France best, U.S. worst in preventable deaths

[Gilding the Lily]

Not necessarily. This country does not look long term. I'll have to see if I can find it again but I remember reading that the cost of taking care of uninsured medical problems (illegals not with standing) is huge. If the people who did not have insurance were able to get preventative care, the costs would be substantially less.

People do not like giving others a free ride and I understand (even agree to a point) but if the people are going to get care regardless ten I would rather do it the cheapest way possible. I do not think you expect people to e turned out on the street if they cannot afford care so if we have to care for them anyway, would it not behoove us to find a better way to do it?

Garfield...

Ask yourself this question: If people are already able to get easy gov't care through ER or whatever (whether reactive healthcare or not), then why are so many people complaining about the costs???

I definitely agree with the short-sighted comment. There is a better way... one way to do it is to get rid of judicial hell-holes such as St. Clair County.

You cannot reduce the costs of healthcare without reducing the public's overconsumption of such healthcare. There are many ways that healthcare consumers can have an incentive to not go to the doctor as much or not consume useless medical procedures or medicine... and it doesn't have much to do with the government.

I know I mentioned this once before on another thread, but it is worth mentioning again I think:

One way is to use a more in-depth system of medical savings accounts. Rather than employers (where appropriate) paying for a percentage of all your healh insurance, they should put some money into a medical savings account for each employee. Then, perhaps a much smaller amount for catastrophic health care insurance could be maintained by the employer. If the money from the medical account is not used by years end, it gets rolled over into a retirement account. This would give patients/medical consumers an incentive to only use the doctor or procedures when necessary or beneficial from a cost/benefit analysis. This would also help with the all-so-common billing errors. When it is the patient's money that could be used in retirement, they will care whether the doctor charged them twice for latex gloves. It also gives the public an opportunity to make their own priorities in their life, instead of forcing priorities on them, which a severely taxed social healthcare system would do.

 

[Garfield1966]

People who are getting a free ride are not complaining. The couple in the ER were not complaining about the cost as there was none for them. The people who are complaining are folks like you and I who have to pay not only for our self but for them as well (just like with uninsured motorists).

I agree with you 100% about reducing consumption as well. People need to start taking better care of themselves and becoming less of a burden on society.
I like the incentive plan you laid out how ever unless that is paired up with cost restructuring I do not see how anyone would be able to afford a heart transplant or medical care for preemies or children who are born with physical defects that were not discovered prior to birth.

I realize this may be somewhat off the topic but I am curious as to your answer. Give the fact that we are discussing how to reduce medical costs how would you respond to the following:

1. Artificial insemination. I have a relative who did that. They paid for the artificial insemination but they ended up with 3 infants who were born preemie. There were in ICU for several month to the tune of over $1 million dollars in health care. That is something they will never be able to repay and insurance has to pick up the tab that is passed along to us. Do we ban the procedure do to its risk/cost to society? Do we make you bond up to cover your costs and refund you what you don’t use (I kind of like that idea)? I don’t know.

2. If you are having a child and it is found to have a birth defect that will cost $x.xx amount to fix or sustain. Do we say you cannot have the child unless you bond up or prove financial resources? Will we force the couple to abort the child?

3. I forget who the person was but he was famous in sports I believe. He was an alcoholic IIRC who destroyed his liver and needed a new one. There was some sort of scandal that he bought his way to the top of the list and got a transplant (I think). Should someone who obviously did not take care of themselves be left to die? Kids may have done something stupid (drug use) when they were young but cleaned up as an adult…what about them?

I do not know how much these type of situations contribute to our health care burden but I found myself being very angry in the first situation. I’m just curious. I do not have answers myself, at least not any that I would be willing to enforce face to face. I do not think I could ever tell a couple that “your kid has X defect which could be repaired at a cost of $x.xx which you do not have or have access to so sorry, …â€￾. How do you justify spending over $1 million dollars on saving 3 infants when that money could have saved hundreds if not thousands of other children through nutrition programs, vaccinations, family planning and what not.

 

[Veritas]

3. I forget who the person was but he was famous in sports I believe. He was an alcoholic IIRC who destroyed his liver and needed a new one. There was some sort of scandal that he bought his way to the top of the list and got a transplant (I think). Should someone who obviously did not take care of themselves be left to die?

Mickey Mantle.

The 1995 case of Mickey Mantle's liver transplant was worrisome to many on both accounts. Mantle, a famous baseball player, was 63 years old, and had spent 43 years as an alcoholic. Although he had been recovering from his alcoholism for a year and a half, his liver was ruined due to both alcoholism and hepatitis C. The hepatitis C was believed to have been contracted from a blood transfusion he received during surgery for a sports-related injury, but may have been contracted during a life-time of drunken womanizing, as well. In addition, he had a tumor in his liver, called a hepatoma, which compressed his bile duct. Although the average wait time on the list to receive a liver in 1995 was three to four months, Mantle received his in a day. However, though the tumor in his liver had not been cancerous, the underside of his liver did have cancerous cells. The transplant went ahead as planned, but the cancer then spread to his lungs, and Mantle died 3 months after his transplant. Critics charged that Mantle was only given a liver so quickly due to his public prominence. Others charged that he should not have been given a liver because of either his alcoholism or his cancer, both of which are reasons not to place someone on the list at some transplant centers.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

People who are getting a free ride are not complaining. The couple in the ER were not complaining about the cost as there was none for them. The people who are complaining are folks like you and I who have to pay not only for our self but for them as well (just like with uninsured motorists).

I agree with you 100% about reducing consumption as well. People need to start taking better care of themselves and becoming less of a burden on society.
I like the incentive plan you laid out how ever unless that is paired up with cost restructuring I do not see how anyone would be able to afford a heart transplant or medical care for preemies or children who are born with physical defects that were not discovered prior to birth.

I realize this may be somewhat off the topic but I am curious as to your answer. Give the fact that we are discussing how to reduce medical costs how would you respond to the following...

You said it, bud. The people complaining are the ones (you and I) paying for everyone else. I am healthy and I hardly ever need to see a doctor... I don't want to pay for another's unhealthy lifestyle. If they get a socialized healthcare system, they will take even more of an advantage of my taxes.... because they can.

You are right, a restructuring is in order no matter what happens in the near future. You and I, after hours of discussion and with the extensive help of experts could probably up with a decent plan... unfortunately, the state or our current political system does not currently lend itself to solving these types of problems.

As for your questions... that is what the catostrophic insurance would be for. I am not an Insurance policy writer so I cannot tell you what could and could not fit into the "catostrophic insurance" category... but it's purpose would be to cover many of the procedures and other things that could not be covered by the health savings account that is provided by employers. Obviously, such a system could not be the of-all and end-all of a health care program.... but I think it provides the appropriate amount of incentives to make people think about living healthier lives... rather than rewarding someone for being less healthy, which a social health care system may well do.

 

[Garfield1966]

I guess I am unclear on your idea of catastrophic health care. I look at it as we all have to pay into it. If we all put $10 a week into the pot and my relatives need to take out $1 million (that’s 2083 years at $10 a week if my math is right) who pays for the extra? Seems to me that any plan you have that is not completely independent (I pay for just my own use) is going to involve someone getting hosed. Someone has to pay for the large claims right?

 

[777 fixer]

Yes 777 I saw that as well and I agree, it is a bit twisted.

I agree that we are a big part of the problem but there are other substantial issues with our health care system.

My mom was in Germany several years ago (about 6 or 7) and she fell. She broke her elbow/arm in 3 different locations (she was in her mid 70's at the time). She was in the hospital for 11 days. She had surgery where they placed several screws and a plate in her arm. She had IV antibiotics, PT and a semi-private room for the entire 11 days. When my dad got the bill several weeks later in came out to a whopping $5k and change. The insurance he had would not cover it. Aside from the fact that had she been treated in the US she would have been booted from the hospital in a day or 2 max, no PT, no IV ....etc. And aside from the fact that the cost probably would have been 4 or 5 or more times more expensive. Why on earth should we have a health care system that charges that much money and gives such crappy service? I would rather be paying more tax and having a health system tat will be there for me when I need it.

Now I know our government/we are not capable of running a health care system such as what my mom experienced in Germany (perhaps we should hire the Germans to run it for us?) but my point is that we are not the sole cause of the problems with our system (or perhaps we are insofar as our apathy has allowed it to get to it's current state).

I hear what you are saying. I'll be the first to admit that we are not the sole cause of the problems. The issue is much to complex for that. We just are a large contributing factor, no pun intended.

I've talked about this before that there needs to be some kind of basic health care in this country. As you already know people who are not getting the proper preventative medicine end up using the ER as their doctor. Which of course is incredibly more expensive than normal preventative care. How such a system would work I have no idea. If I had the answer for that I wouldn’t be working midnights at an airline.

The German do have they act together that's for sure. My parents have older friends whose son did a lot of business in Europe. He was in Germany when he had a heart attack. The kind of heart attack that if you don't get the proper care within the first couple hours you're dead. Well the German hospital/doctors did it by the numbers and he lived, and the bill was not that bad. On a side not even though his favorite country in Europe was Italy even he admitted if he been in Italy he probably would have expired.

 

[Garfield1966]

I hear what you are saying. I'll be the first to admit that we are not the sole cause of the problems. The issue is much to complex for that. We just are a large contributing factor, no pun intended.

I've talked about this before that there needs to be some kind of basic health care in this country. As you already know people who are not getting the proper preventative medicine end up using the ER as their doctor. Which of course is incredibly more expensive than normal preventative care. How such a system would work I have no idea. If I had the answer for that I wouldn’t be working midnights at an airline.

The German do have they act together that's for sure. My parents have older friends whose son did a lot of business in Europe. He was in Germany when he had a heart attack. The kind of heart attack that if you don't get the proper care within the first couple hours you're dead. Well the German hospital/doctors did it by the numbers and he lived, and the bill was not that bad. On a side not even though his favorite country in Europe was Italy even he admitted if he been in Italy he probably would have expired.

Under the current form of government that we have the only way I see is for the national government to say "there will be a national health care for every man woman and child in the US who is here legally". I see a few options. I national system. Not really in favor of that as a 1 size fits all does not seem to fit anyone well. On a state level I think it would work better but I think the funds still need to come from the fed level so that states that are not as rich will still have enough funds to care for the ill. Or I guess it could be done on a private enterprise level. Maybe all the health care providers can get together and pool their resources and say that we will provide care for everyone at $x.xx a head. The books need to be open and price guide lines would need to be set. Aspirin does not cost $6 and a IV does not run $100. I guess while we are at it, we can get the drug companies in on the act as well.

I am tired of people making money off of other peoples suffering. The fact that the girl died while the insurance company was debating on whether or not to allow a possible life saving procedure is grotesque. I find it ironic that the republicans who were so willing to allow th state to interfere in Florida to force a brain dead woman to live on were not willing to step in and force an insurance company to to allow a living, breathing, breathing, thinking, laughing, crying girl to live.

Profit needs to be taken out of the medical field to the degree that it interferes with the actual job of the medical field which is to cure the sick and save the dying.

 

[777 fixer]

Under the current form of government that we have the only way I see is for the national government to say "there will be a national health care for every man woman and child in the US who is here legally". I see a few options. I national system. Not really in favor of that as a 1 size fits all does not seem to fit anyone well. On a state level I think it would work better but I think the funds still need to come from the fed level so that states that are not as rich will still have enough funds to care for the ill. Or I guess it could be done on a private enterprise level. Maybe all the health care providers can get together and pool their resources and say that we will provide care for everyone at $x.xx a head. The books need to be open and price guide lines would need to be set. Aspirin does not cost $6 and a IV does not run $100. I guess while we are at it, we can get the drug companies in on the act as well.

I am tired of people making money off of other peoples suffering. The fact that the girl died while the insurance company was debating on whether or not to allow a possible life saving procedure is grotesque. I find it ironic that the republicans who were so willing to allow th state to interfere in Florida to force a brain dead woman to live on were not willing to step in and force an insurance company to to allow a living, breathing, breathing, thinking, laughing, crying girl to live.

Profit needs to be taken out of the medical field to the degree that it interferes with the actual job of the medical field which is to cure the sick and save the dying.

Maybe a combination national and private system. The national system to ensure everyone has some sort of basic care.

I know people like to point out countries like Germany. However we have to remember what works in one country might not work so well in another. Having spent some time in Germany myself I can say that if you give a German a rule or regualtion he will follow it to the letter. If you give an American a rule/regualtion we will either find a way to get around it of defy it.

 

[local 12 proud]

Well there is one other option....

You can always move to Germany and enjoy their superior health care.

 

[Garfield1966]

Well there is one other option....

You can always move to Germany and enjoy their superior health care.

I would rather stay here and try and improve ours.

 

[777 fixer]

Well there is one other option....

You can always move to Germany and enjoy their superior health care.

Are you going to try and tell me the health care system in this country is perfect? Yes I know we have some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. However when you look at the number of Americans that declare BK due to medical bills I would say there's room for improvement.

And I have no intention of moving to Germany. While they may have a good health care system, not to mention the country itself, they have their own set of issues. Like unemployment rates that hover between seven to ten percent. Since companies like Mercedes Benz and BMW have production lines here in spite of that unemployment rate it tells you the business climate is a bit more favorable in the US.

 

[delldude]

I am tired of people making money off of other peoples suffering.

Like in the airlines and baggage?

 

[KCFlyer]

Are you going to try and tell me the health care system in this country is perfect? Yes I know we have some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. However when you look at the number of Americans that declare BK due to medical bills I would say there's room for improvement.

And I have no intention of moving to Germany. While they may have a good health care system, not to mention the country itself, they have their own set of issues. Like unemployment rates that hover between seven to ten percent. Since companies like Mercedes Benz and BMW have production lines here in spite of that unemployment rate it tells you the business climate is a bit more favorable in the US.

Here's the problem 777...the naysayers claim we want a health care system that is just like Canada or Germany or France. They couldn't be further from the truth. We are AMERICA - we can do better than them. Most people take for granted that the insurance that they get from their employer (most Americans) costs a LOT. For me and my daughter (employee plus one coverage), my company and I pay about $1300 per month. I pay about $200 of it. I think it's might benevolent of my employer to pay the other $1100...and despite that chunk of change - my health care is at the mercy of some insurance company actuary whose sole job is to try to find ways to deny claims.

There's a better way than what we have - and I still think that even if we had a bit higher taxes - American companies would become more competitive in the "global market"...which might result in more jobs for Americans (who would funnel more tax dollars into the health care fund). They could take the "high risk" tax on cigarettes and use it towards the health care fund (about $3 a pack of cigs)...they could put a "high risk" tax on alcohol and yes...junk food. Call it a "users fee". There's a lot of ways that everybody could be covered in this country...a middle ground if you will. Unfortunately, I think that the days of politicians seeking a 'middle ground' are just memories.

 

[777 fixer]

Here's the problem 777...the naysayers claim we want a health care system that is just like Canada or Germany or France. They couldn't be further from the truth. We are AMERICA - we can do better than them. Most people take for granted that the insurance that they get from their employer (most Americans) costs a LOT. For me and my daughter (employee plus one coverage), my company and I pay about $1300 per month. I pay about $200 of it. I think it's might benevolent of my employer to pay the other $1100...and despite that chunk of change - my health care is at the mercy of some insurance company actuary whose sole job is to try to find ways to deny claims.

I always get a good laugh when I listen to guys on the message boards, and at work, complain about health insurance rates going up. It's almost as if they think AA is trying to screw them out of their money. Hello, everyones rates are going up! If my wife and I got our helath insurance through her employeer we would be paying three times what we are now with AA. Guess they don't realize what others are paying out of pocket.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I think it's might benevolent of my employer to pay the other $1100...and despite that chunk of change - my health care is at the mercy of some insurance company actuary whose sole job is to try to find ways to deny claims.

While it is unnerving to think of the process involved with denying claims, just imagine the additional costs that would be passsed to the consumer if such actuaries did not exist to deny claims - - particularly the novel or frivolous types.

I could live with a "users tax" as you put it... that would put more of the burden on the people who may live unhealthy lifestyles. It also may create an incentive to live a healthier lifestyle, thereby potentially lowering the costs of a health care system.

As with all plans, the pragmatics are frustrating.