Healthcare

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think the national government should take care of it for several reasons. first and most important is because it's so fundamental a right. that's what i see the national government doing protecting that stuff.
second, i believe it's an important consideration that gets overlooked a lot: race to the bottom. states think they can't afford to provide this stuff, so they dont, to be competitive. they see econimic short term benefits to not providing this sorta stuff, and overlook the people involved. race to the bottom means all compete to the disadvantage of all. look it up on wiki for more info. it's been proven to occur with environmental degradation and wages, and stil does occur with 'incorporation' rights etc. this isn't pie in the sky stuff.

insurance is out of control. it's not cause of the government either. they might be part of the problem in mandating it sometimes, but they are not the problem. it's tragedy of the commons sort of scenario, people abuse it cause they can. ask anyone and it's true. that runs prices up for people. regular folk can afford to pay the jacked up prices, and the poor cannot.
we don't have enough doctosr cause they stopped opening med schools in the 80s. they're way too overpaid, there's no reason for it. that's the major issue that is overlooked.

national regulation provides uniformity so states don't have to worry about all that stuff. it provides protection in conservie states who say to hell with all that stuff, for whatever convoluted reasoning they may use.
maybe a little state experimentation is okay.
a little excess by the feds is to be expected, just as long as they aren't 'using a swat team to change a light bulb' as i say. as i also say 'there's more than one way to skin a cat'. it dont have to fit one's particular desirs compeltely or else it'd be never work.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1865070' date='May 12 2009, 08:29 AM']It's horrible to have to think of such things, Zig. An acquaintance of mine doesn't have insurance and is pregnant. The cheapest care she can find is a hospital in another town, which will charge her $7700 provided everything is straightforward, no interventions or anything. The hospital in her town quoted a price of $20,000. Ridiculous. A pregnant woman shouldn't have to worry about whether she can afford to actually see a doctor and give birth. Yes, there are limitations with socialised medicine, but at least they don't have to worry about getting care when they need to do so. (And there is competition in the UK, since there's a private sector as well).[/quote]

this also shows though that we need reform other than the feds etc paying for it.
there's something fundametnally flawed. i suspect insurance premiums and doctors are the primary culprit. these can be changed.
we dont want to put a bandaid on the wound of the national health crisis. fix it at its root.

what's painfully clear though, is whatever we do, we need 'procedural' leaders. who can get people together and get into details, such that congress who doesn't do detail, is able to. bush jr sucked royall at that, that's why he sucked. obama looks promising. we will see.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the feds are also able to do it cheaper, they are the ultimate insurer. (they're able to, whether they do is another question

the smart way to do it all, is in the detail. copays and higher deductibles, loans for something or past a certain point like 50k, requirments to save in a health plan and then maybe some matching grants up to a certain point like 10k, grants while you are buildig up to yoru 10k amount.

"Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration."

more myths debunked
[url="http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm"]http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm[/url]



the feds paying insurance premiums when they could pay them self doesn't make sense. it's an unneeded middleman. i suspect anyway.

hopefully when they try reforming all this, they reform medicaid too. if ya look at obama's budget that's way too high, that's the reason. it's coming due on his watch. it's all convoluted etc.


most of those detail we wouldn't have to worry about if we just had more doctors. then it's be more affordable. insurance woudl be an issue to an extent, but i don't knw how much. insurance in and of itself im not sure is a right-- that distinction between 'insurance' and 'care'.

Edited May 12, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

from that link i posted (a conclusions that you'd have to read the link to verify):

[quote]8. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care[/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1865070' date='May 12 2009, 05:29 AM']It's horrible to have to think of such things, Zig. An acquaintance of mine doesn't have insurance and is pregnant. The cheapest care she can find is a hospital in another town, which will charge her $7700 provided everything is straightforward, no interventions or anything. The hospital in her town quoted a price of $20,000. Ridiculous. A pregnant woman shouldn't have to worry about whether she can afford to actually see a doctor and give birth. Yes, there are limitations with socialised medicine, but at least they don't have to worry about getting care when they need to do so. (And there is competition in the UK, since there's a private sector as well).[/quote]

Tell her to look into having a midwife come to her home...to those that are uneducated on healthcare, haven't had a child for a while, etc. it may sound barbaric but it's actually on the rise. It's also less expensive. The risks are relativelly low, because there is a doctor on call if needed. My wife had our first daughter with a midwife and it was great! The Best experience to date!

Reza

[CatherineM]

When I suggested a midwife to my obgyn, he laughed in my face. He said I wasn't just high risk, I was super dupper, double secret probation, high risk. He said to make sure the midwife brought a casket with her to save time. At least I knew I was going to be high risk. Some women don't know until it's too late.

[picchick]

I am against nationalized health care.
I am for insurance reform.
I am for incentive programs.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1865140' date='May 12 2009, 08:58 AM']When I suggested a midwife to my obgyn, he laughed in my face. He said I wasn't just high risk, I was super dupper, double secret probation, high risk. He said to make sure the midwife brought a casket with her to save time. At least I knew I was going to be high risk. Some women don't know until it's too late.[/quote]

He must be living in the dark ages, my wife worked at St. Josephes Hospital [Catholic Hospital in Tacoma Washington] that has a great track record, and is possibly one of the most advanced hospitals and they were going over to more midwives then doctors. Maybe your obgyn was located in a different area, I'm not sure, but I do know that now that I'm living on the border of Wisconsin and Minnesota the practices are more outdated, then they were when we had a child at St. Josephs.

Baby Catchers and Beyond, for example, does nearly all of their deliveries by midwife with the doctor on call and has an excellent track record. Given heart monitors, and the numerous other medical devices and technology these days, midwives [nurses] usually have a pretty good idea when someone needs the doctor. Phoebe Ho, MD, whom runs baby catchers is a great doctor and being her success and expertise, she wouldn't use midwives if it wasn't safe.

When you have a midwife, they bring the monitors, [and all the other gadgets] to your home, so it's not like their not prepared. The only circomstance that I could think that the doctor wouldn't get there, is if he/she lives a very long ways away.

Whatever works, understand thou that some doctors make such statements to for the sake of financial gain. There is a book titled, "Born in the USA", were the doctor that wrote it gives numerous examples of doctors telling false truths for the sake of gain, etc. My wife is a nurse and has seen this on numerous occasions, she is against it and she also had our children naturally, the first with a midwife, the second with a doctor because a midwife wasn't available.

Reza

[CatherineM]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1865166' date='May 12 2009, 11:16 AM']He must be living in the dark ages, my wife worked at St. Josephes Hospital [Catholic Hospital in Tacoma Washington] that has a great track record, and is possibly one of the most advanced hospitals and they were going over to more midwives then doctors. Maybe your obgyn was located in a different area, I'm not sure, but I do know that now that I'm living on the border of Wisconsin and Minnesota the practices are more outdated, then they were when we had a child at St. Josephs.

Baby Catchers and Beyond, for example, does nearly all of their deliveries by midwife with the doctor on call and has an excellent track record. Given heart monitors, and the numerous other medical devices and technology these days, midwives [nurses] usually have a pretty good idea when someone needs the doctor. Phoebe Ho, MD, whom runs baby catchers is a great doctor and being her success and expertise, she wouldn't use midwives if it wasn't safe.

When you have a midwife, they bring the monitors, [and all the other gadgets] to your home, so it's not like their not prepared. The only circomstance that I could think that the doctor wouldn't get there, is if he/she lives a very long ways away.

Whatever works, understand thou that some doctors make such statements to for the sake of financial gain. There is a book titled, "Born in the USA", were the doctor that wrote it gives numerous examples of doctors telling false truths for the sake of gain, etc. My wife is a nurse and has seen this on numerous occasions, she is against it and she also had our children naturally, the first with a midwife, the second with a doctor because a midwife wasn't available.

Reza[/quote]

He said that after I had already had two miscarriages, was 44 years old, with high blood pressure (which I go off my meds for when pregnant), angina, a traumatic brain injury, and had almost died during my previous miscarriage. It was something about brain swelling that is common with women who have had TBI's that can lead to massive strokes. When I miscarried that time, I was in the hospital unconscious for two days. He threatened my husband with amputation of parts of his anatomy if he got me pregnant again. At that age, no one believed that we weren't trying desperately to get pregnant. We're going to do NFP until I'm 60. So I don't think he was telling me false truths.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1865203' date='May 12 2009, 10:42 AM']He said that after I had already had two miscarriages, was 44 years old, with high blood pressure (which I go off my meds for when pregnant), angina, a traumatic brain injury, and had almost died during my previous miscarriage. It was something about brain swelling that is common with women who have had TBI's that can lead to massive strokes. When I miscarried that time, I was in the hospital unconscious for two days. He threatened my husband with amputation of parts of his anatomy if he got me pregnant again. At that age, no one believed that we weren't trying desperately to get pregnant. We're going to do NFP until I'm 60. So I don't think he was telling me false truths.[/quote]

1.) "threatening your husband" is unethical and against the law.

2.) In your initial post you made no reference to your medical history, rather spoke from the general perspective that your doctor believed that it was deadly for everyone, you made no disctinction in your own situation, leaving me to believe that you were a normal healthy pregnant woman. I was speaking in my posts from the perspective of "a friend" that couldn't afford to have a doctor, at a hospital deliver her child, in which a midwife is a good option if she's normal "like most mothers" without a history of complicated medical problems.

Reza

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1865132' date='May 12 2009, 04:52 PM']Tell her to look into having a midwife come to her home...to those that are uneducated on healthcare, haven't had a child for a while, etc. it may sound barbaric but it's actually on the rise. It's also less expensive. The risks are relativelly low, because there is a doctor on call if needed. My wife had our first daughter with a midwife and it was great! The Best experience to date!

Reza[/quote]
Oh that was the first thing she looked into, but the closest midwife she could find was 5 hours away. While that may be enough notice for a first labour, it may not (my active labour was only 3.5 hours). Oh, and I'm a big fan of midwives. If there aren't big complications, midwives handle all antenatal, labour & delivery, and postnatal for women in the UK. I'm hoping for a home birth whenever I get pregnant again.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1865224' date='May 12 2009, 12:02 PM']1.) "threatening your husband" is unethical and against the law.

2.) In your initial post you made no reference to your medical history, rather spoke from the general perspective that your doctor believed that it was deadly for everyone, you made no disctinction in your own situation, leaving me to believe that you were a normal healthy pregnant woman. I was speaking in my posts from the perspective of "a friend" that couldn't afford to have a doctor, at a hospital deliver her child, in which a midwife is a good option if she's normal "like most mothers" without a history of complicated medical problems.

Reza[/quote]

1. He is a good friend of my husband's and was just giving him the gears.

2. I never said anything in my post that my doctor believed midwives were deadly for everyone. I only spoke about myself. I can truthfully say people rarely refer to me as normal, so I very much appreciate the compliment.

You had no way of knowing my medical history of course. I'm the resident Phatmass gimp, and assume everyone knows that I am Humpty Dumpty. For a lot of women, midwives are of course an acceptable choice, after making sure they have no pre-existing conditions. Even then, there is always eclampsia which can come out of nowhere. I had a college friend use a midwife for all three of her kids. The nearest doctor that would even see her was 3 hours away. The fact that she was a medical malpractice attorney probably influenced all the local doctors to pass on her. Can't say I blame them.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='picchick' post='1865146' date='May 12 2009, 12:03 PM']I am against nationalized health care.
I am for insurance reform.
I am for incentive programs.[/quote]

as i said, many ways to skin a cat. i wouldn't necessarily be opposed to this system of doing things.

there are then three systems i see that are reasonable to me: 1. regulating the industry, and carrot and sticks-ing everyone involved, to a sensible solution 2. government taking over for those who want to opt in 3. tax credits where the credits are given even to those who don't pay to use in an insurance program. (not sure if mccain's was even to those who didn't pay, but this was his idea)

the last one doesn't get rid of high costs, but isn't a bad idea completely.
the first one involves governmetn and might not be such a good idea in efficiency. it doesn't include the industry's profit motive. and as that one link said, it often has greater adinistrative costs even. (not sure if that's true. i heard a good rule of thumb is to generally assume a given gov program would cost 30% on admin costs)
the second one also involes government though so it's not like it's going to be necessarily better.

[dairygirl4u2c]

semi related
Medicare fund eight years from insolvency:
[url="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medicare13-2009may13,0,1363760.story"]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,1363760.story[/url]

[Marie-Therese]

Since I work as an RN and have experience with both government and private-pay systems, it's a tough call. I am a fiscal conservative and have no desire to hand over something as vital as my health to a government agency. I think that competitive medicine drives innovation and provides us with cures.

That being said, I see how the competitive aspect of our medical system has injured many in our poor, especially the working poor, who do what they can but still cannot afford the rates of private insurance and don't qualify for government assistance. I worked in a hospital that had the busiest ER in our area (which was north Georgia), and the area had a large migrant Hispanic population which used the ER as their primary care. The average wait for care for a non-critical issue was 10 hours. Yes, I said TEN hours. This backlog was due specifically to the fact that there were so many people who did not have access to traditional primary care because of a lack of insurance.

I feel torn on this issue, because I see both sides. If there could be a single payer private entity and a single payer public entity with equivalent coverage and costs with people having an option...I could see that. It would be a tough thing to structure, but I just can't see handing over care of our population's health to our incompetent government. I at least want people to have some options. I think Britain's system is a good model to contemplate, with some modifications.

As an aside, thank God for Phatmass, a place where Catholics can come to discuss these issues in a civil manner and have an open interchange of ideas.