• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some thing’s are improving. Excerpts from a NY Times article:

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
234
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some thing’s are improving. Excerpts from a NY Times article:

Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost
By ROBERT PEAR, Published: July 14, 2010
WASHINGTON — The White House on Wednesday issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage for dozens of screenings, laboratory tests and other types of preventive care.
The new requirements promise significant benefits for consumers — if they take advantage of the services that should now be more readily available and affordable.
In general, the government said, Americans use preventive services at about half the rate recommended by doctors and public health experts.
…………………… The rules stipulate that no co-payments can be charged for tests and screenings recommended by the United Ststes Preventive Services Task force, an independent panel of scientific experts.
………………….. The administration said the requirements could increase premiums by 1.5 percent, on average.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But we are paying for those services in the form of the percent premium increase. Does that really make them more available? My best guess is that if we don't get them now, we just dont want them and probably dont need them regardless of what doctors recomend. Doctors recomend their services, about like I recomend my services: "You need to buy more of my services - I have a big fat mortgage payment to make"
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
234
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Imagep, actually I believe that the regulations will be provided at less cost (to all).

Such preventive medical procedures would result in net decrease of the insurers’ long term expenses. There are also the additional benefits due to increasing life spans and/or better quality of life for clients. Additionally taxpayers will not suffer government expenses due to those unwilling or unable to co-pay for the recommended preventive medical procedures.

The additional cost you refer to is the immediate expense of preventive medical procedure that (MAY in aggregate) cause a 1.5% price increase but the medium and long term affect will be lesser than otherwise expenses to all, (i.e. medical insurers, their clients, patients and our government).

Respectfully, Supposn
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Imagep, actually I believe that the regulations will be provided at less cost (to all).

Such preventive medical procedures would result in net decrease of the insurers’ long term expenses. There are also the additional benefits due to increasing life spans and/or better quality of life for clients. Additionally taxpayers will not suffer government expenses due to those unwilling or unable to co-pay for the recommended preventive medical procedures.

The additional cost you refer to is the immediate expense of preventive medical procedure that (MAY in aggregate) cause a 1.5% price increase but the medium and long term affect will be lesser than otherwise expenses to all, (i.e. medical insurers, their clients, patients and our government).

Respectfully, Supposn
I have been told that the only "preventative" care that is cost effective is to stop smoking, stop drinking, eat better, loose weight, and exercize more. Ya don't have to go to the doc for any of that preventative care.

Things such as screenings, although certainly have value to the individual, are actually not cost effective.

Like take mamograms for example: how much does a mamogram cost, I dunno, lets assume $300. Now what if the local public hospital had a free mamogram week and 10,000 ladies participated. Maybe only 10 would be found to have a tumor, and maybe only 5 of those would have not discovered it anyway in a timely manner, and some of those found to have a tumor would likely be in such a late stage that no money would be saved by early detection. So maybe the average savings due to early detection would have been $10,000 yielding a cost savings of $100,000. But it costed $3 million bucks to test all those people.

That said, I have nothing against someone paying for a screening, but they need to do so at their own expense because it is not cost effective for it to be done at the taxpayers expense.

I actually proposed my own health care plan to my local congressman, spoke to him for an hour and a half in his office, and he totally blew me off.

But anyhow, my plan was to eleminate all current forms of government provided health care, to include: medicare, medicade, VA, SCHIP, the health department, and insurance for current and retired government employees. These services cost the tax payer $1.2 trillion, which averages out to about $4,000 per citizen. True health insurance, as opposed to the pre-paid health insurance that most of us think of as "good" insurance, is fairly inexpensive. I used to pay $800 per month to cover my family with a prepaid plan, I dropped it years ago and replaced it with a high deductable major medical policy. The (blue cross blue shield) major medical plan cost me $210. Thats an annual cost of about $2,500 and an annual savings to me of about $7,000/yr. My savings alone more than covers the cost of my deductable, so I opened up a HSA and every month I deposit my savings into it (tax free). My HSA draws interest, and when I have a medical expense I simply use a check from my HSA account to pay for the medical cost. I now have way more than enough money in my HSA to cover the maximium out of pocket expense for my entire family, and the money is mine and no one can take it away.

So my plan was for the government to purchase a high deductable major medical plan for every single American at a cost of around $840/yr. Sure, rates may have to be a little higher to cover sickly people and elderly people, but that may be offset by the savings of having a true large group plan - large group plans tend to be less expensive than individual policies. The government could bid the policies out in increments of 1,000,000 randomly selected people (selected by the last 4 digits of their social security number) so that each group is essentially identical. The policies would then be purchased by the government on the citizens behalf from private insurers with a savings of approximately $3,160 a year when compared to what the government already spends on freebe health care. That savings could result in a lower tax rate, or a tax rebate, or maybe even a credit into a HSA that the citizen could then use to cover his/her deductable. With the HSA option, A worse case senerio would result in an out of pocket expense of no more than $1,840for an individual.

I have been accused of being for socialized medicine because of my plan, but my plan actually reduces government involvement with the health care of individuals. It would simply be collective barganing for the lowest possible insurance rate. No new taxes, not a penny, would be needed. Private health care insurance companies would be administering the plan, each citizen would have the choice of what private health care facility that they went to and what treatments they recieved. The burdon of providing insurance to employees would be removed from the employer, freeing up a small fortune for the employer to spend how he sees fit (raise for the employees, or to hire more employees, or just to increase bottom line profitability). And every American would automatically have an identical plan, and if they choose to purchase some sort of supplimental insurance that they individually negotiate for, then they are welcome to do that.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
234
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have been told that the only "preventative" care that is cost effective is to stop smoking, stop drinking, eat better, loose weight, and exercize more. Ya don't have to go to the doc for any of that preventative care.

Things such as screenings, although certainly have value to the individual, are actually not cost effective.
ImageP, you have been told a falsehood.

I as a taxpayer am unwilling to pay the medium and long term increased cost to both government and nongovernment healthcare plans because you or anyone else is unwilling or unable to afford the co-payments for the recommended preventive or medical screening procedures. Insured persons are not mandated to avail themselves of these recommended medical procedures.

Concerning the national healthcare policies that you or I might prefer, both you and I are disappointed.

Barring an unlikely constitutional amendment, the federal healthcare act that was passed will be enacted. An executive order waived co-payments for specified medical procedures is applicable only to the specific circumstances and conditions subject to such legal order. The U.S. Congress or future presidents can nullify this executive order. I believe that this concept supporting preventive medicine will continue to remain an essential part of USA’s healthcare policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Excerpted from the NY times article “Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost” by Robert Pear, published: July 14, 2010

…………………. In general, the government said, Americans use preventive services at about half the rate recommended by doctors and public health experts.
…………………… The rules stipulate that no co-payments can be charged for tests and screenings recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task force, an independent panel of scientific experts.
………………….. The administration said the requirements could increase premiums by 1.5 percent, on average.

///////////////////////////////////////////////
Excerpted from: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: About the USPSTF :

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services.

The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ImageP, you have been told a falsehood.
Hmm, well I guess the doctor that I talked to must have been a retarded doctor.

Have you ever considered that doctors who claim that preventative care is cost efficent happen to have a financial interest in recommending additional medical services? I'm a sign maker (among other things), if a business owner who had a perfectly good sign asked me if he needed a new sign, I would quite naturally answer "yes, you definately need a new sign".

Here is what the CBO said about preventative care: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

I as a taxpayer am unwilling to pay the cost of preventative medical care when the cost of preventative medical care far excedes the cost of treating the rare illness that preventative care could have identified at an earlier stage. However, I have no issue with an individual who has concerns about his health, recieving preventative care or screening at his own expense.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,799
Reaction score
8,581
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some preventative care is cost effective some are not


Mass Cat scans or MRIs are not cost effective. Regular normal check ups are. Dealing with Diabetes on an ongoing basis rather then waiting for an emergency to occur is cost effective
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
234
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is cost effective

Excerpted from the NY times article “Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost” by Robert Pear, published: July 14, 2010

…………………. In general, the government said, Americans use preventive services at about half the rate recommended by doctors and public health experts.
…………………… The rules stipulate that no co-payments can be charged for tests and screenings recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task force, an independent panel of scientific experts.
………………….. The administration said the requirements could increase premiums by 1.5 percent, on average.

Excerpted from: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: About the USPSTF :

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services.

The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.
ImageP, excerpted from your provided link;
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf :

“for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall. ………….. slightly fewer than twenty percent of the services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs”.

The CBO then goes on to state that an additional 60% of preventive medical procedures are not cost effective in the monetary sense but have “clinical benefits” that justify their expense. I interpret that to mean that a fifth of the studied identifiable preventive medical procedures are completely cost effective. The contribution to the quality and extension of patient’s lives due to an additional identifiable 3/5th of the studied preventive medical procedures, justifies their additional expense.

Thus the CBO concludes only a fifth of the studied preventive and screening medical procedures are fully justiified, a fifth of the procedures are not justified, and all of the remainder of those studied procedures provide sufficient clinical benefits to justify their expense.

[Wrigley said that he knew “half of what I spend for advertisement is wasted, (i.e. not cost effective). But I don’t know which half”. Wrigley's concern was only to sell chewing gum. In this case of specifically studied preventive and screening medical procedures, The CBO states that we do know to what extent their expense is or is not justified].

Let us assume that you would choose as national policy that we continue to tolerate denial of the identifiable 3/5ths of procedures if the patients are, (or believe themselves to be) unable to afford their additional expense and thus penalize those who are less wealthy.

Do you really believe we should not mandate the waiver of co-payments for the identifiable fifth of preventive procedures that we know to be cost effective?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: It is cost effective

...

Let us assume that you would choose as national policy that we continue to tolerate denial of the identifiable 3/5ths of procedures if the patients are, (or believe themselves to be) unable to afford their additional expense and thus penalize those who are less wealthy.

Do you really believe we should not mandate the waiver of co-payments for the identifiable fifth of preventive procedures that we know to be cost effective?

Respectfully, Supposn
Let us assume that you would choose as a national policy that we continue not to offer exotic Italian sports cars to 100% of citizens unable to afford Itaian sport cars...life will continue to be not quite as enjoyable for those who are deprived of exotic sports cars.

Let us assume that you would choose as a national policy that we continue not to offer free food insurance to 100% of citizens unable to afford food...everyone would starve because we are to STUPID to make a few bucks so that we can go to the grocery story and purchase food and we need a nanny state to provide everything and to make every decisionn for us.

if someone is such a pathetic human being that they can not save up $65 to go to the doctor, just the same way that they save up some money to purchase food, or electricity, or water, or rent, or gasoline, or cars, or marajuana, or booze, anything else that they choose to consume, then why should I be forced to pay for them.
 
Top Bottom