I would like to get a sense of where most DR posters stand on this issue.

Too broad. Should be more choices personally.

They already do.

But it is a basic broad question. I could add a million caveats and nuances, but I honestly feel it boils down to this basic philosophic question.

I disagree with the choices you gave, but agree there needs to be some sort of reform. I would like to see something akin to what we did to the Airlines in the 80's.

Nanc, no they do not. You are simply wrong. My twenty year old unemployed son being a perfect example. But for luckily being still covered by my insurance, he is out in the cold with a very serious "pre-existing" ongoing medical condition.

As I say Kanrei, everyone and anyone can choose to re-phrase the question or answers to their liking. I have tried to phrase it from a philosophically neutral and honest stand point.

Nanc you blundering idiot many Americans are above the cutoff line for medicaid or have pre-existing conditions that make them uninsurable. Try reading other sites than the right wing trash you enjoy so much.

Which states are poor people with pre-existing conditions being denied medical care?

List?

The rich with "pre-existing conditions" are denied coverage as well Nanc. Insurance companies (including Medicare) often second guess doctor's order and change medication.

#6 | Posted by moder8 - is he unable to work? He is covered under your insurance. Nearly every state that I can think of has state aid plans for people who are indigent - sometimes there is a small share of cost based upon that person's previous month's income. Or is he too proud to go get the help that IS available???

Nanc emergency care is a right but you don't have a right to hypertension and cholesterol meds or AIDS meds. You need to wait until you need to be seen in an emergency room. by then it is usually to late. Most people need good preventive medicine not just ER care. You are either extremely ignorant or just trolling.

Nanc knows how hard it is for the working poor just above the poverty line. Since she is one. She knows that over 20 million Americans don't have access to good medical care.

He was born with serious vascular problems which resulted in a pulmonary embolism. His heart stopped and was 'restarted' four times in the ER. He has been at UCLA hospital for lengthy stays three times in the last year. He has also had two other lengthy stays in another local hospital. Each stay was for over one week. That is over five weeks total of high cost intensive care.

After the most recent stay, I paid $250 as a co-pay. My insurance company was billed over $85,000. I suspect my insurance company been billed way in excess of $250,000 in just the past year alone. Needless to say, they have been bending over backwards to try and get him removed from my policy. I even had to hire a lawyer. For now they have backed down because their liability is so obvious.
In response to your question, the only care he is currently 'entitled' to, is Emergency care at the ER. Obviously, given his condition, by the time he deteriorates to the point where an ER is needed, it probably will be too late. He needs health insurance. Nobody will willingly provide it.

# 65 or older
# Blind
# Disabled
# Under 21
# Pregnant
# In a skilled nursing or intermediate care home
# On refugee status for a limited time, depending how long you have been in the United States
# A parent or caretaker relative or a child under 21 if:

The child's parent is deceased or doesn't live with the child, or
The child's parent is incapacitated, or
The child's parent is under employed or unemployed

Apply, moder8.

Generally, an emergency room clerical person will get this process going for you. Medi-cal is supposed to pick up where your insurance leaves off if he is indigent. It would be far easier to drop him from your insurance entirely and let them take over. It is a very good program.

It sounds to me like he may be disabled - which would qualify him for SSI under your SS. Don't be proud - investigate - get him help.

Where are the voting buttons? They aren't showing up for me.

Now they showed up after I posted a comment in the thread. Weird.

People don't access many of the already available programs due to pride issues, jackass, and you know it. People in their 20's believe they are invincible.

Here in Arkansas, a family of four, making nearly $40,000 per year qualify for ARKkids - a small copayment is all that is required for children.

They also have a small business health insurance program available.

The programs are out there - people are too lazy to seek them out - as a matter of fact, there are probably more than enough.

Not to mention organizations that help in specific health problems - my own brother had his first heart surgery as a child and "Crippled Children" paid for it.

You need to register and show proof of citizenship first.

Skank,

With all those great programs in AK, why don't you have insurance instead of fucking the rest of us with your 'stiff the emergency room' health care plan?

Rcade: Why can't we get this poll to remain active? It goes on for a few minutes, and then becomes inaccessible a few minutes later.

Why can't we get this poll to remain active?

You know how we voting in Florida! Are you asking Rcade to move?

Rcade: Why can't we get this poll to remain active? It goes on for a few minutes, and then becomes inaccessible a few minutes later.

I don't know what you mean. It's supposed to stay up all the time, either by asking for your vote (if you haven't voted) or showing you the results (if you have).

Rcade: My bad. I didn't understand that the screen changes after casting a vote.

I was getting the percentage total screen before it ever gave me the voting buttons.

"Nanc, no they do not. You are simply wrong. My twenty year old unemployed son being a perfect example. But for luckily being still covered by my insurance, he is out in the cold with a very serious "pre-existing" ongoing medical condition."

Advise he move to NC, we've got a state subsidized high risk pool. Plus, you CANNOT be denied for pre-x in this state even outside the pool.

Of course, no one else is enrolling in the pool because it costs SOMETHING.

Oh well, dumb fucks.

He needs health insurance. Nobody will willingly provide it.

Should his coverage be more expensive than someone who is a healthy 20 year old?

#23 | Posted by axe - We've NEVER stiffed ANY ER - paid our bills right on schedule and have excellent access to a host of good doctors and hospitals when we need it.

The government already provides for the have nots - there are enough programs and quite frankly, they take better care of some people (the poor) than others (those who've paid into medicaid their entire working lives).

Fix what's broken.

Just wait until one of you litter has something serious happen and you get a bill for half a million of so. They Skippy and the Chickenfucker are gonna be plenty mad at having to pay for your greed.

#33 - always the drama queen...

#34 one serious illness away from a welfare queen.

#34 | Posted by nanc

Always the ignorant fool.

#36 - and there is the drama queen's date...

I know it burns your jackaxes, but the children and I qualify for free native american healthcare if there were ever so dire an emergency.

Oh, and we have that little flight care transportation program we pay for in addition to dental and vision plans.

Nanc= hypocrite. Don't want others to get what you have. Good human being you are.

I'm sure Jeebus would be proud. Not really. He probably has a warm place waiting for you if he exists.

Skanc,

I did not know you had such a contingency plan. Sorry for my comments. But your Rtard compatriots out there are by and large covered by a 'stiff the emergency room' plan and you and I are paying for it.

I am paying nearly a thousand a month for my wife and I to have a $10,000 deductible plan that pays nothing until we are out of pocket the 10k. Too bad I am only 1/4 Native American (Oklahoma Cherokee, paternal grandmother.)

I want everyone who qualifies for what we qualify for to have it. And anybody else who qualifies for certains programs to take advantage of existing programs. We don't need any new programs. You only have to be documented 1/32nd I believe to qualify for the native benefits and if you're so daring, move to a rez and live like a pig to get the rest of them.

I'm done talking to you now, jackass - I was sincerely trying to help moder8 with his son's medical dilemma - you, on the other hand, have no input whatsoever, as usual.

#42 | Posted by axe - if your paperwork is in order at BIA or your reservation and you have a roll number, you too qualify. I'm sure with that kind of plan you pay enough taxes to not even feel badly accepting the native american health care plan - there are very many good hospitals all over the U.S.

Ward Churchill is a better representative of the American Indian than you Nanc. I think he is a plain better American too.

My grandmother died in 1958 and my father in 1972. No paperwork and no way to get it, I'm afraid.

I just hope I last a few more years and get Medicare. Unless the Republicans get their way and kill that program before I qualify.

I think I'll get some fake paperwork and qualify that way. If Nanc can get free govt services why can't I? Lord knows I have done more for America than Nanc has.

"If Nanc can get free govt services why can't I?"

You can...just go see THIS doctor.

AXE thinks the uninsured utilize the ER more than the insured and medicaid recipients....

Who told you that load? T19 recipients ustilize the ER at a rate 3X the uninsured (directly related to copayment structure of T19 plans). Many actually pay there bill rather than T19 that pays about half of what private ins does.

Who's cost shifting onto the those with private insurance?

Need JSTOR login for you in da know:

AXE thinks the uninsured utilize the ER more than the insured and medicaid recipients....

Who told you that load? T19 recipients ustilize the ER at a rate 3X the uninsured (directly related to copayment structure of T19 plans). Many actually pay there bill rather than T19 that pays about half of what private ins does.

Who's cost shifting onto the those with private insurance?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/15829013

You can...just go see THIS doctor.

#49 | Posted by jestgettinalong

I make over 70K a year and I'm single. I don't qualify for medicaid. I wish I did though. I have insurance through my job. I just don't think it's right for Nanc to get something free only because her ancestors. She should be forced to pay for it like I do.

#52 | Posted by jackass at 2010-01-20 04:40 PM | Reply |

Confused... thought the ass liked social programs.

Nanc is native american? What's her Indian name? Makes Blind Bat Cry?

Confused... thought the ass liked social programs.

#53 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

I love them. I just don't qualify for them.

Healthcare for the Poor.

Housing for the Poor.

Food for the Poor.

Drink for the Poor.

Transportation for the Poor.

Medicine for the Poor.

Land for the Poor.

Traffic lanes for the Poor.

Parking spots for the Poor.

Education for the Poor.

Postage for the Poor.

Boats for the Poor.

Vacations for the Poor.

Work for the Poor.

Money for the Poor.

Gold for the Poor.

Silver for the Poor.

Computers for the Poor.

Internet for the Poor.

Books for the Poor.

Prophylactic for the Poor.

Clothes for the Poor.

Season tickets for the Poor.

Dates for the Poor.

Rich for the Poor.

Bootstraps for the Poor.

Pot for the Poor.

Politicians for the Poor.

Is it free?
Who will pay?
Whose morality is right and wrong?
Will we move this into the realms of legal and illegal?
What is a need?
What is a want?
What is the definition of poor?
What is the definition of choice?
What is the definition of surrendered?
Will we always have the poor?

The real question about health care isn't about the poor, we already try to give them care. The real question about health care is about the percentage of GDP which goes to health care and how is the best way to reduce it. Other counries spend 8-10% while we are spending 16% and it's still rising. That is unsustainable and isn't really debatable. The debate is about what to do about it. Some want to ignore the problem and hope it fixes itself (REpublicans and TEa Partiers) others think we need to insure everyone for the lowest possible cost (those who believe in Medicare Part E) and those who believe we need a combination of government and private insurance (the main stream Democrats).
I believe in Medicare Part E because it is the lowest cost way to provide care and because Medicare is already up and running.

"My twenty year old unemployed son being a perfect example. But for luckily being still covered by my insurance"
#6 | Posted by moder8

Until age 23 I bet. No luck there. It is typical. And he should be covered on the tax payer's dime because 'you don't want to pay for your son'?

I made 20k for '09, (grimace.) My wife made around 12k. Family of four, young kids. We are blessed as resources are available to us without need of cash.

We are self pay. Last year, we paid around 2k in health care. I had pneumonia, (recovered at home,) the youngest had two cavities and the oldest saw the eye doc and got glasses. We weren't able to pay it all off in '09, but the debts are not out of hand. These med bills are also tax deductible, along with daycare and mortgage interests, (VERY HELPFUL.)

Conservatively speaking, (for my family,) 3000/34000 is under 9%.

We're fine taking care of ourselves, and we get care when we need it.

I vote DISAGREE, and I think Moder8 should get a job writing biased survey questions for some liberal PAC.

It's not a matter of the question being impartial.

The question is just too broad.

"We're fine taking care of ourselves, and we get care when we need it."

Until a serious illness comes along and then you'll be receiving care on the taxpayers dime just like everyone else who can't pay for themselves. Vote DISAGREE but when and if the time comes you'll gladly accept all the public assistance you can get and rightly so but just don't be such a pompous hypocrit when it's someone else who needs the care.

Wurster needs to sign a waiver agreeing to die rather receive care if his awesome 20K salary can't pay for it.

"The real question about health care isn't about the poor, we already try to give them care."

This doctor does his part too:

The statistical break down of responses on this poll mirrors my pre-existing perceptions as to the approximate Conservative-Liberal split among regular posters on the DR. Interesting, but not surprising.

I have believed for a long time now that most of the most prolific and active posters on the DR are rightwing leaning. Though obviously there are PLENTY of exceptions.

I answered "disagree" as I don't think it is the government's job to provide healthcare. I do think it is the government's job to make sure healthcare costs are minimized (which in turn allows more people to be covered), to make sure everyone has access, and to subsidize those who cannot afford healthcare (to an extent). If that makes me rightwing, then I craw into that tent.

Do you agree or disagree that the U.S. Government SHOULD either provide health care insurance for people who are uninsured and currently too poor to afford it?

Wait! Are there no Prisons? Are there no Workhouses?

Some would rather die than go there you say?

Well, if they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.

Good day, gentlemen.

You left out the word "Union" Workhouses.

Like Taxman, I would say "disagree".

'Wurster needs to sign a waiver agreeing to die rather receive care if his awesome 20K salary can't pay for it.'

I would rather die than saddle my children or their generation with the debt it would take to keep me alive.

Too bad the BOOMERS won't do this for THEIR children.

I can't answer this poll, the question is poorly worded and the choices too constraining.

The statistical break down of responses on this poll mirrors my pre-existing perceptions as to the approximate Conservative-Liberal split among regular posters on the DR. Interesting, but not surprising.

Translation: The poll didn't produce the results I wanted, so I'll just complain about the people who answered it.

I voted Disagree because the question makes reference to the Federal Government, and not the individual State governments. The Constitution created the Federal Government to defend the States against external threats and to regulate commerce among the states, period. Anything else should be done by the individual states. Of course, more people could afford health care (without insurance) if government wasn't involved in it.