How to shop around for health insurance?
nons...@mynonsense.net
wonder how would I go about acquiring health insurance? I can afford
high deductible, upto around $40,000. I also read that one can use
401k assetts to pay for insurance premiums without any penalty. I am
in my early 30's, excellent health.
Alvin
<nons...@mynonsense.net> wrote in message
news:6cb245f7-8e5c-49ae...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Very often your answer could be state specfic. For example, in Massachusetts
insurance is mandatory and can be purchased through the state. Premiums also
vary from state to state.
Kiplingers magazine printed a buyers guide, maybe it will be helpful:
http://www.kiplinger.com/basics/managing/insurance/healthinsurance.html
Start with your doctor, find out which plans he/she accepts.
HW "Skip" Weldon
>> Things at my company are looking a little shaky. If I get laid off I
>> wonder how would I go about acquiring health insurance?
>
>Start with your doctor, find out which plans he/she accepts.
At one point there was some discussion about including a COBRA
extension in the stimulus plan. I haven't had reason to follow it, so
perhaps someone else could comment.
Incidentally, are you the same Alvin who cut a record a few years
back?
-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC
honda....@gmail.com
> Things at my company are looking a little shaky. If I get laid off I
> wonder how would I go about acquiring health insurance? I can afford
> high deductible, upto around $40,000.
Last I read a few years ago, the highest deductible possible was on
the order of $2k-$5k.
Start reading about how health care providers are now accustomed to
negotiating bills way down. The "advertised price" of the typical
medical service is bogus. Like on the streets of Mexico, health care
providers expect consumers to haggle. This includes bills to those
with insurance but who, naturally these days, have many medical
expenses that insurance does not cover.
> I am
> in my early 30's, excellent health.
Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
Andrew Koenig
news:26aeb30b-592f-4e7b...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> nonse...@mynonsense.net wrote:
> Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
> health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
Evidence? I have seen claims from people whom I respect that this widely
held belief is false--instead, that countries with lower costs have them
because they simply refuse to pay for expensive treatments.
For example, a recent story points out that in the UK, they will not pay to
treat macular degeneration until the patient has become blind in one eye and
has started to show symptoms in the other eye. It's easy to reduce costs
with policies like that.
Alvin
"HW "Skip" Weldon" <skip5700r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kflaq4t5elei6cra5...@4ax.com...
Different Alvin. My signing would chase me out of the shower.
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/COBRA.html
rick++
You can get a good idea of costs in minutes.
Beware of scam agents and health insurance companies here.
You should use "brand names" like Blue Cross as a reference.
Too-good-to-be-be true prices often never pay out or have
low lifetime ceilings in four figures.
See the Matt Damon movie Rainmaker for how the scam
health insurance companies operate.
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA
news:6cb245f7-8e5c-49ae...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Obama's new stimulus package included an interesting Cobra provision -
The new law allows an individual who is involuntarily separated from
employment between 09/01/08 and 01/01/10 to elect to pay just 35% of the
cost of COBRA coverage and be treated as paying the full amount.
The former employer will be required to pay the remaining 65% BUT they are
supposed to be entitled to a credit on their payroll tax returns. So the
net impact to the employer is ZERO and the FED is actually picking up the
balance of the COBRA payment.
My understanding of this new provision is that the EMPLOYEE is the one with
control. The EMPLOYER cannot refuse if the employee wants to invoke this.
This could actually make the final cost to you considerably less than if you
need to pick up your own individual health insurance. Even with a high
deductible, you may be better off with COBRA under the new stimulus package.
Good luck,
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA
Elizabeth Richardson
"Andrew Koenig" <a...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:7Ddpl.400534$Mh5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <honda....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:26aeb30b-592f-4e7b...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> nonse...@mynonsense.net wrote:
>
>> Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
>> health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
>
> Evidence?
65% of all deaths in the US due to diabetes, heart disease, and stroke can
be prevented. Exercise, eat a healthy diet, see your physician annually.
That's your prescription for reducing health care costs. I doubt the
government will come up with one better.
Elizabeth Richardson
JoeTaxpayer
HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
> Incidentally, are you the same Alvin who cut a record a few years
> back?
I missed the festivities, but last year was their 50th anniversary.
Ross Bagdasarian was the creator and voice of Dave Seville, as well as
all three chipmunks. Time does fly.
Ross passed away in 1972.
Joe
Andrew Koenig
news:l6fpl.400690$Mh5.397467@bgtnsc04-
>>> Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
>>> health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
>> Evidence?
> 65% of all deaths in the US due to diabetes, heart disease, and stroke can
> be prevented. Exercise, eat a healthy diet, see your physician annually.
> That's your prescription for reducing health care costs. I doubt the
> government will come up with one better.
That's not evidence; that is an unsupported opinion that does not address
the original claim.
Consider the claim again: "many other countries' health costs are so much
lower than the United States's" because of preventive medicine.
The claim that 65% of deaths in the US due to diabetes, etc. can be
prevented says nothing about health-care costs in other countries.
Moreover, I'm not willing to believe that claim without evidence either, nor
am I interested in shifting the discussion from the original claim in order
to address it.
As a reminder: The claim under discussion is that health-care costs are less
in other countries than in the US is that other countries practice more
preventive medicine than the US. I am skeptical of that claim and asking
for concrete evidence that supports it.
Augustine
<g...@alliancetax.com> wrote:
>
> The former employer will be required to pay the remaining 65% BUT they are
> supposed to be entitled to a credit on their payroll tax returns. So the
> net impact to the employer is ZERO and the FED is actually picking up the
> balance of the COBRA payment.
Wow, how stimulating! 8-O
Augustine
>
> Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
> health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
No. In many other countries there's no health insurance or other
gimmicks to hide the true cost from the patient, so they use more
discernment when going to the emergency room because of a sore throat
or getting an MRI because of gases. So doctors and hospitals don't
have insurance companies to milk.
Augustine
<erich...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> 65% of all deaths in the US due to diabetes, heart disease, and stroke can
> be prevented.
Really, heart disease and stroke? I always thought that old age
brought these about...
Elizabeth Richardson
"Augustine" <eva...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:18d9d895-f8ad-437b...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> 65% of all deaths in the US due to diabetes, heart disease, and stroke
>> can
>> be prevented.
>
> Really, heart disease and stroke? I always thought that old age
> brought these about...
My father and his brother both died at age 50 of heart disease. Not old by
any means.
To address Andrew's concerns that my comment did not address the issue of
health care being cheaper in other countries: Andrew, I wasn't trying to
provide evidence for that assertion. My assertion is that leading a
healthier lifestyle can substantially decrease the country's health care
costs. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb and assert that leading a
healthy lifestyle is the only thing that will decrease health care costs.
Smokers, fatties - wake up!
Elizabeth Richardson
from an ex-smoker (20+ years and counting) who has lost 50 pounds (5 years
ago) and now gets plenty of exercise
Alvin
I'm not surprised by that stat but you don't need health care insurance for
death. You need it for broken arms and kidney stones, doctor check-ups and
flu shots, that rash you got from eating something new, for having that baby
or the drug your doctor wants you to take to reduce your cholesterol. All
kinds of things.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you respond. "Trim" means that except for a line or two of the previous post to add context, the previous post is deleted. Thank you.
Alvin
"Elizabeth Richardson" <eric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> Smokers, fatties - wake up!
No need to get personal:-)
If you love to smoke and/or eat foods that are considered bad for you, I
wouldn't stop.
I smoke, my favorite foods are Devil Dogs, hot dogs, hamburgers, potato
chips, french fries if they're done right, steak, gravy, prime rib (I even
eat the fat). If I have to give up 10 years at the end it's ok. I will have
enjoyed my life. The last 10 years are a bummer anyway. All of your friends
and relatives are gone (because they enjoyed life) and you'll be looking for
a senior center so you can find people that will listen as you share your
memories of your friends now gone. The cook-outs, the beer, the great times
at restaurants.
Thumper
wrote:
Costs are lower because profit doesn't come first.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
Where did you hear this? Many countries have systems that are
non-profit so it doesn't coat $120.00 to see a doctor. It's the
insurance companies that are milking the symptom. I work for AT&T who
is self insured, yet they pay an insurance company well over $500 per
person month to administer the plan. That money would be better
spent on actual health care.
Thumper
Tad Borek
As for your main question, how to shop around - a few online sites like
ehealthinsurance.com let you browse through available plans for your
state. But there isn't really a downside to working with an agent - the
rates are the same either way.
Sounds like you might be interested in an HSA, paired with a
high-deductible health plan (HDHP) so check those out.
If you can afford paying $40k out of pocket why would you tap your 401k?
And as someone mentioned, check out that recent relief bill with the
COBRA subsidy - and see how it plays out if the former employer goes
belly-up - I have no idea if that would have an effect.
-Tad
honda....@gmail.com
> <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote
> > nonse...@mynonsense.net wrote:
> > Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
> > health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
>
> Evidence?
The statement is from general reading on the subject of health care
and insurance. Google, or if you're dug in, do not. Furthermore,
arguing that preventive medicine does not help reduce health care
costs is AFAIC ridiculous on its face. It is also ridiculous to argue
with raw facts like infant mortality and average life expectancy being
worse in the U.S. while the U.S. spends much more. A reasonable person
would concede that an examination of why countries with national
health systems and who spend much less have healthier populations.
I do not know the facts of your claimed story about the UK and macular
degeneration. But I will put out there the elephant in the room: You
bet a national system will ration health services. This is exactly
what the U.S. system needs. It is not just obesity that is an epidemic
but also gluttony in consumption of inefficacious health services. The
constant prescription of procedures and drugs often proven not only
inefficacious but also harmful is what has driven the steep increase
in U.S. health costs. If other countries with national systems serve
as an example, then a national system will not ration health /care/.
Phooey on anyone who would bail out banks but not consider bailing out
the U.S.'s nonsensical, Monopoly-Money budgeted health care system.
Can anyone seriously dispute that those who "set" health care costs
have a woefully arbitrary system in place that is malleable with each
patient?
Every person I know over 40 has a family story to tell about
inappropriately prescribed procedures. Jeezus some stinkin' surgeon
ordered up a back operation on my mother two years ago. Now she is in
the mid-stages of Alzheimer's, I have POA, and it is unclear what
pain, if any, she is in. I whisk her to her pre-nursing home doc, who,
upon my query of what is going on, glares at me and snarls, "That back
operation should never have happened. I wrote that orthopedic surgeon
a heated letter after it did... " The quotation is almost exact. This
is a highly-respected middle aged geriatric doctor in a large city
telling me we could bring up one of his colleagues on some serious
charges. Reports in the NY Times on the overuse of back operations
(with no remedial effect) support this doctor's charge.
honda....@gmail.com
I am talking about countries with national health care systems and
better statistics than the U.S. on life expectancy, infant mortality,
and costs.
Countries without any kind of insurance system are not something about
which I have seen much reporting, unless you mean, for example, parts
of Africa where the average life expectancy is mid-40s.
I did not mean to start a political thread. But some of you happy with
the bailout need to seriously consider why it is ethical to ask the
taxpayer to bail out the financial system when it is diseased but not
the health care system when it is near-terminal.
Augustine
>
> I am talking about countries with national health care systems and
> better statistics than the U.S. on life expectancy, infant mortality,
> and costs.
Without controlling all the other differences, such statistics are the
proverbial damn lies.
Augustine
>
> Where did you hear this? Many countries have systems that are
Not all. As a foreigner I can tell you about my home, 3rd-world
country.
Since the public health system is a butchery, people look for private
doctors, where all they have is their meager money. Of course the
doctors take their money, but unlike in the US they don't drive BMWs
and actually see the patient, go figure.
Alvin
"Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> wrote
> Where did you hear this? Many countries have systems that are
> non-profit so it doesn't coat $120.00 to see a doctor. It's the
> insurance companies that are milking the symptom. I work for AT&T who
> is self insured, yet they pay an insurance company well over $500 per
> person month to administer the plan. That money would be better
> spent on actual health care.
>
> Thumper
Agree. I read a piece that said that 45% of the premiums paid to Blue Cross
Blue Shield go to subscriber benefits, the rest goes to the company. I had a
dentist, he was great. This was years ago so don't let the prices fool you.
He charged $25 for a visit. On one visit he charged $65. I asked him what
was up with that. He said he started accepting dental insurance and had to
hire two women to process the claims. Shortly after, he opted out of his
practice to serve the poor all over the world, for free.
Top guy on the list:
http://www.gracedentalmission.org/Pages/aboutgdm.html#Board
Dr. Jack Mitchell
Elizabeth Richardson
<honda....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6fc2b3f-bc8f-43d9...@f24g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>But some of you happy with
> the bailout need to seriously consider why it is ethical to ask the
> taxpayer to bail out the financial system when it is diseased but not
> the health care system when it is near-terminal.
Some of us want(ed) neither.
Elizabeth Richardson
honda....@gmail.com
> <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >But some of you happy with
> > the bailout need to seriously consider why it is ethical to ask the
> > taxpayer to bail out the financial system when it is diseased but not
> > the health care system when it is near-terminal.
>
> Some of us want(ed) neither.
It would have been easy to write that preventive care should be a
cornerstone of whatever health care reform happens in the U.S. This
will not make a person a communist. It will make a person sensible.
Andrew Koenig
news:0eed491d-78e5-4747...@q27g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> > Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
>> > health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
>> Evidence?
> The statement is from general reading on the subject of health care
> and insurance. Google, or if you're dug in, do not.
In other words, you don't have any evidence so you want to shift the burden
of finding it to me.
> Furthermore,
> arguing that preventive medicine does not help reduce health care
> costs is AFAIC ridiculous on its face.
Good thing I'm not arguing that, then. I'm just asking for evidence to back
up the claim that preventive medicine "is key to why many other countries'
health costs are so much lower than the United States's." I don't think
this claim is plausible enough to believe without evidence, and because I
think the claim is false, I have no interest in searching for it.
> It is also ridiculous to argue
> with raw facts like infant mortality and average life expectancy being
> worse in the U.S. while the U.S. spends much more. A reasonable person
> would concede that an examination of why countries with national
> health systems and who spend much less have healthier populations.
If they do. Again, such a claim requires evidence.
As just one example, I have seen the claim that one reason that infant
mortality in the US appears to be more common than in many other countries
is that because of aggressive efforts to treat premature births in the US, a
significant number of infants die in the US who would have been classified
as "stillborn from natural causes" in other countries. It's easy to make
statistics look good: Just refuse to treat the hard cases.
> I do not know the facts of your claimed story about the UK and macular
> degeneration. But I will put out there the elephant in the room: You
> bet a national system will ration health services. This is exactly
> what the U.S. system needs.
Ah, but we started with the claim that other countries spend less on health
care than the US because of preventive medicine. Now you are saying that
they spend less because they choose to spend less, i.e. they ration care.
I'm inclined to agree with this latter view, which of course would prove
that the initial proposition is false.
> Phooey on anyone who would bail out banks but not consider bailing out
> the U.S.'s nonsensical, Monopoly-Money budgeted health care system.
We have now wandered so far off topic that there's no point in continuing
this thread.
honda....@gmail.com
A person who does not wonder why these statistics are worse in the
U.S. and disputes that they are one measure of the effectiveness of
health care in a country lives a lie.
Chip
> 65% of all deaths in the US due to diabetes, heart disease, and stroke can
> be prevented. Exercise, eat a healthy diet, see your physician annually.
> That's your prescription for reducing health care costs. I doubt the
> government will come up with one better.
Maybe delayed, but not prevented. We all die of something. 65% really?
that seems high.
Chip
Elizabeth Richardson
<honda....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6679df3-f5d4-4cb8...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> It would have been easy to write that preventive care should be a
> cornerstone of whatever health care reform happens in the U.S. This
> will not make a person a communist. It will make a person sensible.
But it won't make doctors prescribe exercise and a healthy diet. Few doctors
know enough about nutrition to do that for one thing. A doctor once told me
that if all his patients behaved as I did (exercise, lose weight), he
wouldn't have a practice. I don't see him anymore! It is not in a doctor's
financial self-interest for his patients to be healthy. The health care
system will never be one of preventive care because it isn't in their own
self(ish) interest. However, a healthy lifestyle is in the interest of those
who plan on having a strong financial future. Someone previous in this
thread (and I'm too lazy to back and see who) seems not to want to be
healthy. So be it. That person is likely to have his hard-earned nest egg
eaten up with otherwise avoidable, excessive medical costs.
A different doctor offered me the opinion that diabetes will bankrupt this
country. The problem with diabetes is that it doesn't kill you outright, it
sort of takes your life away bit by bit. You lose your quality of life and
pay through the nose for the privilege. The largest percentage of true
individual financial crises in this country, those causing bankruptcies,
come about because of unforeseen medical emergencies. Of course, some of
these are truly unforeseen. But many of them are complicated by the fact
that the person wasn't particularly healthy to start with. Give yourself a
fighting chance to overcome these emergencies. Call it your medical
emergency fund.
Elizabeth Richardson
honda....@gmail.com
> >> > health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
> >> Evidence?
> > The statement is from general reading on the subject of health care
> > and insurance. Google, or if you're dug in, do not.
>
> In other words, you don't have any evidence so you want to shift the burden
> of finding it to me.
I am sticking with my words. It is much discussed. If you are really
interested, you can do some homework. I have given up using fora like
this to do more than toss out an idea. Those that are curious will
study it more.
> > Furthermore,
> > arguing that preventive medicine does not help reduce health care
> > costs is AFAIC ridiculous on its face.
>
> Good thing I'm not arguing that, then.
Then we have little disagreement.
> > It is also ridiculous to argue
> > with raw facts like infant mortality and average life expectancy being
> > worse in the U.S. while the U.S. spends much more. A reasonable person
> > would concede that an examination of why countries with national
> > health systems and who spend much less have healthier populations.
>
> If they do. Again, such a claim requires evidence.
You simply are not reading.
> As just one example, I have seen the claim that one reason that infant
> mortality in the US appears to be more common than in many other countries
> is that because of aggressive efforts to treat premature births in the US, a
> significant number of infants die in the US who would have been classified
> as "stillborn from natural causes" in other countries. It's easy to make
> statistics look good: Just refuse to treat the hard cases.
>
> > I do not know the facts of your claimed story about the UK and macular
> > degeneration. But I will put out there the elephant in the room: You
> > bet a national system will ration health services. This is exactly
> > what the U.S. system needs.
>
> Ah, but we started with the claim that other countries spend less on health
> care than the US because of preventive medicine. Now you are saying that
I said it was key. Preventive medicine alone is not the only way to
reduce costs. There is also rationing services to what actually is
proven; eliminating the god-awful insurance middlemen and ensuing
bureaucracy that is trillions of labor hours; probably a few other
things that I am too lazy to review because my sense is it is wasted
effort.
I choose my words carefully. When I make a glaring mistake, I try to
own it.
honda....@gmail.com
> A different doctor offered me the opinion that diabetes will bankrupt this
> country. The problem with diabetes is that it doesn't kill you outright, it
> sort of takes your life away bit by bit. You lose your quality of life and
> pay through the nose for the privilege. The largest percentage of true
> individual financial crises in this country, those causing bankruptcies,
> come about because of unforeseen medical emergencies. Of course, some of
> these are truly unforeseen. But many of them are complicated by the fact
> that the person wasn't particularly healthy to start with. Give yourself a
> fighting chance to overcome these emergencies. Call it your medical
> emergency fund.
This is what I was thinking when the one poster said he was going to
eat whatever he wanted, and so what if it took ten years off his life.
The costs of dealing with diabetes and other preventable (or
mitigatable--whatever the word is) diseases will bankrupt, never mind
the pain and loss of quality of life.
I sure hope that first doctor you mentioned was joking. OTOH, when I
hear of the medical school debts docs have, I am not surprised that
there may be a tendency to do whatever it takes to increase business
and not what is ethical.
honda....@gmail.com
> <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
> > health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
>
> Evidence?
One riveting example of how preventive medicine pays (that I had
momentarily forgotten): Safeway grocery stores CEO Steve Burd has been
leading a movement for health care reform. By my understanding Burd is
known to be, of course, an enthusiastic capitalist and
mostly conservative. The underlying principle of his health
care movement is preventive medicine. He implemented a
preventive plan with Safeway employees, and he has the
numbers (less dollars spent on health insurance; better
overall health for employees) to prove its effect.
Before anyone posts to shoot this notion down, please be ready with an
alternative solution to out-of-control health care costs, short of
letting all the poor die, which is illogical, because they are what
make the companies, whose stock people here own, keep producing.
Andrew Koenig
news:3e97a403-744a-4ef4...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> > Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
>> > health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
>> Evidence?
> One riveting example of how preventive medicine pays (that I had
> momentarily forgotten): Safeway grocery stores CEO Steve Burd has been
> leading a movement for health care reform.
This is shifting the subject again.
The claim is that "many other countries' health costs are so much lower than
the United States's" and that the key to this is preventive medicine.
The kind of evidence that would support this claim might be
Here is a list of five countries with health costs much lower than the
United States.
Here is evidence that preventive medicine is a key reason why these
costs are lower.
The claim says "many countries" so surely it should be easy to find five.
Offhand, I can't even think of one. I can think of countries where people's
diet is healthier, on average, than that of the US, but that doesn't count
as medicine, let alone preventive medicine, so it's irrelevant to the
original assertion.
Moreover, there still remains the problem of demonstrating that *preventive
medicine*, as in the original claim, has a key role in reducing costs in
these countries.
Elizabeth Richardson
"Chip" <chip....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:go4q17$oqh$1...@aioe.org...
Chip, thank you for questioning this, as I must restate. 65% of deaths of
those with diabetes are attributed heart disease and stroke and are often
not reported as truly being due to diabetes. These are the deaths that I was
speaking of as being preventable. And, in fact, most Type II diabetes is
preventable. The complications of diabetes are an extraordinary burden on
the health care community and all of us bear the burden through increased
insurance costs. You and I are paying dearly for that guy who wants to eat
everything and be a couch potato.
Elizabeth Richardson
Douglas Johnson
> But I will put out there the elephant in the room: You
>bet a national system will ration health services. This is exactly
>what the U.S. system needs.
The question is not whether the US system needs rationing. It already has it.
We ration it by who you happen to work for (corporate insurance), by age
(Medicare), by poverty (Medicaid), and by wealth (private pay or individual
insurance). Those that aren't in one of the privileged groups are out of luck.
Of course we need to ration health care. We need to ration any commodity where
the demand exceeds the supply. In a pure capitalist system this is done by
price. What we have now in health care is nothing close to a pure capitalist
system nor do I necessarily think it should be.
Which finally brings me around to the real point. The question is not whether
to ration health care, but how. Who gets what care and who decides? This is
ugly. There will be winners and losers. Both sides are going to fight like
hell. But rationing is the core issue. Anything else is smoke.
OK, I know there are inefficiencies that can be squeezed out. But that isn't
going to get everyone all the health care they want. It won't even get everyone
all the health care they need.
-- Doug
honda....@gmail.com
> <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3e97a403-744a-4ef4...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
> >> > health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
> >> Evidence?
> > One riveting example of how preventive medicine pays (that I had
> > momentarily forgotten): Safeway grocery stores CEO Steve Burd has been
> > leading a movement for health care reform.
>
> This is shifting the subject again.
It was intended to support that preventive medicine reduces health
care costs and goad the sincerely interested reader into reading about
what countries with lower per capita costs and better overall
healthiness statistics do.
Otherwise, I think you just want to split hairs over the use of the
word "many," an amusing Rush Limbaugh non-tactic. Go read about
countries with national health systems and lower per capita costs and
see what they are doing that makes a difference.
Why you would want to be so argumentative when you already concede
that preventive medicine lowers costs makes no sense, though.
honda....@gmail.com
> And, in fact, most Type II diabetes is
> preventable. The complications of diabetes are an extraordinary burden on
> the health care community and all of us bear the burden through increased
> insurance costs. You and I are paying dearly for that guy who wants to eat
> everything and be a couch potato.
In the words of G. Marx, the duck descends. In the current health
insurance system, there is too little deterrence for conduct
deleterious to health. Then we all pay for someone's (preventable)
irresponsibility.
Andrew Koenig
news:7f2bc815-baf3-4868...@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> It was intended to support that preventive medicine reduces health
> care costs and goad the sincerely interested reader into reading about
> what countries with lower per capita costs and better overall
> healthiness statistics do.
I already have a pretty good idea of what they do -- they refuse to pay for
care that is more expensive than they want.
> Otherwise, I think you just want to split hairs over the use of the
> word "many," an amusing Rush Limbaugh non-tactic. Go read about
> countries with national health systems and lower per capita costs and
> see what they are doing that makes a difference.
As I said, I already have a pretty good idea of what they do.
> Why you would want to be so argumentative when you already concede
> that preventive medicine lowers costs makes no sense, though.
I did not concede that preventive medicine lowers costs. I said that people
can influence their medical costs by their behavior, but that the nature of
that influence is often far from obvious and in any event such behavior does
not reasonably qualify as "preventive medicine." And in any event, this
claim is quite far from the original claim that preventive medicine is a key
reason why "many countries" spend less on health care than in the USA.
As a very simple example, imagine a child born with a congenital heart
defect that requires multiple operations to correct, and who will require
extensive (i.e. expensive) medical care for the rest of his life. I am
quite sure that in many countries, such a child would be allowed to die as
an infant, thus greatly reducing costs.
Or imagine someone who inadvertently eats a mushroom that destroys her
liver. Does she get a liver transplant, at a cost of $1 million or so, or
does she die? Again, if such expensive care is simply not an option, that
reduces costs.
Similarly for end-of-life care: My understanding is that most people incur
most of their medical expenses in the last year or so of their lives.
In order to convince me that "preventive medicine" is a key factor in costs,
you have to convince me that it makes more of a cost difference than denying
care to people such as these. My guess is that reliable accounting in such
matters is hard to find, because of how people would react if it were easy
to find.
Elizabeth Richardson
> <honda....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3e97a403-744a-4ef4...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Offhand, I can't even think of one. I can think of countries where
> people's diet is healthier, on average, than that of the US, but that
> doesn't count as medicine, let alone preventive medicine, so it's
> irrelevant to the original assertion.
If a doctor recommended a healthier diet, would you call it preventive
"medicine"? What kind of medicine would you call preventive? And, by the
way, I'm not on either side of this debate. I don't know enough about
medicine in other countries to know whether their nationalized health care
systems are preventive.
Elizabeth Richardson
HW "Skip" Weldon
>Before anyone posts to shoot this notion down, please be ready with an
>alternative solution to out-of-control health care costs, short of
>letting all the poor die, which is illogical, because they are what
>make the companies, whose stock people here own, keep producing.
To complement your preventive medicine idea (with which I fully
agree), how about the capitalist approach of increasing supply?
For example, remove barriers to Rx's from Canada and Mexico, allow a
hospital with full facilities in every city, allow a medical school as
part of any university, etc. (I say "allow" because currently special
interest groups limit the supply.)
-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC
JoeTaxpayer
HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:09:28 -0600, honda....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Before anyone posts to shoot this notion down, please be ready with an
>>alternative solution to out-of-control health care costs, short of
>>letting all the poor die, which is illogical, because they are what
>>make the companies, whose stock people here own, keep producing.
>
>
> To complement your preventive medicine idea (with which I fully
> agree), how about the capitalist approach of increasing supply?
My wife needed an endoscopy (to check out her stomach lining).
The bill came in, nearly $2000, insurance said $250 was reasonable, and
paid $225, with our copay $25.
The unfortunate soul who has no insurance either (a) gets a $2000 bill
he may never be able to pay off, or (b) passes on the tests, never gets
a proper diagnosis, and potentially this turns into a much larger
medical issue.
I never claim to have all the answers, but this appears to be a issue
with an easy path to resolution. This disparity between 'retail price'
and the amount the hospitals routinely accept from insurance providers
needs to be addressed.
Douglas Johnson
>To complement your preventive medicine idea (with which I fully
>agree), how about the capitalist approach of increasing supply?
There was an article in today's Dallas Morning News that suggest increasing
supply actually increases costs:
A short quote:
"Fisher, who heads the Dartmouth institute, said a likely cause of rapid
spending growth in a hospital region was an abundance of hospitals, specialty
care facilities and imaging diagnostics.
The more treatment is available, the more likely physicians are to use it –
especially when the Medicare payment system rewards the volume of patients
rather than the quality of care.
"If there's a local medical arms race, where each hospital system is trying to
have transplant centers, cancer centers and neuro-radiology centers, you're
probably looking at higher spending growth," he said"
-- Doug
Elizabeth Richardson
"HW "Skip" Weldon" <skip5700r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k96dq49a751e57r5m...@4ax.com...
>
> To complement your preventive medicine idea (with which I fully
> agree), how about the capitalist approach of increasing supply?
>
> For example, remove barriers to Rx's from Canada and Mexico, allow a
> hospital with full facilities in every city, allow a medical school as
> part of any university, etc. (I say "allow" because currently special
> interest groups limit the supply.)
>
I think this is much like the illegal drug issue. The supply has increased,
so has demand. I do not believe that the supply of illegal drugs has
increased because demand has increased, rather the reverse. The same may be
said of health care. Doctors in this country order lots of tests because
they can. They also order lots of tests because they need to CYA (CTA?) -
we are a litigious society.
Elizabeth Richardson
Andrew Koenig
news:Aqspl.402142$Mh5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Offhand, I can't even think of one. I can think of countries where
>> people's diet is healthier, on average, than that of the US, but that
>> doesn't count as medicine, let alone preventive medicine, so it's
>> irrelevant to the original assertion.
> If a doctor recommended a healthier diet, would you call it preventive
> "medicine"?
Yes, albeit barely. And if someone were to show me evidence that physicians
in other countries are much more apt to encourage patients to behave in
healthier ways than physicians in the USA, and that health-care costs were
lower in those countries largely as a result of this behavior on the part of
physicians, I would consider that evidence to support the original claim.
But so far no one has volunteered such evidence, and I doubt that such
evidence exists, because I think the real reasons that Americans spend so
much money on health care lie elsewhere. Indeed, what I believe the reasons
to be are more relevant to this newsgroup than the foregoing discussions
have been:
1) Economic incentives work. If most health care is paid by
"insurance," which provides a buffer between what services cost to provide
and what people pay for them, then they will not think about the actual
costs.
2) Economic incentives work, and sometimes not in the direction you
think. If you're running a hospital, and you're paid on a "cost-plus"
basis, then your only way to increase profits is to increase costs.
3) Regulation is expensive. I read once about a company that made
plaster of paris, which they sold to art-supply stores and hospitals. They
charged 100 times as much for the product they sold to hospitals as they did
for the product they sold to art-supply stores, even though the two products
were identical. They needed that cost difference to make up for the cost of
insurance and litigation. I know someone who was bitten by a tick recently
while on vacation in an area where Lyme disease is common. It cost $345 for
the emergency-room visit that was necessary to get permission to buy the
$1.66 antibiotic that was the universal first-line defense against tick
bites.
In other words: We have an economic structure that creates incentives to
make health care expensive, so it's expensive. What a surprise! I think
it's naive to believe that "preventive medicine," however you choose to
define it, can overrule these economic incentives.
Thumper
You are kidding aren't you? Supply side economics?
Thumper
Elizabeth Richardson
>
> In other words: We have an economic structure that creates incentives to
> make health care expensive, so it's expensive. What a surprise! I think
> it's naive to believe that "preventive medicine," however you choose to
> define it, can overrule these economic incentives.
I think that's what I've been saying. Doctors don't want you healthy. If you
want to reduce your health care costs, you've got to address the lifestyle
issues that will make it so.
Elizabeth Richardson
Elizabeth Richardson
"Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ejndq4pse9bpen8kf...@4ax.com...
>>I think this is much like the illegal drug issue. The supply has
>>increased,
>>so has demand. I do not believe that the supply of illegal drugs has
>>increased because demand has increased, rather the reverse. The same may
>>be
>>said of health care. Doctors in this country order lots of tests because
>>they can. They also order lots of tests because they need to CYA (CTA?) -
>>we are a litigious society.
>>
>
> You are kidding aren't you? Supply side economics?
In this case, no I am not kidding. We'd have plenty of supply if doctors
wanted healthy patients. How many pills does a person need? Doctors are way
to quick to prescribe a pill. It keeps you coming back. Why would they worry
about your coming back if there are so many sick people out there? Are they
worried they'll lose their practice? Give me a break. Our health care system
is broken because doctors don't want you to be healthy. It's a sick care
system, not a health care system. No amount of government intervention is
going to change that. Did you see the "down payment" price tag? $663 Billion
over 10 years. And that's the down payment! That isn't something we can
afford.
Elizabeth Richardson
Chip
>
> I think that's what I've been saying. Doctors don't want you healthy. If you
> want to reduce your health care costs, you've got to address the lifestyle
> issues that will make it so.
I take issue with your blanket statement. I have been to 2 diff docs in
the past month. a GP and a specialist. Both recommended more exercise
and diet change as the best for my condition. Both were reluctant to
prescribe any pills.
Chip
JoeTaxpayer
Elizabeth's was a generalization that I agree with. Finding an exception
doesn't really change its validity.
She focused on exercise and lifestyle. I'd ask, why is mainstream
medicine so anti-chiropractic? Years ago, I turned the wrong way and
threw my back out. A month of physical therapy and painkillers later, I
was still not recovered. A few visits to the chiropractor, and I was
back to 100%. How many work days are lost due to some employers'
insurance not covering chiropractic care? We're now straying off topic,
I believe.
Joe
TheMightyAtlas
wrote:
> <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote in message
My doctors have been telling me for 15 years to get more exercise and
watch what I eat more carefully. But so has my mother. So what the
doctor is saying doesn't amount to a prescription, most particularly
because it has a near-zero probability of actually changing my
behaviour.
Don't get me wrong. If the doctor prescribed a pill that would make me
violently ill everytime I ate a buttered scone, or would cause me
excruciating pain if I sat down for more than twenty minutes, I
wouldn't take the pills either.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Note to posters: While interesting, this thread is drifting away from financial planning.
rick++
those laid off after age 55.
Its hard to find a job then and cheap private insurance.
honda....@gmail.com
>
> >>Before anyone posts to shoot this notion down, please be ready with an
> >>alternative solution to out-of-control health care costs, short of
> >>letting all the poor die, which is illogical, because they are what
> >>make the companies, whose stock people here own, keep producing.
>
> > To complement your preventive medicine idea (with which I fully
> > agree), how about the capitalist approach of increasing supply?
>
> My wife needed an endoscopy (to check out her stomach lining).
> The bill came in, nearly $2000, insurance said $250 was reasonable, and
> paid $225, with our copay $25.
> The unfortunate soul who has no insurance either (a) gets a $2000 bill
> he may never be able to pay off, or (b) passes on the tests, never gets
> a proper diagnosis, and potentially this turns into a much larger
> medical issue.
Ya know this situation is exactly what I was trying to address with my
first post. I think it is directly back on-topic. From my reading, the
informed, uninsured soul almost assuredly will get that bill down on
the order of some 30-50%. The New York Times has been reporting amply
on this for a few years now. See the Times' archives. People without
insurance need to understand that they can negotiate bills way down.
It apparently has much to do with what Joe gets at below, the highly
ambiguous meaning of "retail price" for a medical service.
People with insurance but still with high medical bills, due to a
catastrophic event, also have a chance of negotiating bills down, from
my reading. The Times and some TV news specials has been reporting for
a few years now on folks with insurance driven to bankruptcy due to
medical bills. A 10% co-pay on a million dollar bill is not peanuts to
the typical family.
> I never claim to have all the answers, but this appears to be a issue
> with an easy path to resolution. This disparity between 'retail price'
> and the amount the hospitals routinely accept from insurance providers
> needs to be addressed.
Re Douglas's post on how supply increases demand and hence costs,
with /no improvement in health/: The NY Times archives has many
articles on this point, too. Most recently (and maybe it is just a
rehash of his Dallas article):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/business/26health.html?scp=1&sq=medicare%20varies&st=cse
honda....@gmail.com
> The question is not whether
> to ration health care, but how. Who gets what care and who decides? This is ugly.
According to many of their citizens, it is not ugly in Canada nor the
UK, to name two.
> OK, I know there are inefficiencies that can be squeezed out. But that isn't
> going to get everyone all the health care they want. It won't even get everyone
> all the health care they need.
I think your post demonstrates one of the key problems: The health
care people want is not necessarily "care." To get back on topic,
consumers should be open to doing research on the best course and not
just accept that every test, procedure or drug is the best course.
Talk to friends; look for specialized forums on the internet; etc.
Doctors are trained to cure, period. They will do every test under the
sun, every experimental procedure allowed, all in the name of curing.
What harm could it do, physically speaking, to the patient, after all.
(Some docs will prescribe just to line their wallets, too.) (Well
sometimes harm is done but I am trying to explain the conflicting
philosophies of medicine in general vs. one's pocketbook.)
Point is a person should not trust that a doctor is being cost
efficient.
One other on-topic point: Nurse practioners (RNs with a Masters degree
and/or specialized training) are much less expensive than regular docs
and can do as much as regular docs in many instances. E.g. annual
physicals. Shucks, a few years ago when I broke my poor lil' arm, I
estimate my total time with a doctor was about three minutes. Instead
over a total of three visits to medical facilities, I saw maybe three
RNs, one Physician's Assistant, one "Casting Technician" (very cute
but professional young man), two x-ray techs, and one Nurse
Practicioner.
honda....@gmail.com
> <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7f2bc815-baf3-4868...@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It was intended to support that preventive medicine reduces health
> > care costs and goad the sincerely interested reader into reading about
> > what countries with lower per capita costs and better overall
> > healthiness statistics do.
>
> I already have a pretty good idea of what they do -- they refuse to pay for
> care that is more expensive than they want.
>
> > Otherwise, I think you just want to split hairs over the use of the
> > word "many," an amusing Rush Limbaugh non-tactic. Go read about
> > countries with national health systems and lower per capita costs and
> > see what they are doing that makes a difference.
>
> As I said, I already have a pretty good idea of what they do.
>
> > Why you would want to be so argumentative when you already concede
> > that preventive medicine lowers costs makes no sense, though.
>
> I did not concede that preventive medicine lowers costs. I said that people
> can influence their medical costs by their behavior, but that the nature of
> that influence is often far from obvious and in any event such behavior does
> not reasonably qualify as "preventive medicine." And in any event, this
> claim is quite far from the original claim that preventive medicine is a key
> reason why "many countries" spend less on health care than in the USA.
I recommended that, if you were interested, do your homework. Too
often in my experience someone demands further citations, then gets
them, then proceeds to reject the citations on other grounds. My sense
is you are dug in and are making an issue black-and-white that is far
from being so. Hence I am claiming only that I have read abundantly on
this issue and consider preventive medicine to be key to the better
health of countries with national systems of health care.
Re preventive medicine: I think what is being overlooked are things
like getting kids in early for dental checkups, vaccinations, asthma
symptoms, etc. Much falls under the umbrella of "preventive medicine."
When you start a kid early seeing a doctor, ailments later in life can
be easily avoided. "Preventive medicine" is a philosophy with which a
culture can be imbued or not. I guess some here want to insist that
preventive medicine can happen without a national, universal payer,
health system, and that the healthiness of some countries with such
universal payer systems is not due to the health system. I suppose
preventive medicine can thusly happen. But it is my opinion, based on
a lot of reading, that it is more likely to happen with a universal
payer system. For goodoness sake, all kids getting their annual
checkups because they cost nothing (apart from taxes) is just one huge
boon to good heath for the long run.
Meanwhile, you do not seem to admit there are serious problems with
U.S. health care. As long as a person has this attitude, there is no
point in discussing these issues.
honda....@gmail.com
<skip5700removet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:09:28 -0600, honda.lion...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Before anyone posts to shoot this notion down, please be ready with an
> >alternative solution to out-of-control health care costs, short of
> >letting all the poor die, which is illogical, because they are what
> >make the companies, whose stock people here own, keep producing.
>
> To complement your preventive medicine idea (with which I fully
> agree), how about the capitalist approach of increasing supply?
>
> For example, remove barriers to Rx's from Canada and Mexico,
This has my vote. Many economic implications arise from this, but I am
trying to stay on-topic.
> allow a
> hospital with full facilities in every city, allow a medical school as
> part of any university, etc. (I say "allow" because currently special
> interest groups limit the supply.)
I think what you are saying is a little different from the point
Douglas (and the NY Times, etc.) raise. I agree with Douglas's point
but I think it is also quite true that special interest groups
interfere and force prices up. As another example of what is at work
here: My local paper reported on an outcry from physicians about
people using Nurse Practicioners. Physicians want to limit NPs more as
NPs increasingly own their own practices. NPs are way less expensive.
Many docs claim they are worried that NPs are not expert enough. Yet
NPs say they are trained for when they should refer a case to a doc.
Elizabeth Richardson
<honda....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6a3fc89-4d46-428f...@e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> According to many of their citizens, it is not ugly in Canada nor the
> UK, to name two.
>
You are hearing very, very different opinions from those two countries than
those I have heard is all I can say.
Elizabeth Richardson
honda....@gmail.com
> Elizabeth's was a generalization that I agree with. Finding an exception
> doesn't really change its validity.
> She focused on exercise and lifestyle. I'd ask, why is mainstream
> medicine so anti-chiropractic? Years ago, I turned the wrong way and
> threw my back out. A month of physical therapy and painkillers later, I
> was still not recovered. A few visits to the chiropractor, and I was
> back to 100%. How many work days are lost due to some employers'
> insurance not covering chiropractic care? We're now straying off topic,
I think your anecdote is comletely on-topic. It may save some soul the
trouble of finding an MD when s/he should maybe consult a
chiropractor. Non-traditional approaches to care should be considered
by consumers. If they work, they will eventually be accepted by health
insurers and physicians. Indeed just the other week my physician
neighbor commented about how chiropractic "manipulation" used to be a
dirty word to physicians. No more. Indeed my good friend's insurance
now covers her chiropractic visits. (Not true of all insurers, as Joe
wrote, though.)
I think the internet, used thoughtfully to share stories such as this,
can save consumers much money, time and trouble.
Elizabeth Richardson
"TheMightyAtlas" <themigh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82bc8f4-3b52-4f42...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> My doctors have been telling me for 15 years to get more exercise and
> watch what I eat more carefully. But so has my mother. So what the
> doctor is saying doesn't amount to a prescription, most particularly
> because it has a near-zero probability of actually changing my
> behaviour.
I thought we were talking about the costs of the medical profession getting
you back to health. If you won't do that which will make you healthy (take a
walk or take the pill), why would you bother spending the time and/or money
to visit your health care professional?
Elizabeth Richardson
Andrew Koenig
> I thought we were talking about the costs of the medical profession
> getting you back to health.
We were actually talking about the claim that health-care costs are less in
many countries than they are in the USA because those other countries
emphasize preventive medicine more than in the USA.
I asked for facts, rather than unsupported opinions, to back up this claim.
So far, I have seen
* Repeated attempts to change the subject.
* Unsupported opinions in favor of various claims of varying relevance.
* Statements that I should do my own research, and
* Ad-hominem attacks.
So far, however, I have not seen a single response that directly addresses
my request for facts.
honda....@gmail.com
> You are hearing very, very different opinions from those two countries than
> those I have heard is all I can say.
Do you have any solutions to suggest, or have you just given up on the
U.S. health care system, which you have called sick, and feel each
individual has to muddle through, doing as much prev medicine as
possible? It is tiring to hear some people knock the UK and Canadian
systems all the time and meanwhile, offer nothing to solve what is one
of the biggest econ yada problems today in the U.S.
Elizabeth Richardson
<honda....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac0cc35f-3a35-49c5...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 10:41 am, "Elizabeth Richardson"
> Do you have any solutions to suggest, or have you just given up on the
> U.S. health care system, which you have called sick
Elle, I believe you are misunderstanding me when I call our system a sick
care system. I call it that because I believe that the medical professionals
are only interested in the sickness which currently presents itself, not the
health of the individual. I believe the only change to be helpful is if the
system is geared toward a healthy population, and that the population
actually wants to be healthy. At the present time, I believe, as a
generalization, neither of these conditions currently exist. Until that
happens we will not be addressing it from an economic standpoint. I believe
government is not the answer to this problem. I believe that getting
government involved will only further the economic problem.
Since I define the problem differently than "access", my solution requires a
change in mindset. Change will not come about by just throwing money at
insurance schemes. But if we insist on spending government money, what if it
were spent involving Madison Avenue in a propaganda campaign to change the
mindset of the population to actually want to be healthy? That living a
healthy lifestyle should be embraced? I use the term Madison Avenue loosely,
here, though I believe advertising in all media should be part of it. Does
it raise the standard if I call it education - not just the school age
population, though that is necessary, but people beyond school age, too.
Would this not lead to medical teams being more efficiently utilized who
would address real medical problems rather than the contrived ones brought
about by obesity, smoking, and general dissipation?
Elizabeth Richardson
Chip
> I believe advertising in all media should be part of it. Does
> it raise the standard if I call it education - not just the school age
> population, though that is necessary, but people beyond school age, too.
> Would this not lead to medical teams being more efficiently utilized who
> would address real medical problems rather than the contrived ones brought
> about by obesity, smoking, and general dissipation?
>
Trying to keep the discussion on financial matters. Tobacco in
particular has had $Billions spent in educational and media funding for
20 or so years. Tobacco ads are banned from public media.
What is the result (in the USA)? - "The leading causes of death in 2000
were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths)..."
I'm afraid that education does not work in these matters. Just think of
the millions of articles every year that say diet and exercise will
extend your life.
People do what people do- you can tell them tell you are blue in the
face. The vast majority just keep on doing.
Chip
Elizabeth Richardson
"Chip" <chip....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:go9jfu$npl$1...@aioe.org...
>
> People do what people do- you can tell them tell you are blue in the face.
> The vast majority just keep on doing.
>
But should I have to pay for it? I cannot afford to support the health care
of those who refuse to try to be healthy, and to support a health care
community who caters to them, and that is what I would be doing if we were
to adopt universal health care (to keep it on personal finance). And, Chip,
yes, tobacco continues to kill. I seem to recall, however, that the number
of US smokers is declining.
Elizabeth Richardson
Elizabeth Richardson
> I asked for facts, rather than unsupported opinions, to back up this
> claim. So far, I have seen
>
> * Repeated attempts to change the subject.
> * Unsupported opinions in favor of various claims of varying relevance.
> * Statements that I should do my own research, and
> * Ad-hominem attacks.
>
> So far, however, I have not seen a single response that directly addresses
> my request for facts.
Andrew, I have not made such a claim, and will never do so, as I do not
believe it. Please refrain from insisting that I support such a claim.
Elizabeth Richardson
Andrew Koenig
> Andrew, I have not made such a claim, and will never do so, as I do not
> believe it. Please refrain from insisting that I support such a claim.
> Elizabeth Richardson
I never said that you made such a claim. In fact, it was honda.lioness who
made the claim, in these words:
> Practice preventive medicine. This is key to why many other countries'
> health costs are so much lower than the United States's.
However, your reply to my request for evidence to support this claim was:
> 65% of all deaths in the US due to diabetes, heart disease, and stroke can
> be prevented. Exercise, eat a healthy diet, see your physician annually.
> That's your prescription for reducing health care costs. I doubt the
> government will come up with one better.
This is one example of a statement that, true or not, does not address the
original claim. And if were to debate it, that would be an example of
changing the subject.
Thumper
They don't live in fear of losing everything they have due to health
care bills in either of those two countries.
Thumper
Elizabeth Richardson
>> Andrew, I have not made such a claim, and will never do so, as I do not
>> believe it. Please refrain from insisting that I support such a claim.
>
>
> who made the claim, in these words:
>
>
>
>> 65% of all deaths in the US due to diabetes, heart disease, and stroke
>> can be prevented. Exercise, eat a healthy diet, see your physician
>> annually. That's your prescription for reducing health care costs. I
>> doubt the government will come up with one better.
>
> This is one example of a statement that, true or not, does not address the
> original claim. And if were to debate it, that would be an example of
> changing the subject.
Was it changing the subject? I was addressing the request for evidence that
preventive medicine reduces health care costs, which it does, though my
original statement was/is misleading. True, that is not exactly the subject
of the cost in *other* countries. As I said, I don't know (or believe) that
preventive medicine is being practiced in other countries, or even what the
cost of medical care is in other countries.
Elizabeth Richardson
honda....@gmail.com
> Since I define the problem differently than "access", my solution requires a
> change in mindset. Change will not come about by just throwing money at
> insurance schemes. But if we insist on spending government money, what if it
> were spent involving Madison Avenue in a propaganda campaign to change the
> mindset of the population to actually want to be healthy? That living a
> healthy lifestyle should be embraced? I use the term Madison Avenue loosely,
> here, though I believe advertising in all media should be part of it. Does
> it raise the standard if I call it education - not just the school age
> population, though that is necessary, but people beyond school age, too.
> Would this not lead to medical teams being more efficiently utilized who
> would address real medical problems rather than the contrived ones brought
> about by obesity, smoking, and general dissipation?
I think your proposal should be incorporated into health care reform.
Make the fight against preventive health care illiteracy the new
national fight du jour. Well done.
honda....@gmail.com
Tobacco in
> particular has had $Billions spent in educational and media funding for
> 20 or so years. Tobacco ads are banned from public media.
>
> What is the result (in the USA)? - "The leading causes of death in 2000
> were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths)..."
I believe smoking is way down from, say, the 1950s as a result of
warnings about its dangers.
> I'm afraid that education does not work in these matters. Just think of
> the millions of articles every year that say diet and exercise will
> extend your life.
The education on dental care has not helped?
> People do what people do- you can tell them tell you are blue in the
> face. The vast majority just keep on doing.
Too many think improving the health of a society will have a black-and-
white solution. But with sociological behavior and genetics being so
varied, IMO all public policy makers can bank on is averages. Will a
bona fide campaign to promote getting child in for his/her (I believe
now free) annual/semi-annual physical and dental checkups help? How
about school breakfast programs? What about finacial enticements that
reward good health behavior. (If you have not already, I urge reading
what Steve Burd did with Safeway's employees' health via preventive
medicine.) These programs are not going to help everyone. Folks are
still going to get cancer, for one. But disease on a mass scale can be
reduced.
Before shooting down others' solution, I think people should post
their own well considered one.
honda....@gmail.com
> They don't live in fear of losing everything they have due to
health
> care bills in either of those two countries.
Heard yesterday on one of the public radio stations:
Half of all bankruptcies due to medical bill debt happen to those who
have health insurance or started with health insurance when they were
stricken. This is another argument for the practice of preventive
medicine being a part of one's financial planning. It won't stop all
disease but it will help.
Chip
joint, total $3300. Each took about 20 min of tech time. They should
have that $M machine paid off in about 2 months at that rate.
I paid $50 copay. Don't know what my Advantage Medicare type insurance
actually pays. But I did need their OK before scheduling the
appointment. Thank god, my wife retired as a public school teacher with
good health insurance.
Chip