Moderator: Soñadora
Orestes Munn wrote:Military medicine.She's doIng OK, thanks. You keep up the strong recovery!
Orestes Munn wrote:Went out sailing for a couple of hours in high teens and chop and now, after a rather stout drink, spouse says she has experienced a noticeable improvement in knee wellbeing. Go know.
Larry, I cling to the myth that an O-6 physician and family can still get good care at a big, quasi-academic, MTF. I am still overwhelmingly grateful for what WRAMC neurosurgery did for me and the speed with which they did it. I know a guy who took the same problem to Kaiser at about the same time and he's walking with a cane because they dicked around. Of course my surgeon is now retired and working at GWU...
Orestes Munn wrote:I belive U.S. military medicine covers about 5 dependants and retirees for each active duty service member.
Incidentally, wife is noticing a pronounced reduction in knee pain after lube injection and can now concentrate on how shitty her other knee and various hips and ankles feel.
LarryHoward wrote:Orestes Munn wrote:I belive U.S. military medicine covers about 5 dependants and retirees for each active duty service member.
Incidentally, wife is noticing a pronounced reduction in knee pain after lube injection and can now concentrate on how shitty her other knee and various hips and ankles feel.
While true, the only retirees seeing military docs are some of them in the catchment area of major military medical centers. The rest of us get told to see "participating civilian providers" so it might be more accurate to say that the medical coverage addressees 5 dependents and retirees for each active duty member. We could fix that with universal care.......
Orestes Munn wrote:Yup. Don't get this old Pinko started!
Ish wrote:My doctor says anyone giving painful injections just doesn't have a clear idea of how things work. The first time he shot my knee he felt around and made a little dot with a pen. No pain. The several times afterwards he just eyeballed it and not one hurt more than a mild prick. The surgeon who is doing my knee gave me the last shot and it hurt like hell. My usual doctor is a wizard with a needle, however.
Wearing my knee brace has been a major plus while sailing, but I have a very strange tan.
Bull City wrote:By universal care, do you (pinkos) mean single payer as well? Sometimes they go together. I understand that Nixon favored single payer. FWIW, at one time D. Trump did too.
I see benefits in both.
Bull City wrote:By universal care, do you (pinkos) mean single payer as well? Sometimes they go together. I understand that Nixon favored single payer. FWIW, at one time D. Trump did too.
I see benefits in both.
Orestes Munn wrote:Bull City wrote:By universal care, do you (pinkos) mean single payer as well? Sometimes they go together. I understand that Nixon favored single payer. FWIW, at one time D. Trump did too.
I see benefits in both.
I could go single, like Canada, oligo, like Germany, or almost any coherent system with fewer hands in the pot and a reasonable floor under quality of coverage. People should also have a deluxe private option.
kimbottles wrote:Orestes Munn wrote:Bull City wrote:By universal care, do you (pinkos) mean single payer as well? Sometimes they go together. I understand that Nixon favored single payer. FWIW, at one time D. Trump did too.
I see benefits in both.
I could go single, like Canada, oligo, like Germany, or almost any coherent system with fewer hands in the pot and a reasonable floor under quality of coverage. People should also have a deluxe private option.
Yup! Everyone should get decent generally equal healthcare. And it should not be expected from their employer as that makes for way too many variables. Buy up deluxe private options, yes.
LarryHoward wrote:kimbottles wrote:Orestes Munn wrote:Bull City wrote:By universal care, do you (pinkos) mean single payer as well? Sometimes they go together. I understand that Nixon favored single payer. FWIW, at one time D. Trump did too.
I see benefits in both.
I could go single, like Canada, oligo, like Germany, or almost any coherent system with fewer hands in the pot and a reasonable floor under quality of coverage. People should also have a deluxe private option.
Yup! Everyone should get decent generally equal healthcare. And it should not be expected from their employer as that makes for way too many variables. Buy up deluxe private options, yes.
Absolutely. My only caveat is that the base has to be sufficient for the majority of need. While I really like the quality of basic care in Australia and the availability of private insurance to supplement, my SIL got decent care for some mental health issues under the basic care when she was in crisis -as in picked up in her nightgown in the street corner following the voices. Once stabilized through inpatient care (voluntary or not) she would get pretty poor follow up care until the next crisis. We would get the 2AM calls several times yearly, 12,000 miles from the crisis. Once we learned about the availability of supplemental coverage, we bought it for her with a focus on MH, dental and preventative coverage. Night and day difference with continuity of caretaker, visiting nurse (take your meds, are we dear?), etc.
Point being that the baseline care seems a lot like an HMO. Good care for healthy folks with episodes of trauma, illness and injury but lacking where continuity is is needed.
kimbottles wrote:Medicare seems to work somewhat, why not just expand it to everyone? Then we can get down to tweaking it until we make it efficient, fair and effective.
(If we reform our stupid income tax system and get rid of all of the special deals we could even afford it while lowering the tax rates.)
Good lord, I sound like a liberal.
BeauV wrote:I think Dr. Munn nailed it. Unless there is a popular vote, which universal single payer might win, there is absolutely no way it will happen. One need only take a brief read of the donations made by the insurance companies to understand why. What we are really talking about is putting some very large and profitable insurance companies out of business. These companies are actually owned,in large measure, by pension funds. Effectively legislating them out of business would have massive financial impacts, I fear we'd have to simply buy them and distribute the value to their shareholder (many of us). By comparison, this would be massively more disruptive financially than nationalizing the railroads or airlines.