|
RacerJim -> RE: Single payer costs (8/26/2010 8:43:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoiJen
Spinal fusions are incredibly common and quite easy to do (according to the neurosurgeon we're working with) and they're covered by insurance (which we have). It's the artificial disc replacement that isn't covered and is about a 10 year old technology.
However, what we know to be true is that 40 and 50 years ago joint replacement surgeries were done with solid pieces and people lost function of that joint. As technology developed, we were able to create artificial joints that function better and better. This is medical fact.
despite having proof that the artificial disc replacement is a better option over the spinal fusion (especially when dealing with cervical fusions) insurance companies STILL won't cover the surgery. They will only cover a fusion, which has an 80% chance of needing additional surgery within 10 years because of the damage that immobility does to the bone and disc structures of the spine and it's surrounding tissues.
No, this system isn't perfect. Thank you for admitting that.
Now, in terms of dealing with a health care crisis (more and more people simply can't afford to seek care and the financial burden then falls on the individuals who can seek care), single payer offers everyone a chance at getting the medical help they need. In an economic crisis, single payer reduces cost per person. economically and medically speaking, the single payer option provides the most benefit to the most people (as demonstrated through earlier links on this thread).
Would you rather that a minority of people absorb the costs of medical care through the current system and still get turned down for care (as I've pointed out) because insurance companies are running the program, or would you rather the financial burden be more evenly distributed, more people be able to seek care, and the system be run by doctors, patients, and health care industry and development demands?
boi
PS. While living in Detroit a few years ago, I was visiting Canada and friends over there when I got bit by something that caused cellulitis in about 70% of my right forearm. I thought that some generic anti-histamine would fix the problem. Instead I ended up not being able to feel my fingers and going to an urgent care center in Canada. I was given the antibiotics I needed to take at home and an injection to begin treating the problem immediately inside of 25 minutes. I was out the door with a cost of $75 for the visit and the drugs. I had no insurance at the time.
While waiting to be seen for a Recluse spider bite, which caused an accelerated version of the previously described problem, in the U.S. I waited 3 hours and spiked a fever that almost boiled my brain ( a human body can only stand 114 for so long). I received no medication to take home and was treated for only the immediate infection. It cost almost $1000. I had minimal insurance coverage at the time.
One of these systems has already shown me that it's more effective and efficient than the other.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The fact that a high-level government official in Canada recently came to the U.S. specifically to get treatment he couldn't get, or didn't want to get, in Canada shows me that Canada's healthcare system isn't perfect either.
"..., or would you rather the financial burden be more evenly distributed, ..." goes hand in hand with Obama's "redistribution of wealth." Not only no but hell no. Furthermore, "..., and the system be run by doctors, patients, and health care industry and development demands?" flies in the face of how Obamacare will be run as it is, much less how he'd prefer it be (single payer)...by ideological political appointees.
|
|
|
|
