As a conservative...

Parent Cafe
161

<p>“Do you think that a single payer healthcare system would mean spending money we’re not already spending?”</p>

<p>Yes. I do. Look around. </p>

<p>You either reduce services or you increase cost, it’s the math of the situation, not the emotion. Emotionally, I’m right there with you, we outta, they should and this should be… but I also think with my wallet too. </p>

<p>In the trillions of dollars going back and forth in HC. Elimination of the ceo’s isn’t honestly significant enough to matter other than a short time. It will feel good. It won’t save much if anything from the cost of delivering HC. </p>

<p>Everything else in the model will remain. Volume will increase, any savings will be soon gobbled up and we will be dealing with increases. America is not willing to deal with the root causes of the HC problem in America. We are only concerned in who pays for the end result. </p>

<p>That’s the kool aid part. “tell me I can continue to comsume 200% of the calories I actually need a day, tell me I can put anything into my body without concern for the short or long term effect. Tell me you won’t make me exercise, in fact you’ll go as far as reducing or eliminating PE from my kids lives, so they can study more. Tell me I don’t need walking paths or public parks where I could exercise. Tell me I can continue to sit and eat bon bons…”</p>

<p>Then tell me at the end of this “that’s OK, we’ll treat you for free and it won’t cost anything.” </p>

<p>Tell you what, I’m voting for the first canidate to say "we’re bringing back the president’s council on physical fitness! We’re going to build parks for you to walk in and your kids to play in! We’re going to encourage a healthy lifestyle through incentives like tax breaks or rebates for health clubs and atheletic groups (LL bball, soccer…etc…) We’re going to bring the boys and girls clubs back big time in areas where kids families don’t have the reasources to pay for a club memebership! We’re going to encourage employers and school systems to encourage exercise in the mid day. Not only will it help the body, but it will focus the minds…</p>

<p>That’s what I would vote for… not “do what ever you want to your body… we’ll pick up the tab.” </p>

<p>And before those chime in with “well my mom didn’t choose cancer!” Let me say this… I understand. But think about this… if we reduce the number of self induced medical claims (lifestyle) wouldn’t it lower the cost AND free up time and space to treat those who truly have been struck by misfortune? </p>

<p>It is said that within the next 20 years almost half the United States population will either have type II diabetes or be borderline. In the vast majority of cases Lifestyle influences the onset of type II. Think of the reasources “freed up” if we could reduce that number from roughly 40% of americans down to 5-10%? </p>

<p>Yup, I’m an evil guy… because I don’t want my government to take over my after the fact needs without regard to what is putting me in the doc’s office. I want them to step up with preventative help first, outside of the doc’s office. </p>

<p>The things they could be doing now (building parks, ballfields, walking/biking paths…etc…) they do at a snail’s pace. When it takes 15-20 YEARS to build a couple soccer fields, at the same time preventing a non profit from just building their own without the government. Tell me again, how I should trust them to do it better? Sorry, this is one bitter kool aid you push before me. </p>

<p>I would feel different if the track record for the things they currently control wasn’t so dismal. Come see me again after they step up and do the things currently within their power to improve community health.</p>

162

<p>

</p>

<p>Except empirically, there are any number of countries that, on an aggregate scale, spend less money per person than American does on health care and have better overall outcomes.</p>

163

<p>"Except empirically, there are any number of countries that, on an aggregate scale, spend less money per person than American does on health care and have better overall outcomes.'</p>

<p>Again, look at what I am talking about 42. You live in a country that encourages activity, some of the best multiuse parks I’ve ever seen. </p>

<p>You actually support my arguement because in general the overall health of some of these countries is better because of the things those governments DO to reduce cost in an indirect way. When Chilliwhack BC can find a way to build five soccer fields (excellent grass), two football fields, a couple more baseball fields next to their sewage treament plant, it means their government is actually proactive in the general well being and health of their citizens…</p>

<p>It isn’t about the cost of treatment being lower, it’s about the application of preventive means and systems to eliminate or reduce the need for a visit. If I’m fit and not fat, the reality is I will be treated for lower cost situations (maybe a broken bone) rather than a lifetime illness (diabetes) one requires a visit, and a follow up, the other involves a lifetime of medication. </p>

<p>I could lower health care costs in America simply by bringing the Canadian system of recreation down. You may spend less because your government does more to encourage a healthy lifestyle. Been involved in both systems (not talking hc) and you folks do more to prevent illness than we are willing to. So it really isn’t that you can deliver hc for a lower cost, it’s because your population generally is healthier than ours, thus lowering costs. </p>

<p>Where your system struggles is in the treatment and care of those illnesses that prevention can’t avoid. That is why the need for those types of situations to come down here.</p>

164

<p>Oh I know, Canada is excellent at encouraging physical activity. There are many more countries ahead on the list than Canada, though. ;)</p>

<p>I do agree that the most basic and effective way to cut costs would be better prevention… now to put that into play, much more difficult.</p>

165

<p>Except for what China pays for (buying US Treasury bonds), households pay for everything, even if corporations are in the middle (because households pay the corporations). We will collectively decide if we households want to pay for universal normal access to health care.</p>

<p>One time an elderly protestant preacher, adamantly opposed to universal health care, asked me “Who will pay for it?” I told him “We all will.”</p>

<p>Perhaps one reason we are the richest nation is because we don’t spend the money on our health. We may have to decide if we want to continue being the richest nation, or if we want to provide universal health care like most other countries do.</p>

<p>If we decide to provide universal health care, then we can decide what form it should take. There are many countries whose models we can study.</p>

166

<p>“now to put that into play, much more difficult.”</p>

<p>Bingo!</p>

<p>There’s my point. We have had the means to do many health oriented things in our communities as the canadians or other industrialized nations, we just choose not to. Instead we use public money to finance stadiums to “watch” others play or drive cars in circles for private individual profits.</p>

<p>The production of parks and recreation space has dramatically been reduced since the 50’s and 60’s in America while the population grows. We make our national parks get by on a shoestring budget and we’re are raising generations that will never experience a hike or camping in the woods. </p>

<p>We were a healthlier country when we feared communism.</p>

167

<p>Quote from Funding Father:
“Sure people will attempt to club McCain over the head with this, but it really does nothing more than reflect on the intelligence of the person making the charge.”</p>

<p>Personally, I think the original post is a back handed clubbing - it’s the kind of post that doesn’t really invite nuanced discussion or thinking about a candidate. </p>

<p>As for the intelligence comment, all I can say is that it’s a hurtful comment - I don’t claim any superiority of intellect or an ability to write. I’m assuming it was directed at me since I brought up McCain’s lack of understanding about the economy. It takes courage to post on this site with all the lawyers, writers and PhD’s. </p>

<p>Vicariousparent,
Thanks for explaining. I understand independent voting because I considered myself one until the neocons came into power. Admittedly, I have become closed to any Republican because I fear the consequences of continued Republican rule. I worry that a lot of voters don’t understand what the Republican party has become and that McCain really isn’t that far from Bush. ASAP addressed that quite well in her post. I also worry that McCain who admitted he doesn’t understand the economy will be like Bush and hand that job over to a Republican advisor. When I say hand it over I mean just that - that he will go along with whatever they tell him to do because he will be so busy doing what he is perceived to be good at, fighting wars and dealing with national security. I think Obama is more intelligent and discerning than McCain and will bring fresh thinking to our complex array of problems.</p>