I've laid
out my case plainly enough for anyone willing to learn from it.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
