A person's life expectancy after being diagnosed with Adult onset (type II) diabetes is EXACTLY the same as that of a person who has suffered their first significant cardiovascular event (heart attack or stroke).
And yet, my kids only have one third the time in recess that I did while in public school; they also don't get to play before or after school, or during lunch. That right there is probably 5 hours a week of exercise.
Hope you're right about people changing behavior and diet; only the ones paying attention will. Could soon see a widening socio/economic life expectancy gap.
Shouldn't that be a compelling argument for the conservative stance? Force individual responsibility rather than relying on the government? Why should we all pay for those who don't take an active interest taking care of themselves. The free market will charge people by risk. Such incentives are needed.
"our national at ude towards diet and exercise will start changing"
It'll never happen. The decrep ude of the body politic will continue to increase. There's nothing to stop it, even less to reverse it. People have freedom (to be gluttons), but no responsibility.
Agreed about govt and employers goading people with $$$ not to inflict themselves with diseases. Only if employers and insurance companies start penalizing people with painfully higher premiums or companies reducing their contrib to an employee's health plan, for risky behaviors will Americans respond. They always respond to $$$.
"force individual responsibility"
Are you kidding?
This is where I really find conservative thinking to be a wee bit hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt.
"We don't need big government telling us what to do, unless it is something I think is immoral..."
The problem with your thinking is that ultimately, risk CANNOT be ascertained for ANY individual until AFTER you start making claims. You can make guesses, but you can be the healthiest f***er in the book and still get hit by a bus, or caught in a fire with half your skin burned off, and require upwards of millions of dollars in treatment over 20 years.
The larger your pool of people, the better you can predict overall risk. That is a fundamental principle of insurance.
In this case, namely a single payor system, would have the largest possible pool.
It would also force all the "hidden" costs that you pay now, but just don't know it out into the open, as well as reduce overall costs by encouraging people to see doctors before they get really sick. You WANT people to see doctors for minor things, because you can catch things before they get expensive.
1,000 $100 tests to prevent ONE $300,000 illness is a net savings of $200,000, or a 300% return on your original investment.
I can't make it any more clear than that.
Yes, and?
What's wrong with the system we have now? If you're rich, you get the health care you want. If you're not rich, who gives a rat's ass what happens to you?
You must be one of these socialists who think things like EMS are the government's responsibility.
Unless we're talking cost shifting from the productive wealthy to the ingrate proles who benefit from their brilliance, bite me.
I refute the assumption that we have to give everybody extended and emergency care in the first place. If a person is not economically productive, what difference does it make if they die?
So? No care at all is even cheaper.
Simplify coverage options to this: the population subsidises the rich and the rich pay cash for what is left.
Removing the 240 million econiomically worthless people from the coverage pool eliminates a lot of adverse risk.
Just quarantine the poor.
Yeah, just like between Lenin and Trotsky.
Or, how about we spend far less than that unless we need it?
1,000 $100 tests to prevent ONE $300,000 illness is a net savings of $200,000, or a 300% return on your original investment.
I can't make it any more clear than that.
We don't "need" to spend anything. But there is a level of care and spending that has the lowest economic costs, and that is best achevied by single payor.
Even better idea: All 1,000 people pay $5. The 50 richest guys get tests. The other 950 get jack.
The 50 rich guys pay a total of $250 to prevent one $300,000 illness, a net saving over your stupid bleeding-heart idea of $199,750, and a saving overall of $299,750, or a 119,900% return on investment.
You might bring up some alleged "point" about how it really cost $5,000, but that's because you're assuming those other 950 people matter.
You know, there's a Troll forum over here
I believe that price controls are the only solution to have a free-market healthcare system. Fact is, because life, which is considered invaluable, is on the line, medical technology is sold to hospitals for ridiculous prices. An excellent example is an MRI machine. Without one, the doctors cannot guarantee a diagnosis of say a knee injury without surgical intervention. Patients don't like surgery. If the hospital doesn't have one, the patient will find one that does. Conclusion: the company that makes the MRI knows this fact and abuses it and bam, a $3,000,000 machine.
Now doctors can be compassionate people. They can and may provide healthcare for free.
But they still gotta get that MRI machine paid for.
I dislike the notion of socialized healthcare. The system is far too easy to abuse. People who need no medical treatment waste time in the system. People can't get an x-ray on demand. Government is inefficient.
The obvious solution is reasonable price ceilings on equipment and drugs. The prices are obviously inflated. The supposed "market-value" of 30 painkillers might be $1,500 but they won't sell for anywhere near that on the black market, for illicit use or legit use. I could grind-up my pills and sell them on the corner and wouldn't get back that $1,500 value.
I'll mention personal responsibility now. In the medical field, personal responsibility only gets you so far. I am a healthy person. Not in shape, but very healthy. One freak accident later and I have a broken wrist and elbow. Another guy neglects his diet and is overweight. But one freak accident later playing basketball and he needs a knee replacement. These incidents aren't even related to how they treat their health yet they are the majority.
How many times in your life has your visit to the doctor been because you did something wrong or failed to act? Fact is, people get cancer even if they are healthy. People suffer heart attacks eating health foods. People break bones, get cavities, lose limbs, and much more from random dumb luck.
No, personal responsibility is a non-issue in health care. I look at every single family member and friend, and the extreme majority of their hospital visits are from doing the wrong thing at the wrong time or being at the wrong place at the wrong time. There are places for personal responsibility. The prison system is one of them. Drug use and drinking laws are another. Medicine? Not so much.
"bam, a $3,000,000 machine."
proton beam machines, $100M each.
Proton treatment at Loma Linda U., $137K if you have insurance, but you get a $100K discount if you don't have insurance.
Indeed, I am making that assumption. Guilty as charged.
The assumption in the "free-market" solution is that if you don't have the money, you don't matter. Wild Cobra pretty much did the unthinkable and admitted as much, and don't think he is alone in his "survival of the fittest" at uded when it comes to conservative thinking in general.
The worth of a person is directly proportional to the size of their bank account. Materialism at its worst. Sad. Just, sad.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-23-2008 at 01:49 PM.
Corporations are inefficient.
Large numbers of small corporations, taken together, are hugely inefficient. You get massive duplication of effort, huge amounts of variability, and overall inconsistant results.
Both single-payor and our current systems have their inefficiencies, but it is becoming obvious that our current system is breaking down due to those inefficiencies. Given no reform, I give it about another 5-10 years before it is almost completely non-functioning.
The inefficiency of the current system is greater than any "governmental inefficiency".
(shrugs)
Government is really not often the best solution for problems, but it IS occasionally, and that is something that some people just can't wrap their heads around.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote