tcbloom2 at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 13 10:45:49 PDT 2002
Meanwhile, 44 million Americans have no coverage at all. But,
given our private, for-profit history, the solution shouldn't take
*good* coverage from me in order to give *some* coverage to the
There is a faulty assumption above. The no-insurance = no care idea is a
bogey-man hauled out when someone wants to lobby for universal health care.
Every health care provider I know - accepts patients irrespective of their
ability to pay. Would everybody want all paying customers? Of course, so
would you irrespective of what business you are in. Sure they ask
non-paying patients to apply for public health assistance like Medicaid and
numerous other federal, state and local health assistance programs, that is
what those programs (paid for by your tax money) are for. But that doesn't
mean the patients do not receive care. Many's the night while doing long
complicated cases that someone will raise their head and ask, "Are we
getting paid for this one?" When the answer is, "Nope" ; everybody just
keeps on working, we all know some amount of charity work is part of the
Another problem is expectations and responsibility. So many patient groups
feel that their particular affliction is the one that deserves full coverage
to the exclusion of others. People with MS feel they should have everything
covered, so do parents of those with birth defects, as do victims of spinal
cord injury and of course the press lobbies to total free care for all with
AIDS. In an ideal world - sure - we'd all like to see everybody get
everything but we don't live there. Does anybody here think it is possible
to meet all of these expectations?
If we can't make 100% top level care available to all that want it; then
somebody has to make allocation decisions.
We should continue to explore ways to provide care and get it remunerate
people for their services. However, first we need to look at the facts and
not dis-information tactics.
More information about the Amp-l