A Decent Society

Originally posted by generalissimo
if there are people who have 8 kids, all of which enjoy free healthcare, it would make one wonder whether these people bother to use contraception.

Children used to be considered an asset and a blessing to society. When did right wingers decide they were a liability?

Originally posted by lepomis
Medical care costs what it costs, no matter who pays for it. If your not getting the care the doc says you need, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. However medicare patients are very micro managed, more so than alot of 3rd party payers clients. So, putting it in government hands will not change that part.

My mother turns 88 on Feb 8 -- I have assumed full power of attorney over her affairs. So tell me something I don't already know about Medicare.

As for costs being what they are, they can be and are in fact often manipulated by large corporate interests and also by inappropriate decisions, including governmental decisions, over the deployment of certain drugs and treatments.

No one wants the government to run health care in this country -- but many if not everyone want to find a solution that does not deny care to vulnerable, underprivileged and uninsured members of our society, even if it means a hike in what folks in my position have to pay as our fair share.

But, then, I'm biased by the fact that my work is about ensuring the highest level of public health we can achieve using our legal system to change behavior for the better.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Children used to be considered an asset and a blessing to society. When did right wingers decide they were a liability?

I think they always have. That is why they annoy the Charles Dickens out of the rest of us.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think he is right, though. In America, but also in the rest of the western world, people generally take too many pills; especially painkillers and antidepressants are prescribed far too often. Though it may be perfectly applicable in the case of you and your wife, of course.

Nice of you to grant me your dispensation -- cheers me up so much I may skip my anti-depressant tomorrow.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, Scriabin has raised a valid point - the increased bureaucracy due to the privatization. For the same reason, the privatization of the railways in Britain failed miserably. Collective goods are purchased most efficiently collectively.

can we use a different word than "collective?"

it causes liver problems among the conservative -- it should cause stomach problems, but the liver is on the right and the stomach is on the left -- in most folks, anyway.

I think it fairly good economics to spread the risk and the costs around when it comes to such things as public health and health care.

If that were not so, I wonder why the SCOTUS has upheld the end result of the states' litigation against the tobacco industry for adding unnecessarily to state funded health care costs.

Look this is an extremely complex subject -- probably too complex for a mere mud wrestling ring or jello vat like this venue. We're not going to solve it here.

Originally posted by Scriabin
My mother turns 88 on Feb 8 -- I have assumed full power of attorney over her affairs. So tell me something I don't already know about Medicare.

As for costs being what they are, they can be and are in fact often manipulated by large corporate interests and also by inappropriate decisions, including governmental decisions, over the deployment of certain ...[text shortened]... evel of public health we can achieve using our legal system to change behavior for the better.

I actually wouldn't mind if the government did run our healthcare system, if it meant better care. That is why I am curious why the US spends more for less. Other countries beat us using less money... why? What is different about the care? Are the folks eating better, exercising more or do they take care of their problems without doctor supervision?

Originally posted by Scriabin
I think they always have. That is why they annoy the Charles Dickens out of the rest of us.

Many of the posts here did remind me of Scrooge's line in A Christmas Carol:

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Originally posted by lepomis
I actually wouldn't mind if the government did run our healthcare system, if it meant better care. That is why I am curious why the US spends more for less. Other countries beat us using less money... why? What is different about the care? Are the folks eating better, exercising more or do they take care of their problems without doctor supervision?

The answer to your question is and has been on the public record for a long time.

The underlying problem is that we treat health care like a market commodity instead of a social service. Health care is targeted not to medical need, but to the ability to pay. Markets are good for many things, but they are not a good way to distribute health care. To understand what’s happening, and the system is collapsing around us, look at how the health care market works.

People who face this problem and speak truthfully, as compared to people who deny the problem and lie to line their own pockets, recognize that we already spend enough to provide national health care to all.

What we lack is the political courage to make the tough decisions that doctors, nurses and medical professionals must run our health care system, - not “for profit” insurance companies who make money by denying health care.

I think we are about to see progress toward recognizing that all civilized countries have a solution that we must adapt to this country.

But that is more of a hope than an expectation on my part.

Originally posted by Scriabin
The answer to your question is and has been on the public record for a long time.

The underlying problem is that we treat health care like a market commodity instead of a social service. Health care is targeted not to medical need, but to the ability to pay. Markets are good for many things, but they are not a good way to distribute health care. To under ...[text shortened]... hat we must adapt to this country.

But that is more of a hope than an expectation on my part.

So people are not getting care and the extra money we spend all goes to insurance company profits. Sounds easy to fix.

Originally posted by lepomis
So people are not getting care and the extra money we spend all goes to insurance company profits. Sounds easy to fix.

Poltical courage is in short supply on Capitol Hill. I work at the Federal Triangle, which is halfway between the rock of Capitol Hill and the hard place known as the White House an equal distance, more or less, the other way up the street.

Not just my teeth are getting ground.

Originally posted by lepomis
I took the increased bureaucracy to mean redundancy among the different companies. Even if the government controlled the care, the same steps would be involved in care denials. Docs would still have to get their care plan approved by someone. Third party payers have one person who denies or accepts the plan. The doc can go through the appeal process after that, but it the same for medicare as it is for 3rd party payers.

Care denial? What does that mean? If I have X illness, I go to a hospital and a doctor will tell me what the best way to treat it is and I will get that treatment unless it's not on the government-determined list of basic health care.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Care denial? What does that mean? If I have X illness, I go to a hospital and a doctor will tell me what the best way to treat it is and I will get that treatment unless it's not on the government-determined list of basic health care.

You just defined it. Its care denied because the government says it is not a covered service.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Poltical courage is in short supply on Capitol Hill. I work at the Federal Triangle, which is halfway between the rock of Capitol Hill and the hard place known as the White House an equal distance, more or less, the other way up the street.

Not just my teeth are getting ground.

You sound like someone who would know. Which system would you like to see the US copy?

Originally posted by lepomis
You just defined it. Its care denied because the government says it is not a covered service.

But that's very easy to look up and hardly involves any need for appeals?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But that's very easy to look up and hardly involves any need for appeals?

It must not be that cut and dry, because the appeals process is used often.