RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare

RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/7/2012 5:29:15 PM)
I dont need too... I just did.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/7/2012 9:02:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Definitions ----------------------------Level Definition Primary prevention --- Methods to avoid occurrence of disease.[11] Most population-based health promotion efforts are of this type. Secondary prevention --- Methods to diagnose and treat existent disease in early stages before it causes significant morbidity.[12] Tertiary prevention --- Methods to reduce negative impact of extant disease by restoring function and reducing disease-related complications.[13] Quaternary prevention --- Methods to mitigate or avoid results of unnecessary or excessive interventions in the health system.[14] This is the disconnect you and I have, I think. You see disease as preventative... its not always. Prevention could be the lumpectomy after finding cancer. Here's the thing, tazzy. Most diseases are preventable. I know that not all of them aren't. I know all that. Did you not read my transcript of sorts I posted for GotSteel (after which he dropped that angle right quick)? Do you need to see a Dr. for prevention or detection of all diseases? No. some, absolutely require significant medical procedures (mammograms, blood tests, colonoscopy, etc.). You absolutely can prevent many, many diseases and conditions through lifestyle modifications. Is a Type II diabetic always going to be on a medication? Not necessarily. There are times when daily activity increases and/or dietary modification makes all the difference in the world for a diabetic. There will be some that will require medication, and there will also be some that sink into insulin dependent (I don't particularly like the age-related Type-I/II descriptions) diabetes. I get this stuff more than you'll ever give me credit for. In the absence of being able to afford preventive testing on their own, how many are doing the other things to prevent disease? Will there be any measures taken for people who don't sign on to preventive disease management? Will smoking be outlawed?

tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/7/2012 9:31:26 PM)
quote: Is a Type II diabetic always going to be on a medication? Not necessarily. There are times when daily activity increases and/or dietary modification makes all the difference in the world for a diabetic. I agree. And while waiting for the patient to realize they have this disorder.. and weight is a complication, but not always the cause, skinny people can have it as well... the kidneys, eyes and nervous system is taking a beating. quote: I get this stuff more than you'll ever give me credit for. In the absence of being able to afford preventive testing on their own, how many are doing the other things to prevent disease? Will there be any measures taken for people who don't sign on to preventive disease management? Will smoking be outlawed? At what point does someone with Diabetes 2, since that is the disease process you are using, stop and realize that exercising more isnt the answer? What about a secondary issue, say a broken leg, that keeps them tied up for weeks to months, interfering with their ability to exercise? When do they discover that they only need a pill... as opposed to needing insulin? Do they wait for the neuropathy to start? The eye issues to begin? The kidneys to start having problems? Even medications can cause Diabetes 2. Your thinking is just too narrow in scope for this issue. For example, being on a beta blocker can lead a patient to this condition. And we havent even spoken about hereditary quote: Results The genetic susceptibility to type 2 diabetes appears to be determined by many common variants in multiple gene loci with low effect sizes. Although at least 36 diabetes-associated genes were identified, only about 10% of the heritability of type 2 diabetes can be explained. Most of the discovered gene variants have been linked to beta-cell dysfunction rather than insulin resistance, which might challenge established thinking of type 2 diabetes as a predominant disorder of insulin action. Genetic data can lead to statistically significant, but not to clinically relevant contributions to risk prediction for type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, preliminary evidence suggests interactions between genotypes and response to lifestyle changes or drug treatment. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02454.x/abstract;jsessionid=4BAE879D1DCE89AA039C00D13DFF6365.d03t03 Twins.. If one twin has diabetes 2, the other stands a 90% of developing it as well. Other siblings stand a risk factor of 25 - 50% Its not just as simple as saying.... lose weight and exercise more. For some, it is.. for others.. like myself.. its not.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/8/2012 5:13:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Is a Type II diabetic always going to be on a medication? Not necessarily. There are times when daily activity increases and/or dietary modification makes all the difference in the world for a diabetic. I agree. And while waiting for the patient to realize they have this disorder.. and weight is a complication, but not always the cause, skinny people can have it as well... the kidneys, eyes and nervous system is taking a beating. I'm in favor of regular screenings. quote: quote: I get this stuff more than you'll ever give me credit for. In the absence of being able to afford preventive testing on their own, how many are doing the other things to prevent disease? Will there be any measures taken for people who don't sign on to preventive disease management? Will smoking be outlawed? At what point does someone with Diabetes 2, since that is the disease process you are using, stop and realize that exercising more isnt the answer? What about a secondary issue, say a broken leg, that keeps them tied up for weeks to months, interfering with their ability to exercise? When do they discover that they only need a pill... as opposed to needing insulin? Do they wait for the neuropathy to start? The eye issues to begin? The kidneys to start having problems? Even medications can cause Diabetes 2. Your thinking is just too narrow in scope for this issue. For example, being on a beta blocker can lead a patient to this condition. And we havent even spoken about hereditary quote: Results The genetic susceptibility to type 2 diabetes appears to be determined by many common variants in multiple gene loci with low effect sizes. Although at least 36 diabetes-associated genes were identified, only about 10% of the heritability of type 2 diabetes can be explained. Most of the discovered gene variants have been linked to beta-cell dysfunction rather than insulin resistance, which might challenge established thinking of type 2 diabetes as a predominant disorder of insulin action. Genetic data can lead to statistically significant, but not to clinically relevant contributions to risk prediction for type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, preliminary evidence suggests interactions between genotypes and response to lifestyle changes or drug treatment. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02454.x/abstract;jsessionid=4BAE879D1DCE89AA039C00D13DFF6365.d03t03 Twins.. If one twin has diabetes 2, the other stands a 90% of developing it as well. Other siblings stand a risk factor of 25 - 50% Its not just as simple as saying.... lose weight and exercise more. For some, it is.. for others.. like myself.. its not. I didn't say it was as simple as losing weight and exercising more. I did state that there would be people who required medication. I get the idea that you think I'm against screenings and testing for diseases. I'm not, but I'm also not going to force anyone to get screenings or tests if they don't choose and are responsible for making those choices (ie. a child isn't responsible for making those choices, but that child's parent/guardian is). And, this is something that can lead to less and less freedom. The only way someone is going to reduce health care spending by preventing disease, is if preventive screenings are done. If people aren't exhibiting decent behaviors now, what gives the idea that having subsidized access to Dr.'s is going to give them the behaviors that lead to the preventive screenings? Are you saying that the people who can't afford the Dr. visits and the costs of the screenings are doing the things that can be done in an effort to help prevent the things they want tested for? Will diagnostic screening and testing be required? My point has always been that if people aren't doing the things they can now, how is it that they will do those things simply because they have insurance? Insurance isn't required to live in a manner that can help prevent disease, so gaining insurance isn't really much of a motivation for them to start living in that manner. If anything, now they may be able to live even less of a preventive manner, as the curative medications are more affordable.

tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/8/2012 4:57:08 PM)
quote: I'm in favor of regular screenings. Which requires a PCP and a bill for 150 for the visit... plus a bill for the lab work... then a repeat visit if required for the test results. And that doesnt include the needed medications or supplies. quote: The only way someone is going to reduce health care spending by preventing disease, is if preventive screenings are done. And how do you propose someone making minimum pay for that? quote: My point has always been that if people aren't doing the things they can now, how is it that they will do those things simply because they have insurance? Its the difference between 150 dollars plus lab work, plus meds... as opposed to having at least most of that covered through insurance. quote: Insurance isn't required to live in a manner that can help prevent disease, so gaining insurance isn't really much of a motivation for them to start living in that manner. Ever tried to get into a Doctor for a visit without the payment or insurance? quote: If anything, now they may be able to live even less of a preventive manner, as the curative medications are more affordable. People want to be healthy to enjoy their lives. Curative is dealing with the stroke instead of the high blood pressure.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/8/2012 8:11:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I'm in favor of regular screenings. Which requires a PCP and a bill for 150 for the visit... plus a bill for the lab work... then a repeat visit if required for the test results. And that doesnt include the needed medications or supplies. The answer, then, is to provide insurance for everyone, instead of lowering costs? quote: quote: The only way someone is going to reduce health care spending by preventing disease, is if preventive screenings are done. And how do you propose someone making minimum pay for that? Lower the costs of care? Remove the de facto requirement for insurance? quote: quote: My point has always been that if people aren't doing the things they can now, how is it that they will do those things simply because they have insurance? Its the difference between 150 dollars plus lab work, plus meds... as opposed to having at least most of that covered through insurance. How is it that the only preventative measures you can imagine require the medical profession? If people aren't taking the necessary measures that they can do without the need for insurance or any medical professionals? If they aren't doing the things they can afford to do now, what's making the case that they will once they have access to more? quote: quote: Insurance isn't required to live in a manner that can help prevent disease, so gaining insurance isn't really much of a motivation for them to start living in that manner. Ever tried to get into a Doctor for a visit without the payment or insurance? quote: If anything, now they may be able to live even less of a preventive manner, as the curative medications are more affordable. People want to be healthy to enjoy their lives. Curative is dealing with the stroke instead of the high blood pressure. People want to be healthy. True enough. No one is disputing that. But, what people are doing is using medicine as a cure-all. They aren't doing the things that can be done prior to needing medical intervention. Much of those things are going to limit their risks for these diseases (notice how I said "limit their risks" and not "prevent"), yet they don't do it when it isn't going to cost them. It's an "after the fact" thing. What is the problem with employer-provided health care? Why are employers who treat their employees to "Cadillac Plans" going to be penalized?

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/8/2012 8:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Oh I know Lucy. I just wanted to point it out once again to the more liberal side that thinks that Obamacare is the panacea that will correct all our ills. But you don't have to get that the very shift you are talking abput trends well back into the Bush administration, and hasn't mushroomed or gone exponential. Before or after Obamacare/Romneycare.

tazzygirl -> RE: Doing Away With Employer Healthcare (11/8/2012 10:04:03 PM)
quote: The answer, then, is to provide insurance for everyone, instead of lowering costs? We waited for the market... costs went up. You want to save money. I want to save lives. quote: Lower the costs of care? Remove the de facto requirement for insurance? You are waiting... once again.. for the market to lower the prices. Its not happened ... its not ever going to happen. In the mean time, people are getting sicker, dying from diseases that are much easier, and cheaper, to treat at the early stage. quote: How is it that the only preventative measures you can imagine require the medical profession? If people aren't taking the necessary measures that they can do without the need for insurance or any medical professionals? If they aren't doing the things they can afford to do now, what's making the case that they will once they have access to more? People do do what they can. You can be young, healthy, eat just the right foods, exercise and stay in great shape, get plenty of sleep, avoid all the toxins and pollutants as much as anyone else can... and still develop a disease that will require medical treatment. Healthcare isnt needed by the healthy. But the healthy dont always know when they get sick until its too late. quote: People want to be healthy. True enough. No one is disputing that. But, what people are doing is using medicine as a cure-all. They aren't doing the things that can be done prior to needing medical intervention. Much of those things are going to limit their risks for these diseases (notice how I said "limit their risks" and not "prevent"), yet they don't do it when it isn't going to cost them. It's an "after the fact" thing. This is your assumption. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/thyroid-cancer-brooke-burke-charvet_n_2095103.html She is healthy, "looks" in great shape, relies on her looks so she puts time into her physical appearance. bet she exercises a lot. And she has thyroid cancer. You can do everything "right" according to health experts and end up with a disease. You can eat and party and abuse your body, and never get sick. Health isnt always based upon what you do right or wrong. Sometimes its genes. quote: What is the problem with employer-provided health care? Because you are either locked into that job as a result of pre-existing conditions (before ACA) or you lose it and cant get anymore. COBRA payments are a bitch to make... lose your job, as many have done recently, and you suddenly have no insurance through no fault of your own. Why do we force people to remain with a job? quote: Why are employers who treat their employees to "Cadillac Plans" going to be penalized? One reason: The law's hefty tax on expensive "Cadillac plans" will force insurers to weed inefficient providers out of their networks to keep premiums below the taxable threshold, set initially at $27,500 a year for a family policy. "The Cadillac tax is an underappreciated element of the Affordable Care Act," he said. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-06-28/health-care-insurers/55902744/1 Schoolteacher Kinzi Blair makes only $46,000 a year, but she has what many would consider a "Cadillac" health plan, now targeted for a big tax increase by health reformers. She has $10 copays and no deductible. She gets generic prescription drugs for $10. Her plan covers mental health counseling, organ transplants, acupuncture. It covers speech therapy for preschoolers and in vitro fertilization. Many Americans never think about the fact that health insurance premiums are now tax-free by law. Employers don't pay taxes on what they contribute, nor do workers pay taxes on their portion of premiums. And self-employed workers can take a deduction for their premiums. Tax-exempt health insurance is an accident of history. During World War II, the government froze wages, so employers lured workers with health benefits. Employers' contributions were made tax exempt. Congress later made sure the tax exemption became law. The system has led to "bloated" health benefits for some with coverage for "in vitro fertilization, marriage counseling and acupuncture," says economist John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Dallas-based conservative think tank favors private solutions over government involvement. ....... "Is it going to get to the same point where I'm worried I can't go to the emergency room?" she says about rising premiums and copays. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-25-insurance-reform_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomHealth-TopStories+(News+-+Health+-+Top+Stories) Basically, its tax free income.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125