From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.medicine,
	sci.med
Subject: Re: Disappointed and confused--don't know what to do
Date: 24 Apr 1999 06:42:02 GMT

In <3720A659.60DAF6DB@cs.uoregon.edu> Bret Wood
<bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu> writes:

>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> Steven B. Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >   Those people who don't have private insurance are already covered by
>> >a national medical insurance program.  It is called medicaid.
>>
>>    The 43 million uninsured do not count those on Medicaid.
>> They are counted as insured.
>
>I'm suprised Steve would even write this.  With all the banter he
>has made on the subject he either has to be _extremely_ out of
>touch, or just plain old dishonest to make a statement like that.
>
>Steve, you wouldn't actually LIE to make a point, would you?


    I consider that every citizen is protected by medicaid as the
ultimate medical insurance backup, if they cannot pay out of pocket.
The former condition of relying on your own self-pay ability is called
being self-insured.  It is not recommended unless you can truly afford
it, or you truly don't mind the risk of losing most of the equity on
your house, or your second car, if you become ill (no, bankrupcy is not
a necessary condition to get medicaid).  However, the idea that there
are 43 million people out there with no insurance at all, and no access
to any insurance under any circumstances, ever, should they fall ill,
is closer to the lie.  If they wind up in the hospital and cannot pay,
the government does.  That's insurance.  Yes, all these people can be
covered by government funded (tax funded) medical insurance--- and the
price, if they wait until they are ill, is most of their assets.   It's
the difference between an ocean of water and a notion of water, from
that to having no access at all.  That "43 million people without
insurance" means, is at best "43 million people who have no insurance
yet (but who can rapidly get it, if hospitalized and poor)."   That's
what social workers are for, don't you know.   And why hospitals pay
social workers.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.medicine,
	sci.med
Subject: Re: Disappointed and confused--don't know what to do
Date: 24 Apr 1999 07:54:33 GMT

In <7fqjh2$rba$1@nina.pagesz.net> henryj@nina.pagesz.net (George
Conklin) writes:

>  I don't think most practicing doctors have any idea of
>costs of much of anything to their patients.  The most
>pitiful cases are those who have to take a day off from work
>to take a sick child to the doctor only to find out he/she
>does not accept Medicaid and so they leave until they can
>get some more cash together, which is harder because they
>just lost a day at work too.


   Henry, does your just-so story above feature Little Nell?  Tiny Tim?
In the real world, not ruled by Dickens stories, people use ERs when
they have to.  And we have telephones and yellow pages.   The first is
a receptive instrument, not very much like your brain.  While the
yellow pages look something like those books in your office, but have
paper binding rather than moth-eaten leather.

                              Writing From the Alternate Universe
                              Abdul Al-Hazred

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.medicine,
	sci.med
Subject: Medicare and Bret's Reality (was: Disappointed and confused--don't 
	know what to do)
Date: 28 Apr 1999 05:09:39 GMT

In <37255300.E556A289@cs.uoregon.edu> Bret Wood
<bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu> writes:

>Andrew Chung wrote:
>>
>> I note that Struik was not forthcoming with revealing his chronic
>> medical condition which
>> was suppose to illustrate how Canadian medical care is equivalent
>> to American medical care.
>
>You really can't blame him considering the attitude here.  I _did_
>reveal my chronic medical condition on this group a while back, and
>Dr. Harris decided it was appropriate to use my revelation in an
>attempt to publicly ridicule and insult me.


    No, all you did was reveal how much you spent for meds-- $350 a
month.  I wanted to know if there was really a $350 treatment for
narcissism, and let you know it wasn't working.  I suppose you're
saying I guessed and got it right.  Well, if so, it wasn't exactly just
a wild guess.



>You can't have it both ways.  Either the manners around here need
>to shape up, or you shouldn't expect people to share personal
>information.  A number of people continue to correspond with me
>via email because they think many of the doctors in this thread
>are behaving "like assholes." (to quote one of them)  There are
>people reading this thread who could really add a perspective
>which is lacking, but they aren't willing to participate because
>some of the doctors are acting very hostile towards anyone who
>doesn't support their economic theories.


Comment:

    The problem is that this perspective which you say you bring, is
false, most places in this country, in 1999.  I live in a state (Utah)
where if you lose your job and find yourself without any money in your
bank account and your kid gets sick, you take your kid to a hospital
ER, and get the kid treated.  Then, you apply for Medicaid.  In my
state, if you live in an appartment and have no bank funds or
complicated assets, this takes about 4 weeks.  At the end of which time
you get a Medicaid number and an HMO card.  You don't get to pick which
HMO, so sorry, beggers can't be choosers.  But after that, medical
treatment is picked up by them, and so are all meds.  And in that
intervening month, if you can show that you've submitted a completed
application for medicaid, you can get treatment extended to you on that
basis, since when Medicaid goes into force it pays retroactively for
the previous 3 months of medical care expenses.

   If you have a complicated bunch of assets, it takes 6 weeks, maybe,
and less in almost all cases than 2 months, from when you apply.  How
long THAT takes you depends on how long it takes to sit down on your
butt and figure out the worth of your liquid assets (cashable insurance
policies, etc).  Most people can get it done in 2 weeks, and there are
ways of getting help if you're mentally handicapped.  If you're
married, assets are split (below $72,000!), and one spouse needs to
spend down to below $8,000 liquid assets.  If you have less than $8,000
between you, one spouse gets to keep it all while the other applies for
themselves and dependents.  You keep your car and all the equity in
your house in my state.  It's even easier and faster in Nevada and
Wyoming.

   Granted, Medicaid in California (there called MediCal) is hell.  But
they are the exception, not the rule.  I suggest you don't live there
if you don't like it.  I voted with my feet, and so can the rest of
California.

   However, the rest of the country more nearly resembles Utah right
now than the nightmare you portray.  I just want readers to understand
this.  When a completely tax-financed health progam is gettable in 2
months with $8000 in the bank and car and a house, and they pay
retroactively for 3 months, AND you can get immediate help on that
basis, that's called "being covered."  As in, that's what your ass is.
Whether the card happens to be in your pocket just this instant, or
not.



>I do stand by something I said in another thread though, out
>of all the misinformation people have posted, and out of all
>of the personal attacks and insensitive posts, the only two
>people I have ever seen apologize on this group (sci.med) are
>myself and Jon Garzillo.  A patient and a Chiropractor.

   If misinformation has been posted in this silly discussion, you're
the one who has done most of it.



>I'm hoping that perhaps some of the people here might regain a bit
>of sensitivity, and remember that the people involved in this
>discussion are just as real as the people you treat each day,
>and the people in your own family.

   No, don't remember that.  Some of these so-called people are posting
from an alternate reality, or from California.  Which is close.


>  And among the chronically
>ill, many of them are more emotionally fragile than average.
>If anyone here is really interested in learning from the
>perspective of a patient (just as the patients here are interested
>in learning from the doctors), then increased sensitivity is
>going to be necessary.


    Increased sensitity to the fact that you want to get on a national
net and teach everyone that the system is busted, based on your private
experience which isn't applicable to most of the people reading?  Even
if they had your problems?  Sorry, no can do.




>On the other hand, if you already know it all, then I guess the
>current situation will suffice just fine.



    Well, we can see by your posts you think you know it all.  However,
the net is the place to remind you that you don't.

                                       Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.medicine,
	sci.med
Subject: Re: Steve's Dishonesty (Was: Medicare and Bret's Reality)
Date: 29 Apr 1999 04:46:14 GMT

In <3726FD23.1DA2A0C4@cs.uoregon.edu> Bret Wood
<bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu> writes:

>"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
>>
>> <bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu> writes:
>> >
>> >You really can't blame him considering the attitude here.  I _did_
>> >reveal my chronic medical condition on this group a while back, and
>> >Dr. Harris decided it was appropriate to use my revelation in an
>> >attempt to publicly ridicule and insult me.
>>
>>     No, all you did was reveal how much you spent for meds-- $350 a
>> month.  I wanted to know if there was really a $350 treatment for
>> narcissism, and let you know it wasn't working.  I suppose you're
>> saying I guessed and got it right.  Well, if so, it wasn't exactly just
>> a wild guess.
>
>I thought that killfiling you would remove your annoying presence from
>my life, but now you have to go around insulting me with the name of
>the thead.  *sigh*
>
>Yes, you did insult me when I mentioned how much I spent each month
>on meds.  But if you HONESTLY didn't know what my medical condition
>was, then how do you explain this quote from earlier in this thread?
>
>Steve Harris wrote this a while back:
> "In your manic phase, Brett?"
>
>You seemed to remember my condition when it makes a good insult.
>But yet you CAN'T remember that I've revealed my condition when
>you are called to task for your obnoxiousness.

    Actually the comments about narcissism and mania were both jokes,
albeit pointed jokes.  Mental illness is simply amplification of
qualities which we see in ourselves and those around us every day.
Caracature makes the point.

    If you actually have been diagnosed as a being narcissistic or
bipolar, that's a shame.  I didn't know it, but I can well believe it.
I can only suggest a larger dose of whatever you're on.  You're not the
first person I've seen become narcisistic when manic.   I remember a
little lady begging me to let her use the phone in the locked ward
because she needed to present her plan for peace in the middle east to
Begin and Carter before it was too late.  We gave her more valproate,
as I recall.  Somebody also did suggest we let her use the phone-- and
given the way things have turned out in the middle east, perhaps we
should have.


>You have accused me of posting misinformation.  Why don't you say
>WHAT misinformation?  Other than differences of opinion, to the
>best of my recollection, I have accepted the corrections of people
>who noted any errors I may have made.

   You're quite capable of using dejanews to go back and see what you
said about how long it takes to get medicaid, if you're forgotten.

>  On the other hand, you continue
>to defend your claim that the 43 million uninsured Americans are
>actually "covered by medicaid."  You didn't say _elegable_ for
>medicaid, you said COVERED.

   Again, semantics.  If you can get treated when you need it, it
doesn't matter if you have a plastic card or not.  By law, if you apply
correctly, you cannot be refused, and benefits are retroactive.  Also,
in most places you can get treatment under this assumption, while you
are applying (in this case the proper HMO assigns you an
application-pending status).  Thus, you are as much covered as you are
by your insurance, which can always act illegally and stiff you, too.
There are no guarantees, short of what the law says.  If your insurer
does not act until ordered by a judge, there's nothing you can do about
it, whether the government is involved or not.

   Yes, you won't get treated under application-pending status forever,
if you dawdle on your application (I believe you get 6 months to
complete the application, then have to start over).  But you won't get
much from the insurance company if you don't submit a claim for your
damaged car on time, either.  Being covered doesn't mean you're
absolved of any responsibily.  You made much of the fact that it
matters to the doctor's office whether or not you're covered by
medicaid or not, have a card or not.  In fact, it does not.  If you're
going to the correct HMO under application pending status, it doesn't
matter if you have card.  If you're not, you don't get treated even if
you have a card, since that card is only good one place anyway.



> And when I pointed it out, you STILL
>defended your statement saying that it is just semantics.  Well
>it's more than just semantics for those 43 million people.


    Most of these 43 million either don't need treatment, or have
enough resources to pay out of pocket.  For almost all of the rest, the
issue is indeed semantic, since they will be able to get coverage when
they need it.  The rest are free to see a judge.  But being "covered"
by an insurance plan doesn't garantee you won't have to do that.


>> . . .the fact that you want to get on a national net and
>> teach everyone that the system is busted, based on your private
>> experience which isn't applicable to most of the people reading?
>
>I was wondering what motivated you to spend so much of your free time
>posting to these groups.  Perhaps your accusation of my motives is
>actually a pretty good reflection of YOUR motives.  It certainly
>seems to apply.

    Yeah, except I know what I'm talking about.   As for my
motivations, they are complex, and I'm not going to repeat what I've
said many times before here.


>On the topic of "know it alls," I did notice that you fell for the
>story of a 20 GW IR laser boring a hole through the Pacific Coast
>Mountain Range.

   No, I fell for the story of the 20 GW laser, if indeed 1 MW is the
max.  However, you will notice that I am here (and there) accepting the
word of somebody who knows more physics (and whom I know from
sci.physics) as to what the present tech limit is.  Exactly the sort of
thing you say I never do.

>  You even commented on your recollection of what
>type of laser it was.

   Yep. You will note me saying "as I recall" which is what you say
when you're not sure of something.  I did indeed have this 20 GW thing
confused with MIRACL (mobile? IR active chemical laser), a version of
which does fly on an airplane, and which does use D2/F2.  I still need
to get straightened out on what secret government project is what, and
what the laser technical capability of the US govenrment is.  Silly me
for not knowing.  Would someone kindly post the facts on the internet
so I don't look like such a stupe ;.


> And as I now check that thread, it appears
>you couldn't just let it drop that you had been mistaken, you needed
>to give your expert opinion on why a 20 GW laser could be built.

   For those who cannot tell a facetious comment, what I actually said
was: why not just scale up a 1 MW laser 20,000 times "(no, I'm sure
it's not that simple)".    That's hardly the language of an expert.


>Oh, I forgot, you're a doctor, not a physicist.  Well, I guess
>know-it-alls have a lot of breadth.

    That's correct.  I'm not a physicist.  Thus, the maximal power of
US IR lasers is way out of my league of expertise.  Never claimed
otherwise.  Read that thread again if you haven't understood it.


>Physician, heal thyself.
>-Bret Wood
>-bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu


    I'm not ill.  I have left the sick role here for you, since you
claimed it.  Be my guest.


>PS -- If you want to comment to me, then email me.  I don't read
>your posts unless someone includes it in a reply, or you change
>the title of the thread in an attempt to insult me yet again.


    I don't particularly care whether you read this or not.  Killfile
pepole at your own risk, I always say.  <g>

                                           Steve