HEALTHCARE THREAD

sucked into jet engine

that's not real, is it?

I think the first time my old office got one of those ICD-9 books I spent like two hours looking for the weirdest conditions I could find. So much time-killing fun!

Apparently there is an E code for people injured in the high-stress world of knitting: http://www.icd9data.com/2010/Volume1/E000-E999/E001-E030/E012/E012.0.htm

Apparently you can use E844.X for persons "sucked into jet without accident to aircraft", so yeah that is real.

I survived pediatric cancer through treatment that would seem very severe now and I'm sure it would be very expensive to insure me. I'm happy with the NHS because my pre-existing condition means we're on the same page if I worry about a weird mole or something - and when I've gone to emergency room for x-rays there's always a gaggle of students because there are still marker clips inside me that show up ('no, I did not swallow staples'). However I am insistent that managing the care of those who have pre-existing conditions is good medicine because it assists in the treatment of others. I had a brilliant pediatric oncologist (the only one in MN at the time) who minimized any future problems by keeping me the fuck off steroids and returning me to hospital for tests every year until I was 11. Some of us survivors are actually *less ill* than our peers.

http://www.google.com/search?q=nhs+it+debacle

and that's in a country where just one institution runs the vast majority of health services.. trying to imagine something working throughout the u.s. is loco

(it all went titsup.com because a patchwork of private contractors and consultants were hired to set it up)

Btw the thought of health information being 'unsecure' and able to be 'read by anyone' seems like it's always pushed as a horrible nightmare. I've never really found it a horrifying concept tho. Barring HMO's using that info for preexisting condition charges is there any reason to fear this other than THE GOVT IS GOING TO USE YOUR MEDICAL CHARTS TO TORTURE YOU? Seems like any identity thief has much more to gain from stealing your credit card or bank account digits than a list of our ailments.

I always think about that whenever I go to a hospital and fill out 10 pages of stuff in duplicate.

stigma

that is, there are loads of things that afflict people that they simply do not want their neighbors or strangers to know about

Or their parents. Or their children. Or their employers. There are lots of reasons to keep medical information secure.

I could see that. Why a stranger would give a shit has always seemed a bit 'your neighbors are all going to hack into your wireless connection & steal your credit card info'.

another thing is how much doctors are going to trust google health info, or other PHR stuff where you can modify your own records. sure it's helpful to be able to have a digital repository for your personal records and to be able to take it from place to place, but it's a different thing from health care facilities being able to send secure data (that has only been modified by other health care professionals) back and forth.

OK, that makes TOTAL sense. It's funny we live in an age where it's easier to share what show you and all of your friends are going to next weekend than for hospitals to share records.

http://counterpunch.org/mokhiber10232009.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/25/another-word-on-mandates/

Does anyone other than insurance companies think a mandate is a good idea?

women and gay men

arrrrgh loserman!

that guy is such a piece of shit - i dont even get why they let him back in the caucus

in the tent, pissing in

all this guy does is piss

Who is going to bring the hammer down on Lieberman? Does anyone have a hammer ready to hand?

would gladly hammer his smarmy face in

Need this dude:

http://www.bangitout.com/uploads/18hebrew_hammer.jpg

Huffpost header: JOE THE BUMMER

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/exclusive-robust-public-option-lacks-votes-to-pass-house-internal-whip-count-document-shows/

that's a really unimpressive big city hip-hop skyline image. straight outta milton keynes.

let the ratfucking begin

someone give me ammunition to debunk this:

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2009/11/fatal-flaw-in-healthcare-reform.html

On one level I agree that yes, this is a possibility, however, it seems to assume people will act only in their financial self-interest in all cases, which is something that I disagree with; gaming the system in this way, counting on the existence of alternative options, seems like a gamble MOST people are not going to take.

It all depends on whether the fines go into some kind of insurance pool. If they do, people will be paying into the larger healthcare insurance pool regardless of whether they're insured or not, perhaps not as much but a significant amount nonetheless and this will likely shore up the system for when they need to be insured later.

One of the advantages of health insurance is discounted rates for preventative coverage and well-care, not just coverage for catastrophic events. Most people with children are not going to wait to buy insurance until they "come down with something" or needs elective or schedulable surgery if there's an affordable plan to cover well-care and accidents. He's missing a few major points in his argument.

yeah that was my thought as well; I mean, I wouldn't, and I have a kid. and I don't think I'm the most cautious person in the world. but maybe the rest of the country are just reckless, careless, caution-free people who love to live by the seat of their pants where their health is concerned.

And as Mark Perry notes, "What would make this choice to drop insurance and pay the penalty even more rational is the convenient, low-cost availability of basic health care from 1,200 retail clinics around the country, or through pre-paid plans like the No Insurance Club, or concierge medicine."

^^ i dont know about the math since im not super familiar w/ the bill or insurance costs but retail clinics are closing down all over the country and it would take a pretty crazy family with a lot of free time to voluntarily take their kids to a free clinic on the regular

anyway i don't see how this is different from car insurance and everyone fucking buys that and doesn't complain.

Dispiriting.

well currently the fine for not having health insurance is $0.

so it's an even better bet to not be insured at this present moment!

citizens should be ecstatic!

also, how the fuck is a 25% chance of having a $10,000+ health insurance bill a "good bet"

are these people from mars? europa? i shall attempt no landings there.

the dude from that blog is an economist, so of course he has no understand of how the real world works or how people actually make decisions that affect their lives and well-being

max OTM

why anyone listens to economists about anything is beyond me

C'mon, that's just a wee bit bit facile.

one in four families gets hit by a piano

So on another health-care thread, I asked why some projections show that premiums under the public-option will be higher than premiums for private-plans. A colleague of mine gave me an explanation today. It's all about the size of the public-option and enhanced competition. Under some proposed public-option plans -- e.g., make everyone immediately eligible for Medicare -- the public option would be so large that it would have bargaining power and leverage over, say, hospitals. The gov't would say to hospitals, "These are the rates: Take it or leave it, and if you leave it, you leave all forms of Medicare reimbursement." No hospital would dare do that.

But the public-option in the House bill only insures those who haven't been able to secure private insurance for the previous six months. Thus, the pool of applicants will be (a) sicker and (b) smaller than optimal. That public-option no longer has strong leverage over providers, and it will be small enough where it must compete in the marketplace (and therefore will have the same overhead as private insurers).

I'm hoping this is only horribly oversimplified, rather than horribly wrong. If someone knows, I'd greatly appreciate their input.

it won't have the same overhead if only for the fact that it won't have to hire an army of people to find ways of denying coverage to people.

presumably it would also not need to spend as much on thousand dollar lunches to woo potential business partners, etc.

i am just speculating though.

yeah the idea that a public option will have the same overhead as a private option is ludicrous

i guess everyone expects it to be filled w/ ppl uninsurable in any other way ie pricey patients. if it's not tied to medicare's negotiated rates, then, yeah, premiums will go up. beats not having any care i guess.

"will go up" should be "will be high to begin with"

i've kinda come around to the idea that the public option is not that important in the scheme of things. it's one way to bring down costs but not the only way. plenty of countries have better HC systems that we do w/o a government run insurance company. if you regulate the bejeezus out of all of them, it starts to make less difference.

goole i believe most countries without government plans have essentially made it illegal to profit from health insurance, i.e. switzerland