Monday, July 27, 2009

Waiting for a doctor's care. . .nothing new here

Forgive me for not being too sympathetic. But, I find the barrage of TV ads concerning the evil health threat posed by the Obama health care reform plan laughable.

For the past 15 years I've been surrounded by countless friends who have had to wait and wait to receive the health care they needed to stay alive. Due to delayed treatment and diagnosis, many of my friends died.


Simply because they were poor, uninsured and unable to pay for the care their conditions demanded. Too young for Medicaid, too poor for private insurance and too sick to be effectively treated by the MASH approach of the Emergency Departments of local hospitals, my friends had to wait.

They waited on charity--on folks like me to beg for free treatment.

They waited on disease severity to reach a point where the ER might lead to hospitalization.

They waited for admission to Parkland where everything is over crowded beyond belief.

So, you'll understand if I'm not moved by the concerns of the well off, like myself, who get the best of care because we can pay to buy private health insurance. I'm certainly not concerned with the pain of the insurance lobbyists.

I say provide coverage for everyone. Let all of us pay something based on ability. Let everyone receive the care needed.

Frankly, if I have to wait on my brother or sister to go first, I'm ready to do so.

In every other developed nation on the planet this willingness to share and to wait, just a bit, results in far better national, public health outcomes than are realized in the USA at a fraction of the per capita cost.

We need to read the Golden Rule as we consider what is needed in health care reform. And, even more, we need to remember one another.



Anonymous said...

I'm not laughing.

Chris said...

I suggest Congress read the bill before signing off on it. It's already been shown that Obama is lying about being able to keep your private insurance.

On Friday, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, (D-Michigan) questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill. "What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read it."

Is it too much to our representatives to understand what they are voting on?

Anonymous said...

Chris, have you read the bill? Obviously not...

Paul said...

I agree that we need to meet the needs of those that cannot provide for themselves regardless of the reason. The fear comes from government making care decisions rather than patient and doctor. And just to be clear, I don't like insurance companies making that decision either, I just feel that they may be a little more competent than a government bureaucracy. So why can't we have both a system to help our needy and leave the rest of us alone? Politics and lobbys--a really bad combination.

Chris said...


On page 16 of the bill there are a couple of restrictions which would do away with private insurance in a short time.

It's like saying that you can keep your private dwelling but you can't make any repairs or buy a new one, nor can your children. So in a matter of years you would be homeless.

rcorum said...

Speedingup, that's my problem. I wonder if anyone has read the bill?

Steve said...


I agree with your comment. The only thing it seems you sense but cannot say is the insurance companies ( whose lobbyists are the most prevalent in Washington) aren't inefficient, they are simply not interested in providing good care. That costs too much, and would mean them losing control. They seem willing to let individuals die, and the system go to hell rather than lose that control they now have.

Anonymous said...

Chris, on page 38 there's a provision that says you quoted a random page number and made up some random statement.

Chris said...

Page 16 says you can keep your private insurance with the following exceptions:

1.If your insurer changes your plan in any way, for example offering a discount for not smoking. (I have never had a plan that didn't change in some way every year)

2.If the first effective date of private coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law.

3.As long as the company that employs you doesn't fold.

4.As long as the health insurer doesn't cancel you in favor of the government plan.

5. As long as you don't change jobs.

So these exception will eventually get just about everybody.

Look it up anonymous.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Chris.

But, that being said, I do think that something needs to be done in our country to help those who can't afford healthcare.

Anonymous said...

Chris, it's obvious you've been listening to Rushbo too much... Rather than listening to wingnut radio, you should read the bill yourself, before you show your ignorance.

Go back to page 14... the section which you quote is about "grandfathering" existing coverages in as acceptable healthcare plans. This says nothing about banning any type of new coverage. There's another section of the bill that talks about minimum requirements for new coverage, so that someone doesn't pay a $5 premium for aspirin and call it a health care plan.

Disagree with the bill all you want, but please be informed when you do it -- ignorance only makes things worse.

Chris said...

Actually Speedingup, my information came from CNN.MONEY.COM

Go to that link, scroll down to FIXING HEALTH CARE then look under 5 FREEDOMS YOU'D LOSE IN HEALTH CARE REFORM.

In the future you should be more informed before you accuse someone falsely. Ignorance only makes things worse.

Anonymous said...

Chris, where you got the info from doesn't make it right. Even mainstream media gets it wrong sometimes. Go back to the bill and start with the full section beginning on page 14 and read the CONTEXT of what you pulled out.

Anonymous said...

Journalism 101: Always go the source (i.e. the actual bill) and avoid secondary sources (i.e. CNN).

Anonymous said...

I was just going to post this article:

Very interested - its from Yahoo, not sure how accurate it is....

Can I vent a little? Some people complain that they can't afford health insurance........ Have they not thought about switching jobs..... moving to another state if necessary? There are jobs that require little or NO EXPERIENCE that have good health insurance. And no college education too. For example, Cargill, ( meat company is always hiring (for the most part) and has great insurance. They will even hire FELONS. It starts out around 13 bucks an hour, actually it might be more now. I know there are other companies too such as southwest cheese plant (

So instead of saying you' can't afford health insurance, people should say, I can't afford it with my current job and salary, and I'm not willing to relocate or search other options.

If you really, really want health insurance, and are able to work (being disabled is a whole 'nother ball game), you can find it in America.

Anonymous said...

Oh another company too is They have fantastic insurance. You can work in the roasting plant, or even in a coffee shop and get great insurance, yes you might have to move, but if your priority is healthcare, you can find it!

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Anonymous said...

If anyone is wondering about the time wait for healthcare, this might give you an idea:

The wait in Canada for....

Gallbladder Removal: 3 years
Cardiac Bypass: Up to 12 Months
Angioplasty: Up to 12 months
MRI: 6 Months
Hip Replacement: 2 years

Can I also say that I find in amusing that most democrat congressmen and women do not want to follow the health care plan for himself, but wants to implement it for the rest of America? (referring to the vote, on if you voted for the bill you had to go on the insurance.)

Anonymous said...

I forgot to cite my source for the wait time in Canada!

(Its an organization that helps Canadians go to America to get healthcare quickly. They have saved several lives.)

Anonymous said...

Here's the question that Larry is pressing, and that no one is answering, Anon 11:24-25: "How many lives are being lost in the USA every year due to our system that is based on the ability to pay and not on medical/health need?" Sure, Canada is not perfect; but the fact that everyone must wait on everyone else results in a net loss of life per capita in Canada that is less than that in the US, along with better public health outcomes overall. The choice here is between the individual and the community.

apoornobody said...

a health care plan with a waivable co-payment when someone is really sick with something treatable, a cold isnt,something to keep ER's from being clogged with hypochondriacs. we also need to gag insurance lobbyists,they take money thats free to themand use it to take more.