https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...icare-all-amid
Quote:
As the coronavirus pandemic spreads across the United States, laying bare the myriad dysfunctions and inefficiencies of America's for-profit healthcare system, a powerful insurance industry front group is openly ramping up its campaign against systemic healthcare reforms thatexperts saywould help mitigate the outbreak and guarantee essential care for all.
"Compared with Canada, the United States has 44 percent more administrative staff, and U.S. physicians dedicate about 50 percent more time on administrative tasks.24 Inflated to current dollars and today’s population, Pozen and Cutler’s estimate of per capita administrative excess in the United States, when compared with Canada, translates into a gap of $340 billion.25"Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
That quote is from here: https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...h-care-system/
They also printed this article on March 19 which is blatantly false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam
Our lack of healthcare access means that we are less likely to seek healthcare, more likely to unknowingly spread coronavirus.https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...mic-insecurity
There is no charge for virus related medical
So they publish an article about a political arm complaining about people receiving no cost medical in relation to the virus then turn around and put out an article containing false information when people are receiving care under their desired goal.
Below is an extensive article on the state of maternal healthcare in Texas, where 1/3 of women of child-bearing age lack any form of insurance.
The point in my posting it here is to illustrate how many people's healthcare is compromised already in the U.S. and that that may well affect the state of the pandemic.
People whose health is already compromised being more likely to get Covid and more likely to have a serious case thereof.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...nsurance-texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
I'd like to see socialized medicine here in the U.S, but the below excerpt from the article that you posted is the reason why many will never support it, and I don't blame them one bit. The woman appears to be barely 30, is apparently not married, already has 5 kids she's struggling to raise on her low wage job, has a long list of medical issues and is pregnant again and didn't even realize it?
If she continues to be totally irresponsible, why should others that are have to pay for her ridiculously bad choices?
"By help, he meant an OB-GYN with the expertise to care for someone with five previous pregnancies, two preterm births, a preexisting heart condition and a uterus at high risk of rupturing or bleeding out. But Revilla’s job — the night shift at Taco Bell — didn’t come with insurance. So instead of calling a doctor, she went to McDonald’s, pulled out her phone, and used the free wifi to sign up for pregnancy Medicaid."
On the Texas numbers 40% of the uninsured were listed as none citizens.
I agree we have a healthcare problem but I disagree with the incorrect narrative that the poor has no excess to healthcare without going to the emergency center.
Texas has over 400 clinics were it is income based to sign up,partially state funded and partially fed funded.
Every city and state has clinics,you have to sign up.
My position has always been to limit any government assistance, benefits or tax credits of any kind to the first or second child ONLY. We should not be paying people to have kids they can't otherwise afford. I know people who had 'another' kid just to get the monthly assistance bump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnny5
Testing may be 'free' for this current situation but follow on care probably is not entirely and it certainly is not for other ailments, so it it without a doubt true that some people do not seek care for some injuries or conditions. I can say that for certain because I was one. I went for years without any insurance or benefits and never even asked to see a doctor for anything, whether I should have or not. Luckily, I was able to get coverage before I had two incidents that definitely did require care that I could not have handled on my own. Billing to the insurance company for the last one was close to $10K for what I considered to be a relatively minor injury, but was well beyond my ability to handle and could have led to permanent mobility issues.
A couple of thoughts here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnny5
Do you expect this woman to be a virgin her whole life?
Assuming the answer is no; do you realize that even if the man in her life agreed to wear a condom, that condoms, as used, are 85% effective [[meaning if you had sex regularly, even 2x per week, they would be ineffective at least 15 times in a typical year).
If so, might you think it would behoove the state to pay for oral contraception?
That can be as cheap as $20 per month, which is a lot less than the cost of one hospital child birth, even comparing over 10 years, never mind any benefits costs related to the child after birth.
Colorado chose to cover contraception, for low-income women, and they saved money, and reduced unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Sometimes you require to spend money, to save money.
***
Second thought, shall we be fair in apportioning responsibility?
A large number of Americans [[and Canadians too) are obese, which often leads to health consequences, notably type 2 diabetes, and high blood pressure, among others.
Should private insurers deny obese people health coverage?
Shall they charge them triple premium?
Or perhaps we should just do that to the poor; and when they have a heart attack and go the ER and have emergent, live-saving heart surgery that costs $100,000, we shrug that off.
Even though it might have been prevented with a $10 per week blood pressure drug, that they could have been on for 30 years and it would have been only $15,000.
***
With great respect, lack of compassion aside, this is what boggles the minds of many around the world about the American mindset writ-large.
The focus is who 'deserves' help, rather than whether its cheaper to help early and often if it avoids crisis intervention later.
No so different than understanding that a typical homeless person will cost the government over $100,000 per year though shelters, uninsured medical care, and jails.
But getting them a spot in public housing and putting them on SNAP would cost less than 1/5 that.
Yet some insist.....someone down and out doesn't deserve the help; so its denied to them; but then they cost you an extra 80k. Hell of a lot of pay for enjoying one's spite.
I expect people to be self responsible for their actions. If you can't afford the results, keep 'em closed, or at least take appropriate measures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Again, and if you can't afford the 'appropriate measures'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
Really, the short-sightedness of this idea.
It has nothing to do with morals or someone's smug sense of superiority.
It has everything to do with evidence-based policy.
It costs less to provide contraception for free than it does to provide a single child birth or abortion, never mind subsequent child benefits.
That's the same reason you provide every child a good education, and healthcare; because a lifetime of paying income tax as a good citizen will repay that investment 10 fold.
Failure to ensure that results in 5 unaffordable babies, and uninsured healthcare [[that you eat the bill for) etc. and a whole lot less income tax.
Spend early to prevent bad outcomes.
Ya' know there are methods that don't cost a penny, don't you? Were you never taught to pull out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
OMG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
Now we're in unforgivable mode........
I'll assume you never had sex education and don't realize that doesn't work all that well.
Studies clearly show an effectiveness rate of only 78%.
Again, that means, if you have sex twice a week, or 104 times per year, this method will fail 23 times.
Its a plan for getting pregnant, not a plan for preventing it.
.
^^^Right! You need not be evangelical to note that when most is said and done, sex between a man and woman remains kinda related to procreation.
Who'da thought!?
We've seen the results of that nine months later. Works sometimes though..:cool:...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
A condom costs $1. $0.50/each if you buy a box. Cheaper than that if you buy online. Some clinics give them out for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
The underlying problem isn't access to contraception.
Sure it is; many men refuse to wear one, and condoms aren't actually that effective, as used, either.
They are fairly effective if used properly, many men don't seem to know how.........
But I digress.
Its all about the results.
Evidence-based policy.
In countries that provide free contraception to everyone, the unwanted pregnancy rate and teen pregnancy rates are much lower than in the U.S.
Period. Full Stop.
You don't have to like the facts; you do have to accept them.
The country with the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world is????
2 points for you if you said the United States at 85 pregnancies per 1,000 women, aged 15-19.
Lets compare that to the lowest, the Netherlands at 11.6, or roughly 1/8 as much.
When you're the worst at something, maybe you should look at whose best and copy them, rather than defend the status quo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preval...nage_pregnancy