Dying in the Safety Net.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

DR MOM

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
235
Reaction score
241
Texas’ Other Death Penalty
A Galveston medical student describes life and death in the so-called safety net.
by Rachel Pearson Published on Wednesday, November 13, 2013, at 2:01 CST

The first patient who called me “doctor”
died a few winters ago. I met him at the St. Vincent’s Student-Run Free Clinic on Galveston Island. I was a first-year medical student then, and the disease in his body baffled me. His belly was swollen, his eyes were yellow and his blood tests were all awry. It hurt when he swallowed and his urine stank.

I saw him every Thursday afternoon. I would do a physical exam, talk to him, and consult with the doctor. We ran blood counts and wrote a prescription for an antacid—not the best medication, but one you can get for $4 a month. His disease seemed serious, but we couldn’t diagnose him at the free clinic because the tests needed to do so—a CT scan, a biopsy of the liver, a test to look for cancer cells in the fluid in his belly—are beyond our financial reach.

He started calling me “Dr. Rachel.” When his pain got so bad that he couldn’t eat, we decided to send him to the emergency room. It was not an easy decision.

There’s a popular myth that the uninsured—in Texas, that’s 25 percent of us—can always get medical care through emergency rooms. Ted Cruz has argued that it is “much cheaper to provide emergency care than it is to expand Medicaid,” and Rick Perry has claimed that Texans prefer the ER system. The myth is based on a 1986 federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which states that hospitals with emergency rooms have to accept and stabilize patients who are in labor or who have an acute medical condition that threatens life or limb. That word “stabilize” is key: Hospital ERs don’t have to treat you. They just have to patch you up to the point where you’re not actively dying. Also, hospitals charge for ER care, and usually send patients to collections when they cannot pay.

My patient went to the ER, but didn’t get treatment. Although he was obviously sick, it wasn’t an emergency that threatened life or limb. He came back to St. Vincent’s, where I went through my routine: conversation, vital signs, physical exam. We laughed a lot, even though we both knew it was a bad situation.

One night, a friend called to say that my patient was in the hospital. He’d finally gotten so anemic that he couldn’t catch his breath, and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), where I am a student, took him in. My friend emailed me the results of his CT scans: There was cancer in his kidney, his liver and his lungs. It must have been spreading over the weeks that he’d been coming into St. Vincent’s.

I went to visit him that night. “There’s my doctor!” he called out when he saw me. I sat next to him, and he explained that he was waiting to call his sister until they told him whether or not the cancer was “bad.”

“It might be one of those real treatable kinds of cancers,” he said. I nodded uncomfortably. We talked for a while, and when I left he said, “Well now you know where I am, so you can come visit me.”

I never came back. I was too ashamed, and too early in my training to even recognize why I felt that way. After all, I had done everything I could—what did I have to feel ashamed of?

UTMB sent him to hospice, and he died at home a few months later. I read his obituary in the Galveston County Daily News.

The shame has stuck with me through my medical training—not only from my first patient, but from many more. I am now a director of the free clinic. It’s a volunteer position. I love my patients, and I love being able to help many who need primary care: blood pressure control, pap smears, diabetes management. We even do some specialty care. But the free clinic is also where some people learn that there is no hope for the chemotherapy or surgery that they need but can’t afford. When UTMB refuses to treat them, it falls to us to tell them that they will die of diseases that are, in fact, treatable.



stvincent1-759x345.jpg

Erica Fletcher
Part of the playground at St. Vincent’s House community center.
St. Vincent’s is the primary care provider for more than 2,000 patients across Southeast Texas. Our catchment area is a strip of coastal plain strung with barrier islands. Drive inland and you start to see live oaks; go toward the coast and the oil refineries loom up over neighborhoods. The most polluting refinery in the nation is here, in Texas City. Our patients are factory workers, laborers, laid-off healthcare workers, the people behind the counters of seafood restaurants.

Most of our patients come from Galveston and Brazoria counties, but some drive two hours from Port Arthur or over from Orange, near the Texas-Louisiana border, to get to us. That’s how hard it is to see a doctor in Southeast Texas: People take a day off work to drive two hours to a student-run clinic that can only provide basic care.

The clinic is overseen by faculty physicians—UTMB docs—who see every patient along with us students and prescribe medications. These doctors are volunteers. We are not a UTMB clinic, but we depend on UTMB, which is twenty blocks from St. Vincent’s, for training our student volunteers, for liability insurance and for running our blood tests and other labs. UTMB has given us grants, including one that helped us get our electronic medical records system, and funds a nurse-managed day clinic for the uninsured at St. Vincent’s House.

But UTMB is no longer the state-subsidized charity hospital it used to be. The changes began before Hurricane Ike in 2008. But after the storm, UTMB administrators drastically cut charity care and moved clinics to the mainland, where there are more paying patients. The old motto “Here for the Health of Texas” was replaced by “Working together to work wonders.” Among those wonders are a new surgical tower and a plan to capitalize on Galveston’s semi-tropical charm by attracting wealthy healthcare tourists from abroad. Medical care for the poor is not, apparently, among the wonders. Whereas UTMB accepted 77 percent of charity referrals in 2005, it was only taking 9 percent in 2011.

UTMB ascribes these changes to financial strain from Hurricane Ike, the county’s inability to negotiate a suitable indigent-care contract and loss of state funding. The state blames budget shortfalls. The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, could have been a huge relief. However, Gov. Rick Perry rejected billions of dollars in federal funding to expand Medicaid, funding that should have brought access to more than a million Texans, including many St. Vincent’s patients.

Perry’s refusal is catastrophic health policy. For patients, it means that seeking medical care will still require risking bankruptcy, and may lead nowhere. For doctors, the message was not only that our patients’ lives don’t matter, but also that medicine—our old profession, so full of people who genuinely want to help others—will continue to be part of the economic machine that entrenches poverty. When the poor seek our help, they often wind up with crippling debt.

Because they can no longer count on UTMB to accept their patients, UTMB doctors now refer many to St. Vincent’s. They’ll treat someone for a heart attack (because that’s an emergency covered by EMTALA), then refer them to us for follow-up, even though we don’t have a cardiologist. They’ll stabilize a patient after her third stroke, put her on blood thinners and send her to us. They once sent us, from the ER, a man with a broken arm. They put the arm in a splint and referred him to us. What did they expect us to do—orthopedic surgery? Put on a cast? We don’t even have an x-ray machine.

I do not think that these referrals are an official policy. Rather, they are the work of doctors and nurses trying to do something for patients who have been refused care through the financial screening process at the hospital. Former St. Vincent’s leader Dr. Merle Lenihan has described the clinic as a “moral safety valve.” It protects UTMB from confronting the consequences of the state’s refusal to provide care.

Among those consequences are the deaths of the poor. As Howard Brody, director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities, has shown, 9,000 Texans per year will die needlessly as a result of our failure to expand Medicaid. However, because dying patients are often too sick, exhausted and wracked with pain to protest, UTMB and states like Texas aren’t forced to reckon with the consequences of their policy decisions.

Because the very sick and the dying may not be able to speak about these issues, health-care providers—particularly the providers of the so-called “safety net”—must do so. It is in our clinics, in the bodies of our patients, where the consequences get played out.



stvincent3-759x505.jpg

Erica Fletcher
Much of the medication at St. Vincent’s is donated by doctors whose patients have died.
Danielle has schizophrenia, and she’s young, and she struggles with the medications. When we talk, there are long gaps in the conversation where, I think, she hears other voices. In one of these gaps, I notice the sun slanting in where it’s beginning to set beyond the ship channel. There’s gospel music streaming out over the basketball court from the speakers mounted on the side of the community center. I am reminded of what the director of the community center, an Episcopal minister, believes: Every patient is a miracle. The St. Vincent’s House motto is “An oasis of hope, expecting miracles.”

Danielle looks up and stares right at me. “Here’s what I want to know,” she says. “Why are we so poor?”

St. Vincent’s House, which hosts the free clinic, is a historically African-American community center in the lowest-income neighborhood on our island, next to where the housing projects were before they were condemned. The federal government ordered Galveston to rebuild the public housing after Hurricane Ike, but the city refused. We elected a mayor who ran on an explicit anti-public housing platform. Just like the medical system, the city knows whose lives matter.

Now, dandelions grow in the empty lots left after Ike flooded the neighborhood. People sit on the ragged, cracking curbs, and run wheelchairs right down the middle of the street because the sidewalks tend to end in grassy fields or little precipices.

The community center employs a person to stand in the street and walk us to our cars after clinic if we want. Who is he protecting us from, I wonder. Our patients?



stvincent4-759x505.jpg

Erica Fletcher
Equipment at St. Vincent’s, like this refrigerator, has been donated by UTMB and various doctors or purchased with grant money.
In my second year of medical school, I took a small-group course with a famously terrifying surgeon. He told us his moral motto: “A physician never takes away hope.”

I never figured out how that motto could guide doctors through a system where our patients are dying from treatable diseases. Part of my job, it seems, is precisely that: to sit down with patients and, as gently as possible, take away hope.

Consider Vanessa and Jimmy. They met in New Orleans when she was 18. She was working cleaning motels, and he took her on a tour of the tugboat he was captain of. Vanessa says they came to St. Vincent’s because the shipyard Jimmy worked for opted out of providing insurance even for full-time employees like him. They looked for insurance on the open market, but couldn’t afford it.

The Affordable Care Act is supposed to help families like Vanessa and Jimmy get insurance. Folks higher on the income scale should now be able to afford insurance thanks to government subsidies. The poorest of the (legally documented) poor should be covered by Medicaid. And for those people in between, the federal government offered to pay for almost all the costs of expanding Medicaid.

More than a million Texans—and most St. Vincent’s patients—are somewhere in between. They are the working poor, or they are adults without dependent children, who cannot qualify for Medicaid in Texas, no matter how poor they are.

When Jimmy’s labs showed a dangerously high white blood cell count, we sent him to the ER. It was pneumonia, and there was a huge tumor underneath. Current guidelines would recommend screening Jimmy for this kind of cancer every year, but we have neither the equipment nor the funds to offer screening. So it got caught late.

After Jimmy was diagnosed, I helped Vanessa fill out the paperwork to request financial assistance for cancer care. She wanted to know how likely UTMB was to offer her husband assistance he needed.

In addition to only accepting 9 percent of applicants, the charity care approval process is a dark art, and we never know who will be accepted. According to the UTMB Charity Care policy, the institution may consider not only a person’s income and diagnosis, but also such vague qualities as “the history of the problem.” They also consider whether the treatment will offer “educational benefit” to medical students and trainees. Physicians in training have to see a certain number of each type of case. If the programs are hitting quotas with funded patients, patients like Jimmy are less likely to be accepted.

The complexity and vagueness of these policies meant that it was impossible to tell Vanessa how likely UTMB was to take her husband. We can guess around a 10 percent chance, but we never really know.

For patients facing cancer, this is not a hopeful answer.

Vanessa called from a hospital in Houston in early November, distraught, asking me to help her decide whether or not to let the doctors turn Jimmy’s breathing machine off. She was afraid she wouldn’t be able to live with herself, no matter which she chose. I gave her the advice I’d give a friend: that I trusted her love for her husband and her ability to decide from a place of love. Jimmy died late that night.

Vanessa’s request for UTMB funding wasn’t approved. She has received a $17,000 bill from UTMB for the visit when Jimmy went through the ER, and a $327,000 preliminary bill from the Houston hospital.

If the Affordable Care Act had been in effect last year, they would have been able to afford insurance, get treatment early and avoid bankruptcy. I use stories like theirs—cancer stories—when I am encouraging my patients to check out the insurance exchanges.

But with Jimmy gone and Vanessa unemployed, she now falls into the Medicaid coverage gap. I don’t know how she will get care, if she ever needs more than St. Vincent’s can give.

My first patient, the one who died in hospice, might have lived if his cancer had been treated before it had spread from the kidney. But without the Medicaid expansion, the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t help him: As an adult with no dependent children, he wouldn’t qualify for Medicaid now.

In a better medical system, he’d have had a chance at a more dignified experience of illness. He wouldn’t have had to wait for hours in a crowded free clinic, and assume the posture of gratefulness that charity seems to require. He wouldn’t have had to be treated in part by an earnest, but unskilled, first-year medical student. He, like so many Texans, deserved better.

When one of our St. Vincent’s patients gets a bad diagnosis, we start sending faxes: to UTMB, to MD Anderson, to anywhere that might have funds to help them. Sometimes it works out, but often it doesn’t. Sometimes I think of it as “sending faxes into the abyss.” And sometimes I think of it as the slow, diligent, technical way that I have of insisting that these lives matter.

From From http://www.texasobserver.org/a-galveston-med-student-describes-life-and-death-in-the-safety-net/

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
I thought this was incredibly powerful. So many of us ask about student run clinics, but I personally never thought to ask about the percentage of patients who can access meaningful referral services. I also didn't think to ask about the charity budgets of the schools I am applying to and deciding between.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
It's an ok article.
It sucks Rachel never went back to see the patient.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Powerful article, I didn't realize how bad the medicaid coverage gap was. And it just adds to my desire to become involved in administrative and policy aspects of healthcare as well.

I can't believe Rick Perry said that emergency room solves all the insurance problem in Texas.
 
Thanks for sharing. Even though I'm sad now
 
I can't believe Rick Perry said that emergency room solves all the insurance problem in Texas.

Rick Perry is also the guy that was okay with the execution of a mentally handicapped man, his lack of compassion and empathy for the disadvantaged shouldn't surprise anyone.

Articles like this, and there are so many accounts similar to these, are perfect examples of why we should quick dicking around and just create a single-payer system where everyone has coverage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Wow, so "Dr. Rachel" wrote some sob story about a guy and now we're supposed to all be for universal healthcare? LOL. No, thanks.
 
Articles like this, and there are so many accounts similar to these, are perfect examples of why we should quick dicking around and just create a single-payer system where everyone has coverage.

That's actually how the left always thinks. "Hey, if I write a sad story, then we have to change things." And, of course, there is never any shortage of sad stories. Even though we spend billions on the poor, you can still find poor people and write some tear jerker and then fall to your knees and go "CAN'T WE JUST GIVE MORE??" It's the least intelligent form of argumentation (other than Gaucher's Internet GIFs), so it's unsurprising that it's used so often.
 
That's actually how the left always thinks. "Hey, if I write a sad story, then we have to change things." And, of course, there is never any shortage of sad stories. Even though we spend billions on the poor, you can still find poor people and write some tear jerker and then fall to your knees and go "CAN'T WE JUST GIVE MORE??" It's the least intelligent form of argumentation (other than Gaucher's Internet GIFs), so it's unsurprising that it's used so often.

Not sure if troll...or just stereotypical Republican
This is just one example of the millions of underprivileged individuals in our nation that Republicans like you refuse to acknowledge. Leave the forums and your dreams of entering the profession if you are truly as uncompassionate in real life as you have been on SDN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is just one example of the millions of underprivileged individuals in our nation that Republicans like you refuse to acknowledge.

That's hilarious. How do we "refuse to acknowledge" them? You mean I get to not pay taxes that are redistributed to them? Like I said, all you do is write a sob story and then wail about how more money is needed. Oh, and since you're a pre-med and I'm a physician, I'll just ignore your suggestion. Thanks.
 
Wow, so "Dr. Rachel" wrote some sob story about a guy and now we're supposed to all be for universal healthcare? LOL. No, thanks.

That's actually how the left always thinks. "Hey, if I write a sad story, then we have to change things." And, of course, there is never any shortage of sad stories. Even though we spend billions on the poor, you can still find poor people and write some tear jerker and then fall to your knees and go "CAN'T WE JUST GIVE MORE??" It's the least intelligent form of argumentation (other than Gaucher's Internet GIFs), so it's unsurprising that it's used so often.

:rolleye:

If you don't think the fact that there are thousands of disadvantaged people dying of preventable diseases in a first world country is a significant problem, I don't know what to tell you. Events like these are going to continue to play out as long as significant financial barriers to access remain in place.

Do you have anything meaningful to contribute this thread? Or was "pfft libtards" the best you could muster?

Oh, and since you're a pre-med and I'm a physician, I'll just ignore your suggestion. Thanks.

What's hilarious is that deride an appeal to emotion as the least intelligent form of argument and then immediately follow it up with an appeal to authority. Bravo.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
The problem is people are too stubborn and proud to accept when our choices are costing people's lives. Calling it another bleeding-heart sob story, however true, is a deflection away from the undeniable truth that people are dying when they don't need to be and we are hard at work sitting on our privates about it because someone we didn't vote for is signing the laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you don't think the fact that there are thousands of disadvantaged people dying of preventable diseases in a first world country is a significant problem, I don't know what to tell you.

Oh, I don't mind if you think it's a significant problem. What I mind is you thinking you're going to solve it, particularly with my money. You could literally double the amount of money that we spend right now on the poor and guess what? You're still going to have some tragic story to write. So who cares? It's never going to be the fact that you can't find ONE sorry bastard with a horrible story. Saying "wow, this story is sad, so we MUST have more programs" is a specious argument because you can't spend poverty out of existence. And yet that's how liberals do it.

What's hilarious is that deride an appeal to emotion as the least intelligent form of argument and then immediately follow it up with an appeal to authority. Bravo.

I didn't appeal to my authority. I'm right regardless of if the tables were turned and I was the pre-med and he was the attending. I'm merely informing him that his comment about how I should abandon my dreams of entering the profession is pretty futile and probably is more applicable to him than me at this point in time. :)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
No one here is arguing to just throw more money at the problem. That simply wouldn't work because the entire healthcare system in this country is a financial black hole. Even with any good that the ACA could potentially do, it still has the inherent issue of involving for-profit insurance companies in its approach to providing coverage.

The truth is that the problems with the cost of and access to healthcare won't be resolved unless the whole thing is rebuilt from the ground up. Removing for-profit insurance companies is part of it, but addressing the ancillary causes for price-creep need to be fixed as well, which means restructuring how prices are negotiated with medical device and drug manufacturers, etc. Those factors are major contributors to why we spend twice what other countries that have single-payer systems do per capita.

As for the appeal to authority thing, I thought you were referring to his other comments, so I'll retract that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
No one here is arguing to just throw more money at the problem.

Yeah, you are. You want single-payer healthcare, which is government healthcare, which is taxpayer-funded socialized healthcare, which is throwing more money at the problem.
 
Yeah, you are. You want single-payer healthcare, which is government healthcare, which is taxpayer-funded socialized healthcare, which is throwing more money at the problem.

Congrats, you just hit the hat trick for full ******.
 
Yeah, you are. You want single-payer healthcare, which is government healthcare, which is taxpayer-funded socialized healthcare, which is throwing more money at the problem.

We're throwing more "governmental" money at the problem in exchange so that we don't have to throw money from our pockets at the problem. For how much the government is maligned, having a customer base of 300 million people will help lower the cost. Have you seen the hospital charge master lately? Or how much the overhead cost is in private insurance vs medicare?
 
We should just confiscate all wealth over $2,000,000 and use it to expand medicare to everyone. Clearly, the poor are in trouble and nobody "needs" to have that much money sitting around while there are folks dying. The rich need to pay their fairshare. If that is still not enough, simply lower reimbursements and require all physicians to treat medicare patients.
Boom, problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wow, so I'm like your dad?

you're not a physician, you're a ****ing joke who gets off on trolling.

but I do have to commend you on using a "your dad" comeback instead of "your mom."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
clldSvC.gif
 

Attachments

  • seinfeld-gif.gif
    seinfeld-gif.gif
    573.5 KB · Views: 67
We're throwing more "governmental" money at the problem in exchange so that we don't have to throw money from our pockets at the problem. For how much the government is maligned, having a customer base of 300 million people will help lower the cost. Have you seen the hospital charge master lately? Or how much the overhead cost is in private insurance vs medicare?

Where do you think the government's money comes from? It's from the consumer's pocket. Sadly, though, the consumer can't gauge the actual cost.
 
Where do you think the government's money comes from? It's from the consumer's pocket. Sadly, though, the consumer can't gauge the actual cost.

Of course, it has to come out of our pocket, but I think it will be less. A lot less than the amount we'd shell out individually, simply based on better negotiation power and lower overhead cost.

Certainly there are other ways to cut down cost to make the ideas in this story possible. I've shadowed in an ER a few times, and the amount of true emergency was probably less than half. Patients come in with stomach pain, only to find out after an X-ray that it was because of too much stool in the intestine. Or someone come in for a scrape after basketball, and all the ER did was apply some anti-bacterial cream. It waste time and money to come in to the ER for such symptoms. When I needed to see a doctor immediately, I usually call the family health center that I see my PCP at and they will usually able to schedule me with someone the next day. If we can expand that, that will result in savings as well. There isn't a silver bullet, but many smaller solutions to this problem.
 
Thank you for posting these articles.
 
Where do you think the government's money comes from? It's from the consumer's pocket. Sadly, though, the consumer can't gauge the actual cost.

In almost every case preventative care is cheaper than correcting the problem later on. That alone is a pretty strong argument to increase access to preventative services to everyone - even those who cannot afford it. The reality is that SOMEONE is going to eat the cost on poor patients. That someone might be society or a hospital or another entity. It makes sense to me that if we're going to eat a cost, we might as well eat a smaller cost that prevents people from getting sick in the first place.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Yeah, you are. You want single-payer healthcare, which is government healthcare, which is taxpayer-funded socialized healthcare, which is throwing more money at the problem.

It isn't just the poor who suffer from poor health insurance; it's also the self-employed and those employed by companies that provide sub-standard health coverage or no coverage at all. This poor coverage hurts everyone. It bankrupts people who only find out how poor their coverage really is when they have a medical emergency. (Which hurts the doctors and hospitals who care for them then don't get paid.) It prevents people from seeking preventative care or from diagnosing suspected problems because 'once you know, you have to disclose.' It puts people in the terrible position of having to choose between bankrupting their families to pay for treatment, or dieing unnecessarily. (If their financially able to even make that choice.)

Personally, I was thrilled (yes, thrilled) yesterday to get an email from Healthcare.gov inviting me to try to sign up again. Want to know what I found? Gold- and even Platinum-level plans for my family that cost less than the amount we're paying now for our piece-of-carp policies that don't cover much and have exclusions out the ying-yang. So why did I keep such lousy coverage? Because pre-existing conditions prevented us from being able to purchase (at any price) something decent.

The ACA is far from perfect. But it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
you're not a physician, you're a ******* joke who gets off on trolling.

but I do have to commend you on using a "your dad" comeback instead of "your mom."

Lol, I guess I should take a page from your book and say that your dad's not a man. But say hi to her for me.
 
We should just confiscate all wealth over $2,000,000 and use it to expand medicare to everyone.

Or we could just ignore you. Hey, that's what happened!
 
Want to know what I found? Gold- and even Platinum-level plans for my family that cost less than the amount we're paying now for our piece-of-carp policies that don't cover much and have exclusions out the ying-yang. So why did I keep such lousy coverage? Because pre-existing conditions prevented us from being able to purchase (at any price) something decent.

Oh, so basically you're just admitting that you're one of the few people who are getting their healthcare paid for by the many people who are losing their current plans. Good for you!
 
Oh, I don't mind if you think it's a significant problem. What I mind is you thinking you're going to solve it, particularly with my money. You could literally double the amount of money that we spend right now on the poor and guess what? You're still going to have some tragic story to write. So who cares? It's never going to be the fact that you can't find ONE sorry bastard with a horrible story. Saying "wow, this story is sad, so we MUST have more programs" is a specious argument because you can't spend poverty out of existence. And yet that's how liberals do it.



I didn't appeal to my authority. I'm right regardless of if the tables were turned and I was the pre-med and he was the attending. I'm merely informing him that his comment about how I should abandon my dreams of entering the profession is pretty futile and probably is more applicable to him than me at this point in time. :)
You do realize that if we had an honest free market healthcare industry without any distortions, you would face a severe pay cut?
 
Oh, so basically you're just admitting that you're one of the few people who are getting their healthcare paid for by the many people who are losing their current plans. Good for you!

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?... It's OK. I'll explain it again.

Actually, I am one of those "people who are losing their current plans." Want to know why? Because the plan I had did not conform to the minimums required by the ACA. It was deemed 'too lousy' to be worth having. And you know what? The government was right. Those plans were not worth having. But the only alternative was going uninsured, which, as a responsible taxpayer, I would never do. The 'faux' insurance plans that predominated the individual market pre-ACA were worse than nothing. The money we spent on worthless premiums could have more than paid the costs of our medical care under any reasonable provider plan.

You seem to be assuming the cost of our healthcare was/is/will be subsidized by others - you perhaps? Actually, that's not true either. In fact, last year, we received over $1,800 in rebates back from our health insurance companies because the plans did not pay out enough (85%) benefits to subscribers. Our health care costs weren't being 'subsidized' by anyone - especially the 'insurance' companies.

I have no reason to believe you will be 'subsidizing' the cost of my care this year either -- unless the screenings I've felt the need to postpone until 2014 reveal something treatable and expensive. But then, that's what health insurance is for, right?
 
Wow, so "Dr. Rachel" wrote some sob story about a guy and now we're supposed to all be for universal healthcare? LOL. No, thanks.

I already knew who wrote this post even before looking at the username, lol. Liberal/conservative talk draw ruralsurg like moths to a bright light :O

Ruralsurg4now, just curious, what would be your plan of action to help the poor and ones who have poor access. You are in a rural place, so there are TONS of people in your practice day in and day out with little to no resources. What do you do to help them get the best care possible?
 
You do realize that if we had an honest free market healthcare industry without any distortions, you would face a severe pay cut?

He'd face a pay cut because with a completely free market healthcare industry, there'd be less potential patients because people would literally be dying in the streets.
 
You do realize that if we had an honest free market healthcare industry without any distortions, you would face a severe pay cut?

No, I wouldn't. That shows how little you know about our current system. By your logic, the more I work for people who don't pay me, the richer I get. That's like when Nancy Pelosi said that when we pay people unemployment, we stimulate the economy. That's right, the more we pay people who aren't working, the better our economy gets.
 
He'd face a pay cut because with a completely free market healthcare industry, there'd be less potential patients because people would literally be dying in the streets.

I thought liberals claimed people were already dying in the streets due to lack of healthcare. So what's changed? It's just you making up stuff in both instances.
 
Actually, I am one of those "people who are losing their current plans." Want to know why? Because the plan I had did not conform to the minimums required by the ACA. It was deemed 'too lousy' to be worth having. And you know what? The government was right.

And yet a) you lived, so it's wasn't lousy and b) you claim that with a better plan, your cost is going down, which only works because you have a pre-existing condition that you will now be getting subsidized for. In other words, you're the sick person that all the healthy young people will be funding. And you're proud of that, like any good liberal.
 
And yet a) you lived, so it's wasn't lousy and b) you claim that with a better plan, your cost is going down, which only works because you have a pre-existing condition that you will now be getting subsidized for. In other words, you're the sick person that all the healthy young people will be funding. And you're proud of that, like any good liberal.

Utterly ridiculous response that is wrong on both counts. Under your 'point A', every person who is alive would be deemed to have adequate health care, simply by virtue of their not having died? Isn't that how doctors began using mercury? And as to your 'point B' -- no I didn't (to my knowledge) have pre-existing conditions that require subsidies. It was just the sorry state of the individual health insurance market.

You realize that unless you're a bad driver, your auto insurance premiums go to subsidize all of the bad drivers out there.
That unless you have a poorly maintained home with a bad roof, that your home owners' insurance premiums go to subsidize all of the negligent or lazy homeowners who don't keep their homes in good repair.
That your life insurance premiums are unfairly inflated by all the people who don't maintain their health and inconsiderately die early.

What a bitter and hateful attitude you seem to espouse.
As a rural doctor, I would think you would be glad that a larger percentage of your patients would now have insurance... Or maybe you'd just be happy for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And yet a) you lived, so it's wasn't lousy and b) you claim that with a better plan, your cost is going down, which only works because you have a pre-existing condition that you will now be getting subsidized for. In other words, you're the sick person that all the healthy young people will be funding. And you're proud of that, like any good liberal.

Looking at your other posts, I can't tell if you're intentionally trolling or if you're so miserable as an intern that this gives you some kind of satisfaction. Either way it just cheapens your argument and makes you look silly.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I thought liberals claimed people were already dying in the streets due to lack of healthcare. So what's changed? It's just you making up stuff in both instances.

You cannot be this dense. I will explain this simply so you can understand.

Currently, people die of preventable illnesses because they cannot afford treatment. There are programs and entities that exist to increase access to care or provide care for disadvantaged people. A full on free market healthcare system, without government regulation and intervention, would disenfranchise everyone who was poor. Therefore, increasing the number of poor people that would die from preventable illness.
 
Reading comprehension not your strong suit?... It's OK. I'll explain it again.

Actually, I am one of those "people who are losing their current plans." Want to know why? Because the plan I had did not conform to the minimums required by the ACA. It was deemed 'too lousy' to be worth having. And you know what? The government was right. Those plans were not worth having. But the only alternative was going uninsured, which, as a responsible taxpayer, I would never do. The 'faux' insurance plans that predominated the individual market pre-ACA were worse than nothing. The money we spent on worthless premiums could have more than paid the costs of our medical care under any reasonable provider plan.

You seem to be assuming the cost of our healthcare was/is/will be subsidized by others - you perhaps? Actually, that's not true either. In fact, last year, we received over $1,800 in rebates back from our health insurance companies because the plans did not pay out enough (85%) benefits to subscribers. Our health care costs weren't being 'subsidized' by anyone - especially the 'insurance' companies.

I have no reason to believe you will be 'subsidizing' the cost of my care this year either -- unless the screenings I've felt the need to postpone until 2014 reveal something treatable and expensive. But then, that's what health insurance is for, right?

This is neither here nor there with regard to your argument - I'm really just mentioning this as an aside - but I want to point something out. You say "it was deemed". Deemed by whom?

If you recall back when this plan was being sold to the people, Obama famously declared "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." But apparently, what he meant to say was "If I like your plan, you can keep it".

I think there's still a lot of uncertainty about ACA and I'm not informed enough to make an ironclad pronouncement about it, but I don't appreciate being lied to.
 
In almost every case preventative care is cheaper than correcting the problem later on. That alone is a pretty strong argument to increase access to preventative services to everyone - even those who cannot afford it. The reality is that SOMEONE is going to eat the cost on poor patients. That someone might be society or a hospital or another entity. It makes sense to me that if we're going to eat a cost, we might as well eat a smaller cost that prevents people from getting sick in the first place.

Preventative care?

It's hard for me to want to help fund the poor's insurance when they're eating McDonalds and taco bell 24/7 for all three meals, smoking crack, shooting up, smoking a pack a day, and sitting at home doing absolutely nothing productive, living off other people. Yeah no wonder they have health problems. You want preventative care? Lets start with what we can prevent ourselves (e.g. what I listed above).

In the words of Lincoln: "You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Sure, all poor people aren't like this - but a large amount of them are, and I don't feel bad when their health starts to deteriorate. They did it to themselves and they know it.

Do I think lazy people have a "right" to health care at the expense of the hard working? Yeah right.
 
Preventative care?

It's hard for me to want to help fund the poor's insurance when they're eating McDonalds and taco bell 24/7 for all three meals, smoking crack, shooting up, smoking a pack a day, and sitting at home doing absolutely nothing productive, living off other people. Yeah no wonder they have health problems. You want preventative care? Lets start with what we can prevent ourselves (e.g. what I listed above).

In the words of Lincoln: "You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Sure, all poor people aren't like this - but a large amount of them are, and I don't feel bad when their health starts to deteriorate. They did it to themselves and they know it.

Do I think lazy people have a "right" to health care at the expense of the hard working? Yeah right.

I don't think you understand how this works. Not paying is not an option by law. With that said, it seems your preference would be to not only allow people to get sick but actually pay more to then treat them rather than paying less to prevent them from getting sick in the first place. That's fine, but don't then make the argument that you're attempting to reduce costs by not providing preventative services. That simply isn't true, and in actuality your righteous indignation results in greater costs.

Regarding the rest of your post, I will just say that things like poor diet habits, drug use, and other problems are the result of a variety of things, both individual and environmental. While at the end the end of the day everyone obviously has personal responsibility for their actions, ignoring the impact of social and environmental factors is horrible oversimplification. If given the opportunity, I think most people would happily trade poverty, unemployment, poor health, and violence for a better life. It's not as simple as "lol work harder and move." There are huge areas in the country where opportunities for education, employment, and healthcare access are hugely lacking or entirely absent. What in your infinite wisdom would you tell them? Quit being lazy?

I hope you grow up and perhaps open your mind a bit before interacting with patients. I think you're in for a shock when you get into the clinic and start to recognize that people are often poor for reasons outside of their control. You can work hard and be ambitious and still fail and languish in poverty. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps does not always result in life success.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
If you tell the majority of Americans to quit being lazy or "work hard", they will laugh at you and take their business elsewhere.

Also, tons of rich people do the same thing too. Regardless as a doctor you WILL be treating thousands of people who are lazy, eat bad diets, are poor and do nothing productive. So no need to get worked up over it. After all there is nothing you can ever do to only treat people who are complaint or who take care of themselves well

Remember, those who eat a well balanced healthy diet and exercise are the minority.
 
There are many communities in TX with no sewage, street lights, or water services - let alone meaningful job opportunities. People living in poverty have to work much harder to survive than people who are wealthy.

I think the fundamental disagreement between ruralsurg and myself is that I believe healthcare is a human right and that we are responsible for each other. No one should die of an illness that is highly treatable and preventable, but people here in TX are dying of things like cervical cancer at alarming rates.

Stories matter because they put faces to the barriers and burdens of our healthcare system, but the statistics are there to back up the stories. In 2011 TX slashed two-thirds of the budget for reproductive health services (including screening for breast, cervical, and uterine cancer) and the impact has been horrible. For more information, you can check out nuestrotexas.org

I don't expect to change the minds of people like ruralsurg, but the rest of us can try to do everything in our power to improve health outcomes for the poor, by advocating at employer/institution, city, state, and federal levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And yet a) you lived, so it's wasn't lousy and b) you claim that with a better plan, your cost is going down, which only works because you have a pre-existing condition that you will now be getting subsidized for. In other words, you're the sick person that all the healthy young people will be funding. And you're proud of that, like any good liberal.

I work in health care and all the time we take care of once-healthy young people who get in traumas or are stricken with ALL, autoimmune disease, ectopic pregnancies and aneurysms. It's an uncomfortable reality that there's no solid line between healthy and sick.
 
You cannot be this dense. I will explain this simply so you can understand.

Currently, people die of preventable illnesses because they cannot afford treatment. There are programs and entities that exist to increase access to care or provide care for disadvantaged people. A full on free market healthcare system, without government regulation and intervention, would disenfranchise everyone who was poor. Therefore, increasing the number of poor people that would die from preventable illness.

Summary: I'm going to keep screaming about people dying in the streets until I get socialized medicine and then at that point when people actually die in the streets it's OK.
 
I don't think you understand how this works. Not paying is not an option by law.

Not paying what? Are you saying all people in this country contribute to funding the healthcare system?


With that said, it seems your preference would be to not only allow people to get sick but actually pay more to then treat them rather than paying less to prevent them from getting sick in the first place. That's fine, but don't then make the argument that you're attempting to reduce costs by not providing preventative services. That simply isn't true, and in actuality your righteous indignation results in greater costs.

First correction - what MIGHT prevent them from getting sick.

If someone is going to partake in habits that they KNOW are bad for them and are directly involved in causing health problems, then yes, I don't think we should be required to help them if they can't afford it. This is my moral philosophy, not so much my views on American healthcare. Why should I be punished for the actions of others when they know they're doing something they know to be harmful?

Imagine being in school with 10 other students. Lets say you busted your *** to make an A in this class. However, only two of you made an A. The others partied, had a grand ol' time and failed. Now, to help everyone, the teacher assigns everyone a "C" grade rather than giving individuals the grades they earned. Does this sound fair to you? People aren't equal, deal with it.

As far as your "preventative" measures. I strongly agree that we this area of medicine looks very promising, and is undoubtedly cheaper. However, you need to remember that many of these "preventative measures" you are so excited about require very proactive involvement by people they hope to affect. The reality of the situation is, if they don't want to help themselves, we can't make them. Sure, illnesses like the flu, HPV, etc.. can be dealt with relatively effectively with vaccines, but for the majority of other illnesses it isn't that simple. Heck, most of the uninsured people I see in that have/get a coronary stent don't actively take their anti-platelet & ASA. Guess what happens? They're repeat customers.

Obesity, for example, is where we should start imo.


There are huge areas in the country where opportunities for education, employment, and healthcare access are hugely lacking or entirely absent. What in your infinite wisdom would you tell them? Quit being lazy?

Um, yes. Anything but sit on their *** and wallow in their own depression. If you can't find a job, look somewhere else. If you don't have any skills, get a job mowing a law - if you're a hard working, honest man, people will learn this and you'll move up in the world.

What do you suggest? Have them continue living off government benefits? Or perhaps you'd like to fund them yourself and save us all the trouble?

I hope you grow up and perhaps open your mind a bit before interacting with patients. I think you're in for a shock when you get into the clinic and start to recognize that people are often poor for reasons outside of their control. You can work hard and be ambitious and still fail and languish in poverty. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps does not always result in life success.

I have been exposed to the clinic setting for a few years now. Sure, my generalizations have limits - not every poor person is a good-for-nothing homeless person.

It's not that I don't want to help people and provide everyone with perfect healthcare. It's that, in our society, providing perfect care to everyone is NOT A REALITY. It's something that many liberals don't understand. We have limited resources and we must distribute them efficiently. To me, that means helping hard working, honest, diligent people who are actively putting in an effort to improve their lives.

By providing healthcare to these "good-for-nothings" I have been alluding to, we are essentially telling them "Oh, please, by all means continue being a worthless sack of ****, not contributing to society. It's ok, we'll pay for you anyway." This mentality is contagious.
 
Last edited:
I work in health care and all the time we take care of once-healthy young people who get in traumas or are stricken with ALL, autoimmune disease, ectopic pregnancies and aneurysms. It's an uncomfortable reality that there's no solid line between healthy and sick.

That's great, but you realize that "all the time" is still a very small percentage of the actual number of young people, right?
 
If you tell the majority of Americans to quit being lazy or "work hard", they will laugh at you and take their business elsewhere.

Who cares? As long as they want someone else to pay for their stuff, I welcome that.
 
St
No, I wouldn't. That shows how little you know about our current system. By your logic, the more I work for people who don't pay me, the richer I get. That's like when Nancy Pelosi said that when we pay people unemployment, we stimulate the economy. That's right, the more we pay people who aren't working, the better our economy gets.
No, he means that our salaries depends on a system that is catastrophically overregulated. The reason that those of us in healthcare can charge the prices we do (this is true for everything from pharma to physicians salaries) is because a complex web of regulations prevents anyone from providing the service you provide more cheaply than you do.

The government makes it illegal for anyone without a medical license to do our jobs. They make it illegal to for anyone to buy products from the already overregulated pharmaceutical market a physician's written approval. They have even turned to licensing process over to our private, for profit industry, which subsequently artificially limited the supply of physicians by creating the world's most byzantine and useless sytem of training, and thereby kept prices artificially high for physician services.

Stop pretending that we work in anything that even approaches a free market. If it wasn't for the government physicians would be like airline pilots, chiropractors, and lawyers: there would be 10 of us for every customer and the prices for our services would go through the floor. You are the beneficiary of government overregulation. In light of that, it is reasonable to ask for the government to make some effort to keep medicine affordable for the hard working Americans who are paying your artificially bloated salary. In any event he's right that you would take a much bigger pay cut if we regulated healthcare less than if we regulated it more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top