What are people supposed to do if they get seriously ill?

[Tatyana]

I suggest exploring the possibility of emigrating to a country like Canada, the UK, Australia or New Zealand. We won't let you die of a treatable disorder to save a few bucks.

(It could be a new slogan for the tourist trade. "Australia: Now preferable to prison!").

I don't mean to be negative, but I don't know why people think that emigrating is easy, and it often isn't cheap.

People may have to pay out a substantial amount of money and still be denied immigration status.

Getting married isn't always an automatic resident or immigration status either, especially if the marriage is only for immigration.

People can often immigrate because they have a job that is in demand, and it can be anything from hairdressing (Australia is closing this 'hot job' this year) to being a baker.

You really have to do your research and stay on top of the current situation in the country.

 

[Tatyana]

Yes it is. "Nature" vs "urban" is an arbitrary distinction. We still exist in an environment. We still adapt based to changes to that environment. The fact that we can directly manipulate some of those mechanisms doesn't change the fact that those rules are still in effect.

From a meta point of view, it is entirely possible that how we choose to shape our own evolution is a product of adapting to the current environment we find ourselves in.


Darwin wasn't correct about every aspect of evolution.

Obviously, we are still evolving, and there are selectional pressures, however, some of the 'natural' selection pressures, like infectious diseases or being born premature, have been, for the most part, significantly reduced in developed countries.

 

[DavidJames]

I don't mean to be negative, but I don't know why people think that emigrating is easy, and it often isn't cheap.

People may have to pay out a substantial amount of money and still be denied immigration status.

Getting married isn't always an automatic resident or immigration status either, especially if the marriage is only for immigration.

People can often immigrate because they have a job that is in demand, and it can be anything from hairdressing (Australia is closing this 'hot job' this year) to being a baker.

You really have to do your research and stay on top of the current situation in the country.

Valid points and Kevin can speak for himself but I suspect that's why he started his post with "explore the possibility"

 

[WildCat]

I probably would have been enthused about Obamacare if only the plan had weakened the connections between employment and health insurance. Instead, it strengthened them, at least in some ways.

It's one of my biggest problems with it too. Taxing "Cadillac plans" was a good first step, but then the Dems folded like a cheap lawn chair in the face of labor union opposition.

IMHO all employer-provided health insurance should be taxed as income, as well as other efforts to break the link between health insurance and employment.

 

[xjx388]

And yet, we still see reports that people are denied care.

They are denied elsewhere as well.

Or that they are well off, have full insurance, and still lose everything when their insurance provider says 'nope.'

I don't see reports of this. Can you cite one?

Where are the charities? Where are the programs? Why should people have to place themselves into poverty.. just so they can live?

Well, it depends on what they are sick of. Is it cancer? There are programs like this one all over the country. Does their condition make them disabled? SS and Medicare provide benefits. There is help out there for just about everyone that needs it if only they look.

Why, when every other first world country does *not* have these problems?

They don't have people that are denied care who must find another way to pay for the drugs they need? They don't have problems funding universal healthcare?

So, tell us, what is Travis supposed to do? he cannot afford Healthcare because of a pre-existing condition? He will likely not have the care he needs if he again becomes seriously ill? Oh sure, the hospital will stabilize him, then send him home with a great big bill that will never get paid. What about follow up care? Therapy? Prescriptions? Where are these magical charities to help these people?

I can't comment on Travis' situation because I don't know what it is. Generally speaking, Travis should have to alter his budget to pay towards the care he might need in the future if it's a big concern. The new law creates high-risk pools and he could get insurance that way. He could get a job that offers group insurance. He could get a catastrophic plan that would be significantly cheaper than traditional insurance. There are a number of options.

Why are people allowed to be denied the care they need, in the name of magical insurance company profits?

Why are people allowed to be denied the water they need if they don't pay their water bill? Why are people allowed to be denied food and shelter if they can't afford it?

 

[WildCat]

They are denied elsewhere as well.

Cite?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Cite?

Maybe xjx thinks that denying some people everything but emergency care (or hitting them with an impossible bill after treatment) is the same thing as not approving a very expensive drug that might extend their life for only a couple of weeks.

It seems to be a common confusion judging by the many debates on this subject we have here.

 

[Upchurch]

Obviously, we are still evolving, and there are selectional pressures, however, some of the 'natural' selection pressures, like infectious diseases or being born premature, have been, for the most part, significantly reduced in developed countries.

Natural selection is still at play. We have adapted by creating an immune system. We have adapted by creating a medical system that performs a similar function.

They're all survival mechanisms that allow us to become more successful in our environment. You'll note we are the dominent species on the planet. We have developed group dynamics that allowed us to do that. Those group dynamics include things like farming, distribution of resources through economics, and health care.

 

[Shalamar]

They are denied elsewhere as well.

And in what way are they denied? Cite please.

I don't see reports of this. Can you cite one?

You do not know was Rescission is?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/12/magazines/moneymag/insurance_rescission.moneymag/
http://www.walletpop.com/2009/09/02/think-youve-got-health-insurance-better-double-check-and-be/

Amazing what you can find with a little googling. You can pay for insurance, only have it denied you.

Well, it depends on what they are sick of. Is it cancer? There are programs like this one all over the country. Does their condition make them disabled? SS and Medicare provide benefits. There is help out there for just about everyone that needs it if only they look.

Who pays for it? Is it donated? Do they increase the cost of other care to pay for it? Why is it such a bad thing to have a Universal Health Care scheme, where doctors would actually get paid for procedures?

They don't have people that are denied care who must find another way to pay for the drugs they need? They don't have problems funding universal healthcare?

If you are sick. You are covered.
Often, Prescriptions are heavily subsidized. It's well known in Canada, where Seniors from the US would cross the border for their medications.

I can't comment on Travis' situation because I don't know what it is. Generally speaking, Travis should have to alter his budget to pay towards the care he might need in the future if it's a big concern. The new law creates high-risk pools and he could get insurance that way. He could get a job that offers group insurance. He could get a catastrophic plan that would be significantly cheaper than traditional insurance. There are a number of options.

WHY should he have to do this? because of the roll of the dice? So he has to scrimp and save his way into poverty, because he might become seriously ill again? Again, why is this *not* an issue in UHC countries?

Why are people allowed to be denied the water they need if they don't pay their water bill? Why are people allowed to be denied food and shelter if they can't afford it?

And yet, there are programs to help this subset of the populous. Unfortunately, Healthcare costs are VERY expensive. And becoming more so. The *very* poor do receive help with government housing, and subsidies with food, water, an healthcare. Unfortunately, if you are well off, and get sick, you can lose your house trying to pay the bills. or, as it has been mentioned, you could be a target of rescission. And then you find yourself without the treatment you need, an being told 'So sorry. you make too much money. we can't help you'. Or you've lost your job, and Cobra, which is very expensive, isn't always a valid option.

Or are you like Tfian, and think people should just die?

 

[Dancing David]

No. Actually I was turned down for a job recently because they didn't want me on their health insurance program. Otherwise I was qualified.

Ouch.

 

[xjx388]

Cite?

Sure. I'd be happy to. It happens all the time in UHC systems.

 

[Tatyana]

Cite?

We have been there, done this and got the t-shirt with xjx.

By denying treatment, he will provide newspaper articles from things like the Daily 'hate' Mail, where new, unproven (except by the pharmaceutical company), monoclonal antibody therapies are not routinely offered by the NHS (even though they are in clinical trials), and expensive, end of life cancer drugs that MAY extend life by 2-6 weeks, all at the low, low cost of £ 20 - 50, 000.

 

[Tatyana]

Sure. I'd be happy to. It happens all the time in UHC systems.

How ironic (or not), that this post is exactly what I predicted.

Jeebus Crackers, you would think that you wouldn't have the gall to post that flipping Nikki Blunden 'Daily Hate Mail' article again.

Well, at least we don't deny liver transplants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/ns/health-health_care/

 

[gnome]

What is anyone supposed to do when they get seriously ill? In the UK and other Single-Payer systems, some people are denied access to life-sustaining drugs because it isn't "cost-effective" to treat them. What are they supposed to do?

There is a limit to resources in every system and people die everyday whether they had insurance or not. Rich, poor, middle class, UHC, free market . . . it makes no difference.

Hangon... you lost me there. You're saying that wealth and the nature of your country's healthcare system has no impact on surviving serious illness?

I think quite the contrary is true. And I think it's perfectly legitimate to contemplate those factors and rebalance it to something more desirable.

Right now USA is under a system that's actually more expensive than UHC, for generally worse results except for people of means.

I'm not saying we need single-payer UHC, but I think it's clear that we can do better than we are. And pointing out that medical resources are finite, is not a reason to preserve the status quo.

 

[Shalamar]

Sure. I'd be happy to. It happens all the time in UHC systems.

No-one has claimed that UHC systems are perfect. But each of those cases involves new drugs, that those systems deem to either be 'untested', 'unproven', or, not to be terribly expensive, based on the possibility to extending ones life a short time. Which has been explained to you several times.

Compare that to the USA, where common, acceptable treatments, will be denied to patients by their insurance companies through rescission, or, simply denied because they do not have coverage at all.

 

[xjx388]

How ironic (or not), that this post is exactly what I predicted.

Jeebus Crackers, you would think that you wouldn't have the gall to post that flipping Nikki Blunden 'Daily Hate Mail' article again.

Why not? It is a documented case of an individual being denied healthcare in a UHC system. The care was denied as not being cost-effective, despite the fact that this person has indeed gotten better after getting the drug. If you think she is an isolated case, then you are naive.

Well, at least we don't deny liver transplants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/ns/health-health_care/

Are you saying that she definitely would have gotten a transplant in the UK? I don't think so.

 

[Tatyana]

What is anyone supposed to do when they get seriously ill? In the UK and other Single-Payer systems, some people are denied access to life-sustaining drugs because it isn't "cost-effective" to treat them. What are they supposed to do?

There is a limit to resources in every system and people die everyday whether they had insurance or not. Rich, poor, middle class, UHC, free market . . . it makes no difference.

Let's at least have some intellectual honesty here as this has been explained to you over a flipping 30 page thread.

There is a distinction between 'cost-effective' and QALY, or quality adjusted life years.

As I mentioned to you at least three times, do a search on the New England Journal of Medicine site and see what you come up with before you use this argument again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year

 

[Tatyana]

Why not? It is a documented case of an individual being denied healthcare in a UHC system. The care was denied as not being cost-effective, despite the fact that this person has indeed gotten better after getting the drug. If you think she is an isolated case, then you are naive.


Are you saying that she definitely would have gotten a transplant in the UK? I don't think so.

Not going there with you again, you just entirely missed my point (again).

I had might as well beat my head against a brick wall.

If you do not know the difference between a newspaper article and proper documentation and evidence, there really is no point.

Your 'evidence' is like the newspapers reporting on the MMR-autism link.

 

[xjx388]

Hangon... you lost me there. You're saying that wealth and the nature of your country's healthcare system has no impact on surviving serious illness?

I think quite the contrary is true. And I think it's perfectly legitimate to contemplate those factors and rebalance it to something more desirable.

Right now USA is under a system that's actually more expensive than UHC, for generally worse results except for people of means.

I'm not saying we need single-payer UHC, but I think it's clear that we can do better than we are. And pointing out that medical resources are finite, is not a reason to preserve the status quo.

I'm saying that the system needs to change, but not to a Single-Payer system. The government needs to get out of healthcare, not increase it's role.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm saying that the system needs to change, but not to a Single-Payer system. The government needs to get out of healthcare, not increase it's role.

If the government got "out of healthcare" would there even be a health care system in the US?