[fronkey bean]

Originally Posted by sharlynn

My husband and I were recently in the same position with insurance. Fortunately , we stayed healthy until it kicked in!
But, I do remember making Home Health visits at one job several years ago and having diabetic patients trying to decide between food or prescriptions. Food usually won!

Someone should have hooked this guy up w/ the drug co.s. Everyone thinks their heartless b/c they have to turn a profit but most have programs in place for those who can't afford their meds. Also, many hospitals have programs in place to help provide meds and services to those who can't afford it (it is cheaper for them to do this than have pts who can't afford to pay their bills return to the hosp. in distress b/c they couldn't afford their meds. ).

[jojotoo]

Originally Posted by scottlgarrett

Well buddy, we do live in the United States of America. As citizens of this country or any other country we have be responsible for ourselves.

Personal Responsibility!!!

Scott - This pretty much sums up MANY problems that we have in this country today. When did we (as a nation), turn into such babies and start expecting to be taken care of?

[Woodenpug]

Personal responsibility and common sense are interesting concepts. When a modern day snake oil salesman tells desperate people that taking a "colon cleanser", with cascara, will cure them of virtually any health problem: are they lacking personal responsibility by not buying the product or lacking common sense when they do? We can improve this with better patient education, if they had access.
Many people work pay check to pay check at two or more part time jobs. Not only do they not have health insurance, they do not have PTO. Not everyone's life circumstances allow them the opportunity for trade school or college. Not poor personal choices.

[HM2Viking]

Waiting times for health care are longer in the US than almost any other industrial country. See: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/char...91&cat_id=1355

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by fronkey bean

Tell that to the soldiers at Walter Reed

Walter Reed is an ARMY/DOD hospital. The article I linked to makes a very clear distinction between Walter Reed and the VA system.

The Veterans Health Administration
The mistreatment and poor conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center were a front-page story recently, and they were rather conclusive in showing the system's inadequacy. But don't be confused: Walter Reed is a military hospital, not a VHA hospital. Poor reporting inaccurately smeared the quietly remarkable reputation of the best medical system in America.

[sirI]

Threads merged.

[HM2Viking]

One of the things that gets bandies about is the inefficiency of government. I think that the figures from Dean Bakers Book The Conservative Nanny State really call this charge into question. Consider the following:

The Efficiency of Social Security: Simple and Old-Fashioned, Like the
Wheel

In the recent debate over privatizing Social Security, proponents of
privatization would often ridicule the existing Social Security system as being an
old-fashioned one-size-fits-all program. They were largely right in their
description, but they were wrong about its implications. The Social Security
system might be 70-years-old and simple in design, but it is also cheap to
operate. The administrative costs of the Social Security system are less than 0.5
percent of the tax revenue that it takes in each year.1 By comparison, the
administrative costs of the privatized Social Security systems that were held up
as models for the United States, like the ones in Chile and Britain, are between

15 - 20 percent of annual payments into the system.2

In fact, the difference in costs is even greater when the cost of issuing

annuities – turning the money accumulated in private accounts into a monthly

flow of income in retirement – is factored into the equation. Private insurers
charge fees that range between 10-20 percent of the accumulated funds for
issuing annuities.

3 This means that the share of workers’ payments into private
accounts that get eaten up by fees from the financial industry can run as high as
30-40 percent. Fees of this size will substantially reduce the amount of money
that workers have left for retirement. By comparison, the administrative costs of

Social Security, at less than 0.5 percent, is a bargain.

at: http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf.

We see a similar phenomenon with our health care dollars. Medicare is administered for about 5%. Supposedly efficient private health insurance is administered for about 15%. It is at least three times more expensive under our current system. Once in awhile simplicity and ease of use should govern system design. A well designed universal care system will give us better care and access.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by jojotoo

HM2Viking: I was unable to quote your post (technical problem?), but if I understand it correctly, you are citing a study that compares VHA to Medicare and other "managed care systems". And VA came out ahead. Is this the same VA that in recent years has been the subject of 60 Minutes investigations? I only know a few nurses that work for the VA, and the stories they tell don't sound any better than stories I hear about other hospitals.

I was unfamiliar with NCQA and had to look it up. NCQA states that it is a private not-for-profit organization. I was unable to ascertain how they were funded. Are they like JCAHO (which basically extorts money from hospitals)? I know that if you speak to most nurses and doctors, they will say that patient care has not improved with JCAHO.
Would the same nurses and doctors say the same about NCQA and their studies and guidelines? This is an honest question that I invite responses to - I don't know the answer.

I would like to see some studies that compare outcomes from managed care to outomes from private health insurance.

I don't think that we need to do comparative studies between managed care and private insurance. The outcomes from the world stage in countries with UHC are so much better that IMO studies are just a waste of time and money. The commonwealth fund has extensive data available for review as to health care quality and effeciency. See http://www.commonwealthfund.org/chartcart/ .

[HM2Viking]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...?doc_id=482678

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I don't think that we need to do comparative studies between managed care and private insurance. The outcomes from the world stage in countries with UHC are so much better that IMO studies are just a waste of time and money. See http://www.commonwealthfund.org/chartcart/ .

Why is it that those who are in favor of making sweeping changes in the delivery and financing of healthcare in this country are so consistently opposed to producing studies that support their mantra of single-payor, government-run healthcare?

Proponents cite examples from other countries with vastly different systems of government, taxation, social programs, economics, and education and expect the taxpayers of this country to buy into them hook, line and sinker. Fortunately, the American taxpayers are too smart to do so.

In healthcare, we expect treatment to be evidence-based. Americans have the right to demand the same for their system of healthcare delivery and payment.

So, if single-payor, government-run healthcare is indeed such a good idea, show us the evidence by carrying out well-designed studies comparing the cost and outcomes of a number of different plans. I have no doubt that the majority of Americans would support such a change if it is proven to be a better system. Likewise, I have no doubt that Americans will not tolerate such a plan if it proves to be more expensive, inefficient or includes rationing and limitations not currently in place.

And that, folks, is the reason no such study has been done, or even proposed, by the proponents of socialized medicine.