Being that the majority of medical premiums are due to medically intensive diseases or circumstance, wouldn't it be better to first address cost there, than to nationalize it and further exacerbate the problem? First off, let me discuss the problem: Many Americans think that you can't help getting cancer and it's all just genetics. It has great deal to do with diet (a 1/3 is attributed to that). Japanese people eat a lot of food that doesn't contain the compound we have in our food, although the science community is at odds to how much this is significant. I think it's best said that.... http://www.ific.org/foodinsight/2004/ma/cancerfi204.cfm If we did a handful of things we could reduce cancer signficantly. 1) Mandate that all public schools can't sell unhealthy food. This would hugely reduce cancer, heart disease....an endless list of benefits would result. 2)Mandate the teaching of particular diets (all scientifical documented) to promote health lifestyles. Focus on experiencing those activities as a goal of life. 3)Being a libertarian-like person this sounds odd, but find a cure to cigarette smoking through vast funding. That shit kills too many people and is a burden on our premiums. Cancer and heart disease in America is really the cause of high medical care. It takes up a signficant portion of the premium costs. Reduce those by changing the lifestyles of American (at the beginning of their life) and costs will go down or better yet cure those conditions. To a point I feel that bigger people should pay more in their premium to offset my rather healthy attributes...but I know that some people can't help it...but to the rest...fuck you! http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/11/should_fat_peop_1.html ------------------------- That being a first part of my thoughts. Secondly we must recongnize that we are racial diverse. Therefore cultural comparison won't be quite as effective. Notice while Japan has the highest life expectancy and fairly low medical costs...it's nearly singular in racial backgrounds. Their diets consist of 5 times the amount of vegatable and they're much more fish oriented. Mineral and proteins essentially. And they have much smaller cancer rate in their country. In fact Aids and heart disease are significantly smaller. Therefore the comparison are much harder than simple structure. There are wide difference in cultural outcomes. Notice of the BMI of Mexico. They're actually fairly impoverished, yet their level of obescity is fairly high. Imagine their American counterparts. So I'm implying it's not simply a matter of stucture... --------------- Now thirdly. The current American tax structure, along with federal regulation forments the American medical system into a fairly non-competitive hegemony. Essentially promoting consumption rather than chose and savings. A simple analogy: Cingular phone service offers 500 minutes for roughly $50 a month, while Virgin mobile offers $15 for 100 minutes (and other pay as you go or demand programs). Depending on the needs of the consumer, they can pick Cingular, Virgin Mobile, or others. The government in many ways has developed a fairly restrictive system that favors a monolithic Cingular-like service...which pays a generally high premium. Expecting the worst, but not giving out the best chose. Since this method is favored, use of the service is extented beyond it's common usage. Combined with the medical industries thumbs-up for tv commercials, we're setting-up a paranoid system of overusage. The point of this whole view is that I don't believe medical centralization is a positive thing, in fact Canada's supreme court weight in on this. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813 Therefore allowing a level of private insurance in the country. Which .... http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/45149/la_id/1.htm The goal should be to control public influence in lifestyle, and to eliminate consumer interference in medical choses. Atleast that's how I view it. Your thoughts?
I think that we should look at how the healthcare system works with people. For instance, if we know smoking is bad, then those that smoke should have to pay a larger premium. Those that exercise regularly and eat healthy should get a break on their insurance. My wife's insurance (through the hospital where she works) offers a benefit every year where they check blood pressure, weight, body fat %, etc. They then compare with how you scored in taking these tests previously. If you improve or stay the same, your insurance goes down based on the results. If you are found to not be as healthy, you have two choices. A)Sign up for the wellness program offered through the hospital, which is mandatory things such as exercise, keeping track of food intake, stop smoking seminars, etc, or B) pay more for your insurance. You would be surprised at the number of people that are lazy enough just to pay more. my wife and I enjoy a discount every year though. If insurance companies started doing the same, I think it would fix many (but not all) of the problems. Then hopefully those could be transferred on to lower medicine cost, treatment cost, etc. I do not think the US govt. ought to be paying for a national health care. If you are lazy enough not to get a job, then you shouldn't have health care and the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for you. If you physically can't work, then it is our goodwill duty to help support you, but only if you are not able. Being lazy doesn't constitute as not able.
Don't they do this already? http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_lh&id=69649 I like the fact that some companies aren't hiring smokers. They're a collective drag. I don't mind people screw their lifes through smoking, but I think their premium should be sky high, so the rest of us don't have to be burdened by the premiums. And frankly I think business across the country should take a no smoking hiring policy. Ultimately it will be left-up to business influence if we go to nationalization. The burden of our structure (which is very much a part of the government) is being put on both the workers and the companies. It's not effective as-is. If the companies and workers had more chose, we'd be a lot better off. Frankly I would support companies that don't hire based on lack of excercise or diet. But that's just not PC, since some in the medical industry think it's an 'epidemic'. Our society has to be burdened into health and not collectively assuming the vices of others. To a point I understand those that grow-up genentically overweight, but people should be forced (via getting a job)...to try being healthy. In the aviation industry it's mandatory, because it's a matter other people's lives...but what about others people's pocket and a nations economic well-being? The high premiums cause death,...they're just not as prevalent. Well, fuck them. I'm pro-capitalism, but I tend to view the advertising of drugs as negative. A doctor is suppose to look at you and determine what you need...not some vague paranoid commercial. People can buy private insurance. It's fairly comparable in price...the deductable just has to be paid by the individual.
Avoid Universal healthcare my American friends.... you'll just end up paying for fat poor people. These people are clearly either genetically or socially deficient and offering them free healthcare and prolonging their lives is going against the natural principles of evolution!
There should be some restrictions on doctors on cost as well as some protections. My wife was found to have a cancerous tumor, she was immediately told she would have the lump removed and would follow it up with radiation. They sent her for another test resulting in a diagnosis that said she should have the lump removed and would follow it up with radiation. She went for an MRI and they said she should have the lump removed and would follow it up with radiation. They sent her to a few more tests (by this time I am thinking about how stock brokers are not allowed to churn a clients portfolio) with the same diaganosis. Finally we went to an oncologist who's sells chemo treatments and he of course recommended buying a wig and funding his next vacation...house. I understand the doctors want to check for other conditions but I am sure the excess testing was driven by the legal fears. It doesn't cost the doctor a thing and covers their actions a bit more. I did hear on the radio about an organization that has some 50,000 members that share medical bills, that sounds very cool has far as sharing the burden but it doesn't reduce the burden society bares from the legal and medical community.
The message. ------------ Why isn't there a lot of opinions on this issue? Soon America will have to choose and choose wisely.
we should ban fat people .... seriously though did you see that some places won't hire fat people or smokers due to the drain on the health benefits, I know I saw that on the news somewhere
If you over health coverage to your employees you almost have to or everyone's premiums go up. I hired a guy this week - he smokes; if i offered medical coverage, I wouldn't have hired him. You don't even have to ask, you can smell it. Healthcare's primary problem, to me, is that it functions outside of the capitalist system. We don't know how much prescriptions, medical visits or surgeries cost until after the fact - so its much harder to shop around for it. The doctor tells you what specialist to see. You nod OK! And you go. Since insurance covers many peoples' stuff, they don't care how much it costs, so the doctor could bill a gazillion dollars, who knows? Who cares? Probably a lot has to to do with lawyers and malpractice. I think florida is at a net loss of doctors each year because malpractice rates keep going up. Medical schools also probably have too many students who, upon finishing, go back to their own country to practice. Schools should be more open to physicians who plan to practice here instead. It's a complex issue, but since its a political one, it always come down to - what, you want the children to be without medical coverage and die in the streets?
there are also those people who when they get health insurance they go to the doctor for every little thing my health insurance only covers major injuries, it relatively inexpensive, not sure why employers don't offer plans like that, if they are trying to give health insurance as benefit