sicko

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't really thought this through, but wouldn't some sort of compromise make the most sense? Social medicine for regular checkups, strep throat, broken bones, etc. and a private, optional insurance for "major" health care issues?

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem now is that's called the "ER".

Also, there are lots of low-cost/non-profit health care providers in many areas of the country.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't really thought this through, but wouldn't some sort of compromise make the most sense? Social medicine for regular checkups, strep throat, broken bones, etc. and a private, optional insurance for "major" health care issues?

[/ QUOTE ]


I would agree, if it were the other way around, optional health insurance for the small stuff, mandatory for the big stuff (gunshot wounds, cancer, broken bones).

[/ QUOTE ]

One problem with that is that a lot of the small stuff is cheaper to provide for free when you're paying for big-item tickets. Its one of the problems in the US, many people avoid regular preventative doctor visits/treatments and then end up with a major problem that the hospitals HAVE to pay for.

One example (I think I posted this on 2+2 in a previous health care argument) was when I was having heart problems. My doctor told me to go get a couple of tests and a chest x-ray done at the hospital. When I scheduled my appointment I had to give them my insurance and wait for a day for it to clear. When I went in I asked what it would have cost out of pocket and it was something over $500. If I was poor or uninsured I wouldn't have gotten the tests, and 5-10 years down the road I have a heart attack and need surgery and at least a couple of weeks in the hospital (if I don't die).

Same argument can be made for cancer check-ups for older men and women. Its a lot cheaper and more effective to treat it ahead of time.

I'll also add to the people that spout the "Governments are less efficient than private corporations" that its hard to beat the inefficiencies that are in the US private system. There are inefficiencies put in place just because it helps make insurance companies money. Every time they can deny some sort of coverage because of a missed form, they save money.

For instance I need a referral form plus a prescription from my Doctor for most things. Its totally trivial to get, but if I forget the referral form I'm not covered.

Anyway, the US system sucks. The Canadian system also sucks, but at least I like it better. I'm convinced that there is a happy medium of very good publicly available health care for all, with the option to pay for faster/better service if you want the money. Of course, there's tons of complexities involved that make a system like that hard to manage.

This post became a massive rant. Sorry about that.

[guids]

I thought about that, and ya, to some extent I agree, but in all reality, I would want a board of the top docs and statisticians in the nation, and basically run down teh line for everything:


common cold-- not covered
cancer- covered
cancer preventative measures- covered
stitches- not covered


etc.


ie, Im sure there is a way to discern what preventative measures will save money in teh long run and what wont, and the ones that wont arent free.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought about that, and ya, to some extent I agree, but in all reality, I would want a board of the top docs and statisticians in the nation, and basically run down teh line for everything:


common cold-- not covered
cancer- covered
cancer preventative measures- covered
stitches- not covered


etc.


ie, Im sure there is a way to discern what preventative measures will save money in teh long run and what wont, and the ones that wont arent free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cold - I agree it shouldn't be covered. There's nothing to do to help here. If you show up at the Doctors or ER you should be fined for wasting everybody's time. By the way, this is one of the problems with the Canadian system. There isn't a penalty for wasting valuable resources.

Stitches - Why shouldn't this be covered? If you need stitches, you need stitches. Of course at this point I'm switching from Argument A (preventative care saves money) to Argument B which is society should guarantee all members access to necessary health care, which is a moral/values based argument and thus one that could be debated for years without changing anyone's opinion because its not factual.

I realize you were just using these as examples, but I wanted to bring up Argument B. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Pudge714]

jj,
You are right about the Canadian system I saw someone in the ER with a rash.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, this is one of the problems with the Canadian system. There isn't a penalty for wasting valuable resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same problem exists in the US. ERs are burdened with lots of unnecessary cases.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, this is one of the problems with the Canadian system. There isn't a penalty for wasting valuable resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same problem exists in the US. ERs are burdened with lots of unnecessary cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

On one hand I agree that hypochondriacs need to be punished, but on the other-early prevention of serious problems saves everyone money.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, this is one of the problems with the Canadian system. There isn't a penalty for wasting valuable resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same problem exists in the US. ERs are burdened with lots of unnecessary cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

On one hand I agree that hypochondriacs need to be punished, but on the other-early prevention of serious problems saves everyone money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The problem is that people don't understand some basic health facts. If you're a healthy person aged something like 10-50 you shouldn't head to the ER within 24 hours of getting sick (ie. headache, sick to your stomach, diarrhea, etc. Especially when its pretty obvious you have the cold or flu (obviously if its really serious, there's a difference).

[Double Ice]

[ QUOTE ]
The system sucks because insurance companies save money by denying claims, and have too much power (eg. lobbying congress, denying claims retroactively), the legal system is too complicated for the average layperson/victim to get justice, and the government system is so corrupt that laws get passed that have < 5% approval ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]