Originally Posted by Diesel66 free clinics do everything up to major surgery through their affiliated hospital Actually you are wrong . Most dentists at freeclinics are not capable or trained to do major surgery. They usually have one oral surgeon who takes appointments referred by the other dentists one time ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
03-02-2007, 02:00 PM
| #41 | ||||
| I'm your huckleberry!  Independent Ohio 
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Actually you are wrong 
 . Most dentists at freeclinics are not capable or trained to do major surgery. They usually have one oral surgeon who takes appointments referred by the other dentists one time per month and usually a multiple month wait. Free clinics are provided by dentists with full time practices or close to retirement and are usually only open a day or two per week for a couple hours, thus creating huge waiting lists. Most require a certification of poverty or referral from a homeless shelters or case worker. Originally Posted by Diesel66 Oh well, the old grandmother evidence. That settles it then!
 Here are some facts from someone who used to work in the homeless system as a case manager in MARYLAND. 1. Hospitals, especially tax dollar supported hospitals, don't have oral surgeons on staff. They only stabilize people who are in extreme emergency, close to death, and then send them for the procedure at a free clinic. I had one client who had 3 emergency room visits and was on antibiotics for over 2 months while waiting for the procedure to be done at a free clinic. For profit hospitals, which are the majority in the US, do NOT treat anyone for free. 2. Maryland is a very liberal state and they have, by far, more free clinics than most states and yet the least wait list I ever saw for any free clinic was 6 weeks. 3. Maryland is an EXTREMELY expensive state, especially the areas around Washington DC and Baltimore. Apartment rents easily start near $1,000 for a 1 bedroom, a single family house median price is over $500,000. Townhouses around $250,000. So the national poverty level is kind of blown away in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area since it's based on prices in the midwest which are about half. I agree poor oral hygiene is to blame and one cannot make the leap to universal healthcare would have saved his life. It may have, but then again you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. He may not have been treated even if he had access to treatment, but we will never know for sure, it's only speculation.
__________________
| ||||
     |
|
03-02-2007, 02:12 PM
| #42 | ||||
| Objectivist  Capitalist
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim
 :bowr ofl:First of all, we don't know that. I'm going to avoid ridiculing you too much for saying this, but we don't know that. What we do know is that this kid didn't get his tooth fixed. And there was an eighty-dollar price tag. It does not follow that if the price tag weren't there, his problems would have been solved. We do not, and can not, know what "would've been" if communist health care would've been in place. No amount of nanny state will prevent any of the following: (A) people from not knowing how to diagnose their discomforts accurately, (B) people not tending immediately to discomforts -- price isn't the only factor there, Einstein, or (C) people from dying as a result of having ailments that could have theoretically been prevented. Let's go ahead and break those down, for the bleeding hearts out there who didn't catch it the first time. (A) No matter how many cups of nanny state you pour into the mixture, people will still be unaware of how to diagnose ailments. Unless you go to the doctor every time you've got a headache, a runny nose, or a sore tooth, you run the risk of misjudging something that may be absolutely crucial. That headache might be a tumor, about to swallow up most of your brain. The runny nose could be some bird flu, and the sore tooth might be just what was wrong with this kid. Or whatever. Sounds like this kid didn't have long anyway. (Hey, here's a thought. How long would he have had to wait in line if everyone was going to the doctor to get their sniffles analyzed?) (B) No matter how liberally you smear nanny state over the American landscape, people will still avoid tending immediately to ailments and discomforts, whatever they think they may be, for as many reasons as we could care to come up with. Going to the doctor isn't convenient. Going to the doctor can be embarassing. Going to the doctor can be painful. Going to the doctor can be boring. Going to the doctor can be expensive, even if it's free. Or are you also in favor of providing free transportation for all, and passing law that says a person has to get paid for any hours or days that they missed work, if they were taking their kid to the doctor that day? How many people are you robbing at gunpoint for that legislation to work out? (C) No matter how thoroughly you decimate the free market, people are going to die of theoretically-preventable ailments. There aren't enough donor organs to go around. There aren't enough cardiologists to go around, and of course there will always be such thing as human error. Free health care wouldn't have done anyone a goddamn bit of good if the doctor had prescribed the kid some medication to which he was allergic now, would it? Maybe not, and then your cute little straw man would've gone up in flames before any of us got to knock it down and tear it up. In any case, your economics don't add up. You talk about giving, giving, giving, this that and the other thing should be free, we need to give people this and they shouldn't have to pay for that. Well someone has to. I hope that isn't a news flash to you. Health care is a commodity. Medication is a commodity. Medical professionals' time is a commodity. How do we know this? It's simple: people want it, and it's limited! There is not some infinite wellspring of medical technology, and we're not able to clone as many doctors, surgeons, dentists, nurses, and pharmacists as the situation calls for. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that. So here's the question. How in the hell do you think it's feasible to give away that technology, that medication, and that time? Someone's got to pay for it. And I'll thank you to keep your goddamn hands out of my pocket. Are you willing to foot the bill for the world's doctor bills? You know ... it may sound callous, but I really don't care that the kid died. Yeah, it's bad news, and it'd be nice if people didn't die, but death is a reality. We can't all afford lavish lifestyles, we can't all afford to cryogenically freeze ourselves until our diseases are cured, and some of us can't afford to have badly-infected teeth pulled. Whose fault is that? Nobody's, maybe somebody's, but certainly not everybody's. And certainly not mine, not Dumpy Dooby's, and not even yours. So what makes you think I should man up for that kid's ailment? | ||||
| |
|
03-02-2007, 03:26 PM
| #43 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by tbone I went to the free clinic with her over many years. There was a full dental unit and they sent any major work to the main hospital in town.
| ||||
| |
|
03-02-2007, 06:00 PM
| #44 | ||||
| Junkie libertarian
| It is the free markets fault of course. I am sure they could have canceled their cable for a month or their cell phone and paid the $80. It is nice to hear the full story.  | ||||
| |
|
03-02-2007, 08:00 PM
| #45 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by Jas0n Why should I 'man up' for anyone? I should be allowed to dump my wastes any way I want on my property, even if it poisons your well water along with mine, killing you and your family in the process. You should've had that water tested before you drank it! Why should I wait an extra 5 seconds in front of a green light to let you and your kid cross the street unhurt? Screw both of you for getting in my way. Your were stealing my gasoline by making me idle my engine a bit longer. It was your responsibility as the parent to wait for the proper cross walk signal! I guess it sucks you lived and he died, but oh well, people live and people die, right? Why should I pay for your lack of attention and/or clairvoyance?
--- The fact is we don't each live in little kingdoms separated by vacuum. As long as you choose to live in a society, there IS a social component to your existence whether you like it or not. Every action you take has positive and negative effects on others, and theirs have the same upon you. Sometimes you're going to pay a bit more money because of someone's lack of intelligence, planning, or just plain old bad luck, nevermind the fact that one cannot possibly plan for EVERY eventuality. I'm willing to debate how much or how little this is or should be, but you can't have a sane society that bases its morality solely on the black and white economics of the situation. That's just as bad for liberty as the state mandated communism you accuse everyone else of supporting. While you're right that excessive 'nanny state' economics will not build a utopia, the bottom line is that tooth was infected and he should've had the opportunity to have it pulled, regardless of ability to pay for the service right then and there. Why? It's a common ailment, with potentially fatal and/or expensive effects if left untreated, that happens to have an inexpensive solution. Do the pull and set up a payment plan. From the article's description it doesn't sound like this was a family of slackers, so I don't think the ultra-conservative cop-out for them applies (omg they cant afford it because they blow their cash on flat screen tvs and cellphones). Regardless how the future medical system is implemented, it should never allow a situation like this one to occur because of lack of funds on the part of the patient. Go ahead, flame away all you want with more belligerent right wing rhetoric, but intolerant, extremist thinking of any kind is a major source of what ails this country, regardless of ideology. | ||||
| |
|
03-02-2007, 08:18 PM
| #46 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by R-Type He didn't die because of lack of funds. He died because the mother didn't know he was ill until it was too late.
But I agree with the rest of what you were saying. No child in America should be dead because someone has a "don't care" attitude. No innocent child should die because society essentially said "fuck em" over a simple and relatively cheap medical procedure. Children don't have the means to provide for themselves and if their parents don't do it the children shouldn't be the ones who pay with their lives. I'm willing to pay for children if their parents can't or won't (the parents should pay some price for receiving our tax revenue). Children shouldn't have to die in this country because of income or bad parenting if we can prevent it. If a parent can't take care of their child for extended periods of time social workers should step in for that family. If you're going to live off the government's tit then the government should have a say in whether you should have your children or not and under what terms. If you need society to provide for your children for extended periods of time then society should be able to dictate what's best for your children.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. Last edited by JaJae; 03-02-2007 at 08:26 PM. | ||||
| |
|
03-02-2007, 10:34 PM
| #47 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by JaJae well she did, but it seems like he was put on the back burner because of his bro's issues. I don't think it was clear whether it was due to finances or just attention, but I'll bet it was some of both. I'm sure if the finances were there, he would have been taken care of regardless. One thing I've never really understood is why dentistry is not considered part of preventative medical healthcare. 20 minutes in the chair every 6 months saves tons of anguish and expensive bills later on.
Originally Posted by JaJae at first glance, this sounds equitable to me.
| ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 10:44 AM
| #48 | ||||
| Objectivist Capitalist
| Hmm... line by line sounds good. Originally Posted by R-Type So let's see... either it's not your well, in which case you've got no business poisoning it, or I'm taking well-water from your property, in which case you are indeed free to do what you want with it, but of course I'm not going to contract with you for water unless I'm assured that there'll be no poison. So you're actually committing a crime either way. Good job not getting the point though!
Originally Posted by R-Type While the infrastructure is not necessary in my view, things like roadways and crosswalks are considered "public property" insofar as they are payed for with tax dollars. And while the green light indicates "go", the superceding rule is: the pedestrian has the right of way. Or did you forget that little nugget? If you kill a pedestrian, especially out of spite, that's not you just fulfilling your constitutional right of going on a green light, that's an atrocious crime, according to objective laws that regulate public (i.e. taxpayer-funded) property. But, once again, you've done a fantastic job not knowing what you're talking about!
Originally Posted by R-Type Well, I was doing okay up until the last sentence. Just how is it that because I live and interact with people, I have to pay for poor bastards that can't afford their way? You're making a huge leap in logic that you've yet to justify, at all. Let's see. Yes, I live within some geographic proximity to people who may or may not have less than I do. Yes, I see them from time to time. Now just how the hell is it that they've become my expense? Just for living near them? Certainly not.
Originally Posted by R-Type Baseless and unjustified statements. Let's see... in the first sentence you insist that you can't have an economic system that's inwardly consistent. Is that what you really mean to do? Is it your intention to say: "an economic system can't make sense!"? As for being "bad for liberty" ... I guess you and I have a different understanding of what "liberty" means. See, 'cause I was thinking that liberty had something to do with freedom, specifically the freedom to make decisions for myself and so forth. But you talk about liberty like it's something that you have to pay for, which sorta... means... not liberty. And as for your reference to Communism... I'm going to go ahead and assume that you know how Communism works, and that you have some inkling as to how Libertarianism works as well. So why don't you go ahead and explain something to all of us here at the Liberty Lounge. Just how is an economic system that embraces a maximum amount of freedom, only barring the use of force and fraud from human interaction, as "bad for liberty" as an economic system that, at the point of a gun, forces every individual under said system to be a slave to his fellow countryman and to the state? 'Cause I mean ... that's just ridiculous. But you said it, so I'm sure you're willing to back it up.
Originally Posted by R-Type Wait a minute. You say that he should've had the "opportunity" to get this tooth pulled even if he couldn't pay for it right then and there. In other words, you say that he should get free medical attention. And as for why, all you've got to say is: it's not that expensive to fix. The cost, relative to the potential outcomes (survival versus death), is low. First, that's the lamest justification you could possibly produce. I hope you know that, but just on the off-chance that you don't realize it, I'll explain. "Expensive" is a completely arbitrary term here. Expensive to whom? First of all, I hope you're not daft enough to think that medical treatments don't cost money. And that's concrete. Folks are saying that eighty bucks would've gotten the job done. Fine, but to say "and that's inexpensive!" is arrogant and ignorant. You're applying your own value judgement (of the eighty dollars) to a situation that doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with you. Inexpensive to the hospital? Maybe. You have no idea what their budget looks like. Keep in mind also that if "it's inexpensive to the hospital so we should do it for free" is your justification, then any time someone can't pay for a service the hospital has to be put in a position where it's asked to decide: is this person's life worth $80? $100? $1000? $1,000,000? There are two ways the hospital can go here and be consistent with its policy. Either it does everything for free, which is entirely unrealistic (as equipment, medication, staff, structure, and utility all cost lots of money which would mean no hospital soon), or they do nothing for free. And that makes perfect economic sense.
Originally Posted by R-Type I have a hard time believing that the mother couldn't come up with eighty dollars somehow, even if it meant spending a few hours washing pans in the hospital's kitchen. As for a payment plan, I claim to know the details of that situation. It's possible that the actual expense of the operation would've been much more than $80, and $80 was just the minimum downpayment required in order to set up what would've been a much more significant payment plan. Or, maybe the hospital doesn't offer deferred payment on anything less than some amount ($100?). It's not my business, and I will not arrogate myself to the position of being able to tell the hospital who it will treat, or how it will accept payment. In any case, I am definitely more intrigued by the fact that the mother could not or would not come up with eighty dollars. That is certainly her responsibility -- not the hospital's. The hospital is only there to provide a service to paying customers... not pay peoples' bills for them, and not work around excuses.
Originally Posted by R-Type So say a family goes into an expensive steakhouse and asks for free food. Or food on a payment plan. The steakhouse, being a business rather than a charity organization, declines to set out plates of food for them. As a result, the child of the family dies of starvation. Are you going to blame the steakhouse for that too? Regardless of how restaurants work, they should never allow a situation like this one to occur because of lack of funds on the part of the prospective customer!
 Originally Posted by R-Type Yet another baseless claim. Unyielding ideological arguments are what ails this country! Indeed.
In any case, it probably doesn't matter. As I recall, you've got a habit of coming into threads, dumping out a bucket of drivel, then never coming back. (I can think of at least one other where you did that.) I'll be interested to see if you can muster a response, or if all you've got is this rhetoric. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 10:46 AM
| #49 | ||||
| Objectivist Capitalist
| Originally Posted by R-Type Equitable? Do you even know what that word means? Can you explain how imposing an arbitrary age-based free health care system is "equitable"? What are you going to do, cut people off as soon as they're old enough to emancipate?
 Great, then it'll be a nineteen year old dying from a tooth infection, and you people can start all over again. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 03:20 PM
| #50 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Jas0n If seniors can receive social security/medicare why shouldn't children receive healthcare? It doesn't have to be arbitrary, but 6 year olds in America shouldn't be dead because they didn't have access to penicillin. What's not equitable about that? What's fair about letting innocent children die so you can save a small portion of your taxes?
I'm against Social Security, I think we should move toward privatization. I'm for self responsibility.. for adults. Children shouldn't be responsible for themselves, that's why they're children. I'm against socialist ideas and a universal healthcare system. That said there's nothing fair about America letting innocent children die because some people feel it's not fair to dip into their taxes. Of all the money our government wastes in taxes, saving the lives of children wouldn't be one of them. Last edited by JaJae; 03-03-2007 at 03:33 PM. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 09:10 PM
| #51 | ||||
| I'm your huckleberry! Independent Ohio
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Then that is definately not the norm after working in the system for over a decade in 3 different states, your lucky to have that service in San Jose.
The expensive state comment was not directed at you diesel, sorry I was lazy and hurried and just didn't want to double post. Someone earlier said something about Maryland not being that expensive to live in. Just clarifying that for them, not you. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 11:35 PM
| #52 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by Jas0n do you even know how water tables work...hell even most of the ecology? It doesn't align itself on neat little political boundaries no matter how loudly you turn up the rhetoric.
Originally Posted by Jas0n as you well know, I was making a point using a similar example. You were advocating a strict economics-based morality, and according to it, the 'pedestrian right of way' law would probably not exist because it treads on the higher costs of owning a car. In your system, the cars would have right of way. The pedestrians would be lucky to even have a sidewalk to walk on. What public property? Your system doesn't understand the concept. I was trying to show you how broken that really is. We're not talking about the system we have now. We're talking about applying yours to specific situations. What we have now values life over money in most circumstances. You don't seem to view this as the correct way to go, so no I haven't forgotten anything.
Originally Posted by Jas0n If you can't even grasp that you share a single environment with others no matter how many political/legal/economic boundaries you set up, then I guess you'll never understand anything anyone could say, shy of full agreement, to the rest of your post. I did write one, but the more I read over what you said, the more I realized this to be true. All I can say is that there's more to the definition of liberty than finances, and the (mis)fortunes of others affect your own eventually no matter how you insulate yourself. If you want, I'll post the rest, but considering your absolutist stance (which makes libertarians look like communists), I think you already know what I'm going to say. Your position makes it impossible to say anything else.
Originally Posted by Jas0n oh, you mean the 'rhetoric' you spouted here? This applies to everyone else on every forum on the net. Your statements above is just as opinionated as anyone elses.
I work a job with an odd schedule. I post when I can. Sometimes by the time I get back to the site, the thread's 5 or 6 pages beyond my post and any replies. Posting at that point would be a waste, and detrimental to the thread's health. Other times, I see no point in continuing the discussion because it cannot be resolved. Deal with it. Considering your arrogance and absolutism, I'm sure you've done the same damned thing countless times, to the point of ignoring most threads entirely out of contempt. Are you now asking me to cut some of MY hours or rearrange my life just to provide you with some cheap entertainment? I am not obligated to reply to anything. You could argue that a site like this would ask for a 'best effort' on the part of its userbase so that it functions as designed, but that's it. Btw, it IS possible to debate without being a prick about it. I know I'm not perfect, but you don't even try. maybe that's the real problem here: you're treating this like it's a life and death issue, and I'm treating it as an interesting diversion. If that's the case, go run for office. If the population agrees with you, you'll make it up through the ranks. Maybe the libertarian party will become more popular in the future as people grow more and more dissatisfied with the current bipartisan lockdown. If not, then maybe your definition of liberty=$$$ isn't as all-encompassing as you like to think. | ||||
| |
|
03-04-2007, 06:13 PM
| #53 | ||||
| Objectivist Capitalist
| Originally Posted by R-Type And to take up the slack, personal responsibility is required -- not altruism extorted at the point of a gun.
Originally Posted by R-Type My moral arguments aren't based on economics.
 It's exactly the other way around, in fact. As for the suggestion that "pedestrian has the right of way" laws wouldn't exist in the system for which I argue, once again you're demonstrating a hilarious lack of understanding of that system. My system understands public property for exactly what it is: property that is paid for, and therefore owned, by the public, i.e. taxpaying citizens. As for private property, it's anybody's game, and that's as it should be, but that's also trespassing, if nothing else, so ... exactly what does your stupid little attempt at a straw-man anecdote have to do with a kid allegedly not making it because his mother wouldn't cough up the eighty bucks? Originally Posted by R-Type Sharing an environment =! sharing resources. In fact, "sharing an environment" isn't exactly an accurate assessment of reality, insofar as we have such thing as "property rights" that specify certain pieces of the environment as being owned by an individual or group of individuals. Of course such is absolutely necessary given our nature as animals that have to consume to survive. So scratch this "sharing an environment" shit right out until you can justify it, or some small portion of it at least.
And on that note I'm going to give you one more chance at this. How is it that people, only by virtue of living relatively geographically close to me, become my expense? This time, when you answer, spare "oh you're so absolutist you're like a communist I don't have an answer 'cause you wouldn't get it" bullshit. It amounts to a concession. Originally Posted by R-Type Opinionated? Not necessarily. I'm not too impotent to speak in terms of fact, and everything I've said, I'm willing to back up with arguments and proofs... I don't hold this position because it sounds good, or feels right. I hold it because it's the only position that's consonant with reality and with human nature.
Originally Posted by R-Type I don't care what you do, really. As long as you stand 'em up, I'll be here to knock 'em down. And as for your assessment of my posting habits:
 is about all I can really say. Come on.By the way, here's a challenge. Tell me exactly why it is inherently bad to be arrogant, and tell me exactly why it is inherently bad to hold an absolute position. Originally Posted by R-Type Let's see... I could go through and underline all the unnecessarily insulting shit you put into this post and the last I got from you... but I won't. I don't need to.
As for these things being life-or-death issues... they are, very much, if you consider the real questions that are being debated here. A kid dying over eighty bucks isn't the issue, not at its foundation. The issue revolves around the question of under what condition it is right to strip a person of their earnings. And since you can make a pretty clear, inarguable logical line between a person's earnings and a person's survival, my position is that it's never right. Interesting diversion? If that's all you think of this stuff... well... that's the problem with the democratic system. People like you, who see this as more or less entertainment and who probably make up the vast majority of the supposedly-concerned voting public, get an equal vote as those few who are actually willing to consider issues for what they really are? This kid dying is an insignificant speck of news. A month from now, most will have completely forgotten about it. The real question will remain. | ||||
| |
|
02-20-2008, 08:32 PM
| #54 | |
| Bokonist  Independent Kansas City
|
