Fix Healthcare

[geojen]

Scanner, you bring up an interesting point--I think the health care system and the education system are intrinsically linked--and no one is talking about that. Probably, because it goes against our national psyche of "liberty." The difference between the kinds of majors we are pumping out (as you say, massage therapists, etc) compared with China and India (for example) I think goes back to education. The Chinese, for example, revere education. They fund it well and prepare students for careers that are in demand and relevant in today's global economy.

We say we think education is important. But, like health care, it is only important as long as it is cheap. If you disagree, please explain to me why there is such a huge disparity in the quality of education in this country. Explain to me why in my town, the school just asked for 600,000 dollars to make some of their rooms handi-cap accessible, upgrade the electrical (which hadn't been done since the 50's) and repair the pool, it got voted down. Were those unreasonable requests? No, but people don't want to pay. Period. So it is with health care.

Until people realize that you can't get something for nothing, we are in a real pickle here. That is why the government probably needs to step in in some form or another, because left up the individual, it is "always in someone else's back yard."

Perhaps I have gone off topic. If so, I apologize.

[swanson719]

Taiwans system sounds an awful lot like what we have here, just with a lot of gov't strings attached, i.e. the price control measures. Health care lobbies would never allow a plan like that to come to fruition because the essence of it's success is that all health care companies are run as non-profits. My question to that is how does medical research get done without gov't funding? I understand there are numerous grants for research here, U.S. Government Funds $400,000 Study on Gay Sex in Argentina Bars - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com , some the very definition of wasteful, but what is the incentive for medical companies to work as a non-profit? There would have to be a great deal of subsidization at some point.

I don't get the thing that we don't have a choice in what insurance we have. Part of getting a job is making sure our families are provided for. Thus, part of choosing an employer is the health insurance they provide. Switching employers to find the health care plan that works best for you isn't such a bad idea, IF health care is an issue in your situation. It's one thing for everyone in a household to be generally healthy and only have routine doctor visits, but a totally different situation to have a child with a life changing disorder. Employers don't have to meet you halfway on anything, but the good ones try to take care of their employees. Bayer Chemical is hiring like crazy these days, and they have Aetna, which offers many different insurance options to fit a families needs. They still have a lifetime cap, and it's difficult for them to accept pre-existing conditions, but the argument that switching jobs doesn't solve the problem is flawed. Employers must market themselves to the segment of society they want to hire, likewise individuals must market themselves to employers they want to work for. If someone cant get a job with the insurance they want, then maybe it's time for them to market themselves differently and get a better job.

[asmom]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

I agree with your point but I have to take issue with your example.

I treat a large Medicaid population and those patients tend to come in for very minor complaints because it doesn't cost them anything to see the doctor and it doesn't cost them anything to fill a prescription.

Interesting. I just want to point out that free can also work in the reverse. Here in Georgia, Medicaid patients have to pay a co-pay both for doctors' visits and medications, although it is minimal. As a result, they may delay or skip routine healthcare until it becomes a bigger, more expensive problem.

Secondly, up until about a year ago I worked in an inner-city, public hospital which is where the uninsured and many of those on Medicaid in the metro area are treated. I can honestly say that this particular system discourages healthcare and treatment. People don't show up here until they have no other choice, until it hurts to move, until they can't breathe. Routine primary care appointments take weeks to months. Specialists take months to a year. Filling new prescriptions takes from 4-6 hours. There is no elective surgery or frills of any kind. And I don't care how bad your situation is, you will not be checked in to be seen unless you have your co-pay or security will escort you out excepting the ER. By the way, people have been known to wait up to 24 hours to be seen and treated in emergency and I have heard of people waiting on stretchers for 1-3 days for a bed although that goes on in private hospitals too. No one goes there unless they think they absolutely have to.


This system might sound like what some people think the poor and the uninsured deserve. But it costs the taxpayers much more in the long run.
Not just in terms of healthcare but in other ways also. While the working poor are waiting to be diagnosed and treated for their illness, taking whole days off to go to the clinic because that is how long it takes, they are missing days from work. There is very low tolerance for absenteeism in this workforce population so they often lose their jobs. So what happens when they lose their job? They end up on welfare. With every job loss, it is more and more difficult to get back on your feet especially if you have a debilitating illness. When they end up disabled by the chronic condition that wasn't treated as well as it could have been? They go on disability although some of you would be gratified to know that in Georgia, it often takes 1-3 years to get on disability.

The public health system in Georgia would be a great model of how not to do healthcare. I don't know how to fix healthcare although a nonpunitive system that focuses on prevention and education and eases access rather than puts up barriers has to be much better and cheaper than the reactive form of healthcare that currently exists.

[asmom]

Originally Posted by swanson719

My question to that is how does medical research get done without gov't funding?

By pharmaceutical companies and special interest groups.

Originally Posted by swanson719

Employers must market themselves to the segment of society they want to hire, likewise individuals must market themselves to employers they want to work for. If someone cant get a job with the insurance they want, then maybe it's time for them to market themselves differently and get a better job.

How does one find a job based on the health insurance? How do you know what policies they offer and the intricacies of what the insurance will and won't pay for without being hired first? I'm serious. My husband has covered our health insurance for the past 20 years so it's never been an issue for me but I've never applied for a job knowing in advance what the insurance was like.

[geojen]

Originally Posted by asmom

By pharmaceutical companies and special interest groups.

Originally Posted by asmom

And universities, who do the bulk of medical research now.



How does one find a job based on the health insurance? How do you know what policies they offer and the intricacies of what the insurance will and won't pay for without being hired first? I'm serious. My husband has covered our health insurance for the past 20 years so it's never been an issue for me but I've never applied for a job knowing in advance what the insurance was like.

The simple answer is you don't. Even if you could, by some means, get a hold of a companies insurance policy before you have gotten the job, that may change anytime the company decides it wants to change benefits. A company I previously worked for changed insurance companies every year. Every single year I had to check to make sure my doctors were still in network, go through a paperwork hassle, etc. I had no choice in this, save get another job. Coincidentally, I did get another job, but I was not allowed to see the intricacies of the health insurance until I got the job. Not before.

[asmom]

Originally Posted by simpleyme

i have always wondered why teeth and eyes do not count either!I was so sick with a sore tooth once that I could not get up and am convinced I was going to die of infection ,yet I did not go to a doctor but a dentist,I was really sick!

I had a cousin who died of a dental abcess so yeah, it's important not a luxury".....(disclaimer; this was back in the 60's but still it's possible)

[asmom]

Originally Posted by geojen

The simple answer is you don't. Even if you could, by some means, get a hold of a companies insurance policy before you have gotten the job, that may change anytime the company decides it wants to change benefits.

That's exactly right. They can change and they do.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by swanson719

I don't get the thing that we don't have a choice in what insurance we have. Part of getting a job is making sure our families are provided for. Thus, part of choosing an employer is the health insurance they provide. Switching employers to find the health care plan that works best for you isn't such a bad idea

As others have said, this really doesn't make sense. Many employers change insurance coverage annually to minimize costs. My office does this so I'm well aware of the process. Each spring, we meet with the insurance agent to review our options and pick the one that works best for us. I'm involved in the process only because it is a small business with only 6 full-time employees so everyone is involved. That isn't true with a larger company. Management reviews the options and makes the decision for everyone.

It isn't feasible to change jobs every time the coverage changes if you don't like the new plan. You could find yourself job hunting every year.

[WeirdLinguist]

job seekers don't usually ask about details of the insurance plan. The extent of the health insurance discussion is usually "What kind of insurance do you have" "Health, dental" "no optical" "no". People don't ask what type of plan etc and that would seem weird if someone did. Thus employers usually just go for the cheapest one.

[Scanner]

I think employers, at least large, usually go for a cheap one and an upgraded cheap one, like an HMO or a PPO or POS.

[geojen]

[quote=swanson719;219663]Taiwans system sounds an awful lot like what we have here, just with a lot of gov't strings attached, i.e. the price control measures. Health care lobbies would never allow a plan like that to come to fruition because the essence of it's success is that all health care companies are run as non-profits. My question to that is how does medical research get done without gov't funding? I understand there are numerous grants for research here, U.S. Government Funds $400,000 Study on Gay Sex in Argentina Bars - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com , some the very definition of wasteful, but what is the incentive for medical companies to work as a non-profit? There would have to be a great deal of subsidization at some point.


I was wrong about how Taiwan's system works--Taiwan Takes Fast Track to Universal Health Care : NPR

Apparently there is one big government fund with compulsory enrollment. But, everyone has to pay in. 70% satisfaction from physicians and citizens. You can't beat that.

Of course, the system has its drawbacks, like everything else. We won't get a perfect plan because people aren't perfect. But that is no reason for inaction.

Taiwan was just one example of a system we could borrow ideas from. There are many others throughout the world.