Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (21302)	12/23/2003 8:45:41 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793738

X, Many folks without kids are routinely cavalier about most issues involving families and children. I got nailed by libertarians for arguing for pro-young family bias in the tax code. I brought up a book called the two income trap and people refused to consider the conclusions. When i was my daughters age, my wife did not work and i was a trainee making very little but managed to get by with two kids. My daughter who lives in similar housing as i did works as does hubby and barely makes ends meet(also with 2 kids). The answer by the libbys was more or less that they were stupid to have kids given their circumstances. Children much less healthy children did not concern them at all and they felt little responsibility to help. They often do not see the future of the nation tied into a healthy and educated younger generation. In europe the mean age in about 25 years will be 55 or so. Thank God in the US it will rise slightly to 35. This comes from immigration and our pro-work, pro family bias. The euros only want to vacation and the hell with the future of the species. Here we work hard for our kids and our grandkids. That after all is the future. Mike

To: epicure who wrote (21302)	12/23/2003 9:51:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793738

Let me guess, neither of you have children? Just me. LB posted about out of pocket medical care for his children earlier. you turned up the smugness a notch too high for me Sorry about that. I'm a bit cranky on this issue. Ah the ease of dismissing problems concerning that which you have no experience with. I still think we're just looking at it differently. You're looking at it as a parent and what you would want for your child and therefore for anyone else's child. I'm looking at it as a public health and public policy issue. My original point, the one you challenged, was that: typical kids don't need a lot of medical care, more than should be affordable for just about everyone so the fact that lots of people don't have health insurance for their kids is not the crisis it's made out to be. You've made a lot of points but nothing that counters my assessment. I already stipulated immunizations because they are regulated and because they have a public health purpose. Your link indicate cost $400 total so even if parents had to pay out of pocket, that would not be impossible for all but the poorest of parents since it's paid over time. You mention diabetes. Yes, diabetes is on the upswing but that's because kids are fat couch potatoes. In all but the rarest of cases, you don't need a doctor to keep your kid from being fat so diabetes is not relevant to my point. You don't need a doctor to treat a kid for type 2 diabetes if you don't let him get fat. I tried briefly to find some info on what is essential about well child exams. The best info I found was from Medicaid but there weren't a lot of specifics. It mentioned testing for lead poisoning, which is probably a good idea although not likely needed for all kids. It said that the well child screenings are suggested every two years for younger kids and Medicaid pays fifty some dollars. That's not exactly big bucks. If that's what Medicaid pays, then there are probably clinics around that offer discount services for not all that much more. That's why I'm having trouble seeing this as a public health crisis. It is suggested that doctors should now test... Lots of things are suggested. I understand why they are suggested. I understand that good can be done with them. Sure, it's useful for a doctor to tell a parent that his kid is fat if he's too stupid to see it himself or to realize it as a problem. But it's really dumb to pay doctor's rates for information that, if not apparent to the parent, can be had at a much lower cost. A few weeks ago I had an encounter with my doctor when I reminded her that I was overdue on my mammogram which made her notice I was overdue for my annual physical. I had deliberately not mentioned the latter. In the spirit of the debate over escalating medical costs, I asked her why the annual physical was necessary, at least parts of it. Typically I get some tests and she finds this or that. For example, my EKG has had a hiccup in it for some years now, always the same. So she refers me to my cardiologist who does another EKG, finds the same hiccup and says it's no big deal. By the time that process is ended, it's nearly time for my next physical and we go through it all again. So I questioned why I need an EKG again so soon and, if I did, maybe I could just have it at the cardiologist's and save a step, etc., etc. I also asked her why I couldn't just go ahead and get the mammogram. She said that she couldn't refer me for a mammogram until she had examined my breasts. I questioned that, too, because I'm going to get the mammogram anyway. My mother died of breast cancer, for heaven's sake. She was not amused by my inquiries. She insisted that's the way it's done, that she likes to have a session once a year where she can focus on my and the totality of my circumstances (even though I see her every few months) and she wouldn't work any other way. So I have a physical scheduled in a couple of weeks. And we'll do it her way. My insurance is paying for most of it, after all. Maybe between now and next year I'll tackle it again. I feel guilty for indulging her and the system and thus allowing myself to be a part of the problem. ER had an series of episodes recently about the myriad unnecessary tests that they routinely do just to cover their asses. I think it's a scandal. It's fine if people choose to pay. I have a friend who is paying out of pocket for a virtual colonoscopy rather than an endoscopic one because he thinks it's better. I say good for him, just as long as it's his money. When it's the public's money via taxes or insurance, it's a scandal.