Kindness Deficit

[RC]

Because it is impractical for people to really shop insurance, if they have to purchase their own, they usually just go for the lowest premium. That DOES mean either less coverage or higher deductible or both.

Even if you DO understand your policy, you are still going to be surprised when you have an emergency and have to fork over. AND, there is a chance that the insurance company will STILL argue the claim.

Arguments I've heard: "you went to the wrong hospital, we don't cover care in that hospital", "but I was barely conscious!" "Sorry"

"Yes, that procedure is covered, but your doctor didn't pre-arrange" "but I called and asked and you said yes", "but your DOCTOR did not call, sorry"

Selma and I discussed the legal terms of ordinary/normal/reasonable once. Do you think any of those descriptions fit any of those circumstances?

Besides not being able to understand or defend your policy, it is very difficult to shop life & health insurance.

That's where insurance agents are supposed to come in handy. But they don't. They really don't have time for the needs of individuals. What is your health insurance agents name (not the company or the agency) - quick... well, he/she feels the same way about you X 1000. (Unless you use your wifes brother kinda thing).

Lots of folks use the same agent they do for ALL of their insurance. That's OK but that's just one more reason they don't really want to shop your health insurance. (Makes a lot less money and it is not their specialty).

Agents have specific markets that they use on a regular basis. They get volume discounts and other incentives too. This makes free market philosophy rediculous.

As an insurance consumer you don't shop for a doctor or health insurance, but for insurance agents. ALL insurance agents are agents in the non functioning corrupt system. They are not going to sacrifice their livliehood to find you the best product on the market.

Besides, I still say all that, as disturbing as it is, is immaterial to the real problem.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by barfle:

I can't comment on others, but I try to take care of myself so I don't have major expenses fixing me up, I try to take care of my cars so I don't have major expenses fixing them up, and so on. Shortsightedness isn't an adequate reason to expect me to cover for them.

Yeah, I guess it was my short-sightedness when I let that doctor operate on me and leave me with a recurrent urethral stricture when I was 10 years old.
I will probably NEVER be able to qualify for medical coverage on my own for the rest of my life because of that.
So I guess I should just be SOL.....

[OperaTenor]

I've completed California's Life and Health Insurance License certification course(had my license for a couple of years), and my health insurance company still managed to stiff me on coverage I(and my doctor) thought I should have. It's not like I don't know how health insurance works. If you go back and read either "Looking for OT" or "OperaTenor" on the bbb, that nasty situation is spelled out in great detail.

In 1993 I woke up one morning with a backache. I at first thought it was possibly from overdoing it the evening before mountain biking to try to keep healthy. By the following evening, I could no longer move my legs, and was CONSTANTLY screaming at the top of my lungs in pain(my bird still imitates those screams to this day). I was taken by ambulance to the local emergency room, given a CAT scan, which found nothing, given some muscle relaxers(Flexoril), allowed to stay throught the weekend, then sent home. They determined at the time it was muscle strain and I was a wimp. Over the course of the following week the pain kept getting worse in spite of the drugs, and I still was unable to walk or move my legs. Just so you know, it's really humiliating to be so unable to move that you end up peeing yourself in bed. Repeatedly. My chiropractor had been calling and checking on me daily, and had decided this had gone too far after a week of deterioration. He told me to get to him however I could, took one look at me moaning out in my car, and called his golf buddy, the chief or orthopaedics at one of the best hospitals in the area. I was admitteed through emergency(the nurses said my moans sounded like a woman in labor - I was having regular back spasms at the time). They performed an MRI, which found an abcess in my spinal canal at the L5 vertebra. A biopsy determined that I had contracted osteomilitis - a bone infection normally associated with a post operative infection. Mine was a staph infection that seemingly came from nowhere(to this day, that ortho remembers me as his "enigma", rather than by my name - he even did a medical paper on my case), and had infected the bone. The abcess in my spinal canal was putting pressure on the nerve bundle, pinching it hard enough to cut off control to my lower body, of course while causing excruciating pain. A laminectomy was performed to drain the abcess. 10cc of pus was drained. The doctor told me it was a matter of days from rupturing, which would have killed me in less than a half an hour. After the surgery, I was on two different intravenous antibiotics for four months(after being discharged from the hospital, a Groshong catheter was inserted in my chest and I carried a portable pump to infuse the meds). For my three week stay in the hospital, I was given 10cc of Demerol by injection, Valium, Soma, Ribaxin(sp?), Flexoril and Vicadin orally, every four hours for pain(I'm allergic to morphine). It managed to take the edge off, but that's all. I was in a Kytex body jacket for a month after I left the hospital, then in a back brace for another six months. I eventually healed completely from this. These days you have to look real hard to find the scar from the incision.

I was out of full time work for six months. I had health insurance, but it didn't cover everything. The expenses and the time away from work contributed heavily to my entering chapter 13 reorganization in 1994.

PS. One of the first antibiotics given to me was Gentomicyn(sp?), which left me with irreversible, constant tinnitis. S'pose I ought to sue the infectious disease specialist for malpractice, even though he saved my life?

Do you think I'm the only person that's ever been through this kind of stuff? Do you think I had it coming?!! Do I, or anyone else deserve it?!!

The stricture.
The back infection.
The wreck.

To look at me, you'd think I'm as healthy as anyone around, and I try to behave that way, and I'm largely successful at it. I am not the kind of person who wallows in my suffering, or milks my problems as a social crutch.

You guys don't get it. You're sitting in ivory towers and don't have any idea what it's like on the other side, and don't seem to want to know as long it doesn't affect you. Compassion doesn't have a price tag.

What's your sense of well being worth? Why is anyone else's worth any less?

There are lots of people in this society who try to do the right thing and get blind-sided by all sorts of misfortune. Is it moral or kind to simply tell them it's their tough luck, they'll just have to suffer?

What's the title of this thread?

<small>[ 11-21-2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[RC]

OT,
I could see that last post coming but it still floored me.

I hate to say it but that is the whole problem with charity. If you are not personally effected, you are not likely to feel charitable.

Remember my rather obnoxious soap box tirade about responsibility? That is essentially what prompted it.

Wow, the doorbell just rang and I had a long visit with my tenant in the middle of this post.
She owns her own business and pays for her own insurance. After the hurricanes, people stopped paying their accounts. She couldn't pay her insurance premiums. She's pregnant.

I just filled out some paperwork for welfare assistance to pay her rent. I asked her if she had applied for medicaide yet and she had. She spent 3 days of last week applying for assistance instead of running her small business so she could put food on the table.

I felt so stupid. I'd just spent the previous day with my daughters downtown at the homeless shelter donating food and less than a block away, someone needed me.

I guess I just got a lesson in charity huh!

[OperaTenor]

I'll even go so far as to draw a distinction between charity and compassion.

I believe people can be charitable and still lack compassion, and compassion is what it really takes to understand that other people suffer misfortunes for which society should provide a safety net. A net to span the gulf between charity and prosperity.

There. Is. No. Other. Way.

PS. RC, I don't think you're capable of obnoxious tirades. Peaches can't do that.

Jim "I even took a Scrappleface article serious. Once." B.

<small>[ 11-21-2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[RC]

accurate distinction and good thought.

[shostakovich]

From Haggis: "When the government legislates charity it’s called welfare and finally in the 90’s the more centrist Democrats (think Clinton) had to admit it didn’t work even though the more left leaning Dems (Shos?) still think beating the dead horse will work if we change the formula of beatings."
-------------------------------------------------------
I lean right more than left, and I disavow both parties. I remember Bill and Hillary trying to get some health insurance program into the books. I don't recall any details (I was still employed and finishng my child rearing stint, so I couldn't pay that much attention), but I generally thought it was a good idea. I think Congress laughed it out of existence. Too bad we didn't have the same Congress when the new (atrocious) Medicare bill passed.
--------------------------------------------------------

And Haggis again: " RE: Henry Ford comments. Lets not forget that Ford, Rockefeller, Morgan and most of the other industrial robber barons were Democrats."
-------------------------------------------------------
This comment and your comparison of FDR with Bush on another thread make me wonder if the Republicans and Democrats have just switched names. No wonder there's such confusion.
Shos

[shostakovich]

From Barfle: What's bad about welfare is that it is detrimental to both the providers and the recipients. In both cases, it reduces the incentive to exert effort and achieve. To the providers it says, "I don't care if you earned it, you don't have the right to it." To the recipients it says, "I don't care if you didn't earn it, you have the right to it."
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, for some welfare does reduce incentive. But there are many people on some kind of assistance who deplore that situation. They would dearly like to become productive again, but need to survive till they can. Deadbeats can be satisfied with welfare. For others it's humiliating. There, but for the grace of God (or luck) go you, me, and lots of others.
-----------------------------------------------------------


And Barfle again: "Feed the hungry, shelter the cold, heal the sick. These actions, in themselves, are laudable. But taking my earnings against my will is pure and simple theft."
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's a viewpoint.
Shos

[shostakovich]

From OT: "Can we let go of our collective money bag and stop thinking in economic terms for one bloody second? Why does it always have to be about money when it comes to compassion?"
---------------------------------------------------------
We've become a country where the "bottom line" dictates so much. Most people in the arts are there because they believe in such a career. No kid in school will fall in love with an instrument because it will earn him/her a living. Teachers, by and large, forego big bucks in favor of dedication. (There are those who "can't do" so they "teach". And there are some who can't even do that. I've known some.) My point here, though is that there are other reasons for doing something besides money, like "it would benefit someone else", or "it's the right thing to do" (whistle blowers risk careers for this).

I remember the movie Wall Street, where the Michael Douglas character states the credo "Greed is good". Apparently it caught on big time.
Shos

[shostakovich]

From Barfle: "But from where I sit, I see health care as being outrageously expensive, and it's not just paying the doctors for their time and the clinics for their tools. Much of the expense of health care is due to non-medical issues like administrative costs, malpractice insurance, and lawyers. I work with lawyers on a regular basis, and they run the gamut as much as anyone else does as far as whether they are good guys or bad guys, so I'm not blaming the legal profession for the situation the health care industry has found itself in."

----------------------------------------------------------
Hey, I agree completely here. Medical costs and insurance costs have skyrocketed together, each group (rightly) blaming the other. My mother kept a hospital bill from 1948. I was in for 2 weeks (It's where I first learned about the Red Sox because the hospital was so boring.). The bill came to about $125 including room, board, and medication. It would be at least 100 times that now.

There was an Office of Price Control then.
Shos

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by shostakovich:
I remember Bill and Hillary trying to get some health insurance program into the books. I don't recall any details (I was still employed and finishng my child rearing stint, so I couldn't pay that much attention), but I generally thought it was a good idea. I think Congress laughed it out of existence.

I was actually paying attention to this when it was going on. Hillary headed a commission whose goal was to find a solution to the problems with our health care system, and their goal was to accomplish it within the first 100 days of Bill's administration(it was a campaign promise). As I monitored the group's progress, it seemed they were gradually leaning toward universal health care, then all of a sudden their progress bogged down, they went beyond the 100 days, then came to the conclusion the current system was sufficing quite well.

[OperaTenor]

Here's a reality check if ever there was one.

We get out to a homeless shelter from time to time and help feed the homeless. One morning I found myself serving food to a former coworker.

[GreatCarouser]

"Today we are afraid of simple words like goodness and mercy and kindness. We don't believe in the good old words because we don't believe in good old values anymore. And that's why the world is sick."
Lin Yutang

[GreatCarouser]

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
Dalai Llama

[GreatCarouser]

"Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever is not kind has no faith."
Prophet Mohammed, Muslim

[GreatCarouser]

"A Native American grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt. He said, "I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, violent one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate one. The grandson asked him, Which wolf will win the fight in your heart? The grandfather answered, The one I feed."
Anonymous, As told in Women Who Run With the Wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estes

[barfle]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Yeah, I guess it was my short-sightedness when I let that doctor operate on me and leave me with a recurrent urethral stricture when I was 10 years old.
I will probably NEVER be able to qualify for medical coverage on my own for the rest of my life because of that.
So I guess I should just be SOL.....

That's a different situation entirely, OT. I'm not able to comment on the reasons for your situation, if they be incompetence on the part of someone with a knife or a unique organic situation (polite way of saying "birth defect"), or contagious disease or some other issue.

What it REALLY illustrates is the problems in the medical insurance industry.

[barfle]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
You guys don't get it. You're sitting in ivory towers and don't have any idea what it's like on the other side, and don't seem to want to know as long it doesn't affect you. Compassion doesn't have a price tag.

I've noted that medical care hasn't been a big issue in my life, although I expect as I age it will become one. That doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to those whose lives have been adversely affected by something that they didn't cause themselves. This isn't just medical problems, it can be a house fire, it can be theft, it can be being born in Somalia at the wrong time, it can be choosing the wrong profession or employer, it can be many, many things.

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
What's your sense of well being worth? Why is anyone else's worth any less?

I'm not sure how getting someone else to pay your bills against their will would enhance anyone's "sense of well being," unless that person is threatened by the idea of owing money to someone who provided for them when they needed help. Would you feel better having stolen the money than you would realizing you have a debt to pay?

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
There are lots of people in this society who try to do the right thing and get blind-sided by all sorts of misfortune. Is it moral or kind to simply tell them it's their tough luck, they'll just have to suffer?

As I noted above, there are many ways misfortune can come into our lives. I doubt if it's possible to prepare for all of them, but I also don't feel it's up to you to pay when I fail to anticipate. You may choose to do so (and I congratulate you on your efforts to feed those who are less fortunate than you), but it should be your choice.

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
What's the title of this thread?

It's "Kindness Deficit." As I noted in my first post on this thread, I don't find it a kindness to take from those who have achieved (simply because they have the means) to give to those who have not.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by barfle:

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Yeah, I guess it was my short-sightedness when I let that doctor operate on me and leave me with a recurrent urethral stricture when I was 10 years old.
I will probably NEVER be able to qualify for medical coverage on my own for the rest of my life because of that.
So I guess I should just be SOL.....

That's a different situation entirely, OT. I'm not able to comment on the reasons for your situation, if they be incompetence on the part of someone with a knife or a unique organic situation (polite way of saying "birth defect"), or contagious disease or some other issue.

It wasn't a mistake on the doctor's part. It wasn't a unique "organic situation". It wasn't a disease. It was simply a judgement call that didn't work out as hoped for. It wasn't malpractice.

Also originally posted by barfle:
What it [b]REALLY illustrates is the problems in the medical insurance industry. [/b]

The only solution to the problems of the insurance industry is to eliminate the industry. It is nothing more than a pure profit center and has no business in the cycle of health care.
Converting to a free market, laisse faire system will effectively make access to health care completely unattainable for the vast majority of Americans, especially those with families, let alone any people with any kind of chronic condidtion. To me, that runs completely contrary to promoting the "general Welfare", as the preamble of the Constitution states. The only viable solution is to nationalize at least the insurance, if not the entire health care system(believe it or not, I want health care professionals of all stripes to be duly compensated for their investment in their careers. But then, I've always thought teachers were way underpaid, too.).

I've had 20 urological surgical procedures performed on me so far in my life. If I have a normal life expectancy, I can anticipate as many as 20 more before I die. I do something at least every other day that's a little over the top to mention here to try to forestall the next operation as much as possible. So far, I've had to rely on the generosity of my doctor for the supplies needed to do this, as insurance won't pay for what I need to do this at home, regardless of the insurance type. I do everything I can to keep my participation in the health care system to a minimum, and health insurance fails to recognize or encourage it.

Part of my point here is I'm not the only person out there who has a chronic condidtion who is doing everything they can to stay healthy and stay out of the system. Why? However the reason is articulated, the bottom line is because it's the right thing to do. The only way to support this is by universalizing care.

It's like Atticus said, "You don't really know a person until you put on their shoes and walk around in them for awhile."

And here is where I suppose our theoretical difference lies: I have absolutely no problem with government dictating the ways and means of the haves helping the have-nots, to some degree, for the benefit of society in general. Otherwise, the bell curve will just continue to flatten.

[barfle]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
It wasn't a mistake on the doctor's part. It wasn't a unique "organic situation". It wasn't a disease. It was simply a judgement call that didn't work out as hoped for. It wasn't malpractice.

There must have been a reason for the surgery. While the details don't concern me, I doubt if it was performed simply as an exercise

originally posted by OT:
Converting to a free market, laisse faire system will effectively make access to health care completely unattainable for the vast majority of Americans, especially those with families, let alone any people with any kind of chronic condidtion.

Absolutely, positively untrue. A genuine open market would allow practitioners to enter the market if profits were to be made.

You're basing your remark on a system that presents enormous barriers to those attempting to enter it. You've noted that you've placed considerable trust in a chiroprator, who are generally not accepted as physicians by the AMA. Almost anyone can administer an injection. I used to give them to my cat. You don't need eight years of schooling and two years of apprenticeship to do 95% of the tasks physicians do, yet lesser-trained competent practitioners could do the job for far less money.

Originally posted by OT:
The only viable solution is to nationalize at least the insurance, if not the entire health care system(believe it or not, I want health care professionals of all stripes to be duly compensated for their investment in their careers. But then, I've always thought teachers were way underpaid, too.).

Only to those who feel it's their right to tell others how to spend their money. I have no problem compensating the brain surgeon for his skills and training. I don't think it should be necessary to compensate someone who sets a fractured arm or removes a mole the same amount.

And it depends on the teacher (When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school...)

Originally posted by OT:
So far, I've had to rely on the generosity of my doctor for the supplies needed to do this, as insurance won't pay for what I need to do this at home, regardless of the insurance type. I do everything I can to keep my participation in the health care system to a minimum, and health insurance fails to recognize or encourage it.

We agree the system is busted. I can't imagine why there would be a reason for you to be forbidden to take what care of yourself you can.

Originally posted by OT:
Part of my point here is I'm not the only person out there who has a chronic condidtion who is doing everything they can to stay healthy and stay out of the system. Why? However the reason is articulated, the bottom line is because it's the right thing to do. The only way to support this is by universalizing care.

As you might expect, I disagree. The only way to support people who want to take care of themselves is by removing the government enforced obstacles to them doing so.

Originally posted by OT:
It's like Atticus said, "You don't really know a person until you put on their shoes and walk around in them for awhile."

And here is where I suppose our theoretical difference lies: I have absolutely no problem with government dictating the ways and means of the haves helping the have-nots, to some degree, for the benefit of society in general. Otherwise, the bell curve will just continue to flatten.

We've all had our issues, and I don't claim to understand yours, nor do I offer any particular advice to you. However, the problem is with the existing regulations. More regulations won't fix that. Open up the market, allow competition, and see not only the benefits to your health care, but to your medical bills as well.