Interesting brief history of US health care system

[the_poochies]

Slate magazine traces the growth of the US medical-industrial complex from the 1920s to today. I never knew that Harry Truman also pushed for a single-payer system but was rejected by the health insurance industry (albeit a nonprofit one) in the 1940s.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161736/

[cbelt3]

The most interesting aspect of the study (thanks) is that the 'healthcare industry' began as a philanthropic organization, specifically 'The Blues". I remember when Blue Cross was a benign organization. Heck, my dad HAD Blue Cross insurance.

What is missing from the blurb (haven't read the book) is the very significant public health initiatives that grew out of the great diseases of the 20th century. Tuberculosis, Polio, Yellow Fever, etc... all created significant structural public health operations. And these hospitals and sanitariums were public operations.... no corporations, no philanthropic NGO's, etc...

A rational government *should* consider public health to have a level of importance right up there with defense. And in the "Great Society" days, we did. But nowadays, the public health organizations (and we DO have them) are stressed, cost-cut, and stripped to the bone type organizations that have little hope of success.

It is sad.

[the_poochies]

cbelt3 wrote:
The most interesting aspect of the study (thanks) is that the 'healthcare industry' began as a philanthropic organization, specifically 'The Blues". I remember when Blue Cross was a benign organization. Heck, my dad HAD Blue Cross insurance.

What is missing from the blurb (haven't read the book) is the very significant public health initiatives that grew out of the great diseases of the 20th century. Tuberculosis, Polio, Yellow Fever, etc... all created significant structural public health operations. And these hospitals and sanitariums were public operations.... no corporations, no philanthropic NGO's, etc...

A rational government *should* consider public health to have a level of importance right up there with defense. And in the "Great Society" days, we did. But nowadays, the public health organizations (and we DO have them) are stressed, cost-cut, and stripped to the bone type organizations that have little hope of success.

It is sad.

Well I'm glad that you can at least admit that point w/o resorting to the standard shouts of "socialism!"

Hospitals in my lower-middle-class neighborhood are closing because they are seeing too many uninsured patients. The uninsured patients treat the hospital as their local doctor's office because they can't financially afford to see a doctor on a regular basis. My state's charity care fund is inadequate to assist those hospitals.

Oddly enough, it was a Republican governor (Christine Todd Whitman) who pushed for the first low-income health insurance plan in the late 1990s as a long-term plan to save the health care system money by keeping lower-income patients healthier and get them preventative care. Unfortunately, that plan is constantly under attack come state budget season.

[cbelt3]

I do have to add this... Modern Medical care has made significant strides in terms of 'public health' issues. Immunizations, psychological drugs, fluoridation of water, sanitation systems, spraying for mosquitos, public education.... All of these probably led to the conclusions that 'public health' was taken care of by these cost reducing ideas.

And yes... they are enormous cost reducers. 25% of the southern population down with malaria vs. spraying ? Ka Ching !... 50% of the population sick from typhoid or cholera vs. sewage treatment systems ? Ka Ching ! ... and so forth.

[mattkime]

>>A rational government *should* consider public health to have a level of importance right up there with defense.

And "We The People" are the government, therefore "We The People" should be rational.

Unfortunately, we're less interested in find good solutions than expressing our ideals.

[the_poochies]

cbelt3 wrote:
I do have to add this... Modern Medical care has made significant strides in terms of 'public health' issues. Immunizations, psychological drugs, fluoridation of water, sanitation systems, spraying for mosquitos, public education.... All of these probably led to the conclusions that 'public health' was taken care of by these cost reducing ideas.

And yes... they are enormous cost reducers. 25% of the southern population down with malaria vs. spraying ? Ka Ching !... 50% of the population sick from typhoid or cholera vs. sewage treatment systems ? Ka Ching ! ... and so forth.

Yes, those are all valid points. And since we're supposed to be politically ranting here, that's why the 40-year period of disinvestment of public health initiatives like the Clean Water act (that has led to not only improved health, but economic growth as formerly dirty waterfront areas are transformed into new living, employment places) really worries me.

I guess on the bright side, the move towards residential mental health treatment - along with the growth in medicine to treat mental illness - has been a positive trend over that same period.

[Mac1337]

the_poochies wrote:

Hospitals in my lower-middle-class neighborhood are closing because they are seeing too many uninsured patients. The uninsured patients treat the hospital as their local doctor's office because they can't financially afford to see a doctor on a regular basis.

There are no guarantees that they would even if medical care was free. There are people who do not see a doctor until they get sick. How many get flu shots? I like to see what % of people who go to ER are in fact uninsured. Every group puts out myths and repeats them to advance their own agenda.

[RgrF]

That's obviously how you operate, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone else does. I doubt that poochies does.

[the_poochies]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=the_poochies]

Hospitals in my lower-middle-class neighborhood are closing because they are seeing too many uninsured patients. The uninsured patients treat the hospital as their local doctor's office because they can't financially afford to see a doctor on a regular basis.

There are no guarantees that they would even if medical care was free. There are people who do not see a doctor until they get sick. How many get flu shots? I like to see what % of people who go to ER are in fact uninsured. Every group puts out myths and repeats them to advance their own agenda.
Sorry, Dak. My "myth" was based on this news story from my 'hood.

[Mac1337]

"The JAMA study also found that patients with public insurance, such as Medicaid and Medicare, are more likely to crowd into emergency rooms for minor complaints than are the uninsured. Only about 17 percent of E.R. visits in the United States in the last year studied were by uninsured patients, about the same as their share of the population"