I need to address a couple of your points and then will talk more about mine.
Projects in a city make up a portion of the larger city population. It can be considered that the larger population is who is being protected by police presence in the projects, even though the police is spending more of their effort in the projects. The bottom line: Joe MiddleClass lives in a low crime neighborhood, free to live out his life. I'm referring to poor cities versus rich cities. East Palo Alto (former murder capital of the US) hardly has the tax base for running a police force sufficient to keep crime low in their poor city. Neighboring cities actually contribute their police forces to keep crime low in EPA since they can't handle it on their own. This is to preserve the low crime environments for neighboring "rich" communities like Menlo Park, Palo Alto and the Stanford campus.
You're not disagreeing with me. You are making my point.
From a public policy perspective, I believe healthcare is held to similar standards. To assure minimum conditions for the low income community (i.e. keeping sufficient low income population happy so they'll actually work the jobs in your community that you don't want to do, and keep crime low) healthcare has to be made "available" and "accessible".
I don't understand what you mean by this. In the U.S., this access is already clearly "available" and "accessible". A routine check-up at a doctor's office is not expensive. But, the problem is, people don't want to go to the doctor until they perceive there is a problem. And, when they do have a problem, they go to the ER. And, when they go to the ER, they are charged a premium. There is no continuity of care. There is no good follow-up. And, the costs become astronomical.
How you fix that by continuing to hand out free healthcare in ER's is beyond me, which is what it sounds like you're proposing we continue to do.
So while you are correct that there are examples of bad apples that disrupt the system, present policies are based on the concept that this cost is worth dealing with since many more are supposedly helped. (and it's the police's role to get the addicts anyway).
You're wrong. Sick people don't endanger society except for the fact that they can't pay for their care - which is the problem. They certainly don't pose a threat to society, like a 20-year-old gang-banger who is getting ready to rob a liquor store because there are no cops around.
People have tried to get folks in for "preventive medicine." This is not a new concept. Most people do not seek care until they perceive they have a problem. This goes doubly-true for poor people. Often they just show up or are brought to the hospital, sometimes without even wanting to go. Our current system assumes they want care, and we're going to provide it to them, even if they can't pay for it.
I believe it's based on the adage that the masses need to be appeased for society to remain "stable". Therefore, the people who are well-off in society have a vested interest in preserving the status-quo stability, should be willing to "pay" for said stability. They benefit via the act of "doing good" as well as preserving this society for their children.
This is more the premise behind welfare. How this translates into healthcare, given the fact that people have repeatedly demonstrated they don't want care until they are really sick, I don't know. I'm all for public clinics where people can get preventive medicine checks at low (or even no) cost. They just don't use such a system. They go to the ER. And, until you repeal EMTALA and pull the teat out of their mouth, they're going to continue to abuse the system.
That being said, there really should be ways to filter out those bad apples. I believe certain countries (with socialized medicine no less) have policies in place to handle abusers.
It's easy. We're not doing it because (1) we fear being sued, and (2) many ivory tower physicians who teach us medicine believe a lot of stupid things like "everyone is entitled to healthcare" and "you shouldn't talk to drug reps" and a bunch of other stupid, idealistic stuff that only proves they are so insulated with their standard salaries, whether they see one patient or twenty in a day, that they don't even know the world really works.
I've asked my attendings. Most have no idea how much the treatments they propose cost. But, they do it under the guise of "academic" interest. That's fine, I suppose. Just don't pick up their bad habits. They have no real solutions to this problem because it doesn't really affect them.
And, I'd believe your "placating the masses" argument if I felt that sick people were really a threat to society. They're not, except when they can't pay for the million dollar care we give them, or still attempt to sue either way.
-copro
Last edited:
...chicks, money, power, and chicks... i think you're talking about Bruce Wayne...heck you can even save people at night as Batman..