Revived GOP health care talks could hurt those with pre-existing conditions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sy_Noe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
You’re assuming, first, that healthcare is only a matter of money. There are other things that limit the provision of healthcare, one being the number of qualified people to provide it. Apparently the number of physicians in Japan is dropping, particularly in rural areas. I have not yet seen a good explanation for that except the speculation that it’s a byproduct of oncoming “demographic winter”; i.e., the increasing number of aged takes a number of older doctors out, without enough qualified young ones coming on to take their places.

Also, of course, there are limitations in this country of the number and type of physicians due to the medical schools’ control of the number of graduates and their particular views of what a proper incoming student is. At present, government has no way to deal with that, and money alone won’t cure it.

You’re also at least suggesting the assumption there is enough elasticity in government spending to generate whatever amount of money it might take to provide whatever amount of healthcare a population demands. Utilization of health services is almost certainly more elastic than is government money to provide it.
Click to expand...
Many rural areas in the U.S. aren’t doing so much better than in Japan. The last I heard, nurse practitioners have had to substitute for physicians in many communities although family medicine in rural America may be making a comeback. I’m not sure what the latest statistics are. A general rule of thumb is that money thrown at a problem must be accompanied by skilled management of resources. However, without sufficient funds, management will probably not succeed in delivering adequate healthcare or access to healthcare providers.
 
meltzerboy said:
Many rural areas in the U.S. aren’t doing so much better than in Japan. The last I heard, nurse practitioners have had to substitute for physicians in many communities although family medicine in rural America may be making a comeback. I’m not sure what the latest statistics are. A general rule of thumb is that money thrown at a problem must be accompanied by skilled management of resources. However, without sufficient funds, management will probably not succeed in delivering adequate healthcare or access to healthcare providers.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right about rural areas in the U.S., notwithstanding that I live in what most would consider a “rural” area and there are more doctors than ever before. No shortage at all.

NPs could be very helpful in most places, including here, but not for lack of doctors. NPs can handle most things and they can be a lot cheaper than doctors if they were allowed to practice independently. In a couple of states they can practice independently, but not in most places. Another thing that would have to be done is to shift NP education to more emphasis on clinical practice and away from nursing theory. That education retains too many elements of prior MSN programs that were geared to teaching.

As near as I can tell, most insurers do a pretty decent job of managing resources, but the demand itself is still consumer-driven. You go to the doctor for something that’s nothing or really minimal, and you (or your insurer, or the government) still pay the full boat. There is management of payment for service rendered, but not in utilization.

I really don’t know how one deals with a system in which demand is potentially endless and consumer driven, when the consumer insists that someone else pay for all or most of it. There’s little or no downside to overutilization on the part of anyone involved. I suppose in places like Canada, the downside is endless waiting. In France it’s the hassle of paying up front and then billing the government for 80% of what you paid. In some places, (like VA) it’s waiting plus sometimes terrible care.

In the U.S. we’re accustomed to little or no waiting, excellent care, including specialty care, and for some of us, 100% of it is free. There is really little or nothing to control utilization. Some believe higher deductibles combined with catastrophic care and health savings accounts would ensure or increase consumer management of expenditures, but others debate that and, besides, not everybody can make that work for them.

I remain unpersuaded that there is any system that will not fail to be unsatisfactory to some significant number of people.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You’re assuming, first, that healthcare is only a matter of money.
Click to expand...
I know it is not simply a matter of money. But neither is it a strictly limited resource that needs allocation and cannot increased through policy. In fact some of the limitations you mentioned are themselves examples of policy, such as med school control of graduates and government priorities. Change the policy and change the availability. I also question whether utilization of health care is so elastic. Certainly for some procedures it is quite elastic. But for others, it is either get the health care or die. For those services the utilization is as inelastic as you can get.

Over the short term, health care is a very limited resource because the time lag to train up medical professionals is so long. So no one is going to wave a magic wand and double the number of doctors. But long term, there is no reason why policy decisions cannot have a significant effect on the total availability of health care. And not all policy decisions have to boil down to more money. There are nations with closer to universal coverage where the average quality of life is at least as good as the US and where the amount spent on health care is less than what we spend in the US.
 
Thorolfr said:
His argument would be more convincing if he’d said that he found a doctor who had offered to do heart surgery for a hundred dollars after he whined a little.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the bottom line is that we are all going to die some day and some of us will die sooner than others. As Christians, mightn’t it be a better use of our time on earth to be focusing on improving our spiritual lives than to try to get a few more years in before dying?
 
jeannetherese said:
Perhaps the bottom line is that we are all going to die some day and some of us will die sooner than others. As Christians, mightn’t it be a better use of our time on earth to be focusing on improving our spiritual lives than to try to get a few more years in before dying?
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Why give anyone medical care then? Why have emergency rooms?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
We have to remember Jesus cured the sick. How can we not do the same?
Click to expand...
Jesus only cured the sick who were immediately in front of Him.

Or, as with the Centurion’s servant, when someone petitioned directly.

And Jesus healed with His Word.

The number of humans who heal that way today is very limited.

Maybe not any.

Father Solanus Casey died a while ago.

Secular Edgar Cayce died also.
 
How many bureaucrats are essential to the healing process?

OR, should we test everyone and anyone who shows any aptitude for healing should be forced by the government to being a healer and after a decade of training be required to work for free?
 
So today I learned on CAF that some Catholics think that Jesus wants us to let all the sick people die. Just when I thought this forum had sunk as low as it gets.
 
OR, in the case of the woman who was sick and who touched the tassel of His cloak, He felt the healing force go out from Him.

How many healings can a normal human conduct after all of the healing forces go out?
 
TMC said:
So today I learned on CAF that some Catholics think that Jesus wants us to let all the sick people die. Just when I thought this forum had sunk as low as it gets.
Click to expand...
Yesterday we celebrated Palm Sunday.

Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem and was greeted by huge crowds of people waving palms.

Five days later, He was tortured to death.

Then He rose from the dead, but then ascended into Heaven.

Where did Jesus leave us?

So, what … what are we to do?

Yesterday, churches were bombed during Mass in Egypt. Many people were killed.

So, what … what are we to do?

We need a system, right? Right?

[Just what we need is yet another “system”.]

We had one that worked and needed some tweaking, but was uprooted and replaced by something controlled by government bureaucrats and politicians. [Politicians, who by the way, exempted themselves.]
 
[And who, exactly, made the “upper room” available for The Last Supper?]
I love Jesus more than you can know.

But like Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s angelic helpers who cleaned the black board, Jesus had a legion of Angels … stage hands … who arranged things.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Worth_Living*

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen’s stage hands were paid by Admiral television, which is no longer with us.*
 
AClaire11 said:
Are you agreeing with me that providing healthcare is important, or are you suggesting people rely on faith healings?
Click to expand...
I was agreeing with you. Although relying on faith hearings would be cheaper:D
 
But in Jesus’ name, we press on:

It’s not easy.

Acts 14: 1-28

[And He and they didn’t speak English, either. It wasn’t invented yet.]

[And His Name was Josua bin Josef.]
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I know it is not simply a matter of money. But neither is it a strictly limited resource that needs allocation and cannot increased through policy. In fact some of the limitations you mentioned are themselves examples of policy, such as med school control of graduates and government priorities. Change the policy and change the availability. I also question whether utilization of health care is so elastic. Certainly for some procedures it is quite elastic. But for others, it is either get the health care or die. For those services the utilization is as inelastic as you can get.

Over the short term, health care is a very limited resource because the time lag to train up medical professionals is so long. So no one is going to wave a magic wand and double the number of doctors. But long term, there is no reason why policy decisions cannot have a significant effect on the total availability of health care. And not all policy decisions have to boil down to more money. There are nations with closer to universal coverage where the average quality of life is at least as good as the US and where the amount spent on health care is less than what we spend in the US.
Click to expand...
I’m cautious about saying which country spends what on healthcare, since in some the 'costs" don’t include a lot of things we end up counting here. So, for instance, in those countries in which the government pays all or part of medical education or malpractice insurance premiums or special courts to try malpractice cases, those things are not included in “costs of medical care”, whereas in the U.S. they are because providers have to recover those costs in the cost of care.

I don’t doubt there are ways to provide something reasonably close to “universal care”, without it really being “free”.

But I would also dispute that utilization is inelastic. All one has to do to know that it’s potentially endless is to read a few Medicaid charts. Overutilization is rampant in that system, particularly utilization of ER care. It’s free to them, so who cares if it costs the taxpayer $1,000 to go to the ER to get a pain med for an epicondylitis flare up?
 
TMC said:
So today I learned on CAF that some Catholics think that Jesus wants us to let all the sick people die. Just when I thought this forum had sunk as low as it gets.
Click to expand...
Boy did I miss seeing those posts! Can you point them out?
 
Why do leftists hate America?

americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/why_do_leftists_hate_america.html

The Catholic Church has always provided medical care, but often nowadays is being hounded out of providing these services.

So here are two excerpts from the article I posted:

In my opinion, this becomes the core of the discussion:

The simple answer is that leftists hate America and her biblical values.

As a Christian, I cannot help but notice that leftists hate America’s Christian roots. They have a huge problem with the God of Christianity and with Jesus. Think about it. Islam justifies beating and killing a disobedient wife and beheading homosexuals. And yet leftists, who claim to be superior advocates for women and homosexuals, defend Islam. Meanwhile, they vilify Christians, calling them intolerant haters for simply honoring biblical principles. At least 90% of leftist sacred cow issues are anti-Bible. Why?

This continues to have me scratching my head. Celebs like Rosie O’Donnell, Kim Kardashian, and Madonna support Islam and trash Christianity. And yet if Islamic sharia law became the law of the land, none of them would be allowed to be who they are.

Clearly, their issue with Christianity is spiritual. As a Christian, I believe that it is the spirit of anti-Christ. How dare Jesus be so arrogant to proclaim himself the only way to heaven, saying, “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me.”

Read more: americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/why_do_leftists_hate_america.html#ixzz4dr5SFpYc
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
Ridgerunner said:
But I would also dispute that utilization is inelastic. All one has to do to know that it’s potentially endless is to read a few Medicaid charts. Overutilization is rampant in that system, particularly utilization of ER care. It’s free to them, so who cares if it costs the taxpayer $1,000 to go to the ER to get a pain med for an epicondylitis flare up?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say all health care utilization is inelastic. I said some of it is very inelastic.

As for the overutilization of ER facilities, that is not so much overutilization as improper utilization caused by policy. Government regulations require that the ER not turn away anyone. So when a need arises, and the ER route is the only one available, people will take it, even if it is not the most appropriate use of those facilities. So either we need to clamp down on mandatory ER admissions (and risk the resulting Dickensian imagery) or provide a more appropriate (i.e. less costly) channel for the kind of care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top