| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Rockefeller Looking to Grant Open Source (Linux Journal)Rockefeller Looking to Grant Open Source (Linux Journal)Posted May 5, 2009 17:56 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)In reply to: Rockefeller Looking to Grant Open Source (Linux Journal) by jordanb Parent article: Rockefeller Looking to Grant Open Source (Linux Journal)
You've conveniently ignore any and all reasons for the current situation. The statistics you quote in no way support your claim that the free market can't work for health care.
The nation as a whole is getting older which will by necessity result in rising use of the healthcare industry.
You've also ignored the fact that a large percentage of the uninsured's medical bills are written off by hospitals because they know they will never get the money. So, the insured are already carrying the load for the uninsured.
How many people are turned away at ER's because they can't afford treatment? The answer is effectively none.
(Log in to post comments)
Rockefeller Looking to Grant Open Source (Linux Journal) Posted May 5, 2009 18:05 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] How many people are turned away at ER's because they can't afford treatment? The answer is effectively none. Which, of course, is indeed far form a free market. It's more like socialism in disguise, but with the real cost of socialism (over inflated cost of everything and mostly burdened by those who are responsible and with upper middle income) visible instead of hidden in a nebulous all encompassing tax increase. :)
Rockefeller Looking to Grant Open Source (Linux Journal) Posted May 5, 2009 18:46 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I believe that it's illegal to turn someone away in an ER.
Rockefeller Looking to Grant Open Source (Linux Journal) Posted May 7, 2009 8:40 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
It's sort-of illegal to refuse to stabilise patients. What happens on the axis between "minimum work to stabilise in the expectation that the patient will die shortly afterwards, preferably at home" and "actually fix the patient's problem" depends on the hospital's policies, whether an ER doctor likes your face, and how expensive it will be to fix your problem.
Don't compare the clinical outcomes between "uninsured" and "insured" patients arriving at an ER if you've cherished the idea that an ER law protects those in need -- you won't like what you find.
The ER is a fraction of the problem anyway. Suppose you're like me, all you have wrong with you is enlarged lymph glands. That's no emergency. No ER for me. Fortunately I live in a country which grasped the benefit of providing universal healthcare, so they diagnosed and treated my cancer.
The (current) US system says I should have stayed at home until the cancer spread and my symptoms became an emergency. This is "cost effective" so long as you don't consider unnecessary deaths as a cost.
IT contractors needn't worry though, despite healthcare being largely government controlled in my country, there are still plenty of expensive IT projects which can fail or go spectacularly over budget and - unlike a private healthcare provider - the government is unlikely to sue you since the court case would be embarrassing.
|
|
||||||||||||