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
"I think as women, we do need to be
So going to the doctor actually did her no good. It was her being persistent and knowing her body that is responsible for proper diagnosis.
I don't buy the whole it happened to so and so garbage therefore we should assume it's going to happened to everyone and waste billions in the process.
I have a dear friend whose two year old was diagnosed with leukemia but that doesn't meant I believe in leukemia screenings for all two year olds.
Ovarian cancer (your silly Gilda Radner comment) is very hard to detect and very rare in younger women. Unless you want all women on a regular basis to be subject to invasive procedures for no reason, just in case the fact that she happened to be one of the unlucky few who got this cancer prior to her 7th decade is meaningless.
Another friend had a niece drop death of an aneurysm at age 21--who, let's give cat scans to on an annual basis now just in case.
But if you want to really play it safe how about just giving up your car since you're far more likely to die in a car crash than to die of ovarian cancer or an aneurysm at a young age.
But if you want to spend YOUR MONEY on these tests--that's not my business.
<>
me neither. except some people don't want their tax dollars wasted on 24 year olds who don't go for annual exams because they aren't sick. and i obviously don't understand why that is being argued other than it's *appears* to be about taxes.
Bea
<>
so how did they detect it in this child. probably a well-visit - which you would deny to children without means, the ones who are not poor enough for subsidized coverage and not wealthy enough for private insurance.
<>
i was screened for ovarian cancer based on other symptoms that were noted during an annual exam. i was fortunate to have some other disease state that caused minor symptoms but ended me in emergency surgery anyway. the "screening" was not an invasive procedure but the discussion of symptoms and risks took place during an annual exam.
<>
because a routine annual exam cannot screen you for the presence or absence of a accident-prone condition.
Bea
Pages