Healthcare for all!

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

From what I know (remember that more than any other subject, I am a student of humanity), the drug reps do a similar business with the doctors. Quiet favors and gifts are easily exchanged under the guise of 'marketing tools', as well as plenty of free sample packs to give out (and charge a nominal fee on their patients' bills).

I used to own a design firm, specializing in home design. I was approached by salesmen for every type of home product you could imagine. My philosophy was simple. I would sell my recommendation, but for a price that could not be measured in dollars... proof. I required proof of the quality of their product, and informed my customers that should they have any problems with any firm or product I recommended, they should report it to me. I would resolve it to their satisfaction or that recommendation would be removed.

Strangely, that price seemed to be very high. I recommended maybe 5% of those who approached me. It cost me in immediate cash, yes, but it paid off in customer referral and retention. And I slept good at night.

But to keep this thread slightly on topic this is exactly why I have precious little sympathy for the drug companies. Besides, my mother does better by walking 5 minutes every day than with all those drugs. And it's cheaper.

TheRedneck

The people think their doctor is God and will eat pills like candy getting sicker and sicker. Totally clueless.

reply to post by TheRedneck

I just found an interesting article in Science Daily:

Prescribing costs increase dramatically when people reach 65, according to a detailed analysis of more than five million patients published in the March issue of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

Average costs were six-and-a-half times higher than for people under 65 and 16 times higher than for children under four.

When researchers from the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Barcelona looked at the primary care records of 5.47 million patients in Catalonia, they found that just under three-quarters had been prescribed at least one drug and that women were 23 per cent more likely to receive a prescription.

www.sciencedaily.com...

It certainly confirms what you and I have been experiencing with our families.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I like all of your ideas.

I am very concerned that the next health care plan we have will simply subsidize insuance companies which have already been taking advantage of us.
I believe the best way to provide insurance would be through a nonprofit government agency, which should be provided at much lower cost than high profit big insurance. Then they would be forced to play fair.

reply to post by finnegan

Amen, brother! The concept of giving everyone insurance is different than giving everyone healthcare. The profession is just so out-of-control that the average American equates the two.

I agree that if the end result is insurance coverage for everyone, it should be administered by the government and paid for with taxes. Same with car insurance, which is now mandatory. It should be provided via license plate taxes, and the insurance companies should be reduced to selling additional coverage beyond the minimum requirement. Anything else is an abomination to the free enterprise system.

That said, should the government become the insurance company, I seriously doubt the cost would decrease. I would expect it to actually increase, with the extra money going to politicians and bureaucrats rather than CEOs. I have yet to see a single government program that did not serve to channel money to those with political clout. The one advantage to allowing the government to take over is that no large companies would have an incentive to lobby for mandatory requirements, as they do now.

Thank you for the encouragement. Tell your ATS friends about this thread, and your congressmen about the idea. You can even claim the credit for it; I just want the issue resolved.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Here is a site with a good rundown on the plans.
overview
Obama summary
Clinton summary
McCain summary
They could all benefit from using your first and second steps. Of course, none of them will talk about debt collection even if they do plan on implementing it. Hillary is the only one who will require insurance, but I don't know how if she won't collect debts.
I'm not too sure about whether their databases will be for patients and providers, but McCain has no IT plan. The arbitration committee would be a nice step up for any of them.
They all favor stem cell research.

reply to post by finnegan

Thanks for the input on the present proposals. I read them all over and found two things in common: they all seem to be composed more of sound bites than well thought out plans, and they all focus on insurance.

I see McCain's approach as simply shuffling around some of the present policies to placate the public. I really didn't see anything there that would make a difference. Obama's plan seems more hastily thrown together than the other two, mainly a more leftist approach of McCain's non-plan.

Hillary's plan is what worries me. Mandatory insurance will not cover everyone; some will slip through the cracks. Today we have mandatory auto insurance, but I am still required to buy 'un-insured motorist' coverage. Why? If everyone is covered, un-insured motorist isn't needed. Everyone isn't covered, however, because some still slip through the cracks in our society.

Mandatory health care would be the same way. There would still be uninsured individuals, although a lot less than today. The difference is that in order for these poor individuals to get health care, they must open themselves up to prosecution in order to see someone about a healthcare problem. Also, the cost of insurance will skyrocket due to two big reasons. One, since insurance is mandatory, there is no worry from the insurance companies that their customer might just decide the premiums are too high; that would become illegal. Two, forced coverage of pre-existing conditions would drive up the insurers' costs and therefore the premiums that are required to be paid. All in all, Hillary's plan indicates a thorough lack of understanding of the industry, the way the marketplace works in general, and the freedoms we hold so dear to make our own choices.

As to stem cell research, I heard a news bleep a while back, I'm thinking a few months, about embryonic stem cells being inferior to adult stem cells that had been discovered. I have one concern about stem cell research, and that is that some unscrupulous individuals will begin harvesting embryos for their stem cells, like some poachers still go after endangered elephants for their ivory tusks. If we switch to these adult stem cells, there is no longer any concern over abortions or human farming, so I'd happily give a continuous green light for all stem cell research using adult stem cells. They are not the holy grail of medical science; but they do represent a promising field of study. IMHO, of course.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Hi Redneck. Yes, you are right about the adult stem cells. Here is a link making the case for them:
www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...
Like you, I am very concerned about the use of embryonic stem cells for many reasons, including the one you mentioned. The last thing any of us need is a black market in embryos, and the ensuing human slavery that would probably go along with it.

Sadly I don't believe people will ever get good healthcare legislation unless we write it ourselves.

Here is one site where it is being done:

Universal Health Care

This a think think-tank for the common people. It will still be necessary to obtain representation from within government, but with quality peer reviewed legislation it should be difficult for them to ignore.