Bluedogs

[datherman]

Random thought from me, as I haven't really read the past 8 pages extensively (merely skimmed them as new posts came up). My grandmother recently died, and in her last few days they kept her on steady doses of morphine to ease the pain, and her insurance paid for it. Morphine is expensive. Would a government-moderated judgment have paid for that, or would they have let her be in horrible pain for the last few moments of her life? To be honest I haven't read up on the whole issue enough to know the answer to that, but it's something I would be concerned about.

[LewisTheTank]

I have to admit I truly do like these strips!
Now...
Here's a true story regarding health care (care, yeah right! Don't Fen believe it!)

About 8-9 years ago I had 4 teeth that were bad and needed to be pulled. The medicaid I was on would only pay to pull ALL my teeth, not just the few that were bad.
Now for the punchline:
The dentist that pulled my teeth WAS kind enough to tell me HE would pull only the bad ones for a mere $65 each. Problem was, he told me AFTER all my teeth were in his jar!
It's really "Health Who Ta Hell Care"

[Gecko]

...wait, medicaid would pay for all of your teeth to be taken out, but not just the unhealthy ones? Wouldn't that cost them more?

As for the dentist, why would he tell you that after pulling all of your teeth out? It wouldn't even apply any longer.


I can't even begin to make sense of that...

[Caoimhin]

[quote=Foxchild]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.[/quote]

I'm perfectly aware that elective surgery does not neccesarily mean nose jobs and purely cosmetic or non-helpful surgery. I did research what the term "elective" meant when I typed that response. And I mentioned septoplasty as an example, not restorative plastic surgery. I mentioned priorities, in other words everything would be determined on a case to case basis. Your vein surgery, which I'm sorry to hear may be detrimental to your work, would probably be covered. But you would have to wait if someone had something that could be even more debilitating, it only makes sense. And yes, depending on the amount of trauma a scarred face does not take precedent over more pressing non-cosmetic concerns.

Its all about what treatments are on the table at any given time. About the lung cancer patient, what exactly occurs if she does not have insurance? Does that count as a pre-exsting condition? How much will an insurance company willingly pay for? Doesn't sound very profitable to me.

[Muninn]

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.

Because, to me, cutting that person from life support is the same as murder. I doubt I could do it even if they asked me to.

[Liz]

I have to admit I truly do like these strips!
Now...
Here's a true story regarding health care (care, yeah right! Don't Fen believe it!)

About 8-9 years ago I had 4 teeth that were bad and needed to be pulled. The medicaid I was on would only pay to pull ALL my teeth, not just the few that were bad.
Now for the punchline:
The dentist that pulled my teeth WAS kind enough to tell me HE would pull only the bad ones for a mere $65 each. Problem was, he told me AFTER all my teeth were in his jar!
It's really "Health Who Ta Hell Care"

...wait, medicaid would pay for all of your teeth to be taken out, but not just the unhealthy ones? Wouldn't that cost them more?

As for the dentist, why would he tell you that after pulling all of your teeth out? It wouldn't even apply any longer.


I can't even begin to make sense of that...

[LewisTheTank]

Yep, dentist was greedy, medicaid is crazy, and I'm toothless!
(But can still eat steak and apples!)

[IceDragon]

The punchline of this comic is really not that funny

[Gecko]

Yep, dentist was greedy, medicaid is crazy, and I'm toothless!
(But can still eat steak and apples!)

That didn't really answer any of my questions. Nonetheless, I don't think I really expected to get answers that could somehow explain the insanity of that situation. ;_;

[Jambilly]

The "Pre-existing conditions" clauses need to be removed.

through the FREE MARKET right?

[Foxchild]

The "Pre-existing conditions" clauses need to be removed.

through the FREE MARKET right?

can't see the image at work, but regardless, if an insurance company were to do so, or an upstart insurance company never have it, they'd get that business, plus others in support of what it is their doing. The main issue would be having the capital in reserve to deal with the initial influx, take the losses from that, then have enough to keep on going and do "business as usual".

[mutecebu]

I'm an economics major in college, currently applying to medical schools. I just finished a class on the economics of healthcare. So, I've actually been able to keep up with what's going on.

A couple of things I've learned:
1) We're not going to go to a universal government-run healthcare system. Not for a long time. It's just not the American way.
2) We already some manner of universal coverage, i.e. emergency rooms HAVE to treat patients, even if the patients can't pay.
3) Said coverage is horribly hacked together.
4) There are a lot of inefficiencies in the healthcare system. I've seen many of them for myself, working in hospitals.

Bah. I want to write more, out of time.
Main point: there are a *lot* of improvements that can be made without ideological changes in either direction.

[Cactus Jack]

Random thought from me, as I haven't really read the past 8 pages extensively (merely skimmed them as new posts came up). My grandmother recently died, and in her last few days they kept her on steady doses of morphine to ease the pain, and her insurance paid for it. Morphine is expensive. Would a government-moderated judgment have paid for that, or would they have let her be in horrible pain for the last few moments of her life? To be honest I haven't read up on the whole issue enough to know the answer to that, but it's something I would be concerned about.

When my grandmother was on her deathbed the insurance company told us we had to move her back to a nursing home se had been in for only one week before she was admited to the hospital, because the doctors couldn't do anything to cure her. All they could do was make her comfortable with painekillers. The only reason we were able to keep her in the hospital was because the doctor lied and said they were treating her for conditions when they weren't. If she managed to stay alive longer it might have ended upbeing an issue, but luckily (for the insurance company) she died a few days later.

[Rooster]

Isn't this a forum about Raine Dog?

And my God, I can't believe I just said that...but seriously, can't this thread be split and put into "Discussion" or whatever the hell it's called now?

[Doc Sigma]

Isn't this a forum about Raine Dog?

And my God, I can't believe I just said that...but seriously, can't this thread be split and put into "Discussion" or whatever the hell it's called now?

The political tat in this thread should be split off and killed with fire.