Useful Links

maddythebeagle · 06-30-2007, 09:42 PM

ladelfina · 07-01-2007, 01:42 AM

Quote:

It's much easier for foreign countries to calculate expenditures on domestic sales, because very few people utilize the private sector, so the biggest portion of the figure is whatever the govt's budget for healthcare spending that year was.

I have only my DH's brother as a source for this, but I asked him what the percentage was of healthcare provided by the gov. vs. private and he said he thought it was around 50/50. He's a doctor who has worked in both the public and private sector. He is in the wealthier north; the numbers could be different in the south. I doubt that the people doing these studies are so cavalier as to just take the gov. numbers alone, as you imply, because it is "easier".

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha

Forty-five dollars for a tooth extraction?! I had a broken tooth last year and it cost me hundreds of dollars to have it removed.

I know some ex-addicts with "meth mouth" who are on waiting lists to see a dentist and get teeth pulled. The waiting list is more than a year long. But I suppose it is their own fault so no one cares but me and a few volunteer dentists.

Some are only barely out of the teenage years.

Take a look at the tooth extraction rates on that dental discount plan. There are quite a few dentists to choose from, too. I'm not sure about every state, but colorado has a least three or four dental discount plans to choose from that cost $6-$12/mo - depending on the network you want to use. The one I posted was one of the better ones.

Colorado Group Dental Insurance and Dental Plan - Dental Insurance Home- Beta Health Association Colorado. The schedule of benefits is on their website. A lot of people don't even know these kinds of plans exist. They come in very handy for low income folks.

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdreamer

As Robert DeNiro would say, "Are you talking to me?"

I never said what the author wrote has "zero validity." I just thought he overstated the strength of his argument.

I guess you think I'm on the "other side" on this issue. I have never said I think a purely socialized single payer system is the answer. I think I've always said a hybrid system would serve us best, though even that will be imperfect.

I like some of your ideas. I disagree with others. I suppose my greatest frustration in communicating my thoughts to you is things tend to get reduced to black-and-white.

I've said more than enough. No hard feelings just different perspectives.

Calif - Didn't mean to sound so harsh - I have no hard feelings. I like your input and enjoy your posts.

.I try to find articles that have something useful and informative to say, and it's frustrating when the detail is automatically disounted as unworthy because the author is "biased and has an agenda".....as if the other side never posts anything that has a bias. I think every writer has some kind of bias in that they are trying to support their own point of view. Ladelphina has posted quite a few links from very liberal leaning authors. I have read through every one of them and have avoided criticizing her links as having an agenda. I take the information I read to heart, let some of it sink in, and blow off anything that sounds rediculous.

Martha - I am glad the Commonweath Fund is doing something to find out why there is so much discrepancy between national statistic collection on Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality. I've visited their site and even watched some of their videos as you have suggested before. Despite the fact that they realize there is a discrepancy in collection of statistics, they still USE those statistics to support their point of view, which is irritating to me. Even though they try to say that they are an independent, unbiased organization, it is very obvious to me that they are heavily in favor of a single payor system.

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 07:48 AM

Martha,

Didn't you say you lived in Minnesota...I understand some of those kids you work on are under 18? I was just reading through the insurekidsnow.gov site, and it says that the program covers dental services for low income kids. Do you think that some of the kids you work on could qualify?

Here's the link:
Medical assistance - what services are paid

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 07:50 AM

[quote=Oldbabe;530985]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

Olbabe, I don't know your personal situation, or why you decided to retire early, so I don't want to sound insensitive or critical, but wouldn't it have been your choice to retire early and accept a policy without coverage for skin cancer versus staying employed with benefits until age 65 when Medicare would kick in and cover your skin cancer? IMO, the desire to retire early doesn't seem like a good reason to me to socialize healthcare. ]

What a silly thing to say. No, you don't know my situation at all. I'm not retired. I do work. Like millions, it's not my choice to be without job related health benefits.

I see...your company doesn't offer health benefits...I see...I thought I had read posts earlier that you were retired. Didn't you say you were from Colorado before? Cover Colorado offers coverage for pre-existing conditions....www.covercolorado.org. If you feel like it is too risky to go without coverage for skin cancer in the individual market, you might want to consider Cover Colorado...www.covercolorado.org .

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 08:13 AM

Ladelphina -

If you have time and are willing to, you might find this link interesting. Most on this forum will find it biased, and it is - it is an argument against a single payor system, but I find the information very interesting and worth consideration:

http://www.nahu.org/legislative/sing...pt#272,10,Myth #1—Everyone Has Access

cute fuzzy bunny · 07-01-2007, 08:27 AM

Of course its biased. Its written by people who depend on a nationalized system not being implemented to keep their current jobs.

On the surface, I saw a lot of wild leaps, unsubstantiated claims and...frankly ridiculous assumptions.

You can throw around all the funny stats, biased reports and politically motivated presentations you want. The current system doesnt work. Non profit managed care does. Its just a matter of who does the managing.

Its that little problem of "profit" thats getting in the way.

Before we run on a lot longer, the moment you can explain how my HMO can give me superior coverage for half the price of a blue cross sponsored PPO, I'm all ears.

Clearly, cost savings can be had while offering better service levels to more people. And the HMO received the highest patient scores among HMO providers and scored above all PPO offerings, nationwide.

The only people that dont want a universal system are the insurance companies and the people who support them. And the people who already have the sort of coverage they need and dont have to worry about it.

Considering that universal health care would solve one of the largest problems an early retiree faces, I dont think this is ever going to be a very receptive audience to maintaining the current system.

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 08:47 AM

Cute -

Well, I don't know about the HMO offering superior coverage...I have a lot of clients who would prefer a PPO...but to answer your question about how they do it cheaper? Simple - they don't offer coverage outside of their network.. So, if you're with Kaiser and you need to go to Mayo Clinic for cancer treatment, forget it! You want to go to University Hospital in Colorado, forget it! You have an urgent need to see a specialist?...Forget it...you must go to your primary care doc first to get a referral...He'll decide if it's urgent and then he'll refer you to the specialist of his choice, not yours! The specialist you want to see isn't in the network? Too bad! PPOs have much broader networks and the freedom to leave the network if you want to, thus, premiums are much higher.

Ask yourself these questions...Would you be in favor of universalized healthcare if your taxes were going to go up an additional 10%? Would you be in favor if you had to wait 15 weeks to get a diagnostic test? Would you be in favor if your gov't sponsored health plan had fewer benefits than your current healthplan (such as no prescription drug coverage outside of hospitalization like in Canada?). These are some of the long-term consequences of universal health care.

Yes - I too dislike the status quo. There are things we can do to cut costs (IMO, with the use of market forces, rather than socialistic ones)...Here are a couple of ideas:
1.) Legalize drug re-importation....this will force drug companies to reduce pricing.
2.) Encourage and educate on the advantages of buying of consumer-driven healthplans like HSAs and HRAs
3.) Penalize wasteful spending on un-necessary tests
4.) Tie doctors salaries to outcomes

cute fuzzy bunny · 07-01-2007, 08:54 AM

Oh dear, this is just too repetitive. I appreciate some of your informative posts, but this biased, non factual crap about universal health care has tested my patience.

I'll have to put you on my ignore list. Good luck with your ridiculous jihad.

Martha · 07-01-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

Martha,

Didn't you say you lived in Minnesota...I understand some of those kids you work on are under 18? I was just reading through the insurekidsnow.gov site, and it says that the program covers dental services for low income kids. Do you think that some of the kids you work on could qualify?

Here's the link:
Medical assistance - what services are paid

Yes, I know about the insurekidsnow programs. The age range include those under and over 18. You are correct that it is much much easier to get health care for those under 18.

There are various programs like free clinics and subsidized drug programs for those who are not eligible for medicaid. However, waiting lists are extensive. The prescription drug programs most often require a copay. If the only money you have comes from selling blood, you aren't going to use it for a copay. The big problem is getting mental health care. For example, a suicidal 20 year old ends up in the hospital. They prescribe some drugs and get her out asap because she has no money and no insurance. She is back on the street in two days and you have to figure out a way to get her the required meds and not only that, get her to take them.

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha

There are various programs like free clinics and subsidized drug programs for those who are not eligible for medicaid. However, waiting lists are extensive. The prescription drug programs most often require a copay. If the only money you have comes from selling blood, you aren't going to use it for a copay.

Martha, I admire what you do for misfortuned people. However, don't you see that social programs ALWAYS have huge waiting lists? Can't you see that the same will happen in a purely socialized system?...only instead of it happening to the minority, it happens to everyone! This is why gov't sponsored healthcare scares me. If the social programs that are put in place for the misfortuned have limitations, how much worse would it be if we gave social healthcare to everyone?

Meadbh · 07-01-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

Martha, I admire what you do for misfortuned people. However, don't you see that social programs ALWAYS have huge waiting lists? Can't you see that the same will happen in a purely socialized system?...only instead of it happening to the minority, it happens to everyone! This is why gov't sponsored healthcare scares me. If the social programs that are put in place for the misfortuned have limitations, how much worse would it be if we gave social healthcare to everyone?

What you are really afraid of is that YOU might lose your privileged position and have to wait for a change.

CLICK: you have been added to my IGNORE list. Goodbye.

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadbh

What you are really afraid of is that YOU might lose your privileged position and have to wait for a change.

CLICK: you have been added to my IGNORE list. Goodbye.

You have no idea how wrong you are. In America, there is no reason that anyone should have to wait, but a little bit of inequality is necessary in order to serve the masses....without it, the entire population suffers. Martha quotes that approx 18,000 people die each year because of lack of insurance (that's a very small number compared to the entire populaton of the United States). However, the Commonwealth Fund never mentions how many hundreds of thousands of people from the other countries of the world die because of lack of access to technology (of diseases like cancer, AIDS, malaria, heart disease, etc) or because they are stuck on a waiting list waiting for tests or surgery, or because they have no access to the prescriptions they need. Do you know why the Commonwealth fund doesn't site any of those statistics? Because they aren't available. Try it...go out on the internet and do a search for statistics of people who die while on a waiting list...you won't find a single one! (And I doubt it never happens). I tried to find the numbers every which way...and nothing...yet we hear about it on the news everyday...hundreds of thousands of people dying from diseases like AIDS or needlessly suffering because they don't have access to the best medications.

The govt's of other countries don't publish those kind of figures....they are very squeamish about doing that....I wonder why?

Beststash · 07-01-2007, 05:21 PM

Administrative costs, marketing and profits account for 22 to 33 percent of the U.S. healthcare dollar. By contrast, overhead costs in single-payer systems (including Medicare) typically are 3 percent.
In America's for-profit private insurance healthcare system, medical technicians must contend with hundreds of different forms, billing procedures, regulations and requirements from hundreds of insurance companies; U.S. healthcare companies spend money for advertising and marketing; and, the U.S. healthcare system is based on profit. Since 1970, the number of medical doctors in the United States has increased 40 percent, while the number of medical administrators has increased almost 3,000 percent.
We are paying for a massive, inefficient bureaucracy. The increasing cost of prescription drugs also is increasing the healthcare bill, and U.S. drug costs are the highest in the world; Americans pay 30 percent to 80 percent more for prescription drugs than citizens of any other country.
You might think that this excess money goes into developing new drugs, but you would be wrong: Only 13 percent of drug costs go to research and development, and little of that goes for pioneering new drugs to deal with life-threatening conditions; 51 percent goes to marketing, administration and profits.

IMHO, we can and will implement universal healthcare in this country - I just hope that it is single-payer or some type of system that gets the middlemen (read insurance companies) out of the picture.

BTW - Single payer is not socialized medicine. Medicare is a single-payer system -- a very popular one, by the way -- and single-payer systems such as Medicare do not employ any doctors or own any hospitals or medical facilities.

Peace

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 05:52 PM

The other side of "Sicko": BTW - In Canada, they have Medicare for all - Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had the same system here:

On The Fence Films :: Dead Meat

Play the video - It's quite enlightening.

mykidslovedogs · 07-01-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beststash

Americans pay 30 percent to 80 percent more for prescription drugs than citizens of any other country.

Don't you realize that America is one of the biggest suppliers of prescription medications to those "other" countries? Those countries REFUSE to purchase prescriptions at anything but their budgeted prices. They don't have free markets, so their gov'ts stipulate the pricing and drug companies give in. Therefore, they sell way below cost to other countries and American citizens get to pay the difference. THAT's why we pay 30-80% more. There are a couple of solutions. 1.) Legalize drug re-importation or 2.)Stop selling our drugs to other countries. Either solution will hurt the poor nations of the world. If we legalize re-importation, poor nations will experience shortages. If we refuse to sell to poor countries, people will die.