gretchen evans

The Nashville Tennessean of 10/21/2003 carried a rebuttal from Dr.
David Charles, Associate Professor of Neurology at Vanderbilt
University Medical Center.. Carried on the OpEd page under 'Nashville
Eye'. The entire text may be read at http://www.tennesseean.com

Dr. Charles makes a strong case against SP/UC citing the many problems
encountered by other countries and offering as an alternative the AMA
supported "mix of public and private sector funding, with issuesof
coverage and care decided by patients and their families, not
government agencies".

In other words, maintain the 'status quo',with a few alternations
tossed in as a salve to the collective consciences of all who have
feelings for the unfortunate.

Unfortunately, he fails to address the multiple problems of continued
increases of cost; continued rise in the numbers of the uninsured and
underinsured; the methodology to both control expenses and properly
deliver care to all, which has been one of the problems with this
approach all along.

I find it interesting that two members of Vanderbilt's Teaching Staff
share such differing idiologies concerning healthcare.. Should make
for some VERY interesting discussions during their meetings.

pixie

bettinared

A mix of public and private sector funding -- Wow, what an original
and innovative idea! Now all he has to do is tell us how he would
solve the problems you mentioned.
Bettina

jonathansmith99

The AMA has always had a leaning toward a choice model and one that
relies on and supports the doctor-patient relationship. Their
opposition (to the less than 10 thousand pro) to the JAMA piece was
expected and represents the collective opinion of hundreds of thousands of physicians.

Which of course an SP model solves (not - see the Europena issues on
escalating costs - this is not unique to the US).


The argument goes - the uninsured have no access. In the UK, there
are 1 million people WAITING in line to get access. What is better?

Underserved in terms of access to care is better?


You forgot to use the rationing word. Convenient.


js

gretchen evans

On 22 Oct 2003 01:27:41 -0700, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan


Let's see.. Weren't there many in Europe who firmly believed that
Columbus would fall off of the edge of the earth on his voyage.. I see
that thinking has continued even over here.


Needing treatment I would FAR prefer to be on a 'waiting list' and
with the assumption that treatment would be forthcoming, than with the
knowledge that there would be NO treatment at all provided. Of course
you wouldn't understand that at all.

Better than not treated at all, hes.. A lousy situation but certainly
preferable to not having access at all.


ANY properly designed system has built-in limits as well as the
ability to over-ride those limits IF indicated. The smug fat cats,
sitting in one of their 5 bathrooms and counting their pennies
continue to trumped the polarized word 'rationing'.. While allowing
others to suffer and die from lack of care. Interesting thinking to
say the least.

pixie

karl

news:<mvcapvc7an3166u824812fbetguhqfb7mk@4ax.com>. ..

JS would still insist that the feds through NIH should fund research that he
would benefit from. Just keep away those that would keep him form seeing
the doc for the pimple on his ass immediately.

He wants the uninsured who find the money by mortgaging their houses to pay
for expensive drugs to pump as much money as his kind can squeeze out of
them. If they all go to Canada then his prices would need to find another
subsidy to keep prices low.

gretchen evans

I'd LOVE to be a 'fly on the wall' at some of the staff meetings..
Assuming such subjects are discussed.. and I don't know just how they
could get around it, it would be extremely interesting since both docs
are excellent speakers and both strongly support opposite sides of the
issue. '


pixie

jonathansmith99

I don't see the relevance. The flat earth hypothesis was a commonly
held belief for a very long time - sort of like "common sense" you
know?

The point is - escalating costs are based on population aging,
technology improvements, and increased demand for services. It is a
phenomenon seen in all systems of care irrespective of the underlying
strucuture and financing. Or perhaps you have evidence the the cost
of health care in SP countries is not going up?

You would?


Once more - no insurance doesn't mean no access.

again - no insurance does not mean no access.

IF indicated? I think not. Indicated by whom? Under SP it would be
the P part of that. And in the pixie view, that would be Washington...


I'm all for access to insurance - what's your problem? Your argument
doesn't work UNLESS you first assume that I want 43 million uninsured.
I have advocated, and will continue to do so in spite of what you may
prefer, that the uninsured need access to insurance - the insured do
not need or want access to SP.

Focus on fixing the health insurance access problem, don't try and fix
the health care delivery "problems" you think are there but aren't.

js

gretchen evans

On 23 Oct 2003 02:49:01 -0700, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan


Of the 'hypethosis' of longivity that you so recently cited?

Obviously in addition to lacking compassion you apparently lack a sense of humor

Healthcare costs are increasing in ALL countries, not just those using
an SP plan or providing UC, etc. .. What else is new? And your point?


I most certainly would.. At least I have some hope that I would
receive treatment.. Without any access or means to access I have
nothing to hope for.


Yeah, right.. Tell that to those without insurance, not to me.


Again, Yeah, right

Perhaps you missed my prior postings about having 'oversight boards'
locally that could override preset limits of treatment. Or simply
omitted it from your post. Typical.


Why use a middleman when the same coverage can be provided
automatically by the government? Unless, of course, you have
significant insurance stocks in your portfolio.

The problems lie both with Access and with Delivery.. You refuse to
acknowledge that fact.

pixie

bettinared

What the heck does "the insured don't need access to SP" mean? Plenty
of people in Canada have extra private insurance but they still use
the national plan for basic health care.
Bettina

karl

news:<1cmnpvk6cbv3ur49nfsnrf9g1t9a59gr34@4ax.com>. ..


news:<mj5dpvc48garq33a42ua5iohccp6ssdv6g@4ax.com>. ..


news:<mvcapvc7an3166u824812fbetguhqfb7mk@4ax.com>. ..


Seems to me he would get rid of medicare too. He feels he can get insurance
for himself and so screw everyone else...as long as JS can get insurance
there is no crisis. Now if JS couldn't get insurance THEN there would be a
crisis.

I think at the core of it is that he just can't stand seeing his tax dollars
going
for something he doesn't wish to use for himself. And he doesn't want to
see his tax dollars spent on ANYTHING he doesn't totally endorse or want to
use.