Healthcare (ugh) - No Who.

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Alan McKendree
>Subject: Re: Stones,tootsie Rools, some non-who healthcare, and good
looking democrats
>
>>Bring on Socialized medicine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>And then you fall right off the cliff with this solution.

Ha!  I suspected you wouldn't approve.  But hey!  You're for legalization of
drugs, so who knows!

>Get in your time machine and take a trip to Russia's fully socialized
medical system, as you apparently need an illustration of what this would
mean. Or you could >just talk to a friend of mine who ESCAPED Russia by
emigration, but before she did, at the age of 11 had her tonsils removed
without anesthetic, thanks to the >state of Russian medicine. And this was
in the '80s. But, by golly, it didn't cost her family a penny.

Alan, that's the weakest example you could have chosen.  The Russian system
that was needed to support strictly socialist medicine was communist and
thus weak and seriously lacking funds.

Before I continue, I need to make it clear that I am very aware that there
are no perfect solutions out there.
None.
All current healthcare systems in the *world* have issues.
If you don't believe me, you should believe Peter Moffett (I'm pretty
positive that is his name.  I can verify in my notes if you want to research
his work) who was the key-note speaker at the recent annual HFMA Conference
on Managed Care that I attended.
International speaker on healthcare, of Scottish decent.
His words:  "Your healthcare system is broken, but there's nothing better
out there.  But at least other systems get healthcare to all."

He continues to present the dismal stats on uninsured, etc.

>Care is not a free good, as you of all listers know. Therefore it must be
rationed somehow, and rationing based on government bureaucracy and waiting
lists is far >what we have now. Do you really want to create a black market
in medical procedures for those who can afford them? Because that's what
socialized medicine >does.

You can't look at the worst example as an argument against it.
Sweden does an excellent job of getting healthcare to their people.
Granted, their taxes are outrageous.
Australia's system is actually quite efficient and was touted by Mr.
Moffett.
The German, Danes and Norwegian systems are others that are working really
well and get healthcare to everyone.
The Canadian and UK systems have extreme shortages of resources (hence
charities like TCT, etc.), but even they rank higher then us in efficiency
and delivery of goods to all.

>Rights are not measured by dollars, and doctors and patients have the right
to a free market in medical procedures as well as houses, beer, pizza and
CDs.

Yeah, and it's working so well for doctors at the moment.
Rights may not be measured by dollars, but healthcare is.  Everything.  Down
to the penny.

Given the premise (that is a fact) that there will *always* be be poor
people and rich people, and that there will always be functions in society
that do not pay well and are not glamorous (trash collection, burger
flippin, car wash, etc.), and are thus populated by those who have no other
choice...
Realities that need to be addressed:

Current welfare system forces people out in 2 years, and into very low
paying jobs that offer no insurance.
Thus, continuing increase in number of people who have no insurance
coverage.
The millions of people who aren't getting any healthcare will eventually get
sick, not seek help until the sickness is at a stage requiring mass
treatment, will go to the ER for this treatment, or will be forced to
receive treatment on an inpatient basis (due to advanced stage of illness).
Either of these is massively expensive.
Healthcare costs continue to increase to make up for the poor who are now
seeking the most expensive kind of healthcare, yet don't have a dime to pay
for it.
Insurance premiums continue to rise to cover the ever increasing cost of
taking care of the unable to pay poor.
More and more companies will be unable to meet increasing premiums, and will
drop coverage, thus contributing to the increased numbers of uninsured.
Can you say downward spiral??
Not to mention the increasing amounts of money it is taking from the
government anyway to fund Medicaid, the coverage designed to get poor
healthcare.
You may argue that Medicaid takes care of the poor.  Fact is, it only helps
a very small percentage of poor.  You got to be *really* friggin' poor to
qualify for Medicaid.  There's a HUGE gap between qualifying for Medicaid,
and being able to afford healthcare on your own with even a minimum wage
job.

All that can be eliminated, by getting people (ALL PEOPLE) the preventative
healthcare and checkups and immunizations they need.

It really comes down to how do we save the most money.
Pay after the fact, the way we are doing?  It's not working, and condones
not allowing the poor to achieve healthcare.

Or,

Pay ahead of time, and reduce in the long run the over all costs by keeping
people healthier to begin with?
To me, this method generates healthier people (that's good!), and less money
over all having to be used in the healthcare industry because there are less
severe sick people.

Plus, and we can't forget this important little moral dilemma....
It's the right thing to do.

Kevin in VT