Since he didn't have it, he obviously refused the Surgery that could have been performed under Medicaid. The only thing hilarious Tiassa is your inability to grasp the meaning of very simple English sentences. Arthur
Flock together The fact that you cannot cite an explicit sentence, must infer, yet still insist that there is no inference, and "There is no other way to interpret" the situation only demonstrates my point. Flock together.
Well Tiassa, it might be news to you, but you have to CONSENT to surgery. The statement: doctors told him about a surgery that could be performed through Medicaid. Indeed is an EXPLICIT statement that a surgical option to be performed at UMC and paid for by Medicaid was offered to him. Since that offer is some time ago (he has since travelled to UCLA medical center and appeared on the Stern show) and since he didn't have the surgery at UMC that means only one thing. He refused the offer for the surgery at UMC. Arthur
Arthur's already covered that pretty persuasively in posts number 19, 23, 39, 53 and 55. The story that you posted said: So clearly, the gentleman was offered surgery and the cost would have been picked up by the tax payers. I'm not sure how anyone could read that and come to any other conclusion. To suggest that the doctors were telling this individual both that there was surgery available that could be performed through Medicaid, and that the only available surgery couldn't be performed through Medicaid, would have these doctors saying two mutually contradictory things. That's not a reasonable interpretation. It seems to me that if you backed off that extreme interpretation a little and argued instead that while Medicaid has offered him surgery in Las Vegas, it should nevertheless pay for the UCLA treatment that the patient prefers, then your position would make more sense. If not correct, at least defensible. In that case we would end up discussing what appear to be the real underlying issues of the situation, stuff like treatment cost caps, payments for out-of-state treatments, for experimental treatments, or whatever the technical issues actually are in this instance. If we did that, we might find that these issues have little to do with the liberal/conservative (or as you seem to prefer, good-guy/bad-guy) distinction. Liberals are going to encounter these kind of problems internally, even if they have installed a monolithic system where all doctors are federal employees. They're still apt to find themselves denying patients the treatments of their choice in the hospital of their choice, if the cost of providing it is excessive. And the most determined conservative is going to face pretty much the same issues with private insurance plans or even when paying out of pocket. In other words, if we look at these issues intelligently, they look a lot more pragmatic than ideological.
Your opinion is hardly a surprise Well, no wonder if you're only reading one set of posts. I mean, if you were providing some sort of reliable analysis, instead of just parroting presumption as fact, perhaps your opinion might be worth something more than its weight in electricity.
T as much as i am loathe to admit it. for once in his postiong history here arthur seems to be correct about something. he was offered sugery under medicare to cut away the excess tissue but it was with a high chance of him losing his dangly bits.
Exactly. This sort of problem pops up under any system, public or private. One of the reasons I oppose a single payer system is that under our current system you at least have the option of switching insurance companies if you're being treated poorly. What can you do under a single payer system?
Even with surgical procedures that have been performed hundreds of times, doesn't mean its the best choice either. Like for example the surgery on prolapse uterus, using synthetic mesh. Has had alot of problems with women and allergic reactions and infections. now there are law suits. the doctors would have me working reguardless of surgery or not. with permanent conditions. my bladder prolapsing and my anus prolapsing is at stake. but who cares, people think me making an excuse. oh and they just denied my appeal to go in front of a judge again. sent me a document. with my words...you know where you go in front of a judge. they want to say my only right is to see a doctor now that states im in worse condition. nawww after all this time its gotten better! its all bull. infringing on my rights. making me out to be just mental doesn't change my facts.
im sorry got riled up there and forgot to post this. When you hang with the drinkers, well their pissing aim is off alot of times. I would say there are worse things than missing the toilet. I would think twice before having any procedure done on my privates. including. its gigantum disorder right, can't surgery stimulate more growth? it could do more harm than good.
