ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/24/2018 08:08 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  6.632 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
12/05/2007 03:57 AM ID: 66973 Permalink   

Poker Legend Dies at 56

 

Poker great David "Chip" Reese has died at his home in Las Vegas at the age of 56. A family friend confirmed that Reese called his doctor at 10pm on Monday complaining of pneumonia like symptoms, but never went to the hospital and died in his sleep.

Reese was originally from Ohio and went to Vegas in 1973. He became so successful at poker he dropped out of Dartmouth College to become a poker professional.

He won three coveted WSOP bracelets, including the first ever $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event in 2006. In 1991 he became the youngest player to be inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame. He was a regular player in The Big Game at the Bellagio.

 
  Source: sports.espn.go.com  
    WebReporter: ZCT Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  27 Comments
  
  =\  
 
How did Reese go before Brunson?
 
  by: fballer23   12/05/2007 04:46 AM     
  Political  
 
I hate to use this man's death as a political soap box, but this is one of things that's wrong with America.

In England, for example, if you go to the ER it is free. If you call a doctor to your home, it is free.

Perhaps if Reese had lived in a country that did not put a price on health care, he would still be alive.

In America when we get sick we have to make the choice between getting better and getting poorer, or putting off vital health care to save money.

Chip Reese took a gamble. He figured his symptoms were not bad enough to warrant the expense and hassle of getting medical attention. It cost him his life.

There is a reason why the mortality rate is so bad in this country. There is a reason why infant mortality is well below other developed nations. There is a reason why people don't seek the medical care they need.

We are the richest country in the world. We need to fix this shit.
 
  by: ZCT     12/05/2007 08:08 AM     
  ....  
 
FOLD!
 
  by: idimitrakopoulos   12/05/2007 08:45 AM     
  Seriously  
 
Your saying a world class poker player died because he couldnt afford medical care?

He died within 12 hours of calling the doctor, probably more like 6.
Had he called his doctor in the UK, he'd be able to see him within a week, had he gone to hospital and not died en route, he'd die in the waiting room.
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     12/05/2007 09:29 AM     
  Yay Canada?  
 
I have nothing to complain about here. XD Heck, my cleft palate surgeries have been/are all paid for which includes plastic surgery.
 
  by: edya   12/05/2007 10:07 AM     
  @AnsweringQuestions  
 
“Your saying a world class poker player died because he couldnt afford medical care?”
- What I’m saying is that as a world class poker player, he probably considered the EV of going to the ER. He probably considered that if he did go it would be a lengthy wait, followed by an expensive bill. As a self employed poker professional, he probably had crappy insurance, since the good insurance is generally only available to employees with a group policy.

“He died within 12 hours of calling the doctor, probably more like 6. Had he called his doctor in the UK, he'd be able to see him within a week, had he gone to hospital and not died en route, he'd die in the waiting room.”
- I don’t know where you are getting your facts, but on two occasions that I thought I had a fairly urgent medical situation with a relative in the UK, the service was faster than I have ever experienced in the US.
On one occasion I had to take my father to the ER, he was seen by a doctor in about 30 minutes. I went to the ER one time with a fairly low priority situation (thought I might have broken an ankle), and was seen in about 40 minutes.
On another occasion my girlfriend at the time had a lung infection with some pneumonia like symptoms, not unlike this situation with Reese. The doctor came to our home and prescribed medicine. He was at our house in less than an hour. It was 3am.
So I don’t know what your negative experiences about the UK relate to, but mine were all very positive.
Now compare this to America.
My wife once had an allergic reaction to a shot, and went into anaphylactic shock. Luckily for her she collapsed in the doctor’s office. If she had made it out to the car, she would have died before anyone noticed. The doctor gave her a shot, and the ambulance arrived promptly and they stabilized her on the ambulance. Once in the ER it took four hours before any doctor checked on her. I arrived after two hours and started making a fuss about her lack of care. She lay there with horrible nausea for four hours total until she finally got an injection of an anti-nausea medicine. They gave an injection because it works faster than a pill. Of course they also got to charge us way more for doing an injection, even though it is more painful that way.
In another ER visit, we were between insurance. My wife injured her ankle. When we got to the ER we filled out the mountain of paperwork. I asked for a quote for treatment, and was told $450. My wife had no treatment but an x-ray and it turned out to be a sprain. The doctor spoke to her for a total of 2 minutes, which cost $180. The total bill for the visit was $1450. We later sued them, and they were court ordered to honor their quote.
If you want more examples, check out the movie Sicko.
I’ve seen both systems at work. People whine and bitch about the UK system, but I have no idea why. I have personally always found it to be very good, although I did live in an affluent area in the UK, which might explain the quality of care.
I also had a job that gave me free private health insurance. So if I had needed any operation or a better standard of care, I could get it very easily (although I never had to use it). Most people in the UK don’t bother to get private medical insurance because even though it is way more affordable than in the US, and with less strings attached, people have a feeling of entitlement, expecting the NHS to provide free everything, and do a great job. Personally, I believe that if people who could afford it, took out private insurance, it would ease a lot of NHS burdens and make the whole system better.
But you can criticize the UK and Canada all you like. The fact of the matter is that in many of the countries that have socialized medicine they have a lower infant mortality rate, and a longer life span. That includes the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, Finland, Denmark, Australia, Portugal and others.
At the end of the day, whatever you think of the health care available in the UK, at least it is available to every man woman and child. But this really isn’t about whether it’s better in the UK or not. What it’s about is the fact that health care in the US could be a lot better. My vote, if I had one, would be for a president who would make improving health care and making it more accessible to all a major priority.
If we hadn’t wasted half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, we could have been well on the way to providing a much improved health care service for all citizens.
 
  by: ZCT     12/05/2007 03:16 PM     
  @ZCT  
 
GP's dont do home visits anymore and the last time I went to an ER my friend went and bought a neede and thread and stitched his own forehead back together.

You remember the NHS that used to at least partly work, I live with the one thats had to deal with a labour government for 10 years.

So yeah, I stand by my comment he'd have died in the admissions room
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     12/05/2007 03:52 PM     
  @AnsweringQuestions  
 
In all fairness, you live in Manchester.
 
  by: ZCT     12/05/2007 04:00 PM     
  But thats even worse  
 
Because the supposedly equal healthcare system, isnt.

Chipping Norton has clean comfortable hospitals with quality care, Nottingham has a, well, butcher.
And this is in the fair equitable system.
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     12/05/2007 04:12 PM     
  RE: political  
 
Excuse the cliche, ZCT, but you are an idiot. Do you think a man who plays poker for millions of dollars at a time is going to be concerned about spending a few dollars at the emergency room? If you are going to make an argument, at least base it on some semblance of reality.
 
  by: OrangeIII   12/05/2007 05:34 PM     
  @Orange  
 
No need to bring insults into it
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     12/05/2007 05:37 PM     
  @OrangeIII  
 
I once heard a story about a very famous poker player, who would not order cheese on his burger because he said it was too expensive. He was a millionaire, who routinely played high stakes poker.

Even if the guy had a few million dollars, as I previously mentioned, individual health coverage in America sucks. Probably even more so if you make a living as a professional gambler. (Try getting any insurance quote and tell them your job is professional gambler.)

Because health care is so exorbitant in America, thanks to insurance companies operating with little to no regulation, people often have to make uncomfortable choices about money, rather than what is best for their health.

In England I would not think twice about going to the ER or calling for an ambulance. Yet my first thought here in America is how much is it going to cost.

To assume that a guy who has a few million dollars, blindly spends money like it is nothing is just naive on your part.

If you can't make a sensible argument without insulting people, maybe you are the idiot. And yes I'm aware of the irony of that statement.
 
  by: ZCT     12/05/2007 06:03 PM     
  @AnsweringQuestions  
 
I know it is supposed to be an equal system, but let's face facts. That's probably never going to happen, no matter how hard you try. For on thing in Manchester, someone's just going to steal any new equipment they buy anyway ;)

While I was just doing a comparison with England, the issue here is not really anything to do with England.

My issue is that the American health care service needs a massive overhaul. The richest country in the world, should be able to do better.

We are getting our asses kicked by a bunch of countries (previously mentioned), and I'm annoyed about it. As an American resident, I'd like to see some improvement. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should model the UK. But France and Germany have a kick ass service last time I checked. Why not find out how they do so well?
 
  by: ZCT     12/05/2007 06:12 PM     
  @ZCT  
 
They have "free" health care becasue of HIGHER taxes.

Australia 28.3% 16.0% Korea 17.3% 16.2%
Austria 47.4% 35.5% Luxembourg 35.3% 12.2%
Belgium 55.4% 40.3% Mexico 18.2% 18.2%
Canada 31.6% 21.5% Netherlands 38.6% 29.1%
Czech Republic 43.8% 27.1% New Zealand 20.5% 14.5%
Denmark 41.4% 29.6% Norway 37.3% 29.6%
Finland 44.6% 38.4% Poland 43.6% 42.1%
France 50.1% 41.7% Portugal 36.2% 26.6%
Germany 51.8% 35.7% Slovak Republic 38.3% 23.2%
Greece 38.8% 39.2% Spain 39.0% 33.4%
Hungary 50.5% 39.9% Sweden 47.9% 42.4%
Iceland 29.0% 11.0% Switzerland 29.5% 18.6%
Ireland 25.7% 8.1% Turkey 42.7% 42.7%
Italy 45.4% 35.2% United Kingdom 33.5% 27.1%
Japan 27.7% 24.9% United States 29.1% 11.9%

The 2 different numbers are for overall rates for Single compared to Married with 2 kids.

I definately do not want to pay almost 30% more of my income to get "free" health care.

DA
 
  by: Living_Right_In_CA   12/05/2007 11:10 PM     
  @Living_Right_In_CA  
 
So what you are saying is that you'd rather die younger, and have a greater chance of your kids dying, to save tax.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Of course what your statistics fail to show is what people are paying for health care in the US. If you take your two figures 29.1% and 11.9% in America, what you would have to consider in order for your figures to have any meaning, is the cost of health care. What you have not considered is the costs of insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays, non-covered, prescription costs. Remember that in countries like the UK, most stuff is free, and stuff you pay for (unless you are a child, poor or old) has a cap on it to keep it cheap. So while my theoretical tax level is lower in the US, I am paying around $500 per month for my family in premiums, that I would not be paying in the UK. Then if I need a prescription, or need to actually get some treatment there are a whole bunch of other costs associated with that.

So your tax figures simply do not tell the story. If I pay less tax, but then end up spending $6,000 - $10,000 in medical related costs, how am I better off?

Consider too that the last figures I saw showed that America is already spending $5,800 per capita on health care. This is double what most European countries spend. Our per capita spend on medical insurance red tape in America is three times higher than in Canada.

At the end of the day, for what we already pay per capita, we should have a world leading system that is accessible and free to all. However, what happens is that rich corporations siphon off as much money as possible for their share holders and top management. So the actual patient investment money disappears.

The way to fix health care in America is not to just copy the systems used abroad, it is for strict government regulation to prevent blatant and unreasonable profiteering from the sick.

The health care industry in this country has put themselves in an astonishing position of charging whatever they like and doing pretty much whatever they want.

If you go to the ER, have some tests, have a minor procedure done, stay in hospital for a couple of days, and then go home, you have no idea what it is going to cost. You are just sent a massively inflated bill in the mail.

Try and think of another business where the product or service is carried out first, and then you are billed a few weeks later whatever the business decided to charge.

If the government did their job of protecting us from greedy corporations, we'd have a more accessible health care system and no extra taxes.

To argue for no change at all, simply shows you have not done your research, or not had much experience dealing with the American health care system.
 
  by: ZCT     12/05/2007 11:29 PM     
  @ZCT  
 
If I accept your statement that I may pay up to $10,000 a year in medical costs on top of my lower tax rate, then paying $30,000 a year more in taxes (net of $20,000) is better for me and my family?

I have experience with healthcare. I have insurance and my back surgery cost me $100.00..

If you truly want to drive prices down than eliminate insurance and implement a pay as you use system. Of course the amount of time it would take to lower the prices would never allow for thisw to occur.

I do not want government controlled health care, period. The current system is not perfect but to say change just for change sake and then point to countries who have it and saying "not like their system but something different", well the important question is what?

How is the government going to protect us from "greedy" insurance companies? You do know they are billed by the doctors and hospitals, right?

What are your thoughts on the amount of malpractice insurance doctors need to carry in our litigation heavy society?
 
  by: Living_Right_In_CA   12/05/2007 11:40 PM     
  @ZCT  
 
If I accept your statement that I may pay up to $10,000 a year in medical costs on top of my lower tax rate, then paying $30,000 a year more in taxes (net of $20,000) is better for me and my family?

I have experience with healthcare. I have insurance and my back surgery cost me $100.00..

If you truly want to drive prices down than eliminate insurance and implement a pay as you use system. Of course the amount of time it would take to lower the prices would never allow for thisw to occur.

I do not want government controlled health care, period. The current system is not perfect but to say change just for change sake and then point to countries who have it and saying "not like their system but something different", well the important question is what?

How is the government going to protect us from "greedy" insurance companies? You do know they are billed by the doctors and hospitals, right?

What are your thoughts on the amount of malpractice insurance doctors need to carry in our litigation heavy society?
 
  by: Living_Right_In_CA   12/06/2007 12:03 AM     
  @Living_Right_In_CA 1/3  
 
“If I accept your statement that I may pay up to $10,000 a year in medical costs on top of my lower tax rate, then paying $30,000 a year more in taxes (net of $20,000) is better for me and my family?”

- I have no idea where you got those figures from. What I said, is that you were not comparing like with like. You are saying that, for example tax in America is 29.1%, whereas in the UK it is 33.5%. So let’s say you make a household income of $200,000. In England you’d lose $67,000 in tax, in America you’d pay $58,200. So your argument appeared to be that you are all for the $11,200 tax saving you’ve just made. However, my argument is that this apparent saving is not real, because by the time you pay all your premiums, deductibles, out of pocket, drugs, etc., you still lose that $11,200. What’s worse, is that in the American system, if you get cancer and lose your job and insurance, you are screwed. That’s why health care costs are now the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States.

Consider too, that the average family income in the US, is far lower than $200,000, so the fake ‘saving’ you are making is even less.


“I have experience with healthcare. I have insurance and my back surgery cost me $100.00.”

- That’s wonderful. But it is precisely this selfish “I’m alright Jack” attitude that got us into this mess in the first place. The trouble is with people like you is apparently until someone in your family goes though something horrific like cancer, you are unable to visualize how easy it is for the system to fail. My major issue with the American system is the lack of a safety net. My wife had all kinds of clients who lost their jobs because they couldn’t work due to a back injury. Then they couldn’t afford the back surgery and had no insurance to get better. Now they are stuck on welfare. Your simplistic view of something like this, demonstrated by this statement shows how little you truly understand the problem.


“I do not want government controlled health care, period. The current system is not perfect but to say change just for change sake and then point to countries who have it and saying "not like their system but something different", well the important question is what?”

- It’s not change for the sake of change. When nearly 50 million Americans cannot get access to health care, there’s a problem. When health care is the number one reason for bankruptcy there’s a problem. When other countries are kicking our ass in infant mortality figures and life expectancy figures, there’s a problem. Among African Americans the infant mortality rate is almost 1%. That’s a lot of dead babies. I don’t know how you can be okay with all this, and claim that any change would just be for the sake of it.
 
  by: ZCT     12/06/2007 01:13 AM     
  @Living_Right_In_CA 2/3  
 
“How is the government going to protect us from "greedy" insurance companies? You do know they are billed by the doctors and hospitals, right?”
- The issue is that insurance companies make more money when they don’t pay out. So they are constantly looking for ways to avoid paying. This involves refusing to cover people, providing gaps in insurance if possible, not paying for preexisting conditions, forcing people to buy generic drugs as opposed to the specific ones the doctor thinks is right.

My doctor wanted to give me a specific drug. When I really drilled him he admitted he was giving me a less effective drug with more side effects because it is cheaper. He said that the insurance companies get on his case if he doesn’t first try to prescribe some cheap ineffective drug with more side effects.

Doctors also know that when they bill an insurance company, the insurance company will try to avoid paying, or create problems or pay less than the bill. So this causes doctors and hospitals to deliberately over bill as much as possible, so they don’t get screwed when the insurance pays them half what they were expecting.

Insurance companies, wanting to make more money, provide mountains of red tape to discourage smaller claims. Then pay out as little as possible and try to dump as much as they can back on the customer. It’s a sick sick system.

I work as a Hearing Instrument Specialist. I prescribed a set of hearing aids for a patient back in December of 2006. They were not ideal, because the insurance company only pay a limited amount. We filed our claim, and it took them until July 2007 to get us a check, for less than they were supposed to send. We had to send the same documentation to them on six occasions, and I lost track of how many hours my secretary spent on the phone with them. They would lose paperwork; demand we re-file forms with different ‘codes’ on. They basically stone walled us for seven months. Finally they gave us some money, and we just gave up on trying to get the rest.

My secretary used to work for a team of psychologists, and has told me countless tales of how long it can take to get these companies to play ball.
 
  by: ZCT     12/06/2007 01:14 AM     
  @Living_Right_In_CA 3/3  
 

“What are your thoughts on the amount of malpractice insurance doctors need to carry in our litigation heavy society?”

- Honestly, I think it is largely a red herring. Insurance companies and the medical profession love to throw this one out there. “If it weren’t for all those ‘frivolous’ lawsuits, we wouldn’t have to charge so much…” Bullshit. What they mean is, please don’t sue us when a doctor screws up and maims someone, because it eats into our bottom line.

Malpractice insurance is NOT why health care costs so much in America. Greed is why the costs are so high.

My favorite way to fix health care in America is to remove health benefits for all politicians. Let them roll the dice and go out and try and buy individual health insurance. I guarantee many of the problems would be fixed within weeks.
 
  by: ZCT     12/06/2007 01:14 AM     
  Americas Health care??  
 
Where do you think the majority of learning institutions are located. The R and D of these new drugs...Where is that finanaced...

Canada....

has lived on the coat tails of america since its inception. The only reason you have free health care is that we have defended you form 60 years.

I dont care where you go... Modern medicine is to DaCarte in its application. To focused on the effect and not the affect.

I like americas health system is it perfect..No. Is it free thanks fully no.

Do we have the mosat advanced medical personal in the world.

YES

World.

You are welcome.


 
  by: Reamensa   12/06/2007 03:15 AM     
  @Reamensa  
 
Yeah, let's keep waving that foam finger:

WE'RE NUMBER ONE, WE'RE NUMBER ONE...

Who cares if it isn't true any more? Why even bother to try and improve anything? That's a great idea. Thank goodness previous generations didn't take such a lazy approach.
 
  by: ZCT     12/06/2007 03:41 AM     
  I'm surprised the guy lived so long.  
 
They hook up heart monitors to these players in some games. Outwardly, they look so calm with their poker faces. But inwardly, someone or other's heart rate regularly *exceed* 120-165 every hand. And they're not really fit at all.

Their stress levels are only surpassed by football and soccer coaches in critical matches - I think a coach actually died of a coronary in a match - on air - once.

I know you want to discuss you own matters, but this is an activity known for drinking, smoking, inactivity and high levels of stress. The guy lived a long life by his peer's standards.

But if you want turn it in to a HealthCare agenda and start a poo-flinging contest, I'll take you all on :)
 
  by: redstain   12/06/2007 03:56 AM     
  hmm  
 
maybe in jamaica its 'poker mon'.. but i guess he had to catch them all, including pneumonia.
 
  by: rutgers   12/06/2007 03:59 AM     
  I read all of your comments,  
 
but how do you think that this guy died because he didn't have socialized medicine? He died because he waited too long to call a doctor. Even with socialized medicine, if you fail to call the doctor in sufficient time you will die. ZCT, you may want to pick another example on which to base your argument. This one doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
 
  by: tomblik     12/08/2007 04:11 AM     
  @tomblik  
 
It's called a springboard. I think ZCT has done a wonderful job of explaining what's wrong with the U.S. health care system and what we might do to fix it.
 
  by: l´anglais     12/08/2007 04:30 AM     
  @tomblik  
 
I think you'll find that people do wait too long to get medical attention because they are afraid of the expense. As I already mentioned medical bills are now the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. Doesn't that raise a red flag to you?

Sadly, some people need to be on the wrong end of the health care system and see it for themselves before they understand the issue.

When every single industrialized country in the world has taken action on this, you have to consider that maybe our approach is not the best.

When you look at the stats like infant mortality and life expectancy, and see that we are getting our asses kicked by these tiny little countries that spend a fraction of what we do on medicine, you have to ask why.

I'm not saying we need a government run health care system. But I am saying that the current system is not working, and we could do better.

To argue for the status quo is to admit that we are incapable of doing better, which is a pretty defeatist approach to take.

To argue that our system is already good enough, is just naive at best.

Frankly, unless you have personally lived in other countries and experienced other approaches to this issue, I don't think you are really equipped to argue this point.

As someone who has lived for eight adult years in two different countries, I have noticed a marked difference in my approach to health care. In England, I would never be concerned about getting health care if I needed it, or just to be on the safe side. Here in America, I import my medicine from Canada, and I become concerned if me or a member of my family gets sick, for fear of a medical condition that leaves us destitute.

Like I have already said. I am not suggesting America needs to model any particular country. But people do need to acknowledge that this health care system is not ideal, and could be improved.
 
  by: ZCT     12/08/2007 05:30 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com