response 248 of 526:

Mar 1 19:35 UTC 2006

"so whur 'r yew doin sunday after mornin' worship, miz 
 freemond?"


 love in christ,
                 james *boobs-a-lot* dobson

response 250 of 526:

Mar 1 22:21 UTC 2006

>I wonder how insurance coverage varies by state. Is birth control more
>likely to be covered in "blue" states? 

Along those lines, this: 
http://www.agi-usa.org/media/nr/2006/02/21/index.html

response 252 of 526:

Mar 2 15:01 UTC 2006

Thanks, "klg"--that's a truly handy link.

A quick look would seem to show that mandated contraceptive coverage (29
states) does not seem to follow any predictable red/blue pattern.  Only
21 states mandate maternity coverage.  

Other tidbits:

*45 states mandate alcoholism treatment coverage, only 35 mandate drug
abuse treatment coverage.

*Only one state does not mandate mammogram coverage (Utah); only one
state (Washington) does not mandate coverage for maternity hospitalization.

*9 states (including Michigan) do not require insurance policies to
cover adopted children.

*13 states mandate newborn hearing screening coverage; only 2 states
mandate coverage for newborn sickle-cell testing.  

*47 states mandate that chiropractors be a covered provider; only 11
states do the same for nurses.

*Minnesota mandates the most coverages, Idaho the fewest.  Michigan
ranks near the bottom (somewhere around 43rd)

response 254 of 526:

Mar 2 15:51 UTC 2006

> If you force insurance to cover everything, individual plans will be 
> a lot more expensive.

Isn't that the main argument against national healthcare?

response 256 of 526:

Mar 2 16:21 UTC 2006

National healthcare would tax the rich to keep the poor healthy, so that the
healthy poor can work for the rich better to keep them rich.
It would also avoid a lot of administrative costs, keeping healthcare cheaper
for everyone.

response 258 of 526:

Mar 2 16:49 UTC 2006

I think that National healthcare is probably good for big business. 
Most large companies would LOVE to get rid of that expense. I suspect 
that the Walmarts and the General Motors of the world are already 
lobbying hard for it which means that it might actually come to pass. 

response 260 of 526:

Mar 2 17:21 UTC 2006

National health insurance is a foolproof way to really screw up things 
and make it more expensive, to boot.

On the subject of mandated coverage, those only apply to health plans 
that are not subject to ERISA.  Because ERISA regulates, for example, 
the auto industry health plans, they are exempt from state mandates.

response 262 of 526:

Mar 2 17:43 UTC 2006

I don't think very many fiscal conservatives are in favor of a 
government sponsored national health insurance plan.

response 264 of 526:

Mar 2 17:55 UTC 2006

Oh, oh.  Where do you get your information?  Here's a little dittie on 
how the government typically wildly underestimates the cost of health 
care programs.  Have fun.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/7/4/61.pdf#search='Medicare
%20ESRD%20cost%20estimate'

response 266 of 526:

Mar 2 18:14 UTC 2006

I think national healthcare would increase malpractice by 100 fold and people
would be less likely to seek preventative healthcare.  Do you really want the
government running healthcare? Look at how bad the VA is screwed up.

response 268 of 526:

Mar 2 18:28 UTC 2006

Re: #267. You really think he cares? He's one of those people (=most people)
who won't care until it happens to them. THEN he'll care...

 Imagine doctors with governmental immunity. FTCA offers a lot of
 protection to governmental workers.

I can't speak for how other countries with nationalised healthcare work, but
in the UK there's no such thing as "governmental immunity" for doctors.

response 270 of 526:

Mar 2 18:33 UTC 2006

For years and years I have posted about how I thought national, 
government-sponsored health care would ensure that no one could get 
good health coverage.  I've posted about how I think it would reduce 
the level of health care for those who currently have health insurance, 
but not increase it a whole lot for anyone currently outside the system.

I've had great misgivings about how the government is going to take 
control, pay for it all for everyone, ensure good care, control costs, 
ensure continued medical research, and do it in a fair manner.  
Currently, at least some can hope to buy coverage or get it from their 
employer.  It seems to me even *that* chance would end if the 
government takes over.  We would instead wind up with an irreversible 
problem resembling Social Security.

Instead of economic favoritism where some get better medical service 
than others, we would instead be subject to political favoritism.  I 
don't see that as being an improvement.

I voted against Bill Clinton because of his national health plan, and 
when he won his first election, I was surprised and massively gratified 
to see his plan fall apart.

It's not that I've ever seen our current system as being good.   It has 
a lot of faults.  It leaves a lot of people outside of getting medical 
attention.  My wife didn't have any coverage before I married her, and 
her kids were on Medicaid.  I'm pretty aware of what that was like for 
her.

It still seems better than what I'd expect would come of any of the 
plans that have been put forward to replace it with a government 
initiative.  I envision a national version of Medicaid, covering 
everyone.  Medicaid is *awful*.

response 272 of 526:

Mar 2 18:44 UTC 2006

I'm assuming the first part of 268 was referring to 265, and not 267? :)

> I can't speak for how other countries with nationalised healthcare 
> work, but in the UK there's no such thing as "governmental immunity" 
> for doctors.

It really depends on how we are going to implement it. It would be one 
thing if the government just foot the bill, but that is likely not to 
happen. You see, the United States already has a national healthcare 
system, but it is for former military personnel. Tod mentioned it in 
266, its called the VA. It is highly bureaucratic, and gets often gets 
drawn into politics.

I don't think the US could afford to build a system like the VA that 
could treat everybody. So what then? Do we claim eminent domain and 
yank public hospitals into a Federal health system? That'll go over 
real well. 

IMHO, the best thing the government can do right now is (1) make health 
care more affordable by putting an end to frivolous malpractice 
lawsuits/extortion, (2) provide a high-deductible health insurance plan 
for everyone, and (3) maintain a medicare/medicaid system for poor 
people.