The New National Health Plan Is Texting

theodp writes "With a gushing press release, Federal CTO Aneesh Chopra announced the launch of Text4baby, 'an unprecedented mobile health public-private partnership' designed to promote maternal and child health. Expectant women are instructed to 'Enter the date of the first day of your last menstrual period' to start receiving 'timely and expert health information through SMS text messages' until their child reaches the age of 12 months (limited to 3 free messages/week). The White House Blog has more information on the 'historic collaboration between industry, the health community and government.' Separately, the White House announced plans to spend $3,000 on 'Game-Changing' Solutions to Childhood Obesity. Once again, Dilbert proves to be scarily prescient."

Comments

Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys

[SmallFurryCreature]

Remember, slashdot is run by young rich white guys whose parents were all well-off. They don't need health-care right now, so screw everybody else.

For those of us on the continent, this whole thing is just another sign of the US tearing itself apart for some reason I at least cannot understand.

I am reminded a bit about the trouble britain went through in the 60/70's wear it was close to falling apart, almost as if the people hated their own country.

In the US it seems people hate so much the idea that someone else might get a penny out of them, they rather spend a dollar even if that someone is themselves.

Really, what is so damned scary about a national health care system. Surely paying less for a system (the US spends more and gets less then any other western nation) would be a good thing? Or is spending 1000 dollars on bad health care to a private company good and 100 dollars on good health care to the government bad?

Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys

[vadim_t]

So, in exchange for the government not taking money from you, you'd rather pay more than the government would take to a third party, to get worse service? That doesn't make sense.

The way I see it, money is money. If in place A getting a good health plan costs $X and in place B a bad one costs $2X, then place A is better regardless of who is getting the money.

Yeah, you can rant about "choice" and "not being forced to", but you don't have any real choice anyway. You're guaranteed to have to pay for medicine at some point in your life, one way or another.

Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys

[TheSpoom]

I give you H.R. 676, a bill which would provide simple, single-payer health care to all legal residents of the United States, but keeps getting buried by Congress in favour of their massive, complex "health reform" bill that ironically does far less for the people. This bill would actually make the US health care system better than that of most Canadian provinces, since it covers things like dental and prescription medication.

It has been shown several times that single-payer care costs far, far less in the long run, and allows you to keep everything you have now, minus the insurance company that wants profit over your own health. Unfortunately, it seems that the right wing has successfully equated the term "single payer" with socialism or communism (OMG THE REDS, RUN AWAY!), so I doubt we'll see anything this sane in the next ten years.

Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys

[gujo-odori]

I can maybe answer some of that.

Having lived in countries with national health care systems (someplace in Asia), with private insurance (US), and with no insurance at all but low prices (some other palce in Asia), I have found the highest level of care by far to be in the United States. The worst care, by far, was in the place with no insurance but cheap prices. In most hospitals there, if you're not bribing the staff (and thus raising the price), you'll get almost no care. The place with a national health insurance system was a middle case. Primary care and ob/gyn care is reasonably good (but not as good as the US; our first child was conceived in that country but born in the other place in Asia) and the co-pays were roughly price-equivalent to the US. Hospital stays there, however, fall far short of what you get here. I spend a week in the hospital there, and it was most unpleasant. The national health insurance only paid for a bed in a six-patient room and I was surrounded by people who were far sicker than I, with all the noise, smells, and potential cross-infection that goes with that. The equipment was lousy (I couldn't even get an IV tree with wheels; I had to carry the thing to the communal bathroom; no in-room bathroom or shower). The nursing care was fair, and the food was disgusting. I lived off the convenience store in the basement and a pizza a friend brought me.

Do I want the US health care system to become like the middle case I described? No way. We're way, way better than that now. My wife, who is from one of those other places, agrees that our quality of health care is the best. Going to a national insurance system will probably pull that quality down.

What, then, do we need to fix? A few things:

1) Fix the extremely hostile and litigious malpractice lawsuit industry; it's a major factor in what makes health care and insurance so expensive here. It desperately needs reform. And by "fix" I mean that it needs to be far, far harder to sue someone for malpractice, that you need to really prove they fucked up hugely, along the lines of something that could cause a license suspension or revocation.

2) The way health insurance companies can screw people by doing things like declaring a pre-existing condition uncovered, charging people who actually get sick and use their insurance more money (it's supposed to be a shared risk pool; everyone should pay the same).

3) Get better standardization of forms, etc., so it doesn't cost doctors so much to deal with health insurance. The best thing about the country with national health insurance is that doctors easily knew where they stood and didn't need to employ one or more insurance specialists.

4) Use the forms in points 1-3 to make health insurance cheaper and available to all. Subsidize the cost with tax credits for people who are low income if you have to.

That's how we need to reform health care. What we definitely don't need is national health insurance.

What's so scary about a national health insurance system? To *really* fuck something up requires a government. The US government, in particular is very good at that, and is also very good at ridiculously underestimating what something will cost (or more likely, lying about it). One thing is for certain: spending 100 dollars on government health care will most certainly not get you better health care than spending 100 dollars on private health care. The government never, ever does things better and cheaper. Typically, it's both worse and more expensive.

Government is rarely the solution. More government is even more rarely the solution. Mostly, government is the problem. Sure, we have improvements to be made, but a huge, bloated and expensive government health care bureaucracy isn't the way to do it.

Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys

[hey!]

Depends on how you define and measure "charity".

We don't cover all our citizens with health care, and private charity does not by any stretch of the imagination come even close to making up that gap. If we include taking care of our own people European social democracies fare better than if we exclude that.

Now with the exception of anarchists, who have an internally consistent position, nobody literally believes that "government is theft." What people mean is that "government taxation to support programs that are morally indefensible is theft." That's a position a Republican stalwart can share with a socialist pacifist who can't abide Democrats because they are too right wing. The only difference is in the details of which programs are considered morally indefensible.

"Government is theft" is the kind of emotional political slogan I can't abide from either side ("TAX WEALTH - NOT WORK"). Such slogans are nearly always in code. There is an underlying paradigm people have in mind when they say them, usually an irrefutable one (the meddling, officious government bureaucrat, the ruthless, well connected crony capitalist who games the system) that by process of synecdoche they stretch to cover a broader class (all government workers, all wealthy people).

It's not possible to have a rational discussion on this kind of basis.

Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys

[TheSpoom]

Even a very basic mathematical analysis shows that any of these systems is less efficient than "customer pays."

You're right, of course. We can just conveniently ignore all the moral implications of that. And comparing people's health to simply fueling their cars? Brilliant. Oh, and let's also pretend that everyone should be covered already since Medicare exists, even though it's heavily restricted and there's a huge subset of working poor that don't qualify for it simply because they work. Those people should totally quit their jobs so they can get on welfare for the health care! Or alternately, pay for a private health insurance plan that they can't afford (somehow). What's that? They should have insurance through their employer? Fat chance for a large percentage of people who work for small companies that don't have employee health insurance plans.

By the way, HR676 doesn't in any way affect your relationship with your doctor and/or hospital other than who they bill. Doctors and hospitals are still private. But feel free to conveniently ignore that and rant on anyway.

I mean really, we could just boil this down to "I've got mine, so fuck the rest of you."

Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys

[jcr]

What Madison meant by regulation, and what our government does today, are greatly divergent. To Madison, "regulation" meant to keep commerce regular, by enforcing the rule of law, and providing a court system to adjudicate contract disputes.

-jcr

Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys

[Mephistro]

...but i absolutely don't care about your health and i am sure you feel the same towards me. ...

Wrong, ohhh, so wrong.

I'd rather help you with your health, through taxes, than having you around with an undiagnosed and/or untreated case of Tuberculosis, AIDS, severe depression or Schizophrenia.

Also, your poor health could mean that your children would have less opportunities in life, and stand more chances of becoming criminals, creating huge costs for the rest of the society, including me. I don't think, either, that "Let the sins of the father fall over his children" is morally correct. Not in a million years.

Re:Great.

[malkavian]

Demographically, most people have a mobile phone.
Now, you have a nice, efficient, easy way to get a big win with about 90% or more of the population that could help stave off a lot of resource being spent in treatment down the line, and you gripe that it doesn't cover 100% of the population? Wow.

Being part of the NHS in the uk, I get to see a lot of initiatives rolled out. Some politically driven, and they're frequently not so great. Some well thought out. There's always discussion on who gets left out, or missed, and how they can be brought into the system effectively. There's a (much derided) program that has a web, and phone presence that gives you the general idea of whether or not you should go see a GP, or head to the hospital (or in some cases, take a paracetamol, and wait for a day to see what happens).
Though it's not the greatest system, in the majority of cases, it does the job. Now, for this, you need an internet access point, or a telephone. If you don't have either of those, then you can't use the service, and have to go to see your General Practitioner to see if you have a problem.

This isn't a "you take this service, or you have no support", it's a method of aleviating the load on the system by offering a lightweight alternative that you can use if you have the resources to use it, having a low cost on both sides (provider and client), rather than much higher resource cost (time and/or money) otherwise.