VENEZUELA : HEALTH CARE REVOLUTION.

POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 02:11
VIEWED: 8994
PAGE 5 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, October 22, 2005 9:37 AM

Rue,

All you did was reiterate, "Cant, you're ignorant. I can't talk to you." While I appreciate your toning down the hostility, I did ask you to not say it yet again.

(rolling eyes) Fine. Be that way.

I am frankly astounded. Your ability to misinterpret me by zeroing in on phrases and examples out of context is unmatched, in all the years I've been discoursing online.

Let's make this our last exchange, shall we?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CantTakeSky:
I have so many thoughts on this I need some time to organize and summarize them. Please let me get back to you.

I look forward to hearing them.

I'd just like to say that I expected that your reply to the first question would be a no, or at least words to that effect.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

RUE

Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:19 PM

Cant -

As to personal attacks, I did not appreciate it when you said I was misleading people.

I did much, much more than call your statements ignorant. I provided my cv in the area, plus information about policies and statistics, and provided links to essential information. All of which you blew past.

I keep inviting you to examine a large body of facts so we can reasonably discuss our relative positions. You seem resistant to looking at them.

You're right. Until you bring some facts into the discussion, we should probably not communicate.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:45 PM

First, let me qualify that I don't have the magic answer. What I propose are solutions consistent with my personal values and experiences--what I would vote for. It doesn't mean I think everyone else should vote for the same thing.

Secondly, let me relate 2 personal experiences so you know where I am coming from. I suffered from a disabling condition for 10 years. Suddenly, I had lost my ability to walk, stand, drive, read, sleep, and work. Having spared no expense to seek experts all over the country, I understand the desperation behind not being able to afford health care. In my case, I borrowed to procure services my insurance refused to pay. My health care costs, together with my loss of income, eventually destroyed my credit history. What did I get for the tens of thousands of dollars I ended up incurring in costs? Nothing. Nothing at all. Eventually, I started to look into alternative medicine. Finally, with some self-treatment borne out of my research and some luck, I was cured. I am now able to work and lead a normal life.

The second example was a gallbadder attack I had almost a year ago. I felt I was going to split open from the pain, and went to the ER. After lying in a bed there for 4 hours and a 2 minute visit from the doctor, my pain eventually subsided on its own and they told me I could go home. The treatment? They took one blood test and gave me some pain meds on the way out in case it happens again. The cost? $700, which my insurance paid. It did happen again, 2 weeks later. This time, I took an aspirin and endured the wracking pain at home. Conventional treatment would have called for more tests and eventually, gallbladder surgery. I researched and treated myself with alternative remedies, passed a bunch of gallstones, and haven't gotten another attack again. The cost? About $10.

I share these 2 experiences to illustrate that in MY personal experience, I have found the "health care" covered by insurance to be quite worthless. Every time I used it, I incurred large costs in hope that it would have answers to my suffering. Every time, I ended up having to find answers on my own for a fraction of the cost. I don't want to be forced to buy a product that has, in effect, scammed me. (Paid a lot for nothing.) Now my attitude is, You like it? *You* buy it.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Is it okay that these people don't get health care?

My answer is yes and no. If a poor person doesn't get to see a doctor for a severe cold, I'd say he's not missing anything anyway. If a poor person is refused an ambulance after a heart attack, I'd be furious.

I believe the appetite for doctor visits, drugs, and surgery has been artificially inflated by aggressive marketing. People are desperate for "health care" because they are told it is the ONLY way they can find relief for their ailments. But what if people found out that gallbladder surgery is not the ONLY way out of the pain? What if they find out that they can pass gallstones and stop the pain for $10 worth of ingredients at the grocery store? Then it wouldn't be so bad that they couldn't afford gallbladder surgery, would it?

I would answer that it depends on the type of care. The more alternatives there are for a particular type of care, the less necessary it is that people have access to the "authorized" version.

Quote:
If not, how would you suggest we deal with this through a private system?

The intrinsic, tried and true method of keeping costs down in a market system is competition. The more options a consumer has, the less desperate he is, and the more leverage he has for demanding higher quality and lower cost. So I say bring on the competition.

When I consult alternative health practitioners now, the fees are eminently affordable to the middle class. I pay $125 for the first month's worth of weekly consultations, and about $50 a month after that. We give them cash for the service--that's it. No hidden costs, no third party payment. The quality of care is better.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:11 AM

Competition. But for true competition--the kind that can result in a revolutionary reduction in costs--we need less government interference in requiring expensive licensing, malpractice insurance, and clinical trials. What?! you say. Get rid of them? No, not get rid of them--just don't require them. Give consumers the option of going to either a licensed doctor or an unlicensed one, one insured for malpractice and one not insured; buying drugs that either have been tested in a clinical trial or have not. Options can only empower consumers. They don't have to visit unlicensed or uninsured doctors; they don't have to buy unstudied drugs. But they can if they wanted to.

The alternative practitioners I have consulted often have had extensive formal training, but aren't required to. They are unlicensed and uninsured, but they stay in business from recommendations by previous customers. The remedies they use have never gone through a formal clinical trial, but they have been tested throughout history. For consumers who don't value official stamps of approval, they offer a more efficient, less wasteful option. Consumers who DO want trappings of formality can always still pay for them. Without forced hidden costs, the health care industry can provide affordable routine and preventative care.

Speaking of preventative care, perhaps the most valuable effect of competition is patient responsibility for their own health care. With empowerment of competition comes responsibility to choose wisely. With all the new choices, we need to become more educated about just what kind of health care we want--and indeed what kind of health we want. Ultimately, we are the only ones who can provide care for our own health--eating right, sleeping well, exercising routinely, etc. When we have to pay to fix ourselves when we break down, we might take better care to not break down to begin with.

But even true, unfettered competition and educated, responsible patients won't solve access problems for catastrophic care (ambulances, surgery, or other equipment/skill-intensive interventions). Competition alone won't solve access problems by disabled / chronically ill people or poor people with little to no income.

As much as I dislike insurance, it is an expedient way to share costs. When competition makes routine health care an affordable expense, like oil changes for cars, health insurance will be overhauled as well. Health insurance will no longer be cost-sharing for all medical care, but cost-sharing for RISK--the way a real insurance policy is supposed to work. Premiums for catastrophic insurance will be cheaper and much more affordable, because not everyone will get cancer, or get into a car accident, or get bitten by a shark. It could even be divided up into cancer insurance, ER insurance, or limb reattachment insurance. People will be able to buy health insurance--really, it should be called sickness insurance--the way they buy car collision or hurricane insurance.

As a supplement or alternative to insurance, medical savings accounts (MSA's) can given tax-deductable status by the government. That means you can save your own money for a medical emergency, without having to pay taxes on it. Even better, allow MSA's to be able to be shared and inherited. That means parents' MSA's can be used by their children who have none, for example.

Disabled and chronically ill people use a lot more health care services than can be covered by their premiums. This is no longer cost-sharing of risk, but cost-sharing of a sure thing. Currently, there are about 30 states that have high-risk pools that charge sick people a higher premium than normal, but not higher than a state-imposed cap of 150-200%. High-risk pool insurance carriers lose money. Their losses are reimbursed by equal payments from other insurance carriers in the state. In essence, healthy insurance consumers pay a hidden sales "tax" when they pay their premiums to help buy insurance coverage for their less fortunate neighbors.

Poor people--well poo

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5