Health Care

[telcoman]

Greg

Truly sorry that you lost your wife to cancer but since health care is an important topic in this campaign, perhaps you would like to tell us of your experience in dealing with the present health care system? ( Doctors and hospitals) (If too personal I do understand)

Also the reasons you are for or against reforming the healthcare system in the United States?

Personally, I think a board comprised of experts, doctors, chairman of health and human services, management and labor officials could make some type of affordable national health care work.

The present system is broken and needs to be fixed no matter who wins the next election.

Telcoman

[rn79870]

Greg has posted before about the evils he sees in the health care system and how it is stretched to the limits by abuse and misuse. I have to agree with much of what he has said and I wonder how the system of professionals we now have will be able to provide care to all who will become eligibile to use it.

But, on the other hand...

We recently lost a 22 year old family member (2nd. cousin) to brain cancer. He kept going to doctors complaining of headaches. He had no insurance and paid has he went thinking he was well covered. The problem is that he was never referred for the more expensive test, cat scans or whatever, because he didn't have insurance. Finally he went to the emergency room after passing out in the shower and they found it, operated and the next day he was brain dead. The family had to make the decision to donate his organs as he remained on life support and they went in, two by two to say goodbye to him. He was only 22 years old. He left a wife and 3 year old daughter who, to this day, still asks "when is daddy coming home." At least she got to kiss her daddy good bye.

Yes, maybe we do need health care for all.

[szh]

Yes, maybe we do need health care for all.

My late aunt worked for the British National Health System for two or three decades. Not as a doctor, but as a very senior Administrator by the time she died.

Her horror stories about people in the system, certainly lead me to believe that a US equivalent would be a very bad thing for us. I don't need to go into details, but stories of delayed diagnosis, treatment and thus, serious illness and death occur often in the NHS.

Not a good thing.

Z

[Jimefam]

Everyone has horror stories from every kind of system in every country. No system is perfect and the idea that because a small % of people recieved inadequate care negates the whole idea is wrong. The care a person recieves in this country is directly related to what you can afford. I believe in capitalism, I dont want socialized medicine in this country and neither do democrats. What they are advocating is requiring everyone to purchase insurance and help the poorest with a subsidy to allow them to do so. I think more should be done about the cost of medicine here. I spent three hours in an emergency room like 3 years ago due to chest pain. They did an ekg and an Xray of my chest and I left with an $8,500 bill. That damn near gave me a heart attack! They actually charged me $17.50 for two aspirins.

[rn79870]

Z, I grew up a son of a Marine fighter pilot. As such, I was subject to socialized medicine the first 18 years of my life. I understand the evils of that system as well as anyone, however, it beats not having any medical coverage at all.

What do you propose as an option for coverage for the people who do not have any at all?

And Jimefan has posted one of the major problems with the current system. It needs change. Real change.

[szh]

What do you propose as an option for coverage for the people who do not have any at all?

I don't know the answer ... never looked at the problem to be honest.

My company pays most of the medical insurance for me and I pay for some percentage of mine and the rest of my family (just my wife and son) and it is not cheap ... costs me $10k a year through Blue Cross Anthem, because I am in a small firm. Yeah, it is pre-tax, but still a messload of money.

Regardless, all I do know is that an equivalent of the UK NHS is not a good idea. Going to see under-paid and over-worked doctors, in a system where the government money is not there for sufficient diagnostic equipment, (spent on typical government bureaucracy) etc., just does not cut it, IMHO.

Z

[szh]

Z, I grew up a son of a Marine fighter pilot. As such, I was subject to socialized medicine the first 18 years of my life. I understand the evils of that system as well as anyone, however, it beats not having any medical coverage at all.

BTW, the "socialized medicine" of the US military is probably still far better than the socialized medicine and bureaucracy problems of the UK NHS!

We tend to forget that the UK is basically a socialist country - much of the finances of any government plan there tends to go to the "administration" of it. Far larger than it should.

Z

[srellim234]

This idea is strictly something I'm asking, not a proposal.

Would it be feasible over a period of years to gradually develop a health care system that would be styled after the military's system?

Start in the areas of the country that have the most uninsured and gradually offer the expansion throughout the country. That would give everyone a chance to see what works, what doesn't and what the costs look like.

The other question would be how to allow people to opt in or out. For those that want to pay for their own healthcare, let the current system stay in place. Supplies of doctors, private hospitals, etc. will shrink according to demand as patients and caregivers join the new public system.

[szh]

The other question would be how to allow people to opt in or out. For those that want to pay for their own healthcare, let the current system stay in place. Supplies of doctors, private hospitals, etc. will shrink according to demand as patients and caregivers join the new public system.

The problem then becomes similar identical to the public educational system issues. I pay property taxes that goes to the local school. But my son goes to private school. So, in essence, I am paying twice - and once for services that I do not use! I would love for that portion of my property tax to be refunded to me.

Your approach of "opt in or out" means that I would end up paying for my "private" healthcare, and then also pay for healthcare which I would not be able to use. I would be paying for other folks healthcare.

Where is the fairness in that? More socialist trends.

Now, if the opt out meant that I would specifically NOT pay the "health tax" portion of the system, then I might be okay with it. But, in essence, that just becomes exactly like a government insurance agency (what I had suggested earlier) system.

Z

[srellim234]

As I said, I'm just asking, not formally proposing.

Our daughters have gone the private school routine. Last week they started public school for the first time, strictly for financial reasons. Your questions on financing are certainly valid, and I would have loved to opt out of paying public schools in the past, but it was our choice to send the kids to private school and pay the tuition. Our perspective is a little different because our youngest needed speech therapy and it was supplied through the local public school even though she didn't attend there. Private therapy was too expensive.

We added the cost of the public school taxes to the tuition as the cost of sending the girls to private school and then decided if it was worth the money.

Public schools will never perform to the level of private schools. The main reason is that a public school has to take every kid that walks through the door, while private schools can screen. Kid doesn't want to be there? Private school can throw him out the door. Public school systems are stuck with him.

As for paying for services you don't use, we all do a bunch of that. The public school issue just happens to be a highly publicized one that hits close to home.

BTW, thanks for a reasonable discussion and not the emotionally charged garbage responses a lot of people dish out around here....

[szh]

As I said, I'm just asking, not formally proposing.

Yup, I understood that earlier!

I have not thought about this issue much per se ... so my responses are very "first thought" reactions, without really having done any research to know any better.

Z

[szh]

BTW, thanks for a reasonable discussion and not the emotionally charged garbage responses a lot of people dish out around here....

Probably because we are discussing a system and not laying partisan blame on who caused the "problems" with it.

Z

[srellim234]

Z- I know the public school system has a lot of flaws in it, but I guess that might be the type of system we're talking about for healthcare. Community hospitals, doctors, therapists, etc. paid for by the taxpayers. On the surface it sounds repugnant to my financial conservatism but great to my social liberalism. I have my own conflicts to resolve.

rn, Z, others?- What are the drawbacks to creating a military styled healthcare system for national healthcare outside of the current private system?

I must admit I have always been so involved in private healthcare (38 years in pharmaceuticals) that I haven't researched enough into a national public healthcare system.

[240Knightrider]

I think the big problem with Nationwide health care is you lose Competition. When you lose competition you lose what companies do to keep your business, like investing in research, having doctors that actually care about the individual, keeping prices low, etcIf we went to a nationwide health care system, not only would we have longer lines, extreme waiting for x-rays, cat scans and anything involving a specialist. More people would die, like rn79870 family member. Which is tragic.

In my opinion what they NEED to do is make it affordable. When someone like him had to go to the doctor, and had to pay $2500 because he doesn't have insurance but the guy next to him that does have insurance, has a total bill of $900 that the insurance company pays and he only pays his deductible, something is wrong with that.

It should be the same price, with our without insurance. Someone has to step in and say, no your not going to keep charging outrageous prices for healthcare. Stop for profit heath insurance.

Health Insurance companies need to be non-profit. Their money just makes people rich while others get poor.

Hospitals need to make profit for advancements in medicine and should not be non-profit.

http://www.reuters.com/article...80715

[smockers83]

Just out of curiosity, why do we need to have everyone covered for everything? Insurance is created to provide for a loss, not things people need on a monthly basis. Those monthly visits and weekly prescriptions, in my view, are no longer insurable risks unless its a terminal illness such as cancer.

This does absolutely nothing to help control out-of-control costs in the medical field. In fact, since everyone would be covered, there would be essentially free money from the government available to the field. This in effect would cause costs to increase faster than they normally would and would probably reduce the quality as well. If we want to tackle the health system, what we need to do is invest heavily in the medical field and close the gap in employment, maybe a top-to-bottom review of medical standards and ways. This should also include the drug industry. Private industry with competition has always proven to be the most beneficial to consumers with lower costs and better quality.

[AZhitman]

Telco, thanks for asking.

Aside from her lengthy treatment (approx 4 years), I had several occasions to experience the ups and down of our system, with 4 very major surgeries between 2000 and 2005.

Here's my take:

I could work for a private employer and make 50% to 100% MORE money each year. I choose to work for the State for several reasons, but one of which is the solid health insurance (and state retirement plan).

Too many people in America look at the pay grade and not the ERE (employee-related expenses) when choosing a job, and I see that as irresponsible and foolish. It is NOT the employers' responsibility to provide me with coverage, it's a BENEFIT. It's not the government's responsibility either, in my opinion.

Would you ask the gov't to provide your car insurance? Life insurance? Homeowners'?

Ultimately, it's MY responsibility to make sure I am either financially solvent enough to withstand any medically-related issues that may befall me or my family OR finding a job with suitable benefits.. If that means taking a lesser-paying job, and giving up cable and a bigscreen TV, then that's what I have to do.

Our medical bills since 2000 exceeded a million dollars. I paid my premiums (about 20% of my gross income) and copays of $10 for each Rx and doctor visit, which certainly added up, especially over the last year when we were seeing the doctor almost daily (sometimes more).

I will NEVER pay in as much as I received, and for that i am eternally grateful. I never forget that my Dad taught me to LOOK at the benefits package, not the pay.

Throughout all our ordeals, I believe we got the best care money can buy. Her surgeon and mine were both "Top Docs" in the US, well-known in their field... Her oncologist was ranked the best in the southwest. I feel we were very blessed.

I agree that the system is, in many ways, broken. I recall sitting with her in the ER for 11 hours. Yes, 11 hours. People with non-life threatening issues were clogging up the ER because they had no insurance.

With that said, i don't know the answer... I do know this: I don't think a President can fix it. I think putting some of the responsibility back on the people is critical... would you go to the ER for a sore throat as an uninsured person if you knew it'd cost you, say $50?

I think (and it goes against everything I believe in) somewhere, somehow, limitations have to be put in place to manage the exorbitant billings from docs... But I think it goes WAY back - Medical school and malpractice insurance.

Limiting frivolous malpractice suits and awards would lower malpractice insurance... Allowing doctors to work in inner-city hospitals to "work off" some of their student loans would help (teachers can do this already)...

I have some other ideas relevant to the pharmaceutical companies, but I'm tired... I'll let someone else post up.

I'll say this: For someone with insurance, the system is not broken. For someone without insurance, I can see how they'd view it as defective... But I stand by my belief than many people CHOOSE a job with higher pay and lesser benefits, in which case I have no sympathy. period. My family's care comes before material things.

[srellim234]

I've had the misfortune of watching the pharmaceutical industry transition from the "cash and carry" to the "insurance copay" age from the inside of the industry over the course of my lifetime. In both retail and wholesale, as dispenser, distributor, contract bidder and patient.

I could write an entire dissertation on what's broken in the system and how patients are being gouged whether they have an insurance copay for prescriptions or they pay cash.

I hate Wal-Mart, but there is a legitimate reason they are able to offer over 1000 different prescription medicines for $4 if they don't have to deal with your copay or insurance company. They figured out that almost every customer gets gouged, with or without insurance, and they figured out a way to do something about it that still allows them to make a profit. They're to be commended for what they are doing, and yes, it is perfectly on the up and up, although the drug companies hate it.

Healthcare insurance should work exactly as car insurance, except for removing the deductibles for low income patients. You don't put your oil change on you car's insurance; you shouldn't expect to put a kid's sniffles on your health insurance, either. Regular maintenance and smaller routine items shouldn't be on insurance plans.

[Jimefam]

No one is talking about a state run healthcare system. What has been proposed is requiring everyone to purchase insurance similar to how you have to get car insurance. For the people that truly cannot afford the full amount of premiums the government will subsidize the difference. One thing to keep in mind, with everyone paying premiums the health insurance companies should be able to lower premiums. I dont know that this is a solutions but as I've said something needs to be done. The bill that I paid for $8500 would have cost an insurance company less than half as they have reduced rates that doesn't seem right. I had an uncle that was having a mild heart attack and his daughters called 911 but when the ambulance arrived he refused treatment because he did not have insurance. He survived that but died alittle over a year later of a massive heart attack. I feel the same way, when I paid that bill I was twenty and didn't think about the cost. Today I would rather die than run up a bill I cant pay.

[Jimefam]

Also that preventive maintence saves money. It is much cheaper to treat that kids sniffles than to wait till it becomes bronchitis. For example my father is a very fit looking 42 yr old, in much better shape then me at 23. Well he went to the doctors last year for a routine physical and they discovered he has a liver problem called Haemochromatosis which means that the liver is storing to much iron and can lead to liver failure which would require a transplant or can cause death. But in his case thanks to preventive checkups it was spotted way early and all he has to do now is make sure to give blood at least 4 times a year as this lowers the amount of iron in his system. HMO= Health Maintenence Organization.

[srellim234]

Also that preventive maintence saves money. It is much cheaper to treat that kids sniffles than to wait till it becomes bronchitis..

That kid, yes. That kid's sniffles plus 100,000 other kids' sniffles that have no chance of becoming bronchitis, no. People are abusing the health care system because everything is covered and both a snifflle and a massive heart attack have the same copay at the ER.

The companies figured out a long time ago that they can almost immediately raise the cost of healthcare by the amount of the copay because now the actual cost of care is hidden from the consumer.

Drug companies also figured out that anything they MIGHT lose on a formulary will be made up on the cash paying customer.

Example: We had a contract for an injectable drug; retailed for $50 a vial. Contract bid by the company for the VA hospitals was $.01. Company figured they would get patients stuck on their brand through the VA. They weren't worried about the money, even though they signed agreements with the wholesale distributors to reimburse them the difference between $50 and $.01 PLUS profit on $50 PLUS handling fees. They figured to make it up on the cash paying customer for three years until the contract came up again. When the contract was up again, the starting point price for the drug was now over $100 because "that's what the cash paying customer is now paying." Easy way to inflate prices and profits without the consumer even seeing what's going on.

[240Knightrider]

Here is the difference. I have excellent health care. When I felt my old job benefits weren'tgood enough, I went and got my own independent Insurance.

The issue I see right now is a medical bill a few years ago between my Girlfriend and I, and due to what it was, Insurance did not cover it. That's with her having great insurance. We figured it out, and we paid, over the course of 2 years, $5500 MORE because it was not considered "uninsured". That's just the hospital bill, not the doctors fees.

I believe that's the problem. People without insurance are being charged WAY to much for the procedure. And when they cant pay it, well you know.

Just out of curiosity I looked up what independent health insurance would be, and they were terrible...$40 a month for prescriptions.

These companies need to be capped on how much profit they make. I think all insurance related companies need to be. There is not enough protection for the end user when it does come to insurance.

If you want a good example i guess. Look at USAA. Its a Military Bank, which is non-profit. I have my car insurance, my parents have home, and car with them. I saved $1200 every six months when I first signed up with them.

I lost train of thought..its late haha. Im all for profit, but charge the big guy and the little guy the same amount. Don't gouge just because one has insurance and the other doesn't.

[audtatious]

While I'm not sure about healthcare in other locations I do know how things are within the realms of my wifes job. She is an RN at a local downtown hospital here and usually works in the post-op spine unit. She has patients ranging from their teens to those in their 80's and 8/10 of these patients on average have no health insurance. It seems 1/3rd or more of them are repeat customers who are in for "chronic" issues as a way to get their "fix" of morphine, dalaudid, oxycontin, etc.. They start harassing the hell out of the staff 15 minutes before they are scheduled to get their next shot in order to make sure they get it on time at which point they then leave the unit to go down for a cigarette or even leave the hospital for whatever reason (and come back after using illegal drugs). They have friends and family in all the time and again harass the staff to get free food and such for them as well (with their kids running around loose into others rooms and such). She's even had a convict chained to the bed that came from a fed prison recently to have a disc fused or something due to having back aches (you are in prison for murder, deal with the pain).

Until someone wants to step up and tell some of these people "no" then there will never be a viable solution. Realize that today RN's, LPN's, etc. all go out of their way to provide care to patients because it's what they are supposed to do. As my wife has pointed out, socialized medacine would be good for her because she would then be able to step back and NOT work as hard for the patients due to stipulations and regulations on set "causes and conditions". From my perspective it means less quality of care for me if I need it. Sure, I could potentially have private healthcare but won't that be bad as well since the poor are not receiving the same care? Seems the standard is to set the bar higher and then complain when nothing changes or they perceive they are getting less than someone else (while others foot the higher bills).

[telcoman]

Also that preventive maintence saves money. It is much cheaper to treat that kids sniffles than to wait till it becomes bronchitis. For example my father is a very fit looking 42 yr old, in much better shape then me at 23. Well he went to the doctors last year for a routine physical and they discovered he has a liver problem called Haemochromatosis which means that the liver is storing to much iron and can lead to liver failure which would require a transplant or can cause death. But in his case thanks to preventive checkups it was spotted way early and all he has to do now is make sure to give blood at least 4 times a year as this lowers the amount of iron in his system. HMO= Health Maintenence Organization.

You are correct. It is much cheaper to treat symptoms than to wait and force people to go to the ER

It has become a huge political issue not only for children but for the entire American people. It seemed corporate health insurance sort of worked until all the downsizing. State health benefits are better and seem to work but of course the tax payers pay for it.Obama is stating that he favors giving all Americans the same health care program that members of congress currently have.

Why is that not a good idea?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is more on childrens healthcare

September 8, 2008Facing Veto, Democrats Drop Plan for Vote on Child Bill By ROBERT PEARWASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats have scrapped plans for another vote on expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, thus sparing Republicans from a politically difficult vote just weeks before elections this fall.

Before the summer recess, Democrats had vowed repeatedly to force another vote on the popular program. But Democrats say they have shifted course, after concluding that President Bush would not sign their legislation and that they could not override his likely veto.

Mr. Bush vetoed two earlier versions of the legislation, which he denounced as a dangerous step toward “government-run health care for every American,” and the House sustained those vetoes.

Congress returns on Monday for a session expected to last three or four weeks. Lawmakers say they will focus on energy legislation, essential spending bills and efforts to revive the economy and to create jobs.

The fight over the children’s insurance program prefigures a larger legislative debate, expected to start next year, over the future of health care and the role of government in providing it.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said: “We are not going to change any votes on the children’s health insurance bill. We still don’t have enough to override a veto. Those who opposed this bill can face the voters and explain why they believe 10 million kids should not get health coverage.”

The child health program has become an issue in some Congressional races. In almost every speech, Kay Barnes, a Democrat running for Congress in northwest Missouri, criticizes Representative Sam Graves, a Republican, for voting against the bill last year. Mr. Graves said the bill would have allowed illegal immigrants and some high-income people to get “free taxpayer-funded health care.”

House Democrats fell 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override Mr. Bush’s first veto last October, and they were 15 votes short when they tried again in January.

Democrats cited several reasons for their second thoughts about the wisdom of another vote on the child health bill. The cost of the bill has increased, according to the Congressional Budget Office, though the revenues expected from higher tobacco taxes are about the same. Under current rules, Congress would need to find a way to defray the extra cost.

In addition, time is short, and the Congressional calendar is packed with other issues.

Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, a bipartisan advocacy group for children, said: “We definitely would prefer for Congress to vote on the legislation next year rather than this year. Why would you pass a bill now when, in six months, you could get a better bill covering more uninsured children?”

Since it was created with bipartisan support in 1997, the program has reduced significantly the number of low-income children who are uninsured.

The Census Bureau reported last month that the number of people under 18 without health insurance had decreased, to 8.1 million in 2007, from 8.7 million in the prior year. Economists say the number could climb this year because of the weak economy and rising unemployment.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill, financed by an increase in tobacco taxes, would reduce the number of uninsured children by 4.4 million by 2013. But at the same time, the budget office says, the bill could encourage some families to substitute public for private coverage, reducing by 2.3 million the number of children who would otherwise have private coverage.

A few House Republicans in tight races might switch sides and vote for the bill, in an effort to win the approbation of voters, Democrats say. But supporters of the bill believe that they would still not have enough votes to override a veto by Mr. Bush.

Hispanic, black and Asian-American members of Congress have complained that the bill does not provide coverage for legal immigrants who are now generally barred from benefits under Medicaid and the children’s health program during their first five years in the United States.

Many Democrats would like to lift those restrictions. But if they tried to do so, they could draw Congress into a bitter debate over immigration policy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom line

The present system is broken and needs to be fixed. From what I hear from the campaigns, Obama and Hillary seem to be the most qualified to fix this problem?

And Greg

Thank you for your response and answer

Telcoman

[telcoman]

BTW, the "socialized medicine" of the US military is probably still far better than the socialized medicine and bureaucracy problems of the UK NHS!

We tend to forget that the UK is basically a socialist country - much of the finances of any government plan there tends to go to the "administration" of it. Far larger than it should.

Z

Our medical care of our military on the battlefield is the best in the world. Many of the problems are when they return home trying to deal with the VA?With so many unemployed some sort of national service for young people aka the peace corp is one possiblity? Provide medical school education and training in return for years of service to provide national health care in communities with no doctors. Walmart can negotiate prices with suppliers but medicare is unable to negotiate drug prices due to undue influence of the drug lobby?

Lots of work needs to be done to fix the medical problems in the US.

Telcoman

[96Qowner]

Here's my solution to health care costs:

Allow high-deductible policies. Period. I can handle a $10,000 medical bill. I might have to pay it off over a few years if expenses are particularly high, but I can handle a $10,000 hit. As srellim234 points out, people don't use health insurance like insurance; they don't use for catastrophes. Imagine how much home insurance would cost if it covered gutter cleaning and lawn mowing and window washing. Ridiculous. Right, tell me all about how it's good preventative care, uh huh.

I, too, am very healthy and always have been. I take pains to keep that way. I take vitamins, I weight train, I stay lean and fit. I have spent less than $2000 on medical care in the last 20 years. For the past 10 years, I haven't paid for health insurance, saving me at least $50,000. When I need medical care, I go to walk in, I pay cash, I get a 20% discount. Just like any other service. I take a dose of Lexapro, which I buy from India for $6/mo, instead of $90 at retail. (I know, I know, srellim234, sorry. ).

Health insurance cannot be "free". That would be even a bigger disaster than it is now. It needs to be more flexible and varied. I would gladly pay $3000/yr for a $20,000 deductible policy to insure my wife and I from something catastrophic and unavoidable, like being hit by an uninsured motorist. I can handle the first $20,000.

I want to delink health insurance from the employer. Allow employees to take their pay as pay. Don't allow an employer to withhold part of their pay and send it to a corporation they have a nice cozy relationship with. If employees want the money instead of the company health insurance, require the employer to pay it as wages. I am quite sure that a lot of young healthy people would rather have the money.

I like a plan that gives the tax benefit to the consumer, rather than the employer. I like any plan that encourages consumerism, competition and a wide range of choice, unlike the current system and the "improvements" proposed by the Democrats.

Let the consumer decide. Get the government and employers the hell out of the system.

[srellim234]

No need to be sorry about the Lexapro. I would give you a warning, though, about counterfeit drugs from out of the country. Be VERY careful about your source, and even then it might not be enough. Even the biggest legitimate wholesalers and pharmacies in this country were taking in on some high profile counterfeit drugs slipping into the legitimate supply stream here. One of them only came to light when a patient's name-brand prescription quit working properly and 100s of cases of the product were discovered in warehouses around the country. Couldn't tell the real pills from the counterfeit and lab analysis was the only way. Lot #s and expiration dates were matched up to the cases to find the counterfeits.

Many other countries are a lot less stringent on protecting a legitimate supply.

Bear in mind, too, that a lot of our outdated drugs wind up going overseas to countries with less stringent potency standards. Not that they don't work, just that they might be less efficient.------------------------------

I like your private insurance idea, but how do you handle low income people? They can't handle medical costs OR the higher premiums that come from a lower deductible.

[96Qowner]

Thanks for the advice, Steve. That's the one thing that does concern me about Indian drugs. There's no assurance that they aren't contaminated. I'm not so worried about efficacy or potency, but heck, there could be anything in there. They always send the original packaging, and it's overseas labeling complete with batch numbers, etc., and the website stays consistent, has been recommended by people in online forums, and has been online for at least a year, that I know of. Forums are a great place to get advice, as all we NICO members know. But yup, I'm gamb|ing with my health.

Which brings me to a point I want to make. When we talk about health care in this country, we always refer to perfect health. We rarely consider whether it's right and proper to entitle every American to perfect health. In my small case, perfect health would cost me 15 times what I currently pay ($90 instead of $6). Ouch.

So when you ask about the people who simply can't afford perfect health, I reply that this is the system we claim to want - the only choice is between perfect health care or no health care. Understandably, it's difficult to to say that we should allow less than perfect medical care. But by insisting on ONLY the very best, we exclude millions of people from the system.

One of the places I will go to for small problems is a very cheap walk-in clinic. For instance, I had a skin fungus issue on my scalp - itched like crazy - scratching produced angry red scaly skin. I paid the Doc $20 to get in, he saw me for 10 minutes and wrote me a prescription for a lotion - problem solved. That would have been 2-3 times as much at a hospital walk-in and even more if I had scheduled an appointment with "my doctor" whatever that is. This cheapo clinic serves the poor quite well. But ... it's not the place for serious illness. A friend went there with chronic stomach pain and he treated her for simple digestive issues. Later that day, she was in such pain, she went to the hospital and soon discovered she had bowel cancer. Oops. But at least the cheapo clinic is available for MOST health problems.

I just keep thinking that we need to lower the cost of health care, not try to guarantee perfect health care for everyone. Perfect is expensive, and as new technologies become available it gets more expensive. This is a trend that is inevitable. Unfortunately, we feel it has to be offered to everyone, no matter the cost.

It would be far more efficient and effective to reduce obesity, instead of finding new more expensive ways to treat the health problems that come from it, including liver disease, coronary disease, etc.

So, I say you're entitled to whatever health care you can afford. We should alter the system to offer more choices in the quality of health care.

I know that can sound ugly, but it's worth thinking about.

[AZhitman]

Hey 96 - Hit me via email sometime at your convenience re: medication issue.

[/off-topic]