Re: The Near-Necessity of Health Insurance

From: IN%"tcmay@got.net" 18-SEP-1996 02:54:27.36
Personally, I have not been a patient in a hospital in my entire adult life. Nor have I seen a doctor, except for a mandatory college physical in 1970 and an insurance company physical in 1977. I just haven't broken any bones, had any serious illnesses, or felt the need to visit a doctor, an emergency room, or a walk-in clinic of any sort. I suppose I've been lucky. Also, I dislike hospitals and avoid doctors unless there seems to be a compelling need. So far, there has not been.
While this is certainly your business, I would suggest at least one physical a year, including blood work, as a good preventative measure... I believe it _has_ been shown to extend lives; I can do a Medline lookup if desired.
In other words, the person who insures himself (through savings and investments) and who offers to pay for treatment out of his own funds, may be at a serious disadvantage. He pays the inflated rates for services, and may face delays in being admitted to a hospital.
[...]
(Obviously the folks who use their insurance routinely, as one of my engineers once used to do (he'd take his kids to the hospital every time they sneezed), are being subsidized by those of us who avoid hospitals at all costs.)
Actually, the major subsidy appears to be that employer-paid health insurance isn't a taxable benefit. The status regarding self-insured persons such as you is constantly changing, but they're looking at subsidizing that also. Essentially, taxes paid by those with low or no employer-paid health insurance are subsidizing those with high-cost employer-paid health insurance. -Allen

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, E. Allen Smith wrote:
While this is certainly your business, I would suggest at least one physical a year, including blood work, as a good preventative measure... I believe it _has_ been shown to extend lives; I can do a Medline lookup if desired.
Save yourself the trouble. To _show_ such a thing one would have to: 1) get some 10.000 persons, chosen 'randomly' (at least not chosen when they have already consulted medical proffessionals) to willingly participate in the study and accept whatever group they would be coin-tossed into 2) randomize them into two groups of 5000 each 3) have one group checked anually and the other group not checked 4) wait 20-50 years 5) compare the groups for mortality Without consulting Medline I can tell you that such a study has not and will never be done. And all other approaches to try to prove such a thing could be heavily criticized for likely bias. Health tests, especially 'blood work', are done for profit, with very little, if anything at all, to gain for the subjects. (There are a few possible exceptions, f ex PAP-smears. Blood pressure is more doubtful and cholesterol is a joke. But I'm not going to argue on the details in this forum.) Asgaard
participants (2)
-
Asgaard
-
E. Allen Smith