Real British Healthcare Headlines

[scooterbug44]

Given the number of "unplanned pregnancies" I don't think that would work. My guess was that if everyone knew they would be pregnant 90-60 days BEFORE they actually got pregnant, the birth rate would be quite a bit lower.

I'll try to think of a good example for the other one.

 

[Winnie]

Given the number of "unplanned pregnancies" I don't think that would work. My guess was that if everyone knew they would be pregnant 90-60 days BEFORE they actually got pregnant, the birth rate would be quite a bit lower.

I'll try to think of a good example for the other one.

It's the planned pregnancies that would drive the cost up!

In a perfect world, any woman of child bearing age that is engaging in pregnancy producing activity, would insure herself for it. ;-)

 

[scooterbug44]

It's the planned pregnancies that would drive the cost up!

In a perfect world, any woman of child bearing age that is engaging in pregnancy producing activity, would insure herself for it. ;-)

Is this the same perfect world in which every birth control method is 100% effective, abstinence education works, and there are no rapes? ;-)

I agree w/ you in theory, but it's a rather big leap that people who don't effectively use birth control (or their brains) will have the foresight to insure themselves for pregnancy.

 

[Winnie]

Is this the same perfect world in which every birth control method is 100% effective, abstinence education works, and there are no rapes? ;-)

Yep, and they would also lay off the crack for a couple months first.

 

[CampCreekLou]

That's one of the areas I wouldn't mind seeing subsidized. Particularly pre-natal care. My first thought is that you buy a pregnancy policy if you think you may need it. However, if we approached it that way it would probably be just as inexpensive to save up for it as to buy the policy.

I can't think of the preventative surgery case you refer to. Like having a club foot fixed to prevent back trouble?

There is also the issue of birth defects. Some things will just have to be paid for with tax dollars. But, they are already. We can improve our current system. We really need to.

I would like to see our great minds in Washington come up with some workable ideas beyond throwing taxpayer dollars at every problem.

"Great minds"? :funn:

 

[Lynnie]

FYI, The current plan on the table isn't socialized medicine, there is no "government run healthcare" option in the public plan. It also involves expanding our current Medicaid system, but even that care is private, it's just regulated by government and subsidized by taxpayers.

Quite honestly, while I don't like the whole wealth redistribution aspect of it, my fears of a "government run" healthcare system have abated based on what I've read about the plan that's currently on the table.

No, but what concerns me is a gradual migration into a 'government run healthcare' plan.

When my wife was a kid (1970) she broke both of her arms. Her mom, a mother of 4 took her and all her brothers to her piediatrition ( I can't spell it) on a saturday. The doc set both of her arms, and put them in casts. Her mama wrote a check to the doc and that was it. Of course more visits afterwards. But her doctor handled the whole thing by herself without endless costs and tests.
No emergency room. No team of specialists. No MRI CAT scan not even an x-ray. Just a good doc who knows her patients and is competent and CARES.

An accident like that today, there is no way anyone would be able to see their doctor on a saturday as an emergency. No way that could be handled in office, and no way anyone could just up and pay for it with cash on hand. and incase you were wondering, both of my wifes' arms work fine. She is not deformed or limited in any way. She had a good doctor who knew her history, knew her job, and did what needed to be done. The docotor took the responsibility for the whole thing.
That is what the "world's best healthcare" should be about.
Yes there are conditions that require a lot of special drugs, treatments, extended stays, and very high bills. but normal everyday stuff should be affordable.
There is no way a doctor would even try to do what my wife had done when she was a kid. Maybe if doctor/patient consultations were more than 4 minutes the docotors would feel more comfortable using all their training and skill to help their patients get through the everyday achs, pains, and boo boos of everyday life.

Yes, and that's the way it was. HMO was the first managed care plan to surface and it was about mid-late 70's in California. A corporation asked a group of physicians to administer care to its employees. The physicians agreed to a set fee each month to care for the employees. This well thought out concept morphed into Kaiser Permanente, which is a highly regarded medical provider, but..............

Two words, "tort reform". If her doctor tried that today and messed up, he'd get sued into oblivion.

Another comment I'd make - an x-ray or MRI before setting a broken arm isn't always a "bad thing"! We should be very thankful for the advances medical science has made over the last forty years.

I don't have a problem being victims of our own technology. An MRI used to be called and NMRI - the N for Noookeeelar. The fear was that the term 'nuclear' would have a negative impression on the benefits of this, yes very expensive machine.

They can't. They are holding their weighted down wallets in one hand and the ambulance door with the other. :roll:

TORT REFORM!

Oh, please tort reform - Congress, please!

It is scary the number of ambulance chasers in the Democratic Party. In fact it's one of my biggest gripes about the party. I understand protecting people from big business or holding people/business liable for misdeeds, injuries, etc. However I disagree that the person performing the legal services is entitled to a jewel encrusted solid gold house.

I'm with Miss Kitty.

TORT REFORM!

I didn't realize this, but I do know most of Congress and Senate are JD's and why would they want reform of their industry?????

$0.08 Inflation

 

[30ashopper]

We need the public option to provide an affordable alternative to private 'for-profit' insurance to keep costs from increasing at this unsustainable level.

Non-profit co-ops are not-for-profit.

Government run systems have no incentive for cost control. They may make it affordable for some special few but they re-route losses to others. Give me one good example of a government program that provides something at cost that is "more affordable" compared to the same offer that is private?

 

[hnooe]

What does private insurance companies have to fear--give us a gov't option NOW! It is the American way and in the spirit of true competition!! Lock up the lobbyist- all of them! Power to the People!

 

[30ashopper]

Clarification - I thought part of the reason health care costs were high was because UNinsured people's costs were passed on to the insured/those paying their bills.

Only if they don't pay their bills.

If you walk into a lab and ask for an MRI without insurance, you will be charged "full price". If you walk into a lab, hand over your BCBS card and ask for an MRI (assuming it's approved by BCBS) BCBS will have set, reduced rates on MRIs with the lab. They pay some percentage and you pay whatever your plan requires you to pay. BCBS has the power to do this because they can refuse to add the lab into their in-patient network. BCBS is careful about only allowing so many MRI labs in an area into the network, so there is incentive to become a member - the provider gets a higher number of MRIs from referrals, albeit at a slightly reduced rate.

In a lot of cases, cash strapped labs and hospitals will dish more of the cost on the uninsured to cover the loss on the uninsured that don't pay their bills. BCBS patients however will always get the negotiated rate.

 

[30ashopper]

What do private insurance companies have to fear--give us a gov't option NOW! It is the American way and in the spirit of true competition!! Lock up the lobbyist- all of them! Power to the People!

The bottomless pit of the american taxpayer. Do the books of a true public option have to break even? Heck no.

Lets say you run a seashell store on 30-A and you set your prices just right so you can pay your bills and your employees, and yourself. Then to your horror government steps in, looks around, and realizes some people can't afford a seashell at your prices.... so they open up a seashell shop across the street. They use taxpayer money to subsidize the cost of buying seashells and sell them to the public at a loss. What happens to your business?