In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
And not just "asthma" patients, but COPD'ers
I have to ask...
What's COPD stand for?
OK, fine - but let's take that a step farther....
The consensus of opinion among all the MD's I've talked to says the
following
as a general plan-of-ca
1) Do not use illegal drugs of any kind
2) Do not use tobacco of any kind
3) Get your weight down to at least where the charts say "average"
4) Eat a healthy diet
5) Use seatbelts, helmets, eye/hearing protection and all other protective
devices
where appropriate
How many people do all 5 consistently? How much public and private money
is
spent because so many people don't?
People who have bonafide needs should get the care they need. Those
who
have needs but refuse to do what is necessary to "get fixed" yet demand
that
"we" do "something" to get them better need to be given the boot and a
referal to a funeral home director with pre-paid plans.
The problem is, how do you differentiate those groups when they show up in
the
ER?
Here is one for ya Jim:
People who engage in risky behavior, such as rock climbing, bungee
jumping, contact sports, mountain climbing, skateboarding, and other
dangerous activity are doing so with knowledge of their potential
injury/death.
One could include risky activities like dealing with high voltages,
climbing towers and other structures to raise antennas, etc.
One could include *not being underweight*. Believe it or not, I have
heard a researcher prescribe just this for everyone.
You mean everybody should be underweight? I agree - it's been shown
scientifically to be healthier.
And what about gray areas. My ice hockey is an incredible aerobic
activity. This is good. But it is also a lot of high speed physical
contact with people armed with clubs. Not so good, and I have had
numerous injuries while playing.
I've been a runner for more than 23 years and I've yet to have a
running-related injury that required medical care.
Why should society have to foot the bill when one of these
idiots gets injured and can no longer support themselves. They made a
presumably sober decision to do this.
OK so far.
note that this is a little tongue in cheek, but I do have a bit of a
moral issue with this.
What moral issue? Here's how it works:
The moral issue is that eventually those insurance companies and the
people who would control us will do just that. Eventually, people that
engage in "risky activities" will find themselves uninsurable.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it carries no
physical risk"
Yep.
Insurance companies have developed ways to figure out the risk factors and
how
they affect the chances those behaviors will result in payouts. And they
affix
surcharges to their premiums to compensate.
For example, life insurance policies usually have a "tobacco rate" and a
"no
tobacco rate". Homeowners' policies usually require an extra-cost rider if
you have a pool. Etc.
Same principle could be applied.
To everything. It is like the health industry wanting to get hold of
every possible test that could predict what we are likely to expire of
so that they don't have to insure us for that.
And that's where the right to privacy comes into play. Also freedom from
discrimination - if a person't susceptibility to a certain disease is due to
heredity and not their own choice, that is.
We already have this sort of thing in other areas. Consider the building
industry. If you want to put up almost any structure that people will live or
do business in, you have to meet the applicable building and safety codes.
Otherwise you won;t be able to get the required permits, loans, or insurance.
Even if you want to modify your own existing building, not following the codes
can get you in big trouble, legally and financially. For example, if you do
your own wiring but don't follow the code, and your house burns down because of
it, your insurer can usually refuse to cover the loss.
--
Now here's a disturbing trend to consider:
One of the newest ideas in health care is the "specialty hospital". These
are
for-profit non-teaching medical facilities, often owned by the docs who
work
there, that focus on particular illnesses. Cardiology is a favorite.
The trick is that they do not accept any federal or state reimbursement -
private insurance only. So they don't have to follow govt."guidelines" in
many
areas. They don't have ERs and they don't accept "walk-ins", only referrals
with good insurance.
So.... I know...... VOUCHERS to the rescue!!!!!
At first I didn't understand what you meant. Then it dawned on me about
private-school vouchers...
So what they get are the pick of the patients - those who can pay, are
compliant, and who have good documentation. They don't have to cost-shift,
so
their prices are competitive.
Guess what happens to the "regular" hospitals?
Just like parochial and private vs. public schools...
I wonder when we are going to get back to debtor's prisons again.....
I wonder if some folks ever *really* understood Dickens' little book?
73 de Jim, N2EY