National Health Care is NOT the answer. Medicare is broke, and partisan politics are spreading fear about cuts to the program. The Government is broke, so a bailout is not likely. Imagine a giant sucking sound coming from National ObummerCare, how would it be funded? ObummerCare limits access to treatment based on allocation of funds. Who would want to be diagnosed late in the year when all monies are already spent for treatment, and the only option is end of life planning? Dealing with the red tape within insurance companies is hard enough, imagine the beurocratic BS one would endure with dealings in National Health Care.
Medicare is a form of national health care, look how that works: An office call is $200. Medicare pays $15. This explains why those without coverage are sent to collection. This is why those who have private insurance are charged so much more. The inflated prices are due to a loss of revenue from Medicare, Doctors have to make that up from the rest of us.
Before jumping to conclusions about the wonders of NHC, look at the costs where it is offered. Compare tax rates. Denmark has great health care, but there is no way the people in the US would endure those tax rates. High taxes would kill more people than NHC would save!

Sounds to me like maybe we need Walmart running our healthcare system. Having dealt with the VA and experienced first hand the amount of waste, inefficiency and downright dangerous medical care that comes out of that "national healthcare system", I'd rather take my chances with TPTB in Bentonville.

I guess it depends on how the tally them. I have two items that I take daily and refill monthly. Is that treated as two prescriptions or is each refill considered an individually processed prescription?

@Bob -

I'm not sure how Kohl defines 'prescription,' in the article. However, logic would dictate that in your example, you would have only two prescriptions counting towards those numbers, as the indefinite refills wouldn't actually count as 'new' prescriptions each time they are refilled, unless each refill is individually and expressly ordered by your doctor. But that's just a logical assumption on my part, premised upon a reasonable inference.

In either case, it's still a remarkable number of prescription drugs. So much so that traces of prescription drug components are starting to show up in many municipalities water and sewage supplies.

It's time to take the profit out of insurance and have it be used in the manner it was explained to me : i.e. a pool of money used to pay expenses. Instead it is a get-rich quick scheme for executives who milk all they can, deny coverage, and mismanage funds.

Look at the growth of dental care and the wealth of Dentists - it is all driven by insurance. Everyone (with insurance) now goes at least every 6 months to the dentist, has unnatural super bright white teeth, all types of expensive cosmetic treatments - and the reason for this growth is insurance money. It is a misallocation of Capital.

A National. non-profit, single payer would be much more efficient. Euthanasia also needs to be allowed in terminal cases. There is ALWAYS a limited supply of money - so keeping a corpse alive at great expense denies others who need treatment and can be returned to productive lives. Before I get the hand-wringing comments about calling for Euthenasia - be honest with yourself and me - life boat ethics IS a part of everyday life - your discomforct with it does not mean it goes away - you just let others make those decisions for you.

@enicar333... On your call for euthanasia, you need to delineate your point further. I think many people are/could be agreeable with following a 'passive' euthanasia course(ie.DNR orders). The ethics involved in pursing 'active' euthanasia(ie. Dr. Kevorkian) are significantly more involved and intricate;it plows head on, directly into, strong and widely held moral and religious beliefs.

Just to build on what Jay said, you're attempting to apply hard logic to an extremely emotional issue (end of life). DNR is about the best one can hope for and even that, at the end, calls for decision making amongst multiple parties (sometimes including the person facing their death, depending on their mental capacity), not all of whom can necessarily agree that the end is imminent and that further measures should not be taken. That can also include multiple physicians as well. I went through this not long ago myself with a relative and while I tend to lean in the direction of what you're suggesting, I was only one amongst 6 people involved in making the decision. The main reason this has become more of an issue these days is that we've advanced to the point where there are so many options to be tried towards the end. I'm old enough to remember other relatives for whom those options didn't exist and for whom DNR was pretty much the only option, whether one wanted it or not.

As regards overtreatment in general, we as a society insist we look and feel like we're still in our 20s, 20 or more years beyond having left them and medical science is only too happy to assist us attempting to achieve that goal, at an enormous overall cost. I don't see that changing anymore than I see EOL decisions changing. Nobody, frankly wants insurance companies, the government or even doctors completely calling the shots. Once again, the two edged sword of technological advance.

Interesting topic – I hope you don’t mind if I weigh in?

Whenever it comes to EOL decisions, I'm constantly reminded of the closing scene from the film The Mist (2007). Essentially, the film teaches that you never know if/when an unexpected 'miracle' will happen. But, if you've already ‘pulled the plug’ on another, even if you've based your decision to do so on the very best information available to you, then it's obviously too late to be undone. And, you will be forced to live with that decision/act for the rest of your natural / un-natural life, which could be a devastating ordeal - especially if the facts that you used to form your decision/act happen to change after-the-fact, such as they did in The Mist. Could you honestly live with yourself knowing that you made the wrong call? I honestly don’t know if I could, and even then, I would never be the same again. I guess that’s why I’m against euthanizing pets/animals unless they have reached the end of their life expectancy.

So, I guess I'm a ‘decide for yourself’ kind of guy, but hands off making a decision for other's lives.

I was just reading a blog that was discussing doctors when they die. The study showed that they avoid any extraordinary EOL treatments for themselves and prefer to die quietly and with dignity. The thought is that they better understand the limits of medical treatment and accept this.

@AWD -

I love your simple, direct, and unsympathetic responses! Kudos to you my friend!

BTW - I loved your recent posts regarding 'Whitefish Bay!'

AWD has to keep it short. Whenever he tries to articulate his thoughts he just gets censored.

@patchreader123 -

Not bad ideas at all. However, I'm afraid that the entire system needs to be reformed all together to truly fix the problems we have with our health care system. And personally, I'm not against a government sponsored but private sector controlled universal solution, but it must done correctly. And Obamacare doesn’t even come close to doing it correctly!

After all, even Lee Iacocca supported a universal health care system!

JRH:

Did you catch the 60 Minutes episode re: medical tourism? State of the art hospitals in Tailand and India provide cutting edge medical care at a fraction of the cost of that in the U.S.

Interesting point is that there are no for-profit, medical insurance companies in these countries.

@patchreader123 -

Sorry, I missed that one! Funny, that the entire philosophical concepts behind insurance are heavily socialistic in nature, and yet, we managed to turn it into a for-profit capitalistic enterprise.

I wonder if we'll start to see the rise of non-profit and/or cooperative insurance providers in the near future, which would actually be the best way to drive costs down and provide a level of competition to the for-profit companies unlike anything they’ve ever seen before!

I’m actually surprised the big labor unions haven’t tried doing something like this yet, as opposed to entities like WEAC that primarily act to take advantage of anti-competitive contracts.

Interesting none the less!

Is there a particular party that is for or against euthanasia or infanticide or abortion? Can I vote for someone that would allow this so we can cut down on our costs?

But you have to admit, David, that when it come to efficiency, the party that's backed by and always supports Planned Parenthood does a much better job of eliminating those potential unwanted drains on society - before they can even become such.

And if the now deceased person was employed, he also just created a job! So, it's all good.