Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Health care - who should be denied?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:53 AM
Original message
Health care - who should be denied?
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 08:07 AM by OzarkDem
Edited to add a flashy subject line....

Here is a handy checklist you may want to consider using when evaluating proposals for universal/single payer health care reform. Read carefully, they cover a lot...

Principles for Guaranteed Access to Health Care

Healthcare is a basic human right.

Healthcare is fundamental to maintaining a productive society.

Healthcare coverage must be guaranteed for everyone.

The healthcare system must provide the same comprehensive benefits to everyone and must meet the public's expectations.

The healthcare system must be redesigned so that treatment and coverage decisions are based on evidence and best practices.

All individuals must financially contribute to the system, based on ability to pay.

The new health care system must be easy to use for patients and providers, and easy to administer.

Any system of coverage must include these core values:

* Access. Individuals must be able to get all the care they need when they need it. This must include meaningful access to evidence-based interventions.

* Information. Individuals must receive information that is evidence-based, objective, complete and correct.

* Choice. Individuals must have some choice of doctors and care.

* Respect. Our healthcare system must treat the whole person, not just a person's disease.

* Accountability. Standards regarding care must be clear, uniform, and enforceable. Patients must have a right to sue if their basic human right to healthcare is violated.

* Improvement. The healthcare system must have methods for measuring what is and is not working so that the quality of care can continuously be improved. Individuals must have access to well designed and efficiently run clinical trials, and must have coverage of all routine care costs associated with participation in such trials.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agree? Disagree?
What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Broadly speaking you've just described
the UK's National Health system in just about every respect. No it's not free. NH payments are deducted at source from pay as a function of earnings with employers contibuting more or less matching amounts. The payment system differs for those self employed and , I believe, excludes pensions.

Individual's contributions cease at 60 for the ladies and 65 for the guys.

It's really just another form of tax and in reality gets grouped in with income tax to help pay for lunatic wars etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. It can be free to some
Those at the lowest income levels or who are permanently or temporarily disabled by illness or similar conditions shouldn't have to pay.

How do you think this stacks up against some of the plans that have been proposed, e.g. Edwards or Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Those at the lowest income .........................
No they don't pay and neither do those below school leaving ages : 16 or 18 or 21 whatever . I just gave you a desciption of the population in general. In round figures an income of less than c. $10000 in your case would be exempt from payment. No - the unemployed don't pay either.

I am unable to comment of either Edward's or Obama's plans without full details as I'm English and have insufficient information at hand. Any links would be appreciated.

It would also be interesting to figure what the aggregate expenditure in Iraq, broken down into per capita of your population, could otherwise have been spent on, per individual, for healthcare. I'm sure it would at least have covered all of children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
5. Add one more core value:
*FREE. The cost of healthcare should not impact budgets or the quality of life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatsMyBarack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. K&R!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeDemocrat Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. Straight Government Care?
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 10:38 AM by FreeDemocrat
I had a chart of those countries that had more effective systems than the US in Reply in the Idiots thread and my journal but since it is the same image reference I don't think it will hurt bandwidth to show here.


In most of those systems sitting to the left and above, health care is a normal function of government, like road building, Police, firefighters, etc. People don't form a firefighting company, and then apply to the government for a contract (though they may have a Union). The practice of medicine need be no different, not a special tax, not a special system.

Under such a system the need to sue for enough to get free health care for life would not be relevant as anyone would have that anyway. Likewise suing the company providing the care and taking away their profit would again be not a part of a solution as there would be neither company or profit. I would agree however that accountability is absolutely necessary, but might have a different expression than a tort system.

The Graph above I think would provide a much better system of accountability. Suppose that all government data of that sort was available on the web as an interactive graph http://tools.google.com/gapminder . A variety of means, the ability of any person to check up on who is doing what would be very high, and the demand that such relevant data be kept would also follow if there was a comment like feedback system such as exists here.

Under such conditions a strong argument about privacy should be made, but that which is not private should be easily available to everyone. Included in that on the not private side would be the stats about each doctor and hospital. As the stats could be as complex as patient blood pressure improvement taken by their actual charts (that part private, but the collected results not)as well as every other measure, it would be very hard to doctor the results without actually doctoring the patients.A patient questionnaire on exiting could also be a big part of that data. As would relevant costs.

With such a public display of reality, the real horror stories that grow in darkness would never get a chance to expand but be nipped in the bud by normal procedures. Those stupid mistakes that we all make that are now the nightmares of any doctor, would be addressed by an assistance program that needs to be strengthened for everyone, regardless of the cause. If the Doctor was actually careless it would quickly show up in the stats and he would have to find safer employment. Again Sunlight is the fastest cure. With knowledge available to the patients and choice of doctors most horror stories would never get started.

To add to that I would very much expand and ease the ability to become a doctor, providing as much ease as ability to do the work would allow. The current exclusionist hazing system does not improve performance, and lowers numbers and thus accessibility. If aside from Med school, there were pathways up from Para-med and nursing to full doctor status then both the numbers and quality of the doctors, and particularly attitudes would improve. By not providing an artificial ceiling the numbers of folk getting in at the bottom would also go up.

I think that addresses most of your points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC