TB or Not to Be ~ Medical Treatment of Illegal Immigrants

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

CatsandCradles

SDN Donor
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,654
Reaction score
5
An interesting article I just cut out of the WSJ. It's emotional, controversial, and makes for a good read. I cut out a lot of things from newspapers, and I wonder what I will feel ten years down the road when I open up my scrap book and see this article again.


________________________________________________________________
TB or Not to Be
An illegal alien has a brush with death--and gets up to work again.

BY KATRINA S. FIRLIK
Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008362

Several months ago, I had an unusual encounter with an illegal immigrant. He was only 25, from Guatemala, and had been in the U.S. for only three months. He'd been doing landscaping work until he was admitted to Greenwich Hospital in Connecticut, with an excruciating headache. The medical team discovered that he had active tuberculosis, so fulminant that it had even invaded his spinal fluid. Thus, the headache. Needless to say, tuberculosis meningitis is not the type of thing we're used to seeing in Greenwich, or anywhere in the U.S., for that matter.

He ended up in Greenwich Hospital because the one in the town where he'd settled, the neighboring and much less well-to-do Port Chester, had shut down after going bankrupt. That hospital had cared for a large number of patients just like him: no insurance, no English, no papers. When a hospital serving such a demographic goes bankrupt, it leaves a needy population to seek free care elsewhere, passing on the same risk of financial distress to neighboring hospitals, like propagation of an infectious disease.

He'd been in the hospital for a month by the time my surgical services were called upon. He was staying in a private isolation room. His strain of TB was proving to be multi-drug-resistant, and the medical team just couldn't clear it. I was paged by an intern on a Sunday morning. The story: Over the course of 24 hours, the patient had developed a rapidly progressive weakness in his legs to the point where he couldn't even stand, and had lost bladder control. An MRI revealed a large mass that was compressing his spinal cord to an impossibly thin strand. The mass spanned an incredibly lengthy 10 vertebral segments, nearly from the base of his neck to the top of his low back. I'd never seen anything like it. Neither had the internist, the infectious disease specialist, the neurologist or the radiologist. We don't work in the Third World.

I took the patient to the operating room and spent the rest of my Sunday in the hospital. I wasn't thrilled. I wore a special mask designed to hug the face tighter than most OR masks, but the thought crossed my mind that I was putting myself and the entire OR staff at risk. I made the longest incision I'd ever made in my surgical career, carefully opened 10 segments of spine, and worked away at the inflammatory mass that was plastered to his spinal cord. I called a pathologist in to examine the pieces of specimen I was removing. He heard the full story, refused to contaminate his equipment, and left.

It wasn't possible to get more than half the mass out without risking even more damage to his spinal cord, so I stopped, forcing myself to settle for the less-than-satisfying achievement of having at least decompressed the spinal cord by removing the bony elements from behind (unroofing the spinal canal to allow for more room). Would he ever walk again? Doubtful. In fact, I'd phoned another neurosurgeon while in the OR, just to talk through this case. He'd never encountered anything similar either, but convinced me that the patient wouldn't even live long.

The patient spent an additional six weeks in the hospital after surgery, not because of surgical concerns, but because the medical team still couldn't clear his infection. His sputum samples kept coming back positive. After 2 1/2 months on multiple antibiotics, he was finally clear to leave the hospital. He left in a wheelchair. I knew I'd never see him again.
Why should our hospitals have to eat the cost of disease brought in by undocumented workers? I found out that his bill totaled $200,000. This excludes professional fees, meaning everything that would have been billed separately by the many physicians treating him over 10 weeks (including what I'd have charged for surgery). We all worked for him free.

How many other diseases are being brought in by how many other undocumented and unexamined workers? Somehow, here, a social worker was able to track down the friends and relatives who came to the U.S. with this patient. They all tested positive for TB, and were all working behind the scenes in local restaurants.

I'm certainly in favor of figuring out a way to offer health insurance and proper medical care to all Americans (as long as whatever plan is enacted doesn't compromise the quality of care or the incentives for medical innovation). But I don't think we can justify the same for just anyone who wants to jump over the borders. And how do you handle the PR quandary when other patients in the hospital, there for elective gall-bladder or knee surgery, ask questions? I know what goes through their minds when they see the isolation rooms with ominous warning signs, as nurses get fully gowned, gloved and masked before cracking open the doors.

I thought I'd never see this young man again, but I was wrong. Six months after surgery, he walked into my office. Walked in. No wheelchair, no walker, no cane, not even a limp. Not only that, he told me (through a translator) that he was looking for a new job. I thought about all the American workers I'd operated on, for far less serious problems, who were quick to bring in disability paperwork after surgery, hoping I'd deem them permanently disabled, unfit for any line of work. And at that moment, the resentment I'd felt six months earlier was replaced by something quite different--admiration.


Dr. Firlik, a neurosurgeon in Greenwich, Conn., is author of "Another Day in the Frontal Lobe," just published by Random House.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I'm a little irritated that a neurosurgeon from Greenwich, CT editorializes about how "expensive" treating undocumented workers is. Plus, I got the idea that he blamed undocumented workers for the hospital in Port Chester going under. If this worker had had access to free, non-judgemental health care earlier, he wouldn't have ended up in the OR in this doctor's hospital. And, the Port Chester hospital might still be open if governments showed the slightest commitment to treating indigent patients. (That's the 40 million "card-carrying" Americans without health insurance.) I'm glad the author had a change of heart at the end, but it still irks me.
 
prana_md said:
I'm a little irritated that a neurosurgeon from Greenwich, CT editorializes about how "expensive" treating undocumented workers is. Plus, I got the idea that he blamed undocumented workers for the hospital in Port Chester going under. If this worker had had access to free, non-judgemental health care earlier, he wouldn't have ended up in the OR in this doctor's hospital. And, the Port Chester hospital might still be open if governments showed the slightest commitment to treating indigent patients. (That's the 40 million "card-carrying" Americans without health insurance.) I'm glad the author had a change of heart at the end, but it still irks me.


The government never pays for anything. The American Taxpayer does. And in cases like this, the taxpayers pay twice: Once through medicaid, and again through higher prices charged by hospitals and providers to offset the poor payments received from medicaid and non-pays by the indigent.

But, none of that is important. What is important is simple: Why should the US tolerate the illegal, ill immigrants from other countries coming here and a) breaking our laws, b) taking jobs and thereby artificially driving the economic cost of labor down (which makes life cheaper for those that hire such help) and c) infect our citizens with diseases that are not at all common to our society?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
clearly our views on immigration differ. but once here, immigrants, no matter how they got here, must be treated for diseases that are not endemic to the united states. it's basic public health. TB has to be treated, and treated aggressively. for example, there have been cases of multiple drug-resistant TB traced to immigrants from the former soviet union. we do not want these bugs. it's beyond politics.
 
No it's still political. Of course you have to treat them. But the reason we arrived at this point is the hypocritical attitude towards illegal immigration. BIG BUSINESS and agriculture needs cheap labor so they even lobby legislators to continue the addiction to undocumented migrants. This will never stop unless you have REAL employer sanctions and REAL border control.
 
tantrum said:
No it's still political. Of course you have to treat them. But the reason we arrived at this point is the hypocritical attitude towards illegal immigration. BIG BUSINESS and agriculture needs cheap labor so they even lobby legislators to continue the addiction to undocumented migrants. This will never stop unless you have REAL employer sanctions and REAL border control.


Yeah but this forum is "topics in healthcare." As in, should we treat these illegals or not? Not how do we stop them from coming? I think clearly yes we treat them, I don't understand the thinking that says we shouldn't...

"Lousy illegals, coming in with their TB....I know! Lets not treat them, let them spread disease, and then treat all the US citizens who get tuberculosis while the illegals have to watch from behind a window as US citizens bask in the luxery of 9 months of 4-drug therapy and liver function tests....ooooh yeah, that'll show them!"

If anyone gets into the US, illegally or not, with tubercu-f*cking-losis I say treat them. Lord knows I don't want it.
 
That's why I said you have to treat them. It's similar to the argument with immunizations. You need to immunize children of illegal immigrants, otherwise we will have a public health nightmare in our hands. I shoule have left the political comments in another forum.
 
I should say that I agree with you that they're consuming too much healthcare, especially in the border states. That's a problem that needs to be solved. Its just that once they're already here we've already lost that battle and we need to treat them, if for no other reason, to address public health concerns.
 
I think we should just create a Mexican Exclusion Act honestly. It worked great with the Chinese and gave us 30 years use. :rolleyes: The current system unfortunately is a bastardized compromise. We can play to the conservatives by not granting amnesty and being "tough on immigrants." Then we can play to the liberals by letting them trickle in by not closing our borders and just endlessly redeporting the ones we find. Now we have a subclass of immigrant Americans and this is one of the results. However, it's pretty much expected. We have 200 years of tradition on hating the new guy: Natives, Irish/Scottish, Catholics, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Africans, Asians, Muslims. The current group just so happens to be the Mexicans and other SA's.

It's interesting how this affects are health care policy. We always seem to be focusing on preventative medicine as it is cheaper and healthier in the long run. But by excluding illegals in this fashion we end up with a 200k bill that could have been treated with less cost earlier or even prevented with a cheap TB vaccine.

Immigration policy aside, an interesting thing I noticed was the surgeon's views on reforming healthcare without compromising the quality of care. I had a long discussion a while ago with one of my friend's father who was way high up in the healthcare business and now retired. Basically this view isn't economically feasible. With our current system, we are trying to provide the best for everyone, and there is no money to support it. The effects are hospitals going broke and our insurance providers trying to avoid certain patients like the plague. The system is collapsing domino style. He also told me it was much easier to provide poor care and beg forgiveness then provide excellent care and go bankrupt. In the first case you can survive.

It seems most doctors have the shangrala view about helping the world but not much experience or knowledge in the business side of things. The discussion I had with him got me quite interested and I've been reading a lot about it ever since.
 
prana_md said:
I'm a little irritated that a neurosurgeon from Greenwich, CT editorializes about how "expensive" treating undocumented workers is. Plus, I got the idea that he blamed undocumented workers for the hospital in Port Chester going under. If this worker had had access to free, non-judgemental health care earlier, he wouldn't have ended up in the OR in this doctor's hospital. And, the Port Chester hospital might still be open if governments showed the slightest commitment to treating indigent patients. (That's the 40 million "card-carrying" Americans without health insurance.) I'm glad the author had a change of heart at the end, but it still irks me.
Good article. I agree with the "irking" I also wonder if that $200,000 was what they would have charged him or what they would have charged the insurance :cool: But my question is this, why should they have free healthcare? Should we allow on US citizens free healthcare? or maybe only those at a certain income level that show they are working and/or disabled since those are the ones contributing to society? I believe that everyone should have some sort of health benefits but I don't think they should be free for everyone?

Why do I feel like this? Because for most people with no money its going to be either putting money on the table for food or using that money for elective items. If they are under a certain bracket of income per family member then I think the food obviously should come first. But some of the people out there tend to spend there extra income on frivilous items then go and then will drive up to your office in their pimped out car complaining they can't afford healthcare. If there was a bracketed system that allowed everyone to put in a certain amount of money per month that would allow everyone access to care it might help the population. I'm sorry if I don't see that everything should be offered for free. Even say $20/month for healthcare access for a family isn't much but then again, who is subsidizing the rest? The rest of us who have jobs that are above that "threshold marker" of free/subsizidized healthcare. After seeing the amount of lazy people who sit outside our exit and daily beg for money while going to the convience store and getting their 40oz in their paper bags, I get extremely annoyed at free handouts. There are people that actually DO need them and then those who could care less. /rant (sorry for the rant but its how I feel)


I'd like to see a for-profit hospital try a bracketed pay for access at a low cost. They'd feel like they were on the losing end but in the end they might have more wellness visits and less dire straights ER visits. As well as they have at least some sort of income from those people who normally wouldn't have given them anything. But then again, there needs to be the people to follow up on this program which means MORE expense for the hospital. Although it would allow the opportunity for jobs, maybe even make it a federal program with federal employees who check eligibility. Just an eutopic idea :idea:
 
flighterdoc said:
The government never pays for anything. The American Taxpayer does.

The American tax payer never pays for anything. The employers do who render them wages do. Then again, perhaps it's the customers who provide revenue to those employers that pay for everything.

My God, it's like the whole economy is just some huge cyclical flow of capital, goods and services.
 
Havarti666 said:
The American tax payer never pays for anything. The employers do who render them wages do. Then again, perhaps it's the customers who provide revenue to those employers that pay for everything.

My God, it's like the whole economy is just some huge cyclical flow of capital, goods and services.
No we pay it through taxes as well, federal/state/local
 
mshheaddoc said:
No we pay it through taxes as well, federal/state/local

I know, I'm just being a jackass. In the end everybody pays for everything.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Havarti666 said:
My God, it's like the whole economy is just some huge cyclical flow of capital, goods and services.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
The article above is really informative for everyone.

Thanks for such a nice content for my collection.
 
mshheaddoc said:
Good article. I agree with the "irking" I also wonder if that $200,000 was what they would have charged him or what they would have charged the insurance :cool: But my question is this, why should they have free healthcare? Should we allow on US citizens free healthcare? or maybe only those at a certain income level that show they are working and/or disabled since those are the ones contributing to society? I believe that everyone should have some sort of health benefits but I don't think they should be free for everyone?

Why do I feel like this? Because for most people with no money its going to be either putting money on the table for food or using that money for elective items. If they are under a certain bracket of income per family member then I think the food obviously should come first. But some of the people out there tend to spend there extra income on frivilous items then go and then will drive up to your office in their pimped out car complaining they can't afford healthcare. If there was a bracketed system that allowed everyone to put in a certain amount of money per month that would allow everyone access to care it might help the population. I'm sorry if I don't see that everything should be offered for free. Even say $20/month for healthcare access for a family isn't much but then again, who is subsidizing the rest? The rest of us who have jobs that are above that "threshold marker" of free/subsizidized healthcare. After seeing the amount of lazy people who sit outside our exit and daily beg for money while going to the convience store and getting their 40oz in their paper bags, I get extremely annoyed at free handouts. There are people that actually DO need them and then those who could care less. /rant (sorry for the rant but its how I feel)


I'd like to see a for-profit hospital try a bracketed pay for access at a low cost. They'd feel like they were on the losing end but in the end they might have more wellness visits and less dire straights ER visits. As well as they have at least some sort of income from those people who normally wouldn't have given them anything. But then again, there needs to be the people to follow up on this program which means MORE expense for the hospital. Although it would allow the opportunity for jobs, maybe even make it a federal program with federal employees who check eligibility. Just an eutopic idea :idea:


TB vaccine? That's not even available in the US for widespread usage, is it?

My family is well below the poverty limit. My dh's salary looks good...if he was single in a small town. But once you factor in Medicaid/medicare, taxes, and insurance (being his brand new job, this is the first time we will have real insurance), plus add in the cost of living in this area for housing, and such, we make -$200 for groceries for a family of 5. We used to be on medicaid (not dh), and it was nearly impossible to get decent healthcare. The looks you get, the care you get...The fact is that even with an education, you make diddly squat in this country. My dh has an MS in chemistry and makes less than his 19 yo BIL who works at a factory. So much for getting an education and pulling your family out of poverty, right?

I just don't think that we should have to pay not only so much for insurance we will rarely use, but also the enormous amounts of taxes we pay that keep us so that we can't buy food. Add on childcare costs so that we CAN work or go to school, and it's nearly impossible to get ahead.

So no, I don't think that I should have to pay my literal food money so that someone who has broken the law to be here can come and get free healthcare. If I weren't so poor, I wouldn't mind as much. But around here there are tons of services for immigrants and people who don't speak English, but me with 6 years of healthcare experience, education, and training, I can not find a job or help because I'm from out of state. Now THAT is ridiculous. How come immigrants get more help than people from out of state?

On the same hand, bless immigrants or anyone like the man in that article who actually are hard workers and don't just try to cheat the system. I know people who shop all the time for only the finest things, and yet get food stamps, while we work our butts off, don't get public help, and barely scrape by enough to make it. But I think that it should be done legally. You are no better in my eyes if you break laws to get in the country than if you live here and cheat the medicaid system for free healthcare.

I think that I would have no problem with cheap healthcare and free preventative care for immigrants if they came here legally mainly because I think that it is offensive that they should become citizens under certain proposed legislature, while people who work hard and come here legally don't get that easy of a ride. That's not very fair. But I also don't want TB. More reason to tighten the borders and make immunizations mandatory by a reputable doctor (I hear lots of creepies about certain docs in Mexico) upon entrance to the country. It is a matter of public safety firstly.

Sorry about the rambling. Bad mood.
 
I think most everyone is ignoring the central issue. Taking care of the poor is all well and good. In fact, the desire to help people is very much part of our motivation to go into the health field. But it dodges a very important, central, logistical issue: How are we going to pay for it?

1) Preventative Medicine. Good concept. Cheap. Its easy to talk about it, we are not yet to the point of logistically using it on a society wide scale. And quite frankly, we need to figure out a way to get people into offices more regularly. How many people do you know that skip out on yearly doctor visits? There's preventative healthcare, but no, some people still get root canals due to poor dental care any ways. How many people in America eat unhealthy foods and don't exercise? There's tons of preventative healthcare called exercise and healthy eating, but people are still admitted to hospitals for being morbidly obese, developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease.

2) Second point I want to make is that hospitals cannot take the burden of these illegal immigrants. I live in LA and have worked in the ERs here. It's horrible. I truly do have nothing by sympathy for people who are willing to crawl through a desert, risk death to scrub toilets in America so they can find a better life. But I wonder if having cheaper produce and construction is worth the cost of American citizens having to suffer through lower quality primary care because those without any insurance and documentation use the ERs.
 
EndSong said:
I think most everyone is ignoring the central issue.

When I was a kid, my parents treated us as indentured servants. Fetch this, mow that, wash this, trim that. I'm not complaining. One gift my parents gave me was a work ethic. Anyway, one day my father gave me a lecture on how it was ineffective to solve a weed problem by chopping off the leaves of the plant. "You have to pull it out by the roots, son." It was the only time I ever saw my father really perturbed.

The root of this problem is poverty in other countries, mostly the countries south of our border. I won't go so far as to argue that this is the industrialized world's problem, but we certainly contribute to it. We allow our corporations to open factories in Mexico and then pay wages that not even Mexicans can live on. We allow conglomerates to suck natural resources out of under-developed countries in order to fatten Corporate coffers while leaving the countries with nothing.

This problem won't go away until we start holding corporations and governments accountable for their actions in other countries. And until we can find a way to help these countries to lift themselves out of poverty (no matter how much that might threaten the Corporate World's bottom line), we will continue to deal with this issue.

Do we have an obligation to treat? Yes, we most certainly do. We created the situation that draws and allows them in. They are our responsibility now. Do we discharge them back to American streets? No, I think we discharge them to their country of origin (unless there's an issue of asylum).

But that is, at it's meager best, a temporary solution since our border is so easy to cross. I suppose we could institute Soviet-style border control, but remember that the fence that keeps "them" out also keeps you in. The only long-term solution is a generations-long commitment to wiping out global poverty.
 
Illegal Immigrants are also human.

So do what you should do with a human.
 
twester said:
The root of this problem is poverty in other countries, mostly the countries south of our border. I won't go so far as to argue that this is the industrialized world's problem, but we certainly contribute to it. We allow our corporations to open factories in Mexico and then pay wages that not even Mexicans can live on. We allow conglomerates to suck natural resources out of under-developed countries in order to fatten Corporate coffers while leaving the countries with nothing.

This problem won't go away until we start holding corporations and governments accountable for their actions in other countries. And until we can find a way to help these countries to lift themselves out of poverty (no matter how much that might threaten the Corporate World's bottom line), we will continue to deal with this issue.

Agreed. We should be finding ways to set up sustainable economy in the countries of origin for these people. If home wasnt so bad they would never risk death to come here. Lets start thinking of reducing poverty to benfit on a global scale rather than an our-country-against-theirs-mentality.
 
twester said:
When I was a kid, my parents treated us as indentured servants. Fetch this, mow that, wash this, trim that. I'm not complaining. One gift my parents gave me was a work ethic. Anyway, one day my father gave me a lecture on how it was ineffective to solve a weed problem by chopping off the leaves of the plant. "You have to pull it out by the roots, son." It was the only time I ever saw my father really perturbed.

The root of this problem is poverty in other countries, mostly the countries south of our border. I won't go so far as to argue that this is the industrialized world's problem, but we certainly contribute to it. We allow our corporations to open factories in Mexico and then pay wages that not even Mexicans can live on. We allow conglomerates to suck natural resources out of under-developed countries in order to fatten Corporate coffers while leaving the countries with nothing.

This problem won't go away until we start holding corporations and governments accountable for their actions in other countries. And until we can find a way to help these countries to lift themselves out of poverty (no matter how much that might threaten the Corporate World's bottom line), we will continue to deal with this issue.

Do we have an obligation to treat? Yes, we most certainly do. We created the situation that draws and allows them in. They are our responsibility now. Do we discharge them back to American streets? No, I think we discharge them to their country of origin (unless there's an issue of asylum).

But that is, at it's meager best, a temporary solution since our border is so easy to cross. I suppose we could institute Soviet-style border control, but remember that the fence that keeps "them" out also keeps you in. The only long-term solution is a generations-long commitment to wiping out global poverty.

What a thoughtful post.

It reminded me of some of my missionary friends who worked on an electrical grid for orphanage village in Latin America. This goes a little off the tangent but he said that many US embassy will only look at folks wishing to become citizens legally if they 1) Have property 2) Proof of a bank account 3) HS education.

If you don't have these criteria, and many do not, then you don't have a good chance at all ~ and the waiting periods for the embassy to process your file is backlogged by years. On top of that, in some US embassies, the cost of applying is over $100 dollars. If you are a poor farmer, $100 USD is difficult to save; and applying multiple times is completely out of the question.

Thus it leads most people to jump the fence and come over illegally. Its a very difficult issue to look at, but going to the root ofthe problem, like you mention is a good start.
 
CatsandCradles said:
What a thoughtful post.

It reminded me of some of my missionary friends who worked on an electrical grid for orphanage village in Latin America. This goes a little off the tangent but he said that many US embassy will only look at folks wishing to become citizens legally if they 1) Have property 2) Proof of a bank account 3) HS education.

If you don't have these criteria, and many do not, then you don't have a good chance at all ~ and the waiting periods for the embassy to process your file is backlogged by years. On top of that, in some US embassies, the cost of applying is over $100 dollars. If you are a poor farmer, $100 USD is difficult to save; and applying multiple times is completely out of the question.

Thus it leads most people to jump the fence and come over illegally. Its a very difficult issue to look at, but going to the root ofthe problem, like you mention is a good start.


Wow. How terrible that we would not want to let in both poor and ignorant to become residents/citizens. Clearly, the US Taxpayers exist only to support them.
 
flighterdoc said:
Wow. How terrible that we would not want to let in both poor and ignorant to become residents/citizens. Clearly, the US Taxpayers exist only to support them.

The point is, you have to be well to do in order to legally come to America.

Emma Lazarus's poem "Colossus" where she says, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," no longer applies to America.

If you are poor, you can't become an American ~ that's the message the embassies are portraying.
 
CatsandCradles said:
The point is, you have to be well to do in order to legally come to America.

Emma Lazarus's poem "Colossus" where she says, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," no longer applies to America.

If you are poor, you can't become an American ~ that's the message the embassies are portraying.


Emma Lazarus' poem has never been the law, or the policy, of the US. It was, after all, engraved on a tablet held by a statue given to the US as a gift from the people of France, not a law passed by Congress.

Nor did it say send us your stupid, your lazy, or your ill.
 
Yeah, we certainly don't need any more stupidity in this country.

Seriously, it's pretty common for countries to limit who can immigrate based on education and occupation. I don't think it's true that the United States demands a certain net worth. The only time I've heard of that is in the case of the Republic of Ireland which used to grant citizenship to millionaire immigrants (they can't do that anymore under European Union rules).

According to a Congressional Budget Office report on immigration (Feb 2006), the reasons that people are granted permanent residence in the US (in order of numbers) is: family unification, employment in shortage fields and asylum seekers. I think it's in this country's and the immigrant's best interests to ensure that we don't admit large numbers of people who can't support themselves.

I immigrated to the Netherlands in 1999 (the tech-bust brought me back to the US in 2002). The requirements were even more strict than in the US. My employer had to prove that they could not find someone with my qualifications elsewhere in the EU (that process took six months). They had to prove that my wages would be adequate for me to live there. I was prohibited from working for any other company for two years. Those were all requirements of the Dutch government. Then, I had to get a residence permit in the city I was living in which required a background check, internationalization of my birth certificate, proof of income (again) and proof of health insurance (yes even in a social welfare state). And, as a side note, the utility companies required that I show both my work and residence permits before they would hook up service. I also had to enroll in an "assimilation" course (inburgeringscursus) to learn about the "culture" and the language. I was at no time permitted to access public assistance funds unless the situation was dire.

After two years, I was granted permanent residence and I could work anywhere in the country. At five years, I would have been eligible for citizenship.

As big a pain in the butt as that process was I took comfort in the fact that I was legal. I was financially well off and it was clear to me what I had to do to remain in the Netherlands. In comparison to the US, the illegal immigration problem was infinitesimal. I think such a system could work in the United States, but of course establishing bureacracy costs money which has to come from <gasp> taxes. So we'll probably just continue to expect something for nothing and complain about the result.

Anyway, this thread has veered off course. Sorry for my part in that.
 
1) Preventative Medicine. Good concept. Cheap. Its easy to talk about it, we are not yet to the point of logistically using it on a society wide scale. And quite frankly, we need to figure out a way to get people into offices more regularly. How many people do you know that skip out on yearly doctor visits? There's preventative healthcare, but no, some people still get root canals due to poor dental care any ways. How many people in America eat unhealthy foods and don't exercise? There's tons of preventative healthcare called exercise and healthy eating, but people are still admitted to hospitals for being morbidly obese, developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease.

From what I understand, most Health Economists dont believe that preventative care will actually save much money for the health care system in the long run. Why is this? Because if we get someone to improve their eating habits and prevent diabetes and other obesity related problems, they're going to die of (take your pick here): cancer, liver failure, or bed sores accumulated from 15 years of assisted living. So (continuing the diabetes example) while we lower spending on anti-hypertension drugs, we add the costs of other illnesses and increased life span. Of course this doesnt only apply to diabetes, but to a host of other preventabe diseases. This concept is counterintuitive to most of us, as the health care worker's rally cry of the past 15 years has consistently been along the lines of preventative care. We're attuned to thinking that the costs of treating chronic disease over 10+ years far outweighs the costs of other more acute, life-ending illnesses, which according to the number crunching monkeys, probably isnt the case. Unfortunately, Preventative care simply isn't the financial silver bullet that most people are wishing for.
 
Top