Subsidized healthcare
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 09-20-2008 - 1:12pm |
i'm starting a new thread because this is buried somewhere else.
another poster referred to "subsidized healthcare." this article is old but raises important questions about who pays for what and who has access.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/129/6/514
<
State funding, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and HIPAA make up a subsidized system that targets specific needy groups and may be a gradual approach to U.S. health care coverage for all citizens. For now, however, it seems that anyone who knows the ins and outs of the health care system can obtain health care regardless of whether he or she has insurance.
We pay for community outreach programs, state and federal programs, Medicaid, Medicare, and tax breaks for large corporations. However, although the movement toward a national health insurance system is inching forward, it would immediately halt if people saw a paycheck deduction labeled "tax money to fund health insurance for those who do not have it.>>
the points that resonate for me:
-Those who oppose higher taxes also seem uninterested in finding out how much the lack of health care costs; illness and disease are costlier in the long run.
why don't we place more emphasis on prevention? why do we think paying for prevention is wasteful?
- Any investment in guaranteed health care, even if just for children, would have an invaluable return.
especially, why do we think prevention of disease in children is wasteful?
- The hidden subsidized medical system is already costing taxpayers, but Americans are more willing to pay for it because the taxes are hidden in the federal income tax that is deducted from each worker's paycheck... it would immediately halt if people saw a paycheck deduction labeled "tax money to fund health insurance for those who do not have it."
(assuming they are talking about specifying how much of your tax dollar goes to Medicare/Medicaid) ARE we so opposed to spending money to help those who are not covered - when they do not have other means and did not choose to reject those means?
-it seems that anyone who knows the ins and outs of the health care system can obtain health care regardless of whether he or she has insurance.
how many know the ins and outs? i don't because i don't need it. but why does it require a special knowledge? when you are sick, why can't the system be more transparent - especially for those who "fall through the cracks"?
Bea

Pages
Sorry I'm extra busy but two things did jump out that I wanted to comment on quickly:
>>-Those who oppose higher taxes also seem uninterested in finding out how much the lack of health care costs; illness and disease are costlier in the long run.
why don't we place more emphasis on prevention? why do we think paying for prevention is wasteful?<<
Studies have been done. For instance the one that showed all that extra prenatal care was unnecessary and did not produce a greater value than it cost. Prevention? Such as what? Do the research on the prenatal care. I'll try and find some of the links if you have trouble and are really interested.
Or how about the one that showed how all these ultrasounds that lead to ovary removal in 95% of cases were not necessary but doctors want to remove them when they see something like a cyst "just in case" ? Forget the fact that most cases of ovarian cancer occur within the 7th decade of life. So if removing stuff so it can't get cancer later is your idea of preventive care I'd guess you'd have a point. How about lets remove the breasts of all woman who are no longer of child bearing age just to be safe?
<>
yes i would appreciate it. not so much trouble as limited time to support a position i don't believe.
<>
I'd like to see that research too. and removing something that has a good chance of producing cancer at some point in my lifetime - or yours - makes sense to me. although rare, ovarian cancer in particular is very difficult to diagnose and almost impossible to treat.
Bea
You raise some interesting points. I don't have a lot of time to answer right now, but I'd like to add something to this:
<>
I'm sure there are many abuses of this concept. For example, the percentage of babies born by C-section is, frankly, over the top.
IMHO, the value of preventive health care, including education, cannot be overestimated.
Some examples where money spent on prevention can pay big dividends in terms of quality of life and money saved:
1) smoking cessation
2) prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes
3) treatment of obesity
4) prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases
5) prevention of drug and alcohol abuse
6) prenatal treatment. I have friends with personal experience with this: they foster babies who are born to mothers with chemical dependencies and/or inadequate nutrition. They recently adopted one of their foster children, a 2 year old boy with "cortical" blindness, a small brain, and low muscle tone in his "core" muscles. He's a beautiful boy who need not have been impaired. He had an inadequate blood supply while in the womb, which could have been addressed if his cocaine-adddled mom had received proper prenatal care.
7) early detection and treatment of colon cancer. In fact, screening for this condition should be started at an earlier age. A friend diagnosed at 70 (with a colonoscopy) is now thriving at almost 80; another friend who didn't believe in screening died after a three years of frightfully expensive and painful treatments could not save her life. A screening in her mid forties would have probably saved her life.
8) ditto for other cancers
9) preventive dental care saves not only teeth and expensive last ditch treatments, but also prevents serious health problems related to mouth infections, including heart disease and serious systemic infections. Our dentist discovered that my youngest child has acid reflux. Untreated, it can lead to health problems like tooth loss and esophageal cancer.
10) exercise lengthens and improves the quality of life. It can prevent or lessen high blood pressure, heart disease, osteoporosis, loss of mobility, loss of the ability to live independently
11) regular eye examinations and treatment can help prevent blindness from glaucoma, retinopathy, macular degeneration. etc. My dad discovered that he had age-related macular degeneration when he was in his fifties. He made dietary changes (some cases may be related to nutritional deficits) and his condition has not become worse in over twenty years.
12) full body scans sometimes disclose early stage cancers and circulatory issues when they are at a treatable stage, rather than at a later time when they have become potentially catastrophic, expensive health disasters.
13) Well child checks are crucial; often conditions such as (potentially crippling) scoliosis, visual & aural deficits, developmental delays, etc. are first detected at such a visit. And so forth.
14) etc., etc., etc.
I know a lot of the posters on this board are very young, may not have ever had to deal with serious health conditions in themselves or their families, and may have the attitude that another person's inability to deal with the financial fallout of a serious health issue is somehow a measure of that person's lack of personal and financial responsibility. Mother Nature's unpleasant truth is that there isn't anyone whose family will escape the financial burden of serious illness. "Clean living" doesn't prevent autoimmune, heritable, environmentally triggered, degenerative (or some combination thereof) diseases from occurring. I have been a little horrified by some of the opinions posted in another thread when a poster was accused of "driving up costs" because she takes her kids to the doctor, and by the attitude that one's child need not see a physician once the age of vaccinations has passed. And if I'd just waited for my two of my kids to "get over" being "under the weather", they'd be dead. For sure. I'm wondering how much of this behavior is being influenced by economic concerns. I'm suspecting that a lot of it is.
Prevention should be the keystone in the arch of appropriate, cost effective medical care.
<>
You're right about this. My husband makes the exact same point about the removal of a portion of the male anatomy in neonates. It makes him furious that that particular operation has been "medicalized" to perpetuate a barbaric practice.
However, most prevention takes the form of diagnosis and education, not surgery.
I disagree with you on some points.
I agree! That's not preventative treatment. That's education. We have tons of it but I'm fine with more public service announcements etc....
The only way to enforce prevention is to monitor people's food intake and mandate exercise. Seriously for most things there is is not much a doctor can do to prevent them from their lifestyle choices.
"I have been a little horrified by some of the opinions posted in another thread when a poster was accused of "driving up costs" because she takes her kids to the doctor, and by the attitude that one's child need not see a physician once the age of vaccinations has passed."
I was part of the thread you've mentioned.
Pages