quote:

When it's that big of a cost difference, you bet your ass it's part of the point!

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its the litmus locked gave, the population is almost the same.

Cant help you dont like the results.

I don't mind the results at all, because I understand the reason for them, and it has nothing to do with the quality of health care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

When it's that big of a cost difference, you bet your ass it's part of the point!

I wanted to address this part separately.

So, you dont want people being "forced" to buy insurance.

Then you are totally agreeable to being "forced" to pay their medical bills, right?

I mean, if you dont want people to have to cover themselves, and the law says no hospital can turn away an emergency case, then you are perfectly fine with paying the tab when someone has a heart attack, stroke, aneurysm and they dont have insurance.

Its what you are doing when you have insurance. You are paying for those who do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Sorry, I'm not going there with you.  You keep wanting to talk about infant mortality rates as the bellweather for whether your socialized system is better than a free market system.  Here is a chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

I don't see on this chart WHY these babies died?  Is it your argument that because there is a higher child mortality rate that there is....ipso facto....worse health care in that country?  Do you think there are more meth babies born in the United States or in Iceland?  How about HIV infected babies?  Your argument requires a real leap of faith.  Taking into account that we have approximately 300 million people or more, I would say our infant mortality rate is pretty good.  Where do we rank on that chart?  Number 33?  We are number 33 and we have SUBSTANTIALLY more people than any of the 32 countries that precede us.  So...let's look at India.  Where do they fall?  Ooooops...they are down around 143.  Thanks, I'll stick with my United States of America health care any day. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

When it's that big of a cost difference, you bet your ass it's part of the point!

I wanted to address this part separately.

So, you dont want people being "forced" to buy insurance.

Then you are totally agreeable to being "forced" to pay their medical bills, right?

I mean, if you dont want people to have to cover themselves, and the law says no hospital can turn away an emergency case, then you are perfectly fine with paying the tab when someone has a heart attack, stroke, aneurysm and they dont have insurance.

Its what you are doing when you have insurance. You are paying for those who do not.

Most of the costs for health care are not ER costs, except for illegals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geilematz

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Sorry, I'm not going there with you.  You keep wanting to talk about infant mortality rates as the bellweather for whether your socialized system is better than a free market system.  Here is a chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

I don't see on this chart WHY these babies died?  Is it your argument that because there is a higher child mortality rate that there is....ipso facto....worse health care in that country?  Do you think there are more meth babies born in the United States or in Iceland?  How about HIV infected babies?  Your argument requires a real leap of faith.  Taking into account that we have approximately 300 million people or more, I would say our infant mortality rate is pretty good.  Where do we rank on that chart?  Number 33?  We are number 33 and we have SUBSTANTIALLY more people than any of the 32 countries that precede us.  So...let's look at India.  Where do they fall?  Ooooops...they are down around 143.  Thanks, I'll stick with my United States of America health care any day. 

just to put things straight: I wasn't talking about infant mortality rates but maternal mortality rates ... the mothers, not the babies ...

as to the significance of maternal mortality rates: check the WHO website

and from a woman to a man: size doesn't matter always

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Nobody is FORCED to purchase an ID... it's merely required if you wish to vote, identify yourself, etc.  It's akin to nobody being FORCED to purchase a Driver's License, or Auto Insurance -- it's merely required if you want to drive.  *NOTE:  The IRS will not FINE you if you don't have an ID... they will, however, fine your ass if you don't have Health Insurance under Urkel's crappy healthcare bill. 

When was the last time you tried to cash a check without an ID? When did you open a checking account without one?

quote:


And its not just California giving out ID's.

quote:



You are entitled to your opinion, regardless of how wrong you are.

quote:

Change the headline to "State Approves Licences for Illegal Nurses" and you'd be throwing a hissy fit screaming, "But they're not Nurses... they shouldn't be entitled to my Nursing job or my benefits?!!"  You're only outraged when it doesn't work to your favor.

quote:

It's not "opinion"... it's FACT, and only person that's "wrong" here is YOU, because YOU are the one that supports breaking the law -- not me. Again, because the only people who subscribe to this line of thinking are those who (i) are NOT ELIGIBLE, or (ii) seek to benefit from those who are NOT ELIGIBLE.

quote:

Sorry, the same arguments apply.  Here is the chart I looked at.  Any way you slice it, a country of this size looks pretty damn good:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mat_mor-health-maternal-mortality

Out of 135 countries with the best being #135 with the lowest maternal mortality rate, the U.S. is ranked 116.  And of the countries following #116, we have a MUCH larger population with greater diversity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

When it's that big of a cost difference, you bet your ass it's part of the point!

I wanted to address this part separately.

So, you dont want people being "forced" to buy insurance.

Then you are totally agreeable to being "forced" to pay their medical bills, right?

I mean, if you dont want people to have to cover themselves, and the law says no hospital can turn away an emergency case, then you are perfectly fine with paying the tab when someone has a heart attack, stroke, aneurysm and they dont have insurance.

Its what you are doing when you have insurance. You are paying for those who do not.

Most of the costs for health care are not ER costs, except for illegals.

Who told you that? LOL

The brief, released by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, is based on 2007 data from several sources. Other findings include:

Having a regular doctor did not make a difference in whether people had at least one ER visit in a 12-month period--except among patients 65 and older, who were more likely to have had an ER visit if they had a usual source of medical care.

About 10 percent of ER visits were deemed non-urgent in 2007, with the uninsured and Medicaid beneficiaries slightly more likely than the insured to have had ER visits triaged as non-urgent. The NCHS data brief did not consider the differences enough to associate health-insurance status with ER visits being triaged as non-urgent.

People below the poverty line were about twice as likely as those with incomes at least four times the poverty level to use the ER at least once in a 12-month period.

Non-Hispanic black people were more likely to have had an ER visit--with about 25 percent of that population using the ER at least once in a 12-month period. Hispanic people had the lowest utilization rate, at less than 20 percent of the population.


http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/uninsured-dont-use-er-more-insured-medicaid-patients-do/2010-05-20#ixzz1O45dfd8Q

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: geilematz

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Sorry, I'm not going there with you.  You keep wanting to talk about infant mortality rates as the bellweather for whether your socialized system is better than a free market system.  Here is a chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

I don't see on this chart WHY these babies died?  Is it your argument that because there is a higher child mortality rate that there is....ipso facto....worse health care in that country?  Do you think there are more meth babies born in the United States or in Iceland?  How about HIV infected babies?  Your argument requires a real leap of faith.  Taking into account that we have approximately 300 million people or more, I would say our infant mortality rate is pretty good.  Where do we rank on that chart?  Number 33?  We are number 33 and we have SUBSTANTIALLY more people than any of the 32 countries that precede us.  So...let's look at India.  Where do they fall?  Ooooops...they are down around 143.  Thanks, I'll stick with my United States of America health care any day. 

just to put things straight: I wasn't talking about infant mortality rates but maternal mortality rates ... the mothers, not the babies ...

as to the significance of maternal mortality rates: check the WHO website

and from a woman to a man: size doesn't matter always

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Simple questions for you...

1)  Should non-citizens be allowed to vote?

2)  Should non-citizens be given IDs (appearing as citizens) that wold allow them to vote?

quote:

And as far as Tazzy's question regarding whether people should be forced to pay their medical bills, they should.  They can also file for bankruptcy.  You see, Taz, the person who has nothing can file for bankruptcy.  They can't afford to pay their hospital bill and they couldn't afford to buy the insurance.  But the person that lives in the $500,000.00 house who didn't buy health insurance, well, that person simply gambled and lost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Not saying it doesnt, willbe. And much of that end of life care comes from the strokes and the heart attacks and the car accidents from the ER. It started there, and until the patient is stable, the hospital is responsible for all their care, and those insured are stuck with the bill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway


Sorry, the same arguments apply.  Here is the chart I looked at.  Any way you slice it, a country of this size looks pretty damn good:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mat_mor-health-maternal-mortality

Out of 135 countries with the best being #135 with the lowest maternal mortality rate, the U.S. is ranked 116.  And of the countries following #116, we have a MUCH larger population with greater diversity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

And as far as Tazzy's question regarding whether people should be forced to pay their medical bills, they should.  They can also file for bankruptcy.  You see, Taz, the person who has nothing can file for bankruptcy.  They can't afford to pay their hospital bill and they couldn't afford to buy the insurance.  But the person that lives in the $500,000.00 house who didn't buy health insurance, well, that person simply gambled and lost.

You misread what I wrote. Its the insured that pays the bills for the uninsured. Even filing bankruptcy wont clear that debt for the hospital, they are still out of the money. And the hospital charges more for those who can pay because of those who cant.

Im not sure how that is confusing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I will walk you through this.

Stroke patient comes into the hospital. Everything is ordered stat... huge bucks. They are triaged, evaluated, treated then transferred to the ICU. More big bucks. So far, no one has asked a question. Then finance shows up. Of course they want their money. This patient has no insurance. Blue collar worker. No assets. Immediate financial assistance... guess who from?