Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Free in this contect simply means that the consumer - me and you - is required to have preventative care provided without paying any additional co-pays or deductibles. Of course this has started, and now I don't pay additionally for preventative care. I still of course go to the same doctors, get the same types of tests done as I did before. And of course, the same doctors get paid as they did before.
But what we will find is that it will save me, my health insurance, the government, and society money because they will find my breast cancer earlier. Hopefully then I will only need a lumpectomy and not chemotherapy for the rest of my life, and I may be cured. Then costs will not rise as fast because I am not contributing the the spiraling use of health care, and I will continue to work full time and contribute to society.
When you and I are healthy, we use less medical care, and premiums don't increase as much. When seniors are healthier, Medicare spends less and the government saves money and maybe we pay less taxes.
Sorry, nothing personal, but you've been brainwashed by this Administration. That's what they WANT you to believe....and indeed you are definitely parroting the message for them. But too many studies have cast doubt on the claims you are making.
I'd get out of the business of hawking government wares and instead get into the business of questioning your government if I were you.
When you and I are healthy, we use less medical care, and premiums don't increase as much. When seniors are healthier, Medicare spends less and the government saves money and maybe we pay less taxes.
I cant entirely agree with this. Premiums always increase regardless of how much health care is used, it just increase more when it is abused. If my provider is being forced to provide free preventative screenings they will recoup the money somewhere. Higher deductibles or higher premiums or less coverage. They arent going to take the hit. I dont have a problem paying a reasonable co-pay. Also there are programs and organizations that can provide low cost screenings.
I think the point that this discussion is missing is the purpose of preventative care, and that it is cheaper for all of us in the long run.
And I think the point you are missing is that the specific cost isn't the point to begin with. "All of us" shouldn't be paying for it in the first place. I should pay for my care and you should pay for your care. I should get the insurance plan I want and you should get the insurance plan you want. We shouldn't both get the one-size-fits-all insurance plan some government bureaucrat decides we should have. What the cost is, is beside the point. Government shouldn't have that kind of power over private citizens and private companies in this country. It is un-American.
Quote:
Taking care of people while they are still healthy, leads to less disease, less disability and fewer people in poverty due to spiraling health costs and then dependent upon the government for assistance.
Preventative care leads to people diagnosing high blood pressure sooner... before they have their first bleeding stroke in their brain that could put them into a nursing home (often at the public's expense....) for the rest of their life. Preventative care leads to people having a colonoscopy and finding a polyp and having it removed, before it becomes cancer and causes months/years of surgery, chemotherapy and even death.
Taking care of a senior while they are on Medicare, now includes a covered yearly physical. At this physical, doctors should be asking about falls so that a proactive doctor can refer the patient to a short course of physical therapy or some simple safety improvements in the home, rather then wait for the inevitable "broken hip", which often leads to a downward spiral of surgeries, complications, infections, blood clots and long hospital and nursing home stays.
I admit, that I am more likely to go get my yearly physical now because my very expensive high deductible health plan now covers my visit, as well as my mammogram and PAP smear. These preventative visits/tests have been shown to be cost effective in the long run, and of benefit to society.
That's all assuming that healthcare is a collective responsibility. This isn't a socialist nation.
I don't see why I should be glad to pay for your preventive care so you don't get a more serious illness that costs even more money, when I shouldn't be responsible for your serious illnesses in the first place.
Your point here boils down to "you should be happy to give someone $10 now so they don't take $20 later." But how about they just don't take anything? They keep the money they earn and I will keep the money I earn.
Quote:
That is why insurance companies are happy to cover them. Insurance companies know it is also cheaper FOR THEM to keep us healthy. They don't want to pay for hospital admissions, surgeries, or chemotherapy either.
Well that's wonderful. If the insurance companies are happy to do it, then we can leave them to it and cancel the government mandates, right?
Quote:
If only we would learn that it is also cheaper for society to keep people healthy and out of nursing homes, then maybe we wouldn't fight about it so much. But I'm probably wrong on that one.
Well if we weren't fighting about this then we'd just be fighting about something else. There's always some issue or other to disagree over.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,835,178 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kkaos2
And I think the point you are missing is that the specific cost isn't the point to begin with. "All of us" shouldn't be paying for it in the first place. I should pay for my care and you should pay for your care. I should get the insurance plan I want and you should get the insurance plan you want. We shouldn't both get the one-size-fits-all insurance plan some government bureaucrat decides we should have. What the cost is, is beside the point. Government shouldn't have that kind of power over private citizens and private companies in this country. It is un-American.
That's all assuming that healthcare is a collective responsibility. This isn't a socialist nation.
I don't see why I should be glad to pay for your preventive care so you don't get a more serious illness that costs even more money, when I shouldn't be responsible for your serious illnesses in the first place.
Your point here boils down to "you should be happy to give someone $10 now so they don't take $20 later." But how about they just don't take anything? They keep the money they earn and I will keep the money I earn.
Well that's wonderful. If the insurance companies are happy to do it, then we can leave them to it and cancel the government mandates, right?
Well if we weren't fighting about this then we'd just be fighting about something else. There's always some issue or other to disagree over.
People without kids pay housing taxes so my kids can go to school. Apartments RULE... wOOOOOOoooooo!!!!
This is what the USA should be striving for and NOT to continue the "rip off" health system now in the USA with the "whingers" moaning about who they pay for with a UHC.... even though they pay far more for limited private health or pay their tax Dollar for overseas health systems..eg Iraq.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) just announced that the healthcare reform law provided approximately 54 million private health plan participants with at least one new free preventive service in 2011.
....
The law also made preventive services free for most people on Medicare, and it’s estimated that another 32.5 million people on Medicare received at least one free preventive service in 2011. That brings the law’s beneficiary grand total to 86 million.
************************
That's interesting.
LOL..they didn't count my sister in law, the hypochondriac
She's going for all the "free" preventative tests as they become available.
Free in this contect simply means that the consumer - me and you - is required to have preventative care provided without paying any additional co-pays or deductibles. Of course this has started, and now I don't pay additionally for preventative care. I still of course go to the same doctors, get the same types of tests done as I did before. And of course, the same doctors get paid as they did before.
But what we will find is that it will save me, my health insurance, the government, and society money because they will find my breast cancer earlier. Hopefully then I will only need a lumpectomy and not chemotherapy for the rest of my life, and I may be cured. Then costs will not rise as fast because I am not contributing the the spiraling use of health care, and I will continue to work full time and contribute to society.
When you and I are healthy, we use less medical care, and premiums don't increase as much. When seniors are healthier, Medicare spends less and the government saves money and maybe we pay less taxes.
You mean you can't afford the $15 or so co-pay and will only go if it's "free" ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
