NYT: The Disparate Consensus on Health Care for All

[DeepModem Mom]

The Disparate Consensus on Health Care for All
By STEVE LOHR
Published: December 6, 2004


....among health care experts there is a surprising consensus that the United States must inevitably adopt some kind of universal coverage....

***

Whatever their differences, they do agree that moving toward universal coverage would surely save lives and maybe dollars as well. A report this year by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences found that the uninsured are sick more often than the insured and likely to die younger, resulting in an estimated 18,000 additional deaths a year.

The uninsured receive medical care, but often when it is most expensive - acute care at hospitals after emergencies instead of regular checkups and other preventive care. And the uninsured pay only 35 percent of their own medical bills, according to the Institute of Medicine report. Most of the rest is paid by taxpayers through subsidies to hospitals and clinics.

Any plan for universal coverage must answer at least three basic questions: Will the move to national coverage follow an incremental, step-by-step path or require drastic change? What role will the government play? What should be covered under a universal system?...

***

The Bush administration and conservatives say the way to cover the uninsured is to make insurance affordable mainly through tax subsidies for companies, especially small businesses, and encouraging them to offer high-deductible insurance plans that cost employers less. Individuals, under this approach, are encouraged to set up tax-free health savings accounts to pay for more of their own care....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/business/businessspecial2/06universal.html

[The Zanti Regent]

1. More anti Single payer lies from the Screw York Times...

...well, I guess when every PRESSTITUTE at this propaganda rag gets paid in six figures, well, they get to live in their lasseiz fairyland.

I'd love to see this worthless rag go down and have assholes like Dowd, Nagourney, Miller, Brooks and Saffliar lose their health insurance. Let them pay 100% for all of their medical coverage out of their own pocket and let them go into bankruptcy.

I'd especaillly love to have Whoreen Dowd pay 100% for her Botox!

[izzie]

2. I my self like the times. Also I think we will have health care.

--

[MatrixEscape]

3. Pragmatically speaking ...

greater access to health care, particularly in larger populations, can help to counter the spread of diseases.

TB and STD's come to mind here as a for instance. Catching communicable diseases via screening during ordinary exams can save money and suffering over time.

So, even if people don't see access as important, especially when they lack an altruistic or compassionate viewpoint, they should be able to recognize the value of prevention and its direct impact on the whole.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Single Payer, or any reform...

Being actively opposed by the maladministration, means they want to cull the herd.

The situation with flu vaccine proves that. The elderly, the weak, the chronically-ill would be the people most affected by a flu epidemic, especially a virulent strain. They have identified these people as a drain on society, thus, no vaccine.

The same is in play with other medical services.

Furthermore, culling the herd means less stress on the supplies of natural resources, especially petroleum products, thus no flu vaccine. Thus culling the herd.

Remember: much of our food supply, in the US, is fertilized with products made from petroleum products. Another element to consider.

On a simple level, culling the herd means less heating, less cars on the road, less plastic products, less medicines used. Less petroleum used.

Consider all points using Occam's Razor and you get these very disturbing potentials. I think they are in play, in the darkest corners of the maladministration.

[struggle4progress]

5. kick

:kick: