From: Patricia.Bregman@f24.n3602.z1.fidonet.org (Patricia Bregman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Oregon plan
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:24:02 GMT
Reply-To: Patricia.Bregman@f24.n3602.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3602/24 - ADAnet One (tm) Net, Pinson AL
X-Fidonet: Able News Conference

Index Number: 24370

[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

JC>In a message to Patricia Bregman <06 Aug 92 10:22> Earl Appleby wrote:

JC>     The Oregon Plan will pay $250,000 for the liver/kidney transplant
  >procedure for a non-alcoholic.  They will not pay the same amount for a
  >new born with a gestation period of only 22 weeks and a 15oz birth
  >weight.

JC>     First, let me make it perfectly clear that I am a supporter of the
  >Medicare and Medicaid programs.  However, I do not believe that we
  >should fund every procedure and medical cure that comes down the pike.

           I don't think you will get alot of disagreement from anyone
           these days, including me who lives a wonderful, complete life
           because of the excellent care I get in Ontario with a
           government-run insurance plan (not government-run health care
           as is often and inaccurately stated)  The question is how to
           determine what is or is not useful treatment and how to apply
           that in a health insurance plan.

  >it is already funding.  The government must stop spending more than it
  >takes in if our country is to retain autonomy.  Therefore, without
  >raising taxes significantly, it absolutely must find ways to cut things
  >that are already being funded.

           Attacking what will be funded this way does not necessarily
           limit costs - they intend to cut services rather than control
           costs.   There is nothing in that plan to deal with physician
           fees, cost of medication, hospital costs, etc and eliminate
           administrative costs.  Without those measures, the list of
           covered services will continue to decrease.

JC>     Aside from being financially impossible, I believe that Oregon is
  >better suited to determine the level of services available at the state
  >level.  At least they have a plan to curtail their soaring medical
  >costs.

        I agree with you on state control, although I do favour the
        approach Canada has taken, namely a very short piece of
        legislation, the Canada Health Act, which essentially says that
        in order to receive federal transfer payments provincial
        insurance plans must be universal, cover basic health care and
        be portable within Canada - that's it - no complicated
        regulations, etc.  Each province then has its own legislation,
        its own method of paying for the plan (eg. premiums, payroll
        tax, etc.) and is responsible for administration of the health
        care system, including hospital funding, negotiating fees with
        physicians, etc.

JC>--- XRS! 4.50+
  > * Origin:  Joe's Point - The Busted Flush BBS - Delaware -  (RAX
  >1:150/175.1)
  >---
  > * QNet3 * <ADANET> Connection RBBS - Pinson, AL - (205) 854-9074
  >
===
 * QNet3 * ADANET:41/62/19:Ability OnLine - Toronto Canada - 416/650-5411

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!3602!24!Patricia.Bregman
Internet: Patricia.Bregman@f24.n3602.z1.fidonet.org