Preventive Medical Care

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

The CBO didn't miss their point, but the overall point that those engaged in the healthcare debate are trying to make. Not everything is about comparing $x vs $y. There are also other economic factors that are beyond the scope of the report. Yet, people will cite this report like it is the final word and reject any prospect of reform. This is what I fear will come of the report.

The current bill is crap. The Dems did not stick to their guns and I fear that will hurt them (and us) in the long run on this issue. As I've said before though, a pile of crap is always preferable to a flaming pile of crap, which is what we are currently stuck with. Taxes will have to go up and private insurance/drug companies will have to be reined in. Lets just get it over with already...

But the politicians are not supporting their point, bolded above, with any actual numbers... big problem. You can say, "well it SHOULD be a lot cheaper and we'll probably be able to make it cheaper..." but saying it should be and proving via actual analysis that it will be are two entirely different things. Now maybe dems have this analysis somewhere and will whip it out to beat the shit out Rep's with.

But barring that highly unlikely scenario dems are lying... you are probably right that the Reps will use this report to rape and pillage the UHC yet again and they'll be even more successful because the dems lied in the first place.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Evan
Preventative medical care is more of a sensible, moral issue of quality of life than it is a cost saving measure. Hard for wingnuts to wrap their head around, but true nonetheless.

Is that why the democrat leadership embraced the talking point preventative care would save money? And not that it is a sensible moral quality of life issue?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan
Preventative medical care is more of a sensible, moral issue of quality of life than it is a cost saving measure. Hard for wingnuts to wrap their head around, but true nonetheless.

Is that why the democrat leadership embraced the talking point preventative care would save money? And not that it is a sensible moral quality of life issue?

Talking points are crafted in order to rally a base and ensure future votes. Nothing more.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: Fern

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

....don't you see a problem with this?

Absolutely there is a problem with it, but it isn't a problem requiring us possibly tearing down our complete system and replacing it with a new system with a lot of unknowns. Limited and specific reform should be the first step.

 

[StageLeft]

It seems really like the only way to save healthcare dollars is to not spend them and cut back treatments. For example there's no real proof I don't think that treating smokers costs net extra dollars, because they die off earlier. So other than telling old people they get a tylenol and that's it (cause end of life is insanely expensive), who can really solve this?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

The CBO didn't miss their point, but the overall point that those engaged in the healthcare debate are trying to make. Not everything is about comparing $x vs $y. There are also other economic factors that are beyond the scope of the report. Yet, people will cite this report like it is the final word and reject any prospect of reform. This is what I fear will come of the report.

The current bill is crap. The Dems did not stick to their guns and I fear that will hurt them (and us) in the long run on this issue. As I've said before though, a pile of crap is always preferable to a flaming pile of crap, which is what we are currently stuck with. Taxes will have to go up and private insurance/drug companies will have to be reined in. Lets just get it over with already...

But the politicians are not supporting their point, bolded above, with any actual numbers... big problem. You can say, "well it SHOULD be a lot cheaper and we'll probably be able to make it cheaper..." but saying it should be and proving via actual analysis that it will be are two entirely different things. Now maybe dems have this analysis somewhere and will whip it out to beat the shit out Rep's with.

But barring that highly unlikely scenario dems are lying... you are probably right that the Reps will use this report to rape and pillage the UHC yet again and they'll be even more successful because the dems lied in the first place.

The CBO report is simply limited in scope. Healthcare reform will not be cheap, but it will have a net benefit to society. A healthier workforce, decreased employer liability for healthcare costs (if we go with UHC), etc would make America more competitive in the global marketplace. US companies are already at a comparative disadvantage due to the costs they have in this area whereas other countries take care of it directly via the government/taxation. There are other factors as well, but when you consider those it becomes clear that the CBO report is quite narrow in scope.

The only lie here is not by the Democrats. UHC is simply not on the table. And now, with the public option about to be stripped from the bill, we may not even get UHI. Republicans are using the 'scary gubmint' to shoot down any healthcare measure that is any less "free market" than what we have now despite any improvements it would make to the lives of our workforce/citizens or our companies' competitiveness. Sure, the CBO report is a good tool in the debate but it cannot and should not be used as a club on anyone trying to have this debate. The debate should be one about practicality not idealogy.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I support universal health care because it works and is used in every other first world country, we're just so horribly afraid of our poors getting remotely similar care to the middle class that we have to make all sorts of bogeymen

Our poor have great medical care. It's free too.

It's called Medicaid.

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

Then what seems to be the perceived problem?? Unless of course this preventative medicine wiil help those damn, pesky poor people live longer.

See how you are.

If it does in fact cost more to provide this preventative care then who gets to foot the bill?

Providing preventative care costs more when compared to not providing preventative care. It does not cost more than providing emergency care in the ER for something that could have been prevented with preventative care at a normal GP's office.

 

[StageLeft]

US companies are already at a comparative disadvantage due to the costs they have in this area whereas other countries take care of it directly via the government/taxation.

Isn't that moot? They can either pay for health plans or they can pay more taxes or have to pay employees more because of the taxes the employees will have to pay.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I support universal health care because it works and is used in every other first world country, we're just so horribly afraid of our poors getting remotely similar care to the middle class that we have to make all sorts of bogeymen

Our poor have great medical care. It's free too.

It's called Medicaid.

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

What a minute. So its great care and keeps people from going bankrupt? Sounds good to me.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
Is the health care industry interested in anything besides the bottom line? The message seems to be that any changes to the current health care model as practiced by the HMO's and the insurance carriers are going to be costly. That is obvious. We need to look at every facet of the industry to try to find ways to cut costs. If we decide to let the industry scare us into doing nothing to reform their way of doing business, then we will bankrupt the country.

No. They are their to make money. Not help people. Hence they need to go.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
My Mom's paying 500 bucks a month with Cobra. We need a reform....

And if she was in an accident, injured, and had medical bills totaling $50,000 that $500 doesn't seem so bad now does it?

She could CHOOSE to take the risk and not have insurance but then she would live with the consequences.

Hell, my utility bill was $400+ for electricity alone last month. Do we need "utility reform"?

You should switch to CFL grow lights.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

US companies are already at a comparative disadvantage due to the costs they have in this area whereas other countries take care of it directly via the government/taxation.

Isn't that moot? They can either pay for health plans or they can pay more taxes or have to pay employees more because of the taxes the employees will have to pay.

Not necessarily. Individuals can be taxed directly for UHC and companies may not have to pay out near as much as they do currently for private plans. Sure, in those nations with UHC/UHI, companies do contribute but nowhere near the same %age that ours do for an equivalent standard of care. This gets even more extreme when you consider healthcare of those who have retired. Take a look at the big 3 vs their Japaneese counterparts... Remember all the fuss about 'legacy costs' and how it really kept the big 3 from competing? Toyota/Nissan/Honda don't have to contribute near as much as their gvt handles it from its own funding/taxation... a real competitive advantage. It isn't a moot point.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

Our poor have great medical care. It's free too.

It's called Medicaid.

Our seniors do, too. It's called Medicare.

I'll consider giving up on publicly funded health care when those lying, bloated Congressional whores selling their votes to big insurance and big pharma give up their own free, fully funded, top or the line Congressional medical care.

I'll consider giving up on current health insurance systems when my Congress critters give up their own free, fully funded, top of the line Congressional medical care for a UHC they want to enact.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I support universal health care because it works and is used in every other first world country, we're just so horribly afraid of our poors getting remotely similar care to the middle class that we have to make all sorts of bogeymen

Our poor have great medical care. It's free too.

It's called Medicaid.

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

Wrong, there is a whole band of 'the poor' that make that make TOO MUCH for medicaid.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I support universal health care because it works and is used in every other first world country, we're just so horribly afraid of our poors getting remotely similar care to the middle class that we have to make all sorts of bogeymen

Our poor have great medical care. It's free too.

It's called Medicaid.

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

Then what seems to be the perceived problem?? Unless of course this preventative medicine wiil help those damn, pesky poor people live longer.

See how you are.

If it does in fact cost more to provide this preventative care then who gets to foot the bill?

Providing preventative care costs more when compared to not providing preventative care. It does not cost more than providing emergency care in the ER for something that could have been prevented with preventative care at a normal GP's office.

Did you read the OP? Unless my reading skills have failed me the premise is that preventative care on the one case where something is detected saves money for that one case. However, offering preventative care for all costs more money than not because every single person will not necessarily require that preventative care.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I support universal health care because it works and is used in every other first world country, we're just so horribly afraid of our poors getting remotely similar care to the middle class that we have to make all sorts of bogeymen

Our poor have great medical care. It's free too.

It's called Medicaid.

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

Then what seems to be the perceived problem?? Unless of course this preventative medicine wiil help those damn, pesky poor people live longer.

See how you are.

If it does in fact cost more to provide this preventative care then who gets to foot the bill?

Providing preventative care costs more when compared to not providing preventative care. It does not cost more than providing emergency care in the ER for something that could have been prevented with preventative care at a normal GP's office.

Did you read the OP? Unless my reading skills have failed me the premise is that preventative care on the one case where something is detected saves money for that one case. However, offering preventative care for all costs more money than not because every single person will not necessarily require that preventative care.

That is not what the OP said actually. It said that some types of preventative medicine do not save money, as the accumulated cost of screening healthy people doesn't make up for the saved money from early detection of the sick. On other types of preventative medicine it DOES in fact save money for exactly the reason that ebaycj said. It all just depends on the type of screening and the type of illness.

None of this is new information in any way, the only thing new about it is that I had not seen an article dishonestly attempt to slam all of preventative medicine because some of it doesn't save money. It's Charles Krauthammer though, so it's not like anyone should really be that surprised. Fern bought it hook, line, and sinker because it told him what he already wanted to believe.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I support universal health care because it works and is used in every other first world country, we're just so horribly afraid of our poors getting remotely similar care to the middle class that we have to make all sorts of bogeymen

Our poor have great medical care. It's free too.

It's called Medicaid.

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

Then what seems to be the perceived problem?? Unless of course this preventative medicine wiil help those damn, pesky poor people live longer.

See how you are.

If it does in fact cost more to provide this preventative care then who gets to foot the bill?

Providing preventative care costs more when compared to not providing preventative care. It does not cost more than providing emergency care in the ER for something that could have been prevented with preventative care at a normal GP's office.

Did you read the OP? Unless my reading skills have failed me the premise is that preventative care on the one case where something is detected saves money for that one case. However, offering preventative care for all costs more money than not because every single person will not necessarily require that preventative care.

That is not what the OP said actually. It said that some types of preventative medicine do not save money, as the accumulated cost of screening healthy people doesn't make up for the saved money from early detection of the sick. On other types of preventative medicine it DOES in fact save money for exactly the reason that ebaycj said. It all just depends on the type of screening and the type of illness.

None of this is new information in any way, the only thing new about it is that I had not seen an article dishonestly attempt to slam all of preventative medicine because some of it doesn't save money. It's Charles Krauthammer though, so it's not like anyone should really be that surprised. Fern bought it hook, line, and sinker because it told him what he already wanted to believe.

So then would we only screen on those that look as if they would save money? Or still go full bore with all preventative screening? When combinining both the subsets that prove to save money with the subsets that prove to lose money, what is the net gain/loss?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: eskimospy

That is not what the OP said actually. It said that some types of preventative medicine do not save money, as the accumulated cost of screening healthy people doesn't make up for the saved money from early detection of the sick. On other types of preventative medicine it DOES in fact save money for exactly the reason that ebaycj said. It all just depends on the type of screening and the type of illness.

None of this is new information in any way, the only thing new about it is that I had not seen an article dishonestly attempt to slam all of preventative medicine because some of it doesn't save money. It's Charles Krauthammer though, so it's not like anyone should really be that surprised. Fern bought it hook, line, and sinker because it told him what he already wanted to believe.

So then would we only screen on those that look as if they would save money? Or still go full bore with all preventative screening? When combinining both the subsets that prove to save money with the subsets that prove to lose money, what is the net gain/loss?

I only see one subset there, and that is the preventative screening that saves money. The other set is everything. Using everything doesn't make any sense, and I'm unaware of any health care system that has ever implemented that.

You're basically asking a question so incredibly broad that it would be impossible for me to answer. As a basic set of principles you absolutely, 100% immediately start using all prescreening procedures that show to save money, then you look at the cost/benefit analysis of those that don't and implement accordingly.

To attempt to throw out the argument for the cost savings available through preventative medicine based on the fact that some preventative medicine does not save money is dishonest, and that's what the OP did.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
I'll consider giving up on current health insurance systems when my Congress critters give up their own free, fully funded, top of the line Congressional medical care for a UHC they want to enact.

Do you even know what Congress gets in terms of health insurance/care?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: Fern

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

....don't you see a problem with this?

Absolutely, and I've been consistently complaining about it here and pushing for HI reform.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Evan
Preventative medical care is more of a sensible, moral issue of quality of life than it is a cost saving measure. Hard for wingnuts to wrap their head around, but true nonetheless.

Yes, of course preventative care has great value on many levels. IMO, the problem is that this administration and supporters of UHC have been trying to sell it as something it is not - a cost saving measure that will help pay for UHC.

Fern

 

[Jadow]

Yeah, preventitive "medicine" is just extra doctor visits.

Now, living a preventitive "lifestyle" would definitely decrease costs.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Fern bought it hook, line, and sinker because it told him what he already wanted to believe.

You are the primary person on this board that has been promoting preventative care as money saver to help offset the cost of UHC (again, UHI really); I understand your frustration/bitterness over the CBO report.

As to the "want I wanted to believe" remark - Nope, I too was under the assumption that preventative care would be a money saver and help pay to expand HI to the unisured. You might recall only questioning who those savings would accrue to, but up til now I hadn't questioned the conventional wisdom that preventative care saved money in the aggregate. I was urprised by the CBO report and that's why I posted a thread about it.

BTW: The CBO report is 7 pages long, that's why I only linked it. I provided Krauthamer's commentary because it looks like a fairly accurate summary and is much shorter. And like I said originallly, if you don't like him don't read his summary; just stick with the CBO report.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Fern bought it hook, line, and sinker because it told him what he already wanted to believe.

You are the primary person on this board that has been promoting preventative care as money saver to help offset the cost of UHC (again, UHI really); I understand your frustration/bitterness over the CBO report.

As to the "want I wanted to believe" remark - Nope, I too was under the assumption that preventative care would be a money saver and help pay to expand HI to the unisured. You might recall only questioning who those savings would accrue to, but up til now I hadn't questioned the conventional wisdom that preventative care saved money in the aggregate. I was urprised by the CBO report and that's why I posted a thread about it.

BTW: The CBO report is 7 pages long, that's why I only linked it. I provided Krauthamer's commentary because it looks like a fairly accurate summary and is much shorter. And like I said originallly, if you don't like him don't read his summary; just stick with the CBO report.

Fern

I meant you bought Krauthammer's interpretation. This report only means that we should be careful what preventative medicine we use, not that it doesn't save money.

It has nothing to do with 'liking' or 'not liking' Krauthammer, it has to do with if what he wrote was factually accurate or not. It wasn't. You should know better than to get information from sources like that.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: Fern

Often, when the middle class gets something serious requiring major medical they end up on Medicaid too. (After they're bankrupt because of annual or lifetime limits on benefits).

Fern

....don't you see a problem with this?

Fern can be amazingly tone-deaf in this way. I don't know why, he's a good guy, but it's true and this is just one howling case in point.