With the SCHIP issue still smoking, some are tying the insufficient care of uninsured children to the growing academic gap between minority students and their peers.
Uninsured students deal with the added barrier of health concerns such as asthma and colds that are easily taken care for the insured child. Many times, contends Richard Rothstein of the Los Angeles Times, these sicknesses will keep the student out of school, knocking him off course academically.
“Will good teachers get the same average achievement from the frequently absent that they get from healthier students? Certainly not,†Rothstein wrote.
Posted by Kristin Mehler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Jed on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
66 Comments
Asthma and colds?
Health insurance is not the cure for those…
It’s called exercise and eating healthy.
Perhaps if we were not cutting PE classes out of the curriculum and treating fat kids like a politically correct issue instead of a problem things would be better.
Good article, I think this Russlynn Ali is pretty close dead on to what is causing the achievement gaps, as she stated.
“The biggest challenge these educators face is often not the poverty, health status or mobility of their students. Instead, the longest odds are those created by our education culture, which denies that these children can succeed and therefore gives them less of the stuff that academic success is made of: good teachers, rich curriculum, challenging course work and engaging classroom assignments.”
But of course the culture outside of schooling is also a contributor to the achievement gaps, maybe in a major way.
Asthma and colds?Health insurance is not the cure for those…It’s called exercise and eating healthy. Posted by: Nathan
I have read some pretty surprising responses in Weblog, but this one just about knocked me off my chair.
Where do you live Nathan, in a closet?
Exercise and diet dont do a lot to help cure Asthma… not much help for a cold either!! maybe some good ol’ chicken soup!!
Poor “Nathan.”
So wrong.
So often.
A, most probably real, “growing academic gap” is caused primarily from growing numbers of apathetic parents and teachers, and an ever growing culture uninterested in academic achievement. Not primarily as a result of the SCHIP issue and uninsured children. By the way, I am a licensed health care provider. This argument is another in the unending stream of liberal, socialistic demands for higher public financial involvement and a shifting of blame and actual causation to others than where it belongs.
Yep Nathan as usual with his blame the victim mentality.
“Your only wheezing kid because you don’t work out enough!”
This is ridiculous. Kids have been missing school for decades due to sickness/illness. Some had good parents who took them to a doctor, some had poor parents who didn’t. Some had parents who paid for the best healthcare, because they are the type that are willing to pay for good insurance. Some parents saved the bucks, bought an SUV, bass boat, or spent the money at the WONDERFUL MONEY MAKING CASINO. Some drank the money away. And then, there are those very, very few who do not have insurance because they really cannot afford it. And the state/feds mandate they will be treated!
So we are back to the parents who take their kids to the doctor, and those who do not.
Nothing to support Socialized Medicine here.
Not happy in your work wes? Only like treating the well heeled?
You are in the wrong field.
This is not to suggest that exercise and healthy living would not help. But the budget for those things in our schools is squeezed tighter and tighter.
And who does that? Folks like Nathan who blame the victim and wes who spout platitudes about liberals and socialism.
It will be a good day when the schools have all the funding they need and the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber.
It will be a good day when the schools have all the funding they need. J R
So how much is enough J R?
Any proof that the increased dollars invested in education are paying off in performance?
I can point to some success in the air force investments.
How about national test scores in education J R?
I pretty much love my work JR. I still call it work because I have to do it to support myself and my family. What are you doing? The socialist liberals like yourself will never-ever have enough. Just like a donkey will always have goofy looking ears, and a snake will always be a snake, socialists demand more and more until the system breaks down. They they blame everyone but themselves, saying they didn’t get enought.
There are several options for those without health insurance. The Sedgwick County Health Dept. is one and then there are several clinics around town that will work with you on a sliding fee scale.
We need to put that information out there so that these people will know they do have help available to them.
“Uninsured students deal with the added barrier of health concerns such as asthma and colds that are easily taken care for the insured child.”
I’ve paid for my own health insurance my entire adult life, and I’ve yet to have found any doctor that could cure a common cold.
No point in going to the Doctor for a cold.
Get plenty of sleep, chicken noodle soup, a couple of tylenol and you’ll be fine.
We’re raising younger generations that must be dependent on Nanny Government their entire lives. Now kids with colds must be taken to the Doctor to have their snotty noses wiped.
The Socialists have created a generation dependent on the State, which leads to more poverty and uninsured children, which leads to more Socialist programs, which leads to more poverty and uninsured children….
It’s a Perpetual Process the Democrats have dreamed up to stay in power. Of course they sacrifice the heart and soul of America, and make us all weak, but who cares?
It would be so nice if we had a single payer system, taking the insurance industry totally out of the loop, and made all healthcare non profit. To level the playing field and everybody having exactly the same access to healthcare would take away the ability of the “haves” to judge the “have nots”…OMG, what would they do with no one to look down on?You think that’s Socialism? We all have the same access to public education, roads, fire and police protection, etc…how would having access to healthcare make it any different from other services we receive? It’s time for nationalized healthcare, because having affordable basic healthcare for all citizens should be a right, not a privilege.
What is affordable healthcare?
What is the fair price for a healthcare premium for 1 month?
All those advocating HillaryCare!, really, I’d like to know how much you think you should have to pay out of your own pocket for health insurance each month.
$ ?
Health care = better education = better society.
This is why Europe and Japan are eating our lunch as the US lags further behind.
“I got mine so f*** you,” doesn’t work as a blueprint for a better society or a better world.
How about 500 dollars a month, Max?
Because that’s what most employers are paying and they could be paying their employees that if we had universal health care.
You have the idiotic notion that what we have now costs nothing. We have the most expensive health-care in the world with the worst outcomes of any industrialized country.
How much do you think you should have to pay for health care each month Capn?
Thanks for the answer Capn. $500.
Mary can’t answer my question.
Oh, and Capn, I don’t have the notion that it costs nothing. I think those who want HillaryCare! think they will have to pay little or nothing to get it.
If I’m wrong, then someone besides you might come up with a price they think they should have to pay out of their own pocket for health insurance each month.
But of course in real terms it will cost me nothing, because it will just offset what my employer and I pay now.
It will very likely cost considerably less as administrative costs will be closer to 2 percent than the 15 percent of private healthcare.
Yes, Max. Sometimes government can actually be more efficient.
Don’t let your head explode.
I haven’t seen Hillary’s premium rate structure yet, have you?
Haven’t seen the list of covered services, deductibles, or co-pays, or doctors/hospitals covered, yet either.
Who knows what HillaryCare! will cost?
Mary won’t answer my question.
No, I haven’t seen the “rate structure,” Max.
But I assume that it will be something like England, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Italy has.
You know, the ones eating our lunch economically.
Well $500 is too much for me. Sorry. I’ll stick with my employers better plan. I pay $109 monthly (health,vision, and dental) for my family coverage.
Max, that’s another thing. People who just “THROW” out MADE UP numbers, should really think about the types of policies and coverage today.
Some employers: Cover single employees completely. But for most part of the consideration on payment is family size.
But do keep it up, I like to see people pull numbers out of thin air!!
Right AW. And Capn knows the details about the coverages, exclusions, and rate structure for:
England, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and Italy.
And Mary still hasn’t answered my question.
American Way, if the total cost of your employer’s plan for the benefits you describe is only $109/month, that’s a good plan (assuming low deductibles/copays, etc.). If that’s only your cost, and the employer subsidizes the balance, then the relevant inquiry to me is the total cost (employer + employee).
With reference to Max’s inquiry, I’d expect that the family plan premium to be around $450 to $500 a month; but as has been posted previously, we’ve no idea on the proposal as to rates, coverages, etc.
Max, is that because they all drink the kool-aid? I know that sounds like a slam, but it seems people are jumping on the band-wagon for FREE healthcare, without truly knowing the details and costs. In fact, I don’t the candidates promoting it as a “right” (which it already is), are cloudy or mirky on the details.
I just cannot get on board like that. I like to know the details and facts, before I evaluate something. Hence, I know my healthcare costs, coverages, and opinions of my coverage and doctors.
All that changes under universal. Your old family practisioner may be history. YOu get whichever Doc is available.
“Next!”
Nathan is clearly your typical Tiahrt supporter. The kids are no longer in the womb so they aren’t anyone’s concern anymore. Now if these kids were corporate CEOs then they’d get as much as they wanted from Tiahrt.
“Perhaps if we were not cutting PE classes out of the curriculum and treating fat kids like a politically correct issue instead of a problem things would be better.”
Thankfully, they are taking a serious look at the lunch menus, and the availability of sugar rich snacks. So something is finally being done about it.
But the problem with the republicans and the SCHIP program is they’re afraid someone who doesn’t deserve it will abuse it. Hell, SS, welfare, and any other government program is being abused, so we should close all of them just because the republicans want to.
The simple fact is, many parents can’t afford insurence for themselves, let alone their children, so, out of concern for the children, the government wants to step in and help. I have no problem with that, and would rather have my tax dollars going to help the kids than some war in Iraq. Tell me those same iraq war tax dollars aern’t being abused, and I got a bridge I’ll sell ya . . . cheap.
Amway, your 11:01 post was dead-on.
Call it drinking the koolaide or just being stupid enough to believe campaign promises and trust your party to fill-in the details later.
Without seeing more details on HillaryCare!, I don’t know how anyone could vote for Hillary, assuming national healthcare is a top priority for you.
And YES, I believe the implied benefit to HillaryCare! is that it IS free. I would bet that is what most Hillary supporters believe.
I’d like to see some details on:
-Premium rates
-What is covered
-What isn’t covered
-Which doctors can I go to
-Which hospitals can I go to
-What are my deductibles and co-pays
-What prescriptions are covered
I guess if it’s free, even if it’s a crappy program, most Hillary supporters would be happy with that.
“But the problem with the republicans and the SCHIP program is they’re afraid someone who doesn’t deserve it will abuse it. Hell, SS, welfare, and any other government program is being abused, so we should close all of them just because the republicans want to.”
I have no problem with my tax dollars providing assistance to those truly in need. There are limited resources available to fund the program, so I have no problem with our legislature looking at ways make sure the funding is available to those who truly need it.
There are limited resources. I can hear some laughing. But that’s what you all are beating up Bush about – the huge deficit.
At any rate, there is a need for a few. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most Americans have healthcare insurance.
I guess if it’s free, even if it’s a crappy program, most Hillary supporters would be happy with that.
Posted by: Max
Then they are not thinking clearly. A crappy repair job on my car or house is something you can deal with. A crappy repair job on your health – is a matter of life and death.
I do not think that I can trust anything that the Clintons propose.They have been influencing way too much and way too long in the political spotlight.Their focus becomes askew as accountabilities of political responsibilities to the people as a whole become too blended with political career making of the wrong kind.You people seem to have short memories; the Clintons do have investments in the pharmaceutical industries, which I do distinctively remember they had before Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign of 1993 and afterwards.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/politics/15clintons.html?pagewanted=print
They have made the same claims in the past; do you really believe that they have a genuine concern about healthcare for the right reasons?
“There are limited resources. I can hear some laughing. But that’s what you all are beating up Bush about – the huge deficit.”
Posted by amway.
Bush’s deficit is the result of a foreign war waged against some tinpot dictator, who did not invade us and had nada to do with 9/11. If said money had been used for this countries security, then I might agree with amway, but it was not, and is not now being used for this countries security in any way, shape or form.
“Most Americans have healthcare insurance.”Posted by amway.
And what about those that can’t afford healthcare insurance? Toss them out with the bathwater?
Poor Nathan really doesn’t have a clue, nor do most of the rest of you. You need to keep up with science and the latest advances. I know that is hard with Bush in there, as he is so anti-science, but it would prove beneficial for the rest of you. You also need to find out about universal healthcare. It is NOT a bad thing. You walk in with a complaint and you are treated from head to toe with all all you ailments taken care of, and you aren’t bankrupt when you walk out. I would gladly pay a little more in taxes to have this luxury, plus it would keep the hospitals out of financial trouble. I am very much looking into moving to another country just for universal healthcare, and a lower cost of living. Maybe when there isn’t anyone left here but the republicans, they will get the idea.
I had the opportunity several years ago to meet some Mennonite nurses from Canada who were doing volunteer work here in the third world. The one question that kept popping up was “How do you Americans manage to survive at all with this excuse for a healthcare system?”
Hillary wants to run National Health Insurance the way the State of Kansas mandates car insurance.
Obama recently asked, in so many words: “What is the penalty, under Hillary’s plan, for someone who cant afford to buy health insurance?”
In other words, Hillary understands what KILLED her “single payer” plan last time around.
Not corporate America, instead, on top of many other opponents, Hillarys first attempt at nationalized health insurance ticked off the Postal Workers, the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO.
It is not possible to cover EVERYONE without charging everyone and reducing the benefits that organized labor already receives under their CURRENT plans!
Therefore, Hillary is simply looking at ways to FORCE the uninsured to buy insurance. Granted, I see government subsidies in the mix, for many people.
However, some of you crybabies who are making $50K or more a year need to study this issue a bit more.
What Hillary is talking about is TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO REFUSE A HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN!
That is what she is talking about.
To say that the current system has some problems is one thing.
However, what the Democrats are proposing is “bait and switch” at its worst.
What they propose does not address the problems that they bitch about.
Again, we are looking at more expenses for people who, today, have made the choice not to buy insurance.
One other thing: There is not a snowballs chance in hell that any new, government run, health care plan, for those under age 65, will look better than Medicare.
Politically, it would not be possible for that to take place.
For the 2008 plan year, Medicare has the following deductables:
Part A:Inpatient Hospital $1,024.00
61st to 90th day coinsurance $256/day
91st Day coinsurance $512/day
After 150 days in the hospital, Medicare ends.
Skilled Nursing care co-Insurance $128/day after first $20 days. No coverage for Skilled Nursing Home care after 100 days.
Medicare Part B Premium is currently at LEAST $93.50 a month, but is more expensive, depending on income.
In 2008, the Medicare Part B Deductable is $135.00 per month.
After that, you are responsible for 20% of all out-patient expenses. These gets pretty steep for Chemo and Radiation Therapy, and for Kidney Dialysis.
Also, there is NO Prescription Coverage under Parts A and B of Medicare.
At age 65, a good Medicare Supplement Plan, to cover most of the “Gaps” in coverage, will cost an addtional $100 a month, at least.
Also, a good prescription drug plan will cost another $25.00.
Again, the COVERAGE that we “give” to those under 65, will not be better than that which we have “given” to our Seniors.
Politically, that wont happen.
By the way, the “Tax Payer Subsidy” for Medicare Part A and B, alone, is at least $800.00 per month, per person on Medicare.
So, Seniors should oppose another massive government program, since THEIR benefits are already at risk.
Also, Organized Labor will oppose any program that cuts or guts their current health insurance coverage.
Wake up.
Grow up.
Yes, we will see some changes, but nobody who really understands this issue believes that we can go to a single payer system.
(By the way, Medicare privatizes most of its service. If you call the Kansas number for Medicare, with a claims question, you will talk to someone who actually works for Blue Cross of Kansas, though they are not supposed to answer the phone that way. Blue Cross is the Kansas Regional Service Provider for Medicare).
And what about those that can’t afford healthcare insurance? Toss them out with the bathwater?
Posted by: J M Walker
I have no problem with a program which takes of those truly without healthcare, after it is determined they do not have access to care or insurance via their employer or otherwise.
But do not affect the quality of care my family receives with the employer/employee plan I pay for today. This isn’t all about me.But by wanting to change healthcare for the 260 million Americans with healthcare – you make it about ME. And if it affects me or my family, I have every right to voice opposition.
Econ101: Is there a link to Hillary’s details/proposal?
Not that I agree with him, completely, but this is what Robert Reich has to say about Hillary vs Obama’s Health Care plan, and about Medicare:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html
It’s interesting the number of people that have the means in Canada come to the United States for their health care needs. Especially surgeries.
It’s also interesting the amount of time that you have to wait to receive routine services.
So do you really want the governmnet rationing your health care?
If you are uninsured or underinsured there are clinics all over this county that will be happy to provide you with health care services.
Use them!
“Thanks for the answer Capn. $500.
Mary can’t answer my question.”
Excuse me, but some of us have jobs and don’t have the time to blog all day long.
I’d be in favor of a sliding scale, and those who live below the poverty level have free health care with no copayments. For the rest of us a certain percentage with a ceiling for out of pocket expenses. When I went through cancer treatment, I paid approximately $4,000 out of my pocket and insurance paid the rest (of course I’d been paying premiums for 15 years before I came down with a catastophic illness, and I had to fight like hell to get the insurance comapany pay their share). I think the out of pocket was fair considering my income and how much my treatment actually cost.
If it was governemnt run and financed, all heathcare, including drug development and production) was non profit, the insurance companies were disolved, then reinbursements would be consistant and the price of healthcare would go way down..making it more affordable for everyone.We have to change the system to make it more fair…everyone deserves to have adequate healthcare, no matter how much or how little money they make. It shouldn’t be a privelege only for the poor, the elderly, or the rich. It should be a right for everyone.
Excuse the typos again…it’s been a long day so I’m going to bed now.
Without the profit motive, we will not have as many cures, as many miracle drugs, as much willingness, on the part of the medical field, to take risks.
We will “freeze” medical technology at where we are today.
old RN..you are right on!Goodnight everyone.
No Econ…that won’t happen. People will still get paid to do research, and maybe we’ll make even more strides because the focus will more on developing new technology rather than generating profits.I AM going to bed now!
That’s incentive for ya.
Generate new technology instead of profit!
Doesn’t matter how hard you work in research, you won’t make any money from patents or anything, so just put in your 6 hour days, take your 30 days of vacation and 24 days of sick time every year, and create what? New technology?
Yeah, right.
I see all the researchers lining up now to slave away for nothing.
Toto, I don’t think we are in Kansas anymore!
I knew I’d get that sliding scale answer out of Pmom.
LOOK OUT! It’s the HillaryCare! ILLUSION! Something for nothing!
Hillary’s thesis was actually on PT Barnum, not Saul Alinsky? Here it is: T H E THESIS http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/hillaryclintonsthesis.htm
Free healtcare for 1/2 the country. The other 1/2 of the country pays up the wazoo, and sees poorer quality health care.
But 1/2 get something for free.
That’s better then nothing, for the bottom half.
Beggers can’t be choosers.
Great Plan!
Timeforachange: For decades emergency response facilities on both sides of the border have been intra-national. You might recall an item where Canadian Firefighters were held at the border of NY state for inspection for 10 minutes because a name of one the firefighters who had been responding to US fires for 20 years was on a “list”. 9/11 fallout I guess. The American building burnt down because that town relied on Quebec. Our health plan guarantees timely care even if one has to go to outside jurisdictions which happens, but very rarely. An oil tanker blew up in the small town of Ft. Erie, Ontario just across the border from Buffalo, where the patient was taken because it had a burn unit the smaller Canadian town lacked. Same thing with Windsor, Ontario and Detroit. The larger US facility accepts the nearby Canadian town as part of their business plan and in fact many medical practioners cross the border every day to work in the US facility. The tab is paid in full by the Health Insurance regardless of the country of treatment. Some folks in rural upstate Vermont close to the Quebec border may go to Montreal for help and Al Gore took his son to Toronto for a procedure best done there. It is not surprising that some procedures done in the US attract folks from all over the world, but a reason could be that the procedure might not be covered by our Insurance, but that is seldom. One other point, at any one time there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the US either on vacation,(at this time of year a lot more fleeing the winter), in trailer parks or time share condos in Arizona/Florida etc, mostly retirees who will of necessity need health care while in your country. Cities on the border do accept each others’ needs as part of the day routine and plan accordingly, and that includes staffing. I bet you didn’t know just how joined at the hip (pun) our two nations are did you? PS: As in the US, all our health care is provided by private enterprise, NOT THE GOVERNMENT and it is not a National insurance plan, but Provincial and no two plans are exactly alike.
With no health care at all it sure does sound good to me Max.
Max,
Researchers don’t slave away for nothing. They compete for NIH grants, and work primarily at universities–in other words, they work for the PUBLIC sector.
Here’s a nice takedown of your free-market theology, that asserts some indispensible role for the ‘free market’ (as if) in basic scientific research.
“The development of DBS [Deep Brain Stimulation] was one part basic knowledge–an understanding of how Parkinson’s works and how the brain responds to electrical stimulation–and one part sheer luck. Profits, on the other hand, had relatively little to do with it. According to Robert Gross, an Emory University neurosurgeon and expert in the field, Benabid had actually approached the companies that already made electrodes for use in treating chronic pain, suggesting they develop a device specifically for Parkinson’s. But they declined initially, so Benabid had to use the existing devices and adapt them on his own. “The companies did not lead those advances,” Gross says. “They followed them.”
In this sense, DBS offers an important window into the way medical innovation actually happens. The great breakthroughs in the history of medicine, from the development of the polio vaccine to the identification of cancer-killing agents, did not take place because a for-profit company saw an opportunity and invested heavily in research. They happened because of scientists toiling in academic settings. “The nice thing about people like me in universities is that the great majority are not motivated by profit,” says Cynthia Kenyon, a renowned cancer researcher at the University of California at San Francisco. “If we were, we wouldn’t be here.” And, while the United States may be the world leader in this sort of research, that’s probably not–as critics of universal coverage frequently claim–because of our private insurance system. If anything, it’s because of the federal government.
The single biggest source of medical research funding, not just in the United States but in the entire world, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH): Last year, it spent more than $28 billion on research, accounting for about one-third of the total dollars spent on medical research and development in this country (and half the money spent at universities). The majority of that money pays for the kind of basic research that might someday unlock cures for killer diseases like Alzheimer’s, aids, and cancer. No other country has an institution that matches the NIH in scale. And that is probably the primary explanation for why so many of the intellectual breakthroughs in medical science happen here.”
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51faeaa7-5021-40d0-95d3-0f260b25edd4
More to the point, Max, since you aren’t a researcher (obviously), you don’t get the obvious point: people who do research do it because they like doing research. They don’t do it for the big bucks and mega profits. It’s not what drives them.
You a researcher CF?
I’m not either. But I am married to one.
Have a good evening.
My son does medical research. His lab is at Mass General Hospital, he did his post-doc (before his lab was funded) at Harvard where he is an assistant professor. He isn’t getting rich. He could do that if he accepted any of the many lucrative offers he receives from pharmaceutical companies. He loves medical research and isn’t in it for the money. Max, I don’t know what your spouse is telling you but CF’s post shows a much better grasp on this subject than yours.
Max, do you know the poster KsGolfNut? Maybe that isn’t the correct spelling, I don’t recall exactly. He always told us his wife was a medical researcher. Maybe they work together or know one another?
Maybe if you don’t already know him you would have the opportunity in the future. His political views are so much like yours and with your spouses sharing an occupation it seems it might be interesting.
Good catch linda.
What about that “max”?
CFYou say that 1/3 of all medical research, done at Universities, is funded by the National Institutes of Health?
Where does the other 2/3 come from?
Also, not all research is done at universities.
I would say that “this isnt a contest” but it kind of is a contest.
We have a “mixed” system.
A system in which military medicine and university research medicine have obviously helped progress along.
But we also have a system where profit motive HAS made a difference.—-By the way:
Health insurance is NOT the same as Health care.
The purpose of health insurance is to protect your your wealth.
It is not the purpose of health insurance to protect your health!
Therefore, it is often a very reasonable thing for people without any money to go without insurance.
I know things will change.
However, you folks that thing you will get all your little items, like doctor visist, paid for a dreaming.
“protect your your”
“you folks that thing”
You’re drunk Paulecon. This may explain many of your late night blathers.
“I see all the researchers lining up now to slave away for nothing.”
What do you think they’re doing now?..the ones who work in the research departments don’t OWN the companies…why would anything change for them? They would still get a paycheck, justnot from teh corporations that make billions off their work.
“I knew I’d get that sliding scale answer out of Pmom.”
I’m not PMom…my name is MARY, dork. Sliding scale is how the clinics work now..even in the “free” clinics, people pay according to their income…there is no “free” heathcare in this country..even the poorest people have co-pays. You obviously don’t work in the medical profession, Max, you’re ignorance is showing.What I have in mind would make it affordable for everyone…and if you take the profit out of healthcare, the cost would decrease dramatically. That means that professionals STILL get paid, you just don’t have insurance and drug companies making the billions in profits that they enjoy now. It’s only the CEOs that would get the shaft, not the patients or the healthcare workers.
R&D by drug companies is done all over the world and they receive tax credits to compenste them, EVERYWHERE. I saw where the drug companies spend 8 times as much on marketing as on R&D and for what it’s worth, those ads trying to scare folks into getting a prescription for an illness they didn’t even know about (toenail discolouration!) are banned hereabouts.
Linda, I do recall Golfnuts posts from some time ago. I don’t know him.
I do know there are quite a few people in research in Universities and in private industry, so it would be unlikely that I would meet golfnut.
My wife has worked in both University research and in private industry. She also was a professor, but prefers research.
She can’t tell me exactly what she is working on now (confidentiality is high with cutting-edge research), but there is much more waste of funds in University research then in private industry.
The audits of NIH and other government grants appear to be lacking. Research results are shall I say, not always accurately represented, in order to get more government money. The goal of many then, is not to achieve results, but to get more gov’t grants.
It’s a constant search for grant money as the #1 priority, intead of actually accomplishing anything.
All the billions we’ve spent on Cancer and Aids research, and progress is coming very slowly.
We need a more focused and accountable approach.
In private research, profit drives results. These companies don’t continue to throw money at solutions just for the sake of research. And you attract some of the best people with better salaries then you get in public Universities.
Either a project is succeessful or not. You don’t keep throwing money down the drain on phony projects that are not accomplishing anything.
We need both public and private research, but we need to build accountability into the process when public funds are being spent.
Your stated opinions here, Dave, are as convoluted and opinionated as on many other topics.
Mine too!
Guess that’s what makes the world go ’round.
Mary
If we took the “profit” out of food production and distribution, would we all eat better, at a lower cost?
Of course not!
The profit motive reduces costs, because the profit motive forces people to be results-oriented.
I have no problem with government research on areas that are not profitable. Rare diseases, for instance.
However, the profit motive has a great deal to do with the fact that America has the finest Health Care system on Earth.
(Those United Nations rankings are worthless, they fudge then numbers if you dont have socialized medicine.)
Show me the survival rates, all around the world, from the date of diagnosis for:
lung cancerheart attackdiabeteskidney dialysis
America is at the top, for how long you can expect to live, if diagnosed with a serious problem.
This is just a new way to figure out why certain groups refuse to conform to a thriving mainstream culture. Asthma and the common cold…Ya!First it was different schools causing the gap, then financial gaps, affirmative action…X amount of lower income folks in positions they are not qualified for, then not enough nutrition, enter free breakfast and lunch and soon it sounds like free health care. When do we get to offer these free programs to our own kids? I would love to have it free rather than pay top dollar. By saying this I now become the new word for a communist .
Whoa that is real close to the real name of that poster.
“Show me the survival rates, all around the world, from the date of diagnosis for:
lung cancerheart attackdiabeteskidney dialysis
America is at the top, for how long you can expect to live, if diagnosed with a serious problem.”
America is also at the top for these diagnosis….our lifestyle will be the death of us, doesn’t matter how good the healthcare is, it does no good at all if we don’t change the way we live. Maybe we can live longer, but there is no quality of life when you have smoked all your life and you have to be tethered to an O2 tank and can’t walk across a room or you weigh 300 lbs and have to use the electric shopping cart at Walmart because you don’t have the endurance to walk down an aisle.Nothing matters if we don’t take care of ourselves…even if we have the best healthcare in the world.America needs affordable, basic healthcare for everyone, no matter what you’re financial status is. Healthcare right now is only for the very poor, the very old, or the very rich…there are too many who don’t fit into those catagories..somethings got to give…soon. And there’s something wrong with the system when many can’t afford to get healthcare and yet drug and insurance companies are making billons in profits.