Action first, payment second

Post #413,917 by drook 9/26/16 10:09:51 AM 9/26/16 10:09:51 AM Reply	Action first, payment second Most of us prefer that people get healthcare first and worry about how it's paid second. You've been very clear that payment is your first, last and only consideration. -- Drew
Post #413,924 by mmoffitt 9/26/16 11:08:03 AM 9/26/16 11:08:03 AM Reply	Not at all. My first concern is that all people receive healthcare as a right. The second is that people get the healthcare they actually pay for.
Post #413,927 by drook 9/26/16 11:34:34 AM 9/26/16 11:34:34 AM Reply	What does "as a right" mean? If it includes "without having to pay for it individually" then yes, payment is your first priority. -- Drew
Post #413,932 by mmoffitt 9/26/16 11:56:19 AM 9/26/16 11:56:19 AM Reply	In America, you get the healthcare you can pay for and nothing else. That's wrong. Physicans can refuse to take Medicaid patients. Even pediatricians. No system is worth anything that allows a situation where a child can be legally denied care based upon their parents ability to pay.
Post #413,934 by Another Scott 9/26/16 12:10:31 PM 9/26/16 12:10:32 PM Reply	In Canada... http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html Private Health Insurance While the health care system in Canada covers basic services, including primary care physicians and hospitals, there are many services that are not covered. These include things like dental services, optometrists, and prescription medications. Private health insurance plans are usually offered as part of employee benefit packages in many companies. Incentives usually include vision and dental care. Alternatively, Canadians can purchase insurance packages from private insurance providers. The main reason many choose to purchase private insurance is to supplement primary health coverage. For those requiring services that may not be covered under provincial health insurance such as corrective lenses, medications, or home care, a private insurance plan offsets such medical expenses. AFAIK, please correct me if you know otherwise, there is no national health care system that covers everything. There is always going to need to be other supplementary systems, which often involve separate private insurance. Cheers, Scott.
Post #413,942 by mmoffitt 9/26/16 2:29:39 PM 9/26/16 2:29:39 PM Reply	Well, there was one once. I know because I personally benefited from being mistaken for a Russian child in the Soviet Union. ;0)
Post #413,951 by Another Scott 9/26/16 3:25:07 PM 9/26/16 3:25:07 PM Reply	Re: Well, there was one once. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1025801/ Reliable information about the system of health care pertaining to the average Soviet citizen is difficult to come by. The health care offered important officials, artists and foreigners who become ill is at a much more sophisticated level than that available to the general Soviet community. Anectodal reports [1-5] depict the personal encounters of Western travelers with the health care system and reflect the preferential treatment given sick foreigners. ;-p Cheers, Scott.
Post #413,955 by a6l6e6x 9/26/16 3:38:09 PM 9/26/16 3:38:09 PM Reply	So, Mike was privileged even as a youth! :) Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #413,960 by mmoffitt 9/26/16 4:01:53 PM 9/26/16 4:01:53 PM Reply	So, you know my own experiences better than I? The point is they did not know I was a foreigner until after they'd treated me because that was the point at which my father told them and asked how a fee for treatment could be made. My father and I spoke Russian only when we went into the office. It wasn't until after I was treated that they knew I was a foreigner. That's when they panicked. If they'd known before treatment, I'd have probably been sent to (at least) the embassy. Being a local clinic, I doubt seriously the practitioner would have wanted to chance an international incident by treating a US citizen and having something go wrong. So you can fsck-off telling me what my own experiences were and the reasons for them. No one better than I knows how well (and differently) U.S. citizens were treated in the Soviet Union than Soviets. We were the "Golden Children" everywhere we went and we'd been raised to reject that "special treatment" for ourselves. Which is why, in public, neither my brother nor I ever spoke a word of English and it is also why we wore our school uniforms almost everywhere we went because we knew our Western clothes would make us stand out. We intentionally always tried to pass for Soviet children. We were often successful, as we were the first and only time I was treated by Soviet clinicians. Quoting some US government propaganda site and suggesting that trumps my own, real-life experiences is beneath you.
Post #413,963 by Another Scott 9/26/16 4:06:16 PM 9/26/16 4:06:16 PM Reply	Point is, you were a sample of one. That is all. :-)
Post #413,964 by mmoffitt 9/26/16 4:09:21 PM 9/26/16 4:09:21 PM Reply	Okay, Twas not the thrust anyway. :0)
Post #413,940 by drook 9/26/16 1:55:51 PM 9/26/16 1:55:52 PM Reply	Thanks for confirming No system is worth anything that allows a situation where a child can be legally denied care based upon their parents ability to pay. So a system that demonstrably leads to more people being covered on a per-capita basis than any time in the history of the country is worth nothing because there are still cases where care depends on ability to pay. Like I said, finances are your first and only criteria. Doesn't matter who actually gets (or doesn't get) care. -- Drew
Post #413,943 by mmoffitt 9/26/16 2:30:28 PM 9/26/16 2:30:28 PM Reply	You've got a strange definition of equality embedded in that statement.
Post #413,945 by drook 9/26/16 2:34:08 PM 9/26/16 2:34:08 PM Reply	More words, please? -- Drew
Post #413,947 by mmoffitt 9/26/16 2:40:25 PM 9/26/16 2:40:25 PM Reply	Re: More words, please? I'm saying, "Everyone should get treatment who needs it without regard to whether they can pay for it." My position is that a system that treats people unequally is not a system worth having. You are arguing my position is ill advised. This suggests you don't care if some people go without care because unequal treatment with regard to healthcare is insufficient grounds to toss a system. IOW, some people are more equal than others and you're good with that.
Post #413,949 by drook 9/26/16 2:52:17 PM 9/26/16 2:52:17 PM Reply	You don't seem to understand your own words No system is worth anything that allows a situation where a child can be legally denied care based upon their parents ability to pay. I'm saying that the ACA is better than what it replaced because more people receive care than before. It could be still better if more were covered, and without regard to what they could pay, but it's *BETTER*. That's the word that doesn't exist in your world. It's not up to your standards, so it shouldn't exist. -- Drew
Post #413,961 by mmoffitt 9/26/16 4:03:17 PM 9/26/16 4:03:17 PM Reply	Simpler summary of my view: An unequal system is not a defensible system.
Post #413,967 by drook 9/26/16 5:00:41 PM 9/26/16 5:00:41 PM Reply	Do you prefer no system? There will be a system, even if that system is anarchy. If you don't choose something else you are choosing anarchy. Is that defensible? -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!