No health insurance, no paid sick or holidays, no retirement (except for SS that is) I am a private contractor, though I work for them most days and am required to understand the system. Incidently, when compared to other insurance companies we review and process more claims per employee, at a lower cost than pretty much all insurance companies. We just have way, way more claims than anyone else, everyone seems to feel entitled to SS disability.

In response to any of catron’s blog posts I only intend to point out the weakness of his arguements, I personally believe in a government sponsered system (remembering of course that government=the people) that is a system where we all pitch in because we believe that ourselves, our neigbors and our loved ones deserve, as americans, at least basic health care. I have no investment in the way other systems are run, Americans are intelligent and unique, I truly believe if we first put aside the rhetoric (as posted on this site daily) and really talk about what we all want with humility, we can come up with something that works well. Granted there is no such thing as a perfect system. So instead of going on about what is wrong with any given system and why it wont work, why not take the best portions of each system and use it, a hybrid if you will.

I opened a practice two years ago with a shoe string budget (140K) when I closed I had 1400 patients and 3/4 million in debt, I lost my house, my car, my practice, my patients, and my spirit. I could not in good conscience turn people away, if you were sick and came to my door you recieved care……..as it should be.

I stand corrected, EMTALA does force this to happen, so it can be done, just shouldn’t be done.

I am against a govt system that penalizes it’s citizens, I claim that we can do better, we are ingenius, we have innovated some of the worlds most powerful undertakings, surely we can come up with something, I just believe we are leagues away from it when we can’t get past rhetoric as posted here, and truly on web sites that support govt health care. Why not come to the table talking about what we don’t really “know” and what we know are the flaws of our beliefs/arguements?

I do not support EMTALA - see above.

I am not arguing against what I think you are thinking - very circular. You will recall that these comments are in the context of David Catron’s blog, particularly in response to his post about a form of centralized “universal” health care that is failing is Massachussets. My comments are in the context of a government sponsored universal healthcare system that penalizes its citizens for failing to acquire healthcare insurance. I think it is a fair assumption that people who respond to comments about that post are also doing so in the same context.

You work for Social Security (the federal government) but have no health insurance?

The reality is that businesses are already forced to provide service for free, in spite of DrMatt’s insistence that it can’t be done. I don’t favor this, but that is the law.

I lost 20K in services not paid for, I have called and written letters and sent to collections. Because we are allowed to bill for these services is no guarantee that you will see any of the money. In any case the worst you can do is hurt someone’s credit, and when it comes down to it the rest of the world is more forgiving when comes to credit mishaps related to health expenses, so even that threat has maybe a tooth or two. EMTALA doesn’t “do” anything, Laws and rules need to be enforced and or challanged, that takes money, enforecment agencies and lawyers. reality is what made me bankrupt in medicine, so please, my arguement is experienced based not just a vague support of some belief I am entrusted to. So, see if you can feed your family or pay your mortgage with EMTALA.

You are right, there is a vast difference between rights and entitlements. Sorry, the constitution says “insure domestic tranquility and promote the general Welfare” not provide, my mistake. However, W is capitalized in the constitution which makes it a proper noun, proper nouns are reserved for reference to the individuals of the population. In any case, you would not need an amendment, you would need to have it interpreted this way by congress, and ofcourse later challenged and up held by the supreme court.

Cant really comment on your final paragraph, I made no argument for centralized health care, nor did I lay out a structure, all i said is we cant straddle the line, pick one way of providing health care and go with it. I will assume you are arguing against what you think I am thinking??? of course this is the precise way in which we all talk and no one listens and we get nowhere, but hey, I have no where to go, nor do I have any money to go there, I dont have any health care either and I can’t afford it for my wife, child, or child to be, thank god you are straddling the line currently.

2. I understand enought about economics to know that I pay, via taxes and higher prices, for services that I consume, and that other people consume but do not pay for. It is true in healthcare, and it is equally true at WalMart (sans the taxes).

3. You are correct - business that are forced to provide service for free do not survive. But I don’t have to accept your premise. Realty happens to differ from your statement. It is a fact, today, in the US, that the law provides an ENTITLEMENT to service, regardless of the ability to pay (but without forgiveness) for those who present to ERs for illness, injury, or labor. EMTALA does precisely what you assert cannot be done.

4. The Consitution does NOT “clearly state that the government is to provide for the welfare of the population.” Please provide a citation if I am wrong. The Constitutions empowers the Congress to act (by taxes, duties, and other financial instruments) to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States” (Article 1, Section 8). Welfare is used in the context of the states, not individuals. See this post for more on this: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm

I do not want to have my cake and eat it, too. The piece that is missing in all of the argumetns for centralizing healthcare (or whatever you want to call it) is the “providers”. What good is a system that “covers everyone” if there is no one to purchase service from? As is always the case, price controls and giovernemnt meddling will increase demand infinitely while stifling supply.

I think Gadaffi gave them that title when he was running the human rights committee. No wait, I think that the UN used the oil-for food kickbacks to fund sensitivity training to the various missions that were found to be engaged in sex trafficking. Hold on now, maybe it was the swift response to the genocide in Central and North Africa. I don’t know, there are hundreds more examples I would have to wade through but I’m sure something will come up.

1. RIGHTS are NOT ENTITLEMENTS. A right to free speech is not an entitlement to an audience.

2. Healthcare is only a right insofar as we have laws that make it so. Presently, the only right is to not be turned away from an ER for injury, illness, or labor. The ER is still free to bill for the service. Any other claim that healthcare is a right is just talk, until laws are passed or the Consititution ammended.

3. Roads, police, and housing are not rights. Localities provide these at the behest of their voters. The need not do so, and many localities forego them. Defense is not a right, but a constitutionally defined responsibility of the federal government. Public education is a “right” and a responsibility, as defined by law. I am not, however, obligated to partake of the service provided by the government. I can go elsewhere. I also favor school vouchers.

4. I do not now, nor do I expect I will ever, benefit from social security. I also purcahse my own disability insurance.

5. I am completely in control of my faculties. I do not need to “Get a Grip.”

6. Since when is the UN the arbiter of morality?