Pointing the bone? Probably a cheaper way would be to have greater education (perhaps starting very early in school) about the healthiest ways to live for everyone. Surely the recipe for avoiding heart disease for those with a susceptibility is the same as for those without? But you are right prevention is cheaper than cure. I can't remember where, but I have seen studies equating dollar amounts spent on prevention being X times more useful than the same amount on cure. Hence all the anti-smoking push worldwide (we've had that discussion here).

Exactly why my health insurance pays a considerable amount for me to have massages and chiro and counselling and dental checkups. Because their actuaries have calculated that it's cheaper for them to pay for that now, than to pay for what may or may not happen as a result of muscle strain or stress later in life. And I'm very happy to take them up on their offer too :)

"The Economist" this week has a pull-out section on the American economy that covers this kind of base. I think it supports CWT's general line. Some interesting material about how runaway health costs depress wages; plus non-political aspects like the almost total lack of digitisation of medical records, which means it's easier for a doctor to do an expensive test again than to find the results of the last one.

Here, by the way, no one gets to see a specialist without going through a primary-care physician first. This keeps costs down, because specialists are the people who have hammers and so see everything as a lucrative nail.

Here's a fairly current article on the issues and potential costs, benefits, etc.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNMA17VE77.DTL

It concerns me greatly that all the discussion is about "costs" and things like taxing medical benefits.... read that as a tax increase. The problem, in my view, is not so much that US health care is expensive, but rather it is simply a poor model that leaves 46 million uninsured and that doesn't get the job done even though it is very expensive.

It confuses me greatly that at one point we can save billions by fixing the system, but in the following paragraphs it states that it will cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Huh? Are we going to save money or spend a lot more?

No plan will be affordable if we continue to allow foreign corporations to destroy the country. We like to think that health care costs have risen dramatically, but while they have risen it's the fact that wages have dropped that hurts everything from car and home sales to small businesses. Lack of health insurance is just another symptom of the real problem.

It seems the Senate's version of what our health care plan will look like is in the books.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/...RlcnNlbmF0ZWg-

I think this thing is dead in the water absent some really serious revisions. Fixes some obvious problems, like guarantees everyone can buy insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions and at the same price as everybody else. Somehow, I just don't see that working without a government plan (strongly opposed by Republicans).... we really going to make a private insurance company take on a million dollar vent dependent patient just because they applied? Even though a handful of patients like that will push the company into bankruptcy? I just don't see that happening even if the insurance companies can pass the extra costs on to all their policy holders.

Partially paid for with fines.... like billions of dollars in fines on individuals who don't think they can afford insurance. Right.

Partially paid for with reductions in Medicare (public insurance for elderly) and Medicaid (public insurance for poor and disabled) spending. Again, right. How you gonna do that? Only a couple ways... cut covered services, ration care, cut provider reimbursement to the point they won't participate or cut the number of people eligible. This one scares me.... gives the appearance this whole thing is a scam and they really aren't serious about doing any of it or are intentionally hiding the costs.

Just don't like the way this is headed and I am concerned with what appears to be an intentional withholding of details (translation... details to be worked out later by committees or government agencies.... devil is in the details).

Public will never understand this proposal.

It's also going to be partially paid for by saving the money that currently gets spent (by the government) in costly emergency rooms where the uninsured must go now for treatment.

The biggest problem I see here is that the insurance industry is successfully marketing its view of covering people as an unnecessary expense. The reality is that when the insurance companies avoid covering people they shift the burden onto the tax payers. If taxpayers are going to pay the health costs anyway, then there's no reason to let the insurance industry make a profit on the health industry.

I don't like the way this is headed either. Because the insurance industry isn't screaming their heads off about this I'm afraid the tax payer will continue to be ripped off.