Bonjour!
Sicko accurately depicts American health care as accurately as The Pink Panther depicts the French.
C'est la cochonnrie.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why do the CONs want to withold Medical Care from those who need it?
- Thread starter alatide
- Start date
Bonjour!
Sicko accurately depicts American health care as accurately as The Pink Panther depicts the French.
C'est la cochonnrie.
Spear said:
Here is what hand surgeon Dr. Donald Condit said regarding the severed fingers scene in 'Sicko' -
"As a hand surgeon who treats many traumatic injuries, Moore's portrayal of a patient who amputated his middle fingertip captured my interest. He depicted this uninsured man as required to pay $23,000 to have his finger "saved." Moore lost considerable credibility here. Most hand surgeons would never consider micro-surgically replanting this table saw injury at the finger nail base. Rather, this unfortunate injury would have been comfortably and safely treated -- without reattachment of the severed bit of finger -- in an office procedure room for $1,000 or less...In Grand Rapids, Mich., where I practice, a sign on the front door of Blodgett hospital, in English and Spanish, indicates patients will not be turned away for lack of ability to pay. This is policy across the United States." LINK
I personally have never had a problem with my insurance plan not covering any needed procedure, for myself or my dependents. Since the majority of Americans are satisfied with their care, I'd guess it is the same for them also.
BigBossman
Active Member
I'm just going to give you the short & sweet answer: I don't want to have to pay for everyone else's medical problems. People shouldn't have to pay for mine.
I don't believe anyone is remotely implying that. What's at issue is the idea of government-provided health insurance. Many people oppose it. Opposition to government-provided health insurance is not akin to saying Christ's teaching about taking care of others.
You know...you want to give others the benefit of the doubt and trust that this would not need to be explained as it is elementary. And then at the same time you want to believe that people are honest enough to not post such inane stuff unless they just do not understand the reality. The only conclusion is that emotion has overcome them to the point that they just are not thinking before posting. Because really....no one is that dumb.
He has worked through the entire process with Legal aid people's support. he's not confused. You're misinformed.
Your claim that everyone has "access' to health care is a distortion. If free health care is available why don't you drop your insurance?
Not according to federal law. Perhaps you simply don't know the law, even though it has been explained several times already. No one can be denied healthcare based on their lack of ability to pay. Get over it, man.
First of all, health care isn't free. Secondly, this argument makes no sense. Should I also sell my car because walking is free? Or cut off cable TV because over the air TV is free? A lot of us pay for things that we could get for free (including internet) for various reasons.
If you are going to try to make an argument, don't make a nonsensical one.
Having worked for a law firm during college, I can confirm that as true. There might be a misunderstanding, though. No one can be denied necessary healthcare according to law. However, that doesn't mean a person receiving healthcare isn't financially responsible for their healthcare. Perhaps some folks here think that Pastor Larry is wrong based on the idea that there's no free healthcare.
This is one of the more asinine statements I've seen on the BB.
You might want to try a little critical thinking before posting such garbage.
This is one of the more asinine statements I've seen on the BB.
You might want to try a little critical thinking before posting such garbage.
Why do you feel the need to post such crude language? Why do you reject this question? Do you believe that everyone can receive health care for free? If so, why do YOU pay for insurance? Isn't free better than an $11K/year/family maximum which is what my company's health insure requires? Why don't you "critically analyze" this question for me if you indeed can?
No one has said the everyone can obtain health care for free.
If someone has the means to pay for health care - either through medical insurance or by simply paying the bill - that is what they are required to do.
If someone does not have the means to pay for health care - it is provided to them anyway - by law.
This really should not be all that difficult to understand.
Alatide, this is an example of why we DO NOT want government in control of our healthcare.
And by the way, your twist on the word CONs for conservatives did not go unnoticed.
Do you think socialized medicine will be any better? My friend's father was diagnosed with prostate cancer (took 6 weeks to get the appointment to see the doctor). He couldn't start any treatment for 6 months. Good hospital - bad hospital - have cancer here and you get treatment now. BIG difference.
I think, from my side, that the system got mad in both ways.
Here, we don't pay much for health, i mean " directly ". Most is withdrawn as a percent of what you're being paid. The rest (because there is a " rest "), let's say the last 30 % of the cost that is not taken in charge by the healthcare system, is paid by :
- Either you own a private insurance (as we do), that'll pay the rest of the bill.
- Either you're poor, and a special status makes that you won't pay anything at all.
Some things are really badly refunded by the healthcare system, no matter if you need or not, and the private insurance is limited too.
Let's say you need glasses, and 3 of your kids too, the same year. Even if you won't need to change these for let's say 3 years, you won't be able to have these 3 glasses taken in charge by the system (which refunds you for ... let's say 20 €) and your insurance will limit to 400 €, even if the bill is 1100 €. Same for teeth.
In fact, if you're honest, and are in critical need for 1 year (let's say everyone's sick or in need of expensive things not well taken in charge), you're wrong, even if you didn't cost anything the past 5 years. That's not normal : the insurance should cover.
Of course, on the other side, those who don't pay anything couldn't afford this at all without the system taking everything in charge. Of course, some abuse the system, going to see 3 doctors the same day for the same thing because it costs nothing, but i don't think it's the majority, i'm sure it isn't.
I think health should be a public sphere : health, in my mind, shouldn't be a job you earn money with, a private halth insurance shouldn't be a fund and make profit. In my point of view, like a pastor
, a doctor should live well, or very well, but not be rich. Health is not a market, or shouldn't be.Here, i see people live longer, held by medicine, which has a cost we must take in charge, because we'll be there in the years to come and will be happy to have someone who'll take us in charge then.
Another problem i see coming here (and i guess anglo saxons know it more than us, but we're on the way), is overweight and all its health consequence. 10 % of the french are too big, and it's increasing. Tomorrow, heart problems, cholesteral, diabet, and all these things are hanging at our noses.
Of course, i could say " i make sport, i'm fit, it's up to them to stop eating rubbish/too much, the system should not take the big in charge, it's their fault ". But that's not my way of thinking.
If socialized medicine is the answer, why do my friends in England pay for private insurance?