Universal Healthcare and OS

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

uclaguy

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
How do you think Universal Healthcare will affect OS? Will OS people have to take on more work in the hospital? Other thoughts?

Massachusetts is moving towards it (almost there) and California may get it if the governator gets his way.

Please keep the personal attacks to a minimum and keep this a serious thread.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I think he's referring to socialized medicine, like they practice in England and like Hillary and John Edwards are pushing here in the U.S. Government-run capitation plans and doctors salaried by the federal government...sounds scary for dentists:eek:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hmmmmm.....so mediocre healthcare available for everyone is better than top-notch healthcare available to most? That's a f'in liberal idea if I've ever heard one.
 
Liberals and their reindeer games...:rolleyes:

Oral Surgeons aren't really under the 'medical' side of healthcare. As far as insurance and healthcare goes they are glorified dentists. I don't think they would get nailed by the socialistic move towards medicine.

You never know what John Kerry has up his sleeve though:eek:
 
Oral Surgeons aren't really under the 'medical' side of healthcare.

Many OS do charge under the medical side of insurance, and it could be a good thing. Reimbursement for some procedures may be more lucrative if covered under medical than dental. I met a couple of male, nurse anesthetists who they said they are doing $$ very well. They stated the reimbursement for anesthesia when doing dental procedures is no where near as good as when they do medical prodedures. Most oral surgeons do their own sedation, so I think they were referring to assisting dentists with sedation for dental procedures other than OS. They said they prefer not to work with dentists if they can get work with doctors instead, more money.
 
Hmmmmm.....so mediocre healthcare available for everyone is better than top-notch healthcare available to most? That's a f'in liberal idea if I've ever heard one.
Tragically, if you check the literature, American health care ranks at the top of very few categories except cost.
 
Tragically, if you check the literature, American health care ranks at the top of very few categories except cost.

this is a very interesting comment because it is true when one looks at the stats. but then it gets challenged by the hidden aspect of these stats, which is the fact that they, the stats that is, take american citizens without accounting for socioeconomic status. if you compare healthcare for americans to that for the british, sure, american healthcare will look pretty pathetic. however, if you compared american healthcare for americans who are of a certain socioeconomic category to that of british citizens of the same category, you will realize that american healthcare is indeed superior. still, the disparity of healthcare across the socioeconomic ladder of america does say something about american society and american healthcare.

toofache's categorization of american healthcare delivered through a socialistic approach as "mediocre" either stems from conservative anti-liberal paranoia or from a mere exageration. if socialized, the quality may be reduced, but it will be reduced to average or good, as opposed to super good super cool super top-notch that we have now offered for the few. it is highly unlikely that healthcare would be reduced to "mediocre"....
 
interesting. i admit i have not read extensive litterature on the sibject, most things i have read are not factual, but instead political. polar opposites. i think the categories we rank lowest in can be related to access to care issues? some things i think and could be wrong:

1,) the best medical or dental services in the world are done in this country. why are they not done in countries with socialized health care? if i need any type of medical / dental procedure done, i want it done in the U.S. - not Denmark. And I am sure Denmark ranks high in all these categories we don't.
2.) we have the best health care training in this country. how will socialized health care impact this.
3.) this country attracts some of its brightest and motivated to the health care field. this is despite the money and not because of it. see below.
4.) doctors are underpaid as is in general given their talents, hours, rigourous training and importance of their work. google the average bonus at goldman this year. no one goes in to health care for the money and if they do they are crazy. people making money in the financial world are not smarter than top doctors, nor are their services proportionally as important, and although this will be argued - they do not work more. this is a capitalistic society, by making health care socialized, and thus making the pay between doctors and careers they could have chosen based on their work ethic, hours and intelligence even more lopsided we will lose more quality health care providers. as said earlier people should not go in to health care for money, but the discrepancy can not be made bigger between what they could make and do make. and face it - the system, socialized or not, is only as good as the doctors working in it.
5.)others are catching up or have surpassed us in the medical/dental field - i.e. stem cell research, imaging, etc. i can see us ranking low in this category as well, but i think its solution is not found in socialized health care either.

i am left of center on most things, so i go back and forth on this, and would appreciate responses to change my feelings. but i think socialized health care is bad for not only doctors, but will be for the country as well. and i know that access to care has to be addressed, but just because we don't have a right answer does not mean we have to accept the wrong answer. address the insurance mess first.

bottom line: there are winners and losers in every decision. i don't see how doctors are the winners in socialized health care.

the following is a good website comparing and contrasting views:

http://www.answers.com/topic/universal-health-care

a part i could relate too:

Government agencies are less efficient due to bureaucracy. Administrative duties, by doctors, are the result of medical centralization and over-regulation, and are not natural to the profession. In fact, before heavy regulation of the health care and insurance industries, doctor visits to the elderly, and free care, or low cost care to impoverished patients was common; governments regulated this form of charity out of existence. Universal health care plans will add more inefficiency to the medical system because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which will lead to less doctor patient visits.
 
i think the categories we rank lowest in can be related to access to care issues?

I think access to care should be one of the primary driving forces regarding health care. This is an ethical problem. Parents taking care of their children need their health as do their children. When employers routinely offered health insurance to their employees and their families years ago, this was an issue that did not effect so many millions of Americans. However, today a large portion of our population is self employed or employed by small businesses. Access to care many of these individuals and their families is not available to them at an affordable cost. Many forgo it completely. Businesses, even large ones, are finding it increasingly unsustainable to offer health insurance as an employee benefit, a benefit that employees are increasingly contributing to. The American middle class, young and old, sometimes employed or not, is finding health insurance to be a problem and a worry.


However, access to care will not be the driving force regarding health coverage in this country. What will promote this issue is the cost states are bearing paying for the uninsured. As we can see in CA part of the new plan includes charging hospitals 4% and doctors 2% of their revenue to help cover the cost. There will be solutions with or without support from the medical communities. I think it's better to be part of the solution, if that is even possible. The wheels are in motion in several states and the direction is becoming clearer.

Some sort of state/national care will happen. I'm sure most insurance companies are salivating already regarding this prospect, as did the investment companies when talk of social security dollars possibly coming their way did too. These are large groups with a lot of lobbying power. How big is the AMA or ADA? I'm not sure how much clout our organizations have realistically. This issue will be driven by money and financial demands. It is starting to happen already. In the end an ethical dilema may, hopefully, be addressed as well.

For many, any care will be better than the care attainable now. Will it be great? I don't know. But with an increasing population without care and many in fear of losing it, this will be a solution they can grasp. If you ask a starving man if he wants some food, I doubt he will be very picky.

A physically strong, emotionally sound and productive nation requires health, everyone's health.
 
thanks for that post. i enjoyed reading it.

it appears doctors again will be biting the bullet for the benefit of others. give, give, give. maybe it should be that way. maybe it already is.

money, prestige, and autonomy will have been taken away from the profession. i just feel the government can't take those away and still hope to attract the best of the best into the field. as members of that field we could find a solution to the problem that does not do this, instead of latching on to this idea.

"If you ask a starving man if he wants some food, I doubt he will be very picky."

true. but most likely he won't be getting served by a trained chef, instead a minimum wage high school student behind the counter. the best of the best are looking elsewhere for jobs in the future if the scenario you put forth is true. there are consequences for that.
 
"If you ask a starving man if he wants some food, I doubt he will be very picky."

true. but most likely he won't be getting served by a trained chef, instead a minimum wage high school student behind the counter. the best of the best are looking elsewhere for jobs in the future if the scenario you put forth is true. there are consequences for that.

Exactly. Why would I work any harder than I have to when my pay won't be affected by it? That was the point of my eariler post....doctors will just develop the "government worker" attitude where they plan their days around lunch hour and are just watching the clock to go home.
 
this is a very interesting comment because it is true when one looks at the stats. but then it gets challenged by the hidden aspect of these stats, which is the fact that they, the stats that is, take american citizens without accounting for socioeconomic status. if you compare healthcare for americans to that for the british, sure, american healthcare will look pretty pathetic. however, if you compared american healthcare for americans who are of a certain socioeconomic category to that of british citizens of the same category, you will realize that american healthcare is indeed superior. still, the disparity of healthcare across the socioeconomic ladder of america does say something about american society and american healthcare.
toofache's categorization of american healthcare delivered through a socialistic approach as "mediocre" either stems from conservative anti-liberal paranoia or from a mere exageration. if socialized, the quality may be reduced, but it will be reduced to average or good, as opposed to super good super cool super top-notch that we have now offered for the few. it is highly unlikely that healthcare would be reduced to "mediocre"....

Yes fighting spirit. It says in this country we expect people to pay for what they get. Unfortunately, lately we are giving far too much away for free, and all this does is reinforce the notion that you can get by in this country riding the government gravy train.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
thanks for that post. i enjoyed reading it.

it appears doctors again will be biting the bullet for the benefit of others. give, give, give. maybe it should be that way. maybe it already is.

money, prestige, and autonomy will have been taken away from the profession. i just feel the government can't take those away and still hope to attract the best of the best into the field. as members of that field we could find a solution to the problem that does not do this, instead of latching on to this idea.

"If you ask a starving man if he wants some food, I doubt he will be very picky."

true. but most likely he won't be getting served by a trained chef, instead a minimum wage high school student behind the counter. the best of the best are looking elsewhere for jobs in the future if the scenario you put forth is true. there are consequences for that.


Hi Antidentite, Other driving, fiscal forces could be the pensions and health benefits retired state, county and municipal workers have been promised. It is very obvious from all that I have read and continue to read regarding state deficits, these are promises the states, presently, can not keep.

If and when states acquire state wide insurance coverage, at the expense of all, they will have killed two birds with one stone. They will share the financial burden of insuring state employees and better control their costs for the many and growing uninsured. These benefits provide a lot of incentive to push for state wide insurance coverage.

This, I'm afraid, may be a done deal, be it sooner or later, but life, medicine and dentistry will go on. They will redefine themselves. After the HMO's took over and as they continue to spread, doctors and dentists continue to make a living, still better than the general population. Things will work out, and things will continue to change. Best wishes, Lesley
 
Their is already a conflict of interest that exists between Health insurance company's, doctors, and patients. Namely: insurance company's are a business and their business is to make money. At a glance you can see that this creates a situation that will be difficult for doctors and patients since insurance company's want to reduce payments to doctors. This means that they dictate what they will pay for and how much they will pay for it and all of this is guided by a profit motive. Doctors loose control of their ability to make choices and are paid less for working more. Patients suffer because the insurance company's are not interested in the patients health, they are only interested in the patients monthly health insurance premiums and try to maximize their profits by cutting costs (remember that a cost to them is essentially a needed procedure or test needed to Tx a patient). Therefore they have an incentive to discourage treatment. Their noose hold on doctors and their control of qualified Tx options effectively does this.

The alternative side of things would be a non-profit insurance group (private or government) that does not have a profit motive but then this would lead to some kind of bureaucracy that would also be undesirable. If it was done right it would help to align patient and doctor with the expenditures and costs in way that it more beneficial and satisfying for each.

Have any of you been through any of the healthcare systems in Europe? I've been through the healthcare system in both the U.K. and in Ireland i(in the early 90's) and I can tell you that even the most basic and lowly of healthcare systems in the U.S. offer shorter wait times, better environments, more competent professionals (on average), and more advanced technology then what I saw over there. If those are examples of what socialized medicine will bring to this country then I unequivocally oppose it.
 
Although I am not 100% certain, it is my understanding that the proposed state wide insurance in CA may be channeled through already exisiting health insurance companies.
 
Personally, I have seen plenty of poverty in the US and other countries and it still doesn't make me buy the argument that medical/dental care is a "basic human right". It just isn't. Neither is having a car a "basic human right". Nor is having Satellite cable a "basic human right". Neither is having jewelry a "basic human right". Nor is having a Motorola Razor cell phone with unlimited text messaging and personalized ring tones a "basic human right".

Its a funny thing though. . . Those same patients that avoid medical and dental care because they "don't have the money", seem to all have at least 3 of the 4 items I just listed. Before anyone thinks I am just some Right Wing Capitalist nutjob, let me say I have done plenty of pro bono work domestically and overseas. I think it IS important to take care of the less fortunate. But Socialized Medicine per se is not the right track for the US, in my opinion.

I actually think the question we should ask ourselves is this: Why are poor people more interested in cell phones and DVD players than health care?
 
Although I am not 100% certain, it is my understanding that the proposed state wide insurance in CA may be channeled through already exisiting health insurance companies.

Yippie. Now how about that 2% of yearly gross they want to steal from the doctors?


Still cheering?
 
Personally, I have seen plenty of poverty in the US and other countries and it still doesn't make me buy the argument that medical/dental care is a "basic human right". It just isn't. Neither is having a car a "basic human right". Nor is having Satellite cable a "basic human right". Neither is having jewelry a "basic human right". Nor is having a Motorola Razor cell phone with unlimited text messaging and personalized ring tones a "basic human right".

Its a funny thing though. . . Those same patients that avoid medical and dental care because they "don't have the money", seem to all have at least 3 of the 4 items I just listed. Before anyone thinks I am just some Right Wing Capitalist nutjob, let me say I have done plenty of pro bono work domestically and overseas. I think it IS important to take care of the less fortunate. But Socialized Medicine per se is not the right track for the US, in my opinion.

I actually think the question we should ask ourselves is this: Why are poor people more interested in cell phones and DVD players than health care?

Good points and amen. It's funny that you see people with a brand new car, but then they ask you for money to put ornaments on their Christmas tree because they are poor...go figure.
 
interesting. i admit i have not read extensive litterature on the sibject, most things i have read are not factual, but instead political. polar opposites. i think the categories we rank lowest in can be related to access to care issues? some things i think and could be wrong:

1,) the best medical or dental services in the world are done in this country. why are they not done in countries with socialized health care? if i need any type of medical / dental procedure done, i want it done in the U.S. - not Denmark. And I am sure Denmark ranks high in all these categories we don't.
2.) we have the best health care training in this country. how will socialized health care impact this.
3.) this country attracts some of its brightest and motivated to the health care field. this is despite the money and not because of it. see below.
4.) doctors are underpaid as is in general given their talents, hours, rigourous training and importance of their work. google the average bonus at goldman this year. no one goes in to health care for the money and if they do they are crazy. people making money in the financial world are not smarter than top doctors, nor are their services proportionally as important, and although this will be argued - they do not work more. this is a capitalistic society, by making health care socialized, and thus making the pay between doctors and careers they could have chosen based on their work ethic, hours and intelligence even more lopsided we will lose more quality health care providers. as said earlier people should not go in to health care for money, but the discrepancy can not be made bigger between what they could make and do make. and face it - the system, socialized or not, is only as good as the doctors working in it.
5.)others are catching up or have surpassed us in the medical/dental field - i.e. stem cell research, imaging, etc. i can see us ranking low in this category as well, but i think its solution is not found in socialized health care either.

i am left of center on most things, so i go back and forth on this, and would appreciate responses to change my feelings. but i think socialized health care is bad for not only doctors, but will be for the country as well. and i know that access to care has to be addressed, but just because we don't have a right answer does not mean we have to accept the wrong answer. address the insurance mess first.

bottom line: there are winners and losers in every decision. i don't see how doctors are the winners in socialized health care.

the following is a good website comparing and contrasting views:

http://www.answers.com/topic/universal-health-care

a part i could relate too:

Government agencies are less efficient due to bureaucracy. Administrative duties, by doctors, are the result of medical centralization and over-regulation, and are not natural to the profession. In fact, before heavy regulation of the health care and insurance industries, doctor visits to the elderly, and free care, or low cost care to impoverished patients was common; governments regulated this form of charity out of existence. Universal health care plans will add more inefficiency to the medical system because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which will lead to less doctor patient visits.


At the risk of getting slammed, and respecting the fact that national pride probably comes in to play a little too much in a topic like this, I'll offer some devil's advocate opinions.

I disagree that, "The best," medical or dental procedures are performed in the US. Certainly some of them are. But those same procedures are performed by equally or perhaps more qualified people in other countries. The Swedes probably have North America beat for quality of dental care. Or possibly the Japanese. Canada holds its own with the US when it comes to dental treatment. For medical treatment, the Swiss, Germans, and Canadians again are probably as good in most areas. Indeed, there is certainly no shortage of Canadian trained medical personnel in all aspects of US health care.

I do not think that the US has 'the best' health care training. Certainly it is world class, and attracts its share of international medical grads wanting to take their US-garnered skills back to their home countries. But so do the aforementioned countries.

I saw your website, and it made some interesting points for both camps... And there were errors in some of the arguments it made on both sides. It may be that the 'inefficiency' that certainly exists in single-payer socialized medicine is balanced by the 'profits' that get added in after the fact by private-payer medicine. It justs moves the cost to somewhere less easy to track.

The fact that some doctors 100 years ago before medicine was regulated used to make free home calls bears no relevance today. It does not account for a patient in need of care at a particular point in time who avoids seeking treatment for fear of not being able to pay... Nor does it mean that a doctor will make a 'free' home call at the exact time it is needed by a specific patient.

Certainly there are upsides and down sides to both systems.
 
Although I am not 100% certain, it is my understanding that the proposed state wide insurance in CA may be channeled through already exisiting health insurance companies.

I know, this is why I mentioned health insurance companies in my last post. When I think of these companies I imagine this guy
www.breadwithcircus.com/raymond.jpg (I know, this is a greasy oil exec and not an HMO CEO)
sitting at his desk laughing as he figures out how to cut yet more payments to doctors. He then turns and approves a claim for a patient that he denied several times, putting a patient/doctor through hell and still takes several months to pay after treatment was given. Meanwhile said patient receives several bills requesting payment in full because the dum a$$ insurance company is taking their sweet time.
 
Yippie. Now how about that 2% of yearly gross they want to steal from the doctors?

Still cheering?

Hi north2south OMFS, Nope, but this is a discussion about universal care and some of the potential implications. My opinion about access to medical care holds.

I don't know many dentists who were cheering when capitation, HMO's or PPO's came into existance either. We weren't. But, for the past 30 years, this is increasingly the direction medicine and dentistry has been going. Two kickers. One is that medical doctors led the way opening the flood gates to these types of plans and the growth, strength and leverging ability the health insurance industry, as we know it, has today. Two, even with all these health care options, the number of americans without health insurance is growing.

CA and MA are leading the way. Other states will likely follow driven by their own fiscal demands and limitations, for now they will observe. It was stated on CNN, how CA plans on collecting these fees from the doctors and hospitals is not yet known. Sounds like it will be basically another tax and, like any other tax, it has the potential to go up, rarely down.

As it is now, patients do not look for dentists in the yellow pages. They go to their insurance provider book and then ask family and friends if they know a dentist in their book, or if a doctor has been recommend to them, they check to see if the name is in the book. Sometimes patients will return to a familiar dentist to have larger work done. This is especially true for patients who were use to seeing the same dentist for many years before these types of plans became so prevalent.

Financial demands are increasing for the population at large, mortgages, student loan and tax payments take an exceeding larger bite out of patient's take home pay. Patients may not have the latitude they did even a decade ago to go anywhere except where they can get the least expensive price, even if it means a longer wait for an appointment or in the waiting room. Many dentists already accept fees that are dictated to them by insurance companies, how much different will universal care be?

Today, in countries like England there are private medical and dental offices for those that can afford it. I doubt it would be any different here. There will always be options. However, trying to support a small dental office with just private patients is becoming a more difficult task in this country. There is increasing pressure to participate with dental plans. Eventually larger practices, with more dentists sharing space, equipment and expenses may be the way of the future. It's a more efficient way to utilize staffing, as well. Many physician's offices have already succumbed to this model.

IMO, this train is coming, for better or worse, but maybe I'm wrong. CA and MA seem to be all but guaranteeing it. Someday, it may translate to a larger national scale but not necessarily, and none of this will happen overnight. Most likely, decades, and the medical and dental community will adapt.


For my husband, a job on a golf course is starting to sound more and more appealing!
 
I know, this is why I mentioned health insurance companies in my last post. When I think of these companies I imagine this guy
www.breadwithcircus.com/raymond.jpg (I know, this is a greasy oil exec and not an HMO CEO)
sitting at his desk laughing as he figures out how to cut yet more payments to doctors. He then turns and approves a claim for a patient that he denied several times, putting a patient/doctor through hell and still takes several months to pay after treatment was given. Meanwhile said patient receives several bills requesting payment in full because the dum a$$ insurance company is taking their sweet time.

Hi QCkid, Not a pretty picture!

The daughter of an oral surgeon in our area started working for an insurance company, he said she went to the dark side!;)
 
Personally, I have seen plenty of poverty in the US and other countries and it still doesn't make me buy the argument that medical/dental care is a "basic human right". It just isn't. Neither is having a car a "basic human right". Nor is having Satellite cable a "basic human right". Neither is having jewelry a "basic human right". Nor is having a Motorola Razor cell phone with unlimited text messaging and personalized ring tones a "basic human right".

Its a funny thing though. . . Those same patients that avoid medical and dental care because they "don't have the money", seem to all have at least 3 of the 4 items I just listed. Before anyone thinks I am just some Right Wing Capitalist nutjob, let me say I have done plenty of pro bono work domestically and overseas. I think it IS important to take care of the less fortunate. But Socialized Medicine per se is not the right track for the US, in my opinion.

I actually think the question we should ask ourselves is this: Why are poor people more interested in cell phones and DVD players than health care?

Amen! The poorest bastard in this country lives far better than the "true" poor of the world. If you are poor in this country it is because you are less than mildly intelligent, severely disabled or very unambitious. I've lived in the second poorest country of this hemisphere for many years. One thing I've learned when I returned is that this country doesn't know true poverty and secondly the fact that there always will be relative poverty irrespective of what programs/systems/balances that the government has or is....no one will solve disparity in the world.
 
Personally, I have seen plenty of poverty in the US and other countries and it still doesn't make me buy the argument that medical/dental care is a "basic human right". It just isn't. Neither is having a car a "basic human right". Nor is having Satellite cable a "basic human right". Neither is having jewelry a "basic human right". Nor is having a Motorola Razor cell phone with unlimited text messaging and personalized ring tones a "basic human right".

Its a funny thing though. . . Those same patients that avoid medical and dental care because they "don't have the money", seem to all have at least 3 of the 4 items I just listed. Before anyone thinks I am just some Right Wing Capitalist nutjob, let me say I have done plenty of pro bono work domestically and overseas. I think it IS important to take care of the less fortunate. But Socialized Medicine per se is not the right track for the US, in my opinion.

I actually think the question we should ask ourselves is this: Why are poor people more interested in cell phones and DVD players than health care?


While preparing for DS in undergrad I volunteered at a free dental clinic where one day a woman came in with half of her face swollen softball style from a massive abscess that she'd "waited as long as she could to get treated because she had no money to pay for it." The dentist said that she had waited so long that, in her condition, the abscess had become life-threatening.

After taking some x-rays he called the nearby oral surgeon (who my wife happened to work for) and they agreed to treat her for free.

That night I asked my wife how it went. She told me that after they did an extraction and some serious drainage, all at no cost, my wife helped her out to her brand new Escalade.
 
. . . and secondly the fact that there always will be relative poverty irrespective of what programs/systems/balances that the government has or is....no one will solve disparity in the world.

And this is actually the point that I should have originally made. You can get into all sorts of philosophical and even religious discussions about the 'human condition' or whatever you want to call it. Only the most dogmatic humanist would truly believe that humans are capable of constructing and fairly administering a system which would really establish purely EQUAL access to every limited resource in the world.

And even if humans were capable of devising such a utopian model, I doubt that it would foster technological, medical, and scientific advancement and discovery. A strong capitalist component has been shown to spur advancement of every component of economies (past and present). It simply seems to best motivate human 'advancement', even if the outcome doesn't result in equal access to all limited resources.
 
I think access to care should be one of the primary driving forces regarding health care. This is an ethical problem.


after reading these articles - if access to care is a primary ethical issue - all the more reason to keep it away from my profession.


http://www.blackpooltoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=62&ArticleID=1971039

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/health/2006/12/19/nhs17.xml


who would want to be an orthodontist in england? who would want to be a patient there? this is a ridiculous system - where the patient and doctor lose. 3 year wait list - no way to utilize growth - poor treatment and out come because of doctors hands being tied behind their backs. something tells me the negative aspects to this type of health care is not just limited to orthodontics. i don't need my cardiologist or neuro surgeon working under this system. i want to be more liberal on this issue, but i can't do it.
 
i think the categories we rank lowest in can be related to access to care issues?

I think access to care should be one of the primary driving forces regarding health care. This is an ethical problem.

Okay, let me make one thing clear. Access to care IS an ethical issue. But lets paint this issue with a broader brush, so to speak. Why should the debate focus on "Access to Care" which is limited to providing equal access to heath care, at the expense of healthcare professionals across the world? What about all the other items/resources in the world which would still be inequitably distributed in spite of a Universal Healthcare system?

I think the greatest benefit to society would come from legislating Equal Access to Diamonds.

Think about it. It is estimated that 90% of the world's diamonds are controlled by the DeBeers family, so why don't we just hit one family in the pocket book (The DeBeers) by confiscating all but their 'fair share' of the world's diamonds. The rest of the world's diamonds could then be equally distributed to every person in the world. In turn, these diamonds could then be sold for money which could be used to pay the market-driven price for any resources desired (health care, cell phones, throw back jerseys, etc.)
 
Okay, let me make one thing clear. Access to care IS an ethical issue. But lets paint this issue with a broader brush, so to speak. Why should the debate focus on "Access to Care" which is limited to providing equal access to heath care, at the expense of healthcare professionals across the world?


Okay, we agree that access to health care is an ethical issue. Solutions are needed, and, possibly, coming. However, I do not feel that solutions should target individuals or specific communities, certainly not medical or dental students or the medical or dental communities.

Already the strained costs of obtaining a medical/dental education, not including the rigors of the education itself, can feel punitive. As a small business owner, many doctors find to just provide medical care for themselves and their employees is becoming unsustainable. Not only do we often get hit with accepting discounted fees for the care we provide, but we also end up paying high premiums for our insurance too. We are being burned on both ends. The present situation is not working for us in reality, either.

The medical/dental community is a small group the, insurance industry is powerful and the government may have the final say. Unfortunately, comparing diamonds to health care is not comparing apples to apples. You can live without a diamond, but not without your health. The voting public, many of whom do see health care as a growing problem, doesn't necessarily see health care as an entitlement. Many are willing to work and pay for it, but due to costs and accessibility, for some there is no affordable answer. In coming elections, there may come be a larger acceptance for more affordable, broader health insurance coverage by the general public.

My opinion, whether this can be accomplished in a fair manner with regard to the medical community, is guarded. I was more discussing how recent events in CA and MA may be seminal. Best wishes.
 
An excerpt from a recent Washington Post article, 1/17/07, "A New Consensus Regarding Universial Health Care" available on the web.

"Doctors would have to agree to have their compensation from insurers tied, in part, to how well they conform to treatment protocols established by the various medical specialties.

Hospitals and insurers would have to agree that 85 percent of their revenue would go to providing direct care, capping profit and administrative expenses at 15 percent.

Health insurers would have to accept the obligation to sell insurance to everyone, with only modest variation in rates for age and health status.

It sets up a pooling arrangement in every state to allow individuals and small businesses to buy health insurance at the same price as large corporations.

Finally, it sets a deadline for physicians and hospitals to switch to computerized health records, along with a program to provide no-interest loans to buy the necessary hardware and software."
 
An excerpt from a recent Washington Post article, 1/17/07, "A New Consensus Regarding Universial Health Care" available on the web.

"Doctors would have to agree to have their compensation from insurers tied, in part, to how well they conform to treatment protocols established by the various medical specialties."

Wow. Who writes this stuff? Do they not realize Doctors are already trying to do that? It's the insurance companies who do not let us conform to the standard of care. And when we do, they deny coverage.
 
The voting public, many of whom do see health care as a growing problem, doesn't necessarily see health care as an entitlement.

I wish I could agree with this, but I can't. That sense of entitlement--"I expect perfect results that require no participation, maintenance, or inconvenience from me, I expect it to be cheap, and I'll sue your ass into a sling in a nanosecond if that's not what I get"--is at the bottom of America's health care disaster.
 
I wish I could agree with this, but I can't. That sense of entitlement--"I expect perfect results that require no participation, maintenance, or inconvenience from me, I expect it to be cheap, and I'll sue your ass into a sling in a nanosecond if that's not what I get"--is at the bottom of America's health care disaster.

Hi aphistis, It's possible because I am in private practice and participate with very few plans, I may be a little more optimistic.
 
I hope you're right, and I hope I run a practice that gives me as much optimism as yours. :)

I hope so too. I just read this Philadelphia Inquire article over dinner. Catch the proposal regarding dental hygienists. I hope the PA Dental Society hops on this immediately to determine the implications.

Rendell: 47 ideas to cut health costs


His sweeping proposal covers insurance, hospital mistakes, nutrition and smoking. And it won't hurt the budget, aides said. Reaction was subdued. By Amy Worden and Josh Goldstein Inquirer Staff Writers

HARRISBURG - In a proposal that could have profound effects on the multibillion-dollar health-care industry and touch virtually every Pennsylvanian, Gov. Rendell announced yesterday that he wanted to drive down the spiraling costs of care while improving its quality and expanding access for all. Designed as the centerpiece of Rendell's second term, the plan is aimed at covering the state's 767,000 uninsured residents. But more broadly, he said, it targets the increasing amount of "unnecessary and avoidable" health-care costs, which topped $7.6 billion last year, and the troubling rise in chronic disease rates. "We cannot allow this situation to go on any longer," Rendell said at a Capitol news conference. "It's the right plan at the right time." The core proposal would provide affordable health insurance to all adults, with payments based on income. Rendell said he wanted the legislature to approve it by June 30 and for it to take effect next January. Among the first quality and cost areas that Rendell said he wanted to address is hospital-acquired infections, which increase death rates, extend hospital stays, and cost the state $1 billion a year.

Rendell's 47 initiatives follow plans being implemented in Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont, and most recently advanced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, but it goes well beyond universal insurance.

The initiatives also include child-nutrition programs and a statewide smoking ban. Cost estimates for Rendell's "Prescription for Pennsylvania" will be kept under wraps until he announces his budget Feb. 6. But state officials said employer and worker contributions, federal grants, and increased tobacco taxes would primarily cover any new costs, leaving a minimal budgetary impact. Many of the initiatives would require legislative approval. Most legislative leaders, who learned the details yesterday, said they welcomed the new ideas, but some voiced concerned about the costs. "The fact that the governor left gaping holes in how to pay for this is a glaring omission and makes it very difficult to comment," said Eric Arneson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Dominic F. Pileggi (R., Chester).

No bills have been drafted, and Senate and House leaders said they would not move any legislation until they held hearings. While early reaction from representatives of hospitals, doctors and insurers was muted, the plan is likely to run into hurdles as Rendell pushes the legislation and regulations to implement it. The group representing most of the major hospitals in the state said it welcomed the opportunity for discussion about health-care reform, but reserved comment until officials see the state budget proposal and specific legislation. "We want to provide greater access and coverage for people in a way that does not harm providers," said Roger Baumgarten, spokesman for the Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania. Mark A. Piasio, president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, said the plan's goals were "laudable."

"It is consistent with our mission," said Piasio, an orthopedic surgeon from Clearfield County. "We can't do it - it's got to come from governor, and there is nothing that is ill-advised or bad policy." Joseph A. Frick, president and chief executive officer of Independence Blue Cross, called the proposal "a template for change" that meshes with the company's mission to improve access to quality, affordable health care.
Under "Cover All Pennsylvanians," lower-income adults would pay as little as $10 a month for coverage including presciption drugs. Higher-income workers would pay up to $280 per person, the estimated monthly price for a state-subsidized policy.

Rendell's plan would also create restrictions to discourage businesses from dropping benefits. The state would fund the insurance program through a new tax on smokeless tobacco and cigars, an increase in the cigarette tax, a 3 percent assessment on businesses that do not offer health-care benefits to workers, and federal matching funds. Parents would be able to provide coverage for dependent children up to age 30, and the state's four-year colleges and universities would have to ensure that full-time students were insured or had access to a health clinic. Michael Campbell, executive director of the Pennsylvania Health Law Project, said his nonprofit groups got a dozen or more calls a month from people who could not afford health insurance.

"The governor's plan, if enacted the way it was described,... would probably give health insurance to all of them," he said. "Only a handful of states have taken this on, this would put us in the top tier." The proposal also includes a series of quality and safety initiatives to tackle hospital-acquired infections and other often preventable medical errors. Rendell estimates they could save billions of dollars and reduce the human toll from preventable complications.

Rendell's plan would strengthen the power of the state Insurance Department. Insurers would be barred from using factors other than age, location, and size of the family to set rates for small-business group plans. In addition, rate increases would face greater scrutiny. Health insurers would have to offer rebates to groups if spending on health care fell below 75 percent of the premiums collected from that group.

New regulations would require hospitals to provide a primary-care alternative for people who go to the emergency room with problems that don't need urgent care. Rendell said he hoped to use his regulatory powers and the state's clout as a major purchaser of health care to promote safer care. In the future, the state intends to stop paying hospitals for treatment stemming from medical errors or preventable complications. "We will not pay for misadventures," said Rosemarie Greco, director of the governor's office for health-care reform. Eventually, hospitals would be required to track infections with electronic monitoring systems to prevent underreporting the problem. Finally, a system of regional boards would be created to oversee spending projects at hospitals to ensure that expansions or major equipment purchases were necessary.


The plan would increase access to care by lifting state regulations on some providers, such as nurse practitioners and dental hygienists - who are now forbidden to perform certain procedures. For example, dental hygienists are trained to fill cavities, but regulations prevent them from doing so.


Insurers would be required to pay appropriately for care provided at primary-care clinics by nurse practitioners, who are registered nurses and hold master's degrees in nursing. The state would also create incentives for providers to offer evening and weekend hours to increase access to care.

First Reactions To Rendell's Plan

"The proposal, as described in the press documents, leaves much to the imagination in terms of the details of how the commonwealth will implement each aspect of the reform proposal. We look forward to seeing how this unfolds." - Ralph W. Muller, chief executive officer, Pennsylvania Health System

"The overall proposal itself gives me a better sense that I am going to get some kind of care." - Carl A. Grant, 56, Germantown resident
with a low-wage job

"Obviously the numbers have to work in terms of the cost, but it looks pretty exciting from our perspective." - John Dodds, director
of the Philadelphia Unemployment Project

"The changes proposed will not only help expand care to underserved communities in the region and throughout the state, but also ensures people get good care." - Susan E. Sherman, a nurse and president of the Independence Foundation

"Gov. Rendell has expanded the role of nurse practitioners as a vehicle to achieve access to affordable quality care for more people."
- Nancy L. Rothman, director of community-based practice for Temple University's department of nursing

"While these states - Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and now Pennsylvania and California - are leading the way, I don't think this country can achieve universal coverage through state initiatives on their own. There must be federal support." - Jennifer Tolbert, principle policy analyst, Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington

"There will need to be a lot of work to flesh out the method by which payments are reduced or revised or modified based on how hospitals perform - P.J. Brennan, chief medical officer, University of Pennsylvania Health System
 
In any discussion of socialized healthcare there are always those who indict our system for failing 40 million people, by supposedly leaving them without HC. This is liberal media bias or sloppy reporting (take your pick) and it is repeated in almost all the print and TV news media. The truth of the 40 million number is this:

That 40 number is only legit if you count the facts this way: During the last year at any given time 40 million people were not covered. This by itself is true. And researchers consider that most of these are workers b/w jobs who temporarily lose coverage. Or it could be fair to say, they choose not to buy it on the free market during the interim.

However, if you consider this fact in context, the truer picture of the uninsured comes to light: Those without HC for 1 year or more (who most describe as the truly uninsured) are somewhere between 11-15 million people or under 5% of the 300 million US population.

One has to ask why? Is it too expensive? Is it just a question of misplaced priorities? Is it ignorance about the benefits and costs? Is it attrition from constant barrage of liberal democrats morphing HC from an individual to a collective responsibility? How many times in clinic have we heard the attitude that "they" should pay instead of "I" should pay?

Furthermore critics of the 40M number point out that there are several million that are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid but are not registered for the programs. In other words they have no coverage b/c they are either unaware or unmotivated.

No one should suggest that our system is 100% perfect however when the facts are brought into context of our economy it is much better than critics give it credit for.
 
Dental hygienists are trained to fill cavities? When (and why?) are hygiene student taught operative dentistry?

This is probably related to the so-called "expanded functions" dental assistants can be trained to accomplish in some states. One example is the function of allowing trained assistants to place the filling material after the dentist has prepped the tooth. Maybe there are some schools training hygenists as well in these types of expanded functions. I know some are training them to give local anesthesia under dentist supervision.
 
The ADA and the PDA need to find out what this statement implies. Will hygienists, after a weekend course, this may be exagerating a little bit, but you get my gist, be permitted to do examinations, give anesthesia and perform periodontics and operative dentistry in a government run facility, while a supervising dentist is running the clinic?

I doubt they are discussing expanded assisting functions for a hygienist. It's less expensive to have an expanded function assistant do expanded functions than a trained hygenist. The government and insurance companies know this, as do we. Our organization needs to find out what this statement means. Pronto!
 
The ADA and the PDA need to find out what this statement implies. Will hygienists, after a weekend course, this may be exagerating a little bit, but you get my gist, be permitted to do examinations, give anesthesia and perform periodontics and operative dentistry in a government run facility, while a supervising dentist is running the clinic?

They already do this.:D
 
They already do this.:D

...but maybe on a more autonomous level in the future? There is enough need.

I think that if states do provide insurance through present providers at a cheaper rate than residents can currently get, possibly these plans may operate like an HMO. If the insured doesn't go to an approved facility, clinic, office, ie one that participates, they will not have any coverage.

If this coverage is very inexpensive and accessible compared to plans offered now, will we see a large majority swing to this type of coverage? How will that effect a doctor's/dentist's bottom line? Will it be possible that some, not all, dentists will be unable to fill their schedules should they choose not to participate with state plans? Medical coverage for my family only, BC/BS, costs over $14,000/yr, not including copays. I'm curious how low these rates may be.

I am optimistic. While joining state sponsored, medical coverage may be very appealing, I think many will pay out of pocket for dentistry. I recently saw a patient I hadn't seen in over a year. She and her four year old son had come in for cleaning appointments. Their insurance had switched and they went to a larger dental office that was covered under their plan. She said she went there one time, and she was done. I told her it's a very different experience, a small, cozy office versus a larger, clinic type of experience. I joked with her we're just old and tired, and they're young and busy! She said she really likes old and tired! People build relationships with their dentists. That is the strength of an office, patient relationships. They come to you not because of fancy equipment, we have none, but because the work you have done has held up and they trust you. We offer services, but we are not hard selling them. Dentistry will survive whatever, but I'd still like to know what changes in any dental licensures are possibly being planned.

We should all want to know.
 
_
 
Last edited:
Bford,
Yup, I agree, universal health care is idealistic, but it can still come to fruition. 1. The national mail system, 2. education, etc. were all idealistic goals at one time.

1. Even at a Post office you still have to pay for postage... and for a little bit extra $ you can ship through FedEx and have it there overnight and insured.

2. That's great.. look at the current status of the public school system (k-12) in America. :scared:


And that's right.. what will be considered "basic" care? No more MRI, CT, or other expensive tests.. sorry. Unless you want to be paying 60% of your income in taxes. Good luck!
 
I would advocate a basic coverage for all Americans. The next question, then is, "what should we consider basic?" The answer will inevitably come down to whatever the political bigwigs say. Hopefully, it will be something like, "life, limb, sight, and basic dental." That is, tooth aches, regular check-ups, emergencies, etc. should be paid for by national insurance. Aesthetic procedures like "tooth whitening, dental implants, and facelifts..." should be cash.

Big wigs like... John Edwards? Sorry, I don't want my medical plan designed by a dirty medical malpractice lawyer, whose only interest is lining his and his associates golden pockets. :thumbdown:

http://www.nycyr.org/archives/2004/08/by_charles_hurt.php
 
_
 
Last edited:
There are way more people hopping on the wagon instead of pulling it. I mean come on, its funny how people who are riding have the audacity to tell the productive people of society how fast and in what direction to pull. The view must be nice from up there...you know that perch where responsibility and reality never cross paths.

Remember, at zero cost there is an INFINITE DEMAND. This always, always, always leads to rationing! :thumbdown: Pretty soon your grandma or someone on the Back 9 of life becomes more expendable.

There isn't a 'real' need hyg. to do operative dentistry. Please. I would accept this premise if and only if every DDS office had people lined up and booked hyg and operative schedules day in and day out. Many bread and butter offices have huge fail rates and your telling me that the answer is letting hyg. do operative. The problem is percieved need vs actual need of dentistry or for that matter medicine. PPl don't want to own up to their problems. Yes, in outlying areas there may be a real need for a hyg to do expanded functions but don't overhaul the whole system.

Lesley: If your spending $14K in premiums why not get a HSA with a high deductible catastrophic policy. Pay providers the difference with the remainder of the savings? May not work for all, but it can work.

Kach: Your comment on Postal Service and Education being at one point an 'ideal' goal, is that to say that it has attained ideal status at present? My hometown of Milwaukee just passed another tax levy of 9% because 1 BILLION dollars a year wasn't enough to 'educate' the kids. MPS is not cranking out Rhodes Scholars either. Defintely not "ideal'.

Take home message: The more Gov't gets involved the more inefficient/expensive the process becomes. It leaves those 'pulling the wagon' having to work harder. Eventually, there won't be enough ppl to pull and we'll all be screwed.

Just my 2 cents. Flame me if you must.

 
Top