What is "basic" healthcare?

[Archaix]

One more thing I learned today:
Estimated annual cost of general unhealthiness to the U.S. economy: $153,398,049,221

[Chachma v'Oz]

In other words, it's a word that's used to make it sound low-cost and something everyone should be entitled to...but in reality it applies to everything under the sun that traditional private insurance would pay for.

That I know of, no private insurance will pay for cosmetic surgery other than that which is done to reconstruct after a disease or injury.

Ours does, that consumer driven plan I described in another thread. We have a Personal Care Account to which the insurance company puts $2,400/yr. It can be used for any medical procedure, and a third of it can be used for dental and vision services. You want lasik surgery or a nose job? The unused portion of your PCA rolls over to the next year and once it has enough in it, go for it. As long as it's medical, it's covered by the PCA.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Preventative care makes healthcare cheaper in the long run.

The short-sighted don't see the connection. Everyone else in the world does.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I provided one, which you argued is unworkable because it would allow coverage to grow uncontrollably, and I showed how that has not been the case in Britain. Really, we haven't seen a sufficient response to that from sceptics.

Stand by. He'll ask it again and again.

[Chachma v'Oz]

One more thing I learned today:
Estimated annual cost of general unhealthiness to the U.S. economy: $153,398,049,221

It's not like we need a healthy workforce to compete in the global economy or anything.

[soylentgreen]

Less and less is covered by the NHS the longer the project has gone on.

That sounds bad...

[Pho King]

The short-sighted don't see the connection. Everyone else in the world does.

And the misinformed and ignorant have no issue with making broad, sweeping generalizations that conflict with reality.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

[Archaix]

"Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost" How do you know that won't eat into the $153,398,049,221 currently lost?

[Pho King]

"Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost" How do you know that won't eat into the $153,398,049,221 currently lost?

How do you feel that your sweeping generalization about preventive care making health care cheaper in the long run comport with the following:

"Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching"?

[hadit]

Not what has happened in Britain, where coverage has regressed, especially in terms of prescriptions and dental.

Britain is not the US. You have already visited the dark side and are recoiling from it. We have not yet fully lifted the curtain and seen the horrors behind it. Hey, aren't prescriptions and dental preventive, and wouldn't that make Britain's socialized medicine experiment even more of a failure?

[Pho King]

Britain is not the US. You have already visited the dark side and are recoiling from it. We have not yet fully lifted the curtain and seen the horrors behind it. Hey, aren't prescriptions and dental preventive, and wouldn't that make Britain's socialized medicine experiment even more of a failure?

No. According to Archaix- who seems to have the ability to speak for the experiences of every single British subject, "Quality of care has been vastly improved for everyone in the UK since setting up the NHS."

[kellyb]

I think "basic" means "everything that was cutting edge 10 years ago", more or less. For medical science to progress, I can't see a way out of the really cutting edge stuff only being available to the super-rich.

[kellyb]

No. According to Archaix- who seems to have the ability to speak for the experiences of every single British subject, "Quality of care has been vastly improved for everyone in the UK since setting up the NHS."

Uh, do you really doubt that?

[Pho King]

Uh, do you really doubt that?

Doubt what? That Archaix has knowledge into the private lives of every single British subject?

Or that, indeed, every single British subject has had their quality of care vastly improved since setting up NHS?

As a simple matter of common sense- I would disagree with both sentiments.

[kellyb]

Doubt what? That Archaix has knowledge into the private lives of every single British subject?

Or that, indeed, every single British subject has had their quality of care vastly improved since setting up NHS?

As a simple matter of common sense- I would disagree with both sentiments.

I don't think you're stupid, so I'm a little perplexed. OF COURSE ALL people, from the richest to the poorest, have had their quality of care vastly improved since the NHS was created. No insider knowledge of how Brittan's royalty gets and has gotten medical care is required to understand why and how.

[soylentgreen]

I think "basic" means "everything that was cutting edge 10 years ago", more or less.

If that's teh definition, someone should say that up-front. Of course, it means a lot of people will die who would otherwise not have died. In other words, how is this any better than the eeeevil insurance companies who deny care? I can't see that it's any different....really.

For medical science to progress, I can't see a way out of the really cutting edge stuff only being available to the super-rich.

No one is going to build a new cutting-edge CT scanner to serve the super rich (less than 1% of the population). If we decide "basic care" will be 2002 technology, that's all we will have available. It seems to me that our current system is a pretty good balance...although it certainly can be improved.

[kellyb]

If that's teh definition, someone should say that up-front. Of course, it means a lot of people will die who would otherwise not have died. In other words, how is this any better than the eeeevil insurance companies who deny care? I can't see that it's any different....really

I think more people should say it up front, too. I guess folks don't want to look mean. Or, they just haven't thought the question out.

But how is it different from our present system? In our present system, all health care is strictly rationed by income. Period. This causes WAY WAY WAY more preventable deaths than providing 2002 care to EVERYONE (with the super-rich being free to get even better care) would provide.

[Archaix]

How do you feel that your sweeping generalization about preventive care making health care cheaper in the long run comport with the following:

"Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching"?

What sweeping generalisation was that?

Britain is not the US. You have already visited the dark side and are recoiling from it. We have not yet fully lifted the curtain and seen the horrors behind it. Hey, aren't prescriptions and dental preventive, and wouldn't that make Britain's socialized medicine experiment even more of a failure?

We've already visited the dark side? What?

No. According to Archaix- who seems to have the ability to speak for the experiences of every single British subject, "Quality of care has been vastly improved for everyone in the UK since setting up the NHS."

It has. Are you arguing that people were better served by the system we had before the NHS?

Doubt what? That Archaix has knowledge into the private lives of every single British subject?

What an achingly boring thing to say. Go read some more books about unicorns or something, and come back when you've got something interesting to add to the conversation for once.

[hadit]

We've already visited the dark side? What?

You've already gone down the road of universal health care, and are now retreating from the promise of free everything to everyone. By your own statements, the NHS is covering LESS now than it used to. IOW, as America is moving TOWARD universal health care, you are retreating FROM it.

[hadit]

I think "basic" means "everything that was cutting edge 10 years ago", more or less. For medical science to progress, I can't see a way out of the really cutting edge stuff only being available to the super-rich.

And even if it is, it doesn't stay that way for long. Every new technology starts out very expensive before becoming a commodity. When I worked in IT at Circuit City, they would tell us that they were able to sell TV's at a high profit for 40 years. Of course, there is not much profit left in selling a basic TV today. They only had two years to sell DVD players at a big profit, BTW.