|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 6, 2009 20:08:50 GMT -5
For profit medicine, besides being morally objective, is driven by, of course, profit. This means that preventative medicine is, for the insurers, a dead loss. It also means that costs will continue to rise, because shareholders demand increasing profits, year to year. This is the root cause of the breakdown of the ridiculuous health care "system" that is bankrupting the U.S. The President is correct when he states that health care costs are directly tied to the economy. When public money goes directly to for-profit health care, the public cost increases, while the actual coverage decreases. The morality of for-profit health care should be self-evident. Profiting from misfortune at public expense is morally reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 6, 2009 20:21:25 GMT -5
The economy also suffers when people are absent from work because of health related concerns that could've been caught with preventive treatment. That's the other side of the "cost" of healthcare. I'll have to dig up the cite, but last year, absenteeism because of health related/insurance related issues cost the economy several billion dollars.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 6, 2009 20:57:18 GMT -5
I know that in Canada, the only thing that keeps the automakers here is the fact that Canada has fairly cheap, UHC. It's cost is less than 1/3 that paid in the U.S. That is definitely an economic concern, and inhibits U.S. productivity and competitiveness, unless, of course, jobs are off-loaded to 3rd world countries with little or no health care at all. That, of course, is another issue entirely. As stated earlier, the President nailed it on the head when he said that health care is DIRECTLY tied to the economy.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Mar 6, 2009 22:47:25 GMT -5
There was an article in today's local paper about Obama's health care reform; it said the US health care system is the most expensive in the world. And yet something like 48 million Americans go uninsured. Most expensive =/= best. What irritates me is how employers are expected to offer insurance to employees. And then only if you're a full-time employee. If you lose your job, you also lose your health benefits, and that's just wrong. I think, at least for now, we should have some kind of system where everyone gets BASIC health care for free. Like, let's say immunizations, basic dental care, eye exams, etc. Heck, Planned Parenthood is already like that, in a way. Then maybe for more serious things you would pay based on your income. Or something like that. ETA: I just remembered something I heard on, either our local news or NBC nightly news, about a baby girl that needed a heart transplant. She was in Washington state I believe; did anyone else hear this story? Anyway the hospital out there wanted 1.5 MILLION upfront to do the surgery. That is FUCKING INSANE. So the family was going to come to MN to the Mayo or something so she could get an artificial heart or something until they could find a donor for her. You know how bad our system is fucked up and greedy if they want millions of dollars, which nobody has, upfront for stuff like this or cancer treatment. Jesus fucking christ. >.< ETA #2: Also, Obama is reversing the ban on embryonic stem cell research. HUZZAH! HUZZAH! news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090306/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells;_ylt=Al1hz3.DsZv7BMycMlN4o5IDW7oF
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 7, 2009 10:38:07 GMT -5
Here in Ontario we have a free flu shot program. It was actually put in by a conservative government to help cut down on trips to the emergency ward. Do you guys in the US have similar programs, or is that too radical?
We also have a system where you can call a registered nurse, describe the symptoms and be given advice on how to proceed (i.e. take two asprin or dial 911) to help cut down on un-necessary visits. Can't remember if that was a liberal or conservative program.
|
|
|
Post by headache on Mar 7, 2009 11:13:30 GMT -5
Here in Ontario we have a free flu shot program. It was actually put in by a conservative government to help cut down on trips to the emergency ward. Do you guys in the US have similar programs, or is that too radical? Wooa! Wooa! Hold on there sport! You are talking about something akin to *gasp* "communism". USA is not a filthy stinkin' atheist communist hell hole with healthy people, no sire!
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 7, 2009 11:23:59 GMT -5
Here in Ontario we have a free flu shot program. It was actually put in by a conservative government to help cut down on trips to the emergency ward. Do you guys in the US have similar programs, or is that too radical? We also have a system where you can call a registered nurse, describe the symptoms and be given advice on how to proceed (i.e. take two asprin or dial 911) to help cut down on un-necessary visits. Can't remember if that was a liberal or conservative program. We have several programs in the US, but they're usually done through free clinics and are limited.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Mar 7, 2009 11:31:57 GMT -5
Or through people's jobs.
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 7, 2009 11:40:55 GMT -5
Hell, I think it goes without saying that I would support socialised health care. I dunno what its like in America, but if we were to lop a wee bit of the ludicrous consultant salaries and maybe add a bit to nurses salaries over here the NHS would not only be one of the most advanced healtth services in the world but a financially viable social healthcare system. And sky, the NHS invests huge amounts of money into 'preventative medicine' as you put it, when a hospital's primary motive is saving lives as opposed to earning money prevenatative measures are a natural step. Try sacking the vast majority of the administrative staff. The system is totally choked with them
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 7, 2009 11:41:32 GMT -5
I think the free flu shots are first given to the very young, very old, or those with compromised immune systems--the people who are most at risk from flu. Around here, most schools and some drugstore chains administer free flu shots, but that might not be true for everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 7, 2009 12:34:30 GMT -5
By the way, I was just reminded of a question that was asked by (I think) Sean Hannitty. The question was, "do you want to pay for your neighbor's birth control?"
Honestly? I don't want my neighbors breeding. But jokes aside, I would rather pay for my neighbor's birth control than for the government assistance that those kids will require.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 7, 2009 13:04:41 GMT -5
Hannity hopes no one will think his shit through. Of course I'd rather pay for my neighbor's birth control. If the person has a kid they're not ready to support, that's a strain on resources and another consumer of scarce goods as well. Helping people control their birth rate is probably one of the best things we could do for the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Mar 7, 2009 14:57:37 GMT -5
The only problem with that is the people who listen to Hannity think BC is EVIL, so they'd never want to pay for it, especially for someone else.
|
|
|
Post by mnstrm on Mar 7, 2009 15:00:04 GMT -5
We have this in Alberta too. It seems to work well.
As far as flu shots go, I think seniors can get them here w/o paying, and also very young kids or people with chronic illnesses. My employer pays for ours - I think they're about $20?
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 7, 2009 16:59:42 GMT -5
Well we did have free flu shots in BC, until Campbell figured out he could make more money by selling them to Washington State.
The biggest problem with the Canadian system is that there's a severe lack of accountability. The Feds give the money to the Province, the province can put it into general revenues, and (as in BC) give themselves big fat raises. Even if they don't it then goes from the Provincial level, to the health authorities, to the different hospitals, and then finally to the public. There's so many 6 figured incomes being paid through that list I wouldn't even know where to start.
Unfortunately, in order to change the system, it would require a change to the constitution. And we couldn't get all 10 provinces to agree on what to order for lunch.
|
|