honda.lioness[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -

joint, total $3300. Each took about 20 min of tech time. They should
have that $M machine paid off in about 2 months at that rate.

I paid $50 copay. Don't know what my Advantage Medicare type insurance
actually pays. But I did need their OK before scheduling the
appointment. Thank god, my wife retired as a public school teacher with
good health insurance.

Chip

Thumper <jaylsm...[at]comcast.net> wrote:
- quote -

Heard yesterday on one of the public radio stations:
Half of all bankruptcies due to medical bill debt happen to those who
have health insurance or started with health insurance when they were
stricken. This is another argument for the practice of preventive
medicine being a part of one's financial planning. It won't stop all
disease but it will help.

Chip <chip.a.w...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
Tobacco in
- quote -

I believe smoking is way down from, say, the 1950s as a result of
warnings about its dangers.

- quote -

The education on dental care has not helped?

- quote -

Too many think improving the health of a society will have a black-and-
white solution. But with sociological behavior and genetics being so
varied, IMO all public policy makers can bank on is averages. Will a
bona fide campaign to promote getting child in for his/her (I believe
now free) annual/semi-annual physical and dental checkups help? How
about school breakfast programs? What about finacial enticements that
reward good health behavior. (If you have not already, I urge reading
what Steve Burd did with Safeway's employees' health via preventive
medicine.) These programs are not going to help everyone. Folks are
still going to get cancer, for one. But disease on a mass scale can be
reduced.

Before shooting down others' solution, I think people should post
their own well considered one.

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erich...[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- quote -

I think your proposal should be incorporated into health care reform.
Make the fight against preventive health care illiteracy the new
national fight du jour. Well done.

"Andrew Koenig" <ark[at]acm.org> wrote in message
news:5eZpl.40753$4m1.38588[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

Was it changing the subject? I was addressing the request for evidence that
preventive medicine reduces health care costs, which it does, though my
original statement was/is misleading. True, that is not exactly the subject
of the cost in *other* countries. As I said, I don't know (or believe) that
preventive medicine is being practiced in other countries, or even what the
cost of medical care is in other countries.

Elizabeth Richardson

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:46:55 -0600, honda.lioness[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -


They don't live in fear of losing everything they have due to health
care bills in either of those two countries.
Thumper

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AWYpl.40735$4m1.23778[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

- quote -

I never said that you made such a claim. In fact, it was honda.lioness who
made the claim, in these words:

- quote -

However, your reply to my request for evidence to support this claim was:

- quote -

This is one example of a statement that, true or not, does not address the
original claim. And if were to debate it, that would be an example of
changing the subject.

"Andrew Koenig" <ark[at]acm.org> wrote in message
news:HcWpl.40583$4m1.14431[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

- quote -

Andrew, I have not made such a claim, and will never do so, as I do not
believe it. Please refrain from insisting that I support such a claim.

Elizabeth Richardson

"Chip" <chip.a.wood[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:go9jfu$npl$1[at]aioe.org...
- quote -

But should I have to pay for it? I cannot afford to support the health care
of those who refuse to try to be healthy, and to support a health care
community who caters to them, and that is what I would be doing if we were
to adopt universal health care (to keep it on personal finance). And, Chip,
yes, tobacco continues to kill. I seem to recall, however, that the number
of US smokers is declining.

Elizabeth Richardson

Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
- quote -

Trying to keep the discussion on financial matters. Tobacco in
particular has had $Billions spent in educational and media funding for
20 or so years. Tobacco ads are banned from public media.

What is the result (in the USA)? - "The leading causes of death in 2000
were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths)..."

I'm afraid that education does not work in these matters. Just think of
the millions of articles every year that say diet and exercise will
extend your life.

People do what people do- you can tell them tell you are blue in the
face. The vast majority just keep on doing.

Chip

<honda.lioness[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac0cc35f-3a35-49c5-8fbb-116bc7bc9504[at]c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Elle, I believe you are misunderstanding me when I call our system a sick
care system. I call it that because I believe that the medical professionals
are only interested in the sickness which currently presents itself, not the
health of the individual. I believe the only change to be helpful is if the
system is geared toward a healthy population, and that the population
actually wants to be healthy. At the present time, I believe, as a
generalization, neither of these conditions currently exist. Until that
happens we will not be addressing it from an economic standpoint. I believe
government is not the answer to this problem. I believe that getting
government involved will only further the economic problem.

Since I define the problem differently than "access", my solution requires a
change in mindset. Change will not come about by just throwing money at
insurance schemes. But if we insist on spending government money, what if it
were spent involving Madison Avenue in a propaganda campaign to change the
mindset of the population to actually want to be healthy? That living a
healthy lifestyle should be embraced? I use the term Madison Avenue loosely,
here, though I believe advertising in all media should be part of it. Does
it raise the standard if I call it education - not just the school age
population, though that is necessary, but people beyond school age, too.
Would this not lead to medical teams being more efficiently utilized who
would address real medical problems rather than the contrived ones brought
about by obesity, smoking, and general dissipation?

Elizabeth Richardson

On Feb 27, 10:41 am, "Elizabeth Richardson"
- quote -

Do you have any solutions to suggest, or have you just given up on the
U.S. health care system, which you have called sick, and feel each
individual has to muddle through, doing as much prev medicine as
possible? It is tiring to hear some people knock the UK and Canadian
systems all the time and meanwhile, offer nothing to solve what is one
of the biggest econ yada problems today in the U.S.

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OJVpl.405129$Mh5.349983[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

- quote -

We were actually talking about the claim that health-care costs are less in
many countries than they are in the USA because those other countries
emphasize preventive medicine more than in the USA.

I asked for facts, rather than unsupported opinions, to back up this claim.
So far, I have seen

* Repeated attempts to change the subject.
* Unsupported opinions in favor of various claims of varying relevance.
* Statements that I should do my own research, and
* Ad-hominem attacks.

So far, however, I have not seen a single response that directly addresses
my request for facts.

"TheMightyAtlas" <themightyatlast[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82bc8f4-3b52-4f42-9108-f8f51474011f[at]h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

- quote -

I thought we were talking about the costs of the medical profession getting
you back to health. If you won't do that which will make you healthy (take a
walk or take the pill), why would you bother spending the time and/or money
to visit your health care professional?

Elizabeth Richardson

JoeTaxpayer
- quote -


I think your anecdote is comletely on-topic. It may save some soul the
trouble of finding an MD when s/he should maybe consult a
chiropractor. Non-traditional approaches to care should be considered
by consumers. If they work, they will eventually be accepted by health
insurers and physicians. Indeed just the other week my physician
neighbor commented about how chiropractic "manipulation" used to be a
dirty word to physicians. No more. Indeed my good friend's insurance
now covers her chiropractic visits. (Not true of all insurers, as Joe
wrote, though.)

I think the internet, used thoughtfully to share stories such as this,
can save consumers much money, time and trouble.

<honda.lioness[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6a3fc89-4d46-428f-a2f5-61e62093d906[at]e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

You are hearing very, very different opinions from those two countries than
those I have heard is all I can say.

Elizabeth Richardson

On Feb 26, 6:37 am, "HW \"Skip\" Weldon"
<skip5700removet...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

This has my vote. Many economic implications arise from this, but I am
trying to stay on-topic.

- quote -

I think what you are saying is a little different from the point
Douglas (and the NY Times, etc.) raise. I agree with Douglas's point
but I think it is also quite true that special interest groups
interfere and force prices up. As another example of what is at work
here: My local paper reported on an outcry from physicians about
people using Nurse Practicioners. Physicians want to limit NPs more as
NPs increasingly own their own practices. NPs are way less expensive.
Many docs claim they are worried that NPs are not expert enough. Yet
NPs say they are trained for when they should refer a case to a doc.

On Feb 25, 8:44 pm, "Andrew Koenig" <a...[at]acm.org> wrote:
- quote -

I recommended that, if you were interested, do your homework. Too
often in my experience someone demands further citations, then gets
them, then proceeds to reject the citations on other grounds. My sense
is you are dug in and are making an issue black-and-white that is far
from being so. Hence I am claiming only that I have read abundantly on
this issue and consider preventive medicine to be key to the better
health of countries with national systems of health care.

Re preventive medicine: I think what is being overlooked are things
like getting kids in early for dental checkups, vaccinations, asthma
symptoms, etc. Much falls under the umbrella of "preventive medicine."
When you start a kid early seeing a doctor, ailments later in life can
be easily avoided. "Preventive medicine" is a philosophy with which a
culture can be imbued or not. I guess some here want to insist that
preventive medicine can happen without a national, universal payer,
health system, and that the healthiness of some countries with such
universal payer systems is not due to the health system. I suppose
preventive medicine can thusly happen. But it is my opinion, based on
a lot of reading, that it is more likely to happen with a universal
payer system. For goodoness sake, all kids getting their annual
checkups because they cost nothing (apart from taxes) is just one huge
boon to good heath for the long run.

Meanwhile, you do not seem to admit there are serious problems with
U.S. health care. As long as a person has this attitude, there is no
point in discussing these issues.

Douglas Johnson <p...[at]classtech.com
- quote -

According to many of their citizens, it is not ugly in Canada nor the
UK, to name two.

- quote -

I think your post demonstrates one of the key problems: The health
care people want is not necessarily "care." To get back on topic,
consumers should be open to doing research on the best course and not
just accept that every test, procedure or drug is the best course.
Talk to friends; look for specialized forums on the internet; etc.
Doctors are trained to cure, period. They will do every test under the
sun, every experimental procedure allowed, all in the name of curing.
What harm could it do, physically speaking, to the patient, after all.
(Some docs will prescribe just to line their wallets, too.) (Well
sometimes harm is done but I am trying to explain the conflicting
philosophies of medicine in general vs. one's pocketbook.)

Point is a person should not trust that a doctor is being cost
efficient.

One other on-topic point: Nurse practioners (RNs with a Masters degree
and/or specialized training) are much less expensive than regular docs
and can do as much as regular docs in many instances. E.g. annual
physicals. Shucks, a few years ago when I broke my poor lil' arm, I
estimate my total time with a doctor was about three minutes. Instead
over a total of three visits to medical facilities, I saw maybe three
RNs, one Physician's Assistant, one "Casting Technician" (very cute
but professional young man), two x-ray techs, and one Nurse
Practicioner.

On Feb 26, 8:28 am, JoeTaxpayer <JoeTaxpa...[at]comcast.net> wrote:
- quote -

Ya know this situation is exactly what I was trying to address with my
first post. I think it is directly back on-topic. From my reading, the
informed, uninsured soul almost assuredly will get that bill down on
the order of some 30-50%. The New York Times has been reporting amply
on this for a few years now. See the Times' archives. People without
insurance need to understand that they can negotiate bills way down.
It apparently has much to do with what Joe gets at below, the highly
ambiguous meaning of "retail price" for a medical service.

People with insurance but still with high medical bills, due to a
catastrophic event, also have a chance of negotiating bills down, from
my reading. The Times and some TV news specials has been reporting for
a few years now on folks with insurance driven to bankruptcy due to
medical bills. A 10% co-pay on a million dollar bill is not peanuts to
the typical family.

- quote -

Re Douglas's post on how supply increases demand and hence costs,
with /no improvement in health/: The NY Times archives has many
articles on this point, too. Most recently (and maybe it is just a
rehash of his Dallas article):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/bu...0varies&st=cse