Getting Healthcare Reform That Will Work for US

Anonymous · October 2009

I still say that doctors, doctors, doctors and more doctors need to be brought in to discuss any health care reform. These are the men and women who care for us. And nurses, pharma, other medical "industries" need to be seated at the table.......................big table. We don't need to be decreasing our doc's pay. Why in the heck should our docs work their arses off while lawyers get rich by suing for stupid things. I see lawyers on TV all the time advertising and it infuriates me. My dd is an attorney, but thank goodness she's not chasing ambulances! And, I agree with everyone here...take PHARMA OFF the darned TV. I'm sick of their advertisements.

This country, like others, is in bad, bad shape. Our legislators need to stop spending and spending. I'm sorry, but I'm going to say something that probably no one will like...our president needs to stay off the airplane just for a little while. Those millions of dollars flying in the air could feed or give meds or some health care to many people. When we talk millions it sounds so trivial compared to billions and trillions. But it isn't.

I'd like most of congress to be fired. They don't get it. We have too many crooks looking out for their own interests instead of the American people.

I'm not in a good mood. I see I forgot to put in the link from the Huffington Post about the behind close door deal made with pharma.

London-Virginia · October 2009

Actually, just take all ads off for pharama, ambulance chasers, lawyers etc. I always think how distasteful these things are when I see them if visiting. We do have some ambulance chasing ads here but they are usually really naff low budget things and everyone ignores them. Good moment to make a cup of coffee.

I have just read on another thread that even the American Cancer Society has commercial backing. How can such a thing produce trust in any veracity? Why can't this just be a government funded organisation? I expect some will say that no more govt monies should be spent, but if everything is dominated buy commercial interference of one sort or another, it is no wonder to me that there appears so little trust in your health system/industry.

Hasving said that, I will now shut up because it all seems utterly irrational to me! I am to foreign to comprehend any of this!

I any event, very best wishes to everyone from everywhere -

good mofninf and good luck.

HopingforaCure · October 2009

Hi all,

Received the following e-mail this week from the Livestrong Foundation and thought I'd share it here:

"Today is LIVESTRONG Day. Thirteen years ago today,
   my doctor told me I had advanced testicular
   cancer. What most people don't know is that at the
   time, I didn't have health insurance. In the
   following weeks, I received letter after letter
   from the insurance company refusing to pay for my
   treatment. I was fighting for my life-but also for
   the coverage that I desperately needed.
   The legislation currently being debated in
   Congress is not just words on a page-for many
   cancer survivors, it's a matter of life and death.
   Now, as this debate enters crunch time, I need
   your help to ensure that what happened to me
   doesn't happen to any other American:
   http://www.livestrongaction.org/campaigns/healthcare

                         No matter what side of the healthcare debate
   you're on, I believe we can all agree on two
   things:
   No American should be denied health insurance
   coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
   No American should lose their insurance due to
   changes in health or employment.
   Will you sign the LIVESTRONG Action petition to
   make sure any legislation includes these two
   critically important reforms? We'll deliver these
   to Capitol Hill this month as the debate reaches
   its climax and make sure our voices are heard in
   the debate:
   http://www.livestrongaction.org/campaigns/healthcare
                         When I received my diagnosis, I was between
   cycling contracts. My new insurer used the
   diagnosis as a reason to deny coverage after the
   new contract was signed. Fortunately, one of my
   sponsors intervened. At their insistence, I was
   added to their insurance company and was able to
   continue my life-saving treatment. If my sponsor,
   a powerful company, had not gone to bat for me, I
   may not have made it.
   I was lucky. We can't rely on luck to ensure
   coverage and treatment for the millions of
   Americans affected by cancer. Some cannot get
   coverage because they've already been diagnosed.
   Others get calls from their insurance companies
   saying they have been dropped. It happens all the
   time-and it's unacceptable.
   Every year on LIVESTRONG Day, we come together to
   take action for a world without cancer. In the
   U.S., a critical step is to make sure cancer
   survivors can get and keep their health insurance.
   It has been 13 years since my diagnosis, but in
   some ways, not much has changed. No person should
   have to worry about health insurance while
   battling cancer. That so many do is an outrage,
   and we must speak out.
   Please sign the petition and forward it along to
   your friends and family:
   http://www.livestrongaction.org/campaigns/healthcare


                         LIVESTRONG,
   Lance and the LIVESTRONG Action Team"

London-Virginia · October 2009

thanks for doing that hoping for a cure.....

Anonymous · October 2009

Now that the members of Congress have had some time since their vacations to get together with their colleagues and discuss the merits and issues of the various healthcare bills in front of them, it might be time to revive this thread to give us a place to discuss the pros and cons of the provisions in those bills.

There have been several interesting developments in recent days. These range from Roland Burris's declaration that he will not under any circumstances vote for any bill that doesn't include a government plan, to moves to repeal the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption as part of the Senate bill http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=TXDAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT , to a plan for overhauling the way that medical malpractice claims are handled http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_medical_malpractice .

This is probably a more appropriate forum for discussing these rapidly evolving issues than the one encouraging international comparisons that has recently been filled with inaccuracies, and calls for action against legislators who vote against universal coverage, and a single payer system (neither of which is currently included in any bill, unless of course that has changed since this morning).

Colette37 · October 2009

Athena..forcing people to have health care is not the answer. I am going to tell you what happened with me under the government controlled VA health care. In 1999 I was told that I should start getting mammograms at 35 because of a family history. In 2007 I asked the VA Dr. for a mammogram, and she said I didn't need to even think about it until I turned 40, even with a family history...I didn't prosue it further. Exactly 2 years later I felt a lump. The tumor was 10 cm of DCIS, (originally IDC) which as you know is slow growing and it would have been EASILY seen on a mammogram 4 to 6 years ago.

If the government is in control of the health care, things like what happened to me will happen more often and we will gave cuts exactly like Canada is having across the board for their health care. That is something that I do not want to happen. I woud rather have choices.

I DO agree that there needs to be reform to where insurances can't deny a person based on their medical history, or force people to have large payments for the insurance based on prior med. history. There should be an option where people who change their habits and are/become healthier are given brakes.

There are so many other more important things that the US government needs to worry about, I don't know why they are shoving the government controlling our health care down our throats. Someone is getting very rich off of this and it isn't the US tax payer.

pip57 · October 2009

Colette, a doctor making a bad decision is the problem you faced. Not the actual fault of the medical system. Many doctors disagree with the timing and necessity of early mammos.

You are assuming that because the VA is run by the gov't that other gov't run medical systems will have the same opinion of mammos before 40. Not so. I live in Canada and have had regular mammos since I was 35.

The other misconception you have is that your tumour would have been seen on a mammo 4-6 years ago. I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is not necessarily true. After years of annual mammos, I was dx with a 2.4cm tumour. After all was said and done, the fact is that my breast was FULL of tumours that were undetected.

I do like the idea of being rewarded for good exercise and eating habits. I wonder what the percentage of $$ spent on overweight junk food eaters (my previous life) and smokers? And those are just the obvious contributors to heath problems. I know that in both our countries there are a lot of people who would fight that option!

konakat · October 2009

This rots my socks -- just saw it on Yahoo:

On Wednesday morning, "The Today Show" covered the story of 2-year-old Aislin Bates. Though she weighs just 22 pounds (in the third percentile range for kids her age), her doctor has described her as being perfectly healthy, never having been sick with anything more than a cold. Still, United HealthCare didn't buy it, saying that the child didn't meet height and weight standards. So, no insurance for Aislin.

The story has inspired a slew of searches. After the segment aired on NBC, queries on young Aislin surged from zilch into triple digits. United HealthCare is wisely responding to what could be a PR crisis. In an article from Denver's ABC affiliate, a company spokesperson for United HealthCare said the company's height and weight requirements "are based on several medical sources, including the Centers for Disease Control, and are well within industry standards."

She's an innocent little girl!!!!!!! It sounds like they're talking about a tool or machine or something. I am so sad, how can this happen?!?

pip57 · October 2009

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098

Here is a link to a story about a 4 month old boy that was denied because he was overweight. The insurance company used the same words. They were "well within industry standards" to deny coverage.

Colette37 · October 2009

pretty...My point about the government ran VA is that a person will be stuck with one opinion with the government ran health care. You can't choose who you see (at least with the VA) and you will be stuck with what they think needs to happen and if they take in patients opinion and all the factors (which not all Dr. do.) The government will let very little ability to sue if a person gets hurt because of the Dr. actions, so people will be stuck.

I beg to differ with you also on the fact that a 10 cm tumor of DCIS would not be seen in a mammogram either...in fact, I have 4 different Dr. who state that it would have been seen 2 years ago since it takes on average between 4 to 6 years to get that size and the DCIS is slow growing. My mammogram and MRI that I had in March showed a 9+ cm tumor and in August it was confirmed to be 10 cm. Tumors that size don't grow over night and would have been caught. One huge tumor is much different than many small ones.

Also, the fact that in the USA (No, I didn't know this until my current nightmare of BC) Medicaid pays for a baseline at 35. The reason why it is important is because the VA follows Medicaids recommendations..and this Dr. didn't even do so...yet she will keep her job and put others at risk with her actions and inability to know her job. Health care in the USA will be wose than it already is. The fact is that if the VA Dr. was doing her job, she would have done something other than nothing. I am using my example because it is reality about how the USA government does things.

The government controlling health care is a disaster in the making and someone is getting rich from it. I would like to know who. The AMA and other assosiations withdrew their support from the "reform" when a bill in the senate started getting too much attention and was pulled from the senate floor...it was billions of $$$ that the Dr. were going to get if they supported the reform. This happened today...I just caught it in passing about what my husand said about it.

I do agree with you that there are a lot of people who would fight the options that we were talking about. I understand that there are reasons that people may be bigger than they should be, all others should have to pay.

Anonymous · October 2009

You are assuming that because the VA is run by the gov't that other gov't run medical systems will have the same opinion of mammos before 40. Not so. I live in Canada and have had regular mammos since I was 35.

And you're assuming that any government run health care program in the US will be just like what Canada has, and that just isn't true. Assuming that it might be similar to what other health care plans currently run by the US government is probably closer to reality.

We get it, many people believe that all insurance companies are bad, naughty, mean and deserve to be put out of business, but doing that to 1/6 th of the economy during a recession is just not a smart move. Better to come up with a way to regulate them so their decisions aren't so profit driven and beneficial to their bottom line rather than the patients that they were originally created to serve.

konakat · October 2009

I agree Pat -- regulating the health insurance industry would solve a lot of problems. Not all, but it would help so many people.

RunswithScissors · October 2009

Colette37 -

I was curious, so I just did a quick google search of the words

"Insurance company denies mammogram" .

There was no shortage of hits about women who were denied payment because they were considered too young, even though they were high risk.

Colette37 · October 2009

"Athena..forcing people to have health care is not the answer.

There is the right wing lie sold to millions of Americans to get people scared of the public option. Too tied to say more."

This has nothing to do with right wing or left wing. That just clouds comments to force people to label others and to stop listening to what is being said or countering others points that a person makes...which is why I try not to do so. I try to look at the facts and not labels. No, I am not trying to attack you either when I write this, because the media does this all the time and so does everyone else it seems.

It is a valid point. I know health care was the last thing I worried about just after I left home...nor one which I cared to pay into because food and a roof over my head was much more important to me. Why should a person be forced to have medical insurance? Where is the freedom of choice?

There are so many other things going on in the USA that health care shouldn't be their prime focus...I get the impression that it is nothing more than a diversion from something else.

Another point to be made about the health care is that if there were more people in the USA covered, then there would be a higher demand for those services. With the higher demand the reality is that health care would then go up in the USA faster than it already is.

Real reform would be preventing illegal aliens from getting medical care in the USA and making insurances have to not drop a person based on pre-existing conditions.

RunswithScissors · October 2009

That question of freedom ot choose is pretty complex.

My ideology is that profit from healthcare is immoral, so I would very much like to have the choice to withhold my dollars from companies that are for-profit. But some of the reforms suggested don't sound they'll give me that option unless I didn't carry any coverage at all.

On the other hand - no one is immune to accidents or unexpected illness. We know that in the event of a calamity there will always be an attempt to rescue and save victims. We all bear the burden of paying for that in one way or another. Compulsory participation is the only reasonably fair way I can think of to spread out the cost. Everyone is a potential victim - so everyone pays for a safety net.

HopingforaCure · October 2009

Posted the follwing last night on the other heathcare thread. Since this thread is getting action again, thought I'd post it here, too so more people can see it, sign the petition and hopefully spread the word........

Hope no one minds me posting this link again. I received the following e-mail today and thought I'd share it:

                      "In one week, I'm going to Washington. I'm meeting
   with our leaders in Congress to ensure the voices of
   cancer survivors are heard on healthcare reform.
   When you signed our petition earlier this month, you
   joined an amazing 50,000 other people to call for
   life-saving healthcare reforms to protect cancer
   survivors.
   We need your help one more time before I head to
   Washington. We won't get to our goal of 75,000 names
   before Congress votes without a major effort right
   now. Will you forward the email below to your
   friends and family and ask them to join us?
   Heated debate on healthcare reform has raged for
   months and dominated the news all summer long. Draft
   bills have now passed through the committee process
   in both the House and the Senate. As the bills are
   revised and move to the floor of both chambers, we
   need your help to remind our national leaders that
   the needs of 12 million cancer survivors must not be
   forgotten. It's a critical moment in the history of
   our fight against cancer.
   I'll deliver the signatures from our petition to
   Congress in seven short days. Help us reach 75,000
   names before I go to Washington by sending the email
   below to your friends-it only takes a moment and
   every single name makes a difference.
   LIVESTRONG,

   Doug Ulman
   President and CEO, LIVESTRONG

                       Dear _______,
   Did you know that when Lance Armstrong received his
   cancer diagnosis 13 years ago, he didn't have health
   insurance? No one should have to battle cancer while
   worrying about health insurance coverage.
   That's why I signed the LIVESTRONG Action petition.
   seven days from now, LIVESTRONG will present the
   petition to our leaders in Congress. We have 50,000
   signatures. Our goal is 75,000. Will you join me in
   calling for life-saving healthcare reforms to
   protect cancer survivors?
   http://www.livestrongaction.org/campaigns/healthcare
   Our goal is simple: to make the voices of cancer
   survivors heard in Washington, and push for a health
   reform bill that includes the following two
   principles:

                       No American should be denied health insurance
   coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
   No American should lose their insurance due to
   changes in health or employment.
   Heated debate on healthcare reform has raged for
   months and dominated the news all summer long. Draft
   bills have now passed through the committee process
   in both the House and the Senate. As the bills are
   revised and move to the floor of both chambers, it's
   so important we remind our national leaders that the
   needs of 12 million cancer survivors must not be
   forgotten. It's a critical moment in the history of
   our fight against cancer.

                       Will you join me and sign the LIVESTRONG Action
   petition? The petition will be delivered to Capitol
   Hill in just seven short days. It only takes a few
   moments, and it's a critical message to send to our
   representatives in Washington:
   http://www.livestrongaction.org/campaigns/healthcare

Anonymous · October 2009

I waaaayyy to tired to argue.

I have a friend who used to have no choice BUT to use the VA facilities. When she turned 65 she started only using her Medicare. You see, here we do not have a VA hospital. The nearest one is two hours away. However, since I was involved with them for my dad and brother, they do have a clinic here. I suppose you could get your meds there and regular checkups.

My friend got pretty sick of the VA. For some people it works.

Also, our constitution does not REQUIRE our government to give us health care. In Canada and the UK it may be different. Also, Judge Napolitano, a contributer to that horrible Fox News that the president hates, says that illegals must be covered under our constitution. So, I suppose you can say Joe Wilson wasn't lying. President Obama, a constitutional lawyer, should have know this and probably does.

Here's his explanation on why, under HR3200, illegals must be covered. In Canada you say they are not covered..perhaps for emergencies. You say individuals with a pre-existing condition cannot be a citizen of Canada an use their health care system. I can understand that.

Joe Wilson Right! Health Care Bill MUST/DOES/WILL cover Illegal Alliens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scQhYymPO8

RunswithScissors · October 2009

In the interview you posted, at about 1 minute 20 seconds, Napolitano said

if the US "makes healthcare available to any American that wants it, without having to pay for it..." the law would be found to be unconstitutional.

First, that is not what the healthcare bill is offering to citizens. Second, I wonder why we need to pay a supreme court if this guy can predict the outcome of any potential cases....

Does it bother you at all, Shirley, that Fox is the only major news outlet ever to to argue in court that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves? Why would an organization need to do that?

Colette37 · October 2009

Athena...Been there too! It is rotten when that happens...or when you have the word on the tip of your tounge, but you don't remember what the word was!

I hope you are feeling better. This is not easy to get through no matter who you are.

07rescue · October 2009

From the standpoint of public health and national security the idea of not providing health care to anyone living within our borders is utterly reckless and a major danger to every American. To have a huge number of unmonitored, untreated people walking our streets, making our food, riding our public transportation, and cleaning our homes is insane. Just the risk of contagion from infectious disease alone is unacceptably high, and outbreaks of infectious disease would cost far more than the cost of treating undocumented workers. When you calculate in the danger of bioterrorism as a constant danger from people who would love to destabilize our country you are adding in the very real threat of undermining our national security, because engineered viruses could rip through untended populations and cause their unchecked spread, because undocumented people would be to terrified to go for care, and would then be walking disease vectors.

As a health care provider if I have a patient to care for I don't care what race, ethnicity, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, weight, etc., that person is, to me they are a living, feeling human being and each and every one is precious. If someone is in pain, bleeding, screaming from terror and excruciating pain and loss, they are just as human and equal in my eyes no matter whether they are an American citizen or not. They deserve my best care, and that is what they get.

Those are the reasons it will never be passed that undocumented people are to be denied health care services - it is in no one's best interest to do so. We would be harming ourselves to do so.

If Americans travel abroad they are not denied care in other countries, but you want us to deny care to non-Americans? What is fair about that?

You can hate undocumented people as much as you want, and resent having to pay for their care, but if you want a civilized country that is safe from plagues and rampant viruses you must agree that everyone needs to be monitored and treated. If you threaten them with legal action and deportation they will hide, not present for treatment, and remain a danger to everyone.

Colette37 · October 2009

07rescue...They should not be here in the first place, and they are only here for the money which they then send back to their country of origin. Did you know that up to 2007 Mexico's (yes, I am aware that not all illegal aliens are from Mexico, but it is still a valid example) 2nd largest revenue was money sent back to the Mexican citizens via family who worked in the USA illegally? That is how large the problem is...they don't spend the majority of their money here in the USA and then proceed to skip out on any hospital bills that they incur in the USA. Google the words: "Trash, illegal aliens" This is another horrible result of illegal aliens coming into the USA..tons of trash being left along with drug paraphernalia among trashing of our state and national parks as well as fences being destroyed and private land being destroyed.

USA citizens should be first in line for health care, not illegal aliens. Also, I said that after the illegal aliens get stabilized, they should then be shipped back to their country of origin. I agree with Arizona's law which does not give an automatic USA birth certificate to the illegal aliens...it states the child is a citizen of the country which the babies parents belong to, not the USA. The 13 admendment has been scewed into something that it never was suppose to be. It was meant for slaves...not citizens of other countries willingly breaking our laws to take advantage of what the USA has.

We wouldn't have a problem with rampant diseases if the illegal aliens would come into the USA the legal way. Which is exactly why it is important that our immigration policies and laws are followed and deport illegal aliens when they are not suppose to be here.

No where in my comments was there any hate talk. I gave valid examples about not enforcing our immigration laws. The costs of letting illegal aliens without any fear from being deported and letting them roam our streets go much further than just the health care problem and includes ID theft among many other crimes that they commit just to be here.

pip57 · October 2009

You can argue the point of whether or not certain people should be in your country or not, but they are there. If you are waiting to clear up that issue before you make health care decisions, you are going to let a lot of helpless citizens die in the meantime.

Colette37 · October 2009

laynel57..

It is called: "Birthright citizenship Alignment" law. It states that hospitals would require the citizenship status of the parents. It challenges the 14th amendment (I accidentally put in the 13th amendment) wish more states would do the same thing.

I can write more on it when I post again...I just don't have the time right now.

07rescue · October 2009

Trying to side step consumer protections established by many states by allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines is inviting a bureaucratic nightmare of attempting to police all these insurance entities on an indefinite basis. It is already impossible to stop the abuses of consumers by the insurance companies, and people die before any justice is done. Waiting months, or even years for the resolution of lawsuits against companies who fraudulently deny care to patients results in death and disability, and that is without the added nightmare of allowing these entities license to roam the entire country with their substandard policies. Their terms are opaque and they regularly imply coverage for services and then deny it when claims are made. How does that feel when your insurance company refuses to approve cancer treatment recommended by your doctor? Then you have to take the insurer to court, on your own dime, to fight for coverage you already paid for? While you are sick and anxious to stop your cancer? If you want a whole lot more of that experience, try opening the market up so insurance companies can escape state level regulation and standards. There aren't enough law enforcement officials in the country to stop all that fraud.

On the previous threads that the moderators erased I related how my brother, a top level executive at a national insurance company, explained to me that the only criteria the insurance companies used when deciding whether to pay your claims was their estimate of the financial resources of the claimant. Their underwriting process always included an investigation of how much money you had, not just your medical history. If you fell above their estimate of how much money it would take for you to have a lawyer to fight them in court, they paid your claim without hassle, because it would cost them too much in legal fees to refuse to pay. If you fell under that monetary criteria, they deny your claims, no matter what their policy says it covers, so you are forced to fight them to get the coverage that you paid for. My brother explained that ALL the companies operated that way, so if his company tried to do otherwise they would go out of business. He said the end result was that the people who least needed the help always got it, and the people who most needed the help never got it.

He got tired of working in the claims department of his company and switched to heading up their division that sold subprime mortgages to the Hispanic community, and bundled the risk to sell to unwary investors.

He assured me that if the government completely took over health insurance in this country, that the insurance industry (really the financial services industry, i.e., Wall Street, which has bought out insurance companies all over the nation, and runs then as subsidiaries) always has plans B,C,D,E, etc., to offer dicey financial services to the American public instead. They will be just fine, not to worry. They aren't worrying about you and your life, trust me. They are nimble and quick and will continue to be the Masters of the Universe, laughing all the way to the bank. Just know who it really is who you are placing your trust in to conduct your health insurance.

07rescue · October 2009

Colette, infectious diseases are not exclusive to the undocumented immigrant population. The danger is in having any unmonitored population within our borders. These assumptions that undocumented workers are the source of infectious disease is completely erroneous. A major source of international transfer of diseases is through the well to do who travel all over the globe and bring foreign diseases in through airports. They introduce foreign infectious diseases that native populations have no genetic or acquired resistance to.

There are also foreign nationals who are plotting to deliberately bring bioterror infections into western countries.

The only way to protect our population is to have a finely tuned public health system, especially primary care, that can identify and if necessary, quarantine the infected rapidly and efficiently in those events. Otherwise disease can spread beyond all means to contain it. Having large groups of people here who cannot go for medical care when they are ill is like allowing trojan horses all over our country, who could harbor virulent disease that would be uncontrollable if those folks do not go for medical care out of fear of legal action and deportation.

I have a different take from you on the issues of patient care. I take care of many American citizens who are drug addicts, dealers, drunks, crime perps, child abusers, rapists, etc. In that context, taking care of someone so desperate to provide money for their family that they will make the sacrifice of lonely and risky travel to another country to wash dishes for minimum wage isn't a big stretch for me. I don't begrudge them the jobs that many Americans, who have a much inflated sense of entitlement, and will not "lower themselves" to do. We see things differently.

Colette37 · October 2009

07rescue...You are correct, it is not exclusively the illegal aliens who are sick...but I can say that illegal aliens are a large portion of those diseases which endanger USA citizens and they shouldn't be here in the first place. Hep. leprosy, and TB are being brought into the USA via illegal aliens who should not be here in the first place. That is what makes me angry..they shouldn't be here and they are bringing illness and disease with them, among breaking numerous laws putting US citizens on the back burner with little recourse when illegal aliens tread on American's rights.

There wouldn't even be this discussion if the illegal aliens weren't breaking laws...there would be no question if they were healthy if they came into the US the legal way like they are suppose to.

As far as the jobs go there are American's who want to do those jobs. How do you think that people 30 years ago got their start? By washing dishes. I am not ashamed to say that this was what my first job was. And illegal aliens are not just taking dishwashing jobs..they are also taking blue collar jobs while Americans are passed for getting the job...in fact there are companies which do certain actions which will prevent them from having to hire an American for the job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcvJrsiV-3M 

konakat · October 2009

Perhaps Colette, it is the people that employ undocumented persons that should be punished. They open the door and pay them. If there weren't so many Americans hiring illegal aliens there wouldn't be the problem there is. Unscrupulous employers avoid taxes by paying illegal workers. They should pay fair wages for US residents/citizens, not perpetuate the cycle.

Anonymous · October 2009

Rescue, I do not hate undocumented workers. You are putting words in my mouth. I would appreciate that you would not do that. My sister-in-law is not undocumented, but she is Mexican and I love her to death. My brother and she have three lovely adult children who are quite successful.

Undocumented workers cannot be denied care in the ER. Do other countries treat chronically ill undocumented workers. As I understand it, if you want to become a citizen in Canada and have a pre-existing disease they will not take you. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Today I was talking to a friend of mine who's son is absolutely worthless as far as working for a living and, according to her, he likes to do drugs. He has no job, no insurance. His dad has him work for him when he needs him. Anyway, he has a medical problem and had to have a CT scan. And then back to the doctor and I can't remember what specialist he sees...urologist perhaps. Anyway, he was telling his mom that she didn't have to pay the doctor. That the CT scan should be free. And, he is too good to work for $8 an hour. Will he work for nothing...no...not even $8 and hour. So, why does he think the medical care should be free? And, it won't be free. Also, he looked into moving to Canada. Of course as we know they are not accepting new people from here.

Please don't make me out to sound like the BAD guy. I just want to know how we're going to pay for this? This country is in a helluva shape. I want every body to have health care. But, also remember that some of these "undocumented" workers are criminals. Also, they break the law by coming here illegally. Breaking the law is okay, right? How many of our own people need help. I'm at the point of saying stop spending money in other places and take care of our own. Seems like this administration gave or loaned Brazil $2 billion dollars to drill for oil. WTH!

mke · October 2009

To answer a couple questions.

Yes a critically ill person will be treated at a Canadian hospital ER.

No, a person with a condition that will "put on undue burden on the health care system" will not be admitted to Canada as a permanent resident.

As it apparently so easy to falsify SSNs it is a bit hard for employers to verify legality, but I am puzzled about the lack of backlash against employers. I might be wrong on the details but didn't one employer in Iowa have something like 200 illegal immigrants as employees. That many Mexicans didn't magically appear in Iowa, they had to know that there was an employer that would turn a blind eye. To stop illegal immigration, slap huge fines on the employers. It continues because it profits companies that contribute to politicians.

Tirlie · October 2009

Good point, Otter!

In our country we can prescribe drugs for only 12 months. If we had a French lady in this discussion, she could tell that in France people see their doctor very frequantly in case of diabetes, hypertonia, high blood cholesterol eg.

We are hoping to get our prescriptions to last 18-24 months. We do not get extra payed for asking our patients to call more frequantly. If a chronic disease is in a good condition, why to make a useless encounter for nothing?

Tirlie, MD, Finland

Getting Healthcare Reform That Will Work for US

Comments

Categories