An Obvious Question: Will Swine Flu Make Health Care Available for ALL?

[IdaBriggs]

Once everyone realizes that if the guy down the street gets swine flu, and isn't treated, THEN YOU CAN GET IT, TOO, and so can your kids because his kids are in school after being exposed --

WILL AMERICA WAKE UP AND REALIZE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE IS FREAKING COMMON SENSE?

:rant:

[area51]

1. I used to wonder about that.

Now I think that if we do have a pandemic in the U.S., the govt. will think that validates their idea that we should institute GingrichCare, which is a law forcing people to buy private, unregulated insurance, as if this would solve the healthcare problem.

[underseasurveyor]

6. Good point but the timing on this flu right now

With so many people unemployed and unable to afford to keep their houses much less buy healthcare.....Ummm

And in light of these really hard times it really goes to prove that anything like GingrichCare always has the potential to be a bad idea.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Well we need to demand it

but yes, it could be one of the side effects

I guess it is time to write critters and ahem demand it

Sanders said we should do this exactly yesterday on a show on the teevee! The fact that they had Bernie on had me going WHOOOHOOO

Thanks Ed

[cali]

3. it's pretty unconnected.

Anyone who has swine flu will be able to get treatment, and of course, there's no guarantee that if it does become a pandemic that countries with single payer healthcare will fare any better.

[IdaBriggs]

5. But if you don't have health insurance, odds are good you aren't going

to the doctor for an early diagnosis. I am curious as to whether or not 'single payer' countries will indeed, fare better. My logical assumption is that they will.

But I could be wrong.

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. LOGIC? What are you talking about?

in all seriousness some folks here cannot see that connection or the more obvious one to GDP and the economic recovery

[cali]

8. hard to prevent the spread whether single payer or not

I mean people are contagious when they go to the doctor and they're in contact with others. I think the most important thing is how effective the public health measures are.

But I could also be wrong.

[dustbunnie]

12. No, you appear to be quite right. Canada has single payer and yet -

here's what they concluded following the SARS outbreak in Ontario some years ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sars/sars_commission.html

[cali]

13. thanks. there are clearly some people

here who need to read this.

[underseasurveyor]

9. But those without healthcare

will not seek medical attention early or at all since they have no insurance. Early detection and containment I feel is critical when dealing with a potentially fast spreading, deadly virus.

In the mean time how many people will be exposed all because someone didn't, couldn't, or won't seek early diagnosis and treatment because they can't afford the ensuing hospital bills?

[cali]

11. we'll see.

I'm not convinced that it would make a substantial difference as far as containment goes.

There are lots of reasons why I support single payer, but I don't know that the containment of a pandemic is a valid one. Neither does anyone else on this thread.

[MountainLaurel]

4. We can hope

I've heard public health officials explain healthcare for all are a national security issue (because at that point after 9/11 only DHS-related projects were getting attention). Hospital reports are the primary measure for the emergence of an epidemic. Because so many people can't afford health care, they don't go to the doctor unless they're really, really sick. So by the time the normal measures would show an increase in a particular disorder, it would have been underway for a while. The problem is compounded by the fact that the people who don't have health insurance are often the ones who are exposed to the public: retail and food service workers, people who rely on public transportation, day care workers, etc.

[librechik]

10. Sadly yes

if it is severe enough--if it fizzles, it will be used against us.

(!?!)

[Igel]

14. No.

The sheer number of general practitioners/internists that are practicing cannot handle everybody, even for a single check-up per person spread out over the course of the year.

This is just now percolating into the consciousnesses of some of the people calling for universal healthcare, but it's unlikely to make it into a sufficient number of brains.

I call you attention to the campaign to reduce class size in California. They mandated smaller class size, i.e., hiring more teachers. The result? They had a real problem recruiting teachers from across the US. Then, as more states reduced class size, there was a shortfall in teachers, and "alternative certification" methods came into vogue to help get people into teaching. However, immediately it was found that many of them were unqualified and there was a very large drop-out problem among new, alternatively=credentialed teachers. Of course, it's made the "bad teachers in bad schools" problem even worse, as good teachers have an easier time transferring to high-achieving schools.

So the administration is already saying ways must be found to increase the numbers of GPs, either by expanding medical school programs or causing new doctors to not become specialists. One way is by altering medicare reimbursements--drive behavior by alterning fiscal policy, and making being a GP pay better. This is, at best, a long-term solution that does nothing to solve a short-term problem.