Jump to content

Menu

Creativity Challenge: How can we reduce health care costs in America?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

People can manage their stress better thus getting sick less. I find Americans to be codependent. People need to take more responsibility for their bodies. I don't think you will convince the government to ignore big business when much of politics has their hands in pharm pockets. Pharm drugs are big money, especially when many people run to a legalized street high when times get tough imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there laws against this right now that would have to be passed, elizabeth? How would the free birth control be funded? How much would this effort save?

 

There are a lot of articles out there on this, it's a hot topic right now as to whether this will be available under the new health care law.

 

Forbes seems like a reasonably unbiased source (better than the Mother Nature News or the Catholic newsletter, at least):

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/11/01/business-financial-impact-us-birth-control_8062802.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tort Reform! This would seriously lower malpractice insurance. It's getting to where any completely ridiculous claim against a doctor or hospital results in huge amounts of money to the plaintiff's attorney because it's cheaper than a court battle.

 

In Michigan, malpractice insurance for OBGYN's have forced huge numbers of them out of practice because we have a law on the books that allows parents to sue until a child is age 21 for anything they perceive went wrong in the delivery room. We've had doctors sued and attorneys settled out of court for things like, "I'm just certain if the doctor had not given me that epidural that I demanded, my child would not have ADHD." No joke, that's one case locally in which the parents got over $100,000.00 and who knows what the attorney received. It's ridiculous. If a child has a birth injury due to the negligence of the attending medical staff, we can safely assume it's going to show up before that kid is old enough to be graduating college.

 

Plus, by reducing malpractice and the sizes of settlements for non-life threatening/maiming/death suits, doctors would not feel to compelled to order unnecessary tests. There is a lot of "covering butts" going on out there.

 

Ask me how I know, dd just had an interesting ambulance shift and got a first hand glimpse at stupidity and wastefullness in action just so that "behinds were shielded".

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrs. Mungo, are all these health insurance companies? Or do they own health insurance companies? And is it legal to limit salaries? Would special taxes on health insurance executives be the way to go? How would we fight tax evasion (I'm assuming these guys could find ways to evade taxes)? Through publishing their tax returns every year? Could we make that legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tort Reform! This would seriously lower malpractice insurance. It's getting to where any completely ridiculous claim against a doctor or hospital results in huge amounts of money to the plaintiff's attorney because it's cheaper than a court battle.

 

In Michigan, malpractice insurance for OBGYN's have forced huge numbers of them out of practice because we have a law on the books that allows parents to sue until a child is age 21 for anything they perceive went wrong in the delivery room. We've had doctors sued and attorneys settled out of court for things like, "I'm just certain if the doctor had not given me that epidural that I demanded, my child would not have ADHD." No joke, that's one case locally in which the parents got over $100,000.00 and who knows what the attorney received. It's ridiculous. If a child has a birth injury due to the negligence of the attending medical staff, we can safely assume it's going to show up before that kid is old enough to be graduating college.

 

Plus, by reducing malpractice and the sizes of settlements for non-life threatening/maiming/death suits, doctors would not feel to compelled to order unnecessary tests. There is a lot of "covering butts" going on out there.

 

Ask me how I know, dd just had an interesting ambulance shift and got a first hand glimpse at stupidity and wastefullness in action just so that "behinds were shielded".

 

Faith

 

BUT in states where it's hard to sue? It's hard to sue. My dh's uncle was severely injured during a procedure because the doctor wasn't properly trained in the use of the laser he used. He was *unable* to sue because of the difficulty of pressing a medical suit in that state. Any tort reform would have to go hand-in-hand with stricter licensing and it would have be be done in such a way that does not disallow genuine suits against doctors who have no business doing certain procedures and/or practicing medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can manage their stress better thus getting sick less. I find Americans to be codependent. People need to take more responsibility for their bodies. I don't think you will convince the government to ignore big business when much of politics has their hands in pharm pockets. Pharm drugs are big money, especially when many people run to a legalized street high when times get tough imo.

 

How could we get politicians' hands out of pharma? What could work instead of people's taking drugs when they're stressed? Haven't drugs been used for stress in every culture since antiquity? Are we realistically going to stop it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrs. Mungo, are all these health insurance companies? Or do they own health insurance companies? And is it legal to limit salaries? Would special taxes on health insurance executives be the way to go? How would we fight tax evasion (I'm assuming these guys could find ways to evade taxes)? Through publishing their tax returns every year? Could we make that legal?

 

Those are CEOs of health insurance companies and their salaries. You're talking millions, even tens of millions of dollars

 

Could we make it legal? Well, you could make it favorable and profitable to share-holders through tax breaks to have a more equitable arrangement in which the CEO makes (for example) ten times the salary of the average employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tort Reform! This would seriously lower malpractice insurance. It's getting to where any completely ridiculous claim against a doctor or hospital results in huge amounts of money to the plaintiff's attorney because it's cheaper than a court battle.

 

In Michigan, malpractice insurance for OBGYN's have forced huge numbers of them out of practice because we have a law on the books that allows parents to sue until a child is age 21 for anything they perceive went wrong in the delivery room. We've had doctors sued and attorneys settled out of court for things like, "I'm just certain if the doctor had not given me that epidural that I demanded, my child would not have ADHD." No joke, that's one case locally in which the parents got over $100,000.00 and who knows what the attorney received. It's ridiculous. If a child has a birth injury due to the negligence of the attending medical staff, we can safely assume it's going to show up before that kid is old enough to be graduating college.

 

Plus, by reducing malpractice and the sizes of settlements for non-life threatening/maiming/death suits, doctors would not feel to compelled to order unnecessary tests. There is a lot of "covering butts" going on out there.

 

Ask me how I know, dd just had an interesting ambulance shift and got a first hand glimpse at stupidity and wastefullness in action just so that "behinds were shielded".

 

Faith

 

This is bs. I am an attorney and would like to tell you that I do not waste 30,000.00 on discovery, seeking records, taking witness statements and depositions on a frivolous case. This old story comes from the insurance lobby . There are many COYA tests requested but the insurance companies fight the MD's over this and if they will not pay there is no test. My dh's best friend does only birth injuries, those children will never, ever go to college or sit up on their own. You are shamefully misinformed. I am certain that in our state 100,000.00 "nuisance" suits are not settled, they go to trial in most cases . The burden of proof is enormous the initial investigative financial commitment is likewise and the amount of time to go through the records before during and after is astonishing. I am the daughter, grandaughter and grand niece of physicians as well so I grew up hearing a very wide range of perspectives. That said if a physician gets sued and it goes to arbitration binding or non or mediation they might in fact not have committed malpractice as not all errors are such but rather there is a range of error acceptable to the community standard that is a mistake per se but not malpractice. Oh hell why bother no one here deals in subtlety or nuance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of articles out there on this, it's a hot topic right now as to whether this will be available under the new health care law.

 

Forbes seems like a reasonably unbiased source (better than the Mother Nature News or the Catholic newsletter, at least):

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/11/01/business-financial-impact-us-birth-control_8062802.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

 

Wow, thanks so much, Mrs. Mungo. I haven't seen anything on this at all, but I guess I haven't been looking, either. Thanks, once again, for educating us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could we get politicians' hands out of pharma? What could work instead of people's taking drugs when they're stressed? Haven't drugs been used for stress in every culture since antiquity? Are we realistically going to stop it?

Politics and greed is what makes the US today. I don't think every culture known to man has been as psych obsessed as the US. It's lack of unified healthy culture, love, willpower. So no the US won't change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is bs. I am an attorney and would like to tell you that I do not waste 30,000.00 on discovery, seeking records, taking witness statements and depositions on a frivolous case. This old story comes from the insurance lobby . There are many COYA tests requested but the insurance companies fight the MD's over this and if they will not pay there is no test. My dh's best friend does only birth injuries, those children will never, ever go to college or sit up on their own. You are shamefully misinformed. I am certain that in our state 100,000.00 "nuisance" suits are not settled, they go to trial in most cases . The burden of proof is enormous the initial investigative financial commitment is likewise and the amount of time to go through the records before during and after is astonishing. I am the daughter, grandaughter and grand niece of physicians as well so I grew up hearing a very wide range of perspectives. That said if a physician gets sued and it goes to arbitration binding or non or mediation they might in fact not have committed malpractice as not all errors are such but rather there is a range of error acceptable to the community standard that is a mistake per se but not malpractice. Oh hell why bother no one here deals in subtlety or nuance.

 

elizabeth, some people really do listen and are glad for a variety of perspectives. :grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is bs. I am an attorney and would like to tell you that I do not waste 30,000.00 on discovery, seeking records, taking witness statements and depositions on a frivolous case. This old story comes from the insurance lobby . There are many COYA tests requested but the insurance companies fight the MD's over this and if they will not pay there is no test. My dh's best friend does only birth injuries, those children will never, ever go to college or sit up on their own. You are shamefully misinformed. I am certain that in our state 100,000.00 "nuisance" suits are not settled, they go to trial in most cases . The burden of proof is enormous the initial investigative financial commitment is likewise and the amount of time to go through the records before during and after is astonishing. I am the daughter, grandaughter and grand niece of physicians as well so I grew up hearing a very wide range of perspectives. That said if a physician gets sued and it goes to arbitration binding or non or mediation they might in fact not have committed malpractice as not all errors are such but rather there is a range of error acceptable to the community standard that is a mistake per se but not malpractice. Oh hell why bother no one here deals in subtlety or nuance.

 

Elizabeth, some of us are listening, and learning a lot! Please keep explaining things to us!

 

I live in India, and I'm not sure there are many protections at all for patients. I think it really ends up being buyer, beware, which is really unfair, because how many of us can accurately second guess the health care provider?

 

A small case (okay, probably irrelevant, certainly not malpractice, but anyway): I took my boys to the dentist here before we went home to America in August. The dentist here, a pediatric dentist from a big name organization, told me neither boy had any cavities. I went to the dentist with one 3 weeks later in America, and he told me (and showed me) 10 cavities! 10! The only thing I can do now is just find another dentist here. You don't even want to know the unexpected dental bill I had to pay . . .

 

We need protection from incompetent health care providers, but how can we get it more efficiently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you could make it favorable and profitable to share-holders through tax breaks to have a more equitable arrangement in which the CEO makes (for example) ten times the salary of the average employee.

 

Could you recommend where to find more on this? It's not exactly clear to me, and it would be helpful to understand it better.

 

Also, could this ever pass under even the current Congress? I can't imagine it could in the next! What could you suggest along those lines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this on the other thread.

 

Dh said that nurse practitioners should be allowed to open up general practice offices for everyday ailment like colds or typically anything you don't need a specialist for. Dh asked if we really needed to see a doctor for a sinus infection or a sore throat. A NP could easily write an antibiotic prescription for such ailments or give a physical. If a NP thought she couldn't help you she would send you to a specialist.

 

I love my midwife group. They are all NP's. When I went to my midwife with a problem and she couldn't help she immediately referred me to an OBGYN.

 

Since getting a NP degree would cost significantly less, a NP would have less med school loans to pay back. I would also think malpractice insurance would be less for a NP because they would only be treating general problems like colds.

 

This would probably cut our out-of-pocket expenses for regular care in half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about doing away with insurance and letting the Dr's and patients negotiate price. Of course I think charities would end up helping out those who were really in need.

 

Yeah right, I know, it will never happen.

 

Here in India, if you can't pay, you don't get help. It's not just the doctors who are involved, but the hospitals and the drug companies (I'm thinking of ds's cancer treatment last year). I understand the USA is different, but do charities really come forward to pay for other people's care, in its entirety? Can they even afford to?

 

There are many very wealthy people in India who seem to have no problem watching children die from illnesses they could easily pay to treat . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you recommend where to find more on this? It's not exactly clear to me, and it would be helpful to understand it better.

 

Anything on this is going to be extremely partisan, so it would be hard to link you. Search terms like "limiting CEO salaries" should get you there.

 

Also, could this ever pass under even the current Congress? I can't imagine it could in the next! What could you suggest along those lines?

 

No, it would never, ever pass through Congress unless every state elected Ralph Nader.

 

What about SERIOUS incentives for healthy living. And I don't mean some stupid arbitrary "perfect" weight for everyone. I mean taking into account everyone's cholesterol, blood pressure, and fitness level.

 

:iagree:

 

I posted this on the other thread.

 

Dh said that nurse practitioners should be allowed to open up general practice offices for everyday ailment like colds or typically anything you don't need a specialist for. Dh asked if we really needed to see a doctor for a sinus infection or a sore throat. A NP could easily write an antibiotic prescription for such ailments or give a physical. If a NP thought she couldn't help you she would send you to a specialist.

 

I agree with this too and it would go hand-in-hand with the 24 hour clinic idea. Being military? I OFTEN see people in the ER who don't belong there. The last time my son had to go in with breathing issues? There was a kid with pink eye. Seriously? Take your kid to the doctor tomorrow, why are you here at 4 am for pink eye?

 

Here in India, if you can't pay, you don't get help. It's not just the doctors who are involved, but the hospitals and the drug companies (I'm thinking of ds's cancer treatment last year). I understand the USA is different, but do charities really come forward to pay for other people's care, in its entirety? Can they even afford to?

 

There are many very wealthy people in India who seem to have no problem watching children die from illnesses they could easily pay to treat . . .

 

No, charities do not come forward and pay people's bills and yes, many children in the US die from treatable illnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about SERIOUS incentives for healthy living. And I don't mean some stupid arbitrary "perfect" weight for everyone. I mean taking into account everyone's cholesterol, blood pressure, and fitness level.

 

It seems like this would certainly be preventive care, but it's so hard to agree on what healthy means. What would you propose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best solution for individuals, businesses, and local and state and the federal governments is single payer universal health care IMHO. This would essentially be Medicare for all:)Private health insurance companies have not been doing a good job for decades in my opinion and insurance premiums have been going up by up to 20-50% every year for decades as well while the coverage gets skimpier and skimpier:(.

 

I know some advocate high deductible plans or plans that only meet a certain subset of the populations needs but IMHO this is unfair to those who cannot afford high deductibles or who happen not to be in said subset. One person actually said in the past they did not want a plan that covered maternity services since they were man:blink: Yeah, lets leave out half of the human race in the coverage.

 

Honestly, I think healthcare is a right and we should not be kicking those who are unfortunate to the curb. Also, no one should have to go broke due to healthcare costs:(. As for paying for this, we already are paying a lot of money to say the least. I do think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction but it will take 4 years for all of the pieces of legislation in the act to take effect.

Edited by priscilla
clarify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about SERIOUS incentives for healthy living. And I don't mean some stupid arbitrary "perfect" weight for everyone. I mean taking into account everyone's cholesterol, blood pressure, and fitness level.

I've been laughing about the ad I've been seeing on TV with the woman complaining about the government "controlling what she eats" by taxing sodas. Of course her shopping cart has a fresh pineapple in it. Ha ha.

 

The obese segment of the population gets OUTRAGED when it is said that they are not perfectly healthy. People will say that one can be morbidly obese and still perfectly healthy. Oookay.

 

Which begs the question - why is the government subsidizing the sugar and corn industries? This is why we cannot be told to eat less sugar. The sugar lobby throws back its head and howls.

 

Originally Posted by Mama Geek

How about doing away with insurance and letting the Dr's and patients negotiate price. Of course I think charities would end up helping out those who were really in need.

Except that it's hard to negotiate while on route to the emergency room in an ambulance or during a heart attack.

Here in India, if you can't pay, you don't get help. It's not just the doctors who are involved, but the hospitals and the drug companies (I'm thinking of ds's cancer treatment last year). I understand the USA is different, but do charities really come forward to pay for other people's care, in its entirety? Can they even afford to?

 

There are many very wealthy people in India who seem to have no problem watching children die from illnesses they could easily pay to treat . . .

(Cough) In the US too.

 

I have heard about about the Avarind Eye Hospital in India. Jacqueline Novogratz has talked about them as a model for charity-meeting-business, and 60 Minutes has profiled them. Those who can pay, pay low rates, that end up subsidizing care for those who cannot pay.

 

And one more thing -- at least in India, for middle class people, care is affordable. You may have to borrow from your relatives, but you COULD pay. Here, the typical lower-to-middle income person cannot possibly pay for a few nights in the hospital or a surgery; it's outlandishly expensive. Hence even people with insurance going bankrupt because of medical bills.

Edited by stripe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tabrett, I appreciated what you wrote on the other thread, and what you said about single payer health care and medical education costs and malpractice rates. It seems like a more socialized system, like the French one, takes care of those problems in a way Americans might not feel comfortable with (doctor mistake: patient is basically taken care of for life through gov't subsidies; education costs: everyone's, not just a doctor's, is paid by taxes). If we're not going to go with single payer, then what are we going to do?

 

The only other system I'm familiar with is India's, which is basically old-fashioned pay-as-you-can-or-suffer-and-die. Insurance companies are setting up here, and may be becoming popular, but as of last year it still seemed to be more common for people who could afford it to just pay cash. This is okay if you can pay. I'm wondering if America is going to end up this way, or if we will eventually go single payer. Any other possibilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best solution for individuals, businesses, and local and state and the federal governments is single payer universal health care IMHO. Private health insurance companies have not been doing a good job for decades in my opinion and insurance premiums have been going up by up to 20-50% every year for decades as well while the coverage gets skimpier and skimpier:(.

 

I know some advocate high deductible plans or plans that only meet a certain subset of the populations needs but IMHO this is unfair to those who cannot afford high deductibles or who happen not to be in said subset. One person actually said in the past they did not want a plan that covered maternity services since they were man:blink: Yeah, lets leave out half of the human race in the coverage.

 

Honestly, I think healthcare is a right and we should not be kicking those who are unfortunate to the curb. Also, no one should have to go broke due to healthcare costs:(. As for paying for this, we already are paying a lot of money to say the least. I do think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction but it will take 4 years for all of the pieces of legislation in the act to take effect.

 

What do you think would have to happen for this to take place, priscilla? Many of us thought Obama would at least press for a public option, but that was taken off the table before it ever even got set down, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best solution for individuals, businesses, and local and state and the federal governments is single payer universal health care IMHO. Private health insurance companies have not been doing a good job for decades in my opinion and insurance premiums have been going up by up to 20-50% every year for decades as well while the coverage gets skimpier and skimpier:(.

 

Ultimately, I pretty much agree with this.

 

I've been laughing about the ad I've been seeing on TV with the woman complaining about the government "controlling what she eats" by taxing sodas. Of course her shopping cart has a fresh pineapple in it. Ha ha.

 

I'm perfectly fine with the government taxing soda. We tax cigarettes and booze, right?

 

Which begs the question - why is the government subsidizing the sugar and corn industries? This is why we cannot be told to eat less sugar. The sugar lobby throws back its head and howls.

 

And sugar is being so cheaply grown and processed in second and third world countries that they couldn't even keep the industry alive here in Hawaii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't understand the moral outrage about taxing sodas (and sports drinks and "juice beverages")!

 

I also think we should consider scrapping the whole appointment model.

 

Seriously!

 

Have you ever been to a place where no one makes appointments? It's surprisingly pleasant. You go when you're sick or want to see someone. Including specialists! I went to an OB/GYN while traveling. I just showed up at the office. I waited about 20-30 minutes, and .... I was called in. At other times I've taken my kid(s) and waited up to an hour, maybe a bit more, but there was none of this "sorry, we're all booked" business. I was once having trouble breathing at night and was told I could be seen in 2 weeks. Charming. And one of my kids sees a specialist whose appointments are usually booked 6 mo out for new patients. No, there's no rationing here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

(Cough) In the US too.

 

jld: Could you give some examples? I don't doubt it, but I just am not familiar with this. Are kids who could survive cancer with a BMT not given one if they can't afford it? That is what happens in India. A rich woman here in my complex said that her cousin had leukemia, and his parents got tired of asking relatives for money for treatment, and so he never got the chance to have a BMT. He died a few months after the chemo (it's just not enough for some patients).

 

 

And one more thing -- at least in India, for middle class people, care is affordable. You may have to borrow from your relatives, but you COULD pay. Here, the typical lower-to-middle income person cannot possibly pay for a few nights in the hospital or a surgery; it's outlandishly expensive. Hence even people with insurance going bankrupt because of medical bills.

 

jld: I'm assuming you mean middle class Americans. Yes, we could have paid the $42,000 ds11's cancer treatment (including BMT) cost us last year, but we are fortunate to have insurance. I don't think middle class Indians could pay, though. Maybe it depends on what you mean by middle class.

 

And I agree that it's outlandishly expensive to get health care in America. You know, I love America, but it's too expensive to live there if you have serious medical problems and anticipate any possible problems with your health insurance. And since a problem like cancer can pop up at any time, it's really too expensive for just about anyone but the wealthy. But I don't think Americans see it that way. I wonder if it's because they can't imagine a different way, and are prevented from even glimpsing it by scare stories.

 

 

Um, sorry. I don't know how to use color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I also think we should consider scrapping the whole appointment model.

 

 

 

Have you ever been to a place where no one makes appointments? It's surprisingly pleasant. You go when you're sick or want to see someone. Including specialists! I went to an OB/GYN while traveling. I just showed up at the office. I waited about 20-30 minutes, and .... I was called in. At other times I've taken my kid(s) and waited up to an hour, maybe a bit more, but there was none of this "sorry, we're all booked" business. I was once having trouble breathing at night and was told I could be seen in 2 weeks. Charming. And one of my kids sees a specialist whose appointments are usually booked 6 mo out for new patients. No, there's no rationing here!

 

It works fine in France and India, too. And I love how doctors in these places spend as much time as they need with you, instead of staying two minutes and then hopping on to the next person. Dh says it's because doctors may be paid a salary in these countries, not a per patient fee. Although, our pediatrician in a different city here was paid per patient, and she still spent plenty of time with us . . . maybe it's American culture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians are having fits with government healthcare. They are waiting months or years for treatments that we can get very quickly here. My understanding is that there are lots of people that live on the border than come to the US and pay cash so that they can be treated. I really don't want to see this country go that direction.

 

I have seen very little come from the US government that is cost effective, efficient, and not buried in red tape. I don't want the government deciding about my health care.

 

As far as charities go I have kind of a neat story that was told in a sermon at a church we were visiting. The youth group wanted to go on a mission trip. The pastor decided that they were not going to fundraise for it. Instead, they went to the congregation and asked for about $3000 to cover everyone that was going. Before it was all said and done they had been given about $7500. People in the US do have big hearts and are willing to give money to good causes (and sometimes not so good causes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It works fine in France and India, too. And I love how doctors in these places spend as much time as they need with you, instead of staying two minutes and then hopping on to the next person. Dh says it's because doctors may be paid a salary in these countries, not a per patient fee. Although, our pediatrician in a different city here was paid per patient, and she still spent plenty of time with us . . . maybe it's American culture?

 

I think it's our care model. It was said above-you are seen by a doctor for nearly *everything*. If we had more nurses, midwives and PAs in small clinics who could write prescriptions and everything, it would save a ton of money.

 

Another thing? Too many disposables. There are many things in hospitals that are reusable in countries other than the US. In the US? Nearly everything is disposable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians are having fits with government healthcare. They are waiting months or years for treatments that we can get very quickly here. My understanding is that there are lots of people that live on the border than come to the US and pay cash so that they can be treated. I really don't want to see this country go that direction.

 

I have seen very little come from the US government that is cost effective, efficient, and not buried in red tape. I don't want the government deciding about my health care.

 

Single payer insurance and socialized medicine are very different things.

 

I've had government insurance and/or care for over 15 years, because dh is military. I have options. I can be seen at the military treatment facility totally for free. I can choose to go to a network provider, also for free. I can switch my coverage to a different type, see the provider of my choice and pay a co-pay, I can choose not to use the system and pay out of pocket for services. That's the sort of system you'd have under single-payer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians are having fits with government healthcare. They are waiting months or years for treatments that we can get very quickly here. My understanding is that there are lots of people that live on the border than come to the US and pay cash so that they can be treated. I really don't want to see this country go that direction.

 

I have seen very little come from the US government that is cost effective, efficient, and not buried in red tape. I don't want the government deciding about my health care.

 

As far as charities go I have kind of a neat story that was told in a sermon at a church we were visiting. The youth group wanted to go on a mission trip. The pastor decided that they were not going to fundraise for it. Instead, they went to the congregation and asked for about $3000 to cover everyone that was going. Before it was all said and done they had been given about $7500. People in the US do have big hearts and are willing to give money to good causes (and sometimes not so good causes)

 

I've heard some concerning stories about Canada's system as well. I've heard more bad stories about England's. I think the question is how well it is funded. France has a very good, well-funded system. When it matters to citizens, it gets paid for, I guess.

 

I cannot stress how pleased we were with the care we got in France, and how inexpensive it was: $30-$40 to see a doctor, $8 for a blood test, less than $10 to have a nurse come to our apartment and remove ds's stitches. The clinics and hospitals do not look like the Ritz Carlton, but the staff was well-trained and the equipment good. To see a doctor, you may indeed enter through a door to his garage and go down a flight of stairs into a room in his basement, or go into a small waiting room off the doctor's office, which is a fairly large room attached to her apartment. But nobody seems to mind. It's the care we're going for, after all. Isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Mrs Mungo, I don't want reused needles. But in some places, I've been given a cotton ball and a piece of tape instead of a bandaid.

 

jld: Could you give some examples? I don't doubt it, but I just am not familiar with this. Are kids who could survive cancer with a BMT not given one if they can't afford it? That is what happens in India. A rich woman here in my complex said that her cousin had leukemia, and his parents got tired of asking relatives for money for treatment, and so he never got the chance to have a BMT. He died a few months after the chemo (it's just not enough for some patients).
Deamonte Driver, 12, from Maryland, died because of a dental problem. Estimates from 2002 were that 18,000 in the US die annually due to a lack of health care; in 2009, one estimate was 45,000 annually. More here from the NY Times.

 

I have seen that autistic kids are being denied care -- I saw one family on TV that moved to the woman's home country (some Scandinavian country, I think) because they provide health care, whereas in the US, they could neither afford the treatment nor obtain insurance for their autistic son. Wherever they are living now, the child is getting excellent care.

 

Why aren't any of the seniors who get Medicare refusing it? Maybe because they like it! Interesting then that seniors are much more opposed to govt funded healthcare than young people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which begs the question - why is the government subsidizing the sugar and corn industries? This is why we cannot be told to eat less sugar. The sugar lobby throws back its head and howls.

If the corn syrup biz gets dulled we won't be able to get as many people on pharm meds. We all know eating sugar/corn syrup leads to poor health from horrible nutrition. Why do we still eat it? It's a cheap high. The US has addictive behavior that isn't shunned enough. A few movies about the government and pharm/farming. I will be having the Coca Cola van spying on me soon for outing this outrageous info!

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Single payer insurance and socialized medicine are very different things.

 

I've had government insurance and/or care for over 15 years, because dh is military. I have options. I can be seen at the military treatment facility totally for free. I can choose to go to a network provider, also for free. I can switch my coverage to a different type, see the provider of my choice and pay a co-pay, I can choose not to use the system and pay out of pocket for services. That's the sort of system you'd have under single-payer.

 

I am not military, but having lived in the Norfolk area, I have know several people who are. (That mostly means my info is second hand.) Most of them have the opinion that military health care is not nearly as good of quality as civilian. We have an uncle who waited months for a surgery at a VA hospital only to then have it botched up. His condition was and still is life threatening and they have not handled it well at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians are having fits with government healthcare. They are waiting months or years for treatments that we can get very quickly here. My understanding is that there are lots of people that live on the border than come to the US and pay cash so that they can be treated. I really don't want to see this country go that direction.

 

I have seen very little come from the US government that is cost effective, efficient, and not buried in red tape. I don't want the government deciding about my health care.

 

As far as charities go I have kind of a neat story that was told in a sermon at a church we were visiting. The youth group wanted to go on a mission trip. The pastor decided that they were not going to fundraise for it. Instead, they went to the congregation and asked for about $3000 to cover everyone that was going. Before it was all said and done they had been given about $7500. People in the US do have big hearts and are willing to give money to good causes (and sometimes not so good causes)

 

In the past several Canadians have posted on this post that they were happy with Canadian healthcare and I believe them. I think you will always find unhappy campers IMO. I also know that there are millions who are unhappy with American healthcare as it stands now:( Hopefully the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act will improve things substantially over the next 4 years. I still think single payer, Medicare for all, will be more cost-effective though.

 

As far as charities, how come they are not helping the millions of those without healthcare insurance or who have lousy insurance? Honestly, I do not see that as feasible and I know that many churches are hurting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My delivery of dd was on share of cost. Meaning that we paid up to a certain amount every month and then the gov't picked up the rest. I was amazed at the differences in prices for lab work. One of the companies used by lots of the big time insurance companies wanted close to $1000 for a couple of tests. We called a small local lab and had the work done for about $200. We found that most Dr's were willing to give a significant discount because we were self pay for the things that we covered. They got the money without any effort on their end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Mrs Mungo, I don't want reused needles. But in some places, I've been given a cotton ball and a piece of tape instead of a bandaid.

 

I understand when it comes to needles. The types of things I'm talking about are bedpans or the jars you collect urine in. They were metal or glass, sterilized and reused at German hospitals. Here, they are mostly plastic and are tossed after use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Mrs Mungo, I don't want reused needles. But in some places, I've been given a cotton ball and a piece of tape instead of a bandaid.

 

Deamonte Driver, 12, from Maryland, died because of a dental problem. Estimates from 2002 were that 18,000 in the US die annually due to a lack of health care; in 2009, one estimate was 45,000 annually. More here from the NY Times.

 

I have seen that autistic kids are being denied care -- I saw one family on TV that moved to the woman's home country (some Scandinavian country, I think) because they provide health care, whereas in the US, they could neither afford the treatment nor obtain insurance for their autistic son. Wherever they are living now, the child is getting excellent care.

 

Why aren't any of the seniors who get Medicare refusing it? Maybe because they like it! Interesting then that seniors are much more opposed to govt funded healthcare than young people.

 

:iagree: Medicare is very popular and some forget that it is government run healthcare:001_huh:. I know Medicare saved my parents lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My delivery of dd was on share of cost. Meaning that we paid up to a certain amount every month and then the gov't picked up the rest. I was amazed at the differences in prices for lab work. One of the companies used by lots of the big time insurance companies wanted close to $1000 for a couple of tests. We called a small local lab and had the work done for about $200. We found that most Dr's were willing to give a significant discount because we were self pay for the things that we covered. They got the money without any effort on their end.

 

That is great that you had the money but there are many, many people who are living paycheck to paycheck and who are one disaster away from homelessness:(.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: Medicare is very popular and some forget that it is government run healthcare:001_huh:. I know Medicare saved my parents lives.

 

Medicare/Medicaid has rampant abuse...if we had one agency (20 people would be enough) to sit and double check the largest abuses, you could save billions...stop those raping the system...

 

Tort reform...malpractice costs for physicians is outrageous not to mention for hospitals...limit the amount lawsuits can sue...there are billions going out every year...malicious malpractice is not common, but people are human, people with multiple disease conditions take to suing when it was the same physicians who prolonged their life 5-10 years....there's always a funds thirsty attorney to lead them into a malpractice suit....

 

those would be my first two starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: Medicare is very popular and some forget that it is government run healthcare:001_huh:. I know Medicare saved my parents lives.

 

How about it, priscilla? And why aren't these grandparents demanding healthcare for their grandchildren? Why are they only looking after their own interests? More entitlement thinking on the part of the elderly, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand when it comes to needles. The types of things I'm talking about are bedpans or the jars you collect urine in. They were metal or glass, sterilized and reused at German hospitals. Here, they are mostly plastic and are tossed after use.

 

Ds had the disposable ones in India, too, though we did keep them and returned them with him when he went back in. We still have them. You never know when they might be needed again.

 

It is definitely better, though, to do what Germany is doing. The Europeans are putting us to shame environmentally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...