Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 I also think we should continue to talk more about herbs, but no one should be inhibited from posting on other issues crucial to our practice. This forum continues to create much awareness on many issues for very large numbers of people Update: SB-921 (Kuehl) Single Payer Health Care SB 921, was last amended June 26, 2003, in the Assembly Health Committee. Per the author’s office, SB-921, is now a “Two-Year” Bill. Senator Kuehl has set an Interim Hearing on the Bill for November 12, 2003, in the State Capitol in Sacramento. Her intent is to move the Bill in January of 2004. This Bill does include Acupuncture and OM within the plan. I will keep you informed on this one as it is being developed and the November hearing material is made available to the public. Ironic that a bill that introduces a socialized form of healthcare may be one of the best chances our field has at widespread penetration. We should perhaps consider supporting federal legislation of this type rather than allow our lobbying efforts to be concentrated on more libertarian private practice models. The main arguments made against socialized medicine typically center around lack of access to expensive procedures without excessive red tape and long waiting periods. However HMOs also impose such burdens and unlike government have no legal or moral incentive to be responsive to the citizenry. Almighty dollar. that's all. One thing is for sure, countries with socialized medicine spend less on healthcare than those with private insurance only. And the morbidity and mortality statistics are better in many of those countries than they are in the US (such as Japan, France, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands) While it is indeed true that a number of procedures more commonly done in the US are less available in Canada and much of Europe as part of mainstream national healthcare, that is a skewed statistic. All the procedures available in the US are available in Canada and Europe, for those willing to pay. National health insurance merely offers coverage to everyone, just like social security. No one is constrained from making other retirement plans. However when national insurance is offered as a tax benefit, the vast majority of people will opt in. This means these people may have less access to certain procedures. Yet the fact still remains that many of these populations are more healthy than our own. Or perhaps their form of socialized medicine achieves better results through means other than expensive livesaving procedures. perhaps even involving real preventive medicine such as nutrition, exercise and stress management. A philosophy into which TCM perhaps fits more nicely than with the capitalistic approach to medicine. I am curious, how many of you would take a job as a provider of acupuncture in a national health insurance system at say 75K per year plus benefits. Now having said all that, I will admit I am personally reluctant to see my taxes increase for such a purpose, even if it would cost me less than private health insurance would. Because I believe our current form of government is unfit to manage such a scheme. Big government must at least be a counterweight to big business and in some cases, it might even be determined that it is in the national interest for big government to guarantee citizens something big business cannot (like healthcare in every modern country in the world except the US). But as long as big business controls big government, there is no hope that any national healthcare system would be anything but a debacle that somehow enriches those who already have vested interests in the healthcare industry. It is vital that any such national or state insurance reimburse us fairly. Those who support such an approach should lobby for a reasonable fee. Keep in mind that the very high worker's comp reimbursment in states like CA will soon be a thing of the past. We should be careful not tarnish this state health insurance with the stigma of worker's comp, which is widely believed by legislators and big business to be rife with fraud and abuse. Lobbying for excessive compensation for our services may initiate a right wing backlash against a perceived moneygrab. Chinese Herbs " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds " -- Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 While it is indeed true that a number of procedures more commonly done in the US are less available in Canada >>>And there is no difference in general outcomes between US and Canada, suggesting that many of the procedures are unnecessary Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 At 10:13 AM -0500 9/5/03, Alon Marcus wrote: >While it is indeed true that a number of procedures more commonly done in >the US are less available in Canada >>>>And there is no difference in general outcomes between US and Canada, >suggesting that many of the procedures are unnecessary -- Surely this isn't the only conclusion to be drawn. If there are more procedures that produce the same result than in Canada, and the procedures that are used in the US but not used in Canada are equally efficacious, then they may offer greater choice. Greater choice may be clinically useful under clinically or socially different circumstances. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 , Rory Kerr <rory.kerr@w...> wrote: the > procedures that are used in the US but not used in Canada are equally > efficacious, then they may offer greater choice. Greater choice may > be clinically useful under clinically or socially different but it is typically a choice to do something unnecessarily expensive to achieve the same goal and that is the issue. I do not want any portion of my insurance premiums or tax dollars to go towards expensive procedures when there are cheaper alternatives. If people want choice, they can pay for it out of pocket. that type of choice is not a burden we should spread over the entire insured populace. if we just bagged many of those procedures as in the oregon state rationed healthcare, costs would be controlled. it is up to the govvernment to insure basic care in some fashion, not access to every luxury imaginable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.