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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (6340)	3/13/2009 1:43:31 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Good article... let's face it in our system there just is 'no money in prevention'. I call it the 4% solution. You spend 4% of your day in an activity that gets your breathing a little heavy, and gets your heart pumping a little, and the other 96% of your day will have a much higher quality. You'll be less tired, more mentally acute, sleep better, etc. You will just feel better. In addition you'll drastically reduce your risk of heart disease, some cancers, depression, diabetes, dementia or alzheimer's and a whole host of other bad stuff. You will live longer... how much longer is hard to quantify. Let me put it this way. If some drug company invented a once a day miracle pill that did all those things for you, with no side effects, would you take it? Of course. Now say you had to walk a half hour to a pharmacy to get the pill... well maybe you would get busy and only take it 4-5 times a week. The thing is, if you walked the half hour to the pharmacy and the half hour back, you wouldn't have to take the pill... you would already have all those benefits. IF this country could figure a way to lead the world in preventive health care, we would probably have the most effective and cost effective medical system in the world. To say nothing of a happier and more productive population. How do you do that without trampling on 'individual rights'? I don't know.

To: John Koligman who wrote (6340)	3/13/2009 2:24:34 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Insurers, for example, will often refuse to pay $150 for a diabetic to see a podiatrist, who can help prevent foot ailments associated with the disease. Nearly all of them, though, cover amputations, which typically cost more than $30,000. Patients have trouble securing a reimbursement for a $75 visit to the nutritionist who counsels them on controlling their diabetes. Insurers do not balk, however, at paying $315 for a single session of dialysis, which treats one of the disease's serious complications. There are few insurers who, if confronted with this situation, would not pay for the up front treatment -- provided the circumstances were adequately presented and provided it was clear the treatment would have this result. They're in business to make a profit, and the argument that they will ignore their profit motive to cause patients harm is just absurd. It is important to remember that a podiatrist who makes this statement -- "pay me now, and you won't have to pay a surgeon later" -- has a motivation that may not be backed by science. Just because a podiatry clinic says "We can solve these problems" does not make it so. They have a profit motive, too. I think the tendency to believe everything you read in the absence of real knowledge of the industry is a real problem going forward. When Obama fills a room with "industry professionals" they all have competing financial interests and those persons who best articulate their own interests may get the money but that doesn't mean it is the best outcome. Sort of like Obama himself -- he was the most articulate candidate and that's why he won the election -- that doesn't mean it was the best thing for the country (which by now, it is starting to become clear his election was an absolute disaster for the country).