Do you support UHC?

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Public opinion polling usually shows the public in favor of UHC over our current system by 20 points or more, in quite a few cases it tops 2/3rds in favor. That's as close to a mandate as you're likely to get on an issue.

I bet huge majorities would also support free gov't-provided McMansions too,..........

Why don't you run for public office with that theory and see how far you get.

As far as the White House, possibly - that's how far Obama got promising all sorts of things which only required additional taxes on the "rich" to pay for. But why pick on him? He's hardly the only pander-bear in public office; most follow the same formula, in BOTH parties. Promise things you can't or won't deliver, and hope the voters forget all those things once you get elected. It usually works. The last serious presidential candidate for either major party who I felt wasn't a complete liar was Paul Tsongas, but of course he lost to that most charming of pander-bears, Clinton, who promised both a 'middle-class tax cut' and univeral healthcare, neither of which he delivered. So the cycle goes . . .

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

What exactly are his health care ideas anyway? Perhaps I missed those somewhere. Maybe if I knew wtf UHC actually meant I would be able to do something other than vote NO.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

 

[boomerang]

I support reform as long as there is tort reform involved too. Not UHC at this time, but reform - first.

I met a child psychologist at a gathering recently. We were introduced to each other by a mutual friend. It came up in conversation (instigated by the mutual friend) that she was being sued for $24 million by a woman who claimed she was partly responsible for the death of her newborn.

She related the following story. It was the end of her workday and she was walking out of the Hospital. As she passed through obstetrics on her way out, a colleague she was friends with asked if she would take a quick look at a newborn. The child had just been born with severe problems and the Obstetrician just wanted a quick second opinion on the viability of the child. She hesitated, because it was not her area of expertise, but decided to take a quick look out of friendship. She did not go into detail but said it was obvious the child was not going to survive. She said it would be obvious even to a layperson. She shared her opinion with her friend the Obstetrician and went home. At no time did she examine or touch the child. She strictly looked at the child with her eyes.

She was served with papers several weeks afterwards. She said that based upon the way our system works at this time, that it was highly likely her insurance would pay a settlement. They would weigh the costs of a defense versus paying a settlement and just pay. She knew it, her insurance company knew it, the hospital knew it, the lawyers knew it and so did the claimant.

These types of lawsuits have got to cease. But with lawyers (Congress) in charge of reform or UHC, I do not see this happening.

There are a lot of factors driving the cost of health care in this country. UHC will not make it cheaper or better IMO. It's a band-aid on the most grand scale possible. We should learn to walk before running. Get costs under control through real reform. Once that's been proven to be obtainable and sustainable, let the quest for UHC begin.

As was said earlier it must then be modeled after a plan that actually works and modified in the necessary ways. Until the corruption ends in Congress, this will just be a shift of tax dollars to wherever the controlling party wishes the funds to go. There will be no savings. You can't add 40 to 50 million people to our current form of health care and not expect costs to increase. Major changes are needed first.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

That would be a maybe on the health care package, but your analogy was still horseshit.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

That would be a maybe on the health care package, but your analogy was still horseshit.

It's a free country. You're entitled to your opinion, however stupid it may be.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

That would be a maybe on the health care package, but your analogy was still horseshit.

It's a free country. You're entitled to your opinion, however stupid it may be.

Yep, and you're entitled to be as big an asshole as you want.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Having lived in three countries with different versions of UHC (UK, Germany, Netherlands), I can emphatically say "NO", I don't support it. It's a mess.

Do I think the health care system in this country needs overhauled? Absolutely. Do I think the government can run health care (or anything else for that matter) efficiently and provide good service? Absolutely not.

I agree with this. While I have not lived in either of these places...I've spent a lot of time over in each of these countries (as well as Denmark and Italy) and while there is a certain convenience about a UHC...I do not think the service provided is effective compared to private enterprise. I do feel like we need a reform here...but I definitely do not think the Government should be running it.

 

[Rustler]

No.........


'Hill Burton' Hospital Principle

The rebuilding effort can best be done in the spirit of the 1946 "Hospital Survey and Construction Act," which, for 25 years, built up the hospital and health-care system to high standards and accessibility. The nine-page law, often called the "Hill-Burton Act," after the bipartisan co-sponsors of the Act, Sens. Lister Hill (D-Ala.), and Harold Burton (R-Ohio), mandated Federal and local cooperation and funding, to see that the goal would be achieved of having a community hospital in every county, to guarantee hospital care to citizens: in rural counties at a ratio of 5.5 beds per 1,000 (sparsely settled regions require redundancy); and in urban areas, 4.5 beds per 1,000.

The Hill-Burton concept sees the community hospital as the hub of regional networks of health services, involving education, public health, sanitation, defense against epidemics and disasters, and research.

At the same time that the Hill-Burton hospital construction boom proceeded?providing many of the 3,089 U.S. counties with their first hospital ever?public-health programs and applied medical R&D all but eliminated polio, tuberculosis, and other diseases. Pertussis (whooping cough) declined from a peak of 156,000 cases in 1947 to 14,800 in 1960; diphtheria declined from 18,700 cases in 1945, to 900 in 1960. Mosquito control programs?including the use of the insecticide DDT, begun in 1940?were on the way to eliminating malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases.

By the mid-1970s, the Hill-Burton goal of 4.5 beds per 1,000 was nearly reached as the national average. Intervening laws furthered the approach: Amendments to the Hill-Burton Act in 1954 authorized funds for chronic-care facilities; in 1965, the Medicare and Medicaid health insurance programs were begun.

Then came the downshift, in line with the 1970s policy turn towards deregulation, privatization, and globalization. On Dec. 29, 1973, President Richard Nixon signed into law, with bipartisan support, the "Health Maintenance Organization and Resources Development Act," which, along with follow-up laws, ushered in the era of deregulation of health-care delivery, to the point where today, over 2,000 hospitals have shut down. Likewise, core public-health functions have been drastically reduced; hundreds of counties now have next to no programs at all. One of the most dramatic examples comes from the nation's capital.

In Fall 2001, the Washington, D.C. metro region could barely cope with the anthrax attack, given that its leading community hospital, the 150-year old D.C. General?a 500-bed, full-service facility with a pathology laboratory and isolation wing?had been shut down only months before, by direct action of Congress.

Hospital Systems Decline

The number of community hospitals in the U.S. fell from nearly 7,000 in the mid-1970s, down to barely 5,000 in 1999, and today, stands at 4,897. The ratio of licensed hospital beds per 1,000 citizens has dropped from 4.5 in the 1970s, down to 3 today.

The false "alternative" to full-service hospitals, has been presented in the form of clinics. The Obama Administration's "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" is letting out $155 millions for 126 clinics. These are useful in themselves, but no substitute for hospitals and hospital networks. Even worse, there are those proposing that "doc-in-the-box" operations should supplant hospital systems, in order to offer cut-rate care as a pretense for real health insurance.

Look at the emergency situation on the state level. In New Jersey, in 2007, three acute-care hospitals closed, and five more filed for bankruptcy. On Feb. 18, the New Jersey Hospital Association released the results of a survey over the past two months, reporting that of the 37 of the state's 74 acute-care hospitals that responded to the survey, 27% had a drop in cash reserves, and were making drastic cuts in staff and services. Clinics associated with the hospitals were also cut. This is the nationwide pattern.

In March, in Dallas, Texas, the 95-bed Renaissance Hospital shut; the parent company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008. In New York City, two hospitals closed on March 1: Mary Immaculate, and St. Johns Queens, after Caritas Health Care, Inc. filed for bankruptcy in February. In Pennsylvania, on March 5, the 40-bed Brownsville Tri-County Hospital closed, after 93 years. It is 30 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

The Veterans Administration nationwide hospital system?in the forefront of many medical advances, from prosthetic therapies, to electronic records, to successfully battling MRSA?is being downsized to far below what is required to meet the needs of former servicemen, and their extended community.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10238

 

[Rustler]

This is the title of a 1998 paper co-authored by Ezekiel Emanuel, a leading adviser to Budget Director Peter Orszag and a member of President Obama's elite 15-person Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is charged by the Obama administration with preparing the list of which medical procedures will henceforth be permitted, and which not, with an eye to cutting $2 trillion from health care payments?to be handed over to the bankrupt hedge funds and banks which run the HMOs.

Brandt, Goerring, and Hitler himself have nothing on these modern Nazis. Ezekiel Emanuel's co-author of the mentioned paper, Margaret Battin?like Emanuel, a bio-ethicist?has written other papers with sick titles like "The Least Worst Death: Selective Refusal of Treatment"; "Terminal Sedation: Pulling the Sheet Over Our Eyes"; and "Assisted Suicide: Can We Learn From Germany?" Is this any different than Hitler's doctor Karl Brandt's defense of euthanasia at Nuremberg: "Death can mean deliverance. Death is life?just as much as birth. It was never meant to be murder."

And don't forget that, among the means identified at Nuremberg as causing the "murder and ill-treatment of Civilian Populations" was the "inadequate provision of surgical and medical services" ? exactly the policies being imposed on the U.S. today by Summers, Geithner, Orszag, and their British masters.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10239

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

So? You said 'can't or won't deliver', and you're trying to make a judgment on that after the guy has been in office 4 months of a 4 year term. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

So? You said 'can't or won't deliver', and you're trying to make a judgment on that after the guy has been in office 4 months of a 4 year term. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?

What are his ideas again? I asked earlier and no one responded which leads me to assume that no one knows...

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I support it, whoever, before going through with this, we need to develop a comprehensive strategy. Increase in hospital efficiancy is the first step. however, Ithink at the moment we need a specific strategy to follow

 

[Rustler]

"It should be clear by now the category into which all of you fall. For we gather here tonight in times of extraordinary difficulty, for the nation and the world. The economy remains in the midst of a historic recession, the result, in part, of greed and irresponsibility that rippled out from Wall Street and Washington, as we spent beyond our means and failed to make hard choices. We are engaged in two wars and a struggle against terrorism. The threats of climate change, nuclear proliferation, and pandemic defy national boundaries and easy solutions."

Froms the President's ASU speech..................

Yet we can deficit spend and want to pay off more wall street goons with managed health care.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

So? You said 'can't or won't deliver', and you're trying to make a judgment on that after the guy has been in office 4 months of a 4 year term. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?

What are his ideas again? I asked earlier and no one responded which leads me to assume that no one knows...

Well, I know it starts with a firehose full of money borrowed from China. After that, well, . . .

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

So? You said 'can't or won't deliver', and you're trying to make a judgment on that after the guy has been in office 4 months of a 4 year term. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?

What are his ideas again? I asked earlier and no one responded which leads me to assume that no one knows...

Well, I know it starts with a firehose full of money borrowed from China. After that, well, . . .

China holds only a small portion of our national debt. A bit over 10%.

Fingolfin: Obama's ideas are for a government sponsored insurance entity, he's laid it out quite a few times and it's not difficult to find.

 

[AreaCode707]

No. The UK recently decided that people with my condition (rheumatoid arthritis) get one shot at a particular class of drugs (biologics) that has three incarnations (enbrel, remicade and humira) and if their one shot does not work (say, remicade) they don't get to try using the other two (enbrel and humira) because the drugs are too highly priced ($30-50k USD/year) and the ratio of success is not sufficient from a cost-benefit perspective to be worth trying again.

If 7/10 (made up number) RA patients who do not respond to one do not respond to the other two, the experimentation process is taking cash away from some cancer patient who might survive if their treatment was paid for. It's reasonable logic, totally understandable, but it does absolutely nothing for the individual patient, those 3/10 RA patients who would have benefited from the other drugs are left with pain, deformity and incapacity, losing all chance at living a normal and full-length life, working until retirement and existing without requiring a human aide to do everyday tasks.

I will stuff envelopes, empty grease traps, pick up trash, whatever it takes to maintain health care through my employer, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. My health care decisions are in MY hands, being made by the only person to whom they are truly and literally a matter of life and death.

This isn't a conceptual discussion for me; if I lived in the UK and depended on their nation health care I would be crippled right now. I live in the US and I can walk. The difference between systems is black and white to me.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
No. The UK recently decided that people with my condition (rheumatoid arthritis) get one shot at a particular class of drugs (biologics) that has three incarnations (enbrel, remicade and humira) and if their one shot does not work (say, remicade) they don't get to try using the other two (enbrel and humira) because the drugs are too highly priced ($30-50k USD/year) and the ratio of success is not sufficient from a cost-benefit perspective to be worth trying again.

If 7/10 (made up number) RA patients who do not respond to one do not respond to the other two, the experimentation process is taking cash away from some cancer patient who might survive if their treatment was paid for. It's reasonable logic, totally understandable, but it does absolutely nothing for the individual patient, those 3/10 RA patients who would have benefited from the other drugs are left with pain, deformity and incapacity, losing all chance at living a normal and full-length life, working until retirement and existing without requiring a human aide to do everyday tasks.

I will stuff envelopes, empty grease traps, pick up trash, whatever it takes to maintain health care through my employer, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. My health care decisions are in MY hands, being made by the only person to whom they are truly and literally a matter of life and death.

This isn't a conceptual discussion for me; if I lived in the UK and depended on their nation health care I would be crippled right now. I live in the US and I can walk. The difference between systems is black and white to me.

Nobody is going to hire you if they know of your condition in advance and if they did hire you, once they find out they will do everything they can to fire you.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
No. The UK recently decided that people with my condition (rheumatoid arthritis) get one shot at a particular class of drugs (biologics) that has three incarnations (enbrel, remicade and humira) and if their one shot does not work (say, remicade) they don't get to try using the other two (enbrel and humira) because the drugs are too highly priced ($30-50k USD/year) and the ratio of success is not sufficient from a cost-benefit perspective to be worth trying again.

If 7/10 (made up number) RA patients who do not respond to one do not respond to the other two, the experimentation process is taking cash away from some cancer patient who might survive if their treatment was paid for. It's reasonable logic, totally understandable, but it does absolutely nothing for the individual patient, those 3/10 RA patients who would have benefited from the other drugs are left with pain, deformity and incapacity, losing all chance at living a normal and full-length life, working until retirement and existing without requiring a human aide to do everyday tasks.

I will stuff envelopes, empty grease traps, pick up trash, whatever it takes to maintain health care through my employer, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. My health care decisions are in MY hands, being made by the only person to whom they are truly and literally a matter of life and death.

This isn't a conceptual discussion for me; if I lived in the UK and depended on their nation health care I would be crippled right now. I live in the US and I can walk. The difference between systems is black and white to me.

Isn't rheumatoid arthritis a disease that automatically exempts you from getting coverage from most insurance companies in America?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
No. The UK recently decided that people with my condition (rheumatoid arthritis) get one shot at a particular class of drugs (biologics) that has three incarnations (enbrel, remicade and humira) and if their one shot does not work (say, remicade) they don't get to try using the other two (enbrel and humira) because the drugs are too highly priced ($30-50k USD/year) and the ratio of success is not sufficient from a cost-benefit perspective to be worth trying again.

If 7/10 (made up number) RA patients who do not respond to one do not respond to the other two, the experimentation process is taking cash away from some cancer patient who might survive if their treatment was paid for. It's reasonable logic, totally understandable, but it does absolutely nothing for the individual patient, those 3/10 RA patients who would have benefited from the other drugs are left with pain, deformity and incapacity, losing all chance at living a normal and full-length life, working until retirement and existing without requiring a human aide to do everyday tasks.

I will stuff envelopes, empty grease traps, pick up trash, whatever it takes to maintain health care through my employer, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. My health care decisions are in MY hands, being made by the only person to whom they are truly and literally a matter of life and death.

This isn't a conceptual discussion for me; if I lived in the UK and depended on their nation health care I would be crippled right now. I live in the US and I can walk. The difference between systems is black and white to me.

Nobody is going to hire you if they know of your condition in advance and if they did hire you, once they find out they will do everything they can to fire you.

Odd, I've worked for two Fortune 500 companies and they've done everything necessary to accommodate my disease. The keyboard I'm typing this on is a Kinesis Advantage Pro, $600 and purchased by the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate me doing my job. Nobody has ever once asked me about my health in an interview and I have never had any issues after hire when I've disclosed my health problems. I've always been given time off to see doctors as needed, and I have been provided with everything I need and then some.

Sorry, try flamebaiting again later.

 

[Carmen813]

Given that what Obama is proposing is unlike the British or Canadian systems, I'm not worried about the situation 707 describes.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
No. The UK recently decided that people with my condition (rheumatoid arthritis) get one shot at a particular class of drugs (biologics) that has three incarnations (enbrel, remicade and humira) and if their one shot does not work (say, remicade) they don't get to try using the other two (enbrel and humira) because the drugs are too highly priced ($30-50k USD/year) and the ratio of success is not sufficient from a cost-benefit perspective to be worth trying again.

If 7/10 (made up number) RA patients who do not respond to one do not respond to the other two, the experimentation process is taking cash away from some cancer patient who might survive if their treatment was paid for. It's reasonable logic, totally understandable, but it does absolutely nothing for the individual patient, those 3/10 RA patients who would have benefited from the other drugs are left with pain, deformity and incapacity, losing all chance at living a normal and full-length life, working until retirement and existing without requiring a human aide to do everyday tasks.

I will stuff envelopes, empty grease traps, pick up trash, whatever it takes to maintain health care through my employer, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. My health care decisions are in MY hands, being made by the only person to whom they are truly and literally a matter of life and death.

This isn't a conceptual discussion for me; if I lived in the UK and depended on their nation health care I would be crippled right now. I live in the US and I can walk. The difference between systems is black and white to me.

Isn't rheumatoid arthritis a disease that automatically exempts you from getting coverage from most insurance companies in America?

I was diagnosed at 17 when I was part of an HMO under my parents plan.
I transitioned to paying for my own health care at 19, privately, with full disclosure of my pre-existing condition. Because I read my paperwork and knew there was a three month waiting period until they'd cover expenses related to my pre-existing condition I prepared myself and was well able to manage.
I am now covered through an employer PPO plan, with full disclosure of my pre-existing condition, no waiting periods.

So no, it doesn't automatically exempt you from getting coverage. I've received the necessary treatment under all the plans I've been enrolled in, with no more than the normal paperwork fuss from the insurance providers.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
No. The UK recently decided that people with my condition (rheumatoid arthritis) get one shot at a particular class of drugs (biologics) that has three incarnations (enbrel, remicade and humira) and if their one shot does not work (say, remicade) they don't get to try using the other two (enbrel and humira) because the drugs are too highly priced ($30-50k USD/year) and the ratio of success is not sufficient from a cost-benefit perspective to be worth trying again.

If 7/10 (made up number) RA patients who do not respond to one do not respond to the other two, the experimentation process is taking cash away from some cancer patient who might survive if their treatment was paid for. It's reasonable logic, totally understandable, but it does absolutely nothing for the individual patient, those 3/10 RA patients who would have benefited from the other drugs are left with pain, deformity and incapacity, losing all chance at living a normal and full-length life, working until retirement and existing without requiring a human aide to do everyday tasks.

I will stuff envelopes, empty grease traps, pick up trash, whatever it takes to maintain health care through my employer, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. My health care decisions are in MY hands, being made by the only person to whom they are truly and literally a matter of life and death.

This isn't a conceptual discussion for me; if I lived in the UK and depended on their nation health care I would be crippled right now. I live in the US and I can walk. The difference between systems is black and white to me.

Nobody is going to hire you if they know of your condition in advance and if they did hire you, once they find out they will do everything they can to fire you.

Odd, I've worked for two Fortune 500 companies and they've done everything necessary to accommodate my disease. The keyboard I'm typing this on is a Kinesis Advantage Pro, $600 and purchased by the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate me doing my job. Nobody has ever once asked me about my health in an interview and I have never had any issues after hire when I've disclosed my health problems. I've always been given time off to see doctors as needed, and I have been provided with everything I need and then some.

Sorry, try flamebaiting again later.

I've seem plenty of people fired for trumped up reasons when the real reasons were helath care costs. Maybe it hasn't happened to you....... yet.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.

Has he delivered yet? Until his health care package is law, that would be no.

So? You said 'can't or won't deliver', and you're trying to make a judgment on that after the guy has been in office 4 months of a 4 year term. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?

What are his ideas again? I asked earlier and no one responded which leads me to assume that no one knows...

Well, I know it starts with a firehose full of money borrowed from China. After that, well, . . .

China holds only a small portion of our national debt. A bit over 10%.

Fingolfin: Obama's ideas are for a government sponsored insurance entity, he's laid it out quite a few times and it's not difficult to find.

I must suck at google because all I find are a bunch of generalities much like in this thread. Such as 'I'm for a government sponsered health care plan.'. I still have no idea what that means so I can't reasonable say yes to it.

 

[BoomerD]

UHC for BASIC health insurance coverage...Yes.

BUT, I also support the idea that people can buy "extra coverage" that would enhance the system.

IMO, NO ONE should be denied basic health care, nor should hospitals have to "eat the costs" of treating the uninsured.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
No. The UK recently decided that people with my condition (rheumatoid arthritis) get one shot at a particular class of drugs (biologics) that has three incarnations (enbrel, remicade and humira) and if their one shot does not work (say, remicade) they don't get to try using the other two (enbrel and humira) because the drugs are too highly priced ($30-50k USD/year) and the ratio of success is not sufficient from a cost-benefit perspective to be worth trying again.

If 7/10 (made up number) RA patients who do not respond to one do not respond to the other two, the experimentation process is taking cash away from some cancer patient who might survive if their treatment was paid for. It's reasonable logic, totally understandable, but it does absolutely nothing for the individual patient, those 3/10 RA patients who would have benefited from the other drugs are left with pain, deformity and incapacity, losing all chance at living a normal and full-length life, working until retirement and existing without requiring a human aide to do everyday tasks.

I will stuff envelopes, empty grease traps, pick up trash, whatever it takes to maintain health care through my employer, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. My health care decisions are in MY hands, being made by the only person to whom they are truly and literally a matter of life and death.

This isn't a conceptual discussion for me; if I lived in the UK and depended on their nation health care I would be crippled right now. I live in the US and I can walk. The difference between systems is black and white to me.

Nobody is going to hire you if they know of your condition in advance and if they did hire you, once they find out they will do everything they can to fire you.

Odd, I've worked for two Fortune 500 companies and they've done everything necessary to accommodate my disease. The keyboard I'm typing this on is a Kinesis Advantage Pro, $600 and purchased by the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate me doing my job. Nobody has ever once asked me about my health in an interview and I have never had any issues after hire when I've disclosed my health problems. I've always been given time off to see doctors as needed, and I have been provided with everything I need and then some.

Sorry, try flamebaiting again later.

I've seem plenty of people fired for trumped up reasons when the real reasons were helath care costs. Maybe it hasn't happened to you....... yet.

Let's hear a little background on where you've worked and how you knew what you knew. I worked in HR (systems) in my last company; the HR managers would rip the retail managers (or anyone else) up one side and down the other for an ADA violation like that, and they took every complaint call that came in and investigated it very seriously. I saw my own boss get fired when she disclosed that she wouldn't hire a particular qualified candidate because he was dyslexic.

Make your claims and tell us why you make them. Lots of people perceive the workings of corporate America as arbitrary and unfair when there are good reasons behind it. "Trumped up" meaning that they were late for work, stealing from the company, etc? If you're the coworker who's not tracking their time, the friend who doesn't believe that they stole or thinks it's not a big deal, then yeah, "trumped up" can sound pretty legit. If you're the person doing the investigation without a personal bias, all you see is employees taking advantage or not being responsible or whatever.

If you seriously ever get fired for health reasons, get yourself an attorney and sue. ADA is serious business, and if you can prove that you were fired for trumped up reasons then you will more than recoup your lost income, attorney expenses and effort. If you can't prove in a fair court of law that the firing was trumped up then guess what... it probably wasn't.

Your rights are only as good to you as you exercise them. It is your legal right to not be discriminated because of a disability. Educate yourself and be prepared to defend yourself if necessary and it will rarely come to that.