Health Care Choices Only Liberals Willing to Make
Posted by Raven on July 7th, 2008
More evidence that our health care system isn’t working:
PLAINFIELD, N.J. – If the country is facing a nationwide health-care crisis, then the condition in New Jersey can be described as gravely critical.
The state has an estimated 1.3 million people without health insurance who cannot pay a doctor or a hospital bill. New Jersey law requires that hospitals treat anyone who walks through their doors, and then get reimbursed later by the state. But the state’s looming budget shortfall has forced it to cut back on the reimbursements, leaving hospitals to pick up the tab. And hospitals, in turn, are going broke: Six have closed in the past 18 months, and half of those remaining are operating in the red.
As the economy falters, the number of uninsured is likely to grow, and so will the burden on hospitals. And with more hospitals expected to shut their doors, New Jersey faces a nasty culmination of health-care crises.
This isn’t good folks. It’s been happening more and more. The bottom line is hospitals need to take in money in order to operate. Those on the left will use stories like this to promote their demand for single payer universal type coverage. Like they have over in Britain.
Speaking of the Brits, who are struggling to pay for their national health care, here’s how they keep costs down:
A woman has claimed an NHS hospital “starved” her elderly mother rather than continue her care.
Ellen Westwood, 88, was in Birmingham’s Selly Oak Hospital for two months being treated for dementia and C.difficile, which she had previously contracted.
Her daughter Kathleen Westwood said the hospital decided in February it was in her “best interests” to halt fluids and nutrition - a move the family opposed.
The trust said it followed national guidelines on elderly care.
An investigation is under way.
National guidelines? Oh really we might ask? Well, yes, the hospital DID follow the government rules. That do include allowing elderly and disabled people to be starved to death when doctors decide their lives aren’t worth saving; that the costs to maintain a life outweigh the costs to end the life. See, if we eliminate those pesky people from the health care chain, there would be plenty to go around for those left- those who some believe deserve life over others. This is what happens in a national system. Care rationing is becoming the norm in Europe. Now they’re not even bothering to care- they’re outright denying it in favor of death.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:07 am
But. But. But. Oh well.. lets just raise taxes….
And if someone is terminal, does it really make sense to treat them and prolong
ourtheir suffering? Probably cheaper to just euthanize them…July 7th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Britain has raised taxes. It’s not helping.
They don’t have enough doctors. Neither does Germany. And let’s not even talk about Canada.
It doesn’t work- unless one is willing to sacrifice human beings of less fortune (and even then it doesn’t work). Gah. I know the current isn’t good…people are left out though by their own choice and free will. Across the pond people are killed when they require care.
I’m all for hospice type care. End of Life care. Which is humane and dignified…and goes to those who are truly dying and not those who we WISH would die.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317809,00.html
The family of a 17-year-old leukemia patient blamed Cigna Corp. on Friday for her death, saying the health insurance giant’s initial refusal to pay for a liver transplant contributed to her death.
The Philadelphia-based insurer had initially refused to pay for the procedure, saying it was experimental.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The key danger to the government stepping in is that once the left gets to install its compliant courts, there’s no check on the government deciding who lives and who dies, who gets access to better care and who gets stuck with the dregs. And we know of our leftist advocates of equity won’t give themselves the dregs. Just look at Al Gore hogging energy at home and jetting around the world to evangelize for others to make the necessary sacrifices.
And the government can cover up its crimes so much easier than private industry, especially with strategic laws to muzzle the press. I predict our proponents of “choice” who love the idea of government health care will have their chickens come home to roost some day when the government at some point decides to mandate abortions, like China has (though the justification will be on the basis of costs, not population control).
We’ve already had one recent case in Oregon of the state issuing a death sentence on a cancer patient on the basis of cost. She did manage to get her story into the media and the manufacturer stepped in to the rescue, but in a government-run system, such miracles will be legislated away.
That’s not to deny that we’ve got a healthcare mess right now, but if you do follow the history, you will find that government interventions and corruption provided the seeds for most of the problems we see today. To give these incompetents the keys to the bank is insane. But that would be the topic for a full post, if I find the occasion some time to weave the tale.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Also found you a story by a somebody English who lives in America. She compares the healthcare care there with the healthcare in the US.
“Len’s first trip to the emergency room was with a heart attack. We had medical insurance in the U.S. for $2,000,000. He was kept waiting while the office staff were trying to contact the insurance company to see what his deductible was. I got so mad with them and suggested they treat the patient and I would wait with the employee and give her a check or visa card for whatever amount she needed. Two hours later, and the paperwork finished, I finally was able to go through and visit with Len.
An instance like this would never have happened in England because there would be no payment due.”
http://health.propeller.com/story/2008/02/04/comparing-us-health-care-to-englands-system
July 7th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Issac,
The insurance company did not kill the young lady. Her illness, her cancer and it’s effects, did. It’s a sad story and I wish these things could have a better ending but they never do.
The transplant added to the already high risks this girl faced. The procedure most likely caused her death to come much sooner than it should have. But let’s not talk about that. Let’s not allow medical facts to get in the way of emotional rhetoric.
Let’s paint a black picture of the evil insurance carrier. Now, this is how things are now…have a look at Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and get a taste of what’s in store for the US. If we go to a single payer, national system it will be YOUR federal government denying treatments, surgeries and other options vs the insurance carriers. YOUR government will become the carrier and don’t assume this means and endless supply of options, treatments, medications, and the like. It will be anything but. Read the article I posted here and ponder it for a moment. It’s OKAY in Britain to not feed a human being. It’s okay to withhold water to a human being who is thirsty (at first while they can still sense thirst)…it’s okay to take someone who has dementia and effectively kill them, slowly, but kill them nonetheless. All in the name of money.
Free markets have not always lived up to what they should; there have been some really bad apples in the bunch. But those apples have rotted away and it’s time to start over, with a true system that allows people to make choices, based on their own situations and needs and wants. One thing is for sure: If we had to pay for, buy, our medical care, we sure as heck would want to shop around for the best deals. And the markets would provide us deals, I daresay at a much cheaper amount of money than we each pay now through our employer- provided plans.
I have no health insurance, for example. Instead, I contracted with a local doctor who gives me 24 hour access to his services, 365 days a yr (weekends, holidays, nights, whenever I NEED it); he provides me with most of the needed medications I might require- antibiotics, blood pressure meds, heart meds, ect ect (I don’t need any of those NOW)…he has much of the machine and equipment in his office to aid him with making DX (ex ray, MRI, cat scanners, and the like). How much does this cost me? About 2500.00 a yr- much less than my employer provided plan would cost me in bi weekly paycheck deductions. This plan covers me. If I wanted to cover my family, it would cost me about 6400.00 yr- still a lot less than employer provided plans.
I also have catastrophic insurance for the potential hospital admissions, surgery, ER visits, ambulance, cancer care, heart attack care ect ect. THAT costs me roughly 12.00 a week. Thanks to the free market and my state’s lax regulations, I can have this choice.
And I’m not wealthy. Ha. I’m a nursing assistant who earns less than 30,000.00 a yr- I am a POOR working soul who qualifies for welfare in all aspects. I reject it though because I refuse to allow others to give to me that which I can provide for myself.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I recently moved to Sweden. It costs me a maximum of $120 a year for health care here. Health care that is every bit as good as the health care in the U.S. I fail to see why you think it doesn’t work or is it just that you don’t want it to work? And just so you know, when you add together my taxes in the U.S. (fed. income tax, state income tax, fica and medicare) it comes out the same as my taxes here in Sweden. Imagine that.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
NJ has massive taxes. My ‘rentals retired from their beloved Monmouth County to Ocean County to save about $6k in property taxes, and they are still pretty high. Yet, the state always seems to have a budget issue, at least when dems are in charge, which is most of the time.
Too bad, because, for those who know it, NJ is a really lovely state.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Issac, my X is from England. His family came to the US because of a medical problem that could not be solved in Britain; his mother found a lump in her breast; she scheduled an appt with her doctor, that took 7 mos to get to. The doctor examined her and ordered further testing- again, which was scheduled over a yr away. She was just one more person in the long line. As that yr passed her lump grew bigger and she began experiencing a lot of pain. Her husband, my X FIL, made arrangements to come to the US to see if this lump could be treated faster. They came to Boston, and immediately went to MGH…where, within hours, they were able to DX that lump as being cancerous. Not only that- the cancer had spread to her liver, lungs and brain. She died less than 2 mos later here in America. That was 20 plus yrs ago. Two yrs ago the same thing happened to her sister.
The hospital in Boston didn’t charge a penny. Sure, they asked for payment. Sure, they asked about insurance. Yep- they asked and someone had to fill out papers. But they never sent a bill cause they knew it would never be paid.
Don’t tell me about how the British health care system is free. Free costs a lot to many- and the price is life. I work in nursing. Please tell me how, if no one “pays” - how will I manage to get paid a decent competitive wage? What incentive is there for me to stay in this work when I’m not being paid what I am worth….doctors, nurses, OR techs, XRay techs….please think about all this free care.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Mark, nice try at being smart.
If Sweden had as many citizens as the US that 120.00/yr would increase ten -twenty fold. Easily. The population difference alone ends your argument.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
NJ is losing citizens faster than they’re gaining. People are fed up with the BS and huge government and are moving the hell out.
Good on them. Speak with their feet, I like it.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I just stated the facts. Can you explain to me why you think that increased population increases costs per capita?
July 8th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Mark,
Just a couple of quick questions. Are you a Swedish citizen or a resident alien? Does that affect your premium? And if you’ve moved to Sweden, why do you have an Amsterdam-based internet carrier?
Does your age affect your premium? I’m assume you’re young. How are the premiums set - by government fiat, or is there some kind of actuarial basis behind these rates? And does every one pay the same rate by age, or is there some kind of underwriting rating to determine different risk classes?
July 8th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Civil Truth,
I am a resident alien which does not affect my cost at all. That is, if you are given legal residency you are treated exactly the same as a citizen. Age does not affect it either and it is not a premium per se. It costs a nominal fee every time you visit a doctor or hospital until you have paid roughly $120 for the year, then the rest of the year is free. BTW I’m 47 years old.
I have no idea why I have an Amsterdam-based internet carrier as I do indeed live in Stockholm.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Mark,
Thanks for answering my questions.
The internet ate my rather lengthy response to you, and I’m not sure when I’ll have the time and patience to reconstruct my response. If I do, I’ll probably do it by e-mail. I’m not ignoring you; I’m actually curious to know more about the system in Sweden since they seem to be the “poster child” for socialized medicine. However, life is busy and I do have to make choices about my time.
Thanks for stopping by to comment here.