What would YOU do to improve healthcare?

[rich_t]

Unaffordable is unaffordable.

Nonsense.  Some folks just don't want to pay for services rendered out of their own pocket.

[Deuce]

People with lots of money die too.

Not from lack of money.

Nonsense.  Some folks just don't want to pay for services rendered out of their own pocket.

Nice edit there. I saw that.

Some people cannot access healthcare because they are poor and do not have insurance. Some of those people die of preventable conditions because of that lack of care. But don't take my word for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:

    * Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.
    * Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.
    * About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.

Yes, some of these people could have afforded health insurance and chose not to purchase it. However, it is obvious that some of these people could not afford it. They died because they weren't treated the same way someone with insurance is treated.

[rich_t]

Does that mean we shouldn't do anything to improve the affordability and effectiveness of our health insurance industry?

It damn sure does if it means tax payers have to foot the bill.

I for one am damn sick and tired of paying for those that refuse to pay for their own upkeep.

[Chump]

Chump - You're dumping all of the responsibility on the prey and exonerating the predator. People are dumb and can't understand the huge contracts they're signing. Insurance companies abuse this. Also, what reasonable person would have considered "sore back when I exercise" to be a pre-existing medical condition? Yes, she may have had recourse - spending money on a lawyer to battle it out in a lethargic court system, all the while being called by collections agencies about that $30,000 she owes. It's a system weighted in favor of the health insurance company.

Prey?  Predator?  People are dumb?  This is why I implored you earlier to check your emotions.  It's silly to claim that the issue in question was, "sore back when I exercise," and we again don't know the outcome or relevant facts.  This is why you speculate that even in the face of all this lack of real evidence, it just doesn't matter, the outcome would be bad anyway.  Grumble grumble, insurance companies.

That's exactly what I'm proposing. Reforming the worst aspects of the health insurance industry. Nothing more. I'm not saying the government should take over. I'm not saying we should go single-payer, or ban profits. Or dismantle insurance companies. Just stop the practices that hurt people.

How odd.  I haven't once accused you of wanting single-payer, or even of being a capitalist hating hippie douche.  You haven't said a word of anything you'd like to actually implement, to be honest.  I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence designed to appeal to emotion while you, essentially, made a case against insurance companies as a whole.  You've still not hammered anything down though, other than vague calls for more regulation to make sure insurance companies toe the line.

And my response, as an actual conservative, is that we remove the line in the first place.  Allow insurance companies to act as companies selling a product.  Remove barriers for interstate commerce in the health insurance business.  Allow "a la carte" insurance options.  In short, allow and expect the consumer to take more responsibility for their insurance needs.  But I have to warn you, that entails a mild implosion in government bureaucracy.  We have good laws on the books regarding the product of health insurance that protect the consumer.  Perhaps you could point to some that need strengthened.  However, I'd rather focus on getting rid of the ones that impede free trade.

Being real for a moment, you can stop acting like a conservative.  Your masked has slipped way, way too many times.

[Carl]

Unaffordable is unaffordable. There are people who die from lack of money.

Does that mean we shouldn't do anything to improve the affordability and effectiveness of our health insurance industry?

It can be without a government takeover but that isn`t what the goal really is and you seem to know that in the back of your mind but still are trying to force yourself to believe otherwise.

This is not a benign attempt to make anyones life better...it is an attempt to create another political third rail of systemic dependency on government.

Admit that and everything else becomes very clear.

[Deuce]

You haven't said a word of anything you'd like to actually implement, to be honest. 

Read the first page. I think I've been more specific and detailed than anybody else in this six page thread. I asked what you would do, in the very title of the thread, and very few people have offered anything at all, let alone anything as detailed or specific as mine.

Instead, you've all focused on picking apart my ideas. Which is good, it's led to some interesting discussions, but honestly how many actual ideas have you folks contributed here?

[rich_t]

Read the first page. I think I've been more specific and detailed than anybody else in this six page thread.

No.  You posted a wish list without any plans on how to actually make it happen.

Typical liberal tactic.

[Deuce]

No.  You posted a wish list without any plans on how to actually make it happen.

Typical liberal tactic.

You have not posted a single idea of your own.

edit: And point me to the poster who you feel has contributed more detailed ideas.

[Chump]

You haven't said a word of anything you'd like to actually implement, to be honest.

 

Read the first page. I think I've been more specific and detailed than anybody else in this six page thread. I asked what you would do, in the very title of the thread, and very few people have offered anything at all, let alone anything as detailed or specific as mine.

Instead, you've all focused on picking apart my ideas. Which is good, it's led to some interesting discussions, but honestly how many actual ideas have you folks contributed here?

My apologies, you're absolutely right that you presented quite a few ideas.  I repeated a few of them, even.

Our differences hinge on government involvement when it comes down to brass tacks.  Shocking, I know.  Don't overlook the people that have agreed with you on some points, but you did ask for the picking apart that you're getting, and it's all focused on areas in which you'd like to see government expansion.

[bkg]

Deuce -

I'd like to introduce you to a place that I think you'd find much more agreeable, homey and in line with your emotionally driven decision making.... Click here

[Deuce]

Yes, most of the criticism involved government. Some people are categorically against any government involvement, but that's irrational. A system free of government is anarchy.

Many here seem to be making the mistake of seeing government involvement in our lives as a singular, binary question. It's a continuum, and "the right choice," if there is such a thing, isn't even in the same position for different aspects of our lives.

Example:

The US military is set up at the far end of the "government control" side, and should be. State-by-state national defense would be disorganized and ineffective, what if Nebraska didn't feel like sending troops to Iraq anymore? Privatized defense is an almost ludicrous idea - mercenaries are generally untrustworthy and of low quality.

Manufacturing of candy bars, on the other hand, is pretty far to the "hands off" side. As long as you tell people what's in the bar and don't poison people, you're pretty much left alone. You can sell where you want, when you want, and for how much you want. Your competitors can do the same.

I feel both of these are right where they should be.

On healthcare:
You're here
ALL GOVERNMENT-----------------------------------------------{}---NO GOVERNMENT
ALL GOVERNMENT-----------------------------------------{}---------NO GOVERNMENT
I'm here. It's frustrating to receive such anger over a fairly minor difference of opinion.

Canada is here
ALL GOVERNMENT------------------{}--------------------------------NO GOVERNMENT

UK is here
ALL GOVERNMENT--------{}------------------------------------------NO GOVERNMENT

France is here
ALL GOVERNMENT-----------------------{}---------------------------NO GOVERNMENT

[debk]

Deuce quoted

Quote
Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:

    * Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.
    * Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.
    * About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.

People with colon or breast cancer die. Often both cancers are far advanced BEFORE they are ever detected lowering the chance of survival.

"Cured" breast cancer often revisits the body in a different place....ie: bone, blood, lymph nodes, liver, etc. It is important to note that while the cancer may be located in a different part of the body...if it is the same type of cancer cell as the breast cancer....it is considered to be "breast cancer origin"...therefore the death statistics will be under "breast cancer".

Calling  on your trauma victims not being admitted to the hospital. It is a LAW that if a trauma victim is brought to the ER....THEY MUST BE GIVEN CARE AND TREATMENT. It is possible that once stabilized, they may be moved to a "public" hospital. Actually, I believe the law requires that an ER treat ANYONE who presents themselves to the ER....how do you think all those illegal aliens are getting medical care? Walk into the ER of a large hospital on a Saturday night....sit there for a few hours and watch and see how many are refused treatment. While there may be a wait of several hours...eventually EVERYONE receives treatment. Even if someone has insurance...they don't get treated before someone without unless their condition warrants it.

It is important to note that a trauma victim, while they may be dead at the scene, are often not declared dead until arrival at the hospital. My step mother dropped over dead walking the dog. While she was dead at the scene, she was not declared dead until AFTER she arrived at the hospital.

Adult's with adult onset diabetes often donot know they are diabetic until something else brings them to the doctor. Even those with frequent checkups still end up with blindness and amputations. Also severe kidney issues. They are consequences of the disease. Juvenile diabetics donot avoid going to a doctor....even as an adult....they can't avoid getting medical care....due to their disease.

[RobJohnson]

I can't disagree with you more...pre-existing conditions SHOULD be included.  If I am a cancer survivor, I'm considered to have a pre-existing condition....if I have a recurrence in 2 years...then my medical care should not be covered...? B.S.
That is the difference between HMO and PPO in most states...an HMO covers all pre-existing conditions where PPO's do not.  The latter is more expensive too....

I agree.

My employer is dropping all HMO options for insurance, claiming they cost more then the PPO plans. Of course, my share of the cost will now double!

[Splashdown]

People with lots of money die too.

Hi-5. And they die with the best insurance coverage, as well.

[Eupher]

Deuce:

My experience with foreign health care is just that - EXPERIENCE. I've been there. Seen things. Been treated. They've generally appalled me.

You're not going to get a link to that kind of stuff.

As to my thoughts on the VA, I have none. I don't use it. I don't want the government to become part and parcel to my health information. But regarding my stepfather, I have seen some things with the Detroit VA and for that reason alone, I'd never willingly put my own ass in that situation.

I've heard some good stuff about VA's health care and I've heard some really terrible stories. All anecdotal. I have no opinion on VA because I don't trust the government.

[Chris_]

...There are people who die from lack of money.....

That's got to be the DUmbest statement on this site.

[thundley4]

That's got to be the DUmbest statement on this site.

There are people that die from too much money also. Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith to name a couple.

[Wineslob]

What would YOU do to improve healthcare?

Nothing. I pay $140 a month for my family which includes dental and vision. Yup,
 I have deductables, so I have a cafeteria plan................I planned ahead.
We have NEVER been turned down for anything, and my wife is the queen of "ailments". Nothing serious, but she burns through the $2000 I set aside every year. (see cafeteria plan)
Oh, it one of those "horrible" PPO's, Anthem.

[Chump]

Yes, most of the criticism involved government. Some people are categorically against any government involvement, but that's irrational. A system free of government is anarchy.

Many here seem to be making the mistake of seeing government involvement in our lives as a singular, binary question. It's a continuum, and "the right choice," if there is such a thing, isn't even in the same position for different aspects of our lives.

This is, again, a time that your mask slips.  Government is necessary for one purpose, only.  It is an institution created only to protect men's rights against the threat of force.  Period.  It must be entirely objective and based on an entirely objective set of laws.  This is, again, why emotional appeals regarding the government fall flat with me.  This is why compassionate conservatism is a farce, and why liberalism is a cancerous death cult.

Due to its very nature, proper government only has the power of compulsion and threat of force at the end of a gun at its disposal.  So, to your above point, it's not that we have a misunderstanding of government involvement in our lives, it's that you have a misunderstanding of the premise that governing is built on.

Government involvement in personal life is only the continuum you mentioned because we've allowed its scope to creep so far for so long, to the point that we actually think people are entitled to things they didn't work for, taken from those who did, by the only institution capable of instituting force without legal reprisal: government.

Every sad story you can drum up doesn't change those basic premises.

[Eupher]

This is, again, a time that your mask slips.  Government is necessary for one purpose, only.  It is an institution created only to protect men's rights against the threat of force.  Period.  It must be entirely objective and based on an entirely objective set of laws.  This is, again, why emotional appeals regarding the government fall flat with me.  This is why compassionate conservatism is a farce, and why liberalism is a cancerous death cult.

Due to its very nature, proper government only has the power of compulsion and threat of force at the end of a gun at its disposal.  So, to your above point, it's not that we have a misunderstanding of government involvement in our lives, it's that you have a misunderstanding of the premise that governing is built on.

Government involvement in personal life is only the continuum you mentioned because we've allowed its scope to creep so far for so long, to the point that we actually think people are entitled to things they didn't work for, taken from those who did, by the only institution capable of instituting force without legal reprisal: government.

Every sad story you can drum up doesn't change those basic premises.

Excellent post, Chump. Very well stated.

[Deuce]

This is, again, a time that your mask slips.  Government is necessary for one purpose, only.  It is an institution created only to protect men's rights against the threat of force.  Period.  It must be entirely objective and based on an entirely objective set of laws.  This is, again, why emotional appeals regarding the government fall flat with me.  This is why compassionate conservatism is a farce, and why liberalism is a cancerous death cult.

Due to its very nature, proper government only has the power of compulsion and threat of force at the end of a gun at its disposal.  So, to your above point, it's not that we have a misunderstanding of government involvement in our lives, it's that you have a misunderstanding of the premise that governing is built on.

Government involvement in personal life is only the continuum you mentioned because we've allowed its scope to creep so far for so long, to the point that we actually think people are entitled to things they didn't work for, taken from those who did, by the only institution capable of instituting force without legal reprisal: government.

Every sad story you can drum up doesn't change those basic premises.

You keep calling it a mask as if its something I'm trying to hide. I am more moderate than you guys, that's not something I hide. It's a far cry, however, between my views and Stalin's views. The KKK probably considers you to be liberal. It's all relative, and the scale is a large one. I fall somewhat left of you. I fall to the right of Obama.

Are you suggesting that the only government organizations at all should be the military and law enforcement agencies? Should we stop building roads? How about a fire department? The postal service? Maybe we should stop regulating what people dump into our drinking water? Nuclear power plants don't need safety regulations, right?

You're right. It is a mission creep. Please explain to me where exactly we should draw the line, because my so-called common sense (of which I have little, I admit) draws the line differently than you. The majority of the population seems closer to me than to you, though.



EDIT: And somebody, please post some ideas of your own. That was the purpose of this thread, starting some discussion on the topic.

People with colon or breast cancer die. Often both cancers are far advanced BEFORE they are ever detected lowering the chance of survival.

"Cured" breast cancer often revisits the body in a different place....ie: bone, blood, lymph nodes, liver, etc. It is important to note that while the cancer may be located in a different part of the body...if it is the same type of cancer cell as the breast cancer....it is considered to be "breast cancer origin"...therefore the death statistics will be under "breast cancer".

Calling  on your trauma victims not being admitted to the hospital. It is a LAW that if a trauma victim is brought to the ER....THEY MUST BE GIVEN CARE AND TREATMENT. It is possible that once stabilized, they may be moved to a "public" hospital. Actually, I believe the law requires that an ER treat ANYONE who presents themselves to the ER....how do you think all those illegal aliens are getting medical care? Walk into the ER of a large hospital on a Saturday night....sit there for a few hours and watch and see how many are refused treatment. While there may be a wait of several hours...eventually EVERYONE receives treatment. Even if someone has insurance...they don't get treated before someone without unless their condition warrants it.

It is important to note that a trauma victim, while they may be dead at the scene, are often not declared dead until arrival at the hospital. My step mother dropped over dead walking the dog. While she was dead at the scene, she was not declared dead until AFTER she arrived at the hospital.

Adult's with adult onset diabetes often donot know they are diabetic until something else brings them to the doctor. Even those with frequent checkups still end up with blindness and amputations. Also severe kidney issues. They are consequences of the disease. Juvenile diabetics donot avoid going to a doctor....even as an adult....they can't avoid getting medical care....due to their disease.

These statistics are comparing people with insurance to people without insurance. A 50% variation is not a statistical anomaly. It is a clear trend showing that having health insurance directly correlates to your chance of living. None of these statistics are anomalous variations, it's a clear difference in the outcomes. If you doubt the validity of the study, it can be found here.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10367&page=R1

[debk]

These statistics are comparing people with insurance to people without insurance. A 50% variation is not a statistical anomaly. It is a clear trend showing that having health insurance directly correlates to your chance of living. None of these statistics are anomalous variations, it's a clear difference in the outcomes. If you doubt the validity of the study, it can be found here.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10367&page=R1

There are so many factors to be entered when determining what one's chances are of living.

ANY study can be skewed to get the desired results. It all has to do with the criteria used to get the results.

My son in law is a radiologist interventionist in the trauma unit of University Hospital.....they treat everyone that comes in....regardless of whether or not the individual has insurance.

[Chump]

You keep calling it a mask as if its something I'm trying to hide. I am more moderate than you guys, that's not something I hide. It's a far cry, however, between my views and Stalin's views. The KKK probably considers you to be liberal. It's all relative, and the scale is a large one. I fall somewhat left of you. I fall to the right of Obama.

I will concede that the mask has slipped so many times it's hardly worth hiding anymore.

It's not all relative, or this discussion would be meaningless.  There is a wide gap between Stalin and myself, with you being more or less an intermediary.

One group's perception of another does not change basic fact or a beginning premise and its axioms, so stop pretending otherwise.

Are you suggesting that the only government organizations at all should be the military and law enforcement agencies?

More or less, yes.  I'm saying that the only purpose of government is to protect its citizens' rights from the threat of force.  I'll admit that I can't conceive, on the spot, of every single facet or sub-organization this might entail, but I can tell you that they will only be of a military, protection, or law enforcement nature.  It's a tautology.

Should we stop building roads?

Paid for by whom and used primarily by whom?

How about a fire department?

See above.

The postal service?

That's an excellent illustration of how inefficient government is when it involves itself in a private industry.  However, the history of the postal service is built on government design and involvement.  That does not necessarily mean it must be this way, as the history of FedEx, UPS, and DHL illustrates.

Maybe we should stop regulating what people dump into our drinking water? Nuclear power plants don't need safety regulations, right?

And we move from discussion to blatant silliness.  Clearly, men's health is (right to life) is impacted by both of the above, correct?  You've named two areas in which government involvement is necessary and told me I think the opposite.  This is called a strawman, and you'd be better off not attributing arguments to me that I haven't made.

You're right. It is a mission creep. Please explain to me where exactly we should draw the line, because my so-called common sense (of which I have little, I admit) draws the line differently than you. The majority of the population seems closer to me than to you, though.

I've already defined my lines.  I don't care what the majority of anyone or anything thinks; a logical premise is not based on anything but logic.  Besides, you've already admitted that the scope of government has been bloated, so is it any wonder that most people would accept that fact?  They allowed it to happen in the first place, no?

[Chump]

EDIT: And somebody, please post some ideas of your own. That was the purpose of this thread, starting some discussion on the topic.

I did, and so did others, with varying degrees of detail.  We've moved on to more in-depth discussion, which you explicitly asked for in your OP.

[Eupher]

Deuce:

These statistics are comparing people with insurance to people without insurance. A 50% variation is not a statistical anomaly. It is a clear trend showing that having health insurance directly correlates to your chance of living. None of these statistics are anomalous variations, it's a clear difference in the outcomes. If you doubt the validity of the study, it can be found here.

Who the hell is talking statistics here when common sense tells me that, of course, if you have health insurance you're inclined to use it, and if you don't have health insurance you're inclined not to seek health care?

WTF???   

From the article:

"Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance"?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. No bias there, nope, not a bit.   

Regarding your incessant demand to hear other's ideas about health care, I think you've heard them. You may need to go back to the beginning of the thread and take note. Lots of good ideas (as well as just a little scoffing at your moonbattery) sprinkled therein.