Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Uh...you're kidding, right?Ar-Adunakhor wrote: Tens of thousands for the ER/IC/Hospital alone and god knows how much on the longterm follow-up medication and such.
No, completely serious. ICU visits are easily ten grand on their own around here, and without insurance you are pulling that straight from the bank account.PeZook wrote:Uh...you're kidding, right?Ar-Adunakhor wrote: Tens of thousands for the ER/IC/Hospital alone and god knows how much on the longterm follow-up medication and such.
Me and my wife earn about 1500 USD a month, my parents make around twice that. There's no way we could ever pay even 10 thousand bucks for a hospital visit...
Unfortunatley, he's not. I work in an ER in the U.S... the most basic of things done here (we'll take a mild laceration, on the arm, for instance) one hundred fourty dollars. That's just for the patient to come in, and be seen by the doctor. Oh, then the doctor (in my hospital, the doctors are sub-contracted out through a different company and bill seperatley) submits a second bill. This doesn't include anything else.PeZook wrote:Uh...you're kidding, right?Ar-Adunakhor wrote: Tens of thousands for the ER/IC/Hospital alone and god knows how much on the longterm follow-up medication and such.
Me and my wife earn about 1500 USD a month, my parents make around twice that. There's no way we could ever pay even 10 thousand bucks for a hospital visit...
I call bullshit; the hospital I work in is a relativley small one, in a small city in New Hampshire. Even with our vaunted private health insurance, we have times where patients are in rooms for 6-7 hours before being seen, or held for 20 before being discharged. it has nothing to do with insurance, it's limited space and staffing and too many patients.similar systems in other countries force "real people [to] pay a deeper cost through long waits for treatment or settling for care that does not take advantage of the latest medical science."
If this site is to be trusted. . . . (and it seems accurate) . . .PeZook wrote: Uh...you're kidding, right?
Me and my wife earn about 1500 USD a month, my parents make around twice that. There's no way we could ever pay even 10 thousand bucks for a hospital visit...
Statistical Brief #111 (January 2006) shows average expenses for a visit to the Emergency Room were $560 in 2003. For people ages 45 to 64, the cost was substantially higher on average ($832). If a surgical procedure was performed during the visit, the average payment was $904. Overall range was $42 (10th percentile) to $1246 (90th percentile). Excludes ED visits included with a hospital admission.
Because millions of Americans have been gulled into believing the pre-packaged Republikan fantasy that, yes Virginia, you and your family too will one day be RICH and surely you don't want your wealth eaten up in taxes now, do you?Justforfun000 wrote:I just can't understand how they can get away with this kind of attitude. Surely the majority of people in the States are not "rich"? How the hell can they keep getting enough votes to win elections? I just don't understand??
It seems that religion teaches people to live on pipe dreams of the future first and foremost. No wonder it's called the opiate of the masses.Because millions of Americans have been gulled into believing the pre-packaged Republikan fantasy that, yes Virginia, you and your family too will one day be RICH and surely you don't want your wealth eaten up in taxes now, do you?
Don't worry. If you're paying without insurance, then you get 20% off!PeZook wrote:Uh...you're kidding, right?Ar-Adunakhor wrote: Tens of thousands for the ER/IC/Hospital alone and god knows how much on the longterm follow-up medication and such.
Me and my wife earn about 1500 USD a month, my parents make around twice that. There's no way we could ever pay even 10 thousand bucks for a hospital visit...
Patriotism. The United States is among the only industrialised countries left with privatised health care, and thus it's become a fundamental part of the American identity. Changing things to something similar to what those lilly-livered girly-men in Europe and Canada use would mean that there's an area in which America isn't the Greatest Country in the World. If they switch over to public healthcare, or the metric system, or start pushing for some realistic alternatives to automobile use they'd be admitting that America is really just another country with its own upsides and downsides rather than that shining beacon that everyone else would give anything to be like.Justforfun000 wrote:I just can't understand how they can get away with this kind of attitude. Surely the majority of people in the States are not "rich"? How the hell can they keep getting enough votes to win elections? I just don't understand??
That's not exactly what they're saying. What they're saying is that you need to make poverty a really horrible condition in order to create a stronger incentive to work hard. If you make poverty horrible enough, you will effectively select for earning potential in future generations, particularly since the child mortality rate among the poor in the US is reminiscent of third-world countries. In short, it is Darwinism.Justforfun000 wrote:Republicans like McCain disgust me to no end. These are the people espousing good "Christian values"? Sure, we'll take care of the poor. Throw them to the wolves and they'll meet Jesus all the sooner.
Real people, eh? As opposed to fake people?The presumptive Republican presidential nominee rejected a single-payer system to lower health care costs, saying similar systems in other countries force "real people [to] pay a deeper cost through long waits for treatment or settling for care that does not take advantage of the latest medical science."
It is actually amazing as staunch religious people turn out to be ruthless social darwinists, whilst at the same time decrying evolution and telling that all animals used to live peacefully in god's paradise or something.Darth Wong wrote:As a general rule, liberals think that Darwinism is a good scientific theory but horrible social policy. Conservatives are the opposite: they think that Darwinism is a horrible scientific theory but good social policy.
During a speech at the Miami Children's Hospital in Miami, Florida, McCain said he was ready to take on the "parochial interests" in health care and challenged doctors, hospitals, drug manufactures and insurance providers to do a better job of holding down costs.
Sure McCain. The medical industry is going to voluntarily cut its revenues. Delusional doesn't even begin to describe it. Voluntaryism in action. For real.The medical industry is going to voluntarily cut its revenues.
Same here... slightly worse. Most of that goes to rent however. In a US-style system I'd not be able to have any of the 4 surgeries I had. Since we have private clinics, the fun thing about them is that even a simple visit to a doctor costs $200. With average Russian salaries around $350 per month total (that, of course, is pre-rent and food costs, after which around $100 is left on the average if a person spends carefully), I'll let you figure out which class is served by those "oh-so-available" doctors exclusively, and which majority social class is not able to get any service there.PeZook wrote:Me and my wife earn about 1500 USD a month
Well, they would be more "empowered" if they had health insurance, you dumb fuck.(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain on Monday rejected a "big government" takeover of the health care system, saying he wants to empower families to make more medical decisions.
What?The best part is that the government does pay for your own huge-ass medical bills because you're a Senator.
So the US Government are not enjoying the blessings of the great competitive market? No, can't be! 
My father recently had a shunt put in. Diagnosis to operation four weeks and it cost nothing other than the fuel to get into the hospital. McCain is setting up the usual strawman of halftruths to lay his audiance, all good political stuff, shame people have to suffer or die over basic stuff like heath care.Almightyboredone wrote:Sorry for the double post, but just remembered something else we have in the office; a list of room rates for the assorted floors. For this instance, intensive care is $2,750 a night. That's not including any other bills from the hospital or the doctors. Then, one night in a medicals semi-private room is 1,310. So, a quick recap; just for the rooms for PeZook's grandmother, we're looking at 7,860 dollars. That doesn't include anything but the beds and the highest (non critical) care in the ER.
Well isn't that the shit all of irony that the very people that represent a demographic idealization of "values" like Christianity, tend to be the actual demonstration of Darwinism principles in actuality. So the liberal, new-age, pie-in-the-sky, idealist types are actually CLOSER to being fairer in terms of moralistic concern for the fellow man. Spider Robinson had it right when he coined the phrase, "God is an iron".That's not exactly what they're saying. What they're saying is that you need to make poverty a really horrible condition in order to create a stronger incentive to work hard. If you make poverty horrible enough, you will effectively select for earning potential in future generations, particularly since the child mortality rate among the poor in the US is reminiscent of third-world countries. In short, it is Darwinism.
As a general rule, liberals think that Darwinism is a good scientific theory but horrible social policy. Conservatives are the opposite: they think that Darwinism is a horrible scientific theory but good social policy.
Don't forget, too, that these idiots never pay attention to history - because otherwise they'd have to deal with unpleasant things such as why America went on the hated HMO system, with their networks of special doctors and treatments all designed to minimize expenses. We went on the HMO system in the late 1990s precisely because the "everybody and/or their company buys their health insurance" model that McCain seems so fond of was utterly failing to restrain health care costs. The HMOs managed to slow it for about 2-3 years in the late 1990s before breaking down under the weight of shitty coverage and public dislike.Drooling Iguana wrote:Patriotism. The United States is among the only industrialised countries left with privatised health care, and thus it's become a fundamental part of the American identity. Changing things to something similar to what those lilly-livered girly-men in Europe and Canada use would mean that there's an area in which America isn't the Greatest Country in the World. If they switch over to public healthcare, or the metric system, or start pushing for some realistic alternatives to automobile use they'd be admitting that America is really just another country with its own upsides and downsides rather than that shining beacon that everyone else would give anything to be like.Justforfun000 wrote:I just can't understand how they can get away with this kind of attitude. Surely the majority of people in the States are not "rich"? How the hell can they keep getting enough votes to win elections? I just don't understand??
To be fair, subsidised or wholly government owned healthcare industries are facing the same problems of rising costs as well as limited funds. That's one of the reasons why the NHS is in the red and is forced to economise by shutting down facillities.Guardsman Bass wrote: Don't forget, too, that these idiots never pay attention to history - because otherwise they'd have to deal with unpleasant things such as why America went on the hated HMO system, with their networks of special doctors and treatments all designed to minimize expenses. We went on the HMO system in the late 1990s precisely because the "everybody and/or their company buys their health insurance" model that McCain seems so fond of was utterly failing to restrain health care costs. The HMOs managed to slow it for about 2-3 years in the late 1990s before breaking down under the weight of shitty coverage and public dislike.
The question is coverage and treatment per unit of cost. Which is obscenely, absolutely atrociously unacceptable in the US system.To be fair, subsidised or wholly government owned healthcare industries are facing the same problems of rising costs as well as limited funds.
But would they still be in the red if the UK paid the same amouns per capita for healthcare as the US does? As I understand it, the per-capita cost of the US healthcare system is quite high.PainRack wrote:To be fair, subsidised or wholly government owned healthcare industries are facing the same problems of rising costs as well as limited funds. That's one of the reasons why the NHS is in the red and is forced to economise by shutting down facillities.
While I'd bet that some among the GOP do see it as Social Darwinism in practise, I'd say that there is a far more practical and sinister political purpose behind their policies, which is to neutralise democracy. Keeping people scared shitless about falling into poverty by making its conditions so horrible and removing every social safety net has a wonderful effect of keeping the people scrambling for every dollar and not daring to challenge the bosses by things as inconvenient as union organising or even filing the occasional complaint —for fear of losing the job. And with people now having to work one, two, and in a lot of cases even three jobs just to make ends meet, the other wonderful effect is to eliminate the spare time that would be otherwise put forth towards political activity or agitation.Darth Wong wrote:That's not exactly what they're saying. What they're saying is that you need to make poverty a really horrible condition in order to create a stronger incentive to work hard. If you make poverty horrible enough, you will effectively select for earning potential in future generations, particularly since the child mortality rate among the poor in the US is reminiscent of third-world countries. In short, it is Darwinism.Justforfun000 wrote:Republicans like McCain disgust me to no end. These are the people espousing good "Christian values"? Sure, we'll take care of the poor. Throw them to the wolves and they'll meet Jesus all the sooner.
As a general rule, liberals think that Darwinism is a good scientific theory but horrible social policy. Conservatives are the opposite: they think that Darwinism is a horrible scientific theory but good social policy.
