Economic/Heathcare Solution?
-
sonofsam
I am just the average Joe... I do not claim to know anything about politics nor do I really want to. Honestly to me politics sound like a bunch of people bickering about whos idea is bigger, better, and who gets rich from the deal... With that being said, I want to propose my "average joe" solution to money issues and health care.
I work on an Ambulance and I take care of people every day. What I see in one weeks time disgusts me to no ends of the earth. I find it harder and harder every day to keep doing this job because of the high percentage of people that abuse social heath care in this country. I want to start off by saying that the company I work for is a private company and we do not refuse ANYONE the right to be transported to the hospital. From anywhere in this small city it is less than 4 miles to the hospital. The "basic" bill for an ambulance ride of 4 miles costs between $400-$500. This is for basically a "taxi-ride" to the hospital. add in a cardiac monitor, IV, and any drugs needed for an emergency and the cost goes from $750-$1500 depending on the type of emergency and what intervention is taken.
A good guess would be that 80-85% of the people we transport are on Ohio Medicaid. Not to say that Medicaid is a bad thing, but when missused, it comes directly from my pocket and yours. We have people in town here that call an ambulance so frequently, many of us know their most personal information. These calls are 99% of the time absolutely bulls***. Most are calls for headaches, stomach aches, back pain (because they "have" chronic back pain) and general flu-like symptom and "not feeling well". All of these ailments DO NOT require an Ambulance. In order to establish medical necessity for an Ambulance in an "emergency" situation, you have to be able to prove the illness is "life threatening" or the patient due to injury is unable to travel by other means to the ER. Most times, patients request we respond with "no lights or siren" because its not a life threatening emergency... Well then WHY call an Ambulance?!?! The reason is because no matter HOW INSIGNIFICANT the illness or injury, Medicaid PAYS for the bill. People also have the misconception that by calling an Ambulance, you will be taken right into the ER and be seen immediately... THIS IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH... If you are ambulatory on arrival, smoking a cigarette, with a suitcase packed complaining of 10/10 back pain, I (along with most EMTs) will make SURE you go to the waiting room and wait just like everyone else... Especially if you call at 3:30 in the morning and you have already consumed a 12 pack of alcoholic beverages.
Medicaid was never ment to be used by lazy, unmotivated, unemployed people as a way to obtain medication for either personal use or profit by selling it. There are no restrictions on WHO can use medicaid except that if you are a hard working-poorly paid American... Because you don't qualify for at least TRYING to better yourself. This country is backwards and it all starts with Government Health Care. By imposing restrictions to those who do NOT attempt to gainfully employ themselves within a timely manor. Review the cases turned in by frequent ER visitors to determine whether medical necessity has been established or not... And if not, send the bill directly to the people responsible for abusing their coverage. Penalize Government Health Care uses when abuse occurs by revoking their coverage until they pay their medical bills and attempt to gain benefits through employment. Make people act responsibly to get assistance rather than just serve it on a golden platter that says "your bills are paid".
In the City I work, we have approx 18,000 residents. At least 150-200 of these residents we transport weekly, some 4-5 times a week. Almost ALWAYS these patients do not need an Ambulance, let alone an ER visit. They ask what Doctors are working so they know what routine to display to get what they want. Add the numbers... 200 people call an average of 2 times a week, minimum $400 a trip. Thats $160,000 a week, $8,320,000 a year in this tiny little hole in the wall in Ohio! Thats on the minimal side of what really happens on a week to week basis!
Just like in most cities, in the event of a non-life threatening emergency, city buses will transport free of charge to the Emergency Room. There is also a 24 Hour-A-Day transport service that will provide Medicaid covered individuals transport to and from a hospital that bills Medicaid a FRACTION of the cost for an ambulance ride!
No one can tell me whats wrong with Health Care in this country... I see THE problem everyday. Imagine the impact on the economy/health care/war efforts if this issue was seriously looked at and the attention was used to fix the problem at hand rather than add to the already dysfunctional heath system....
Sorry this was so long, but I really feel that more people need to be aware of how their tax money is being wasted and paying for others to ride free. If you had the patience to read this whole message, I would like to hear what everyone thinks.... -
fish82
Nice write up, SOS.
Stories like this will never see the light of day, unfortunately. Instead we get a steady stream of Obama's poor little poster children.
You wanna fix healthcare? Fix THIS kind of shit FIRST. -
HitsRus
Unless people have real, out of pocket expenses, services will be abused. That's why insurance works and premiums can be low...because people have an incentive for not using expensive services unless they need them. That's why you need deductibles and co-pays. That's why free healthcare won't work. That's why government providing care at little or no cost will not reduce the national cost. -
ptown_trojans_1
My gf works for an ambulance service as well and has the same complaints and more as you do SOS. Good stuff. She is pretty ticked that the debate has lost focus on the real problems. -
majorspark
Unfortunately SOS this is how it works in politics.
Congressman A proposes solution to given example. Lets say medicaid only pays for trips that are true emergencies. Congressman B comes along and rails congressman A for his lack of compassion for those in need. Congressman B shares stories of how those in emergency situations may hesitate because they are afraid they may get stuck with the bill. Congressman B will point out that Congressman A's plan will cause more people to die. Congressman A's balls drop to the floor and roll away. Problem not solved. -
jhay78
Great write up there, people need to know about that stuff. With no cost, the demand is so high that eventually the system will break.
It reminds me of Papa John's offering 23-cent pizzas a few years ago to pissed-off Cavs fans. The result was millions of people waiting in line and most of them ticked because they couldn't get their freaking pizza. Health care will be the same when it's "free"- the government will have to ration care because there's no way the system can handle all that demand. -
Con_Almaptown_trojans_1 wrote: My gf works for an ambulance service as well and has the same complaints and more as you do SOS. Good stuff. She is pretty ticked that the debate has lost focus on the real problems.
...that's because this bill has nothing to do with health care reform but rather it has everything to do with health care insurance and creating a massive entitlement. -
ptown_trojans_1
Now, but the initial debate was much broader than that.Con_Alma wrote:ptown_trojans_1 wrote: My gf works for an ambulance service as well and has the same complaints and more as you do SOS. Good stuff. She is pretty ticked that the debate has lost focus on the real problems.
...that's because this bill has nothing to do with health care reform but rather it has everything to do with health care insurance and creating a massive entitlement. -
majorspark
One thing to think about. Lets say your town was responsible for taking care of those individuals that need help transporting themselves to the hospital in emergency situations. Lets say it was included in your city taxes. I guarantee the kind of shit you are seeing would be put to an end.
-
QuakerOatshttp://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/IsHealthCareARight.htm
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
Is Health Care a Right?
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM -
CenterBHSFan
Well, they could start by education the public on some things.
For example.
You don't have to go to the doctors every freakin time you/your kids has a cold.
- learn the differences between bacteria, viruses, and allergies.
- learn the differences between colds, flu and pneumonia
- you don't need a z-pack every damn time you sneeze
ok, end rant -
jhay78
That makes so much sense it almost hurts my brain thinking about it. You'd think after watching an Obama speech or the evening news that it's "praiseworthy and laudable" for the government to take resources forcibly from Americans and give them to another.QuakerOats wrote: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/IsHealthCareARight.htm
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
Is Health Care a Right?
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Walter Williams is great, btw. -
pinstriper
This argument cannot be broken, that's why Obama and the Left always try to drum up emotion when it comes to healthcare (insurance reform) or any kind of entitlement program. They use specific examples to try to tug at your heart strings.jhay78 wrote:
That makes so much sense it almost hurts my brain thinking about it. You'd think after watching an Obama speech or the evening news that it's "praiseworthy and laudable" for the government to take resources forcibly from Americans and give them to another.QuakerOats wrote: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/IsHealthCareARight.htm
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
Is Health Care a Right?
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Walter Williams is great, btw. -
FootwedgeAs a private company, do the patriotic thing and quit picking up the wolf criers. Time to blow the whistle. To the OP, I think your company is complicit in the scam. Just my opinion.
-
majorspark
Walter Williams website is full off stuff like this. A treasure trove of common sense.
-
Footwedge
This is why Walter Williams should be on the AM dial instead of Rush Limbaugh.majorspark wrote: Walter Williams website is full off stuff like this. A treasure trove of common sense.
Whereby I don't always agree with WW, he is very good at articulating his POV. And....the few times I have listened to him subbing for Limbaugh, he has had more dissenters than EIB ass kissers.
My only real disagreement with Williams....outsourcing/globalization.
And...as well written as this is, you will never hear the same logic regardeing unfunded and perpetual wars....yet the principles should be applied to both. -
sonofsam
Like I said above, you cannot deny someone healthcare, and I have absolutely NO PROBLEM reaching into my own pocket to help someone that is sick through government health care... But the LEACHES of this Country abuse this and need to be stopped. My idea to to relieve this health care issue is to impose penalties on welfare for the recipients for abusing their heath care. deduct their non-emergency bills from their monthly check, and deny them things that they do not need for survival like medicaid paying for their HD TV's, Play Station 3's, and their HD cable service and internet. We all know that the people who have NO intention of getting a job need that money. These people are also baby factories popping out kids left and right so that they can increase that monthly check... Whats absolutely dumbfounding is that they feel they are doing a job. Having and raising kids in deplorable conditions so that they can make money.
I actually went on an "emergency" call once to assist a 23 year old female with "eye pain" I will always remember this call because of the absolute breakdown in the system along with this girl knowing how to play the cards to get what she wants. This female was diagnosed with astigmatism the day before from her eye doctor. The doctor told her it could cause discomfort... The next day she called for an ambulance because of this "eye pain". We respond to her address which of course is in the low-income/no-income housing. There are 2 guys living with her, a car parked out front.... She has SIX kids and she needs to take them ALL to the hospital with her. We told her we are not equipped to handle transporting six kids and her to the hospital safely and that she would need to leave them with the men at the house. Both men stated they had something they had to do, immediately left in the car that was parked out front. We had to call 2 police officers off the road to assist transporting theses kids. Now 2 less officers are patrolling the streets, and ambulance is tied up, and this 23 year old girl with her six kids are on the way to the ER. I explained to her that her insurance may not pay for the ambulance ride because the medical necessity was not valid, and she could have take other means to the emergency room. She replied :I have Medicaid, it pays for everything so thats fine" and "I didn't want to wait around taking care of all these kids in the waiting room, I just want to get my pain medication and leave". Needless to say, she got right in because the ER was not busy, I left the hospital disgusted.
Later that evening about 11 hours after we picked her and her kids up, she calls again. Same thing... Eye pain. We get down there, and she states that the medicine they gave her (percocet) was not managing her pain properly and she needed to go back to the hospital to change her medication... Only catch is, she wants to go to a different hospital now because the staff at the previous hospital was rude and she doesn't trust them...
This patient was prescribed 24 percocet that she was able to take 1 tablet every 6 hours. That is enough to last 6 days... She was told to follow up with her eye and family doctor the next day... The medication was gone. She claims to have taken all of them because the eye pain was so bad. (Not to mention it was a sunny day and she was not squinting whatsoever. She also rated the pain 10/10... A 10 would be like having your arm cut off.) So here we go again... Call the cops, and we take her where she wants to go... More pain pills to her liking and EVERY BILL IS PAID IN FULL. This girl calls on a weekly basis... THIS is your hard earned tax money at work.
This is just one of the MANY stories I can tell you about abuse in one Ohio city. When is the change going to come? I also feel that more money need to be placed on the cards that welfare recipients get as a replacement to food stamps. Ohio needs to go one step further and place the users Photo on the card and place criminal charges against those who allow other to use their cards in exchange for cash. This really isn't that hard to fix... -
I Wear PantsWhy didn't you just wreck her side of the ambulance into a telephone pole?
-
sonofsam
I would have loved to... Until you deal with these kind of people on an EVERY DAY basis, you can't understand how much things eat at you when health care issues arise. At least if I wrecked the ambulance into a pole, she would have had something LEGIT to go to the hospital for...I Wear Pants wrote: Why didn't you just wreck her side of the ambulance into a telephone pole? -
I Wear PantsJust go all Boondock Saints on the people you deal with every day and kill them.
-
dwccrew
This would cost the taxpayers even more money.I Wear Pants wrote: Why didn't you just wreck her side of the ambulance into a telephone pole? -
I Wear Pants
As long as she's killed the savings extrapolated over her estimated lifetime of abusing the medicaid system would probably more than make up for the damage to the ambulance.dwccrew wrote:
This would cost the taxpayers even more money.I Wear Pants wrote: Why didn't you just wreck her side of the ambulance into a telephone pole? -
dwccrew
Hmmmm, a very good point.I Wear Pants wrote:
As long as she's killed the savings extrapolated over her estimated lifetime of abusing the medicaid system would probably more than make up for the damage to the ambulance.dwccrew wrote:
This would cost the taxpayers even more money.I Wear Pants wrote: Why didn't you just wreck her side of the ambulance into a telephone pole? -
sonofsam
I agree... And I would love to go boondocks saints... Only thing preventing me is a family and a paycheck.
-
CenterBHSFan
LMAO!!!!!!!!! Funniest post of the week!I Wear Pants wrote: Why didn't you just wreck her side of the ambulance into a telephone pole?