X-Message-Number: 27029 References: <> From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: the plight of the poor Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:28:44 +0200 On 12 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Charles Platt wrote: >> Since forty million American are deprived of regular medical care due >> to having no health insurance, this argument doesn't have much chance >> of going anywhere. >> >> > > Thanks for this reminder, David Stodolsky, but it omits to > mention that any publicly funded hospital is compelled to > receive and treat any indigent person who shows up at its > emergency room, free of charge; and many such people thus use > emergency rooms as if they are doctor's offices. > I'd like to know how many poor women show up at the emergency room for a regular pap test. Somehow I doubt they get the service that insured women get at their doctor's office. Once cancer has spread through their reproductive system, they can probably can get some sort of care. This assumes, of course, they even have the money to get to the emergency room of a publicly-funded hospital. For some contact with reality, as opposed to legislative idealism: http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/02/12/reviews/481.php > In between the emergency department and the medical wards, terms > like gomer (get out of my emergency room) started to surface, and > I was drawn back to the book again. > Might also be worth checking Democracy Now! of Monday: A New Orleans resident explains that after no help for over a week, the community organized its own health clinic with volunteers from all over the USA. He also mentions that a dead body has been laying on the street there for a couple of weeks, with no removal date in sight, even though requests to the authorities have been made daily. > I speak from > experience. Indeed, having sampled emergency rooms in the > USA and in Great Britain, I can assure you that the free > service I received in the USA (back in the days when I had a > very low income) was far superior to that which I received in > Great Britain. > Once again we see demonstrated that anecdotal evidence is useless as data. A comparison of medical care between Canada, where there is a universal system, and US shows that the US system is twice as expensive and people live three years less. The UK system was pretty much like the one in Canada. I also remember seeing a documentary that compared emergency room treatment for a minor injury, I think it was a sprained ankle, in the US, Canada, and Cuba. Cuba came in first and the US last. > It is grossly misleading to characterize the US system as > locking out poor people. In Arizona I lived for four years in > an area where virtually no one had health insurance, yet my > neighbors received excellent care when they needed it. It would be cost effective, if adequate care was available to all. Maybe it would finally stop the spread of multi-drug resistant gonnorhea on the East Coast of the US. Genomic studies have shown that the same strain has been circulating in that population for so long that it is resistant to just about every drug available. This inadequate treatment is leading to a health emergency for the whole society. On a global scale, we see the same effect with the AIDS pandemic. > Of > course it was at the expense of other, paying patients, whose > fees were much higher as a result, but since this amounts to > a form of involuntary income redistribution, perhaps you > would think this is a fine idea. > People covered by health plans typically get much (sometime by a factor of ten) cheaper rates in hospitals than others. The hospitals typically must bid low to get contracts from insurance companies and HMOs, so they compensate by raising the rates for others. Hospital's use collection agents that feel fine about taking away peoples' homes to get money. Does homelessness contribute to good health? Anyone who has looked at recent income statistics knows that the US is going thru a period of massive income redistribution to the rich. There is an old saying that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The most important factor contributing to preventable premature death is poverty. This is true in the US and worldwide. For someone who claims that they are interested in "saving lives," to not recognize this borders on fanaticism. We are now in the unfortunate situation of trying to explain that it is reasonable to spend as much on a single patient at CI as on saving the lives of a hundred children: http://rehydrate.org/ors/solution_for_survival.htm Long ago, when I started Cryonics.Info, I had some correspondence with Charles Platt, until I told him the Site had just been started. After that, he couldn't be bothered to even answer my emails. The time has finally come to return the favor. The combination of irrelevancy, short sightedness, and mendacity makes his messages a waste of time to read. I will no longer respond to Charles Platt's messages, his email is now automatically redirected to my Trash folder. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27029