> On Jul 1, 11:35 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 6:43 am, The Webby <tmjiatroepide...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <815f5f27-faef-4f1c-b506-149f927e3...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Bill <dental...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:25 pm, The Webby <tmjiatroepide...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> If you watched it this evening, what did you think about it?
>>>>>> Webby
>>> In three minutes(!), of course it was very shallow. It doesn't really
>>> address the main causes of dental problems in the first place.
>>> I have been addressing these problems for over thirty years, and some
>>> sensationalistic rating-grubbing news show give it THREE MINUTES??
>>> And they couldn't even get the main issue defined!
>>> The idea that "insurance" is the key to solving dental health problems
>>> is complete hogwash.
>>> In this country, people decide to spend more money on their HAIR than
>>> they do on their teeth! Do we ever hear that there is a problem with a
>>> lack of HAIR insurance?
>>> The media here didn't even address the issue of priorities. Why do I
>>> see my welfare patients wearing clothes that I couldn't afford myself?
>>> ($180 shoes? Who are we kidding?)Why am I giving them something for
>>> free when obviously they have the money to buy fancy, unnecessary
>>> stuff?
>>> Well, my personal answer to that particular question is, that if I
>>> didn't provide them with the free care, then they would suffer dental
>>> disease. But that doesn't address the real problems of untreated
>>> dental disease on a national scale.
>>> The main problem is that people don't bother to take care of
>>> themselves OR their children. That's it in a nutshell. The phony straw
>>> man of "dental insurance" is about as relevant as "hair insurance."
>>> People need to set their own priorities. When you see a lot of dental
>>> disease, you'll find a skewed set of personal priorities.
>>> - dentaldoc
>> Do I have to stand up as the only lefty in this group? I don't see
>> many patients on public assistance, but I see plenty that I truly
>> believe cannot pay for anything like comprehensive dental care. They
>> don't walk in here wearing Manolos, either.
>> Yeah, many of them have made mistakes in life. Some are lazy, some
>> just unlucky. I figure I'm no one to judge. I've also seen children
>> with severe dental and other problems, and public assistance has failed
>> them.
>> I haven't seen the news clip, so I can't comment. In New York state,
>> welfare rolls are way down. Dentistry is expensive. I try not to hold
>> myself out as some moral paragon because I floss my teeth. And I don't
>> do full mouth reconstruction in a filthy mouth. But if you see oral
>> health care as part of health care and not in the same category as a
>> manicure, I don't think you can rationalize the situation as merely
>> badly set priorities (though that is certainly out there too).
>> I know enough about your history that I'm sure you didn't mean to leave
>> that impression.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> No, I certainly didn't mean to leave that impression. What I was
> addressing was the idea that "insurance" is the answer to everything.
>
> Yes, oral healthcare is certainly a part of overall health care.
> However, we have all seen patients who have NO teeth left (they're
> batting zero for thirty-two) and they still seem to survive. So
> although most people in modern society seem to value their teeth, many
> of them don't bother to put much effort into it.
>
> To expect stellar dental health, for no effort whatsoever, is simply
> not realistic.
>
> I do whatever I can to help people who can prove they are down and out
> (yes, in California there are people who cheat, so I really want to
> see their state-assistance ID cards to know they're legitimate).
>
> The problem is that state assistance pays only one-third of fees.
> Since my overhead alone costs me about two-thirds of fees, in the
> final analysis, I'm not only working for free for those patients, but
> I also PAY out of my own pocket to provide them with decent dental
> care.
>
> If I didn't volunteer to do that, what would those patients do? Where
> could they go? In my town there are 63 dentists, the last time I
> counted. Out of those 63, 61 do NOT bother to treat patients who have
> Medicaid. Dentists volunteering for Medicaid would lose a lot of
> money, so I can't really blame them. But that leaves the patients
> without the choices that the Medicaid law of the 1960's was intended
> to give them.
>
> For over thirty years I have taken a sizeable hit to my income. But
> it's either that, or turn these patients away and let them suffer. I
> can't do that. Some of them are innocent kids. Most have been turned
> away by the all those other dental offices down the street.
>
> So no, you don't have to be a "lefty" to care about these people. And
> you don't have to be a "lefty" to actually do something about it.
>
> What gets me steamed is the fact that so many of my fellow California
> dentists who are politically active like to TALK about getting someone
> ELSE to do more for poor people, but they personally refuse to see
> those needy patients in their own offices.
>
> In my opinion, if they talk the talk, they should also walk the walk.
> In California there's not very much consistency in that regard.
>
> "Insurance" is not the answer. The much-vaunted income-tested national
> children's health insurance (Healthy Families) has been as miserable a
> failure as the Medicaid program (and yes, I see children on both
> programs too).
>
> What is needed is a sincere committment by government to provide an
> honest assistance program for those people who need it. And let's be
> honest and call it government assistance. That is not pretend
> "insurance" that really isn't insurance.
>
> These short, shallow TV news clips should be more honest, and call for
> national dental assistance for the needy -- fully funded -- instead of
> talking about "insurance" as though these government programs had
> anything to do with real insurance.
>
> People who join any such publicly funded dental assistance programs
> should be required to contribute some of their own earnings to the
> program on a sliding scale dependent on their financial resources. All
> the sociological studies that I've ever been told about, agree that
> people value what they receive FAR more when they have to make some
> degree of personal sacrifice to achieve it.
>
> They take care of their $180 Nikes because they paid for them. They
> don't take care of their teeth because dental health care is free.
> That needs to change.
>
> - dentaldoc
>
>
>
I agree 99%, and that 1% is the Nike part. I'm sure there are plenty
who game the system. I think we can agree that we're not talking about
Bill
Mark & Ste…
