View Single Post
Old 12-31-2003, 03:18 PM   #101 (permalink)
james t kirk
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
I don't understand why you keep stating this.

First of all, the government doesn't "pay" impoverished citizens' medical bills in the way you are implying. The laws, while varying from state to state, essentially ensure that a poor person won't be denied emergency care. the government only pays for it in the form of a loan and the patients don't receive primary care.


There are multiple problems with this, as I see it:

1) impoverished citizens are less likely to seek medical care if they don't feel they can afford to repay their debt. I don't lay this at anyone's feet, but it does need to be considered in light of the next point.

2) Since they only are entitled to emergency treatment and not primary care, impoverished citizens who do seek treatment only do so once their ailment is life-threatening.

3) I would much rather pay a $150 dollar primary care visit than a $1500 emergency care visit.

4) Impoverished citizens are also less likely to desire or be able to leave work for a few days to recover from a minor ailment. I don't want people walking around my work, school, or children's places with communicable diseases.

5) In the current environment of biological warfare threats, it seems that our security needs might compel us to allow for primary care coverage of non/underinsured persons. It would be tragic if a germ were dispersed to the public and the poor kept walking around spreading it because they couldn't afford to get their "bronchitis" checked out.


So, Ustwo, please stop spreading disinformation. If you really have worked in such places with uninsured persons, then you know that the government doesn't provide free treatment, it bills the patients. It also doesn't provide adequate medical coverage, it only requires that hospitals not let people die in their emergency rooms. This is hardly an efficient method for dealing with communicable diseases that the infected person can spread to many people as well as being a leading cause of reduced productivity.

Excellent post...

A couple of American clients of mine like to talk about the "socialized" medicine in Canada being right up there with Romania and one guy was piping off about SARS in Toronto and the fact that it killed 40 people and that "socialized" medicine was to blame.

I put the shoe on the other foot and countered that if it weren't for universal health care coverage it would have been far worse because people would have put off seeing a doctor and just spread it around even more.
james t kirk is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360