Some of the biggest issues this country faces in terms of healthcare is individual responsibility, which is lacking drastically at the time. Our issues with obesity are not the results of ineffective medicine. It comes down to individual choices made by people on a daily basis. Instead of looking at oneself as the source of the problem and the agent for change, most choose to find an outward source of blame and/or solution. Some will go as far as using it as an excuse to label the entire system as defective and in need of a complete overhaul.
Kind of, but not entirely. If you weigh yourself every week, you can see little changes and make adjustments accordingly. But if you weigh yourself once every year, you may eat like crap and gain 50 pounds at which point it becomes overwhelming. This is analogous to medicine. Health insurance companies don't pay for preventive care, people don't have insurance, so people don't see their doctor. Regular check ups keeps a person accountable, Some of this is person dependent, but some is not.
Another personal example. I work for a trucking company and like most trucking companies, my employer provided healthcare says, "you are required by law to get a yearly DOT physical, so we aren't paying to see your own physician." So now this comes entirely out of pocket. And I have had yearly DOT physicals for about 6 years and never have I had the same physician. And in every single physical, I have never been talked to about weight, diet, exercise, or any other healthy lifestyle options. The physician is exclusively concerned with whether or not i can survive my job without killing others. That is it. And because of the lifestyle, I would argue that truckers are the group of people that need these talks the most out of anyone. So it does come down to personal responsibility, but not entirely.
Reform works but it's expensive look at Mass. they have nearly 98% coverage but spend more per patient than any other state. Something like 5k per incident. I will dig up a paper a wrote a few months ago for one of my MBA classes. To get my facts right- on my phone so will post it later
Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile app
yep, and i will address below.
Without going too far into my political rant, healthcare should be an issue on the level of the state. If each state can determine a method that could work for its population and implement said plan, we would have an array of options basically being tested simultaneously across the country. Some may work while others may fail miserably, and still more would probably sit in the middle and find themselves in need of improvement. At least there would be the opportunity to make comparisons and highlight areas that are effective vs those that could use improvement. It's a lot better than some one size fits all attempt or using another nation's model. American problems require American solutions. (hehehe... sorry, had to throw that in there; at least I'm not chanting USA... USA...).
{stepping down from my soapbox}
it is a good idea, but the execution is poor. the problem with doing it on a state level is that right now we have so many uninsured with preexisting conditions that no state would take them. And if they were forced to, the pool isn't large enough and the companies would go bankrupt almost instantly. And without forcing the insurance companies to cover them, we will never have healthcare for all without forcing the people who can afford it to pay for those that can't. I would argue that most people don't want to pay for the poor without the poor paying anything.
secondly, this would work is people were then not allowed to move between states. If a system is great for the poor in one state, the poor will flock to this state and it will become quickly overwhelmed by not only healthcare, but population and unemployment. and if a state is good for the rich, they will flock their and cause other problems because they will want to take their businesses, but the employees wouldn't want to go because they can't afford the health insurance.
thirdly, we kind of have that now by not letting insurance companies to cross state lines. I don't fully understand this, but from what I understand it is largely location dependent, but it doesn't solve the problems we have.
So this is why I think there needs to be a universal system in the form of a governing body. without forcing healthcare coverage, we don't solve the problem of uninsured. allowing free reign only gives people reasons to NOT insure people. and the pool needs to be large enough (the entire nation) to keep insurance companies from going under. Or we need a government paid for universal system and to get rid of insurance companies entirely. You can support this idea all you want, but if you think that is going to pass it congress, you are high.
And thanks to all for a good discussion. It is so rare that people are actually involved and even rarer when future health care professionals are involved. It is good to see another side.
