"We need to spend more on prevention" debated

Published

I keep hearing all this talk about how the emphasis in medicine needs to be on prevention of disease, and not disease management or cures. As a nurse with over 20 years experience in a variety of clinical and business settings, most recently in mental health, I would like to suggest the new paradigm of prevention first is a bit mis-guided and unrealistic.

First, what is prevention? How do you realistically "prevent" obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease? There are only 2 ways to affect these chronic diseases: education or dictate. The health community has focused on education for 40 years. Constant repetition on message has slowly changed the numbers of unintended pregnancy, smoking, STDs, and AIDS related illness. There are other examples too, but changing behavior is a slow process. Education alone does not prevent chronic medical problems, at least not quickly.

So the new health reform thinks they can prevent first, limit the expensive care to a few choices at the end of life, and suddenly every one in this country will have excellent universal care that is cost effective, paid for, and even reduce the deficit. Only one problem: you can't dictate behavior.

This is the only way large scale changes could lead to the kind of Utopia one side of the spectrum is envisioning for this county. If you punish behavior that causes chronic disease, it is the only way to effect change rapidly. So, your freedom to choose is taken away, "for your own good" because people left to their own devices will not make smart choices. Outlaw transfats, outlaw tobacco (so why is it still legal if you really want people to quit smoking?) Outlaw sugar, outlaw meat (global warming), remove all snacks except fruit and vegetables from the school vending machines, tax complex carbs to reduce useage, mandate 1 hour of exercise daily for all citizens, fines for BMI over 30, fine smokers. I know - maybe you could just remove food and use compressed supplements with all the recommended nutrition. And those weak humans to do develop diabetes, or high blood pressure, or have too much fat? What do we do with them, after all our "help" controlling their weakness?

Maybe it is time to re-read Brave New World, Farenheit 451, Animal Farm, and Soylent Green. As for me, I prefer the education route, and continue to fund research in to cures. This may be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but this pie in the sky talk about prevention, not cure or treatment of disease seems to ignore the human factor and the gift of free will. I don't want government to take that away from me. Positive reinforcement has always worked better to change behavior than punishment, and yet in this new world of reform, the only way to prevent disease is to punish the behavior that causes it.

Specializes in LTC.
The answer to your last question is that the GOVERNMENT can't adequately fund a basic right to education in this country. Those schools need the revenue from those machines. When those machines are taken out of the schools it's been found that kids keep their money and actually spend more at the local 7-11 on the way home.

Links?

Links?

Your ignorance is starting to get to me. Why isn't there an ignore button on this forum?

Specializes in LTC.
Your ignorance is starting to get to me. Why isn't there an ignore button on this forum?

You can actually ignore me if you want Silent Mind.

Ad hominem and direct insults only serve to show your lack of a solid argument, and it also shows how much you have to learn.

Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.

closing for time out review...

new members should re-read our terms of service that you agreed to at sign-up, especially re debates.

check our information center & faq link found bottom middle section of every page to learn bb features.

from faq: add to ignore list

Specializes in Critical Care, Insurance Case Management.

Wow, now I am starting to see why there is so little serious examination of the proposed health care reform and so little involvement of health care professionals in shaping the reform. This was an attempt to discuss the problems behind the theory, and all I got was a debate about what cows eat. I fear we are headed down the road to mediocracy in health care through lack of intelligent debate. This will certainly leave an open field for politicians to run health care, because the health care professionals don't seen to look deeply in to the issue. :o

What happened to all those lectures at school about health care policy? If you leave it when you graduate, you are not taking the lead in the profession.

Specializes in LTC.
Wow, now I am starting to see why there is so little serious examination of the proposed health care reform and so little involvement of health care professionals in shaping the reform. This was an attempt to discuss the problems behind the theory, and all I got was a debate about what cows eat. I fear we are headed down the road to mediocracy in health care through lack of intelligent debate. This will certainly leave an open field for politicians to run health care, because the health care professionals don't seen to look deeply in to the issue. :o

What happened to all those lectures at school about health care policy? If you leave it when you graduate, you are not taking the lead in the profession.

I will take this opportunity to apologize to you Adlockwood for my part in the ugliness on this thread.

Wow, now I am starting to see why there is so little serious examination of the proposed health care reform and so little involvement of health care professionals in shaping the reform. This was an attempt to discuss the problems behind the theory, and all I got was a debate about what cows eat. I fear we are headed down the road to mediocracy in health care through lack of intelligent debate. This will certainly leave an open field for politicians to run health care, because the health care professionals don't seen to look deeply in to the issue. :o

What happened to all those lectures at school about health care policy? If you leave it when you graduate, you are not taking the lead in the profession.

You may not be getting much of an adequate response because many just don't care. Americans are apathetic. Their government offers to take care of them and they allow it. This forum has many members and probably less than 0.0001% are discussing it. That to me says there really isn't much interest even among health care workers.

I just don't see people wanting this. I don't see people lying in the streets, dying without healthcare. I see people more worried about what they are getting for Christmas or who's house they are gonna eat dinner at.

People are more worried about crowfeet than they are about tobacco cessation. Why has this country allowed tobacco in this country. It's $$$$$. Those taxes pay our Congressmen/women's salaries. They are great stock options. People have made $$$$$$ money off of tobacco. Only when something hits most people's pocket books nothing will change.

We spend money on wars. We have a gun making factory locally. It's a great employer. Many wouldn't be able to buy houses, cars etc in my area if it weren't for that gun making factory. Do you think the locals are for or against the war? War is their bread and butter.

I think many healthcare workers are worried about their future with government healthcare. Nursing homes don't usually pay as well as hospitals because they get the majority of their revenue from Medicare. What will happen to salaries of nurses, Social Workers, PT's etc when the only revenue a hospital gets is from Medicare?

Those are questions many of us have.

Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.
Wow, now I am starting to see why there is so little serious examination of the proposed health care reform and so little involvement of health care professionals in shaping the reform. This was an attempt to discuss the problems behind the theory, and all I got was a debate about what cows eat. I fear we are headed down the road to mediocracy in health care through lack of intelligent debate. This will certainly leave an open field for politicians to run health care, because the health care professionals don't seen to look deeply in to the issue. :o

What happened to all those lectures at school about health care policy? If you leave it when you graduate, you are not taking the lead in the profession.

I sadly agree adlockwood. Attempt at intelligent discussion of this topic is often sidetracked by personal insults, strawmen, and generally aurgumentative behavior. There are writers who have nothing to add except criticism of any attempt to identify or examine potential reform options. The thread gets sidetracked frequently about what cows eat, what avatar images a poster may have, or some equally irrelevant topic, rather than discussion of possible alternatives. This is a by product of posters who want no part of reform and therefore disrupt discussion of reform, never allowing it to get past the very preliminary function of identifying the problem areas. The threads get stuck in the mode of debating whether or not reform is necessary or desireable, they often get closed before any discussion of alternatives can actually take place. I would love to actually be able to discuss options for healthcare delivery in the USA on this site without having to defend myself against argumentative and angry posters. Most of us have worked in environments where people are opposed to a particular change and all they can offer is verbal interference...repeatedly criticizing ideas, plans, and actions...but never suggesting a better alternative. Naysayers are part of life. We see this all the time in nursing management.

It is unfortunate that healthcare reform is being authored by attornies and politicians. I would much prefer that they decide to reform and then appoint a "commission" that is made up of healthcare professionals and industry representatives to define the plan.

Specializes in Critical Care, Insurance Case Management.

The other thing that scares me is the goodies in the bill aimed at SEIU; if you follow the road where that goes, we could see all health care workers as government union workers; and you are right, our salaries will drop to a baseline lower than market forces would have them. Sort of "Look how lucky you are to be a government worker, you have security - so what if it is only $40,000 a year with 50% taxes - you have "free" health care, "free education": at least you have a job" I don't want to be beholden to a union who takes my money and gives it to one party> The only experience I had with unionization of nurses at U of M hospitals, where they paid dues, had mandatory overtime rules, and had to pay to park in the hospital lots! No thanks.

My solution: take half of the projected expense of this bill and give everyone without insurance a stipend to buy a high deductable plan as a tax credit(subject to income rules); cap pain and suffering awards and make the losing lawyer pay the legal expense of bringing the lawsuit in the first place, let folks shop for insurance across state lines and pick the benefits they want on their policy. I am 50 - I don't need maternity care, I will never use mental health benefits (I suspect most that do use it are on Medicaid anyway - judging by my line of work as a mental health nurse); let me put my high deductible in a tax free health savings account, some employers kick in to those accounts and have a system that automatically pays it out for preventative care. Most important is the idea of catastrophic care coverage; the rest we should be responsible for just like any other product or service we buy. And keep up with the public service education to encourage prevention. Post costs of services up front so you can decide if you want the $100 check up, or the $250 dollar one. Keep Medicare, and keep Medicaid if you like, although you wouldn't believe what a waste most of community mental health is, the folks that use it love the attention and don't change anything; programs for developmentally disabled adults have been cut when they need something to do to be productive, and screwed up teens are coddled instead of being held accountable.

Thanks for some real feedback - I think folks should be talking about this - this is our future, and our childrens' it is so hard to put the genie back in the bottle if the government takes it over, and it is not too late to change directions

Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.
the other thing that scares me is the goodies in the bill aimed at seiu; if you follow the road where that goes, we could see all health care workers as government union workers; and you are right, our salaries will drop to a baseline lower than market forces would have them. sort of "look how lucky you are to be a government worker, you have security - so what if it is only $40,000 a year with 50% taxes - you have "free" health care, "free education": at least you have a job" i don't want to be beholden to a union who takes my money and gives it to one party> the only experience i had with unionization of nurses at u of m hospitals, where they paid dues, had mandatory overtime rules, and had to pay to park in the hospital lots! no thanks.

assuming that we ended up as government employees, my experience doesn't suggest that we would make less money than we currently do. currently va nurses in the a2 area make more than me. i do not work for either of the large hospital systems in the area, those rns also make more than me. i am wondering if that wouldn't even out a bit with the increased number of employees. i hadn't thought of the possibility of being a government employee, interesting.

my solution: take half of the projected expense of this bill and give everyone without insurance a stipend to buy a high deductable plan as a tax credit(subject to income rules); cap pain and suffering awards and make the losing lawyer pay the legal expense of bringing the lawsuit in the first place, let folks shop for insurance across state lines and pick the benefits they want on their policy.

i am actually not fan of high deductable plans at all. i think that for the working poor, high copays and high deductibles are often too much of a financial deterrent to get care that would benefit them. for instance, imagine a working poor man who injures his shoulder and would benefit from surgery. with a high deductible this man is likely to forego the surgery in order to buy sports equipment or band instruments, etc for his kids. in the long run he has chronic pain and will possibly end up with a frozen or very limited shoulder. he questions why he pays premiums for something he can't afford to use. something more comprehensive resonates with me. why not cover basic care totally for persons under a designated income level? certainly expense would be one reason...that is easy, but think what that would mean for a huge segment of the population.

i think the shopping across state lines is right on point! the insurance lobby has been very successful in getting legislation passed in states which limits the choices of consumers and the competition for companies. all of those doors could easily and quickly be opened. if you live in the usa you should be able to purchase health insurance from any company doing business in the usa. this component of the free market must not be limited if we are going to actually have a free market. that competition would serve to decrease rates for insurance policies.

i am 50 - i don't need maternity care, i will never use mental health benefits (i suspect most that do use it are on medicaid anyway - judging by my line of work as a mental health nurse); let me put my high deductible in a tax free health savings account, some employers kick in to those accounts and have a system that automatically pays it out for preventative care. most important is the idea of catastrophic care coverage; the rest we should be responsible for just like any other product or service we buy. and keep up with the public service education to encourage prevention. post costs of services up front so you can decide if you want the $100 check up, or the $250 dollar one. keep medicare, and keep medicaid if you like, although you wouldn't believe what a waste most of community mental health is, the folks that use it love the attention and don't change anything; programs for developmentally disabled adults have been cut when they need something to do to be productive, and screwed up teens are coddled instead of being held accountable.

there is no money in mental health, never has been. it is not something that people want to talk about and it does not get the same funding as, say breast cancer. of course, that has no bearing on whether or not it is important...just ask a person whose life is impacted by mental illness. i am so disallusioned with our current system that i am thinking more along the lines of completely changing the mindset about healthcare. treating it not like a commodity which individuals purchase, but rather as a public service which we all pay for. i like the concept of private hospitals and private clinics and private providers as well as public hospitals/clinics/providers. a true mix of the free market and the benevelance of a powerful nation which was birthed on judeao/christian values. i completely agree that our payment into the system should be adjusted on some levels.

thanks for some real feedback - i think folks should be talking about this - this is our future, and our childrens' it is so hard to put the genie back in the bottle if the government takes it over, and it is not too late to change directions

i am thrilled to actually have give and take discussion...sharing of ideas rather than attacks. i agree that it is a scary thing...potentially a huge change. i have no idea what the answer actually is, but i do think that change is needed, so...

I sadly agree adlockwood. Attempt at intelligent discussion of this topic is often sidetracked by personal insults, strawmen, and generally aurgumentative behavior. There are writers who have nothing to add except criticism of any attempt to identify or examine potential reform options. The thread gets sidetracked frequently about what cows eat, what avatar images a poster may have, or some equally irrelevant topic, rather than discussion of possible alternatives. This is a by product of posters who want no part of reform and therefore disrupt discussion of reform, never allowing it to get past the very preliminary function of identifying the problem areas. The threads get stuck in the mode of debating whether or not reform is necessary or desireable, they often get closed before any discussion of alternatives can actually take place. I would love to actually be able to discuss options for healthcare delivery in the USA on this site without having to defend myself against argumentative and angry posters. Most of us have worked in environments where people are opposed to a particular change and all they can offer is verbal interference...repeatedly criticizing ideas, plans, and actions...but never suggesting a better alternative. Naysayers are part of life. We see this all the time in nursing management.

It is unfortunate that healthcare reform is being authored by attornies and politicians. I would much prefer that they decide to reform and then appoint a "commission" that is made up of healthcare professionals and industry representatives to define the plan.

Many of us have given our reasons as to why we don't want government intervention in healthcare. Many here can't accept the fact that some of us see things differently.

That is a discussion, It's a disscussion you don't want to have. But you don't get to have everything you want and neither do I.

We have told you repeatedly, that we are not against reform. Just how it's implemented.

Why not tell insurance companies they can't use pre-existing conditions as a reason to not cover someone and they can't drop someone because they are sick. A very simple solution. Why does it have to be more than that?

It's interesting that your last paragraph restates what many of us have been saying. We don't want politicians AKA government in this reform. You say the same things we do and make it an argument. And blame in on us.

Many insurance companies have nurse's working for them. RN case managers.

The other thing that scares me is the goodies in the bill aimed at SEIU; if you follow the road where that goes, we could see all health care workers as government union workers; and you are right, our salaries will drop to a baseline lower than market forces would have them. Sort of "Look how lucky you are to be a government worker, you have security - so what if it is only $40,000 a year with 50% taxes - you have "free" health care, "free education": at least you have a job" I don't want to be beholden to a union who takes my money and gives it to one party> The only experience I had with unionization of nurses at U of M hospitals, where they paid dues, had mandatory overtime rules, and had to pay to park in the hospital lots! No thanks.

My solution: take half of the projected expense of this bill and give everyone without insurance a stipend to buy a high deductable plan as a tax credit(subject to income rules); cap pain and suffering awards and make the losing lawyer pay the legal expense of bringing the lawsuit in the first place, let folks shop for insurance across state lines and pick the benefits they want on their policy. I am 50 - I don't need maternity care, I will never use mental health benefits (I suspect most that do use it are on Medicaid anyway - judging by my line of work as a mental health nurse); let me put my high deductible in a tax free health savings account, some employers kick in to those accounts and have a system that automatically pays it out for preventative care. Most important is the idea of catastrophic care coverage; the rest we should be responsible for just like any other product or service we buy. And keep up with the public service education to encourage prevention. Post costs of services up front so you can decide if you want the $100 check up, or the $250 dollar one. Keep Medicare, and keep Medicaid if you like, although you wouldn't believe what a waste most of community mental health is, the folks that use it love the attention and don't change anything; programs for developmentally disabled adults have been cut when they need something to do to be productive, and screwed up teens are coddled instead of being held accountable.

Thanks for some real feedback - I think folks should be talking about this - this is our future, and our childrens' it is so hard to put the genie back in the bottle if the government takes it over, and it is not too late to change directions

Many of us "cantankous" posters have said the same thing and all we get in return is that we don't know what we are talking about. As I've said numerous times, for every sob story about non-access to healthcare I can give a story about too much care.

I just learned today from another nursing site that patient's can deny discharge from the hospital even if they don't have a means to pay the bill. At least Medicare patients can. Imagine if that little nugget gets out.

Again I don't see many people wanting to discuss this % on any forum. We get attacked for our nursing care when the person attacking us has never worked with us.

Some of us are pro choice some are not. Should we be attacked for that? Some believe in capital punishment some don't should we be attacked for that. Some are Christian some aren't should our nursing care be attacked for that. I have been attacked here on my nursing care just because I don't think the government can run a healthcare program. What does my nursing care have to do with my thoughts on a government run healthcare system.

How about all of those who favor the wars. And there are many nurses who do. Should we attack their nursing care.

+ Join the Discussion