Bill adds 20,000 H-1B visas

TalkBack 36 of 136:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Medical care

--"The common misconception (perpetuated by dems) is that there are so many out there that don't have health care. This is preposterous, as anyone who needs treatment can and does get it. The fact is that at least some hospitals and clinics in all areas will care for people regardless of whether or not they have insurance or the ability to pay."--

It is not only the Democrats that assert that there is no proper health care for the poor. Most independent studies have come up with the same numbers. And, to add to that poo-mix, the number of uninsured has steadily risen after Bush the Younger took office.

Your charming statement that the hospitals will treat the indigent is only a half-truth. In most cases, there is no preventative care, so by the time the cases hit the ER, those people are ******** sick and need care at three times what it would have cost to keep them healthy in the first place. In addition, it affects my bottom line because the taxes go up to cover the costs of indigent care. If I need urgent or emergency care, the hospitals have found a way to tweak the coding to make my insurance cover some of those costs, too. I am currently fighting such a charge now (broken foot, Urgent Care clinic, charged as full hospital ER visit even though there is a specific, cheaper code for UC treatment).

Poor, but healthy adults cannot get Medicaid coverage. Children cannot get state insurance if there has been any coverage in the past 6 months-1 year (depends on state), so if the parents are laid off and had coverage, they have to wait and hope no one gets sick or hurt.

Great coverage we have here-NOT!

As for Vioxx, Merck produced it right here in the good old U.S. of A., so that's a straw dog argument about imported drug safety. And, considering that the same drugs are used in Canada with all the same (if not better) safeguards as we have here. It's not safety, but profit that is the basis of the ban. Vioxx was a cash cow and Merck kept selling it long after they knew it was not safe because they were making $$$$$$$$$ from arthritis sufferers (took it for a while myself).

As long as there are ridiculously long terms on drug patents, medication will always be the problem child. Like regular patents and copyrights, there should be a period in which to recoup costs and make a modest profit for the effort after which it should immediately go generic.

You can hope all you want that Bush will do the right thing, but the 2005 budget made cuts in education and health funding, among other things. So I am not holding my breath...

Posted by: AbsolutelyNot   Posted on: 11/23/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now