Bluedogs

Talk about recent Raine Dog comics.
Cactus Jack
Posts:726
Joined:Tue May 12, 2009 3:34 pm

Postby Cactus Jack » Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:30 am

If you have a disability you should be able to get medicare or medicade. I always mix up which is for old people and which is for white trash who claim to have a back injury that prevents them from working but doesn't prevent them from riding 4 Wheelers.
Sarcasm aside, Medicare is for both groups, actually. Medicaid is for people who are just below a certain income level, although Wikipedia says not everyone qualifies, whatever that means.
I've not been following this entire US health care debate as closely as some people here seem to have been, but did some people really think Stephen Hawking wasn't British?
It gets worse: "some people" (including several actual politicians) are trying to convince Americans that one of the provisions in this bill is mandatory euthanasia. Read the sordid details here. Up until now, I've considered Palin mostly a harmless and entertaining ditz, but I think she crossed the Moral Event Horizon this time.
Palin, for all her faults, isn't AS dumb as she comes across. I think what was trying to be said here is that ultimately there would be someone who could have the power to say that a medical procedure isn't worth the cost of investment into an individual. This is exampled by one case where someone asked Obama if there were a terminally ill elderly individual who was in need of a hip replacement, and there was an indeterminate amount of time for this individual, he answered he'd recommend "paying it out-of-pocket" because it was family, and there are moral debates that would ensue through the government run healthcare.

Palin's use of this and exaggerating it to "Death Panels" has clearly backfired on her, and she is more misunderstood with this one statement than any previous.

Just glad that another individual trying to use scare tactics has self-destructed, politically.

How is a government entity deciding to not pay for a patient's treatment differant or worse then an insurance company deciding to not pay for a patient's treatment.

User avatar
sad jazz cantaloupe
Posts:666
Joined:Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:41 pm

Postby sad jazz cantaloupe » Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:39 am

private insurance are dirty corporations that only care about your money, whereas government is a dirty institution that only cares about lobbyists' money, but that claims it cares about your well being.
Apologies to everyone. Except Fritz.
First of all, Fritz, do yourself a favor and research your own answers before you post.

User avatar
Bocaj Claw
Posts:8523
Joined:Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:31 am
Location:Not Stetson University
Contact:

Postby Bocaj Claw » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:42 am

If you're going to get screwed over either way why make someone horribly rich while you're at it?
That which does not kill me, cripples me for life.

Image

My deviantART account

User avatar
Foxchild
Posts:2334
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:09 pm
Location:Herndon, VA - USA

Postby Foxchild » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:38 pm

How is a government entity deciding to not pay for a patient's treatment differant or worse then an insurance company deciding to not pay for a patient's treatment.
Because the only way an insurance company refuses to pay out something is if you go to an institution that doesn't accept your insurance, if your insurance plan doesn't cover the type of procedure (usually related to cosmetic things), or if your contract with the insurance company has a clause regarding pre-existing conditions.

Otherwise, they are contractually obligated to pay out. The fear is that the government would do this on a case-by-case basis with each medical instance.

The "Pre-existing conditions" clauses need to be removed.
private insurance are dirty corporations that only care about your money, whereas government is a dirty institution that only cares about lobbyists' money, but that claims it cares about your well being.
All business models need to be built around making money. At least enough to be self-sustaining.

*edit* removed this segment due to slight misinterpretation of the original text.
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.

Dr. Dos
Posts:1329
Joined:Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:14 pm
Location:Scabsboro
Contact:

Postby Dr. Dos » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:18 pm

All business models need to be built around making money. At least enough to be self-sustaining.
This is why health care shouldn't be a private industry because it becomes more profitable to NOT help people.
Anami: Sex with a giant, black scorpion seems fun.

<SteveThePocket> Geez. I want more of this stuff now. Now I know how a horny guy on an imageboard feels.

User avatar
Chris
Posts:2183
Joined:Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:26 am
Location:Earth
Contact:

Postby Chris » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:57 pm

Blah blah blah

Now...Raine dog still don't have a new comic

Cactus Jack
Posts:726
Joined:Tue May 12, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Bluedogs

Postby Cactus Jack » Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:55 am

Because the only way an insurance company refuses to pay out something is if you go to an institution that doesn't accept your insurance, if your insurance plan doesn't cover the type of procedure (usually related to cosmetic things), or if your contract with the insurance company has a clause regarding pre-existing conditions.

Otherwise, they are contractually obligated to pay out. The fear is that the government would do this on a case-by-case basis with each medical instance.

I know when my grandmother was on her death bed the insurance company wanted to remove her from the hospital because she wasn't getting treatment, just painkillers, because her condition was too far gone to do anything. Moving her would entitle taking her out into the Upper Michigan winter to bring her to a nursing home that had shown itself to be fairly incompetant the short time she was there. I think this was incredibly low of them. Yes hospital rooms are expensive but it was about as comfortable as she was going to get and moving her would be no benefit except for the people whose only concern was the bottem line. The only reason she was able to stay in the room was because the doctor pulled some strings and got the insurance company to think he was doing when he wasn't

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts:2271
Joined:Wed May 19, 2004 10:04 pm

Re: Bluedogs

Postby Steve the Pocket » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:16 pm

The irony with the whole "Death Panel" thing is that if anything I would expect it to be the Republicans who'd institute such a thing. Not because Republicans are evil and enjoy killing people, but because Democrats would never be interested in cutting costs. :P

User avatar
Foxchild
Posts:2334
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:09 pm
Location:Herndon, VA - USA

Re:

Postby Foxchild » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:38 pm

This is why health care shouldn't be a private industry because it becomes more profitable to NOT help people.
For the short term, maybe. (also, by that logic, all food, water, electricity, gas, and any other expendable item should then also be distributed by the government, instead of companies and corporations. People have to eat, why should grocery stores, fast food, and restaurants profit from that?) Lets assume that true; you get a bunch of people to sign on to your terms, you list what services are permitted, offered, etc. As claims start flowing in, you turn down anything and everything you can find a sneaky way around. You keep your funds which are set aside for paying health costs, and after a certain amount of time you get to move that over into an account that represents profit. By not helping people, that money became profit. BUT doing so, people will switch health insurance companies. Word of mouth will spread around that your company is sleezy, and you won't get new customers. It self-degrades until your company goes under. Your competition, which has a better reputation for helping people, will pick up the excess, and with the additional people, profit more from the volume of people, even with the much higher rate of payouts on medical expenses. (not to mention would not have the likely large class action lawsuits that would follow from the tactics used to deny coverage).

A public option; take what you get, and we'll pay for it through taxes, plus have co-pays and such. Oh, and the government then gets to decide if and when you get surgery that you wish or need to get. A public option is simply not an option in my books.

I have yet to have anything medically necessary turned down by my insurance, of any insurance I've ever had. And at companies where some people were unhappy with what was provided, we grouped together and got our company to change companies, and greatly expanded our coverage.
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.

User avatar
Muninn
Moderator (retired)
Posts:7309
Joined:Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:22 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Muninn » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:07 pm

Oh, and the government then gets to decide if and when you get surgery that you wish or need to get.
Not that I've been following this enough to care, but, where do you get this from?

User avatar
Foxchild
Posts:2334
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:09 pm
Location:Herndon, VA - USA

Re: Re:

Postby Foxchild » Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:21 pm

Oh, and the government then gets to decide if and when you get surgery that you wish or need to get.
Not that I've been following this enough to care, but, where do you get this from?
It's simple cost analysis. "Death Panels" no, but take Canada's system for example. Due to budget issues, 6250 surgeries that were scheduled for this year, some of which were deemed medically necessary, because there's just no budget for it.

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print ... 06&sponsor

On top of that, there is a specific quote from Obama regarding what level of care terminally ill patients would receive; a cost-benefit done, and that families should just front the money for the surgeries on such patients themselves if they felt so strongly about it.
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.

User avatar
sad jazz cantaloupe
Posts:666
Joined:Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: Bluedogs

Postby sad jazz cantaloupe » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:07 pm

what's wrong with that, man?
Apologies to everyone. Except Fritz.
First of all, Fritz, do yourself a favor and research your own answers before you post.

User avatar
Caoimhin
Posts:1063
Joined:Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:14 pm
Location:In the magical land of Jersey... Watch your step and don't trip on the cows.

Re: Bluedogs

Postby Caoimhin » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:52 pm

what's wrong with that, man?
Exactly, if they are on their death beds why exactly would more money be spent on their care? Just face it, if someone is terminally ill why is more money asked from a family so that a few more weeks can be eeked out of a dieing person? Its just wrong to suggest that such emotional attachement is healthy to the the minds of the living. Sometimes in order to make room for someone who will actually survive their trauma is more paramount than someone who is with out a doubt going to die soon. They aren't more important its merely priorities and the way I'm talking about human beings is no more detached than how the insurance companies think of you, except of course they try to skirt around even priorities.

It should also be noted, FC, that you said "some of which" were deemed medically neccesary when you were describing the number of surgeries that had to be cut. What percentage is that? In other words most of them WEREN'T neccesary. Septoplasty for a deviated septum is not a neccesary procedure, nor is it life threatening, as an example.

"According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year."
-article cited by Foxchild, Vancouver Sun

"Two weeks ago, Dix released a Fraser Health Authority draft communications plan listing proposed clinical care cuts, including a 10-per-cent cut in elective surgeries and longer waits for MRI scans."
-same article.

In other words none of these cases posed are for cuts to life threatening cases.

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print ... 06&sponsor

User avatar
sad jazz cantaloupe
Posts:666
Joined:Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: Bluedogs

Postby sad jazz cantaloupe » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:43 pm

Septoplasty for a deviated septum is not a neccesary procedure, nor is it life threatening, as an example.
If Barack "Hitler" Obama wants to kill Doc Sigma, I am no longer an american.
Apologies to everyone. Except Fritz.
First of all, Fritz, do yourself a favor and research your own answers before you post.

User avatar
Foxchild
Posts:2334
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:09 pm
Location:Herndon, VA - USA

Re: Bluedogs

Postby Foxchild » Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:02 pm

Terminally ill could be a few weeks, a few months, or even a few years. Terminally ill simply means that you -will- die from this condition if something else doesn't get to you first, and that you are not able to be cured.

And that's 10 percent of surgeries for the entire fiscal year, 24% of the surgeries remaining in this fiscal year.

Electively necessary would be like the vein surgery needed in one of my legs (assuming the consult I have on Wed. determines what is believed to be the case). I won't die if I don't get this done immediately, but until I do, I can't do any heavy lifting, run, or otherwise raise my blood pressure. This inhibits what I'm allowed and able to do in my workplace, as well as personal life. It may be "electively" necessary, but that means necessary.

Cataracts fall into this category, tonsillitis, restorative plastic surgery (so, burn victims, physical trauma disfigurations, etc). That's acceptable? And telling a terminally ill lung cancer patient estimated to have a year left to live falls and breaks a hip that she can't have the hip replacement needed, and is instead bed-ridden for the last remaining year of her life? She'll lose the will to live before half that has passed under those conditions.

*edit* after further reading, this also includes diagnostic surgery, in that definition. Meaning, something potentially life threatening COULD be found, but would be delayed because of this.

Also, I was mistaken in one line I read initially, which actually makes this worse; the 10% referenced here is actually stating it's 10% of the medically necessary surgeries for the entire fiscal year. If I were told my vascular surgery was going to be pushed back by more than 6 months because my insurance company was going bankrupt for the year, I'd LEAVE THAT INSURANCE COMPANY.


*double-edit* I've just figured this all out; it simply needs to be close to design like any medical care facility; you can't deny service for any reason (the close being non-payment of your premiums), and must provide a flat rate for each level of contract. Having to take on the previously 'uninsurable' will cause the companies to re-negotiate the rates payed for various surgeries, procedures, and the rest of the medical compliment, driving down medical costs. the inability to charge one person more for personal health insurance for the same coverage makes it as easily accessible for everyone. Group discounts that are given to corporations for large numbers of policies would remain the same (potentially reducing the premium payed by the individual employee, depending upon several factors). ... I'd possibly think over something along the lines of the FDIC but for insurance companies specifically related to health and pre-existing conditions, thus ensuring coverage for all health aspects, though this could probably be created more efficiently internally to each company with a federal mandate specifying certain requirements. Perhaps even a federal mandate for a minimum entry level on a plan, specified for ER care and life threatening problems, plus 1 or 2 physicals a year, for a next-to-nothing cost. It would still be on the individual to chose if they were insured or not.

Hell, one other option would be to provide a government loan for care at a rate below inflation. Anything lost because it's below the inflation rate could come from taxes, the rest payed back over however many years needed. If a person goes bankrupt, the cost gets eaten, much as any debt does with bankruptcy. Takes a lot less tax money, and allows uninsurred to get surgery after negotiations with the hospital on price. Plus, that's only if the hospital doesn't offer some other form of uninsured discount and either low or no interest payment plan option as all NOVA facilities do near me.
Last edited by Foxchild on Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.


Return to “Raine Dog Strips”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests