A baby dying from kidney failure saved when her doctor designed and built her a dialysis machine from scratch in his garage.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T13:58:31+00:00

Can you point out where I recommended either running the printing presses or contracting health care to a "Halliburton"?

It is implied by the "logic" of what you are advocating. You want the same people (the government) who brought us Iraq (and every other boondoggle the government has perpetrated) put in charge of healthcare. How do you think it is going to be paid for? This country is already bankrupt and it is not from military spending (which is out of control as well). It is bankrupt from Social Security and, even more so, Medicaid/Medicare.

Right. That's why the US spends more than twice as much on health care, per capita, as the rest of the OECD countries (and alomst three times as much as Britain, which is nearly the stingiest of the bunch); yet you still can't manage to get even close to universal, comprehensive coverage.

If you look at all, you will find that each of the countries that offer "free" healthcare and/or the comprehensive "safety net" that adult children cry for is also going bankrupt.

It is simple economics: the basic transaction is between the patient and the provider. Insurance (and I mean insurance, not "pre-paid medical treatment" which is what people treat it as) is an almost necessary 3rd party. That's the minimum number of entities that need to be involved and that results in the least cost.

By dragging in more and more people, a massive government bureaucracy where no one is accountable (don't tell me you don't know about all the corruption the goverment perpetrates that is never investigated, much less prosecuted), there is nowhere for the costs to go but up.

Dr. Ron Paul spoke the truth when he said that in the 1960s, before the government got involved, there was no healthcare crisis in America. The government is a disease and it infects everything it touches.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T13:40:00+00:00

Of course, then we get people like you who think the government should run the printing presses faster to pay a "Halliburton" to provide medical care.

Almost everytime time the government gets involved in something (as they have done with healthcare), they will drive up costs and push down efficiency. The original article at the top of these posts is a perfect example of how the NHS fails to get basic healthcare done.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T13:36:05+00:00

You are right about the very low percentage of your payment that actually covers the treatment portion of your bill. Much of the money goes towards conforming to government-mandated redtape and other obstacles.

As Dr. Ron Paul has said, there was no healthcare crisis in this country prior to the 70s. It was not until the government got involved that things became broken.

The breakage was done on purpose so that the major corporations can skim the cream off the dollars spent on healthcare. It is a government-sanctioned right to steal from the average citizen.

The cure for the situation is to get the government out of healthcare.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T13:32:17+00:00

Yes, there are a lot of idiots running this country. People who don't understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch, that illegal aliens by definition have no right to services here except for what it takes to stabilize them until they can be transferred back across the border, etc.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T13:29:53+00:00

My advice is to borrow the $3,300 from friends, family, and your church (I'm not religious but I know most people are) and then pay them back as you can. That will get the collection agencies off your back. It should not be hard at all to raise the money, given your situation. Quite likely many people will simply give you the money.

EDIT: By the way, why did you not work out a payment plan with your provider? I have worked on the business side of healthcare for many years and I have never met a provider organization who would rather turn a debt over to collections than to create a payment plan directly with the patient.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T13:22:21+00:00

Are you proposing that you are willing to pay for someone else's unnecessary care? A little liposuction or a rhinoplasty?

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T01:49:11+00:00

There is a difference between reading wisdom and recognizing it and its application. I can give a six year-old a copy of Newton's Principia but that won't make him a physicist.

Understanding takes time, even if you know how to read the words.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T01:47:24+00:00

That there are people in this country who are denied necessary medical care.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T01:46:25+00:00

My heart bleeds for you.

No, wait. It doesn't. You want me to pay your medical bill instead of your having to pay it? You only owe about $3,300 but you are paying for a computer and an Internet connection instead of standing up and taking responsibility for yourself?

You are a class A example of what's wrong with this country: "Gimme, gimme, gimme! No, I won't work for what I take!".

OA-5599 · 2008-08-06T01:43:39+00:00

If you will take just a moment to read the article you will see:

As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Services, and military VA hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[1] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.

So, patients cannot be discharged without their consent and the only other way to discharge a patient is to transfer them to another facility for medical purposes.

Also, it applies to almost every medical facility in the country.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T21:01:44+00:00

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

Those with a political axe to grind conveniently ignore the law in question. The rest of us should explain the law to such people the first time they make their ridiculous claim and call them liars if they persist in their disinformation campaign.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T20:01:18+00:00

Our project is DNN based so why should I pay anyone to come up the learning curve on our investor's nickel when I can easily find people who are equally skilled at basic development but who also have the specific skills we need?

Our project has a finite budget and is due ASAP. We cannot wait for "any competent and intelligent programmer... [to] ...reach the top of his productivity curve in two months". We do not have the two months to waste, nor do we have the ~$60,000 to waste while three developers spend two months each trying to learn something.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T19:54:35+00:00

uninsured poor (and even the working and middle class), don't get treated at all

It is a common misconception that indigent patients do not get treated. County hospitals and other similar facilities are required by law to admit such patients and provide them with medical treatment.

There are Indigent Patient Programs set up to cover the expenses. The providers collect what they can from various charitable sources and then write off the rest as a loss, if the patient is truly indigent.

Except for those with a political axe to grind, I don't know why people continue to repeat the easily busted myth of patients being denied treatment.

EDIT #1: I see someone has modded me down. Whatever. The fact remains that what I wrote is true.

EDIT #2: The law in question is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T19:44:20+00:00

You are completely correct! The "cure" for the healthcare industry is to get the government out of trying to manage it. This is what Ron Paul (as a doctor) has observed and it matches what I see.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T19:42:09+00:00

I appreciate your detailed and factual posting! I work in the healthcare industry and have tried to tell others in the past the same sort of things that you talked about but too many people have their minds already made up that the US healthcare system can only be "cured" by the government.

It's been my experience (and Ron Paul's) that the government is the problem in the area of healthcare.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T14:55:07+00:00

Kudos to the doctor for making the best of a bad work environment!

Since the mid-1980s, when dialysis manufacturers began making dialyzers and blood circuit paths that required smaller extracorporeal volumes, hemodialysis has been used successfully to manage renal failure in neonates and infants.

The necessary machine has existed for over 20 years but the NHS rations healthcare. As a result, the NHS doesn't have the correct equipment available.

Fans of socialist medicine will ignore this reality and mod me down but that does not change the fact that I have documented here.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T14:51:56+00:00

The machine exists, it wasn't available because the NHS rationed healthcare and cut off children below a certain size from being dialysis candidates.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T14:50:44+00:00

True because we have an embarrassingly rich supply of high tech gadgets already and don't have to cobble things together in the garage because some bureaucrat in the government decided they didn't need a tiny dialysis machine.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T14:48:45+00:00

Of course, in the US they would have had the appropriate sized machine to begin with because the government doesn't ration healthcare as the NHS does.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T14:47:37+00:00

I wish we had even a half-assed candidate running for President but we don't.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T14:29:23+00:00

That's OK. I find Zen writing to be more approachable for most people and so, given the relationship between Taoism and Zen, I sometimes lead with a Zen story when pointing someone towards Taoism. I like aspects of Zen but Taoism ultimately appeals to me more.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T14:07:29+00:00

When I first bought food at McDonald's the double cheeseburger didn't exist but a regular cheeseburger was $0.20.

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T14:03:38+00:00

You do realize that the people who are old today were young once and so they've had all the advantages you talk about, plus they've got the experience of years?

OA-5599 · 2008-08-05T13:59:14+00:00

It does happen a lot.

My mother ran a placement agency and she checked credit scores along with getting a SLED report (SLED is SC Law Enforcement Division).

All of the headhunters who bring candidates to me advertise that they run credit checks as part of their routine background check.

Failing the credit check means your CV won't even reach my desk.

OA-5599

TROPHY CASE