Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Krowbar who wrote (51037)	8/13/1999 9:13:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

It is morally wrong for the government to take money that I created away from me, or anyone else, to pay for someone else's health care. It is especially evil when the State threatens me with property loss or loss of personal liberty as a means to coerce me if I do not want to abide by their edicts. Don't you think there is something wrong with this scenario: a person incarcerated for years in a federal prison for refusing to help pay for Mrs. Culbreath's hysterectomy?

To: Krowbar who wrote (51037)	8/13/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

If you think that our health care system isn't in piss poor shape, you are in dreamland. That's silly. Of course, no system designed and run by humans is perfect, and ours can always use improvement. But at present it is the best in the world. Why do you think so many world leaders and wealthy individuals come to the US when they need really great medical care? They sure don't go to Canada, or England, or France, or Japan, or Germany, or . . . It just so happens that I have heart arrhythmia also. Have for several years. I have been to emergency rooms for it several times myself, with some superb doctors, and have done a fair amount of research on it to understand my condition. The care you describe appears to be exactly what you should have received. Certain arrhytmias should NOT be treated with drugs or any other treatment, but only monitored by the patient. In my case, I only require drugs if my arrhythmia lasts for more than 24 hours, which it never has, and even then there is no urgency, but I can decide to go in and get it drugged down if I want to. But some patients have lived with active arrhythmias for years. Did you want the doctors to prescribe you unnecessary medicines so you would feel better because you got a pill to take? They would have gotten more money out of you if you had, because then you would have had to go back for check-ups, for medication refills, etc. So how come if the goal was only to see how much money they could get out of you they overlooked this revenue source. Could it have been because they placed your best medical welfare above their pocketbooks? Gee, another case where the facts don't support your theory, so of course the facts must go. There are lots of patients who don't feel the doctors did anything if they didn't get a prescription. You seem to be one of them. But those patients only drive up the costs of medical care for all of us. Unfortunately, you are probably incapable of seeing the fundamental inconsistency in what you posted.