healthcare as a right: heresy or gospel?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

That's something that I'd treat....but I'd have to suggest that next time you decide to sit and let something fester for 3 days that you go see your primary care doctor in that time period.

Problem is, is that I do not have a primary care doctor. Even though I am on disability for AIDS I do not qualify for Medicaid and after Jan 1st I am to be dropped from Medicare (I volunteered to drop myself and use the money that the government took for Medicare premiums to pay down the bills from my last visit to the AIDS doctor). As of now I have virtually no healthcare other than the V.A. and it is damn near impossible to be seen by them, plus the nearest V.A. (that will see AIDS patients) is over 200 miles away. So, with Bush and Thugs dismantling Medicare, where does this put me. Considering that I paid into the system, I feel that I do have a right to proper medical care. Although, I am sure, there are those who feel that I am a burden and should just fuck off and die. What good is something that you supported if you cannot use it? I feel that I and everyone else should be given the same medical attention that government officials recieve or that government officials should be given the same that everyone else recieves (this includes that idiot George W. Bush).

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Considering that I paid into the system, I feel that I do have a right to proper medical care.

That's the biggest issue with this stuff. THe problem is, people pay into things and pull a lot more out of it. No system that provides market-level services for below-market prices can survive. The shame of it is that it has been marketed for so long this way. If it were a company doing this, it would be the biggest damn lawsuit anyone has ever seen.

Quote

feel that I and everyone else should be given the same medical attention that government officials recieve or that government officials should be given the same that everyone else recieves

Now, this is a suggestion that I can support. Congress routinely gives themselves benefits that no other member of society receives. It proves my point about ways to spend money.

1) You can spend your money on yourself, which means you'll get the stuff you need for the best price.
2) You can spend your money on others, which means that you decide what the other person gets, and is the reason why we get socks and underwear and self-help books as gifts for Christmas;
3) You can spend other people's money on others, which is what Congress is doing for you. They don't care about the quality or whether it suits your needs. And don't bitch about it - their being nice giving you what you have. You example is and example of the FAILURE of SOCIALISM, not the failure of capitalism; or
4) You can spend other people's money on yourself, which is what congress and the government does. It's why they have great health care benefits and a great retirement package.

Now, you're problem is that NONE of these options are available to you! You can't spend your own money on yourself. You can't spend your money on others. You can't spend others' money for others. You can't spend others' money on you.

But, you fall into to realm of numbers 2 and 3 - money spent on you others. The person controlling the spending determines what the recipient will get. My example about getting socks and underwear at Christmas? I don't need socks and underwear, but need some rest. Why doesn't somebody buy me a goddamned spa weekend? Is that asking too much? It would revitalize me.

Nope. You accept what you are given by others, regardless of whether you need it. It's why there is a black market in food stamps.

There's really no way to guarantee or even expect that you'll get what you want when others are spending money on you. Heck, I'm not even happy with a lot of the purchases my wife makes, and that's using our money for our benefit. Or hers, at least.

The point? When you expect others to spend money on you, you cannot ever expect to get what you want. You will get what they spender feels like giving you, or what the spender deems worthwhile to give you. It's that simple. When the spender is going broke, you can expect less to be spent on you.

Your is an example of the failure of socialism.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

1 - I feel that I and everyone else should be given the same medical attention that government officials recieve or;
2 - that government officials should be given the same that everyone else recieves

I'm with you on #2, But I have a feeling that when people talk about "Free" healthcare, they all think they'll get #1 - which can't work.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

What good is something that you supported if you cannot use it?

Aside from the question of morality, that is the crux of the problem, because if we do not shut off the free healthcare valve it will run dry. And at the same time it'll take the pressure out of the whole system, so to speak. Opening it further will only drain the economy faster.

All the people (incl me) currently dumping money into the system are dumping their money into a broken system. It's fiscally unsupportable.

All the people and organizations taking money out of the system (incl me) are funneling money out of taxpayers and various into our own pockets. I do not even have a choice in the matter--my employer forces me to accept their federally subsidized health plan. Boo hoo, but at least I recognize it's an unfair system and I'd vote to fix it if I could.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

at least I recognize it's an unfair system and I'd vote to fix it if I could.

The health care system will ALWAYS be unfair. EVERY system will always be unfair, because a system selects winners and losers on the basis of the priorities.

Healthcare also seems to be an exception to just about every standard economic model. Products and services, as they develop, usually tend to get better and cheaper, and therefore more available. Healthcare does not. As healthcare gets better, it gets more expensive for all!
The more available it is, it's either gotta be more expensive and better or less expensive and of lesser quality.
If it's cheap, it's gotta be high quality and rationed or low quality and available to all.
If it's high quality that's guaranteed, it's either gonna be expensive and hopefully available on demand or it'll be cheap and greatly rationed.

The problem is that people want healthcare that is: 1) High quality; 2) Cheap; and 3) Available to all on demand, and you can't do all three. At least, I have seen no way of doing it.

The only way that I see of dramatically reducing the expense of healthcare is to go towards a single payor system, or, even better, to a cash payment system. In 1999, health care administration costs were estimated at abot $300 billion[/]. That was over $1,050 per person in the US. It was almost a third of the health care costs in the US. If billing was streamlined, then health care costs would be substantially less.

Some suggest that the government should become the single payor, which would be a more streamlined solution that the present one. However, look at the VA to see what government health spending is like. Look at public schools to see what government bureacracies can become.

My proposal is to move toward cash payments. The Health Saving's Accounts are GREAT! Get people high deductible insurance policies and make them pay cash for the first $2k or $3k of health care for each year. Take the money for it from people's income tax bills for it, and limit the use to medical purposes. If it is unused at the end of the year, roll it over the next year or put the unused funds into a pooled fund to maybe even cover other costs.

There would be a skyrocket of unemployment as a result of a plan like this. Well, that's tough on those people, but punch card operators also found jobs when their careers were ended by innovation, so the unemployment would be temporary.

Cutting merely one-half of the administrative staff would probably save $500 billion a year by 2010. Meaning cuts of at least $1,500 per year in people's health insurance costs, making it more affordable.

Will it work? I dunno. All I know is there would be plenty of pissed off people if it didn't, and even if it did.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,450]

>As healthcare gets better, it gets more expensive for all!

I would caveat that. Any individual treatment/drug/procedure gets cheaper. The number available also increases; this leads to higher total healtcare costs.

I see this as a good thing overall. It's much better to have an expensive and effective treatment for testicular cancer than a money-saving lack of treatment.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

That's something that I'd treat....but I'd have to suggest that next time you decide to sit and let something fester for 3 days that you go see your primary care doctor in that time period.

Problem is, is that I do not have a primary care doctor. Even though I am on disability for AIDS I do not qualify for Medicaid and after Jan 1st I am to be dropped from Medicare (I volunteered to drop myself and use the money that the government took for Medicare premiums to pay down the bills from my last visit to the AIDS doctor). As of now I have virtually no healthcare other than the V.A. and it is damn near impossible to be seen by them, plus the nearest V.A. (that will see AIDS patients) is over 200 miles away. So, with Bush and Thugs dismantling Medicare, where does this put me. Considering that I paid into the system, I feel that I do have a right to proper medical care. Although, I am sure, there are those who feel that I am a burden and should just fuck off and die. What good is something that you supported if you cannot use it? I feel that I and everyone else should be given the same medical attention that government officials recieve or that government officials should be given the same that everyone else recieves (this includes that idiot George W. Bush).

Then I would still take care of your problem, and you could ignore my suggestions and just accept that I'll treat your emergent health problem...which is pretty much what most people in situations similar to yours do. :)

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[wmw999 2,163]

I would add something making certain preventive measures very cheap and easy to get. Things that show some pretty significant benefits in the long run. E.g. immunizations, maybe vitamins, exercise advice, birth control, prenatal checkups.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freethefly 6]

Quote

1) You can spend your money on yourself, which means you'll get the stuff you need for the best price.

I have gone this route. I am no longer covered by Medicare. I was to be dropped come Jan 1st so I did the best thing and got out now so the premium I paid could be used to pay down med bills.
Premiums, that is another thing that most who do not use Medicare fail to recognize. In order to be on medicare you have to pay the premium the same as anyother type of insurance. Also, medicare only pays a portion of your bill. One such bill sitting here on my desk from Pathology is for $200.00, medicare paid $65.56 and I am responsible for the remaining 134.44. Somehow, this does not appear to be "free" healthcare. I do not know if anyone reading this has ever had to be on medicare or if you even know a person who is on it but, if you ever need to use it you will quickly learn that it is not free. Ask any ederly person who relies on it or any cancer or AIDS or any other type of patient and they will be quick to tell you it is not. I really do not see the problem being the people who rely on it, I see the administration of the system to be the problem, I see the doctors who abuse the system for profit being the problem. I am positive that there are people who abuse it for whatever reason but, they must be the minority and the majority should not have to suffer for their misdeed. The year (1995) I learned that I was HIV+ I burned through more than $50,000.00 from my savings account and mutal fund as well as a 401k. The latter 2 I was penalized by the IRS for cashing out, I am still paying those penalties down ( I wasn't aware of these penalties untill 2001). Maybe I am in the minority when it comes to taking responsibilty for my health bills but I am also angry that everything I was told so long ago was a lie. The money I put in would had been better put to use paying into private insurance than to a system that paid oncology doctors $130.00 per patient to ask 3 questions that they should be asking anyways (see the link in one of my earlier post in this thread). For the most, I am disillusioned as to what this country is all about. So much false faced talk on how Americans stand up for Americans yet, look around and all you see is fighting amongst us all. I hope a change comes soon but, I am not holding my breath as I may pass out and there will be no one to revive me.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The money I put in would had been better put to use paying into private insurance than to a (government run) system

parenthetical is mine

I think you really agree with JC when all is said.

You've had a tough run - lots vibes your way.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

One such bill sitting here on my desk from Pathology is for $200.00, medicare paid $65.56 and I am responsible for the remaining 134.44. Somehow, this does not appear to be "free" healthcare.

It isn't. On the other hand, "free healthcare" as it has been proposed would be similar to paying a $200 premium to the government for the treatment, wherein the government would pay healthcare provider $200 (or less) for the procedure, at no additional cost to you.

Or it would be paying 20% or 25% of your income for "free healthcare." Now, this is a good deal for those whose healthcare demands exceed the threshhold of what they are paying, but a bad deal for everyone else. Again, it chooses its winners and losers.

Quote

I am also angry that everything I was told so long ago was a lie.

Understandable. I recognized it as a lie from early on. It wasn't Reagan that lied. Or Bush that lied. It's been a known lie since the 1940s with Social Security and since the late 60's with Medicare (Medicare became law in 1965 - part of the "Great Society" legislation). Currently, there are 3.9 people paying into Medicare for every person who receives the benefits.

Yes, you were lied to. You had money taken from you that you could have managed better yourself. Now there are proposals from people to lie the same way about "free healthcare for all." It ain't free. And the more people retire and live long and healthy lives, paying for it will become harder and harder. Meanwhile, the retirees who depended on it will be in your position again.

I've looked at history. We shouldn't doom ourselves to repeat those mistakes.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Somehow, this does not appear to be "free" healthcare. I do not know if anyone reading this has ever had to be on medicare or if you even know a person who is on it but, if you ever need to use it you will quickly learn that it is not free.

What you don't see from your position is a system of subsidies that lines the pockets of people like me and our employers at taxpayer expense. Not only that, but the system we have drives up the prices on the market due to excess demand.

Added to this is the sheer cost of providing defined benefit-style care for all kinds of people--like companies promising pensions they can't pay out, all the healthcare promises made by the gov't over the last 40 years are turning into a check that gov't can't cash.

The gov't already today shortchanges doctors on services provided to Medicare recipients. As a result some doctors have stopped taking Medicare, and as the money situation gets tighter this will get worse until only charities take Medicare recipients.

The current program is fiscally unsupportable in its own right. It cannot be improved by spending even more money on other people or by covering new treatments or drugs. The money is not there, and as the money becomes tighter, the reimbursements paid to doctors and hospitals will decrease until nobody is willing to serve Medicare recipients but out of charity.

Quote

I really do not see the problem being the people who rely on it

The problem is in part the conduct of individuals themselves. Not out of malice but in aggregate based on the decisions facing them. Recipients of defined benefit-style programs or subsidies do not experience the incentives to save money on healthcare. Ordinary people's decisions to pursue healthcare for themselves determine how much money flows from taxpayers to healthcare providers. Since recipients don't see the savings of less consumption themselves and experience mainly the benefits, they'll naturally take more than they need. It's selfish and it's exactly what you'd expect any rational person to do under the circumstances.

Quote

I see the administration of the system to be the problem, I see the doctors who abuse the system for profit being the problem.

Bad actors not withstanding, most everybody in healthcare is doing everything they can, but due to the broken structure and overcommitments already in place nobody can do anything about it. Everybody doing the right thing for themselves under the rules of the system still results in not enough money to go around.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Better than coming back to haunt the kid as an untreated UTI that progressed to kidney failure and life time dialysis (paid for by medicare, BTW)

Thank you for pointing that out. It is presumed that the government is gonna pay for it, right? And yet, this thread is loaded with accusations that we are not a socialist system.

The problem with our system IS socialism, not the lack of it. If health care is expensive now, wait till you see how expensive it is when it's free.

Quote

Since human compassion doesn't sway you

I resent that comment. Perhaps it is easy for you to draw lines as being between those who care and those who cannot show compassion. Well, if the world really was that simple, it would be nice.

But don't go suggesting that I lack human compassion. I put my money where my mouth is, sister. I quit working at a hospital because of the fucking nightmares I was having. Compassion? How about the remarkable lack of human compassion and understanding it took for you to accuse me of such things?

The comment was absolutely uncalled for.

I disagree. Dude, you're a lawyer!!! Play the hurt feelings card somewhere else.

More to the point, it's not out of line, after reading post after post of essentially 'I got mine, you're on your own' to state your suggestions are a bit less than filled with compassion for your fellow human being on this issue.

Socialism, smoshilism. Label it what you like, I feel that the United States of America should provide basic (yes, basic) health care to it's citizens. It's a value judgment. I got mine and you, well you're a lawyer.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Lindsey 0]

One can feel compassion for others and still keep their heads about them. Because you're not willing to give the shirt off your back to the fella who lives under the bridge doesn't mean that you're heartless.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

...whereupon these people will probably just go home, sick, and do nothing more because they are uninsured and thus can't afford to go their primary care docs (assuming they have one) -- and thus, they fall thru the cracks.

Yes. They'll go home sick with their viral upper respiratory infection or their headache or their gastroenteritis....and they'll get over it in a few days with or without treatment. The problem is that people come to the ER with every bug bite (and I'm not exaggerating....I saw 2 people in the ER with bug bites last time I covered). And the same people come in over and over with the same ridiculous complaints. They are the biggest part of ER volume, and they contribute greatly to the inflated cost of ER care. I believe everyone should refuse to treat these folks in the ER.

linz

While I agree with you in principle, these people came to the ER because they were truly concerned about their health. Your decisions would, sooner or later (statistically speaking), turn away the URI that actually was masking early heart failure, bronchitis, early asthma or innominate artery tracheal compression. The headache patient that was actually a slow but potentially deadly sub arachnoid bleed, the gastroenteritis that was a beginning bowel perforation in an ulcer patient. You would treat the anaphylactic shock ...after it bacame anaphylactic shock ...and turn the bug bite patients away. Statistically, you would have a great average.

Doctors who are "solely ER physicians" (i.e. experienced, competent board certified emergency care doctors) know these long shot diagnoses exist ...so they examine and treat these patients. I have little doubt that your decisions were sincere ones based, for the most part, on the training you have.

However, let's be honest, small town general practicioners covering the ER (who generally get a fair amout of time in their sleep room), really want to get back to their sleep room. In addition, they refer the patient to their local docs (themselves!). I have no doubt their main motivation is they really don't see an emergent problem, but I suspect full time certified ER docs realize that making that call in the waiting room, following a few second conversation with a potential patient is not the way to go.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

One can feel compassion for others and still keep their heads about them. Because you're not willing to give the shirt off your back to the fella who lives under the bridge doesn't mean that you're heartless.

linz

Yeah, fuck that beer drinking, irresponsible student with the UTI (probably some slut with an STD). Her life's experiences will be enriched by a lifetime of dialysis.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Lindsey 0]

While I agree with you in principle, these people came to the ER because they were truly concerned about their health.

That's really not the case many, many times. People come to the ER for a work excuse. People come to the ER because they have a cold and want cough medicine. People come to the ER because they got a bug bite. See what I mean?

Your decisions would, sooner or later (statistically speaking), turn away the URI that actually was masking early heart failure, bronchitis, early asthma or innominate artery tracheal compression. The headache patient that was actually a slow but potentially deadly sub arachnoid bleed, the gastroenteritis that was a beginning bowel perforation in an ulcer patient.

If a URI is masking early bronchitis then they need to go to their primary care doc. Asthma and heart failure are pretty easy to differentiate with a decent set of eyes, a little history, and a stethoscope that you actually know how to use.

I've treated people (and seen them die from) with a sub-arachnoid bleed when the ER nurses wanted to blow them off as drug-seekers. There's no comparison between that headache and the recurrent migraine, tension headache....you left out temporal arteritis, which also has a unique set of clinical findings.

Then the gastroenteritis. (I did have one patient this spring who had me a little worried with her gastroenteritis. She was in pretty excruciating pain, and I actually did a very thorough work-up on her.) The difference, and what makes you worry or not, is the degree of abdominal symptoms....the acute abdomen, or what looks like it might be heading that way. It's not hard to differentiate if you have some genuine concern for your patients (and you can have concern whether you triage them away or not) and you pay attention to signs, symptoms, and history.

Nobody should be sent away in respiratory distress or with a respiratory condition that is rapidly deteriorating, with a headache bad enough to cause worry about an intracranial bleed, or a bowel perforation. But those aren't going to be casually missed at triage. When those are missed, it certainly shouldn't be at the point of triage. And it is okay to work something up that turns out to be nothing more than a regular ol' headache or gastroenteritis if it looks like it could be more.

What I think has no business in the ER are those things that are very obviously not emergent, and they come in droves, and certainly NOT because they're truly concerned about their health. That's naivete in the extreme, or it's that idealism that you see so often in the college crowd. They cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Most of them have no intention of ever paying a dime for the care they receive. I have no qualms with sending them back to their primary care doc where they should've gone to begin with.

However, let's be honest, small town general practicioners covering the ER (who generally get a fair amout of time in their sleep room), really want to get back to their sleep room. In addition, they refer the patient to their local docs (themselves!). I have no doubt their main motivation is they really don't see an emergent problem, but I suspect full time certified ER docs realize that making that call in the waiting room, following a few second conversation with a potential patient is not the way to go.

I think what's clear is not that primary care docs can't recognize the difference between what's emergent or has the potential to be and what's very clearly not....but rather that YOU can't (based on your own lack of training).

Umm...and referring nonpaying patients back to yourself really doesn't do much for business

edited to add as an aside: what I see too often from small town GPs is that they often treat things themselves that they need to send away to a facility with more support. The things that deteriorate faster than you think they're going to are the ones that worry me. Personally, when I work in a small-town ER I'm usually less likely to triage someone away than when I'm in the busy ER that keeps me hopping for 24-hours at a time....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[lawrocket 3]

They weren't hurt feelings. However, if I were to say something patently false about you, I'd expect you to not be some spineless milquetoast and say something about it.

I personally would love it if linds treated me. She coul dcut my belly open and show me all the black stuff I have in there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

If a URI is masking early bronchitis then they need to go to their primary care doc. Asthma and heart failure are pretty easy to differentiate with a decent set of eyes, a little history, and a stethoscope that you actually know how to use.

[From my mom (Advanced Registered Nurse Practicioner ER/Trauma)]:

Agreed, but what she is doing is spending (a minute?) talking with them in the waiting room and sending them packing. Early CHF can easily be masked by the common cold. To hell with those useless lab results and radiographic studies, she passed her internship (where?).

Quote

I've treated people (and seen them die from) with a sub-arachnoid bleed when the ER nurses wanted to blow them off as drug-seekers. There's no comparison between that headache and the recurrent migraine, tension headache....you left out temporal arteritis, which also has a unique set of clinical findings.

Wow! Her ...weeks (?) of experiences in small ER's seem to exceed those of large trauma centers. I might go a year at Jackson without seeing a SAH. And she can do all this in the waiting room. You go girl!

Quote

and you pay attention to signs, symptoms, and history.

And she does this standing in the waiting room?

Quote

What I think has no business in the ER are those things that are very obviously not emergent, and they come in droves, and certainly NOT because they're truly concerned about their health. That's naivete in the extreme, or it's that idealism that you see so often in the college crowd. They cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Most of them have no intention of ever paying a dime for the care they receive. I have no qualms with sending them back to their primary care doc where they should've gone to begin with.

I agree with her there, except she seems to lean toward financial rather than medical triage. It's against the law, a violation of ethics and will some day bite her in the ass. In addition, she has to realize that many do not have a primary care doc and she is denying them the only medical care they can get. Hopefully she'll grow out of it and stick to practicing medicine rather than reforming society.

Quote

Umm...and referring nonpaying patients back to yourself really doesn't do much for business

Yep! :)

Quote

I think what's clear is not that primary care docs can't recognize the difference between what's emergent or has the potential to be and what's very clearly not....but rather that YOU can't (based on your own lack of training).

You should have told her your comments were prompted my me, hun. I agree with her feelings but I admit it ruffles me a bit to have new docs, fresh out of an internship, passing on the residency to actually give them the experience to practice in ER, who feel their diagnostic prowness exceeds those who have spent years in specialty residencies with decades of experience. Ah, youth! :)

If she is working a 24 hr shift she is not working a hot ER. Send her down to Miami for a few weeks.

All in all, don't be too hard on her, she is new to her profession and like all of you (you included) knows everything.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

They weren't hurt feelings. However, if I were to say something patently false about you, I'd expect you to not be some spineless milquetoast and say something about it.

I personally would love it if linds treated me. She coul dcut my belly open and show me all the black stuff I have in there.

Is that a lawyer technique? Draw others into your disagreement for support? Damn, I see why you make the big bucks.

Dude, read your own posts. They ain't exactly dripping with the milk of human kindness.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Lindsey 0]

Every time you have a headache....every time you have nausea/vomiting....do you go for a CT scan? What would you think if your doctor wanted to work you up for every one of these? He/she wouldn't be practicing long, because every managed care plan would drop him quicker than he could blink. It would be deadly to our healthcare system. You can go on and spout all you want about me. Bottom line is you're wrong. You'll argue your point until you're blue in the face because it's your style. But if you really sit and think about how ridiculous it would be to send everyone with a headache to the CT, then maybe you'd get a clearer picture. How do you determine which to work up further and which not to? Maybe you'd ask your mother....

ER doc'll tell ya (they tell me) that they take care of them in the ER (that doesn't mean doing a big work-up either....it means treating rather than sending them to get treatment elsewhere) because they wouldn't have a job if they didn't treat these people, and because it's just easier to treat rather than deal with patients constantly bitching about them.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

They weren't hurt feelings. However, if I were to say something patently false about you, I'd expect you to not be some spineless milquetoast and say something about it.

I personally would love it if linds treated me. She coul dcut my belly open and show me all the black stuff I have in there.

Is that a lawyer technique? Draw others into your disagreement for support? Damn, I see why you make the big bucks.

Dude, read your own posts. They ain't exactly dripping with the milk of human kindness.

Poor baby. Want me to get you a tissue?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Dude, read your own posts. They ain't exactly dripping with the milk of human kindness.

I suppose looking at it one way, I am a cold peckerwood. On the other hand, I could accuse you of being of the opinion that anything less than outright coddling of others is by its nature uncaring and unkind.

I suppose you don't see the kindness in cruelty, do you? The two cruelest and kindest people I ever knew were the same two people: My physical therapist, who tortured me for about a month to get back full range of motion in my knee; and my drill sergeant, who wouldn't let me believe I couldn't.

Both of them told me and showed me that the pain of moving forward is, in the long run, less than the pain of not moving forward. Drill sergeant Nichols, especially, showed me that I had capabilities I had never known because I hadn't pushed myself. So HE pushed me and wouldn't let me quit. It soon became me pushing myself, because I wouldn't let him push me. The cruelest person I ever knew. He was also the kindest.


So, jen, I'll ask you these questions:
1) Which is nicer? Convincing someone to go through the hell of rehab, or just letting them live the more easily tolerated hell of addiction?
2) Which is nicer? Putting someone through the hell of chemotherapy, or convincing the person try living with cancer untreated?
3) Which is nicer? Getting my child to go out and play, or letting him watch TV and eat chips nd drink soda, which is what he may realy want to do?
4) Which is nicer? Coddling a person, or having expectations of a person?

Human kindness comes from different things. Letting people feel sorry for themselves is NEVER a good thing, in my book. Helping people move forward IS a nice thing, even though it doesn't seem like it at the time.

"The milk of human kindness?" Even babies get weaned. They hate it, but it happens because we all must move forward. It so happens, it's a kind thing to do to growing children.

"The milk of human kindness?" Is your suggestion that everyone stay on the teat of someone else through perpetuity? That's mean to all involved.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Every time you have a headache....every time you have nausea/vomiting....do you go for a CT scan? What would you think if your doctor wanted to work you up for every one of these? He/she wouldn't be practicing long, because every managed care plan would drop him quicker than he could blink. It would be deadly to our healthcare system. You can go on and spout all you want about me. Bottom line is you're wrong. You'll argue your point until you're blue in the face because it's your style. But if you really sit and think about how ridiculous it would be to send everyone with a headache to the CT, then maybe you'd get a clearer picture. How do you determine which to work up further and which not to? Maybe you'd ask your mother....

ER doc'll tell ya (they tell me) that they take care of them in the ER (that doesn't mean doing a big work-up either....it means treating rather than sending them to get treatment elsewhere) because they wouldn't have a job if they didn't treat these people, and because it's just easier to treat rather than deal with patients constantly bitching about them.

linz

Dear Blue Face,

CT scans??? I'd be happy if you simply allow them through the door of the ER.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They weren't hurt feelings. However, if I were to say something patently false about you, I'd expect you to not be some spineless milquetoast and say something about it.

I personally would love it if linds treated me. She coul dcut my belly open and show me all the black stuff I have in there.

Is that a lawyer technique? Draw others into your disagreement for support? Damn, I see why you make the big bucks.

Dude, read your own posts. They ain't exactly dripping with the milk of human kindness.

Poor baby. Want me to get you a tissue?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".