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
omg. how can you treat something early if there are no symptoms and the only detection is through a routine exam?
and we are talking about two different things. you are talking about diseases that are CAUSED by lifestyle. i am talking about diseases whose cause is unrelated to lifestyle.
for that matter, not all forms of diabetes are related to lifestyle. there are many Type 2 diabetes that are are slim as i suppose you must be.
Bea
what about cervical cancer screenings
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-1.cfm
or depression / mental health issues?
we have had numerous referrals for young adults from primary care area providers who
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...>>
my sister was diagnosed with skin cancer at age 19. she went in for a check-up because it was required by her employer. the doc thought a mole on her back looked kind of scary so he tested it. sure enough, it was cancer. so this check-up did not prevent her cancer, but it stopped it from spreading.
my family now knows this is something we need to look out for.
my grandfather ignored the suspicious looking moles on his neck. turns out he had skin cancer as well. but they didnt catch it before it spread to his brain. he died a horrible death.
~lip
There is a lot more on it than that. Something like 95% of all ovaries removed due to "cyst of unknown nature" are found to be harmless.
Typically the entire ovary is removed. They don't just remove the cyst. Too likely that if it "were" cancer that the cells be spilled out into other areas, not to mention the cyst is likely embedded in the ovary (they're not just easily detachable) and thus the more common course of action is to remove the whole thing. I've done a lot of research on this and I've also got personal sources of information.
If your experience is different then it sounds like you got lucky.
"I just recently had a mammogram - almost $500.
Not directed specifically to you...your message was just the last one...I think someone asked for this info:
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/why_does_health_care_cost_so_much_
Interesting research/analysis, just a snippet below:
>>Indeed, perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health. Even worse, new evidence suggests that too much health care may actually be killing us. According to estimates by Elliott Fisher, M.D., a noted Dartmouth researcher, unnecessary care leads to the deaths of as many as 30,000 Medicare recipients annually.<<
Don't women get routine cervical cancer screenings when they have a yearly exam for their birth control?
once again you have conveniently ignored two important caveats i made in my previous statement.
quoting myself:
"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)."
i am talking about health care for people with family histories and other risk factors. i am not talking about a young adult with no family history, no risk factors, no acute illness and no money. no one is making them go to a doctor so why do you care if they are covered? there is no charge for services. period.
in addition, your source on cholesterol is wrong. these are the national guidelines.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp3xsum.pdf
"A basic principle of prevention is that the intensity of risk-reduction therapy
should be adjusted to a person’s absolute risk. Hence, the first step in
selection of LDL-lowering therapy is to assess a person’s risk status. Risk
assessment requires measurement of LDL cholesterol as part of lipoprotein
analysis and identification of accompanying risk determinants... In all adults aged 20 years or older, a fasting lipoprotein profile (total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol,
and triglyceride) should be obtained once every 5 years. "
also if you are versed in statistics you will notice your reference on type 2 diabetes says "mean age" - which does not exclude younger adults. in fact, the purpose of the study was to warn physicians not to dismiss the diagnosis in younger adults.
"PURPOSE The prevalence of diabetes in the United States is increasing. There is also concern that diabetes may be occurring at a greater frequency in youth and in young adults. We describe US population trends in self-reported age at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus."
"... it is likely that we are detecting type 2 diabetes earlier in the course of the disease, with likely positive health benefits for this population. Identification of factors that can further improve our detection of type 2 diabetes may be a promising area for future research."
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/#i_people
I could probably find articles on the increased incidence of type 2 diabetes among young adults from previous years but at this point you seem intrenched in your position so i won't bother. suffice it to say there were 281,000 new cases in adults age 20-39 in 2007 - certainly less than diagnosis at older ages - but is more concerning because earlier onset is related to more severe complications.
http://www.youngsurvival.org/young-women-and-bc/
"There is no effective breast cancer screening tool for women 40 and under." i can't imagine what they meant by that unless it referred to the fact that guidelines indicate women WHO HAVE NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS should begin mammograms at age 40. the fact that you even quoted this website as a resource to prove you don't need a mammogram is contradictory since this is all about women who were diagnosed UNDER AGE 40. you must have missed this page with all the facts about breast cancer rates and the low survival rates under age 40.
http://www.youngsurvival.org/
and you should read this one too.
http://www.youngsurvival.org/about-ysc/
"Unlike their post-menopausal counterparts, young women diagnosed with breast cancer face higher mortality rates, fertility issues and the possibility and ramifications of early menopause. The YSC seeks to change the face of breast cancer by: advocating to increase the number of studies about young women and breast cancer; educating young women about the importance of breast self-examination and early detection; and being a point of contact for other young women with breast cancer."
thanks for helping me prove my point.
Bea
"Don't women get routine cervical cancer screenings when they have a yearly exam for their birth control?
"i am talking about health care for people with family histories and other risk factors. i am not talking about a young adult with no family history, no risk factors, no acute illness and no money. no one is making them go to a doctor so why do you care if they are covered? there is no charge for services. period."
There is a charge for their continued coverage.
Pages