Who do you think should pay for your medical costs?

I hurt my shoulder in late june. Fell on an overhanging roof, barn-doored and caught myself with my right arm as my body was facing away from the wall and felt two pops close together with imediate pain. My first thought was that I dislocated it, it was numb and painfull to lift at all. But after catching my breath I regained feeling and it seemed alright and I could move it but not far above my head.

So I RICE'd it and stayed off of it untill late october. I went up to the NRG and was climbing with no pain. while leading a route I felt a pop again and the pain came back but not as bad as the first time. The next day I climbed with no pain or issues but took it easy.

recently while playing frisbee, I threw an overhand "hammer" and it hurt like hell. I didn't think I could hurt my shoulder while fucking throwing a frisbee. But after reading a lot about rotator cuff injuries now, I found out that overhand throws are a no-no.

My shoulder doesn't hurt now, but when I climb it feels really unstable and I'm afraid to really pull with it or put weight on it.

So connective tissue doesn't re-attach itself naturaly?

I'm starting to think that if I don't get surgery I'm going to completely blow out my shoulder.

The only thing keeping me from going to the doc is $$. My parents are putting the power bills and food on credit cards. I'm working two jobs trying to get a degree and I'm uninsured. I can't get insurance now because my injury is a fucking "pre-existing condition" and it won't be covered...and I can't afford it anyway.

As an asside, let me just say FUCK the insurance industry and everyone who works for it. Grow a conscience you fucking parasites.

So here is my question. For those of you who have had shoulder/rotator cuff surgery, how much did your surgery and pt treatment cost?

Thanks in advance for any info.

snip. . .

I hope you have read the fine print and are covered if/when you should happen to get hurt climbing.

In reply to:Buying insurance is not about free health care, it is about sharing risk between you and the other people who buy the same insurance policy.

I think we'd all be better off if there existed a nationalized health system that provided a basic range of services with high end doctors and special premium services available to those who want to pay/insure for more.

the United States infant mortality rate is worse than Cuba's.

However, our current system is ineffective and wasteful. A lot of the money paid to share risk is not used on healthcare. For example, From 2004 to 2005, WellPoint Chief Executive Larry Glasscock made $14.12 million in total realized compensation (salary, bonus, restricted-stock awards, long-term incentive payouts, stock-option gains and other compensation), according to Equilar Inc., a compensation research firm.
That compares with:
$135.47 million for William McGuire, UnitedHealth Group CEO. (He resigned amid
a scandal over the timing of stock-option grants.)
$57.49 million for John Rowe of Aetna.
$42.13 million for Edward Hanway of Cigna.
$5.71 million for Michael McCallister of Humana.

Ok, a couple more things...

Do you think the government should decide how much money someone can make?

Let's take Bill Gates.

"A lot of the money paid for your computer software is not actually used on software."

Or someone who owns a resort hotel:

"A lot of the money you spend on your vacation is not actually used supplying your hotel towels."

Or, a professional athlete:

"A lot of the money Tiger Woods makes is not actually used on golf clubs."

I'm not sure about you, but I really don't want the government in charge of deciding how much money people make. If Tiger can get another sponsor, and make another million, why not?

Also, I'm of the opinion that the government is likely to be considerably less efficient. If the government pays someone (say) $150,000 to administrate a health care sytem, they are not likely to get the sharpest knife in the drawer.

What are now called "evil corporate profits" will later be "bloated government administrative costs."

And it will cost you more.

that's a really common quote, and often used to raise the idea that Cuba's health care system is better than the USA's. Given your statements about USA high-tech, I don't think that is your position.

But still, it begs the question, WHY is Cuba's infant mortality rate lower?

My opinion, having had three children born in the USA, is the extensive use of pain meds, and the increasing age at which couples are having children.

Regarding pain meds...I don't want the women around here flaming me on this. I have the greatest respect and admiration for child-bearing women. I have NEVER seen the kind of pain and endurance undergone in childbirth anywhere else.

If my wife was going to have another, I'd encourage her to get the meds. (BUT, we'd do it with the understanding there is slightly more risk involved)

When women aged 40, 45, 50(!) are having babies, well, there will be, statistically speaking, more risk.

Also (guessing a bit, but I've heard it's true), the USA has many more c-sections, which have a non-zero increased risk for women and babies. More docs do c-sections to avoid litigation, they NEED to show they did EVERYTHING possible to save mother and baby. Otherwise lawyers ask, "why didn't you do more?", and they get sued.

Another guess. In poor countries, it's not unusual to have babies at home. Even in the USA, my father was born at home, only a generation ago. I don't know what the stats are on home births, but I'd bet they dount "count" toward Cuba's mortality stats.

I only used Cuba as my example for effect. According to the United Nations Population Division, the United States is ranked behind 31 other countries in infant mortality rate, including Iceland, France, Canada, South Korea, the UK, Germany, Slovenia, and of course Cuba. That is not to say that other aspects of our health care system are much more advanced than these countries, just that our standard of care is not.

these CEO's get paid very large salaries to run a large infrastructure which has a goal of maximizing profits. And, that goal of maximizing profits is not well aligned with the goal of improving the health care system.

that's a really common quote, and often used to raise the idea that Cuba's health care system is better than the USA's. Given your statements about USA high-tech, I don't think that is your position.

But still, it begs the question, WHY is Cuba's infant mortality rate lower?

My opinion, having had three children born in the USA, is the extensive use of pain meds, and the increasing age at which couples are having children.

Good job mocking my post with loose and ill fitting metaphor. Your lack of understanding is evident not only in the weak and inappropriate analogy but also with the hubris in which it was delivered.

If you understood the content of my post then you had the option of an honest rebuttal. Way to miss an opportunity.

In short, I think USA docs over-treat, over medicate, and try to do too much, in order to avoid litigation. When the USA socializes medicine (WHEN, not IF), the minimization of litigation will be fought hard by the legal profession. But it's a really big part of the problem here, moreso than in other countries.

I think this is our fundamental diagreement.

I recognize the system needs change. But I think it's more tweaking, rather than tearing down the whole thing.

Let's take the auto industry, to illustrate. GM, Ford, Chrysler once dominated. Japanese cars were cheap junk. American makers, in the 1970s, talked about "planned obsolescence", a term you may never have heard. The idea was, build a car that will max out at 100,000 miles or so, to keep the market alive.

The Japanese came up with a simple model. In short, the model was, "Satisfy the Customer." They built quality, efficient, durable cars, that people wanted. This approach increased market share. By the time Detroit started thinking about catching up, they were so bloated by corporate expense, they had to charge ~$1500 more per car to pay for retirement benefits.

Privately owned, but with an emphasis on offering products that customers actually want, rather than on what you want to sell them. And still, very profitable.

That, and "infant mortality" is defined differently in various countries. Some countries will not count premature infant death in their statistics. Others consider any infant to the age of three months to be included. So, in the USA, an infant born at 26 weeks gestation that dies in the first 3 months is counted, while in Cuba, a child born at 38 weeks gestation that dies in a month isn't.

Oh, and don't discount the number of people who get pregnant in one country, get minimal if any prenatal care, then come to the USA and deliver the child. Those stats are counted with ours, when they rightly should not be.

The only way I see to insert a competitor into the health insurance market with a strategy of "satisfy the customer" is for the government to increase its involvement in the system.

There are 31 other countries with higher rates than the US. Do you believe that they all track their infant mortality statistics in a manner that gives them an artificially higher rate than the US?

You are the one bringing up "infant mortality" as a proxy for "health care". As such, the burden is on YOU, and no one else, to show how the statistics are calculated.

What if, for example, only say, 26 countries calculate infant mortality different than us. What happens to your stats?

Who does this? I can't imagine that there are that many big bellied pregnant women swimming the Rio Grande, or sailing across Lake Huron.

If there are, don't you think this might happen in other countries as well?