National Health Care

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

It looks like the Archaean understood that. He's saying he would prefer to subsidize lifestyle changes as a vehicle to improve health, rather than a system that would result in excessive use of the medical system.

understood. so he's saying medical care is more analogous to prison spending for the uneducated.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Why do poor people tend to get sick more than rich people?

Lots of reasons, I imagine.

- poor diet (healthy food costs more)
- less free time to exercise
- less healthy working conditions
- poor choices/lifestyle (poor people are often poor due to lower intelligence and/or learning disabilities)

etc.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

No system is perfect. But while we save money (presumably) on health care (or taxes) in the US, the price we pay is in human lives. Nobody is dying in Canada due to lack of access.



Forget about MM. Go back to my original question: If a poor person needs $100K for chemo, where does it come from?



Your last part seems like a red herring. But to your first point, I will ask a question in response: Is there a dollar amount that you would be comfortable spending on cancer treatment per person? What is the value of a human life?

Are you aware what rationing kills people in Canada? I could do the research, because most of my data is old. But for example, it takes time to MRIs, sometimes the denial of an MRI can miss a cancer which if it had been diagnosed earlier would have been cured.

I believe it is a red herring that people "die" due to lack of access. People in other countries die to lack of access to high cost care through rationing.

And I haven't seen Sicko, because MM lies and distorts evidence. And Medicaid is imperfect but I believe it does pay for cancer treatments, but I'll have to research it.

There are many high end medical treatments which are deferred due to lack of timely diagnosis in other countries.

At some point, a nation has the right to say, "that costs too much money, we won't pay for it." Other countries such as Britain and Germany have tiers of what is available and what is not. Don't be deceived.

You could not as an indigent person go get the same health care as the Queen of England could.

There must be a cost analysis which ends up rationing the health care.

And I agree that if we are to spend money on the poor, let's spend the biggest bang for the buck, "health care in preventive modes by improving lifestyles."

We won't do that because that requires responsibility on all parts.

Do you know that many indigent persons are so unmotivated that they won't even complete the applications to be eligible for Medicaid? I've represented small hospitals, who have a significant number of the poor who won't even help themselves by turning in forms which will pay their health providers. I would wager the poor's refusal to work within the system kills more of them than lack of access.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Forget about MM. Go back to my original question: If a poor person needs $100K for chemo, where does it come from?

Then they qualify for Medicaid.

[Mormon Red Death]

There are a lot of issues regarding Health care Let me weigh in on a couple/

1. 97% of health care transactions are non-insurable events

the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.

Generally insurance is involved to secure against a possible large loss of money. 97% of health care is going to doctors appointment, getting a prescription filled, having a test done etc...

Thus creating insurance for non insurable events is problematic. This is why Health savings accounts will only be increasing in america as time goes on.

2. Moral Hazard

Thus if you have "insurance" you will use it. This of course costs more, Governments counter this by rationing the health care. Insurance companies counter this by deductibles and co-pays.

Note on Costs: 96% of health cost for a person occur in the last year of their life.

Now I oppose National Health insurance for a variety reasons. One of the chief reasons is that I believe the government setting prices is immoral. Would it be right for the government to say to the Lawyer "The amount that you can charge for your services has been determined in D.C." How about if they said to the mechanic this how much you can charge for fixing a car?

BTW... I am a free market guy so I would be fine if there was not public schools.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Then they qualify for Medicaid.

That's exactly right. We're not talking about the lowest rung here. They qualify for Medicaid. It's easy to forget that. We're talking about working class Americans whose employers do not provide health care but who do not qualify for government programs.

Among the uninsured:
70% work full time or have a spouse that works full time.
64% have incomes that exceed the federal poverty line (20k for a family of 4)
35% have incomes that exceed double the federal poverty line.

Data from the Kaiser Commission 2006 report on the uninsured.

To get back to JL's question: What happens when the uninsured are diagnosed with cancer? Well, data show that the mortality rate for an uninsured woman with breast cancer is twice as high as for her insured counterpart.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

There are a lot of issues regarding Health care Let me weigh in on a couple/

1. 97% of health care transactions are non-insurable events

the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.

Generally insurance is involved to secure against a possible large loss of money. 97% of health care is going to doctors appointment, getting a prescription filled, having a test done etc...

Thus creating insurance for non insurable events is problematic. This is why Health savings accounts will only be increasing in america as time goes on.

2. Moral Hazard

Thus if you have "insurance" you will use it. This of course costs more, Governments counter this by rationing the health care. Insurance companies counter this by deductibles and co-pays.

Note on Costs: 96% of health cost for a person occur in the last year of their life.

Now I oppose National Health insurance for a variety reasons. One of the chief reasons is that I believe the government setting prices is immoral. Would it be right for the government to say to the Lawyer "The amount that you can charge for your services has been determined in D.C." How about if they said to the mechanic this how much you can charge for fixing a car?

BTW... I am a free market guy so I would be fine if there was not public schools.

I'm pretty sure that 96% last year statistic is WAY off.

The govt. already, it can be argued, sets the rates for medical care (medicaid and medicare).

In Britain they have both the national public system and a parallel private system.

In psychiatry, for example, many of the docs I know don't take medicare, medicaid, or even private insurance. They only take cash.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm pretty sure that 96% last year statistic is WAY off.

The govt. already, it can be argued, sets the rates for medical care (medicaid and medicare).

In Britain they have both the national public system and a parallel private system.

In psychiatry, for example, many of the docs I know don't take medicare, medicaid, or even private insurance. They only take cash.

I haven't seen the recent data, but it has frequently exceeded ninety percent. End of life care is the most expensive care most of us will ever see.

In most socialist countries they have dual systems, even if initially one didn't exist. The rich will not tolerate the quality of care rendered by socialized systems.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm pretty sure that 96% last year statistic is WAY off.

The govt. already, it can be argued, sets the rates for medical care (medicaid and medicare).

In Britain they have both the national public system and a parallel private system.

In psychiatry, for example, many of the docs I know don't take medicare, medicaid, or even private insurance. They only take cash.

I have the source ... it would take some digging (I knew I kept my college notes for some reason

As for medicaid and medicare they don't completely set the rate they just mess with the market.

As for the parallel system doesnt that mean that the rich can get good care while the rest of us have to settle?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I have the source ... it would take some digging (I knew I kept my college notes for some reason

As for medicaid and medicare they don't completely set the rate they just mess with the market.

As for the parallel system doesnt that mean that the rich can get good care while the rest of us have to settle?

Medicare impacts rates as most insurers do theirs as a percent of Medicare rates.

Medicare is socialized medicine.