Listen.. just think for a minute. You are giving tests to HEALTH PEOPLE. THINK. How effective is that?
What is preventative is getting people into treatment that are having an issue.. and preventing further complications. That's preventative medicine.
This is Preventive Care: Preventive care focuses on evaluating your current health status when you are symptom free. Preventive care allows you to obtain early diagnosis and treatment, to help avoid more serious health problems. Through a preventive exam and routine health screenings, your doctor can determine your current health status and detect early warning signs of more serious problems. Your preventive care services may include immunizations, physical exams, lab work and x-rays. During your preventive visit your doctor will determine what tests or health screenings are right for you based on many factors such as your age, gender, overall health status, personal health history and your current health condition.
This isn’t Preventive Care: Medical treatment for specific health conditions, on-going care, lab or other tests necessary to manage or treat a medical issue or health condition are considered diagnostic care or treatment, not preventive care.
And it IS what Obamacare did. By increasing the number of people that have insurance.. this means that people who have illness or other beginning health issues can get treatment early rather then end up in the ER with say kidney failure from uncontrolled diabetes..
And it IS what Obamacare did.
well, i'm sure that the wealthy are able to purchase preferential treatment in the states. the rest of us pay ridiculous amounts of money into the health care system when we get sick unless we work a specific job that provides great health insurance.
Yep.. Well.. combine the population growth.. and that California probable expanded more people on Medicaid.. (where as some of the states I do business did not expand Medicaid).. its not surprising.
What irks me though is the BS. Okay.. so we hear all this talk about "preventative medicine" and getting people care before they cost more money. OK.. that makes sense. THEN they have people on the expansion of Medicaid.. and nickel and dime the cheap preventative stuff.
we had a lady that blew her knee OUT. Complete disruption of her ACL, almost complete tear of her MCL and a huge tear of her medial meniscus She was on the expansion of Medicaid. She spent two weeks in a brace basically unable to use it.. until she could get approval of surgery. THEN after surgery we wanted therapy right away. DENIED. Home program afterward only. so what do we see at follow up? She is unable to bear weight and is developing a contracture. We get approval for therapy... 3 visits.. that's it. Therapy gets her started and moving but wants more therapy... they fight for more and get another 3 visits. After that.. no more visits. So when we see her.. the gains she made in therapy were gone.. and she was worse.
So we end up manipulating her. We want therapy again. Nope.. denied. After she started tightening up yet again.. we got three visits again of therapy. Luckily the therapist was smart enough to recognize that there was no way therapy was going to work with the insurance nickel and diming it..so he recommended an expensive dynamic splint for her knee to pull her into extension as something better than nothing. Luckily.. that seemed to work to a degree so she ended up with a very slight contracture but functional.
of course the cost of the brace alone was more than 3 months of therapy would have been.. not to mention the manipulation, and the extra pain medication, and doctors visits.
This is Medicaid.. a government program.. so its amazing to me to see these fellows think that if we went to single payer government healthcare that its going to be just great.
Helix
Please re-read Jaeger's response to this post of yours (in #169) where he denies that the wealthy can buy preferential treatment. Then read this post where he describes two patients, one of whom received better treatment due to their having better coverage
Yes Sangha.. please read it.. and try to actually understand it.
It proves my points about healthcare in this country and why single payer is a bad idea.
.This is Preventive Care: Preventive care focuses on evaluating your current health status when you are symptom free. Preventive care allows you to obtain early diagnosis and treatment, to help avoid more serious health problems. Through a preventive exam and routine health screenings, your doctor can determine your current health status and detect early warning signs of more serious problems. Your preventive care services may include immunizations, physical exams, lab work and x-rays. During your preventive visit your doctor will determine what tests or health screenings are right for you based on many factors such as your age, gender, overall health status, personal health history and your current health condition
I am not able to find any links indicating that giving test to someone already having the disease or symptoms of the disease is preventative care.
Preventive medicine: Medical practices that are designed to avert and avoid disease. For example, screening for hypertension and treating it before it causes disease is good preventive medicine. Preventive medicine takes a proactive approach to patient care
.A different way to define Preventive Medicine is to divide the entire field into two broad groups: clinical and non-clinical Preventive Medicine. Doctors who work in clinical Preventive Medicine see patients on a daily basis and may provide services in screening, health counseling, and immunization. This can include diabetics, smokers, cardiac patients, and others who can benefit from prevention and lifestyle modification
I said nothing about your single payer points. I pointed out how Helix pointed out that the wealthy can buy better care than the poor in the US, that he is correct and that even you know he was right about that
But instead of acknowledging that he was right, you raised a straw man about how the wealthy can't buy better care in the hospital (which is also untrue) and that was a dishonest thing to do.
Will you ever admit that Helix was right about how the wealthy can buy better care than the poor in the US?
Actually.. that's not right.. sorry but the standard of care that I pointed out for an ACL is for basically any private insurance.,.and for medicare. which includes all the poor people and middle class that have private insurance or medicare. THEY ARE NOT WEALTHY. and the the CEO that has bluecross blue shield cannot buy better care than the ditchdigger who works for him that has BlueCross Blue Shield.
Actually the wealthy are really prevented from purchasing preferential treatment in the states to a large degree. In the hospital.. the person in room one is a multimillionaire and the person in the bed next to him is on Medicaid and as poor as a church mouse. and they get the same care.
Yep.. Well.. combine the population growth.. and that California probable expanded more people on Medicaid.. (where as some of the states I do business did not expand Medicaid).. its not surprising.
What irks me though is the BS. Okay.. so we hear all this talk about "preventative medicine" and getting people care before they cost more money. OK.. that makes sense. THEN they have people on the expansion of Medicaid.. and nickel and dime the cheap preventative stuff.
we had a lady that blew her knee OUT. Complete disruption of her ACL, almost complete tear of her MCL and a huge tear of her medial meniscus She was on the expansion of Medicaid. She spent two weeks in a brace basically unable to use it.. until she could get approval of surgery. THEN after surgery we wanted therapy right away. DENIED. Home program afterward only. so what do we see at follow up? She is unable to bear weight and is developing a contracture. We get approval for therapy... 3 visits.. that's it. Therapy gets her started and moving but wants more therapy... they fight for more and get another 3 visits. After that.. no more visits. So when we see her.. the gains she made in therapy were gone.. and she was worse.
So we end up manipulating her. We want therapy again. Nope.. denied. After she started tightening up yet again.. we got three visits again of therapy. Luckily the therapist was smart enough to recognize that there was no way therapy was going to work with the insurance nickel and diming it..so he recommended an expensive dynamic splint for her knee to pull her into extension as something better than nothing. Luckily.. that seemed to work to a degree so she ended up with a very slight contracture but functional.
of course the cost of the brace alone was more than 3 months of therapy would have been.. not to mention the manipulation, and the extra pain medication, and doctors visits.
This is Medicaid.. a government program.. so its amazing to me to see these fellows think that if we went to single payer government healthcare that its going to be just great.
Only a fool would think that they could trick someone into thinking they didn't use a straw man by using another straw man
We weren't talking about the middle class vs the wealthy, or the wealthy vs people on medicare or private insurance. Here, let me remind you of what you said
Your own words show that even you know that the wealthy can purchase better health care than the poor
In one post you claim that people on Medicaid get the same treatment as the wealthy, and in another thread you make it clear that your own experience proves you know better.
Helix
Please re-read Jaeger's response to this post of yours (in #169) where he denies that the wealthy can buy preferential treatment. Then read this post where he describes two patients, one of whom received better treatment due to their having better coverage
And that's because what I said was true Sangha. Sorry that you are so upset about being proven wrong by me that you have to create strawman arguments to try and help your ego.. but what I said was true.
No, it was untrue and dishonest.
First, you responded to the factual claim that the wealthy can purchase better health care than the poor with the straw man that the rich and the poor get the same care in the hospital (even though that's not true)
Then, when I pointed out how you contradicted yourself (by posting what you said in another thread), you made some argument about people on private insurance or *Medicare* when what your other post spoke about was *MedicAID*
the argument that money doesn't buy better care is quite frankly too ridiculous to address.
Because you have no clue what you are talking about.
Sorry but true. If you were willing to admit the truth to yourself.. you would admit that everything I have said has been correct.
Nope.. it was true and honest...
I responded to the incorrect claim that the wealthy can purchase better healthcare than the poor
with the fact that the rich and poor get the same care in the hospital
that's almost as funny as your claim that money can't buy better care in the states. good luck convincing even your own side of that one.
There's nothing incorrect about it.
Which is a straw man and irrelevant to whether or not the rich can buy better care than the poor.
Yes it was incorrect.. and I explained why in detail.
Particularly in the context of the conversation comparing our countries healthcare with other countries.
And no its not a strawman...
If the rich and poor get the same care in the hospital... it is certainly relevant to a discussion of whether " the rich can buy better care than the poor"
Particularly if you are comparing a country where the rich and the poor go to the same hospital and get the same care.. and a country where the rich can go to private hospitals while everyone else goes to a public hospital.
I guess your definition of a "strawman" is "if it doesn't fit my narrative.. then its a strawman"
Whenever you or anyone else wants to have a legitimate and intelligent discussion of healthcare I am available... but the BS that you are spouting claiming I am "dishonest" and strawman for pointing out facts.. is too tiring...
good day.
You're argument is so wrong its almost laughable. Anyone in the US healthcare system knows there is a massive disparity in care between rich and poor. Yes, one gets similar care in some situations - an ICU stay, for example - but not in the vast majority.'
There's a reason the rich live 20 years more than the poor on average... and it isnt just a healthy lifestyle.
The new inequality: Health care - Dec. 18, 2013
Wealthier Americans tend to be in better health than their poorer counterparts. That's due to a mix of education, behavior and environment, experts say. They are more likely to take better care of themselves, but they also have the means to buy healthier food, live in safer, cleaner neighborhoods and engage in physical activity.
A recent Commonwealth Fund study showed the stark contrast: Some 27% of low-income people smoke and 34% are obese, while only 12% of higher-income folks smoke and 25% are obese. Even more surprising, some 16% of poorer Americans have lost six or more teeth, while only 5% of wealthier ones have.
the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.
Sorry.. but my argument is absolutely correct. One gets the same care in the vast majority of situations. Heck man.. the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..
Might want to read your own article:
Yep.. move along folks.. nothing to see here.. we are trying to say that the wealthy just buy better healthcare and that's the major factor.. not that any of that obesity, healthier food, safer neighborhoods.. have any effect.
Come now.
You're argument is so wrong its almost laughable. Anyone in the US healthcare system knows there is a massive disparity in care between rich and poor. Yes, one gets similar care in some situations - an ICU stay, for example - but not in the vast majority.'
There's a reason the rich live 20 years more than the poor on average... and it isnt just a healthy lifestyle.
The new inequality: Health care - Dec. 18, 2013
That is not possible, and you just hate Obamacare.
We were told that under Obamacare all the plans would have to meet specific actuarial overhead expense to health expenditure ratios, and that every plan level would meet that benchmark. Any plan that failed to meet those requirements would not exempt those 'rich' from a 2 percent penalty on their gross income.
Or are you implying that Obamacare is such a crappy deal, that anyone of serious means will pay the fine just to get better care? Do you realize you are dissing Obamacare?
That is not possible, and you just hate Obamacare.
We were told that under Obamacare all the plans would have to meet specific actuarial overhead expense to health expenditure ratios, and that every plan level would meet that benchmark. Any plan that failed to meet those requirements would not exempt those 'rich' from a 2 percent penalty on their gross income.
Or are you implying that Obamacare is such a crappy deal, that anyone of serious means will pay the fine just to get better care? Do you realize you are dissing Obamacare?
Whatever.. if it makes you feel better.. go for it.
I clearly explained what I said. If you choose to be obtuse.. that's your prerogative.
Get back to me when you form a relevant point.
Edit: just saw Sangha's better wordsmithed response. I concur.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?