| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
January 9th 05, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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? who smell of cigarette smoke, "back pain" patients who exacerbated their "disabling" back pain while riding their motorcycle or out drinking all night, or diabetics who present in DKA who refuse to comply with their MD's plan-of-care. 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. 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. 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" 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. -- 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!!!!! 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? I wonder when we are going to get back to debtor's prisons again..... - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#2
January 9th 05, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#4
January 10th 05, 02:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
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. For rats. 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. Running is certainly safer than Ice hockey; there are some injuries that can happen in it also. Another odd thing around here is that occasionally a runner will be running in a trance state and get hit by a car when they run in front of it. I've had to stand on the brakes occasionally to avoid a runner that is somewhere past the wall. 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. A nation of "pussies" emerges. 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. Of course those who think that they don't want to insure you because of your smoking would really really like lots of other things about you. And this is a good time for them to chip away at your privacy rights. 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. Not insuring violations makes sense to me, but I do have a problem if the human being is treated the same way. 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... Natch! 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? People forget. Should events continue on their present path, they may be reintroduced to the concepts. - Mike KB3EIA |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Problem for boaters and APRS? | Policy | |||
| Problem for boaters and APRS? | General | |||
| Problem for boaters and APRS? | Policy | |||
| APRS Safety Question | Digital | |||
| APRS Safety Question | Digital | |||
Hybrid Mode
