Obamacare “repeal”

[ny_quant]

А где-нибудь в ЖЖ уже обсуждают какой это прекрасный план и как Трамп быстро выполнит очередное предвыборное обещание? Кстати, уважуха консерваторам которые против.

Comments

Re: there is no law.

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

1. ok
2. Nobody? The same friend of mine worked, for more than a week, thru what was later diagnosed as a "walking pneumonia" and quickly cured by antibiotics. I know him all too well: if his woman didn't kick his ass he'd never go to see a doctor. I'll also mention mention a class-mate who died when we were 18. Whatever went untreated after that strep
3. Imagine someone with asthma or diabetes or something dermatological or back pain that is so bad that requires a surgery. It's either you cough up the money that you don't have or you suffer the rest of your life. Maybe not too long.
4. Maybe but if you're not destitute you'll get a bill that you can't pay.

Voucher as something that can be spent only on medical care. If you don't need it then it's gone but if you do it's there to help w/o destroying the rest of your life. Even an otherwise irresponsible person would use it. My hunch is that it'd be a lot cheaper than universal insurance.

I didn't mean special interests nor you personally. I meant so many bloggers who feel that their opinion is as good as any.

not quite touche

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

no cigar. because i had turned around 180% not on 1.2.3.4, but on how to deliver medical care, and the best of the worst is - the universal, single payor system but 1.2.3.4. and the access issue - it stands.

2.... it is very human but misleading to use individual examples. the "walking pneumonia", akak "community-acquired pneumonia", often mycoplasma pneumonia - is okay untreated. says i. a sufferer back in 2013, i worked through it for weeks. not a good idea - people need rest when they are ill. but the miraculous response to macrolides or tetracycline group or quinolones - does not mean that without them your friend would die or be worse for wear. and mark, it was HIS CHOICE to go untreated, unlikely due to his lack of funds. cynically - he was just NOT SICK ENOUGH.

so i reject this argument. 2. is well-served, even if they occasionally have to take out a loan.

3. i cannot imagine someone with asthma who requires a surgery...diabetes - insulin pumps are not recommended for everybody, and SQ insulin still works fine... something dermatological is either a 2. or a 4. if it is psoriasis - it is borderline. kike i said, 3 is the only iffy part of my argument. back pain - like my former friend Ninazino used to say, ne smeshite moi tsapochki.

4. does happen that a catastrophically ill person GETS a bill. i have never seen that person PAY that bill.


the problem with you, milton fr, and vouchers - they will take care of a repsonsibel or kinda responsible 10 million. i shudder to try and estimate the IRRESPONSIBLES.


like i said - we cannot not treat them, and vouchers for them are toilet paper. or worse.


my opinion on? global warming? is NO GOOD. as in. i don't have a right to an opinion. like your mishab, i "feel" there is somethign to it, but i am too shy to voice something i know nothing about.

Re: not quite touche

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

Какие тапочки?! Another friend of mine had 2 back surgeries. He's intensely against any medical intervention (so his knee and shoulder will go untreated even though he can't lift his arm more than 90%) but he HAD TO do it b/c his pain level was like 9/10 and he couldn't live like that. So 2 surgeries. 2nd required 2 nights in the hospital. Altogether probably 6 digit amount w/o insurance. By daughter's BF is doing physical work that will eventually ruin his back (he's suffering already). When it comes to his surgeries I wish your slippers paid for it and I were the one laughing.

I agree that completely irresponsible people won't be helped even with vouchers. But universal insurance won't help them either. Both ways they need to go and see a doctor when something is wrong and both ways they don't have to pay out of pocket. Same situation, same outcome.

No, not YOUR opinion, forget it...

Re: not quite touche

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

again, anecdotal examples of someone who had back surgery. you are trying to say he maybe needed it. i am trying to hint that back surgery is a gamble and that 8/10 are not needed if you look at community, 5/10 not needed at a University Hospital anywhere ( by expert judgement postfactum, that study has a flaw), and many are so-called "failed backs". that study addressed nonemergent back surgery where the cord was not compromised and where the neurological exam was normal. that's why tapochki.

a LOT of what we ( collective we) do - is stupid, futile, and.. expensive.

just as Yucca suggests a surgery for asthma, you think that back surgery might be an end to one's trivial (myofascial plus discs) back issues, but it is more commonly the beginning. unless the disc is "fresh" or very small, surgery (discectomy) makes sense only if there is impingement on the canal and (not or) neurological impairment such as paralysis. anterior discs that manifest with pain only do worst with surgeries. myofascial back inury (most common) is not amenable to surgery.

thus taochki.

you consumers of medical care have lots of anger but talk like.. "uneducated people", which you are, actually, in those areas. buit so much self=assurance, so much entitlement, it is amazing every time.


as to completely irresponsible people - tehy presently are free customers when they get in trouble. so, universla insurance would provide perhaps nothing to them - htey will be treated either way - but to us as a society. to you, who is now paying out of pocket for those people and the illegals BTW. but that's a different story. as you know i favor legalization and a "path to citizenship" for all but criminals and welfare users. teh reason is not takinetish - the illegals weigh very heavily on medical expenditure, and if legalized, they would be covered with universal insurance which is i am afraid going to remain a fantasy.

Re: not quite touche

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

No, I'm saying he definitely needed and I don't have any reasons to believe that his story is anything unusual. He is an engineer like millions others and (was) a recreational tennis player like millions others. Back surgery is a gamble when it's a choice. For him it wasn't as I thought I made very clear.

No, nobody thought the surgery would be the end of the pain. The hope was to reduce the pain from unbearable to manageable and that's what ultimately happened. Of course we, the consumers, lack formal medical education. But we compensate by sourcing multiple medical opinions, by reading everything that is available on internet (and that's a lot) and by thinking a lot. We know how to process information and there's nothing so special about medicine that we cannot handle if we try hard enough. And when it comes to life-changing decisions we do.

You keep talking about irresponsible poor (and I don't care too much about them b/c they'll be taken care of, as you say) but I'm concerned about people like my friends who will run out of luck one day.

YES indeed

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

even "simple" people are able to be informed and make medical decisions - that is the way it should be, we are not a paternalistic sovok.

teh late m_p became a lymphoma expert, an NIH trial expert, and in general a cancer expert far better than some oncologists i know.

i don't question that.


i am just annoyed at the stream of anecdotes meant to illustrate something too complicated for generalization.

as far as your concern, I share it - i already told yo that group 2 may turn into group 3 then 4 - and your friend and daghter's BF may fall under 3 and 2 respectively.

the people in group 3 when they go from milder chronic condition to more severe but NOT QUITE 4 - are most vulnerable within the current medical system.