Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) not at all. it's one of a number of measures from which a correlation on heathcare quality by country can be made. some would also argue that lifestyle issues are also in the realm of healthcare. drinking, smoking and even seatbelt use generally are. another example: in some countries, high risk pregnancies (because of lifestyle) are successfully followed with home visits by a nurse to minimize risk. i can already hear you yelling nanny state. The only thing you hear are the voices in your head. You'll bend anyway you can to lead to your conclusion rather than let logic lead you where it may. So now your ideal socialized medicine model will prevent heavy drinking, smoking, and enforce seatbelt use (beyond the seatbelt laws that the cops already enforce)? You have to want to believe pretty badly to stretch that far. Edited April 30, 2014 by Rob's House
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) The only thing you hear are the voices in your head. You'll bend anyway you can to lead to your conclusion rather than let logic lead you where it may. So now your ideal socialized medicine model will prevent heavy drinking, smoking, and enforce seatbelt use (beyond the seatbelt laws that the cops already enforce)? You have to want to believe pretty badly to stretch that far. who said "prevent"? health care providers can influence such changes and often do. here's an example: i frequently quote a recently published canadian study on smoking to patients that smoke. in simplest terms, it showed an average of 10 years of life lost from lifetime smoking. most of that can be regained if quitting occurs before age 40. there are still significant gains for quitting later. it's been a successful motivational tool in many cases already with definite results. Edited April 30, 2014 by birdog1960
B-Large Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 not at all. it's one of a number of measures from which a correlation on heathcare quality by country can be made. some would also argue that lifestyle issues are also in the realm of healthcare. drinking, smoking and even seatbelt use generally are. another example: in some countries, high risk pregnancies (because of lifestyle) are successfully followed with home visits by a nurse to minimize risk. i can already hear you yelling nanny state. ' I have a friend who lives in Manchester, he has Diabetus- he is assigned to a diabetus Nurse who reaches out to him to make sure he is taking insulin correctly, getting labs on time, seeing the MD. Its interesting, I think because they want to keep cost in control, they do much more perosnalized outreach in other countries in an effort to not escalate disease. He drinks like a fish, and I mean alot... it amazing how long he has lived absuig himself like that.
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 who said "prevent"? health care providers can influence such changes and often do. here's an example: i frequently quote a recently published canadian study on smoking to patients that smoke. in simplest terms, it showed an average of 10 years of life lost from lifetime smoking. most of that can be regained if quitting occurs before age 40. there are still significant gains for quitting later. it's been a successful motivational tool in many cases already with definite results. On a side note, do you know if there's a way to tell if you have permanent lung damage without consulting with your doctor?
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 On a side note, do you know if there's a way to tell if you have permanent lung damage without consulting with your doctor? see a doctor. even if there were, you'd need to find out the severity, diagnosis and possible treatment.
Doc Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Health care starts with the individual. Unless that changes, nothing will change significantly.
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 On a side note, do you know if there's a way to tell if you have permanent lung damage without consulting with your doctor? Yeah. If you can't breathe and it doesn't go away, it's permanent.
B-Man Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Mission accomplished: U.S. health-care spending soars nearly 10 percent in first quarter, most since 1980 I wonder if this’ll come up during the next Rose Garden ObamaCare victory lap. Obamacare was pitched as a plan to reduce health care spending, and formally titled the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” In 2009, Obama called the status quo – in which health care spending was accelerating toward becoming one-fifth of the economy – “unsustainable.” For several years, Obama and his allies had been crediting a slowdown in the rate of growth for health care to payment reforms imposed by the law. But other analysts predicted that spending would pick up as the economy improved and people started loosening the family purse strings. [T]he 9.9 percent jump (on an annualized basis) came in the quarter from January through March, which was the first three months in which individuals who gaining coverage through the law were able to use it. That was the fastest rate recorded since health care spending grew at a 10 percent rate in the third quarter of 1980. That’s from Philip Klein, who notes that spending also rose 5.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013 as the first few million O-Care sign-ups came onto the rolls. If you’re worried that a program that was sold in part on its ability to lower health-care spending can’t possibly be defended for raising health-care spending, relax. The first rule of ambitious liberal programs is that there are no trade-offs, at least in theory; that’s why Obama was able to blithely reassure people for years that they could keep their plan if they liked their plan, even though the whole point of O-Care was to force consumers from the old insurance market into the new one WASHINGTON POST: The White House’s Obamacare victory lap looking more like a false start. “Few things demonstrate how badly Democrats are losing this argument right now; even when it comes to their one big Obamacare ‘victory,’ Americans say almost three to one that it’s actually a negative.”
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Health care starts with the individual. Unless that changes, nothing will change significantly. and health care providers and systems can help change individual and population behaviors as can other factors such as financial disincentives or incentives for lifestyle change or laws regulating behavior.. cigarette sales have decreased considerably in recent years, that didn't happen by accident.
Doc Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 and health care providers and systems can help change individual and population behaviors as can other factors such as financial disincentives or incentives for lifestyle change or laws regulating behavior.. cigarette sales have decreased considerably in recent years, that didn't happen by accident. Hey, fine by me. Let's go all the way and mandate the way people live, or at least, tax heavily unhealthy things. Forget this Obamacaid crap that is doing the opposite of its stated goals.
Dorkington Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Why are people so quick to jump to extremes when discussing socialized programs? There's examples of socialized medicine and/or single payer systems that work well elsewhere, but when we discuss it here people either jump to "why not give everyone free tvs!" or "oh great, they'll ban drinking!" Have these things happened in other countries?
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Why are people so quick to jump to extremes when discussing socialized programs? There's examples of socialized medicine and/or single payer systems that work well elsewhere, but when we discuss it here people either jump to "why not give everyone free tvs!" or "oh great, they'll ban drinking!" Have these things happened in other countries? strawmen fly across pages wildly here.
IDBillzFan Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Last week I was surrounded by Generation Selfie in Northern California tourist hell. Massive junk-food eating fat asses for as far as the eyes could see. Hotel breakfast buffets looked like an old roller derby match, and the boardwalk looked like a Honey Boo Boo vs. the Ice Cream-covered Funnel Cake Steel Cage Death Match. Any idiot who thinks for one minute that giving these people health care, affordable or free, is going to get these lardass wobblers to take better care of themselves has gone full gatorman. They simply don't give a crap and will refuse to give a crap until they're clutching their chest shouting "I'm coming, Weezie!!"...and even then their fat-tubed fingers will simultaneously be squeezing the creamy center out of a deep-fried chocolate-covered Twinkie. We're *this* close to filming a Wall-E sequel.
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Why are people so quick to jump to extremes when discussing socialized programs? There's examples of socialized medicine and/or single payer systems that work well elsewhere, but when we discuss it here people either jump to "why not give everyone free tvs!" or "oh great, they'll ban drinking!" Have these things happened in other countries? Because anyone left of me is a communist and anyone right of me is a facist.
B-Large Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Why are people so quick to jump to extremes when discussing socialized programs? There's examples of socialized medicine and/or single payer systems that work well elsewhere, but when we discuss it here people either jump to "why not give everyone free tvs!" or "oh great, they'll ban drinking!" Have these things happened in other countries? Medicare is widly popular, even among the people who hate Socialism the most. I do think if Washington had a better track records of success rather than waste and cronyism, people would be more open to the testing our Single Payor, etc. Vermont will be an interesting case study in Single Payor at the State level- that could very well change the healthcare landscape in many Blue States if it is successful.
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Hey, fine by me. Let's go all the way and mandate the way people live, or at least, tax heavily unhealthy things. Forget this Obamacaid crap that is doing the opposite of its stated goals. but you said nothing will change, unless individuals change. you made that statement in reference to the alleged inability of health care systems to change behavior. are you now conceding that's incorrect?
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Medicare is widly popular, even among the people who hate Socialism the most. I do think if Washington had a better track records of success rather than waste and cronyism, people would be more open to the testing our Single Payor, etc. Vermont will be an interesting case study in Single Payor at the State level- that could very well change the healthcare landscape in many Blue States if it is successful. I wouldn't equate not wanting to abolish with wildly popular. I forget who it was, but a healthcare executive said at the time that if they had wanted to craft a system to achieve Medicare's goals they couldn't have devised one so contrived if they tried. We try to boil it down to a question of to cover or not to cover, but too often we come up with unnecessarily inefficient systems that become entrenched and then you can't get out from under them. The problem with these plans is their complexity. Once a plan becomes too complex everything can go wrong.
Dorkington Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Medicare is widly popular, even among the people who hate Socialism the most. I do think if Washington had a better track records of success rather than waste and cronyism, people would be more open to the testing our Single Payor, etc. Vermont will be an interesting case study in Single Payor at the State level- that could very well change the healthcare landscape in many Blue States if it is successful. I really hope VT doesn't screw the pooch. Also, I feel like a big part of government failures is how many for-profit hands are in the pot. We have a serious problem with lobbying, and related activities, in government, imo.
Chef Jim Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Last week I was surrounded by Generation Selfie in Northern California tourist hell. Massive junk-food eating fat asses for as far as the eyes could see. Hotel breakfast buffets looked like an old roller derby match, and the boardwalk looked like a Honey Boo Boo vs. the Ice Cream-covered Funnel Cake Steel Cage Death Match. Any idiot who thinks for one minute that giving these people health care, affordable or free, is going to get these lardass wobblers to take better care of themselves has gone full gatorman. They simply don't give a crap and will refuse to give a crap until they're clutching their chest shouting "I'm coming, Weezie!!"...and even then their fat-tubed fingers will simultaneously be squeezing the creamy center out of a deep-fried chocolate-covered Twinkie. We're *this* close to filming a Wall-E sequel. Why do I all of a sudden have the desire to go back to the lunch buffet for a fourth time?
B-Large Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I wouldn't equate not wanting to abolish with wildly popular. I forget who it was, but a healthcare executive said at the time that if they had wanted to craft a system to achieve Medicare's goals they couldn't have devised one so contrived if they tried. We try to boil it down to a question of to cover or not to cover, but too often we come up with unnecessarily inefficient systems that become entrenched and then you can't get out from under them. The problem with these plans is their complexity. Once a plan becomes too complex everything can go wrong. Medicare is fairly simple, just expensive to take care of sick old people. The ACA is an adminstrative trainwreck- and I have been a supporter.
Recommended Posts