Obamacare

Quote: thecesspit

Quote: AZDuffman

So, once again the idea is "let someone choose who gets the care." News flash, under the current system in the USA it is even better, minimal if any MRI waits. But "equal access" types would rather we all wait a month than someone who can pay gets better service than someone who can't.

If no-one is waiting for MRIs at present, then it wouldn't matter what system is used to utilize the scarce resource, surely, as it obviously is not that scarce, and neither "payment" or "by need" or "physicians desire" matters. So no need for a link the Beatles.. that's not evidence ;)

Not about "evidence" but a bit of satire as the supporters of Obamacare seem to prefer we all die of hunger than a few people can buy steak every night, some can buy steak a few nights but have hamburger on the others, and some can get hamburger every night but no steak. They are saying it right here. Like the "Seinfeld" episode where Elaine says, "it isn't fair restaurants serve who got there first, it should be who is hungriest!" they want to be able to decide who gets the care, where the money is spent.

"Sorry, guy with heart disease. You didn't eat what Michelle Obama said to eat, you do not get care. Come back if you catch a STD, we have care for that."

Well, seeing as you didn't flag that piece as "satire" but had "evidence" later, I thought I better make it clear you were trying to use 'satire' to make a point...

is it possible to conduct a reductio ad absurdum attack against one's self? Seriously...

Quote: AZDuffman

"Sorry, guy with heart disease. You didn't eat what Michelle Obama said to eat, you do not get care.

You make a joke, but thats exactly whats going on.
Some fat black guy who smokes and gets sick goes
to the back of the line under Obamacare. He didn't
follow the health guidelines and can't expect the
gov't to pick up the tab because he's ill. Thats why
they want your race and weight and BP and age and
meds your on. They can't force a doctor to give them
that info, but they can threaten the doctor with non
payment if he doesn't get the info from the patient
voluntarily.

And the answer, according to people here is, not don't pass
these intrusive laws to begin with. No, their answer is
to lie on the forms you fill out, and if you have to wait
weeks or months till a diagnostic tool becomes available,
just have your doctor guess whats wrong and treat you
anyway. Attitudes like this would be laughable, if they
weren't so frightening.

Quote: thecesspit

Well, seeing as you didn't flag that piece as "satire" but had "evidence" later, I thought I better make it clear you were trying to use 'satire' to make a point...

Fair enough. I am first to admit I have that dry sense of humor and some folks miss the point.

Quote: EvenBob

You make a joke, but thats exactly whats going on.
Some fat black guy who smokes and gets sick goes
to the back of the line under Obamacare. He didn't
follow the health guidelines and can't expect the
gov't to pick up the tab because he's ill. Thats why
they want your race and weight and BP and age and
meds your on. They can't force a doctor to give them
that info, but they can threaten the doctor with non
payment if he doesn't get the info from the patient
voluntarily.

And the answer, according to people here is, not don't pass
these intrusive laws to begin with. No, their answer is
to lie on the forms you fill out, and if you have to wait
weeks or months till a diagnostic tool becomes available,
just have your doctor guess whats wrong and treat you
anyway. Attitudes like this would be laughable, if they
weren't so frightening.

It already happens. Heart disease is at least part genetic and has a multitude of causes direct and indirect. It can be hard to avoid. AIDS is not at all genetic, has just three major points of transmission and is fairly easy to avoid. Which gets far more spending per capita on research for a cure?

Quote: AZDuffman

It already happens. Heart disease is at least part genetic and has a multitude of causes direct and indirect. It can be hard to avoid. AIDS is not at all genetic, has just three major points of transmission and is fairly easy to avoid. Which gets far more spending per capita on research for a cure?

Because AIDS involves so many Gay people, its a very
politically correct disease. Heart disease is the opposite,
who cares about gramps, he shouldn't have eaten so
much bacon and smoked so many cig's in the 80's.

Quote: AZDuffman

It already happens. Heart disease is at least part genetic and has a multitude of causes direct and indirect. It can be hard to avoid. AIDS is not at all genetic, has just three major points of transmission and is fairly easy to avoid. Which gets far more spending per capita on research for a cure?

The NHLBI (National Heart, Lung and Blood institute) for $ 3.1 Billion in funding last year, $1.8 Billion going to heart disease (and associated heart/pulomonary system issues), the rest is lung and blood. AIDS research got about the same amount ($3.1 Billion).

Number of new AIDS cases in the US in 2009 : 42,000 (about 33% are female)
Number of fatal cases of Coronary heart disease in 2006 : 182 per 100,000 -> 364,000 (assume 200 million adults in the US)

The good news about the last stat is it's seen a 25% decrease in the last 7 years.

I provide this just for your edification, as I was curious what the spending differential was.

You should look at the two budget appropriation documents for comparison, which may also suggest which one is getting the sexier communications done.

I imagine the overall total for heart disease for however many decades of research makes AIDs research a tiny figure. But it's also true activism can pay dividends.

This might be OT, but it's a weird medical thing that might apply. Or not. I honestly don't know.

Per my divorce, I dropped from the ex's carrier in April. I went uninsured for a few months due to a paperwork SNAFU, but I got on my own plan around July. In September, I got a hellacious, I mean a real Christing bad, case of poison ivy. After 10 days of agony, and after it had spread everywhere except my head and feet, I went to the docs. No big deal.

About two weeks later I get a letter saying I owed a hundred and some odd dollars for "a preexisting condition", which wasn't covered. Excuse me?

After a bunch of calls, they said I need to send proof that I was previously covered under another insurance prior to the one I'm on (I already had to do this to get on it in the first place). So why do I need to do it again? What does it even matter? And since when in the name of all that's holy is poison freakin' ivy a "previously existing condition", one which I would had to have had in excess of 3 months to be "previously existing"?

Never had a med insurance issue in my life, this just stuck me as very, very queer (and insanely infuriating)