Jump to content

Menu

So with all the talk about healthcare, what is your ideal?


Jane in NC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let me give another perspecive on the whole "lawyers and lawsuits are to blame" for the high cost of healthcare.

 

Here, in India, the courts are a joke.  Lawsuits are a joke.  Things actually take 20 years to work their way through the court system.  You could apply for a divorce when you are in your 20s and not be granted the divorce until you are in your 50s!  What is life like when no one really can sue to hold someone accountable?  Well, sidewalks and roads are treacherous - huge gaping holes, no lights, potholes cars can fit into, open drains that children are routinely drowned in.  Live electrical wires can be left dangling until someone is electrocuted playing in a puddle or walking down the street.  Kids slip under gaps in railings in malls (no need to meet safety guidelines) and get their fingers stuck in escalator treads.  People fall through improperly constructed balconies, buildings collapse, shoddy workmanship in almost every area.  Doctors know there is no relief for the poor patient with no political power or financial influence.  A wealthier patient may complaint to the newspapers about a botched surgery but you NEVER hear of medical malpractice lawsuits.  That has NOT improved medical care in India.

 

You might not like it but it is the fear of lawsuits that keep your store floors swept, your sidewalks shoveled, your roads maintained, your houses and buildings safe, your playgrounds safe, your food safe.

 

Just sayin.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Doctors generally want to see babies at 2 weeks because the women get released from the hospital after 24 hours. That's not enough time to know that breastfeeding is going well and that baby has no issues. Understand, I live in a much different situation than you do. I've been surrounded by women often separated from their families (and husband) by thousands of miles. It's my experience as a former breastfeeding support person that doctors often have good reason to be concerned about mother/baby pairs, especially in that situation. The women frequently have no support, little knowledge and don't know what right looks like. You live in a situation where women are usually surrounded by experienced family members who can help, who can tell mom when something is wrong, who can help with breastfeeding support. Not everyone has that. Don't take it for granted.

Actually I've never had any support or help at all. Nada. I don't take it for granted at all.

 

However, you are right that I was speaking from my experience of having 10 children. I did do more well checks and of course had more ignorance back when I had only 1 or 2.

 

To be clear, I don't really have an issue with anyone seeking medical care even if I don't think it necessary in a purest sense. (For example there's not diddly to do for most viruses, but that doesn't mean I'm going to begrudge someone going in to get a really bad cold checked out. )

 

I don't much care if moms feel the need to do well checks. I mildly get annoyed when people seem to infer a mother of 5+ is negligent for not doing them. (Not referring to anyone here. Just in general. )

 

However, like the jobs vs health issue, this points to yet another social contribution to health costs. Too many parents have nothing to help them or guide them in parenting than a paid well check. There's so much that can be learned from other women and by having a community. It might not all be clinically tried, but a hefty amount is very useful and is being forgotten rather than passed on. I know I've *suffered* in many ways for the lack of that when I was a young mother. I hope I'm able and my children/children in laws are open to learning from each other when my grandchildren start coming along. If nothing else, I hope they won't feel so alone and will let me make dinner while they nurse new babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see universal healthcare. I'd like to be careful about implementing it.

 

For instance as a woman I personally most certainly do not want any nurse/midwife coming to my home after I have a baby. I would be fine if it was a choice and you could just say no. ( I would like to have homebirth available.) I would never want anyone to come to my house for any reason other than hospice care. In countries where you have nurse visiting after a baby is it an option to say no? Can you just go into the office for a visit instead?

 

As a family with a chronic illness (and a fairly normal one), we spend thousands of dollars in healthcare. We have a very hard time getting decent coverage. It is a major reason why we haven't gone back to owning our own small business.

Oil had a nurse call me after I took the youngest home. She said she could stop by if I had any questions, need help our wanted advice but I said I was fine. I`'ve never heard of an imposed visit and all my baby's visit were to our family doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief. Really? Why take a healthy baby in every 2 weeks?! Oh never mind. That's also yet another topic.

 

My pediatrician sees them within 24 hours at the hospital and thereafter only if I had a concern. With my home births, my dh took the baby in the next day.

 

These are not doctor visits. The role of a midwife is very different than the role of a doctor.

The home visit by the midwife is not just checking the baby. She is checking:

how is the mother feeling? Any fever, abnormal discharge, blood clots, signs of infection?

Any indication of postpartum depression?

How is breastfeeding going? They are trained breast feeding consultants and can help with issues- which are very common.

Any problems with adjusting to baby? With baby behavior?

 

I am very grateful for the home visits. I was a bit concerned about heavy bleeding and clots, but not enough to have gone to the doctor; the midwife had the expertise to recognize it as abnormal and to send me to the doctor, and it turned out to require medical care.

I know many mothers who are grateful for the breastfeeding advice. I have friends who are LLL leaders and who deal with frantic, crying moms who call... it is nice to have somebody stop by as a routine and help with things like this.

 

You have ten kids. you have seen it all, are experienced, have confidence. A first time mother can easily be overwhelmed. It helps when somebody experienced can advise. And it actually save a lot in medical cost.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I've never had any support or help at all. Nada. I don't take it for granted at all.

No? Your husband was never there?

 

 

These are not doctor visits. The role of a midwife is very different than the role of a doctor.

The home visit by the midwife is not just checking the baby. She is checking:

how is the mother feeling? Any fever, abnormal discharge, blood clots, signs of infection?

Any indication of postpartum depression?

How is breastfeeding going? They are trained breast feeding consultants and can help with issues- which are very common.

Any problems with adjusting to baby? With baby behavior?

 

I am very grateful for the home visits. I was a bit concerned about heavy bleeding and clots, but not enough to have gone to the doctor; the midwife had the expertise to recognize it as abnormal and to send me to the doctor, and it turned out to require medical care.

I know many mothers who are grateful for the breastfeeding advice. I have friends who are LLL leaders and who deal with frantic, crying moms who call... it is nice to have somebody stop by as a routine and help with things like this.

 

You have ten kids. you have seen it all, are experienced, have confidence. A first time mother can easily be overwhelmed. It helps when somebody experienced can advise. And it actually save a lot in medical cost.

I agree. Generally, the moms who live in countries that provide this are grateful for the help and guidance. These countries also have better infant mortality rates (we are #34) than the US and better maternal mortality rates than the US (we're about even with Saudi Arabia, the UK has half the number of maternal deaths as the US).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There was an excellent article on the front page of the NY Times that looked a hip replacements, their costs compared to Belgium (the article profiled an American who traveled there for his surgery to save costs), and the largest components of the cost. The biggest expense by far in a hip replacement is the hip itself.  Though the actual costs of producing a hip prosthesis is about $300, near-monopoly conditions, probable price-fixing by manufacturers of prosthetic hips, and other anticompetitive practices are common and tolerated as part of the cost of doing business.  My ideal system would eliminate those kinds of anti-competitive practices by medical equipment manufacturers.  Here is the article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

The difference in cost between Belgium and the USA for hip replacement is nearly an order of magnitude.  And we offer absolutely nothing to justify this higher cost.  That kind of spending is unsustainable.  

Yes! The video linked in an earlier post did an excellent job of explaining the varied reason that costs are higher in the US, but this is the main one. Countries with some type of universal healthcare do not pay these insane prices because they negotiate for lower prices using their huge purchasing power and/or set limits on what will be paid.

 

Although rarely talked about amid all of the rhetoric about government controlled healthcare, the fact that these obscene profits would likely be curtailed if the US every adopted a form of universal healthcare is likely one of the main reasons some are so opposed to the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are not doctor visits. The role of a midwife is very different than the role of a doctor.

The home visit by the midwife is not just checking the baby. She is checking:

how is the mother feeling? Any fever, abnormal discharge, blood clots, signs of infection?

Any indication of postpartum depression?

How is breastfeeding going? They are trained breast feeding consultants and can help with issues- which are very common.

Any problems with adjusting to baby? With baby behavior?

 

I am very grateful for the home visits. I was a bit concerned about heavy bleeding and clots, but not enough to have gone to the doctor; the midwife had the expertise to recognize it as abnormal and to send me to the doctor, and it turned out to require medical care.

I know many mothers who are grateful for the breastfeeding advice. I have friends who are LLL leaders and who deal with frantic, crying moms who call... it is nice to have somebody stop by as a routine and help with things like this.

 

You have ten kids. you have seen it all, are experienced, have confidence. A first time mother can easily be overwhelmed. It helps when somebody experienced can advise. And it actually save a lot in medical cost.

Wow. Even when I literally cried for help, I didn't get it that good in the hospital.

 

No, I haven't quite seen it all and hope I don't! But yes, I do also see a breakdown in community for new mothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although rarely talked about amid all of the rhetoric about government controlled healthcare, the fact that these obscene profits would likely be curtailed if the US every adopted a form of universal healthcare is likely one of the main reasons some are so opposed to the idea.

The practices of the hip prosthesis manufacturers are definitely anti-competitive. Hospitals must promise not to make the terms of the contract public or disclose them to other sellers of hip prostheses. Competition is directly prohibited. I can't fathom why our government has not gone after these kinds of monopoly practices, as they are a significant driver of high costs, and at zero benefit to patients. The only beneficiaries are the businesses who manage to maintain an iron grip on their market. Even allowing contracts to be made public would be a big step in the right direction, and no additional regulation is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should have Universal Healthcare.

 

I also think along with healthcare being overhauled they should overhaul the FDA. 

 

I also feel they should reduce farm subsidies for crap and increase  subsidies for healthy vegetables. It is too expensive for healthy food. I was buying apples the other day and I had about 6 in a bag. I realized that bag was $10! (they were huge honeycrisps, which were on sale that day for $1.99 a lb. I also bought golden delicious apples that day and they   were $1.79 a lb)  I could buy my kids cheeseburgers and fill them up better than those apples could. I know apples won't be wasted in my house (we all like them) but fruit and veggies are expensive. Something needs to be done about that before people really start complaining about how Americans eat.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No? Your husband was never there?

Yes and no. He certainly wasn't deployed or dead, thank God, but that doesn't mean he was around to help much either. Very often he didn't get time off work for new babies and worked two jobs or traveled for work. For the most part, he did what he could when he was around of course, but I was on my own. It's not like he could tell me practical breastfeeding tips with our first or second anyways. lol

 

It's only been the last few babies that he was able to really help out physically. And two of them it was because he was unemployed! Not exactly what any new mom wants either, kwim?

 

I didn't mean to insult anyone.

 

And I did note that I lapsed in considering newbie moms without a support community. I agree frequent checks, especially of the kind regentrude describes, would be beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think seeds and soil should be free or subsidized like food stamps. Sure many people won't want to garden, but I think anyone interested in putting in a garden should be encouraged and helped to do so. It's not perfect. Dust bowls and floods and such. But I do think it's beneficial and vital common to life knowledge needs to be passed from generation to generation. Like breastfeeding. Natural cleansers. Canning. I don't think any of it should be required. But I do think we should subsidize the common man learning these skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think seeds and soil should be free or subsidized like food stamps. Sure many people won't want to garden, but I think anyone interested in putting in a garden should be encouraged and helped to do so. It's not perfect. Dust bowls and floods and such. But I do think it's beneficial and vital common to life knowledge needs to be passed from generation to generation. Like breastfeeding. Natural cleansers. Canning. I don't think any of it should be required. But I do think we should subsidize the common man learning these skills.

 

Some cities do have compost programs from yard waste and Christmas tree pick-up.

 

They have such a program in Lawrence Kansas, they test the compost as well.

 

I would not agree to subsidized seeds unless they were non-GMO heirlooms, but to me that just sounds like another cash cow for big agri business unless there was some sort of restriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think seeds and soil should be free or subsidized like food stamps. Sure many people won't want to garden, but I think anyone interested in putting in a garden should be encouraged and helped to do so. It's not perfect. Dust bowls and floods and such. But I do think it's beneficial and vital common to life knowledge needs to be passed from generation to generation. Like breastfeeding. Natural cleansers. Canning. I don't think any of it should be required. But I do think we should subsidize the common man learning these skills.

I agree with you. But, we'd have to make lawns and HOA rules requiring lawns illegal. Personally, *I* would also agree with the city taking back abandoned properties that have been allowed to become dilapidated.

 

Have you seen this documentary?

 

http://www.thegardenmovie.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please disregard all of my comments from last night. I knew I shouldn't have gotten into an internet discussion after being driven to the brink of insanity by my toddler. The truth is, it's a subject that I have to put much more thought and research into. Economically, I will always be for small government, which is why I can never be for government-run healthcare, but I haven't put much thought into the details. Much more for me to learn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you. But, we'd have to make lawns and HOA rules requiring lawns illegal. Personally, *I* would also agree with the city taking back abandoned properties that have been allowed to become dilapidated.

 

Have you seen this documentary?

 

http://www.thegardenmovie.com

I have not seen it, off to add to queue...

 

I agree about nonGMO products. I really infuriates me that they can legally sell seeds that won't regerminate to impoverished countries AND make it illegal for people to save seeds from their crops. That's just three ways of insane wrong. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you. But, we'd have to make lawns and HOA rules requiring lawns illegal. Personally, *I* would also agree with the city taking back abandoned properties that have been allowed to become dilapidated.

 

Have you seen this documentary?

 

http://www.thegardenmovie.com

 

A while back, we received a letter from our HOA expressing displeasure with our front lawn' s lack of lushness and requesting that we resod.

 

I politely informed them that if I went through the trouble of tearing up the grass, the only thing getting planted would be edibles. 

 

We never heard back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not seen it, off to add to queue...

 

I agree about nonGMO products. I really infuriates me that they can legally sell seeds that won't regerminate to impoverished countries AND make it illegal for people to save seeds from their crops. That's just three ways of insane wrong. :/

 

Not only that but they have sued farmers who were not even using their seeds, the seeds just blew into their field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back, we received a letter from our HOA expressing displeasure with our front lawn' s lack of lushness and requesting that we resod.

 

I politely informed them that if I went through the trouble of tearing up the grass, the only thing getting planted would be edibles. 

 

We never heard back.

 

I have never watered grass unless there were tomatoes or children nearby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO there is a special level of hell for them..preferably the 8th circle, the one with all the poop. (I know that is for flatterers but it sounds icky)

Gluttony is the third circle of hell. That's the one with the poop rain. The river of poop is in the eighth circle, that's for the flatterers. I'm not sure where I would stick Mosanto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluttony is the third circle of hell. That's the one with the poop rain. The river of poop is in the eighth circle, that's for the flatterers. I'm not sure where I would stick Mosanto.

I vote for going to the original source...

 

Stick them up the devils behind.

 

I was aware of the SNAP benefit, but would like it expanded to every citizen. Much like a version of universal healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian system isn't perfect, but it is much more equal than the US system in my experience.  Wait times at ERs are so bad you don't go unless you have an emergency, and even then you regret having gone. :)

 

I find the lack of available doctors frustrating.  I got in with mine because of marrying DH.  And my dr's office isn't easy to get into.  I have to make appointments months in advance, and when sick - good luck.  We have to go to a clinic anyways.  But it is still free (well, where I live we pay about $100/mo per family).

 

I think there should be a small copay for visits - I think it would discourage people from going when there isn't an issue, but then again, the waits really do that too.  The technology is behind here, and not as widespread.  I have to do more of my own legwork.  I have to go to a blood draw place to get that done - I can't just have a vial taken at my appointment.  That sort of thing.  There is not as much equipment - the processes are centralized to save $$. 

 

I would say my problem with the medical system is more with the employment insurance system.  It blows me away how many able-bodied young people end up on "stress leave" for 3-6 months or whatever.  Ridiculous. 

 

But for all my griping, I have deliberately chosen to stay with this system for our family instead of going back to the US system.  The fact that our coverage is not tied to employment makes it possible for me to be homeschooling.  Things aren't perfect, but everyone I have known who has needed care has gotten it.  They've had to wait longer than I'd want sometimes (not always), but it has happened.

 

ETA: And while we do have universal coverage for basic medical needs, we don't have it for eye or dental (although kids have some basic coverage for eye appointments biannually).  As a family, we have additional medical coverage for mental health, optical, and dental (among other things).  It was nice to get this coverage when my DH changed jobs, and it makes a difference for us, but without it we as a family can maintain general good health and be covered for any big bad things that may come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Economically, I will always be for small government, which is why I can never be for government-run healthcare, but I haven't put much thought into the details. Much more for me to learn. 

 

I really appreciate you saying this. I'm still interested in hearing from some of the free market advocates about how they actually see it working and what the benefits would be for everyone. I'm especially curious about how those with a family member with a serious medical condition and no group health insurance would fare under a free market scenario and how it would lower costs and improve health outcomes, as universal healthcare has been shown to do in so many other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think seeds and soil should be free or subsidized like food stamps. Sure many people won't want to garden, but I think anyone interested in putting in a garden should be encouraged and helped to do so. It's not perfect. Dust bowls and floods and such. But I do think it's beneficial and vital common to life knowledge needs to be passed from generation to generation. Like breastfeeding. Natural cleansers. Canning. I don't think any of it should be required. But I do think we should subsidize the common man learning these skills.

 

You can buy seeds and food plants with food stamps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no. He certainly wasn't deployed or dead, thank God, but that doesn't mean he was around to help much either. Very often he didn't get time off work for new babies and worked two jobs or traveled for work. For the most part, he did what he could when he was around of course, but I was on my own. It's not like he could tell me practical breastfeeding tips with our first or second anyways. lol

 

It's only been the last few babies that he was able to really help out physically. And two of them it was because he was unemployed! Not exactly what any new mom wants either, kwim?

 

I didn't mean to insult anyone.

 

And I did note that I lapsed in considering newbie moms without a support community. I agree frequent checks, especially of the kind regentrude describes, would be beneficial.

Heck, by the third I knew the drill but I enjoy seeing my family doctor. It's a rural pratice where everyone is on a first name basis and the waiting room it's where you can catch up on local chatter. Also, my doctor loves to snuggle babies. Who am I to deny that? :-)

 

I just never saw the visits as a burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please disregard all of my comments from last night. I knew I shouldn't have gotten into an internet discussion after being driven to the brink of insanity by my toddler. The truth is, it's a subject that I have to put much more thought and research into. Economically, I will always be for small government, which is why I can never be for government-run healthcare, but I haven't put much thought into the details. Much more for me to learn. 

 

It's complicated, isn't it?  The more you look at it, the more you realize that.  Many of us here who are for universal health care aren't so much fans of government run-anything (after all, we're homeschoolers despite the presence of free government-run schools in the US).  But we've generally had some experience living abroad in countries with universal health care (or having friends/relatives who do so).  We've seen first-hand that, while not perfect, it can work very well the vast majority of the time.  

 

Employer-based or individually purchased insurance *can* work very well, for those who have it.  However, people who are seriously ill often cannot work (I'm not talking about slackers here), which also means they aren't getting paid, and may lose their job.  Which means they may lose their employer-based plan, or be unable to afford to continue their individually-purchased plan.  Any system that requires very sick people to have a job and a good income is problematic.

 

I don't believe health care is a *right* (because ultimately it is supported by limited resources), so much as it is a *privilege* that the citizens of our great country can (and, I would argue, morally should) choose to provide as best we can for those of us who need it.  (And no matter how healthy we are and how much we live a healthy lifestyle, those who need it can be *us*, in the seconds it takes for a drunk driver to hit our car, or a baby to be born with serious complications, or a doc to diagnose leukemia in a child.)

 

I believe making health care non-employer-based can help keep US businesses competitive.  People who are freed from the need to keep a specific job just for the health insurance can afford to take the risk of starting their own business, going part-time to stay home with their young kids, working for a non-profit or faith-based organization for low or no wages because they care about the organization's mission, etc.  And small businesses can take on new employees without also taking on their health care expenses.

 

There are many opportunities for cost savings.  For example, if the system is integrated, the ambulance service and the ER and the family doc are not separate companies, which makes it easier to craft solutions to problems with "frequent flyers" and other challenging populations.  

In the UK, lower-income folks can get the basic care they need, and higher-income folks can go the private route if they desire.  The UK has had universal health care since 1948.  That's plenty long enough for us to see that it *can* work, and work well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was aware of the SNAP benefit, but would like it expanded to every citizen. Much like a version of universal healthcare.

 

 

 

You can buy seeds and food plants with food stamps.

Yes, I noted that. I simply don't think it very democratic to subsidize something for only the poor who will have the hardest time using it (SNAP recipients) or the very wealthy who will make money off it (Mansanto and other agri corps). I think any citizen who wants to garden should have free access to doing so.

 

Some things govt can and does subsidize:

 

Roads- we can all choose to use

Libraries - we can all choose to use

Schools - everyone has a right to access

Food and healthcare - oh heck no, only if we have to and we'll make you feel as cruddy about it as possible you poor mangy mooches! And we'll insist you pay a huge portion of your meager income on it. (Unless it's a billion dollar international conglomerate. Then it's oh my, those folks are such major contributors to jobs we gotta give them millions and millions and government oversight jobs to oversee themselves and and and.)

 

On the scale of vital needs and social concerns, I don't agree with the priority method in place. It seems illogical and undemocratic to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Although rarely talked about amid all of the rhetoric about government controlled healthcare, the fact that these obscene profits would likely be curtailed if the US every adopted a form of universal healthcare is likely one of the main reasons some are so opposed to the idea.

 

 

THIS.

 

Those who are most concerned with trying to preserve profits are focusing their efforts on fear-mongering and propaganda.  People buy it rather than take the time to educate themselves and look at the facts rather than the rhetoric. 

 

*sigh*  I almost didn't even come to this thread because it makes me depressed.  We need universal healthcare.  We got instead this horrible half-fix that is going to fail miserably so that everyone can say "see it didn't work, lets just go back to free market".  We will be starting at square one again.  I despair at ever seeing it fixed in my lifetime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's complicated, isn't it?  The more you look at it, the more you realize that.  Many of us here who are for universal health care aren't so much fans of government run-anything (after all, we're homeschoolers despite the presence of free government-run schools in the US).  But we've generally had some experience living abroad in countries with universal health care (or having friends/relatives who do so).  We've seen first-hand that, while not perfect, it can work very well the vast majority of the time.  

 

Employer-based or individually purchased insurance *can* work very well, for those who have it.  However, people who are seriously ill often cannot work (I'm not talking about slackers here), which also means they aren't getting paid, and may lose their job.  Which means they may lose their employer-based plan, or be unable to afford to continue their individually-purchased plan.  Any system that requires very sick people to have a job and a good income is problematic.

 

I don't believe health care is a *right* (because ultimately it is supported by limited resources), so much as it is a *privilege* that the citizens of our great country can (and, I would argue, morally should) choose to provide as best we can for those of us who need it.  (And no matter how healthy we are and how much we live a healthy lifestyle, those who need it can be *us*, in the seconds it takes for a drunk driver to hit our car, or a baby to be born with serious complications, or a doc to diagnose leukemia in a child.)

 

I believe making health care non-employer-based can help keep US businesses competitive.  People who are freed from the need to keep a specific job just for the health insurance can afford to take the risk of starting their own business, going part-time to stay home with their young kids, working for a non-profit or faith-based organization for low or no wages because they care about the organization's mission, etc.  And small businesses can take on new employees without also taking on their health care expenses.

 

There are many opportunities for cost savings.  For example, if the system is integrated, the ambulance service and the ER and the family doc are not separate companies, which makes it easier to craft solutions to problems with "frequent flyers" and other challenging populations.  

In the UK, lower-income folks can get the basic care they need, and higher-income folks can go the private route if they desire.  The UK has had universal health care since 1948.  That's plenty long enough for us to see that it *can* work, and work well.

 

 

This is pretty much where I am.  I just don't know anymore.  I've been thinking about the conclusion to this series for a while.

 

 

By revoking or changing laws that effectively establish barriers to greater competition in the medical market within states, and those that establish barriers or drive up the cost of medical schooling, treatment, research, and equipment, Distributism would help to increase the number of medical providers and bring the cost of medical care down through greater competition.

 

By revoking or changing laws that allow extreme awards and drive up the cost of insurance in general, and by allowing doctors to establish cooperative associations to establish or obtain insurance at a lower cost and assist new entrants with medical training, Distributism would help reduce the cost of the medical business itself, which, combined with competition, would help reduce the cost of medical care.

 

By revoking the tax barriers that discourage the charitable contribution of time, money, and resources to organizations that offer medical treatment to those in need, Distributism would help to address the medical needs of those who cannot afford the cost of medical care or insurance.

 

By allowing, or even funding, research on the comparative effectiveness of alternate treatments and medicines with Ă¢â‚¬Å“advancedĂ¢â‚¬ treatments and medicines, Distributism would help provide greater access to affordable and still effective health care.

 

By establishing laws that allow individuals and families to keep their insurance policies when they change jobs, and by requiring options for long term and even life time policies, Distributism would help alleviate the problem of people losing their insurance for pre-existing conditions when they change jobs or have to renew their policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be okay with Universal Healthcare if the gov just funded it, and private enterprise ran it. I'm not sure what that would look like.

 

And I'm sure this will make me sound unsympathetic and mean, but what about the amount of money we pay for subsidies for illegal immigrants (in the US)? It's estimated at over 4 billion per year. If legal citizens can't get healthcare, why should be be paying for healthcare for illegals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone complains about the cost of healthcare; many complain about the way healthcare works here in the US.  My friend the doctor complains that many of the conditions for which she sees patients come about through lifestyle and she thinks that a lot of people prefer to take medicines then change how they live.

 

I know that much of the increase that we have seen in the cost of delivering healthcare is due to technology.  For better or for worse, I suppose.  Personally I like old fashioned "hands on" doctors but not everyone operates that way.

 

I am grateful for technology.  My son at age four weeks had a microsurgery from which he recovered almost immediately.  Invasive surgeries of old often introduced infection.  I guess the question we must all answer is how much technology and at what price to ourselves and to society.  These are hard questions and I certainly don't have the answers.

 

So...what would you like in your ideal health care world?  I think a visiting nurse to answer questions for new mothers would be a wonderful addition to our system.  Visiting nurses who cared for my Mom through hospice allowed her to remain at home until the end.  Palliative care for the aged is on my list.

 

What would you like to see?  Does your community or your doctor offer something that is just a little different that you think could be replicated by others?  Admittedly, my healthcare begins with me.  But I do see a gynecologist, dermatologist and eye doctor annually, my dentist twice a year with dental cleanings. I like my doctors and feel good about their advice. Or do you prefer alternative routes?

 

I saw in another thread that there is a difference in the amount of risk people can tolerate with regard to insurance.  It occurred to me that perhaps we are also using the healthcare system differently.  Perhaps what you do now is not your ideal but I am curious to hear what that might be.

 

I would like to see our health care system include more complementary medicine. Some of the most effective treatments, such as certain types of energy medicine, are inexpensive. We should be using them. Here in the U.S., we rely heavily on medications and surgery, and in the right circumstances they work very well but in others they don't work at all. We need a variety of treatments that gets to the root of the problem without causing significant harm to other parts of our bodies. Essentially, we need to have more tools that can help to do a better job.

 

I am also definitely for universal health care coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have visiting postpartum midwives in Germany, and of course you can opt out. I must say, however, that I much preferred NOT having to drag my exhausted body and a newborn to a doctor's office where I'd sit in a waiting room full of sick kids, crawling with germs... way safer to stay home and have somebody come check on us.

 

I agree. My two oldest children were born in Germany, my youngest here in the U.S. The care that I received in Germany was far superior. At first I was a bit hesitant about the thought of the post partum midwife visiting for the some of the reasons that other posters mentioned but it turned out to be wonderful. It was so relaxing not to have leave the house to go to the doctor's office like regentrude mentioned. Plus the midwife did all sorts of things like give the baby a bath, answer questions about breastfeeding etc. When my second son was born all of us except the baby came down with a horrible virus right after I came home from the hospital. It was comforting to have the midwife come and check on us each day. In Germany I felt like I was actually being CARED for whereas here it was like "you're on your own now. bye".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be okay with Universal Healthcare if the gov just funded it, and private enterprise ran it. I'm not sure what that would look like.

 

And I'm sure this will make me sound unsympathetic and mean, but what about the amount of money we pay for subsidies for illegal immigrants (in the US)? It's estimated at over 4 billion per year. If legal citizens can't get healthcare, why should be be paying for healthcare for illegals?

First, yes, it does make you sound unsympathetic, but I'm going from a religious perspective here...so others may have a different take. I'm not willing to let anyone go without medical treatment based on nationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are not doctor visits. The role of a midwife is very different than the role of a doctor.

The home visit by the midwife is not just checking the baby. She is checking:

how is the mother feeling? Any fever, abnormal discharge, blood clots, signs of infection?

Any indication of postpartum depression?

How is breastfeeding going? They are trained breast feeding consultants and can help with issues- which are very common.

Any problems with adjusting to baby? With baby behavior?

 

 

Yes - this is what my midwife visits in the UK were like too.

 

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure this will make me sound unsympathetic and mean, but what about the amount of money we pay for subsidies for illegal immigrants (in the US)? It's estimated at over 4 billion per year. If legal citizens can't get healthcare, why should be be paying for healthcare for illegals?

 

Undocumented workers are human beings in our community.  We benefit from their hard labor, provided at cheap wages, with few workplace protections.  They, among other jobs, work in our fields to produce our food.  We can afford to care for them, and for their children, in their time of need, and it is the morally right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read the other replies, but my ideal is that any doctor-recommended treatment, including hospitalization, is reimbursed through insurance rather than questioned, doublechecked, stalled, second-guessed, or denied.  And that all insurance includes maternity, ob/gyn, dental, nursing consultant, acupuncture, and vision care as well as 'regular' medical care. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane, I have been thinking a lot about your question and there have been many suggestions on here that are appealing.

 

One of the things that puzzles me about the government-controlled healthcare vs the free-market model argument is the trust that many will withhold from their government, which they can vote for, versus trusting a large pharmaceutical company that holds a virtual monopoly on many life-saving drugs. The New York Times just released this article on asthma medications in the US.  

 

If I have read this correctly pharmaceutical companies spend more on lobbying than do defense contractors. How can this situation truly be of any benefit to the individual consumer?

 

I want a healthcare system where no one has to choose between feeding their children and breathing. If the four of us in our family that swim were still swimming year round, it would cost twice as much as our mortgage per month before our deductible kicked in to keep everyone breathing. After the deductible? Same price as our mortgage for the month. Free-market? Right!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane, I have been thinking a lot about your question and there have been many suggestions on here that are appealing.

 

One of the things that puzzles me about the government-controlled healthcare vs the free-market model argument is the trust that many will withhold from their government, which they can vote for, versus trusting a large pharmaceutical company that holds a virtual monopoly on many life-saving drugs. The New York Times just released this article on asthma medications in the US.  

 

If I have read this correctly pharmaceutical companies spend more on lobbying than do defense contractors. How can this situation truly be of any benefit to the individual consumer?

 

I want a healthcare system where no one has to choose between feeding their children and breathing. If the four of us in our family that swim were still swimming year round, it would cost twice as much as our mortgage per month before our deductible kicked in to keep everyone breathing. After the deductible? Same price as our mortgage for the month. Free-market? Right!

Lisa, you raise a point that confounds me regularly.  Off the general topic but on your point:  people complain about the NSA while gladly handing over their private data to Facebook and Google.  I don't get it.

 

There is a lot of profit in the American health care industry--and I use that last word deliberately.  The article you linked brings it home.

 

I asked my initial question not only because of the recent discussions but also because I had a minor surgery this week. I am one of the lucky ones with good insurance--which we rarely use. The prescriptions that I began taking pre-surgery would cost $385 without insurance. I have a good plan but still paid $85 because none of them is a generic. Now I wonder what the bill would have been if I lived elsewhere....

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like universal healthcare. I'd like it to be efficient and easily accessed, without significant wait times or shortages, covering everything that is medically necessary: large or small. I think that there should be a lot of thought put into details of what is "reasonable" as far as the treatments that will/won't be included.

 

I think that universal healthcare decreases litigation. If there is no hospital bill to pay, then the 'cost' of enduring an injury is basically just enduring the injury -- sometimes people will sue for that, if it's bad, or if it affects their income... But I think more people begin to think about who might have a share of blame for an injury if they are looking at a bill and wondering who rightly should share the burden of paying it.

 

I'd also be OK with universal healthcare only for "really bad stuff" and a regulated, reasonably priced, transparent listing of the costs of many average services. People could get private insurance for those things, and be 'covered' instead of paying per-service, but you who prefer to just "pay for what you want to buy" rather than taking the insurance gamble would be free to do so. In this case, I'd want to be sure that people could get any service through any provider and pay the same cost (or be covered the same way). (No, I don't really know where I'd put a 'line' between "everyday costs" and "really bad stuff".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lisa, you raise a point that confounds me regularly.  Off the general topic but on your point:  people complain about the NSA while gladly handing over their private data to Facebook and Google.  I don't get it.

 

There is a lot of profit in the American health care industry--and I use that last word deliberately.  The article you linked brings it home.

 

I asked my initial question not only because of the recent discussions but also because I had a minor surgery this week. I am one of the lucky ones with good insurance--which we rarely use. The prescriptions that I began taking pre-surgery would cost $385 without insurance. I have a good plan but still paid $85 because none of them is a generic. Now I wonder what the bill would have been if I lived elsewhere....

 

Jane, were you able to see an itemized bill after your surgery? Health care is one of the things people routinely pay for where there isn't always an itemized bill, because the assumption is that insurance will pay for most of it and the consumer will only be looking at their copay. In no other purchasing situation would we as the consumer tolerate this.

 

My oldest son just had his eardrum repaired after he was kicked in the ear at swim practice. I am okay with the $1500 to the anesthesiologist and the $3500 to the surgeon who was digging around inside my son's head, but the charge for the 7 hours my son was in a room as a day patient was mind-blowing at over $11,000. This did not include the charges for the operating room. The total cost was just over $18,000 with us paying our deductible and 20% of the charges. On the bill, we could see individualized items but no price. That bill was equivalent to the prenatal care and delivery for three babies, plus two surgeries for ear tubes and adenoids for the same child. 

 

When I first developed asthma eight years ago, albuterol was $10  and Flovent was $55 for the month. The same items are now $60 and $250.

 

I cannot imagine how the "average" American can afford these costs. My dd is a nurse with both ER and critical care experience. When the economy took it's nose-dive in 2008, the hospital she works for saw a marked increase in cases where patients waited too long to seek care and ended up in the ER. She called one evening in an absolute fury at the needless loss of a woman with three young children. The husband had to let their insurance lapse when he experienced a downturn in hours. The poor man was already working two jobs. The hospital she works for has a poorer client base and it was hit hard with the economic downturn and the kind of care it then had to deliver.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lisa, you raise a point that confounds me regularly. Off the general topic but on your point: people complain about the NSA while gladly handing over their private data to Facebook and Google. I don't get it.

 

There is a lot of profit in the American health care industry--and I use that last word deliberately. The article you linked brings it home.

 

I asked my initial question not only because of the recent discussions but also because I had a minor surgery this week. I am one of the lucky ones with good insurance--which we rarely use. The prescriptions that I began taking pre-surgery would cost $385 without insurance. I have a good plan but still paid $85 because none of them is a generic. Now I wonder what the bill would have been if I lived elsewhere....

I don't think that valid at all. My identity and who I'm willing to risk it with is my choice. Not everyone shares everything on FB or with google. And they can stop doing so any time they want.

 

That's like saying risking someone at the coffee shop hearing a convo with my dh means I should be okay with the govt putting a tap on me. Because you know they're just listening in like the busy body at a cafe might.

 

Um. No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...