Hoop, hurdles and health care in US

[Zoocat]

Let's examine the idea of "rationing" which MKLD and others use to demonize single payer systems that are used in other countries. The definition of rationing is to limit, control, restrict, put a ceiling on, etc. In our country where people cannot get covered for pre-existing conditions, they are forced into rationing their own medical care if they cannot afford treatments. My skin cancer is not covered by my insurance. Do I run to my dermatologist to get every suspicious spot checked out? NO. I cannot afford that. Do I run some risk, no doubt. If I had coverage I would not have that risk. That's the breaks. Too bad for me. Similarly, those without medical/dental insurance who cannot afford care are forced to limit treatment or do without.

My brother, a blue collar worker, could not afford to hire a dentist to repair his broken molar and so, with all the pain, he decided his best course of treatment was to remove the molar himself using alchohol as his anesthetic, just like back in the old days of the last century! That's where we are headed with our current Darwinian system.

Those who rail against the single payer health insurance system because they think it will "ration" health care are, IMHO, only thinking about themselves and are inhumanely disregarding a huge portion of Americans who are suffering under the current system.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Let's examine the idea of "rationing" which MKLD and others use to demonize single payer systems that are used in other countries. The definition of rationing is to limit, control, restrict, put a ceiling on, etc. In our country where people cannot get covered for pre-existing conditions, they are forced into rationing their own medical care if they cannot afford treatments. My skin cancer is not covered by my insurance. Do I run to my dermatologist to get every suspicious spot checked out? NO. I cannot afford that. Do I run some risk, no doubt. If I had coverage I would not have that risk. That's the breaks. Too bad for me. Similarly, those without medical/dental insurance who cannot afford care are forced to limit treatment or do without.

My brother, a blue collar worker, could not afford to hire a dentist to repair his broken molar and so, with all the pain, he decided his best course of treatment was to remove the molar himself using alchohol as his anesthetic, just like back in the old days of the last century! That's where we are headed with our current Darwinian system.

Those who rail against the single payer health insurance system because they think it will "ration" health care are, IMHO, only thinking about themselves and are inhumanely disregarding a huge portion of Americans who are suffering under the current system.

I guess you didn't read my statements above, because I said that I support a certain level of basic care at a reasonable cost to society combined with the use of market forces to encourage smart usage of healthcare dollars. What I do not support is unlimited access at the expense of taxpayers - which is the idealism behind gov't sponsored healthcare.

 

[Meadbh]

Quote:
It really irritates me that people from abroad spend money for medical supplies in the USA.

Why? They put money in the US economy and reduce your trade deficit. US medical device manufacturers are very capable of responding to customer demand in a free market system.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Why? They put money in the US economy and reduce your trade deficit. US medical device manufacturers are very capable of responding to customer demand in a free market system.

Because when people from abroad spend money for medical services and supplies in the USA, those dollars get added into our per capita health expenditures, and then advocates of socialized medicine use those skewed numbers to PROVE that we are spending too much, when in reality, wealthy people from other countries come here for services when they can't get those same services in their own countries due to waiting lists or rationing...yet some of them are the first ones to criticize our system.

It's fine that it helps our economy, but it's not fine that advocates of socialized medicine use our per capita expenditure numbers as a reason why we should socialize, especially when those figures don't exclude international commerce.

 

[Meadbh]

Because when people from abroad spend money for medical services and supplies in the USA, those dollars get added into our per capita health expenditures

That's an accounting problem for which you cannot blame foreigners. Per capita health expenditures need to be calculated on domestic sales. I presume this is one reason why, when I have purchased health items, whether covered by insurance or not, I ahve been asked for my provincial insurance number.

 

[califdreamer]

That last article I posted, IMO, seems to be very unbiased - the title might not sound unbiased, but if you read the whole thing, it makes a lot more sense than using the connection between life expectancy and infant mortality rates as a sure sign that we need to socialize. It goes over the scientific reasoning as to why we can't make an absolute connection between life expectancy, infant mortality and the healthcare system. I'll bet you didn't read through the article. If you did, you'd see what I mean. There is no hypocrisy in the article...and not even one bashing of the views of the other side. It is simply information about the scientific reasoning as to why the statistics are not reliable.

Late last night when I posted I did not read through the article. I was curious about the source so I went to their website and saw the article about Harry Reid and other right-leaning write-ups. So it seems the organization has an agenda and is interested in turning up evidence to bolster its case.

I read the article this morning and my suspicions were confirmed. I think the article is correct in asserting that infant mortality and life expectancy are not perfect measures but the author overstates the power of his argument. He certainly didn't convince me that there is nothing to be learned from the variations among countries in those two measures.

I got a chuckle from his first criterion for evaluating healthcare systems (people have to interact directly with a doctor, nurse or healthcare professional for their health situation to be relevant to measuring the performance of the healthcare system). Of course that would exclude ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE IN THE FIRST PLACE as a reason for poor performance of our system. Again, publications like this have an agenda so they're very clever about setting up an argument in their favor.

In summary, I don't entirely disagree with the free market message regarding healthcare but slanted sources like that one don't motivate me to embrace it any more enthusiastically.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

That's an accounting problem for which you cannot blame foreigners. Per capita health expenditures need to be calculated on domestic sales. I presume this is one reason why, when I have purchased health items, whether covered by insurance or not, I ahve been asked for my provincial insurance number.

I don't blame foreigners for our accounting problems. I just think it's hypocritical to criticize the USA health system (which a lot of foreigners do) and then turn around and use it when they can't get access to the services they want in their own country....and then they turn around and criticize the USA for spending so much on healthcare.

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.

In the USA, we can't just subtract international commerce from doctor's salaries in order to get an accurate figure. We just add up all the bills and divide it by the number of people in the USA, not considering that a big chunk of utilizers of our system are people from all over the world. Other countries cap their Dr's salaries so it's easy to compute cost without including international commerce into the mix.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

In summary, I don't entirely disagree with the free market message regarding healthcare but slanted sources like that one don't motivate me to embrace it any more enthusiastically.

I didn't see any slant in the story. It seemed to be well-researched and very informative. Just because the author tends to lean to the right doesn't mean that his arguments have zero validity. Who doesn't have an agenda when trying to write a convincing story? If the author had failed to give reference to the materials he used to support his arguments, then I would have criticized him for that too, but his arguments, IMO, were intelligent and sensical, and for the most part, believable. I've seen plenty of "left-leaning" posts on healthcare on this forum, and very few of them are ever criticized by readers as having an "agenda".

I haven't seen anything from the other side that has given me a more convincing argument to support their agenda regarding life-expectancy, infant-mortality and in their view, the direct cause and effect relationship between the two. When I do, I'll take it into consideration. The simple fact that our numbers are higher are not enough to convince me that we need to socialize in order to solve the problem.

 

[califdreamer]

I didn't see any slant in the story. It seemed to be well-researched and very informative. Just because the author tends to lean to the right doesn't mean that his arguments have zero validity. Who doesn't have an agenda when trying to write a convincing story? If the author had failed to give reference to the materials he used to support his arguments, then I would have criticized him for that too, but his arguments, IMO, were intelligent and sensical, and for the most part, believable. I've seen plenty of "left-leaning" posts on healthcare on this forum, and very few of them are ever criticized by readers as having an "agenda".

I haven't seen anything from the other side that has given me a more convincing argument to support their agenda regarding life-expectancy, infant-mortality and in their view, the direct cause and effect relationship between the two. When I do, I'll take it into consideration. The simple fact that our numbers are higher are not enough to convince me that we need to socialize in order to solve the problem.

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.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Let's examine the idea of "rationing" which MKLD and others use to demonize single payer systems that are used in other countries. The definition of rationing is to limit, control, restrict, put a ceiling on, etc. In our country where people cannot get covered for pre-existing conditions, they are forced into rationing their own medical care if they cannot afford treatments. My skin cancer is not covered by my insurance. Do I run to my dermatologist to get every suspicious spot checked out? NO. I cannot afford that. Do I run some risk, no doubt. If I had coverage I would not have that risk. That's the breaks. Too bad for me. Similarly, those without medical/dental insurance who cannot afford care are forced to limit treatment or do without.

My brother, a blue collar worker, could not afford to hire a dentist to repair his broken molar and so, with all the pain, he decided his best course of treatment was to remove the molar himself using alchohol as his anesthetic, just like back in the old days of the last century! That's where we are headed with our current Darwinian system.

Those who rail against the single payer health insurance system because they think it will "ration" health care are, IMHO, only thinking about themselves and are inhumanely disregarding a huge portion of Americans who are suffering under the current system.

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.

While I feel bad for your brother's pain, it's hard for me to believe that, even as a blue collar worker, he couldn't muster up $45 bucks for a tooth extraction. Choosing not to purchase a cheap, dental discount plan for $12/mo in order to get basic dental care does not sound like a societal problem to me.

Heres a link to a dental discount plan and schedule of benefits - maybe your brother could benefit from this.

Colorado Group Dental Insurance and Dental Plan - Dental Insurance Home- Beta Health Association Colorado

 

[Martha]

I didn't see any slant in the story. It seemed to be well-researched and very informative. Just because the author tends to lean to the right doesn't mean that his arguments have zero validity. Who doesn't have an agenda when trying to write a convincing story? If the author had failed to give reference to the materials he used to support his arguments, then I would have criticized him for that too, but his arguments, IMO, were intelligent and sensical, and for the most part, believable. I've seen plenty of "left-leaning" posts on healthcare on this forum, and very few of them are ever criticized by readers as having an "agenda".

I haven't seen anything from the other side that has given me a more convincing argument to support their agenda regarding life-expectancy, infant-mortality and in their view, the direct cause and effect relationship between the two. When I do, I'll take it into consideration. The simple fact that our numbers are higher are not enough to convince me that we need to socialize in order to solve the problem.

Interesting that the author speaks approvingly of the Commonwealth Fund and its efforts to improve cross-nation measures of health care effectiveness. I often provide information from the Commonwealth Fund to show issues with health care delivery in the US. But you once called it the "communist fund."

Of course health care problems are mulitifaceted. They are not all due to lack of health insurance. Nevertheless, there are 46 million without health insurance in the US and about 18,000 uninsured who die each year because they did not get health care due to inability to pay for it. There are many more who are insured but are underinsured and fail to get needed care.

 

[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.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Martha - you're a volunteer dentist?

 

[Martha]

My secret life.

 

[Zoocat]

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.

 

[maddythebeagle]

 

[ladelfina]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/single/SinglePayerStandard.ppt#272,10,Myth #1—Everyone Has Access

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

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]

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]

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.