A REAL American hero

If that's the case then the government is the last agency we should have in charge of defence and Police/legal system.

Of course, by the government being in charge of those services one has a much better chance of being treated fairly. .

Really? Are the various police forces known for being fair? But yes, our gov't is quite good at hiring undereducated people, arming them, and turning them loose on various populations here and abroad. But not exactly the talent I want my local hospital to have.


Bloated bureaucracy? Government medical is 1/3 cheaper, on average.

Because it is an also-ran, underfunded system mainly staffed with people who would otherwise be doing gratis or charity work. Shift it to the only medical system in the nation and it will not be.
 
Originally Posted by apple0154
Bloated bureaucracy? Government medical is 1/3 cheaper, on average.

Because it is an also-ran, underfunded system mainly staffed with people who would otherwise be doing gratis or charity work. Shift it to the only medical system in the nation and it will not be.

There isn't one country that experienced an over-all increase in medical care. Every country, without exception, spends less. There are no hints, let alone proof, government medical would raise costs.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Really? Are the various police forces known for being fair? But yes, our gov't is quite good at hiring undereducated
people, arming them, and turning them loose on various populations here and abroad. But not exactly the talent I want my local hospital to have.

Because it is an also-ran, underfunded system mainly staffed with people who would otherwise be doing gratis or charity work. Shift it to the only medical system in the nation and it will not be.
 
No, it was not a rigged question. It was a question designed to examine the limits of what you expect from an insurance company. You make accusations (via someone else's words) and then refuse to see the logical result of extending that same level of care to the extreme. The hypothetical question (and it was labelled as such) did not fit what what you wanted to discuss, so you tried to avoid it.

I polarized the discussion to see where you expect the limits (if any) to be. You steadfastly refused to discuss any limitations whatsoever.

And just as an FYI, polarizing a topic is not a bad thing. It allows us to discuss it logically instead of using kneejerk emotional reactions.

No, your question was designed to dismiss the unethical practices of insurance corporations revealed by Wendell Potter as merely excessive expectations, emotionalism and corporation bashing. You revealed that agenda in other posts.

THE issue is not excessive expectations, emotionalism or corporation bashing, it is ethics.
 
No, your question was designed to dismiss the unethical practices of insurance corporations revealed by Wendell Potter as merely excessive expectations, emotionalism and corporation bashing. You revealed that agenda in other posts.

THE issue is not excessive expectations, emotionalism or corporation bashing, it is ethics.

The term "death panels" was used numerous times prior to my question. It has been tossed around as a fear tactic since the discussion of national healthcare first started. My question was intended to dismiss the entire "death panel" myth. That was all.

Let me know when you want to actually debate or discuss something without having total control over the direction the debate takes.



And your statement that it is purely about ethics and not corporation bashing or emotionalism is bogus. If it were truly about ethics, you would be bashing the surgeons and the hospital too.
 
The term "death panels" was used numerous times prior to my question. It has been tossed around as a fear tactic since the discussion of national healthcare first started. My question was intended to dismiss the entire "death panel" myth. That was all.

Let me know when you want to actually debate or discuss something without having total control over the direction the debate takes.



And your statement that it is purely about ethics and not corporation bashing or emotionalism is bogus. If it were truly about ethics, you would be bashing the surgeons and the hospital too.

If someone DIES because they are denied life saving treatment because an insurance corporation fabricates an excuse or finds a tiny loophole to deny payment, WHAT would you call it WB? Oh, I know, just liberals being emotional. I mean we all have to die sometime...and if the insurance cartel deems it is our time to go, why should anyone object. The Wall Street shareholders have mouths to feed.

AGAIN your false equivalency! NO ONE enters into a legal agreement with a doctor or hospital for possible future medical treatment, but THEY DO with an insurance provider.

It is SOLELY about ethics WB. If you really did watch the Wendell Potter interview, you'd know what event he attended that had a deep impact on his decision to speak out...it was an event where doctors donated their time and services to thousands of uninsured citizens in his home town. Your story is taking on an air of dishonesty or ignorance, which one is it WB?

BTW, And I have been critical of doctors.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?29161-Obesity-%28My-Sincere-Apologies-For-Pulling-A-Jarod%29&p=728791#post728791
247 Americans Die Every Day from Doctors not Washing Their Hands


A Conversation With Dr. Peter J. Pronovost
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/science/09conv.html?hpw"]Doctor Leads Quest for Safer Ways to Care for Patients[/URL]

Q. WASH YOUR HANDS? DON’T DOCTORS AUTOMATICALLY DO THAT?

A. National estimates are that we wash our hands 30 to 40 percent of the time. Hospitals working on improving their safety records are up to 70 percent. Still, that means that 30 percent of the time, people are not doing it.

At Hopkins, we tested the checklist idea in the surgical intensive care unit. It helped, though you still needed to do more to lower the infection rate. You needed to make sure that supplies — disinfectant, drapery, catheters — were near and handy. We observed that these items were stored in eight different places within the hospital, and that was why, in emergencies, people often skipped steps. So we gathered all the necessary materials and placed them together on an accessible cart. We assigned someone to be in charge of the cart and to always make sure it was stocked. We also instituted independent safeguards to make certain that the checklist was followed.

We said: “Doctors, we know you’re busy and sometimes forget to wash your hands. So nurses, you are to make sure the doctors do it. And if they don’t, you are empowered to stop takeoff on a procedure.”

Q. HOW DID THAT FLY?

A. You would have thought I started World War III! The nurses said it wasn’t their job to monitor doctors; the doctors said no nurse was going to stop takeoff. I said: “Doctors, we know we’re not perfect, and we can forget important safety measures. And nurses, how could you permit a doctor to start if they haven’t washed their hands?” I told the nurses they could page me day or night, and I’d support them. Well, in four years’ time, we’ve gotten infection rates down to almost zero in the I.C.U.

We then took this to 100 intensive care units at 70 hospitals in Michigan. We measured their infection rates, implemented the checklist, worked to get a more cooperative culture so that nurses could speak up. And again, we got it down to a near zero. We’ve been encouraging hospitals around the country to set up similar checklist systems.

Q. WHAT EXACTLY WAS WRONG HERE?

A. As at many hospitals, we had dysfunctional teamwork because of an exceedingly hierarchal culture. When confrontations occurred, the problem was rarely framed in terms of what was best for the patient. It was: “I’m right. I’m more senior than you. Don’t tell me what to do.”

Doctor-Caused Disease

HOSPITAL INFECTIONS

In the 1840's Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis directed a teaching hospital in Vienna, where 75% of the women giving birth were dying of puerperal fever. He observed that doctors went from dissecting cadavers to delivering babies without washing their hands. Dr. Semmelweis made the "radical" policy change of requiring doctors to wash their hands before delivery a baby. An amazing thing happened - the mortality rate drop fifteen-fold. Unfortunately, his arrogant colleagues couldn't see the connection, so they dismissed him and ostracized him. The rejection ultimately drove Semmelweis to death in an insane asylum - another great moment in the history of iatrogenic disease.

But doctors are enlightened nowadays about sanitation, aren't they? A 1981 study of washing habits in intensive care units found that only 28% of the doctors washed between patients in a teaching hospital and only 14% washed in the private hospital! Dr. Mendelsohn noted:

. . . the sanitary practices of the medical personnel are often abominable and the hospital itself is probably the most germ-laden facility in town.

Your chances of getting an infection in the hospital are one in 20 with 15,000 people dying annually from hospital-acquired infections.

Doctor and Patient
Why Don’t Doctors Wash Their Hands More?
By PAULINE W. CHEN, M.D.
Published: September 17, 2009

Over the last 30 years, despite countless efforts at change, poor hand hygiene has continued to contribute to the high rates of infections acquired in hospitals, clinics and other health care settings. According to the World Health Organization, these infections affect as many as 1.7 million patients in the United States each year, racking up an annual cost of $6.5 billion and contributing to more than 90,000 deaths annually.


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy
 
If someone DIES because they are denied life saving treatment because an insurance corporation fabricates an excuse or finds a tiny loophole to deny payment, WHAT would you call it WB? Oh, I know, just liberals being emotional. I mean we all have to die sometime...and if the insurance cartel deems it is our time to go, why should anyone object. The Wall Street shareholders have mouths to feed.

AGAIN your false equivalency! NO ONE enters into a legal agreement with a doctor or hospital for possible future medical treatment, but THEY DO with an insurance provider.

It is SOLELY about ethics WB. If you really did watch the Wendell Potter interview, you'd know what event he attended that had a deep impact on his decision to speak out...it was an event where doctors donated their time and services to thousands of uninsured citizens in his home town. Your story is taking on an air of dishonesty or ignorance, which one is it WB?

BTW, And I have been critical of doctors.

Oh please spare me the dramatics. YOu may have been critical of doctors in the past, but in this thread you have been determined to only target insurance companies.

Yes, they entered into a contractual agreement with the insurance company. But you want that contract to be one way, and to have the insurance company ignore any portion of the contract that allows them to avoid paying millions of dollars.

The contract is also irrelevant. You repeatedly made the accusation that the insurance company was putting money before human life. And yet you conveniently ignore it when the surgeons and the hospital do the same.

And since you are refusing to answer my questions when you claim they are rigged, I would point out that your question is also rigged.

The actual question should be "If someone DIES because they are denied life saving treatment because an insurance corporation fabricates an excuse or finds a tiny loophole to deny payment, and the surgeons & hospital refuse to take any actions without payment, WHAT would you call it WB?" If you would like to ask that accurate question, I would be happy to answer.
 
Oh please spare me the dramatics. YOu may have been critical of doctors in the past, but in this thread you have been determined to only target insurance companies.

Yes, they entered into a contractual agreement with the insurance company. But you want that contract to be one way, and to have the insurance company ignore any portion of the contract that allows them to avoid paying millions of dollars.

The contract is also irrelevant. You repeatedly made the accusation that the insurance company was putting money before human life. And yet you conveniently ignore it when the surgeons and the hospital do the same.

And since you are refusing to answer my questions when you claim they are rigged, I would point out that your question is also rigged.

The actual question should be "If someone DIES because they are denied life saving treatment because an insurance corporation fabricates an excuse or finds a tiny loophole to deny payment, and the surgeons & hospital refuse to take any actions without payment, WHAT would you call it WB?" If you would like to ask that accurate question, I would be happy to answer.

The SAME false equivalency AGAIN...REALLY? WHAT is so hard to comprehend WB? NO ONE enters into a legal agreement with a doctor or hospital for possible future medical treatment, but THEY DO with an insurance provider.

Dramatics? REALLY?? Whenever the subject turns to ethics, morality and human life, you right wingers bring out the 'dramatics' bleeding heart crap. As long as you can talk about MONEY and making excuses for your beloved corporations, there is not a problem. But when faced with scurrilous and unethical activities by your beloved corporations, you right wingers drop to your knees and do your Monica Lewinsky on corporations.

One way contract? REALLY??? Answer THIS: Do the insurance companies ignore any premium payments the insurer misses? It is a contract where only ONE side benefits from denial of treatment, BIG time, and one side loses BIG time.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
 
The SAME false equivalency AGAIN...REALLY? WHAT is so hard to comprehend WB? NO ONE enters into a legal agreement with a doctor or hospital for possible future medical treatment, but THEY DO with an insurance provider.

Dramatics? REALLY?? Whenever the subject turns to ethics, morality and human life, you right wingers bring out the 'dramatics' bleeding heart crap. As long as you can talk about MONEY and making excuses for your beloved corporations, there is not a problem. But when faced with scurrilous and unethical activities by your beloved corporations, you right wingers drop to your knees and do your Monica Lewinsky on corporations.

One way contract? REALLY??? Answer THIS: Do the insurance companies ignore any premium payments the insurer misses? It is a contract where only ONE side benefits from denial of treatment, BIG time, and one side loses BIG time.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

You are still dancing and trying to focus the discussion on what you want perceived as the villian.

You keep wanting to focus on the contract. So what are the limitations on that contract? Does the contract speak of specific items it will not cover? Unless it is a VERY unusual contract, it most certainly does. And that is what the insurance company used to try and deny the coverage.

As for the doctors and hospital, you keep claiming they were not under contract, so your "they are putting money above life" whine only counts if a contract is involved? They let this young woman die as certainly as the insurance company did. And yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

There is no false equivelancy here. I am holding all concerned responsible. You want to focus only on the one. You apparently hold the doctors and hospital blameless because there was no contract. But you blindly choose to ignore the contents of the contract. Rather hypocritcal of you, wouldn't you say??
 
You are still dancing and trying to focus the discussion on what you want perceived as the villian.

You keep wanting to focus on the contract. So what are the limitations on that contract? Does the contract speak of specific items it will not cover? Unless it is a VERY unusual contract, it most certainly does. And that is what the insurance company used to try and deny the coverage.

As for the doctors and hospital, you keep claiming they were not under contract, so your "they are putting money above life" whine only counts if a contract is involved? They let this young woman die as certainly as the insurance company did. And yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

There is no false equivelancy here. I am holding all concerned responsible. You want to focus only on the one. You apparently hold the doctors and hospital blameless because there was no contract. But you blindly choose to ignore the contents of the contract. Rather hypocritcal of you, wouldn't you say??

There is no 'perceived' villain, there is a real one. Wendell Potter exposes how insurance corporations dump the sick, willfully deceive and confuse consumers and put profits and Wall Street investors ahead of patients. The only one trying to create a perception is YOU; that the blame must be deflected away from your beloved corporations. You blame doctors, hospitals and patients and ignored the facts Wendell Potter reveals.

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners'. You don't even know how to identify them.
 
Back
Top