Subsidized healthcare

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Subsidized healthcare
124
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 7:08pm

but what about the aspects that are not lifestyle choices? my mother's life was saved by early detection of a breast mass of an aggressive cancer. the progresion of a breast lump or colon cancer or type 1 diabetes cannot be stemmed through education.

Bea




Edited 9/20/2008 7:08 pm ET by queenbea4
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 7:28pm

fine. you are a sample of one. and i suspect that many other health young adults do not go for annual check-ups - unless there is a family history of a specific illness. and even if a health plan makes it available, there are many who will not use it. it's not compulsory.

but if they have a family history, it is far better to provide preventive care than to wait for a catastrophe. if you don't care about the quality of life issues, fine. then care about your pocketbook, because the baby boom with life-long habits and late-onset disease are going to push healthcare costs sky high and overwhelm the system with their needs.

someone else said they thought some of the disconnect on this board is young, healthy adults comparing their experiences with those who are older and have weathered sick parents and sick children - as well as our own illnesses. i agree. i have not had to go without insurance, i have not had to use assistance programs - but i can imagine the difficulties of having to do without or work through a confusing system that only meets my needs halfway.

Bea

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 7:35pm

"but doctors want to remove them when they see something like a cyst "just in case" ? "


WHAAAAT???

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2008
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 8:13pm

When we're talking about insuring young adults, making it mandatory for "children" to remain on their parents coverage until 25, I think we should discuss that most are healthy and will not go for wellness visits.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 9:06pm

<>

But that's the point. it's not a strawman from my POV. I am thinking in the long term. Prevention of illness in younger adults today who may become older adults who develop disease based on neglect of their health at earlier ages (think high cholesterol that eventually turns into heart disease), who may have family histories that increase their risk for certain conditions (think breast cancer) and who may have chronic illness that will progress to complications (think Type 2 diabetes). If you restrict access to healthcare at a young age, the chances these will progress into more difficult, more incapacitating and more expensive conditions is documented. From my perspective, it's such a well-known fact supported by the American Academy of Family Physicians that is is silly to provide a reference.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12721145?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16202000?dopt=Abstract

and in the interest if fairness, here's a discussion of a study that questions the cost savings.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154904

"And it's good to look at the nature of the disease that's being prevented. Let's say hypothetically I have a medication that prevents Alzheimer's. That could cut way down on the years people spend in a disabled state, and those years eat up a lot of money. On the other hand, if I have a medication that prevents something that kills rapidly with little disability, it may save lives but it won't necessarily save money... The cheapest thing might be do nothing and let the person die. The goal is not to save money—it's to improve health and get the best value from our spending."

Bea

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 9:16pm

The education would play a key part in early detection. Early detection is not prevention. No amount of check-ups would have prevented her cancer.

I've never implied not to treat something early. That's just common sense. For the normal healthy adult though things like routine check ups are often a costly waste of time. They don't prevent anything unless you really need a doctor to tell you to get off the couch and exercise, maintain a healthy weight, eat right etc.....that's what prevents things like diabetes- heart disease, etc...

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 9:18pm

How very wrong you are on that one. It happens all the time. Heck, they used to just take it all out because you don't need it anymore afterall (once you're done having the kids).

In fact the stats on all the unnecessary surgery is almost unforgivable:

http://www.ovaryresearch.com/screening.htm

All this "screening" causes so much unneeded fear and surgeries and then suffering thereafter when your ovaries are removed for ultimately no reason.




Edited 9/20/2008 9:25 pm ET by delphine88
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2008
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 9:53pm

It IS A strawman.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 10:00pm

THAT'S your proof???

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 10:07pm

Where I live, it costs $72 to walk through the door of the doctor's office.

Photobucket

Pages