birdog1960

when access is 10k and you don't have anywhere near that for a potentially life threatening symptom, they become the same. stop being obtuse.

any idea what an er visit for chest pain costs an uninsured pt even if the cause is not cardiac? $10k would be getting off relatively cheap. might that bill put a crimp in even your budget for a while? if you were making $15/hour and had no insurance do you think you might consider waiting it out to see if it went away?

50 million is a little south of 1/6 the us population. the 1700 is an example and a small subset of that group located in appalachia. 50 million is a little south of 1/6 the us population. the 1700 is an example and a small subset of that group located in appalachia. so you accept that there is no where near universal access to health care in the us? it doesn't. but lack of insurance makes it very likely that the healthcare needs of the uninsured will not be fully addressed as we have seen.

many are seeking health care...like the 1700 i cited. for the most part, they've been unsusseful. now, who is changing the subject? i thought we were arguing about the presence or absence of universal healthcare access.

medicaid covers the poor. there are 30- 50 million "near poor" that aren't covered by any type of health insurance. the aca does exacly what i presume you are suggesting: extending medicaid to many of those people.

many on skidrow are mentally ill. in many countries their care would be overseen by social workers or nurses. here, very often they get it in prisons. if you're good with that then there's no point discussing health care with you.the number of uninsured is debated. so, if it's closer to 30 million (which i don't concede), does that change things? does that make it unlikely that a large percentage of the people flocking to that tent and other free clinics are uninsured? no, because it is so. and do you truly believe that charity care fills all the basic healthcare voids for 30 million people? 50 million? it doesn't. plain and simple.

we obviously don't have the same definition of "civilized". it doesn't shame you as an american that people get better care in much less affluent countries without having to stand in the cold to be treated in a tent? this is no way to deliver "care". this is a once a year bandaid that doesn't even begin to staunch the bleeding. and stepping up to attempt to stop an epidemic after a real threat is perceived isn't effective "healthcare" to me. "societies should be judged on the way they treat the least fortunate"..... epic fail.

you'd be wrong. there are about 50 million uninsured americans. they aren't eligible for medicaid these people represent a very few. it's an inconvenient truth but one that the ACA will begin to address.

you really think 1700 people came from 4 states to wait in line for hours for care provided in a tent when they could get care in a nice warm modern office building with a scheduled appointment and the bills fully covered by medicaid? sure, that makes sense.

maybe these folks http://www.cbsnews.c...cdc-to-step-in/ or these http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2012/07/24/free-healthcare-in-appalachia/

or it might provide basic healthcare for nearly all americans and help avoid epidemics of things like tb, pertussis and influenza that might well effect well heeled citizens if not for it.....

not even close. all american training....but residency in one of the more liberal us cities. but i'm sure the weather is much nicer in grenada.

no, costs will slowly but surely regress to medicare reimbursement levels for everything from hospital administered tylenol to liver transplants. and yes, there will be less procedures cuz the copays for elective surgeries will almost certainly increase. i think that's well and good. you?...i suspect not so much.

was out at a stripmall with a petsmart today and they had a group of rescue dogs on the sidewalk up for adoption. there was an older golden retriever mix with cigarette burn marks on his nose and forehead. what kind of son of a b%^&ch does that? the thing was pretty timid as you might expect and i felt my dogs would badly dominate it but we made a donation. it just makes me worried what people like that do to their kids.

i'm certain my wife will insist on seeing that one early and possibly often. looks good. monsters inc is one of my favorite movies so i hope the prequel does it justice. has anybody seen the 3D version of the original? Saw it on sale today and wonder if it's worth 29.99. thanks for the excellent summary. thanks. will definitely see both.

out of them all, i'm most looking forward to monsters university, followed closely by the next star trek. i thought the next hunger games was coming out soon too but don't see it there.

costs need to come down it's really that simple. govt programs have been the only "insurers" recently successful in forcing hospitals and health systems to accept lower payments that are more in line with other countries and with sustainability. private insurers are losing the battle to big hospitals and big and ever expanding healthcare systems. they've lost the edge in negotiating rates due to the massive size of these systems. i'm reminded of a lecture i attended about 10 years ago which began when the speaker showed city skyline photos and asked what about them struck the audience. he went on to point out that many of the most impressive buildings filling the horizon were insurance company buildings. that's changing. now, it's shiny new hospitals and clinics and medical centers that are, more often then not, the largest employers in big, small and medium sized communities with some of the highest paid executives. despite it's considerable warts, the ACA is the best chance we currently have for reigning in unsustainable health care costs. it could have been much more explicit in this regard but would never have passed in such form. so, the optimist sees it as a starting point, a work in progress. the pessimist sees it as an end game failure. both should see the beginning of the end of private, employer purchased insurance as we currently know it which was destined to happen with or without the aca.

he's 85. like ralph, the odds are better than 50:50 that he has some element of dementia (and pretty good odds of severe dementia- ya know, like not being able to draw the hands on a clock face for a given time). this is, by far, the most plausible explanation.

kinda figured that's where you were going. while i envision something much less than a utopia by ensuring basic needs, you're envisioning something pretty close to a dystopia. would you really want to live in such a country? sounds a lot like the current 3rd world...would the costs of martial law be calculated in?

breakeven point? you mean where tax revenue from the low wage employees and employers equals social program spending(while still supporting people from starvation)? i'm guessing, off hand, that's goona require a minimum wage of at least $9/hour or a big tax increase aimed right at wal mart and similar corps.. i suppose i left out your favored options: letting the "freeloaders" die of exposure or the plague.

even from a purely pragmatic view, this makes no sense. those that can't provide for even the basics on their wages are then supported by social programs ie you and i and on borrowed money to boot. efectively, the burden of support has been shifted from employer to taxpayer. that's a real good deal for wal mart and the like. i really don't like subsidizing these businesses with my taxes and that is a direct result of a low minimum wage.

love the kid, puddle, dog video. picked up our 2 from the kennel after 10 days away. i swear they must fret the whole time there. they always age months in days and their faces get more and more gray hair. tails waging when i drop them off and the girls at the kennel make a big fuss but i'm convinced they think we're never coming back, like whoever dropped them in our driveway years ago.

can it really be any worse than this?http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/. if most americans read this and don't find the current system a perverse mess of unbridled, inefficient greed falsely clothed as health care then there's little hope for the country.

places like wal mart close without low wage workers. is $9 an hour going to put them out of business? they had a bad quarter last quarter but if their employees can buy more of their stuff they should do just fine. they operate in countries, at a profit, that have higher wages for low paid workers eg germany. so do multiple fast food franchises. mcdonald's is in virtually every 1st world country, some with very high costs of living and consequently wage structures. there are burger kings in switzerland with higher paid low strata workers...more expensive than here but still in business. so my reasoning is not empirical at all. it's based on examples.

exactly. the wording may be awkward but i think the point stands. low wage jobs exist because they are necessary. there isn't a surplus because these workers are a bargain. higher their wages slightly won't make their jobs any less necessary. or would you propose hiring illegals under the table?