<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7655.1">
<TITLE>RE: [Vision2020] More Proof Preventative Health Care Saves</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I'm joining this debate late but I would just like to support both Donovan and Keeley. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Universal health care, where all pay their fair share (mostly on the basis of progressive taxation), is not only up to half the cost of the US (now over $8,000 per person)but in many instances provides better care. <BR>
<BR>
The most amazing recent study was comparing the British system on about seven major illness with the Brits healthier than Americans. When Milton Friedman bragged about the success of free market Hong Kong at the beginning of "Free to Choose," he neglected to mention that the British colony had universal health care, which since independence has become even more efficient and cost effective--taking, if I remember correctly, only 3 percent of GDP vs. the U.S.'s 17 percent.<BR>
<BR>
I've written extensively on this issue and my columns are collected at www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/health.htm. <BR>
<BR>
One of the main reasons that the U.S. will decline in the 21st Century is because of health care costs and insecurity caused by lack of coverage. My Greek proverb below is even more relevant today. The shade of good health care is paid with other people's money and forethought.<BR>
<BR>
Nick<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.<BR>
<BR>
-Greek proverb<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com on behalf of Donovan Arnold<BR>
Sent: Wed 1/18/2012 2:07 PM<BR>
To: Jay Borden; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Proof Preventative Health Care Saves<BR>
<BR>
Jay,<BR>
<BR>
There are two gaping holes in your arguments of why the universal health care system would not work better and cost less.<BR>
<BR>
The first is that it is already working better in almost every other modern civilized country. So there is no speculation that it would increase health care for almost everyone and would decrease costs. It has even been wildly successful in the United States where it has been tried, like in Florida.<BR>
<BR>
Second, we are not talking about "other people's money." We are talking about "their money". Just spending it in a more effective manner. Don't they deserve that respect of their dollars? They would be paying premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, and taxes. So for those that decided to waste the government subsidies as you claim, would also be wasting their own money and time getting the unneeded mammograms and prostate exams you think they would be so eager to get with new found access to health care.<BR>
<BR>
I don't completely dismiss your claim that some monies would be wasted by some people insisting their doctors give them medications and tests they really don't need. There would also be people getting assistance that would have otherwise not had health care of any kind at any time. However, all of that so-called-waste fails to compare to the waste we spend on treatment for illnesses and diseases that we would have prevented and now have to pay for because they qualify for Medicaid or end up in an emergency room. It is like the government refusing to help the poor with costs of oil changes but paying 90% of engine repair. It is a horribly wasteful.<BR>
<BR>
It doesn't take a genius or mathematician to understand that a 65 year old women who becomes eligible for Medicare who hasn't seen a doctor since she was 40 is going to cost the taxpayer much more money than if she could access one for those 25 years and could also pay more into the system.<BR>
<BR>
Cost saving and greater access has already been established as fact using preventive care and Universal Health Care. So you are only arguing with the facts that Universal Health Care works better than the "pay nothing now but 10 times more later health care system" we have now.<BR>
<BR>
The only factual argument against Universal Health Care is the philosophical one; that it is better to let people suffer from no or limited access to medical care than to suffer the knowledge that their premiums were paid to the government instead of to a for profit corporation. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Donovan Arnold<BR>
<BR>
________________________________<BR>
From: Jay Borden <jborden@datawedge.com><BR>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com>; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:35 PM<BR>
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] More Proof Preventative Health Care Saves<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
It sounds great. the math might be right, but I believe the human nature component is wrong. human nature changes when dealing with "other people's money". <BR>
<BR>
("Oh, if I had known you were paying for dinner, I would have ordered something more expensive.")<BR>
<BR>
Putting the word "preventative" in the name doesn't change the way humans would react to and use it. <BR>
<BR>
If we had universal health care, it means that individuals would never see the benefit of money saved. they would simply be given a "blank check" in terms of their health care and how they care for themselves. and therefore dismiss risks with personal choices for their health. <BR>
<BR>
I can tell you first-hand my experiences on how human behavior changes as soon as fiscal responsibility to pay is shifted to the individual as opposed to a faceless 3rd party.<BR>
<BR>
It's sounds heartless to say (and even harder to defend). but in order to have people making GOOD decisions, you have to have examples of people making BAD DECISIONS.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Jay<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [<A HREF="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>] On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold<BR>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:56 AM<BR>
To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>
Subject: [Vision2020] More Proof Preventative Health Care Saves<BR>
<BR>
Numbers show high cost of skipping your meds<BR>
Numbers show how skipping your meds can have serious health impact, financial consequences<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/numbers-show-high-cost-skipping-214621515.html">http://finance.yahoo.com/news/numbers-show-high-cost-skipping-214621515.html</A><BR>
<BR>
"-Every dollar spent on medication decreases total health costs to patients, insurers and government health programs by about $10.10 for people with high blood pressure, by $8.40 for congestive heart failure patients, by $6.70 for diabetics and by about $3.10 for patients with cholesterol disorders."<BR>
<BR>
And what idiots would pass up $3.10 to $10.10 return on each $1 invested? The same idiots that pass up universal preventive health care. The same idiots that believe it is better to pay $10.10 of taxpayer dollars in medical treatment tomorrow than to a give the person the opportunity of insurance to spend $1 on medication today. But when your interests lie with the person who gets the $10.10, only then it becomes clear why denying them the insurance to get the medication is the preferred action.<BR>
<BR>
Donovan Arnold <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>