Comments about ‘Social marketing key to improving health care’

In a free country, citizens have the right to make choices about lifestyle, eathing, exercise and engaging in dangerous activities.

However, it appears that not only is Obamacare forcing everyone to buy heatlh insurance, now the "food police" will be out ordering us to "Put down the fires and no one will get hurt!"

The "social marketing" gimmick may be an effective way to brainwash the masses into conformity, as the carrot.

There will surely be a stick as well, of fines, re-education camps, or something to make sure everyone does exactly what the big nanny state tells you.

We used to ahave freedom to make choices, take risks, make bad choices and bear full responsibility for them. Not any more.

Social marketing will make you forget how it used to be and prepare you for the pleasures of the socialist health care rationing and death panels.

And before some liberal screams "but taxpayers are paying for your health care" as an excuse to control your actions, remember that everyone used to be responsible for their own health care coverage- insurance, fee for service, out of pocket, helpful friends or charity. I'd gladly go back!

Go.

One key to reducing the cost of health care: Make people more accountable for their decisions regarding their health.

One key result of Obamacare: People will feel less accountable for their decisions regarding their health.

What do we do with the obese children of a 450 pound woman who gets her children up at 2 am to bake and eat brownies? What do we do with the chain smoker who spends a couple of weeks each winter in the ICU for lung problems at the taxpayers expense? What do we do with a child who gets a bean stuck in his ear and no doctor will see the child because of no money or insurance? What do we do about someone who has a severe case of gastritis and spends less than 2 hours in the ER which bills the taxpayers almost $2,500? What do we do about an abandoned mother of 4 small children who is unable to get medical attention until a brain tumor grows to bigger than a golf ball? Businesses get regulated because they dont exercise moral self restraint. We are losing our individual freedoms for the same reasons. At least Obama is trying to do something.

DN Subscriber at 10:43 p.m.

"The "social marketing" gimmick may be an effective way to brainwash the masses into conformity, as the carrot."

Social marketing is a communication tool that people use to get information and stay connected. If you're so easily brainwashed, I'd suggest throwing out the TV, the radio, newspapers, the telephone, quit going to church, and stop talking to people.

"Social marketing will make you forget how it used to be and prepare you for the pleasures of the socialist health care rationing and death panels."

I didn't realize social media was such a powerful mind control tool. Do you buy everything that is advertised to you through social marketing? Those businesses using it must be absolutely cleaning up. Socialist health care rationing? Death panels? Sounds like you've been drinking the tea. We already ration health care- those who can afford the best, get the best. Those who can afford the average, get the average. Those who can't afford it at all, get little to none.

"I'd gladly go back!"

Ahh, the golden age of yesterday. To what? The 1920's, 30's or 40's? Get cancer and be condemned to death?

To "FDRfan | 12:29 a.m." the problem is that Obama is taking away our freedoms.

Out of all your scenarios the only one that could exist under a private insurance system vs. universal care is getting the bean stuck in an ear. Even that one, you jumped to the extreme where you forgot that many doctors, hospitals, and clinics will write off care like that. You also overlook the simple fact that most doctor offices will make a payment plan so that the problem can be fixed.

Given the option of losing freedoms to Obamacare and doing nothing, wouldn't nothing have been the better choice?

Let's get real about health care. Consumers and doctors alike are driven by money.

Consumers who injur themselves while participating in risky activities (skiing, rock climbing, mountain biking) should pay higher premiums and deductibles. Insurance rates should go up for those who continually are getting injured because of carelessness - just like for auto insurance. Consumers who eat too much or overconsume sugary, fatty foods, and up getting preventable diseases from being overweight (diabetes, gout, hypertension, heart disease, knee and hip replacements, etc., etc.), should pay higher premiums or lose their ability to get those expensive surgeries.

This sounds harsh, but a large body of evidence suggests that when costs are not internalized, individuals will consistently choose to do more of these risky activities than if they bore the costs themselves. It is time we internalize the costs and incentivize better behavior.

This is a good direction to take health care. Unfortunately, changing peoples behavior is involved, and good luck with that. I've worked in the health care market for 34 years, and people just don't take charge of their health unless it hurts their wallets. And doctors have answers to health issues, but prescribing drugs is what they do because that's what people want, a quick fix, which doesn't work in health care. The feds will never be able to create a sustainable health care program! To learn, people will have to suffer from one of two pains, the pain of discipline, or the pain of regret.

As for the doctors, we need to get away from doctors with financial interests in businesses that they have the ability to influence. Doctors owning surgical centers, MRI or CAT scan machines is simply an invitation to make more money via a conflict of interest.

Most importantly, we need to get the market for information on doctors opened up. There should be readily available information on-line regarding doctor compitency. These should be both consumer and peer reviews based on actual case histories. Please don't argue that it is impossible because some doctors take more difficult cases. That fact can be taken into account in the peer review and, in my judgement, even by consumers as most understand when there situation is complicated or dire.

We need to get the market working. But when consumers have no incentive to adjust behavior, and doctors practice on a fee-for-service basis behind a veil of secrecy, are we surprised that we are overusing a system with too many services? Come on folks, it's time to get real about healthcare. It's time to get the market working.

If as the article suggest the health care affordability act makes assumptions about people making the right decisions such choosing the correct health plan, the "social marketing" people are making an assumption that they or someone they use to make up the information knows the correct decisions to be made so as to inform the consumer. Utterly, untrue. For example, will there be an option for insurance that does not use alopathic physician (the ones we call MD's for whom the word "quacks" originated as a short form of "quick-silver" prescribers.) If not, then there will be no "healthcare" only injury repair, drugs for treatment, and radiation. Thanks, but paying upfront for insurance from those folks is a complete waste of money.

"Social marketing goes after "the common good" rather than financial gain. It's a tool that has increased use of seat belts and reduced smoking in public. It has succeeded with health care before, from The Truth anti-smoking campaign to the RED Awareness campaign for AIDS and the Presidential Fitness nutritional and exercise initiative." - Article

Yeah.

About that....

*'Utahns with HIV, AIDS upset with Legislative committee's indecision on federal grant program' - By James Thalman - DSNews - 04/14/2010

"The money is part of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act, also known as CARE, approved by Congress in 1990. It's a grant the committee has signed up for every year since 1992 without hesitation.
The state budget approved last month by the full Legislature includes $1.4 million in state funds for the program, an expenditure that is matched 3-to-1 by the Ryan White Fund. (sic)

Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, along with Republican members of the state Executive Appropriations Committee, voted to approve state participation in dozens of other grants at an April 6 meeting. But they unexpectedly held up the AIDS grant application...'

So much for our leaders helping us.

The key to resolving the issue of forcing people to buy health insurance is this: Don't make anyone *buy* health insurance. Make healthcare a basic human right and socialize it. Regulate the industry to prevent doctors/hospitals abusing the industry.

If you don't want then, then insurance companies, hospitals, etc need to be smacked around a bit to get insurance and healthcare into an affordable range for the majority of Americans. Being treated shouldn't force you to make the choice between keeping your family alive and having a home for your family.

Carman
What you say certainly makes sense. However all the scenarios I mentioned above were real and the taxpayers got the bill. I'm still for a state administered plan similar to Vermont's. What we now have is bankrupting us.

This is what I don't appreciate about Obamacare. Ultimately, inevitably, the incompetent govt. will DICTATE health maintenance.

It started with smokers, now the health police are moving on to (what they consider) obesity, soda, etc.
Those of you who think you're doing a good job of maintaining your health, probably AREN'T according to some health nannies.

In a free society we SHOULD have the opportunity to improve or destroy our health as we see fit.

Let my insurance co. RAISE MY RATES if they don't think I'm taking care of myself. Keep the govt. out of my healthcare.

'This is what I don't appreciate about Obamacare. Ultimately, inevitably, the incompetent govt. will DICTATE health maintenance.' - Fitness Freak | 9:56 a.m.

Hate to break it to you, but healthcare was being dictated BEFORE healthcare reform.

Let me give you some examples:

*'Wellpoint Drops Coverage For Some Women With Breast Cancer' - By Mary Ellen Egan - Forbes Magazine - 04/23/10

* 'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' - By Nancy Lofholm - Denver Post - 10/12/09

It was called a 'pre-existing condition.'

Also, you are 'free' to destroy your own life as you see fit.

So long as you don't go to the Emergency Room in a hospital and expect attempts to save your life at tax payer cost.

And yet, the first thing people do in life-threatening emergencies is call...

911.

Raise your rates, fine. But not mine. And don't complain about 'goverment control'....

and go to the ER. Where the tax payer will cover the cost of you not having any type of insurance.

To "Pagan | 9:01 a.m." how about these headlines that show us how well the government takes care of people even when they have the funds:

"Arizona transplant funding issue likely to heat up" DN Arizona had to cut funding "which saved the state a $1.2 million, eliminated state funding for several types of transplants that state officials said weren't proven life-extenders." If the states have to do that to make their budgets work, what will happen when we have a universal care system set up?

"Medicare denies a brain tumor drug after a patient moves" from KevinMD. Nice to see that the government will let you go without your medication just because you moved and they decided to review your coverage.

"Is Medicare A Good Deal?" at the National Center for Policy Analysis, where they find that if you are a typical 25 year old right now, you will pay more into the system than you will ever collect.

"Medicare Denies Wheelchair Claim for Elderly Amputee" at Disabled World.

"Medicare Denies Coverage Of CT Colonography For Cancer Screening" from Medical Devices Today

"Medicare denies her husband's home-based care" from the Dallas Eagle Tribune

More of your government telling you what to do in the name of being "safe".

Part of being free is having the ability to choose. Sure, some people will make bad choices but its all part of the game.

The more government interferes with everyday life the more we become like our old dreaded enemy, the Commies.

If we want to become healthier as a nation we need to slow down. Everything Americans do is at breakneck speed, and it reflects in our health. When the average worker only gets a half hour for lunch what kind of thing are we expecting them to eat?

As a culture we're overstressed, overworked, underpaid and unappreciated. Look at the Europeans, they all take two weeks off in the summer and go on vacation. I haven't had a vacation in two years.

Until our way of life changes don't expect any significant improvements in health.

"Arizona transplant funding issue likely to heat up" - RedShirt | 10:31 a.m.

Oh. You mean the Medicare cuts from Republican Gov. Jan Brewer that were done? That 'saved' $1.2 million...

and, as a result, only cost the lives of 2 Americans?

*'Budget cuts stop Phoenix man from getting new liver' - By Michelle Ye Hee Lee - Published by USA Today - 11/17/10

'Francisco Felix, 32, of Laveen, Ariz., was in the hospital ready to receive a liver that was donated to him late Monday night.'

*'Gov. Jan Brewer: No funds for transplants' - by Mary Jo Pitzl - Az Central - 12/11/10

*'Two Dead Since Arizona Medicaid Program Slashed Transplant Coverage' - By JANE E. ALLEN - ABC News - 01/06/11

'Two Arizona Medicaid recipients denied potentially life-saving organ transplants have died...(sic)
...that the state's GOP governor, Jan Brewer, and GOP-led legislature said they could no longer afford.'

When faulting Medicare...?

Make sure it's not a DIRECT result of budget cuts from the Republican party.

As, they are the REASON Medicare denied those patients. Not because of fault of the system itself.

Your 'example'? Is self-inflicted.

I say our lives are worth more.

To "Pagan | 10:50 a.m." ummm....re-read my post. I am not faulting Medicare. I am faulting government insurance programs regardless of political party or state vs. federal control.

History has proven that government running health insurance programs is worse for the people it covers than private insurance.

If our lives are worth more, why did Medicare deny the cancer treatment drugs because they did an audit.

What about Medicare denying a replacement power wheelchair for a double amputee? What about medicare denying in-home care (which is cheaper) and forcing people into institutions? It sure seems like you are worse off in the hands of Medicare than you are with private insurance.

If you want, we can see what happens once a country operates a universal care system for a long time. In Canada, it has pushed them to cut services or else you can buy wait-list insurance to get ahead. In England, their medical system is trash. In France, their healthcare runs massive deficits.

So, what do you want, death because of your own incompentence or death at the hand of politicians controlling your life?

To "Pagen | 11:30 a.m." the system that we have isn't perfect, but it is better and gives us more freedom than the systems overseas.

What you and liberals propose is like selling your birthright for a hot meal.

What do you want for the US, freedom to live your life as you see fit, or would you give up freedom to have somebody tell you what you must do?

The best idea that we have to cut healthcare costs is to get the government out of the health insurance business, and to cut back significantly on insurance mandates. If we did that, insurance costs could be cut in half, or more.