[Jolie]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Yet, when it comes to health care, many of the things we do only because we have insurance—like getting our moles checked, or getting our teeth cleaned regularly, or getting a mammogram or engaging in other routine preventive care—are anything but wasteful and inefficient.

Please cite a source that indicates that only people with insurance get moles checked, have mammograms, or get their teeth cleaned.

You can't. Because no such source exists.

I have lived the majority of my life without health insurance, and never lacked for preventive care. My parents made it a priority and worked out arrangements with our family doctor and dentist to obtain and pay for preventive services as part of their household budget. A tact many other responsible people take, I'm sure.

I don't argue that preventive care is important and worthy of inclusion in health plans. But you lose credibility when you overstate and overdramatize your case by making ridiculous, broad, and sweeping statements like, "many of the things we do only because we have health insurance-like getting our moles checked, or getting our teeth cleaned regularly, or getting a mammogram....

[banditrn]

Originally Posted by Jolie

Please cite a source that indicates that only people with insurance get moles checked, have mammograms, or get their teeth cleaned.

You can't. Because no such source exists.

I have lived the majority of my life without health insurance, and never lacked for preventive care. My parents made it a priority and worked out arrangements with our family doctor and dentist to obtain and pay for preventive services as part of their household budget. A tact many other responsible people take, I'm sure.

I don't argue that preventive care is important and worthy of inclusion in health plans. But you lose credibility when you overstate and overdramatize your case by making ridiculous, broad, and sweeping statements like, "many of the things we do only because we have health insurance-like getting our moles checked, or getting our teeth cleaned regularly, or getting a mammogram....

Jolie - dental insurance is actually a fairly recent innovation - I don't have it, but I manage to get my dental needs met.

[x_coastie]

If a state cannot make this work without going broke, how is the entire country going to make socialized medicine work? With increased bureaucracy and a more diverse population one can expect budget problems to be magnified. I am all for states to try socialized medicine so the rest of the country can see how big of a failure (as this article proves) it would be for America.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by x_coastie

If a state cannot make this work without going broke, how is the entire country going to make socialized medicine work? With increased bureaucracy and a more diverse population one can expect budget problems to be magnified. I am all for states to try socialized medicine so the rest of the country can see how big of a failure (as this article proves) it would be for America.

I'm all for a long-term pilot project that would demonstrate the costs (or savings), improved health status (or not), increased level of education and productivity of participants (or not), satisfaction of providers and consumers (or not), amount of bureaucracy and waste (or not), etc. in comparison to existing private and public health plans. Perhaps such a study would make believers of us doubters. Why are our elected officials and presidential candidates who support universal healthcare so unwilling to produce such a study? And why aren't healthcare professionals calling for one? After all, nursing and medicine are rooted in science. We study the safety and effectiveness of drugs and treatments, why not insist on the same scrutiny for funding what would be the most expensive social program in U.S. history?

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by x_coastie

If a state cannot make this work without going broke, how is the entire country going to make socialized medicine work? With increased bureaucracy and a more diverse population one can expect budget problems to be magnified. I am all for states to try socialized medicine so the rest of the country can see how big of a failure (as this article proves) it would be for America.

Massachusetts did not try either socialized healthcare or single payer.

They tried to mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance or pay a fine. People chose to pay the fine because it was less costly than insurance.
Those whose income was deemed low enough could apply for taxpayers to pay for their health insurance.

I think it is not a good idea to have taxpayers pay for private corporations to make huge profits.
And still people are without guaranteed healthcare.

That is similar to the plans of most Democrats who have health plans.
I think single payer, like Medicare is the best idea.

Discussion of mandated healthcare: http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/...e-and-mandates

[HM2Viking]

A study is just a waste of money. The evidence based on the experiences of other countries already exists to show that a single payer plan will produce better results than our current system for key health indicators.

See:



BTW attributing a clearly sourced statement written by Malcolm Gladwell to me as the writer was inaccurate. He was addressing the value of paying for preventive care as patients (of which we all are at one time or another) do not always make good choices about which health care to defer. For any discussion about health care access to be meaningful it requires that similar benefits be available through health insurance consistent with Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis Treatment protocols. (While the EPSDT is a reference to Medicaid and children the elements are also present in good health insurance programs for adults.)

See:

Early-Identifying problems early, starting at birth
Periodic Checking children's health at periodic, age-appropriate intervals
Screening-Doing physical, mental,developmental, dental, hearing, vision, and other screening tests to detect potential problems
Diagnosis Performing diagnostic tests to follow up when a risk is identified,
Treatment-Treating the problems found.

http://www.hrsa.gov/epsdt/overview.htm

See also: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEarly....asp#TopOfPage .

Adult requirements would include: coverage of immunizations, annual physical, and a biannual eye exam, at a minimum.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

A study is just a waste of money. The evidence based on the experiences of other countries already exists to show that a single payer plan will produce better results than our current system for key health indicators.

Why are you afraid of a study, Viking? A study would provide a substantial number of people with the healthcare coverage that you so strongly advocate and support. And it would provide advocates of universal healthcare with the opportunity to prove us naysayers wrong. I think anyone who truly believes in the superiority of a universal healthcare system would be chomping at the bit to get such a study underway.

The U.S. does indeed need to conduct such a study to learn the impact of universal healthcare on our society. We do not have the same systems of government, education, social services, or finance as the nations that you cite as successful examples of universal healthcare. To extrapolate their findings to our culture would be naive, short-sighted and irresponsible.

Had our elected officials produced a 5 year study of Medicare Part D, we could have fixed its problems before implementing it nation-wide. Before it became a grand scale debacle. To assume that our lawmakers would get universal healthcare right on the first try is absurd. We need a study to examine the benefits and flaws of universal healthcare so that our citizens can determine whether it is in the best interests of our nation and how best to implement it.

[banditrn]

Originally Posted by Jolie

Why are you afraid of a study, Viking? A study would provide a substantial number of people with the healthcare coverage that you so strongly advocate and support. And it would provide advocates of universal healthcare with the opportunity to prove us naysayers wrong. I think anyone who truly believes in the superiority of a universal healthcare system would be chomping at the bit to get such a study underway.

The U.S. does indeed need to conduct such a study to learn the impact of universal healthcare on our society. We do not have the same systems of government, education, social services, or finance as the nations that you cite as successful examples of universal healthcare. To extrapolate their findings to our culture would be naive, short-sighted and irresponsible.

Had our elected officials produced a 5 year study of Medicare Part D, we could have fixed its problems before implementing it nation-wide. Before it became a grand scale debacle. To assume that our lawmakers would get universal healthcare right on the first try is absurd. We need a study to examine the benefits and flaws of universal healthcare so that our citizens can determine whether it is in the best interests of our nation and how best to implement it.

We've paid into the medicare system since it began. My husband went on medicare a little over a year ago.

It's not free - including the supplemental policy, plus the cost of the drug plan, which he NEVER uses, the total cost to us is $250 a month. That's just for him, not me.

And it goes up every year.

[HM2Viking]

We can quite safely use the experiences of Australia, Canada, and the UK as guideposts for our own system. (after all we do share substantial political traditions and cultural values.) The problems with part d were predicted by responsible progressives from the beginning. The GOP inserted a provision forbidding Medicare from pursuing bulk price discounts at the behest of PHRMA. Calling for studies (IMO) is just another way of delaying change and working towards solutions. For that matter we have already collected the data on the merits of universal care. MN, VT and HI all essentially have universal health care. TX, FLA and GA don't. The health outcomes data favors states with near universal care. The political systems haven't fallen off a cliff in any of the first 3 states. Again there is no need for a study. We already know that universal care can and will work here.

There is no compelling evidence available to show that consumer driven health care will work here. For that matter not one opponent to single payer has produced a reputable study showing that consumer driven care will produce superior health outcomes to a single payer system. If anything the evidence shows exactly the opposite.

[ingelein]

Food For Thought
An op -ed piece by a retired attorney.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/...=2007712030353

"People of conscience are earnestly trying to sort through the many plans being proposed to correct the inequities in order to determine which plan will provide a remedy that is both affordable and covers the cost of needed medical care."

"No new government program will be free of problems.But people of goodwill will be prepared to give such a program a chance to work."

"We cannot continue to allow people to go without medical care because they cannot afford to pay the doctor or buy insurance. And treat inability to pay as a moral failure."