Re: Healthcare (ugh) - No Who.

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

>From: Alan McKendree
>Subject: Re: Healthcare (ugh) - No Who.
>
>It's consistent with wanting to preserve individual rights. It's your right
to do as you wish -- including take drugs -- with your own body, and it's
your right to offer >your services -- including brain surgery -- at a
mutually negotiated price with a buyer.

So you're a pro-choice Republican?
I'm starting to like you more and more.
But, I wouldn't condone a healthcare system that prevented the have's from
buying what they wished from whom they wished.

>I believe the Russian system was the logical outcome of the premises
involved -- the abolition of private property -- that it shares with
socialism.

Come one.  Being a bit dramatic?
Socialized Medicine, IOW medicine for all, does not lead to a communist
government and the abolition of private property.

>Before I continue, I need to make it clear that I am very aware that there
>are no perfect solutions out there.
>None.

>What would perfection be?

National standard of healthcare for *each* and *every* citizen of the US,
that follows state and nationally mandated benefit packages currently
regulating the HMO's.   These are good strong benefit packages with
concentrations on preventative care.

>Infinitely available state-of-the-art care for every US (oops, I mean
"world") citizen?

Infinitely?    Oh the DRAMA!

>That's impossible, and IMO, a perfect solution would have to have the
desirable attribute of possibility.

What *I've* stated above, is not impossible.

>>All current healthcare systems in the *world* have issues.
>
>Maybe we should just all kill ourselves and be done with it since we can't
have it our way.

??
No thanks, I'd rather fight for change and improvement.

>His words: "Your healthcare system is broken, but there's nothing better
out there. But at least other systems get healthcare to all."
>If by his own admission, there's nothing better than the US system out
there, then by definition there are negative factors counterbalancing the
other systems >"getting healthcare to all", and it boils down to the quality
of the care and waiting lines.

Alan, you're missing the point here.  It boils down to getting people
healthcare in the first place.
I personally find it a social embarrassment that we allow so many to not
have access to healthcare.
Embarrassing.

Getting back to Mr. Moffett, however, the main gist of his speech,
'cause....I was there, was that all systems in the *world* are not perfect,
and that the US system was *far* from being even *near* perfect.
And,....that there weren't any better ideas out there at the time, despite
having some big minds working on it.

To me, that screams for change, and improvement.
I'm not saying having access to any surgery at anytime should be taken away
from those that can afford it.
I'm advocating for covering those that can't even get *basic* coverage.

>Are you aware, for example, that taxpayer-borne British dental care doesn't
recognize caps as medically necessary, and won't pay for them? The decayed
tooth >is simply pulled. Amazingly, people don't flow into Britain to take
advantage of this available-to-all.

Well dental care in this country is nothing to scream about.  There's an
industry just *begging* for some regulation.  Go talk to any oral surgeon,
and they'll tell you about the frustration in getting coverage for TMJ and
other dysfunctions of the mouth.  They'll also point out the corruption in
the dental "insurance" industry.  A racket.
But, I believe my example regarding TCT was saying the same thing.

>Thanks for the note. Sweden, BTW, housed the geniuses who passed a 104%,
repeat 104%, income tax at one point. Since I don't think taxes should exist
at all, >I'd have to pass on advocating that system.

Me as well.

>When people (who can afford it) start flying from all over the world to
those countries for top-quality medical procedures, I'll start paying
attention.

Granted, our strictly capitalist system does permit for research and the
best technology in the world (although really not by much, with other
countries right there too), but it's only the very smallest percentage that
actually has the ability to access that.
And, people *are* starting to travel to countries like German to access
their system.
But, again, none of that should have to stop.
Go listen to what Governor Dean has done for healthcare access in VT.  It's
pretty impressive.

> but the sentence is catchy.

Just emphasizing that if anyone doesn't think Healthcare isn't about
available funds, they're kidding themselves.

>I'm not saying poor people should be legally prohibited from getting health
care, I'm saying neither doctors nor I should be forced to involuntarily
accept the >burden of their treatment.

Ummmm, the point is that we already are.  But it's after they've reached a
more critical level, and that care is usually then provided via the ER or
Inpatient care.

> (Actually, in my experience, garbage collectors are city employees and get
very good benefits. And IIRC, medical benefits for Taco Bell employees do
kick in >after a few weeks on the job. I'll bet the same is true of any
national fastfood chain.)

Well your experience isn't far from mine.  But, the point again is that the
*reality* out there is that many, many, many, many, many jobs don't offer
insurance.
45 million people.
45 million.
These are facts Alan that we can't ignore.

>Which they can rise beyond, if they have more than minimal skills.

Again, the point is that there will *always* be poor people.  There will
*always* be people who can't rise "beyond" because they *don't* have more
than minimal skill.  Further more, there will *always* be the need for these
people to fill jobs that the rest of us don't want.
Or, should we continue to hope and pray for the day.....that glorious day
when the clouds part, the sun shines through, the birds go "tweet, tweet,
tweet" and *every* god given American has all the skill necessary to get
that great job that provides full coverage??!!
Yes!
YES!
I CAN SEE IT!
OH GOD!
GLORY BE PRAISED!

If you think I'm kidding, think again.  'Cause that's what I'll be shouting
if your dream ever came true.

>I'm arguing for preserving the rights of all parties involved, service
providers AND consumers. That will lead to the best medical system possible.

There's the goal.

>And, since the poor seem to be driving this conversation rather than "the
norm", I believe that system would also maximize charitable services
available to the poor >when they need it.

Now *you're* falling off that cliff.

Here's where your concern for the provider should be:

More of their customers (patients) losing insurance and coverage.
Less customers in the door.
Customers unable to afford regular, non contracted, charges and pay on the
barrel-head.
Customers get sicker.
Doctor has less work.
Customers end up in general less healthy, which has a massive snowball
effect regarding susceptibility to disease, and long term illnesses.
When it reaches a critical point, they end up in the hospital.
The Private doc is run out of business.  The cheapest, least expensive, and
*most effective* form of medicine (preventing it in the first place) is run
out of business, in favor of the growing necessity of ER and high tech (and
*HIGH COST*) medicine to fight all the diseases that could have been
prevented.

Flat out from an economic perspective, the healthcare industry is sucking
our GNP dry.

Kevin in VT