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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (76184)	7/24/2008 10:46:43 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 543248

I have always thought covering viagra but not birth control pills was ridiculous. I got a shingles vaccination yesterday. Medicare doesn't cover that ($200). (That's part of why I was so curious about which other services Krugman would cut out.) I would agree that a shingles vaccinations would be a relative low priority from the client perspective. But not lower than other things they cover. They may not cover it because it wouldn't be cost effective relative to the cost of treating those who came down with shingles. But then again, I'm not at all sure that the primo coverage they provide for diabetes is cost effective, either.

To: Rambi who wrote (76184)	7/24/2008 2:23:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 543248

I have always thought covering viagra but not birth control pills was ridiculous. It depends on how you frame the problem. ED is a disorder, female fertility is not. If its a program to treat medical disorders, then it would be sensible that birth control pills for ordinary prevention of fertility (rather than for some of the other uses they have) would not be part of the package. Those who disagree might give a response that might be that we shouldn't put ourselves in little boxes and be forced to live within the limitations of the box, and that coverage for birth control pills makes sense, and it doesn't matter if it fits in to the box or not. OTOH government programs generally exist to perform specific functions (not necessarily highly specific, they cover whole areas, but you don't have the department of the interior hunting down Iraqi insurgents or NASA handing out welfare checks.

To: Rambi who wrote (76184)	7/24/2008 3:05:52 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543248

>>Does this strike you as sort of strange on a couple of levels? The first that she objects to preventing conception on religious grounds, but obviously isn't willing to accept her own condition? (But maybe there is more to her condition than she said, so I won't belabor that one. It just intrigued me)<< Rambi - I remember the case of the woman who gave birth to septuplets several years ago, after taking fertility drugs. She was advised during pregnancy to have a "selective abortion" to give the remaining fetuses a chance to develop into healthy babies. Of course, the idea of selective abortion is horrible, and it would be emotionally trying to make that decision. But the woman said she wouldn't do it, because she felt that having septuplets was "God's will." Seemed to me at the time that God's will was for her to remain childless. She didn't pay any attention to that when she decided to take fertility drugs. When she was pregnant, then it suddenly became important to her. I personally do not believe that being unable to reproduce is a medical problem that needs to be corrected at all costs. - Allen

To: Rambi who wrote (76184)	7/24/2008 3:08:14 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 543248

<<< Does universal health care cover this sort of thing? What treatments would be considered optional?>>> It would not be like as if we would be pioneers in universal health care coverage. There is plenty of information with regards to how universal health care works or not work. Virtually all the wealthy nations on earth have some form of universal health care system. Countries that have universal health care include Austria, Austrailia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. We, in the United States, are heading toward universal health care, but there is a great deal of resistence. We are heading toward universal health care in a haphazard manner. More and more public funds are used to pay for health care . It is now at about 60% of all health care spending. It has clearly being shown that a single payer system would be more efficient, however there are currently no answers to your concerns about how a single payer system will handle the inevitable demands for services that cost more than the resources that we have. But that is a separate issue. What we know is that people want universal health care and that a single payer system is more efficient. What we need is someone to come up with a detailed plan for a universal single payer health care system. It is not like we are going to be pioneers in this area. There are plenty examples of what works and what does not.