2 Sickbeds, 2 Countries

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

Which is illegal, and the solution is to track him down and force him to pay child support, not to have the government do so in his place.quote>

I'm not sure what your local state laws are, but its certainly not illegal for a man to leave his family. Governments are also somewhat inept at recovering Child Support so although his responsibility to pay it, it at times is not enforced, another failure of the system.

[Hahayoudied 3]

This reminds me of another story years ago, and my memory is a bit vague on this story:

A mechanic had a heart attack repairing at a factory, fell into another machinery that was running, and gotten several major broken bones, shattered skull, multi massive internal bleeding, heavy lung and kidney damages, lost a foot, and lost 3 fingers. The repairer barely survived, but he had 14 major surgeries, and his medical costs was about $1 million (I think). The good news is that he was protected, up to 90% by his health insurance. Bad news was that the heath insurance company said they would only cover up to $300,000, and will not pay for 4 or more surgeries at once. The repairer appealed against that ruling, but the health insurance company showed their rulings, hidden in endless of amount of confusing paragraphs in the company's term of service.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Obviously the plan his job offers seems bad. But how exactly is that his only option? There's nothing preventing you from seeking health insurance from any company on your own, after all. Is there really nothing more affordable out there anywhere? I have a hard time believing that.quote>

Have you ever looked at how expensive it is to just buy health insurance?

Even the total crap plan Mr C had declined would probably run $400.00 or more a month.

And thats only for him, and a wife and kids and the cost would at least triple. that also assuming he is in good health, if not the cost would either double again or he would be non insurable.

If i didnt have Insurance through my employer No insurance company would come near me

because of my Transplant, the amount of money just paying for my anti rejection meds would cost them  so much more then they would ever collect form me. Hell just me paying my share of them keeps me from haveing any money to save for other unexpected expences that crop up during life.

[hummer0328 6]

I'm very lucky to have my current insurance plan through my fathers work. As soon as I turn 24 and loose this plan, no insurance company will touch me. And that's only if I'm not forced to drop out of college due to disability 1st. My only options will be medicare/medicaid and state health care programs (better than nothing I guess) It's not something I'm looking forward to dealing with, but it's not something I really have a choice in either. It wasn't my choice to have Narcolepsy.

Even with insurance I still can't afford the co-pays. This year I had to have 2 sleep studies done, each costing $7000. I had my 1st cataplexy attack this summer on a jobsite in the middle of Wyoming and because I was non-responsive (due to medication side effects) my boss called 911 and I was stuck with a $10000 life flight bill and $2000 in hospital fees. Add that to the $2000 in doctor appointments I've had and the total is around $30,000! I had to pay out of pocket 10-20% of each fee. Even with excellent insurance I am left with a $5000 bill. I haven't been able to pay a dime of this., have -$250 in my bank account (I hate Wells Fargo!), haven't paid a dime of this semesters tuition, am only passing one of my classes anyways, and my boss refuses to let me work more than a few hours a week (because I am not even really capable of the simple requirements of my "easy" retail job).

Luckily my insurance has $15 copays on all medication (vs a % co-pay) or I wouldn't be able to afford it. It's stupid how expensive my medication is. There is no reason for it. Xyrem, which is prescription GHB (the date rape drug) costs my insurance $1200 a month. Before GHB was made a Schedule I substance it could be found VERY cheaply in drug and health food stores. I understand why it is so controlled and why only 1 pharmacy in the country carries it (it has central distribution), since after all it is the only schedule I substance in the US that has legal medical uses and it is the date rape drug. But $1200 for something so cheap to make and something the pharmaceutical company spent virtually no money developing? Another medication I take is Desoxyn (methamphetamine). That's another $500 dollars/month. Again, I understand why it's highly controlled and why it's a schedule II substance, but $500?

All in all, my medications cost my insurance $2000 a month. My insurance has saved me around $40,000 over the past year. My beef isn't with insurance, but with health care costs in the 1st place. Its outrageous! Granted, I probably wont have to pay a dime of my co-pay when I file for bankruptcy. I just don't know how families can afford to pay this stuff. I guess the truth is that many can't and it's just not right. I can't imagine how hard it is for those who lack insurance and are stuck with huge bills like my insurance paid!

It's hard for me to accept the fact that I'm 22 years old, bankrupt, disabled, and filing for social security disability! This was not how I imagined my life!

[Hahayoudied 3]

I feel sorry for you. You remind me of one woman struggling to pay for medical costs for her two kids, who seemed to be allergic to everything, grass, soda, paper, food, plastic,and etc. Even though she had a expensive health insurance, they refused to pay for her medical bills. As a result, she ended in debt, which forced her to cancel all medications and doctor visits for her sons. She said she feels bad doing that, but she had no choice. Each time her sons have an allergic reaction attack, she couldn't decided if she should call 911 or hope the attack would go away.

People stuck with gentic or long term sickness, or diisablities do not deserve to be dumped out and left to fend for themselves. That is cruel. Sadly, many health insurance companies doesn't like their expensive customers and, the companies will try to dump out those customers.

In fact, there are some that actually raises their health insurance costs on people stuck with gentic or long term sickness, or diisablities, which is also cruel.

One of the main reasons why the Xyrem and Desoxyn costs so much, is because the greed for profits.

For those expensive drugs, can't you find cheaper prescription GHB or Desoxyn. Or, get the GHB drug and/or methamphetamine, off the street? Nah, just joking.

[threeswept 12]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Which is illegal, and the solution is to track him down and force him to pay child support, not to have the government do so in his place.quote>

I'm not sure what your local state laws are, but its certainly not illegal for a man to leave his family. Governments are also somewhat inept at recovering Child Support so although his responsibility to pay it, it at times is not enforced, another failure of the system. quote>

Exactly. There are no laws on the books in the US that state that leaving your family is illegal. If that were the case, there would certainly be more men in prison from that very fact. However, the government can force a man to pay for the upkeep of the children and/or wife.

It's weakness of character to seek help when I shouldn't need it.quote>

No one is saying that this is the case. If one needs healthcare, then it should be there. It isn't a weakness of character - that's a very 1800's, Wild West kind of thinking.

Obviously the plan his job offers seems bad. But how exactly is that his only option? There's nothing preventing you from seeking health insurance from any company on your own, after all. Is there really nothing more affordable out there anywhere? I have a hard time believing that.quote>

It may, in fact, be his ONLY option. How often have you searched for insurance? Not very often, I assume. Insurance plans vary state by state from the same company. As a matter of fact, some insurance companies are banned from providing services in some states. And, others choose to not offer service within other states. So, chances are that if one lives in a less populated state, his or her choices are much more limited and much more expensive than a much more populous state. It isn't quite like utilities that are subsidised (socialised) in smaller or less populated areas.

History and statistics prove that no society remains successful if its citizens are not kept healthy. I'd really be interested in seeing a country with the type of healthcare you imagine would be best. Oh, wait, I have only to look no further than say, somewhere in Africa. No thanks. I'd rather people go in for their annuals, their preventative and needed care. At least, it prevents me from catching something dodgy or deadly and then passing it on.

All in all, as no one else seems to really agree to any degree with your comments. I'm just thinking it's a bit of instigating. It's hard to imagine that anyone wouldn't want good health for themselves and, in general, other people around them - forget the archaic idea of weakness in character. There is so much more beyond your control in that regard. And, to actually say that one's bad health is karma - well, that's obviously ignorance in biology. Not everyone sits around eating McDonald's, gargantuan portions of food from Applebee's and gallons of diet soda filled with cancer causing chemicals to cause their health ills.

[saltandsauce 0]

for some reason, people have this rather silly assumption that public national healthcare bans private healthcare.

in the UK you get either NHS (National Health Service) or

BUPA healthcare (private and expensive)

as for "free marketeers" who seem to have wet dreams over the free market well,

prices aren't very negotiable nowadays (bartering) so if the business demands £4 squillion then you either take it or leave it. Government has the peope to be accountable to but businesses can be as sleazy as the law lets it be.

well ok what if you are one of those people who were doomed from birth to have either shaky or low pay then fine, either starve to death or die of whatever disease you have.

But it does cost everyone money whether they avail themselves of the service or not. That lack of personal choice in whether or not you pay for it and how much makes it oppressive. Different people have different levels of what they want from healthcare. Some people are perfectly happy never going to the doctor. Others absolutely demand to see a doctor whenever they so much as get a cold. Why should the former group pay for the latter? Everyone paying equally is not fair, since not everyone uses equally. You pay for what you use. No more, no less. That's fair. And guess what? That's how our system works as is, things like Medicare and Medicaid notwithstanding (and I personally think those ought to be abolished, since they're both jokes and black holes for money).quote>

that was the older system of the US and UK, the result is a financial disencentive for doctors to keep patients healthy

the UKs problem is that we have successive government privatising bits of it (such as nurse training,catering,cleaning, the actual hospital buildings) from the 1970s onwards and each government either making cutbacks (Tories) or drowning it in bereaucracy and twisting the figures (Old & Labour) or selling bits of it to the PRIVATE sector(New Labour)

an easy way to get rid of people calling 999 for an ambulance when they have the a cold (they don't go for them but the fact they call is horrendous) is to merley print on your payslip when they tax your income is "x% towards healthcare"

and as for IT?

well, since it would be the government providing this, the IT systems would not work (literally as is the case with school ones and things like the DVLA and child support databases) computerising things leaves important things in the hands of computers which have a tendancy to ignore common sense having modern X-ray equipment is important but having your medical files on one database ill end up in your data being lost/blanked/stolen(what they do with it i don't know)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: threeswept

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Which is illegal, and the solution is to track him down and force him to pay child support, not to have the government do so in his place.quote>

I'm not sure what your local state laws are, but its certainly not illegal for a man to leave his family. Governments are also somewhat inept at recovering Child Support so although his responsibility to pay it, it at times is not enforced, another failure of the system. quote>

Exactly. There are no laws on the books in the US that state that leaving your family is illegal. If that were the case, there would certainly be more men in prison from that very fact. However, the government can force a man to pay for the upkeep of the children and/or wife.quote>

It is the responsibility of a father to pay child support for his kids until they turn 18. This comes up in divorce proceedings all the time.

There's no law saying he can't leave the family, but there are laws saying he can't shirk his fiscal responsibility to his children. Being a deadbeat dad is illegal.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Your comments are misogynistic because you are attributing negative characteristics to women, namely single mothers, as a matter-of-course.  All of your statements regarding single mothers shows a fundamental lack of information, empathy, logic and intelligence.quote>

I'm not attributing negative aspects to women, I'm attributing negative aspects to irresponsible people. I would say exactly the same kind of thing about a single father in the same position, but nobody's bought that up.

I also find your interpretation of Individualism as being quite extreme.  You are free to live your life as you see fit, in most cases.  However, for all of your support of Libertarianism, you actually come across as more of an anarchist.  All civilizations are based on the cohesiveness of society.  While the merits and ideals may change over time, the fact remains that we are only able to live our free lives by contributing to the welfare of our society.  To do otherwise is to risk the rights we have and to make our culture decline into weakness and chaos.  While I may not be the best at saying it, you are entitled to your opinions, but do not expect that your ideas are as responsible as you seem to think they are. quote>

Believe me, no principled Libertarian would support national healthcare. It's simply not consistent with our ideals of small government.

I'm no anarchist, I'm not saying we should ditch government completely.

  That said, it does not prevent schisms in our culture that present a turning point for our future (example, Prop 8 on the ballot in CA re: Gay Marriage - I vote NO, BTW). quote>

No on the proposition or no on gay marriage?

And yet you did by responding that you won't respond.  Do you get that irony? quote>

Saying "I'm not going to respond to that" is not a rebuttal argument. And it's preferable to actually not responding to it because then it would look like I was conveniently ignoring it.

Your health is, for the most part, beyond your control.quote>

Debatable. You can certainly help things a lot based on your lifestyle habits.

Even still, everyone dies sooner or later anyway, so it's not like prolonging your meaningless existence really magically saves you somehow. I don't like the phrase "saving lives". Really, doing that is impossible. Even if you prevent someone from dying at a given point in time, they're still going to die eventually regardless. You haven't saved their life, you've merely delayed their death.

Yeah, okay, maybe I'm getting a bit too cynical here.

And not everyone shares your opinion.  Many need help because they are unable to control it their daily lives.  Again, this is a denial of reality.quote>

If they need help, fine, let them seek it. But any help they get must be optional. I don't give a damn about some random stranger's situation and I do not take kindly to being forced to help anyone. I mean, I'm willing to help my friends and family if they need something and I'm in a position to help them get it. But Joe bum on the street will get no sympathy from me. He's not my problem, and I'm never going to see him again regardless of whether I throw change in his cup or not.

I have no problem with charity. I like it, even. The problem is that it has to be voluntary. If it becomes involuntary, people aren't doing it out of the kindness of their heart, they're doing it because they have to... and that just breeds bitter feelings, so it's the opposite of helpful.

You seem to think jobs are just free for the taking, like some sort of rock beside the road.quote>

Eh? When did I say that? Yes, depending on your situation and your profession, employment may not be easy to come by at times. I recognize that.

I'm not sure why you assume that dead-beat dads necessarily have any money, either.  They may, they may not.  So a child, through no fault of its own, should face serious health issues because of that? quote>

Life is cruel. Deal with it.

[Hahayoudied 3]

Life is basically stair steps full of broken boards, nails, and glass pieces that people have to walk through. However, many health insurance companies often ditch their customers to save money, which is like throwing burning napalm on the stair steps, and adding more pain to the unlucky people.

[belfastuniguy 18]

It is the responsibility of a father to pay child support for his kids until they turn 18. This comes up in divorce proceedings all the time.

There's no law saying he can't leave the family, but there are laws saying he can't shirk his fiscal responsibility to his children. Being a deadbeat dad is illegal.quote>

Well not all cases of father abandonment happens in a married couple. The majority of cases are of men leaving an unmarried relationship, so these divorce proceeding's are not always applicable.

[hummer0328 6]

Duke,

I don't see a problem with the libertarian point of view (although I don't personally agree with it). But how are people suppose to help themselves in a health care system that doesn't allow that? I'm not trying to argue with you on any form of socialized medicine considering that argument seems to be lost on you. Do you really believe the system works the way it currently is? What would you do (if anything) to change it?

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied

One of the main reasons why the Xyrem and Desoxyn costs so much, is because the greed for profits.

For those expensive drugs, can't you find cheaper prescription GHB or Desoxyn. Or, get the GHB drug and/or methamphetamine, off the street? Nah, just joking.quote>

Yeah it is greed. Xyrem is an orphan drug. The orphan drug act was designed to allow pharmaceutical companies to develop medications for rare diseases. It allows them to have a monopoly on the drug to recoup the cost of development. Without the monopoly, many drugs would never make it to the market because the population the drug is designed to treat is to low and it would never otherwise be profitable. It was put on the orphan program only to create tight restrictions (no generic), thus the "Xyrem Success Program" is the only pharmacy in the country who sells it. My doctor needs special DEA clearance just to prescribe it. I need special DEA clearance just to possess it. Legally, after I have obtained this special clearance, Xyrem is considered schedule III (just a loophole to allow medical use of a schedule I substance). The reason for Schedule III vs II is because schedule II mandates a written prescription hand delivered by the patient directly to the pharmacy. That would make the Central distribution impossible. Outside of my hands it is still schedule I. If I got caught selling it (or any other illegal activity involving the drug) I would still be prosecuted under Schedule I. So the reason for no cheaper generics is because of such tight controls. The one upside is that I don't ever have to take time to drive down to the pharmacy. It's delivered to me by the same guy who delivers prescriptions to pharmacies and hospitals (has DEA clearance). The pharmacy gives me a call a week before I run out and sets up overnight delivery. All I do is open my front door and sign for it.

Desoxyn isn't nearly as much of a hassle to get, but there is no generic. I think the only reason is to tighten distribution by making it more expensive. Why would drug users pay that much for prescription meth when they can find it much cheaper on the street? I bet the pharmaceutical company loves it that way! I usually do get some dirty looks from the pharmacist when I hand over my prescription for 50mg/day of Methamphetamine. Other than Narcolepsy patients, 50mg/day is practically unheard of for Desoxyn. I've only been questioned once by the pharmacist, but since he was so rude about it I kinda told him off and made him look like a jerk in front of the other customers.

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied

Or, get the GHB drug and/or methamphetamine, off the street? Nah, just joking.quote>

LOL Yeah, I don't even like taking medical grade drugs. Not to mention street grade GHB really isn't safe since it's a salt diluted in water and it would be impossible to know the concentration. It's also made out of GBL, meaning the maker probably used drain cleaner. Combine drain cleaner with sodium hydroxide (lye) and you could get all sorts of very unsafe contaminants. Compare that to medical grade GHB, which is considered less toxic than Tylenol. As for street meth, I don't think I'm ever going anywhere near that stuff! If I wanted to feel like I'm on drugs, I would just stop taking any medication all together anyways. I HATE crashing off of Desoxyn. This happens after my last dose, and if I forget for too long to take a dose. I get very spacey and have constant microsleeps. My temporal lobe shuts down and I have a very hard time understanding speech and turning my thoughts into words. Sometimes I get "panic attacks" after it wears off as well. My bronchial tubes dilate and I start taking in too much oxygen, leading to low blood CO2 levels. This is the same thing that happens when someone hyperventilates (low blood CO2 levels) causing nearly identical effects.

Sorry for the rambling, lol... Rambling does tend to be a side effect of narcolepsy. I know it annoys my friends and family when I do it, but my mind just tends to keep wandering and my speech along with it. I could probably write a book on Narcolepsy, the medications for it, and neurology surrounding it. That's one of the problems with Narcolepsy. I know far more about it than both my sleep specialist and neurologist. And they deal with Narcoleptic patients occasionally. Other doctors have probably never dealt with it in their entire careers. They wouldn't recognize a case of Narcolepsy if it hit them in the head. Oh wait, i'm rambling again...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hummer0328

I don't see a problem with the libertarian point of view (although I don't personally agree with it). But how are people suppose to help themselves in a health care system that doesn't allow that? I'm not trying to argue with you on any form of socialized medicine considering that argument seems to be lost on you. Do you really believe the system works the way it currently is? What would you do (if anything) to change it? quote>

Meh, I would make things even less socialized than they already are. As I believe I already said, I'd be in favor of abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

Why? Well, because they're basically black holes for money. The government puts so much more funding into them than necessary and yet manages to get so much less out than they put in. If a doctor sees a medicare or medicaid patient, he makes almost zero profit from it. Those programs pay very poorly. Much less than private insurance companies. For this reason, there is a problem of a lot of doctors simply not accepting either since there's no money in it for them (a doctor has no legal obligation to accept Medicare or Medicaid, just as they have no obligation to accept a given insurance provider).

Where is that money going? It's essentially going to pay way too much for products like respirators and whatnot because the companies that make those products basically have congress by the throat. Every time someone in congress proposes to save money by buying generic products outright instead of renting and maybe eventually buying brand name ones, the brands start lobbying to all the old people who use them about the supposed horrible consequences of doing that... and they of course believe the drug company over the government. They don't want their service to change (even if the quality wouldn't decrease at all).

Those companies effectively threaten to turn the elderly against any congressmen who support the changes... and since senior citizens are perpetually the demographic with the highest voter turnout, having the elderly turned against you is basically political suicide. Forget about ever getting re-elected if that happens. That shuts up any attempts to improve the situation real nicely.

That kind of nonsense simply has to stop. That money could be so much better spent on more necessary things.

The fact of the matter is, medicare and medicaid are redundant anyway. If you're old, you're collecting your social security check. If you're young and disabled, you're collecting disability from social security. If your income is below the poverty line, you get a check from the IRS instead of having to send them a check. The government's already helping those needy people.

Now, let me comment on a few of hym's points:

Limit frivolous lawsuits so doctors aren't spending $75,000 a month for a $2 million malpractice insurance policy in case they ever get faced with "the big one."  (lawsuit that is)  This way, they don't have to charge as much for their services. quote>

That is a huge problem. There's way too much litigation in this country. Really, I think the key thing here is that we need it in writing that a doctor cannot be held liable unless there is hard scientific evidence that their actions contributed to the problem. There was that thing about it being proposed that cerebral palsy was caused or aggrivated by babies not gettng enough oxygen at birth, so if your kids has cerebral palsy, you should sue your Ob-Gyn. Pure supposition, no evidence that that was actually true. Yet many an Obstetrician lost real big on a malpractice lawsuit over it and malpractice insurance rates went through the roof to the point where Obstetricians were being driven out of business and there was a developing shortage of them. Then, a few years later, the results from the scientifc study come out, and lo and behold, they concluded that there was no correlation between the two. But by then, it was too late, the damage had been done.

Employ modern technology to reduce operating costs.  Medical offices that switch over to a good electronic system often find operational savings and reduced errors.quote>

I'm not so sure about this one. Computerized medical records systems and all that have an absolutely astronomical upfront cost. And their efficiency is compromised unless everything is computerized and automated. So long as you still have paper involved, that becomes hard to incorporate electronically.

As for "reduced errors", don't make me laugh. I dare you to find me a filing cabinet of paper charts that's caught a virus or displayed a blue screen of death.

Utilize "virtual doctor" programs.  A patient comes in, the staff gets the basic information, and that is fed into a computer program.  The program analyzes the data it's given, the patient's medical records, and any other information, like if there is a specific bug going around in the area, and then suggests possible scenarios.  The doctor can use this to select more focused testing, thereby potentially reducing the number of tests needed to diagnose the illness. quote>

The flaw in this idea is that computers are stupid. They can't think. They're no expert on anything and medicine/biology is a very complicated thing. You couldn't practically write a decent program to do that. It's simply too complicated. You really need a human who knows the subject to do that right.

Encourage preventative medicine.  It costs more up front, but the patient usually is healthier in the long run, which reduces long-term costs. quote>

Preventative medicine reducing costs in the long term is a common myth. Reality is, it may or it may not. It varies from case to case. Fact of the matter is that you have a lot of false positives and false alarms in testing. You go get a checkup, the doctor finds something and decides it needs to be further investigated since it's potentially dangerous... and often it turns out to be nothing, making the money, time, and effort for that extra testing completely wasted. Now, if it turns out to actually be a problem that needs addressing, then yes, you've likely saved money since the earlier something is discovered the easier it is to treat. But that's not always what happens.

Promote the use of cheaper treatment methods where applicable.  For example, a bottle of Aricept may cost $100+ while a 30 day supply of Aricept's active ingredient may cost only about $6. quote>

See what I was ranting about with Medicare above. Yeah, I'm with you on this one.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Now, let me comment on a few of hym's points:

Employ modern technology to reduce operating costs.  Medical offices that switch over to a good electronic system often find operational savings and reduced errors.quote>

I'm not so sure about this one. Computerized medical records systems and all that have an absolutely astronomical upfront cost. And their efficiency is compromised unless everything is computerized and automated. So long as you still have paper involved, that becomes hard to incorporate electronically.

As for "reduced errors", don't make me laugh. I dare you to find me a filing cabinet of paper charts that's caught a virus or displayed a blue screen of death. quote>

Yeah, it's true that the upfront costs are high, but the idea is that you're looking long-term with this, and that the goal is actually to save money (not just have a fancy new computer program).  If you can justify the economics, then go for it.  If not, then don't.

Manually filing patient records doesn't  risk technological problems, but it does risk misfiling patient records or losing those records altogether.  To say nothing of lost or mis-ordered prescriptions, test results that get lost and haven't been entered into the patient file, etc.

Utilize "virtual doctor" programs.  A patient comes in, the staff gets the basic information, and that is fed into a computer program.  The program analyzes the data it's given, the patient's medical records, and any other information, like if there is a specific bug going around in the area, and then suggests possible scenarios.  The doctor can use this to select more focused testing, thereby potentially reducing the number of tests needed to diagnose the illness. quote>

The flaw in this idea is that computers are stupid. They can't think. They're no expert on anything and medicine/biology is a very complicated thing. You couldn't practically write a decent program to do that. It's simply too complicated. You really need a human who knows the subject to do that right. quote>

I would agree with you on this, except for an article I read a few years ago about computer diagnoses of plant diseases.  A bunch of biology students were pitted against a computer program designed to identify plant disorders by analyzing pictures of the plant.  Initially, the computer program was as bad as the students.  However, as it was given comparison material, the computer quickly rose to a higher than 90% success rate.  The biology students never got above about an 80% success rate.

Most diseases/disorders have certain defining characteristics, and most people aren't medical mystery cases.  If you think about it, when the doctor is diagnosing you, all he/she is doing is performing data analysis, which is something computers are quite good at.  If you've got an oddball case on your hands, then yes, a computer isn't much good to you.  However, most of your patients probably aren't oddball cases and, from the computer's standpoint, can be reduced to statistical probabilities.

Encourage preventative medicine.  It costs more up front, but the patient usually is healthier in the long run, which reduces long-term costs. quote>

Preventative medicine reducing costs in the long term is a common myth. Reality is, it may or it may not. It varies from case to case. Fact of the matter is that you have a lot of false positives and false alarms in testing. You go get a checkup, the doctor finds something and decides it needs to be further investigated since it's potentially dangerous... and often it turns out to be nothing, making the money, time, and effort for that extra testing completely wasted. Now, if it turns out to actually be a problem that needs addressing, then yes, you've likely saved money since the earlier something is discovered the easier it is to treat. But that's not always what happens. quote>

Again, the idea is to reduce the long-term cost of medical treatment, so you administer the preventative medical approach in a fashion shown to reduce long-term costs.  Nothing more.  If the patient wants to go above and beyond that, that's fine, as he has the right to the level of medical care he wants to receive.  But at the least encourage him to take preventative steps that have been proven to reduce long-term medical costs.

---

Barbarosa: Obviously you have issues with the support material (the non-bold text) of my general plan for overhauling the medical system.  That's fine; I said that the plan would need to be tweaked.  Honestly, I put together that support material in a couple of hours in response to SkiGeek's request for an idea of how things might be different if I was overhauling the US medical system.  It would be supremely ludicrous to assume that the subpoints of the propose plan wouldn't need some level of adjustment.

However, your analysis of my proposed plan seems to miss the main point of the plan--overhauling the medical system.  People say that the system is broken and point to the 44 million Americans without health insurance as proof of their claim.  Yet they propose things like a national health insurance system.  What does that do to actually fix the problems of the system of healthcare delivery?  Nothing.  As I'm sure you can tell from the discussions on this forum, Americans are not ready for a system of socialized medicine like can be found in many European countries.  So what do the politicians push for?  Things like Obama's national health insurance program (I'm not picking on him, but rather, using him as an example).  Yet for all the talk about how this will help those 44 million Americans, it does little to nothing to fix the system of healthcare delivery. Washington's proposed solutions aren't really solutions; they are attempts to address superficial problems, and mask the real underlying problems in the process.  This is where my proposed general plan differs.  For all the faults you say are in it, my general plan actually attempts to fix the system of healthcare delivery.  People say the system needs to be fixed, and my proposed overhaul attempts to do that.  That's more than can be said for any major proposal from Washington leaders.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Landmark NHS top-ups decision due

By Nick Triggle Health reporter, BBC News

Many of the recent cases have involved cancer treatment

Patients in England are due to hear whether they will be able to top up NHS care by paying for drugs privately.

People are currently excluded from the NHS if they pay for treatment not available on the health service, but practice varies from place to place.

It is widely expected that ministers will lift that ban, following a four-month review of the issue.

But the landmark decision will also set out how such a complex system can work alongside a universal health service.

Top-up fees, or co-payments as they are sometimes called, have dominated the headlines this year.

Allowing private payments alongside NHS care cannot be allowed to become the thin end of the wedge - no one wants a two speed health service and this should not become a step in that direction Nigel Edwards, of the NHS Confederation Q&A: NHS top-ups A doctor's story Send us your comments

The Department of Health announced the review in June, after an outcry from patients over what was considered a hard-line stance and mounting evidence of an inconsistent approach by individual NHS trusts.

The national clinical director for cancer, Professor Mike Richards, was asked to look at the issue and has spent the last four months talking to patients, doctors, charities and NHS managers about what should happen.

He handed his report to ministers at the end of October and the government is now ready to formally announce its verdict.

While it has been widely reported that the government will lift the top-ups ban, there is still much to be resolved over how such a move would work in practice.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME More from Today programme

Issues raised during the consultation include what should happen if a patient runs out of money, who picks up the bill for side-effects of treatment and what can be done for those who cannot afford to top up their care.

In total, 15,000 patients appealed to their local NHS trust last year after being denied treatment - and while not all of them would necessarily end up paying a top-up, it does illustrate the scale of the problem.

Professor Richards' report is also expected to set out how the number of treatments available on the NHS can be broadened.

In recent months there has been talk of altering the way the NHS appraises the drugs it uses, as well as encouraging pharmaceutical firms to offer more flexible pricing options, such as refunds if the drugs do not work.

How one patient tops up his NHS care

U-turn

Administrations in the rest of the UK are known to be monitoring what the Department of Health decides, with Wales and Scotland already announcing they are carrying out their own reviews.

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: "A government U-turn on top-up payments will be a very welcome one.

"The NHS cannot provide everything without regard to cost, but that is not an excuse for the injustice and inhumanity of withdrawing all care from those that want to spend their own money on life-saving treatment."

And shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said it was paramount that the NHS was able to fund more drugs to bring them in line with the "rest of Europe".

Nigel Edwards, director of policy at the NHS Confederation, which represents managers, said a change in policy would help deal with a situation which had become "unsupportable".

But he added: "Allowing private payments alongside NHS care cannot be allowed to become the thin end of the wedge - no one wants a two-speed health service."quote>

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa