# To ration or not



## MaggieMae (Jul 1, 2009)

*Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
_
When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.

The hospital's doctors nonetheless treated him aggressively, punching a hole in his chest to insert a drainage tube, which quickly led to uncontrolled bleeding, an infection, and a plunge in blood pressure. 

Within 12 hours, my father was in a coma, with no chance of recovery, sustained only by a ventilator and a tangle of multiple IV drips. He spent four days in the ICU, until I overcame the resistance of two doctors and had the machines turned off, as per my dad's living will.

Medicare paid upward of $20,000 for these last days of my father's life, during which he received little comfort, moments of agonizing pain and fear, and all the medical care in the world, and then some.

In the historic debate over health care reform now beginning in this country, we will hear much talk of "rationing." If health care is rationed, we'll be told, we may be denied drugs or surgeries or treatments based on cost, effectiveness, or the patient's condition of age. It sounds cold and heartless, except when you consider that the only real alternative to rationing is unlimited medical treatment--including a refusal to "lose" the battle with death even when death is near. Unlimited care, of course, requires unlimited spending, which is not viable.

Rationing in some form is inevitable; the only question is when we'll finally be able to admit to ourselves that even in America, there are limits to everything._


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> _
> When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.
> 
> ...


What happened to your father is not unusual. I have a living will, as he did, to prevent this very thing from happening.
If you want to call denying dramatic efforts to save a person who is surely dying, rationing, then I approve of it.


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

We always ration.  Its just whether we fuck over the poor and only give to the rich, or whether we give to those most in need.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 1, 2009)

i sure hope all of you with a living will etc realize that it dont mean shit.....first you aint gonna sue...live or die....when you are so close that the living will comes out...you are near the end...you can do all the dnr orders you want....next of kin will be the ones deciding...if the next of kin objects to unplugging you will stay plugged


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2009)

Denying someone healthcare because it will cut into profits is the ultimate in rationing.

Or how about denying healthcare because of pre existing conditions?


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 1, 2009)

as for rationing health care....is this just for the old or will it be for the young....will pro birth people not object to letting little sick premmies die....i would say premmies are a pretty constant drain on the health care system....so now will pro birthers set a keeper weight?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2009)

Insurance companies ration now. They decide if they will pay for your treatment or not.

My father was in the hospital for two weeks on Medicare and had excellent care. Not only that he was cured of his problem...he very easily could have died. He also got a visiting nurse and successful follow up surgery.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> _
> When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.
> 
> ...



Once one is able to state the problem, it becomes so easy to prove the thesis.

This is not the kind of example of rationing that most are opposed to.
This is:
In the Province of Quebec, patients suffering from serious incontinence - ie, they have to aller aux toilettes jusqu&#65533; 12 fois par nuit (thats 12 times a night) - have to wait three years for a half-hour operation. Thats 3 years times 365 nights times 12 trips to the bathroom.
The central point about socialized medicine is that restricting access is the only means of controlling costs.
In Canada, Citizens Wait 3 Years For A Half Hour Surgery To Fix Incontinence | KXNet.com North Dakota News

Or this:
A woman of 61 was refused a routine heart operation by a hard-up NHS trust for being too old.
Dorothy Simpson suffers from an irregular heartbeat and is at increased risk of a stroke. But health chiefs refused to allow the procedure which was recommended by her specialist.
The school secretary was stunned by the ruling.
"I can't believe that at 61 I'm too old for this operation
NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery | Mail Online

Or this:
"Nice refuses, on grounds of cost, to recommend some drugs for patients with advanced kidney cancer. The consultants, who include the directors of oncology at Britains two biggest cancer hospitals, the Royal Marsden in London and Christie hospital in Manchester, claim there is enough money in the NHS to pay for the drugs. "
Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing


----------



## RodISHI (Jul 1, 2009)

I think it should always remain on a case by case decision on care and treatment. I've said this before yet one more time...While out to see my dad who recently had heart surgery a neighbor lady was telling me about her mother in law with advanced Alzheimer's receiving heart surgery that could extend her life up to fifteen to twenty years. The woman does not know who she is now why extend her misery? On the other hand dad has had cancer, an aortic aneurysm the size of a grown adult's fist, heart surgery twice in the last two months and he has hope of feeling half normal soon, old but still a certain quality of life worth living. Each family and person should be able to make those decisions based on their own circumstances. It would be wrong to take those choices away from the individual....people are not robots or machinery that can be simply dismissed because of cost or inconvenience.


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...





> My wife and I learned two years ago that I had contracted Chronic Hep C. As the disease ravaged my body and mind, I had to take a break from my I.T. carer of over 15 years. Instead of getting better I developed End Stage Liver Disease. My expensive cobra and medications eat away at my limited social security disability. My wife and I are in our mid 40's were making a very respectable income. My time is running out waiting for a new liver. (I don't have the cash like Steven Jobs obviously does.) I was turned down by the cobra extension because one has to be fired or quit. I was placed on medical leave as a favor from my employer. They did so to give me hope of retaining my career once I am better. So now my cobra will be running out. Social Security does not even allow me to beg for change which I would gladly do to help my wife and daughters through this sad tragedy. My Cobra is running out, and then I have nothing. I started working when I was 12, and paid taxes all those years. When my Cobra ends many doors will be closed to me regarding my pending transplant. Less or even no treatments due to high medical costs will further speed up my passing. Until then, I will have to set and watch my loved ones and friends watch me die with no remaining dignity left. Watching my family them struggle over my medications and argue with insurance companies. Seeing the torment my family endures brings my soul so much sorrow. Even more than my disease. Even my private disability company used the "Pre-existing Condition" clause to cut their ties.





> am a single parent who was layed off from Bank of America in 2007. I was offered to stay on the company's medical plan but the premium was over $1300 a month. So I opted for COBRA as it was $770 a month. After Cobra ran out, I was denied medical insurance for pre-existing conditions. I had paid medical premiums non-stop for 40 years and now I cannot get quality medical insurance. I'm 61 and my son is 17. I am very healthy for my age and need a major medical plan. I've tried these guaranteed plans and they hardly cover the expense. My bills for preventative care are barely discounted and resulted in me putting off my annual Mammography. A recent blood test showed low iron and I'll need special tests to determine the cause, but I cannot afford them. Please support health care reform. I'm just one of millions who is in desperate need. My bills are over $15,000! God Bless.





> Dear President Obama, Four years ago my only sister died. Maybe she was murdered, maybe she had an accident: it looks as if well never know. My mother has struggled with her mental health for years, but Wendys death destroyed her. She took so many psyciatric medications that the side effects gave her heart failure. Shes been in and out of hospitals. She takes shock therapy. Its clear that someone is going to need to come live near her and look after her as she ages. And Im the only one left. But, theres a catch: insurance. Ive lived in Canada for a decade and am covered by the public insurance here  and thank God. I havent had to struggle with insurance as I fought my own battle with trigeminal neuralgia, a debilitating and painful neurological disease. My out-of-pocket medical costs last year  a year in which I had brain surgery and a baby!  were less than $500, mostly related to cleaning my teeth. But I know I cant go home to America, to care for my mother. No insurance company would touch me. (I am a novelist by trade, so would have no employer insurance.) To go without insurance would be to risk my life and the financial security of my husband and children. Its breaking my heart. And I think my mother may well die years early than she should if I cant help her. Can you help us? Erin Bow Kitchener, Ontario



Health Care Stories for America | BarackObama.com

Thousands of them on that website.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...


You have no problem with private insurance companies in the US denying treatments because of pre-existing conditions, or other technicalities?
Ask most Canadians if they'd give up their public healthcare .... you'd get a resounding "NO". Why doesn't the conservative government in Canada do away with public healthcare?
Insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the US have done quite a job with their propaganda.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

Nik said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Thanks for these examples of how America has failed its citizens.


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Thats one of the more interesting facts about this.  For all the condemnations of NHS that rightwingers like to point out, nobody is talking about getting rid of the NHS in Britain, Canada, or any other first world country that has nationalized healthcare.  Even the rightwingers in those countries support it.  This is why Republicans are so dead set against it, because theyknow that once people get a taste of it, Republicans will never be able to sell them on the failed idea of private healthcare again.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



How about putting your dinaro where you put your dinner, and tell me which country you'll be moving to.

Read and repent:


1.	while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own  health care than with  the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receivea mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive..(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

2.	when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small  perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

3.	The biggest fallacy of the Obama healthcare plan is that it would cover every America.  It wouldnt.  It would provide the option of health care, but it would still cost money and I suspect that lots of those uninsured adults between 18-34 would still rather spend the money on something else.  It wouldnt do any more to insure children than is already being done independently of his plan.
The Myth of the Uninsured American : Conservative Blog: Urban Conservative 2.0 - Conservative News & Politics


4.    "If I lived in New Zealand, I would be dead.
The American health-care system may be a crazy mess, but it is the prime mover in the global ecology of medical treatment, creating the worlds biggest market for new drugs and devices. Even as we argue about whether or how our health-care system should change, most Americans take for granted our access to the best available cancer treatmentsincluding the one that arguably saved my life. "
My Drug Problem - The Atlantic (March 2009)

5.    "However, 89 percent were satisfied with their own health care quality and 57 percent with their personal costs. Losing insurance is a concern for 56 percent of respondents with private care, and 60 percent of those with any form of health coverage worried about their ability to afford insurance over the next few years.
Support for universal government-provided coverage fell further when the survey suggested the possibility of higher costs or taxes (35 percent), waiting lists (33 percent), limited choice of doctors (28 percent), or loss of coverage for some treatments (18 percent). ABC News' coverage did not call any of these a "significant hurdle" for supporters of universal coverage to overcome.
News Media Misreport Health Survey - by Joseph Coletti - Health Care News


6. For instance, while 88 percent say their coverage overall is excellent or good, that includes just 33 percent who call it "excellent." While 57 percent are satisfied with their own costs, just 23 percent are very satisfied. And even on overall quality of care, while 89 percent are satisfied, fewer are very satisfied, 52 percent.
As Health Care Costs Take a Toll, Some Changes Win Broad Backing - ABC News


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



National Healthcare in the United States?  Why don't you have a little consideration for all the Canadians who come here for there healthcare?

Where will they go if we socialize healthcare?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 1, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> *You have no problem with private insurance companies in the US denying treatments because of pre-existing conditions, or other technicalities?*
> Ask most Canadians if they'd give up their public healthcare .... you'd get a resounding "NO". Why doesn't the conservative government in Canada do away with public healthcare?
> Insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the US have done quite a job with their propaganda.



Exactly.

Rationing exists now.  If you have a pre-existing condition, if you don't have health insurance - your care will be rationed.  If you do have health insurance - your care will still be rationed.

The other thing is - the use of "testimonials" - emotional stories to try an make a point - but are these stories the norm or the exception?  

Like you note - Canadians and Brits may complain about their healthcare system - but when asked if they want the sort of system we have, almost to a man they say "no".

It seems like all of these rationing examples use the British and Canadian systems for comparison. These countries both utilize one-payer systems right?  All of these arguments - these scare stories - are aimed at a one-payer system but that option isn't even on the table for discussion.  There are other countries with other models involving mixtures of public/private insurance that are being ignored. Those systems may have rationing of some sort but they have the option for private expenditures if the person can afford it.  Which is pretty much what we have - if your insurance won't cover it, and you have the money - you can do it.  It's just that, unlike those other systems - ours leaves many people uncovered or insufficiently covered.

Why is that?  Maybe they aren't scary enough for opponents to use?

NPR did an interesting series on healthcare in Europe - a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems and how their citizens felt about it.  It's rather enlightening.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Not that many Canadians come here for medical care. If you have other information, please share it here.


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And think about all those American seniors who won't go to Canada because they can't afford American prescriptions.  Won't someone think of the business Canada will lose?


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



From one of your links:



> Costs in the nation's health care system are ensnaring millions more Americans: One in four report problems paying their medical bills, and nearly three in 10 -- rising to nearly half of women with children -- have put off treatment because of the cost, often despite a serious illness or condition. Both are new highs in polls dating back a decade or more.



Sure is a ringing endorsement of the American system!  Our system is so great 30% of our populace puts off treatments because of cost!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Not that many Canadians come here for medical care. If you have other information, please share it here.



 "Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbituxa proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the bodyand Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoins insurance didnt: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companiesin the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

 She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab."

"Rick Baker helps people, and sometimes even saves lives. He describes a man who had a seizure and received a diagnosis of epilepsy. Dissatisfied with the opinionhe had no family history of epilepsy, but he did have constant headaches and nausea, which arent usually seen in the disorderthe man requested an MRI. The government told him that the wait would be four and a half months. So he went to Baker, who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hoursand who, after the test discovered a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks.

Baker isnt a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. Hes a medical broker, one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the inadequacies of Canadas government care. Canadians pay him to set up surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and specialist consultations, privately and quickly."
Timely Medical Alternatives, has helpedpeople like the elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. Her doctor told her shes going to die, Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. "
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

While these may not represent a statistic, as you requested, the article is very informative vis-a-vis Canadians making arangements to get help outside of Canada, both in the United States.

I'd be interested in your perspective on the article.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Nik said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The great majority of Americans are very pleased with their medical care.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Not that many Canadians come here for medical care. If you have other information, please share it here.




Canucks come to America for health care
Filed under: Canucks, economic ignorance, socialism  crushliberalism @ 10:20 am 

Just how good is that Canadian universal health care?  Its so good thatCanadians are coming here for private health care.  From Buffalo News:
Canucks come to America for health care « Crush Liberalism


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



"Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament."
"An estimated 4 million of Canada's 33 million people don't have family physicians and more than 1 million are on waiting lists for treatment, according to the Canadian Medical Association. Meanwhile, some 200 physicians head to the United States each year, attracted by lower taxes and better working conditions. Canada has 2.1 physicians per 1,000 people, while Belgium has 3.9, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development."
Canadian Health Care In Crisis - CBS News


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Not that many Canadians come here for medical care. If you have other information, please share it here.
> ...



Every system has flaws.  Just curious...if the Canadian system is so flawed, why aren't any Canadians looking to create a US style system?


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



From your link, only 33% called their coverage "excellent".

By the way, most people don't know how bad their coverage is until they actually need to get reimbused for medical emergencies.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Nik said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Let's hope that neither of us need it.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 1, 2009)

do yall realize that the minute you use your insurance..they are gonna drop your ass....so insurance sucks...you want to find out how much it sucks...get sick and realize your insurance doesnt really cover shit....cancer...o they dont cover this or that...its much cheaper for them to let you die...what fool depends on a a for profit insurance to keep them alive...when death is much cheaper for the insurance company in the long run...

how many bankruptcy are the result of medical bills....i guess people just shouldnt get sick...

you know how much your 20% of fighting cancer amounts too?


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 1, 2009)

why are you comparing it to canada...in canada they have caps on doctors salaries...which has resulted in a shortage of doctors....they practice in canada till they reach the earnings cap ...i have not had a family doctor for ages...i cant get anyone to take me on...i have optical migraines....nothing can be done but i would like a family doctor...but once they hear optical migraines they think drug seeker....if you people think you have good insurance....think again...we are at the mercy of a system geared to the rich...ie.....steve jobs...how did he get that liver so fast and why did he get it in tn?  well i will answer that for you...each state has a registery ...done by the person needing the transplant the most...well if you can afford the charter jet...you can register in as many states as you can...then fly when the call comes in..how many people have chartered jets or the money to charter one?  so jobs had registered in a lot of states...finding tn to have a shorter waiting list...he got lucky...course some poor sob without money probably died...but hey that is the american way


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Physicians per 1,000 people (most recent) by country

Yes, and the US has 2.3 doctors per thousand people. Click on the link for a list of countries.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Not that many Canadians come here for medical care. If you have other information, please share it here.
> ...


What a wingnut source that is. This is a paragraph from the article:

Let that sink in, folks. It is a crime for people in Canada for people to spend their own money (a) in any manner they see fit and (b) on their own health! And Edwards, Obama, *Shrillary*, et al on the left want that to come here? I don&#8217;t think so! Continuing:


----------



## alan1 (Jul 1, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> _
> When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.
> 
> ...



William Faulkner's father made the decision with his living will, not some government bureaucrat counting pennies.  That's not rationing.
Try again.


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



William Falk, not William Faulkner.  And way to miss the point of the article.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Does seem like a strange source.

But are you saying that politicians wouldn't want this kind of care?

You don't think that the elites would be exposed to the same kind of nationalized care as the rest of us, do you?

From 'Animal Farm,' some animals are more equal than others.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 1, 2009)

Nik said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Oh crap, I used the wrong name, therefore everything else must have been missed.
Whatever.


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You do know that Congress currently has a government run health plan, right?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 1, 2009)

Nik said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Are you suggesting that we citizens will get the same level of health plan?


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Nice strawman argument there.

You missed the point because it wasn't about government bureaucracies v. living wills.  It was about how we have to ration, otherwise every death costs millions of dollars trying to keep people alive for those extra precious seconds.  

Not because you couldn't read the name.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 1, 2009)

Nik said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Yours was the strawman.
And you completely missed my point.
Here, I'll type it real slow for you,
Do you want a government bureaucrat deciding what gets rationed for your health care?


----------



## alan1 (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I think Nik is actually ignorant enough to think that.


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I have no idea.  But I thought that government run health care was so evil, blah, blah blah.

And yet...its Congress who gets the government run plan, and the rest of us have to deal with the shitty private plans?


----------



## Nik (Jul 1, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



I'd rather a government bureaucrat than an insurance company bureaucrat.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 1, 2009)

Nik said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



It's not an either or situation.  It's not limited to either a government bureaucrat or an insurance company.  
Nice try at another strawman, but you failed again.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I said nothing of the kind.


----------



## Emma (Jul 2, 2009)

Healthcare resources are already rationed. 

What they did to the man in the OP is despicable, IMO.


----------



## Nik (Jul 2, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Really?  Whats the third choice?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 2, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Actually, I agree with that but, maybe not in the way you mean.

If it's not a government agent or an insurance company agent - who would decide what gets rationed?

In the current system rationing is controlled by:  Insurance, what the individual can afford privately, and the government (for those eligable).

A fact of life - regardless of what system you are under is -if you can afford it, you can get any kind of medical care you want.  Unrationed.  Putting a public plan on the table in competition with private plans won't change that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 2, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> _
> When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.
> 
> ...



What a bunch of crap. No, rationing is not inevitable, and it is not all or nothing....

We have the world's best system now, where those who want to go to extreme measures to maintain the spark of life are free to do so, and those who don't want to are free to refuse treatment.

The whole article is nothing but justification for allowing old people and other vulnerable citizens to die without basic, normal treatment...and remove for them the option of deciding they would like to try something to prolong their lives.

And dying is dying. Boo hoo, his dad had a drainage tube. This is not an "extreme" or un-called for treatment. It's a common treatment that often saves people's lives. It didn't save this guy's life, that's the way the cookie crumbles. It was painful, sure, but so is getting hit by a car, or drowning to death in your own bodily fluids over a period of a week or so.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 2, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



Indeed, the story is not credible.  If there was a living will, the doctors and hospital were legally bound to respect it, and it shouldn't have taken more than a call from a lawyer make them comply.  

The fact is proponents of Obama's health care plans, most notably, Daschle, have already told us there will be rationing of services that does not exist now under our present plans.  There are two proposed entities to implement the rationing, both within HHS.  First there will be a group charged with rating the effectiveness of tests and procedures independent of medical organizations that now define "acceptable" protocols, and second, most alarming, there will be a group to decide if a test or procedure is cost effective, that is, even if it is better than anything else around, is your life or quality of life worth the price in the opinion of some HHS bureaucrats?  

On Charlie Rose yesterday Daschle explained that while we now cover the cost of providing the world's best high end treatments for the desperately ill by not providing health insurance to everyone, under Obama's proposals, we will cover the cost of more universal coverage by providing fewer expensive high end treatments to the desperately ill.  A good deal for healthy people, not so good, perhaps a death sentence, if you become very ill.


----------



## Nik (Jul 2, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



This is simply not true.  You must have the resources to do so, and many many people don't.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 2, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



The problem of the uninsured is only the beginning.  The bigger problem is the fact that we are now spending $7900 per person in the US for healthcare, and that rate will double in real dollars within the next 25 years.  It is unsustainable, and every employer out there knows it.  

Everyone who is happy with their health insurance is so because they don't directly pay the entire bill; their employers pay a huge percentage, and it is the employers who are coming to the conclusion that they can no longer afford this.  What we have already begun to see, and what we will see much more of, is companies closing their doors because they cannot afford to stay in business due to health insurance costs.  And what we will see much more of is these companies moving overseas so that they can operate from a country where they are not directly responsible for those costs.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 2, 2009)

Nik said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



First of all, there are well over 1000 companies that provide health insurance.  As an individual, you can pick a company that meets your needs, it's not like there is one book of rules that all the insurance companies follow.  Each insurance company also offers different types of plans.
That gives you 1000's of options.
Or, you could just pay for health care as you need it.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 2, 2009)

Coyote said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


So, other than me now having to pay for somebody else's insurance via a new tax, what changes?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



The story was not my father's, but ironically my father clung to life until he died at home following a week in a coma. For six months he required constant care, refusing hospice care, even though none of us siblings lived within 2,000 miles and had to take turns traveling to Florida to take care of him. He accumulated huge medical bills that either the VA didn't cover or his private insurance had max'd, which were paid for out of his estate (amounting to a house worth about $60,000). So that's another problem: The cost involved for the children of a dying parent in addition to dealing with the death itself when adequate directives and/or insurance aren't there.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> i sure hope all of you with a living will etc realize that it dont mean shit.....first you aint gonna sue...live or die....when you are so close that the living will comes out...you are near the end...you can do all the dnr orders you want....next of kin will be the ones deciding...if the next of kin objects to unplugging you will stay plugged



That is so not true. Anyone serious about a living will makes sure that his/her doctor is aware of its contents by a copy to him, not just the designated overseers. And it's very easy to verify whether a copy is included as part of your medical records before any other doc/nurse touches you.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



Why do people keep ASSUMING that this country will do a carbon copy of what France or Great Britain or Canada do? Doesn't it stand to reason that in developing a health package that provides for better coverage, we would take those parts that work and leave the parts that don't as their problem, not ours?

You guys have this whole issue all sewn up again with your EGADS-YIKES-GONNA BANKRUPT ME scenarios. It's sickening (pun intended).


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



For every "article" you quote from your favorite websites, there are an equal number of counterclaims from others.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



You can list catastrophe after catastrophe, but you ignore the fact that those are isolated incidences. Waiting rooms in doctors' offices are NOT full of people dying from heart disease waiting to be treated for the normal illnesses/accidents that most people are covered for there, but not here.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Not that many Canadians come here for medical care. If you have other information, please share it here.
> ...



My perspective is that it's really rather ignorant to assume that scary things don't happen in medical institutions right here in the good ol' USA. Remember this one? How many others like it get covered up by hospital administrators and don't get covered by MSM?

Caught on tape: Hospital patient left to die - Health care- msnbc.com


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Until they get sick and realize they're undercovered or their premiums continue to rise at 7% annually. 

Towering Medical Bills Leave Many Americans Bankrupt : NPR


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



How about you try READING it again...

The fact that the old gent wanted to die if no hope existed is beside the point anyway. The editorial is meant to convey that if he had *not* made that choice by living will, he would have been kept alive. Why?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hmmm, maybe you're starting to *get it* after all. Of course people who can afford luxury treatment paid by all-inclusive insurance policies would turn their noses up at anything less for themselves. They also realize, however, that a few crumbs of coverage should be thrown to the serfs too. 

I wonder how much over the years it has cost the taxpayers to provide all members of Congress with excellent health coverage factoring in the average number who have never had a reasonably large claim but WE paid for it nonetheless?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

Nik said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Dashle's plan is but one of FIVE on the table. If he said it, he is incorrect by using the words "there *will* be" because thus far, nothing has been decided upon.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



But but but I though companies moved overseas because they're taxed too much here!! So say the righties. (Although through loopholes and writeoffs, corporations only coughed up 15% of the tax revenues in 2007.)


----------



## Emma (Jul 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > i sure hope all of you with a living will etc realize that it dont mean shit.....first you aint gonna sue...live or die....when you are so close that the living will comes out...you are near the end...you can do all the dnr orders you want....next of kin will be the ones deciding...if the next of kin objects to unplugging you will stay plugged
> ...


Yeah, it is true. Especially if the 'designated overseer' is the DPA.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> _
> When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.
> 
> ...



No, unlimited nonsense like that is NOT the only alternative to rationing.  The alternative, and the one that's supposed to be in place now, is letting the PATIENT make the medical decisions.  Gee, you think maybe the fact that Medicare was the _real _customer here, not Falk's father, might have had something to do with the doctors resisting the dictates of the living will?  As long as they kept treating him, they got to keep billing Medicare, didn't they?  I'll bet if the control of the money had been in the hands of the patient and his family, and they refused to pay for this bullshit, the doctors' resistance would have vanished.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> i sure hope all of you with a living will etc realize that it dont mean shit.....first you aint gonna sue...live or die....when you are so close that the living will comes out...you are near the end...you can do all the dnr orders you want....next of kin will be the ones deciding...if the next of kin objects to unplugging you will stay plugged



Well, part of the "taking charge" that goes with having a living will is finding someone to be in charge when you're _in extremis _who will respect your wishes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Nik said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Incorrect on a couple of points.  NHS's handling of British health care became such an open scandal a while back that, while they're not talking about abolishing it, they DID start incorporating market-based practices in it to improve it.  In other words, they started moving AWAY from the bullshit you people are now recommending for us.

Second, I'm not impressed that people who've been thoroughly indoctrinated in and acclimatized to a system aren't looking for a massive overhaul.  You can get used to anything.  And the majority of Americans aren't clamoring for a complete and total change of OUR system either, the media's false advertising notwithstanding.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Nik said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I'm a lot more interested in the fact that if the US tries to imitate the way that Canada and other countries get cheap pharmaceuticals, the entire world will stop getting new drugs developed to treat illnesses.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Nik said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



I find it fascinating that the only argument you can come up with for "Government-run healthcare is GREAT!" bypasses the two programs that might actually be analogous to the situation - Medicare and Medicaid - and goes to what is provided for a handful of politicians on the basis of them being government EMPLOYEES, as opposed to simply citizens.

The rest of us don't "have to deal with shitty private plans".  Most people who have private plans are reasonably satisfied with them.  And many people have those shitty government plans that you so conveniently ignored.  So unless you're going to argue that government-run health care for all Americans is going to treat the 300 million-plus residents of this country like high-level government employees, you can shut up about this "argument".


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Many drugs come to us from Europe.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2009)

Nik said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




Which is the way it always has been. The government is not responsible to make sure you get all the perks of people who have more money than you do.

And just because some people can't afford it doesn't mean we need to stop providing decent care for those who can.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 7, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


Yes, just let the poor ones die. How compassionate and Christian of you.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2009)

Thank goodness for religious charities who provide them with health care.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2009)

Don't worry folks.   If we want a European health care model,  there will be rationing.

Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com


> Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it.
> 
> Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.
> 
> ...


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > i sure hope all of you with a living will etc realize that it dont mean shit.....first you aint gonna sue...live or die....when you are so close that the living will comes out...you are near the end...you can do all the dnr orders you want....next of kin will be the ones deciding...if the next of kin objects to unplugging you will stay plugged
> ...



Many people with Living Wills are concerned about that very situation. There are "Do Not Resusitate" bracelets that can be purchased from hospital supply companies and online. I haven't bought one yet, but I have medical emergency information posted on my refrigerator, as well as DNR information kept in my wallet and glove compartment. If I'm out cold in an ambulance, I figure it won't matter anyway by the time I get to the hospital, they'll know what to do.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Huh? A few years ago, the winter flu outbreak that occurred in the U.S. was a strain that all of our own flu drugs didn't affect, so we had to import the effective drug from Great Britain. Many "new" drugs are first tested, approved, and marketed in Europe before our slow-moving FDA begins similar regimens here. The bird flu vaccine also came from overseas. Seems to me they are much more open to drug experimentation across the pond than in the United States, and they do it more effectively and cheaper. Why would that change?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 7, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Thank goodness for religious charities who provide them with health care.



Oh sure. The truth is if religious charities were responsible for "health care" for the needy, they would do nothing else. Are you kidding?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2009)

Let's try to use speech patterns of adults. That post makes no sense.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 7, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Let's try to use speech patterns of adults. That post makes no sense.



Which part was too tough for you?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 7, 2009)

To ration or not is not a real question.  All goods are in supply less than total demand, so that they get rationed either by price or favor.   Ration by price means that the more you are willing to give up for the good, the more chance you will get it. Rationing by favor essentially means that the more and bigger friends your have, the more you will get of the goods.
Rationing by favor also disconnects the production of a good from demand for the good.  Rationing by favor means some goods will be in desperate short supply because no one gets paid enough to supply it.

So there is no "ration or not." there is only ration by good sense or by fear.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try to use speech patterns of adults. That post makes no sense.
> ...



The part that didn't make sense. Which would be all of it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Uh, dear, it doesn't matter where they test and approve things.  What matters is where they make the profits to cover the cost of R & D on new drugs, and that would be here.  That's why pharmaceuticals often cost so much more in the US:  since we don't allow our government to set price controls like other countries do, it allows the drug companies to make up their initial outlay.  In effect, we are footing the bill for other countries.  And if we stopped, the drug companies would simply stop spending money to research and develop new drugs.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 8, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



It's so much more compassionate and Christian to decree that everyone else die alongside them, right?


----------



## editec (Jul 8, 2009)

It is my understanding that 50% of all HC dollars are spend on the last year of life.

I expect that sooner or later HC rationing will be standard operating practice.

The demand for HC is practically infinite.

The amount of HC any society can afford is finite.

I'm sure most of you can do the math.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 8, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Would they really?  Without any new drugs to develop, these companies would go out of business.  What is more likely is that the drug companies would put more pressure on the rest of the world to pay more.  Don't you find it funny that these drug companies have no problem selling their drugs at discounted prices to the rest of the world.  Top that off with the fact that they sell more of their drugs to US citizens than to any other individual country in the world, it seems like we ought to be the ones getting the discount.  Isn't that how free markets are supposed to work?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 8, 2009)

editec said:


> It is my understanding that 50% of all HC dollars are spend on the last year of life.
> 
> I expect that sooner or later HC rationing will be standard operating practice.
> 
> ...



Healthcare is and will continue to be rationed even more as the costs continue to increase.  The question now is how will it be rationed?  Those against any type of government involvement want to assure that they can get the best treatment available.  However, no matter what we do, the percentage of those who can actually afford the best treatment will continue to decline, until eventually, less than half of Americans will be able to afford any healthcare other than paying for it out of pocket.  The closer we get to that point, the more likely it is that services will be rationed and controlled by the government.

So those who fight universal coverage and controlling costs will eventually find services cut in a much more drastic way down the road.  All that is happening currently is that we are delaying the inevitable.  If we don't deal with this now, eventually, the rest of the world will end up in much better shape than the average American when it comes to healthcare.  The only ones who will actually be able to afford it here will be the truly wealthy.  And when that happens, it will lead to a complete change not only in our healthcare system, but quite possibly in the way we do everything.

When the most basic of services are denied to the majority, it will lead us directly to a much more socialistic form of governance.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 8, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Ohhh, nice spin!!! Of course the tens of billions to place television ads has nothing to do with their high cost, eh? Dear?

I invite you to go to Page 8 of this 2002 report. Since the Prescription Drug Plan was adopted, the profit margin has risen 8% of the numbers shown here.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 8, 2009)

editec said:


> It is my understanding that 50% of all HC dollars are spend on the last year of life.
> 
> I expect that sooner or later HC rationing will be standard operating practice.
> 
> ...



I worked as a nurse's aid in a nursing/rehabilitation facility during college to help pay for tuition, and later did some volunteer work reading to the residents. I can't recall a single one who was not actually looking forward to what they would find on "the other side." When people become old and frail and subject to debilitating physical and mental disorders, they want to be free from pain, period, and simply allowed to die.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 8, 2009)

editec said:


> It is my understanding that 50% of all HC dollars are spend on the last year of life.
> 
> I expect that sooner or later HC rationing will be standard operating practice.
> 
> ...



by rationing, do you mean euthanasia?  I don't think you do... but what do you want to do about it.     You want to set a limit on how much health care a person uses over their life, and when they reach the limit, the plug comes out?

As I noted up topic, we already ration by price.  Those who can afford, spend.   Of course, a lot of the spending is now done by the government, so government has to re align the spending pattern to what the citizens can afford.  Do we cut education dollars to move them to keep old folks on respirators?   When we move spending from private sector to the public sector, then we give the public sector the authority to make these choices.  If a person is too broke for health care, well, that is the way world works.  But a government is never to broke.  The government makes positive choices in this regard.

Also worth noting is that much of the expense of health care is behavior related.  Some of the most expensive parts are random disaster, but the vast majority of what constitutes health expenses is related to things like obesity, lack of exercise, drug use (including in this, alcohol and tobacco) If I exercise regularly, don't smoke and keep my weight down, I subsidize the health expenses of the slob down the street.     Now when you move health care to the public sector becomes my problem.

Same way with abortion.  You want to be sexually incontinent, then I am obliged to pay for your operation, then your morality is my dollars. And I think I should have a say in that.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 9, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...




You don't have 1000's of options if you have any of a number of "pre-existing" conditions.  The few plans that will cover you will do so at rates so high as to be unaffordable to many people if not matched by an employer.  I'm not sure how it works in the private sector - because I work for a state university - but we are offered a limited number of plans to choose from where the employer also contributes.  Sure...you could just pay for it as you need it and if you are young, healthy, and don't have a family you can afford the risk.  But what if you have a pregnancy or children?  What if you need prescription medications to stay healthy?  The costs of those without insurance can be horrendously high.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 9, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



More people have some sort of coverage then before.  I have no issue with a new tax for it.  I pay taxes for education though I have no children.  I pay taxes that keep the roads in good shape.  I pay taxes that cover our military, police and emergency service people.  I think health care - particularly with the emphasis on prevention is more cost effective for the public then emergency healthcare.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Incorrect on a couple of points.  NHS's handling of British health care became such an open scandal a while back that, while they're not talking about abolishing it, they DID start incorporating market-based practices in it to improve it. * In other words, they started moving AWAY from the bullshit you people are now recommending for us.*
> 
> Second, I'm not impressed that people who've been thoroughly indoctrinated in and acclimatized to a system aren't looking for a massive overhaul.  You can get used to anything.  *And the majority of Americans aren't clamoring for a complete and total change of OUR system either,* the media's false advertising notwithstanding.




That is also incorrect.  Almost no one is supporting a stand alone public plan as the opposition keeps claiming.  That's the real bullshit here (and strawman) here.  While Britain might be moving towards more of a public/private mix (which is what most of the proposed U.S. plans are, and what Germany has for example) - they DO NOT want anything like what we have now.


The majority aren't clamoring for a "complete and total change" - you are right, and the numbers are down from 1993 but a substantial number are still clamoring for more then "minor" change.

From: Obama's Ratings Remain High Despite Some Policy Concerns: Section 2: Opinions About _Health Care - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press__
Most Americans believe that the nation&#8217;s health care system is in need of substantial changes. Four-in-ten (41%) say the health care system needs to be completely rebuilt, while 30% think it needs fundamental changes. About one-in-four (24%) believe that the health care system works pretty well and needs only minor changes._

41% say "completely rebuilt" - while not a majority, it is significant.
30% say "fundamental changes"

That's 71% that want, at a minimum "fundamental changes".


----------



## alan1 (Jul 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Yes, and if you have pre-existing auto accidents your auto insurance is more expensive to.  If you don't believe me, call agent and tell them you've had 4 accidents in the last year, all deemed to be the other persons fault, and I promise you the rate quote will be higher than if you have none.  You still have the options, it just costs more.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 9, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



There is a huge difference between choosing to drive wrecklessly and having pre-existing health conditions, many of which people have no control over.  Bad drivers should pay more for auto insurance.  But should people who develop health problems due to genetics be made to pay more?  Maybe we should set up our society in a caste system where only the healthy are treated and cared for.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Well, gee whiz.  You mean insurance depends on your circumstances?  I guess that explains why my car insurance is higher if I get into an accident than it is if I don't.  And I don't notice anyone grousing about what a horrible crime THAT is.  It's just reality.  Some things happen in life that just suck.  Why is it MY job to foot the bill to make YOUR life suck less?

Sounds to me like what we need is more incentive for companies to offer policies for those with pre-existing conditions, so that competition brings the prices down some.  What we DON'T need is for the government to take over so it can just tell those people to die quietly because they cost too much.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I believe auto insurance also costs more if you're in certain age groups, or male, neither of which is your fault or your choice.

And if you're wanting a caste system where those with serious illnesses are shuffled off to die because they're too expensive, you can't do better than a government health bureaucracy.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 9, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Denying someone healthcare because it will cut into profits is the ultimate in rationing.
> 
> Or how about denying healthcare because of pre existing conditions?


Health care is not denied because of pre-existing conditions.  Not even health insurance is denied because of pre-existing conditions.  Every state has an agency with assigned risk health insurance policies available for virtually any pre-existing condition.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 9, 2009)

American Horse said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Denying someone healthcare because it will cut into profits is the ultimate in rationing.
> ...


You should talk to some of those who have been denied.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 9, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Have you? Do you know that they have been to the State agency, or are they simply lacking in information?  Have you asked those questions?  If you did you might be able to offer to help them find coverage they don't know is available.

And if they are financially unable to afford the state rates for people with pre-existing conditions, they might be in a position to qualify for Medicaid.  All children qualify.  I'm sure there are people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but couldn't come up with the money to pay a policy assigned by the state, a donut hole, if you will. My wife had to go that route and it was not much more than my own "healthy" rate.  

But as the government has tampered by adding mandates, the rates have steadily risen.  If the government had left the market place alone to make available those coverages that  would've been offered because the market would&#8217;ve demanded them,  people with only a few health concerns would not have had to pay for those they are certain would not ever have applied to them. 

Even high deductible policies for catastrophic illnesses were not allowed until the Medical Saving Accounts came into being, and then they were authorized only for that purpose. That was another case of the government looking to keep people from having deductibles that were to high by the politician's reckoning; in reality it was the government levelling out the system.  That is the extent of government tampering in the health insurance industry.  

Personally I blame the government for almost every bit of the distortion we see in today&#8217;s health care market place.  First they break it, then they trash it, then they replace it with an inferior product.  It will matter to you in the end; just wait and see.  Rationing will be the outcome.  If at 65 you need a knee replacement so that you can remain productive for another 10 years because you can't live on inflated dollars, thus adding to your social security check so that you can remain a productive citizen; you may be relegated to a "power chair"(if one is considered cost effective). Keep some good reading handy for the boredom....because you may not be able to afford your broadband computer link and your Cable TV.  I know, probably 75% of the people here think that will never happen to them.   I didn't, but I see it coming now.
.


----------



## Annie (Jul 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> _
> When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.
> 
> ...



The answer to this would be a 'living will' assigning medical guardianship to a family member. DNR's are widely respected, don't blame 'the system' for stupid personal choices. 

About rationing and the backlash:

Kausfiles : Fear of Rationing: Obama Asked For It



> Fear of Rationing: Obama Asked For It
> WaPo's Alec MacGillis notes that Obama's health care reformers
> are clearly spooked by the notion that they could be accused of denying, for example, hip surgery to an 80-year-old.
> If so, they largely have themselves to blame. They brought it up!  It wasn't the Republicans who billed health care reform as a cost saving, budget-balancing measure that would start to deny payments for treatments deemed "ineffective," or (as one acolyte put it) when "a person's life, or health, is not worth the price." And to think when they heard that people started to worry about rationing! Fancy that.
> ...



and more:

THE HEALTH CARE PEOPLE REALLY WANT - New York Post



> ....In fact, a mere 29 percent of respondents agreed with the promise that their premiums would go down as a consequence of reform. And regarding "accessibility," only 9 percent said that in the last five years they were without coverage all or most of the time.
> 
> Moreover, when asked, "Who do you think will benefit most from reform?" a whopping 60 percent chose "other people, but not [me]."
> 
> ...


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



There is no incentive for insurance companies to insure those who are truly sick.  There never has been and there never will be.  And now the insurance companies are the ones who are telling those with pre-existing conditins to die quietly because they cost too much.  

Tell me what incentives can you come up with that would make an insurance company want to take on someone who might cost them a lot of money?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Denying someone healthcare because it will cut into profits is the ultimate in rationing.
> ...



You are correct; every state has a high risk pool or they force insurance companies to offer a guaranteed issue policy with a one year waiting period.  This is what I was offered after moving to a different state.  I had health insurance at a reasonable price but couldn't take it with me to my new state.  So now, instead of paying $329 per month with a maximum out of pocket of $2000 per year, I now would have to pay close to $900 per month with a maximum out of pocket of $5000 per year.  That is the rate for someone between 45 to 50.  If I was 60, it would be $1375 per month.

That may sound reasonable to some people but not to me.  On top of this, these type of policies have very low maximums lifetime payouts, so if you really get sick, they won't cover everything.  For instance, the maximum for an organ transplant is $100,000.  Well, the average organ transplant starts out around $250,000, so why bother having the insurance?

Because I've have not been able to work full-time for a while, I don't have that kind of money, plus I need to make certain my kids have coverage.  So, they are covered and I will pay out of pocket for all of my treatment, which is actually much cheaper than going through the insurance company.  The only issue is that I have no catastrophic coverage now.  But hey, who needs that anyway?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



I've talked to many people in this situation.  Most state's high risk insurance programs cost between $1500 to $2500 per month and they are very limited in what they cover.  They are priced so high that very few can afford them.  It is a way of saying that they are making something available, but it's not realistic.  And the worst thing is that most of these people had insurance but lost it because they were no longer able to work due to their illness, or like me, they moved from one state to a different state.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



This problem could be easily solved with sliding scale subsidies based on income and wealth to buy health insurance, and there is no need for a major overhaul of our health insurance system or our health care system to solve it.  In fact, all of the problems with our existing system could be solved simply and far more cheaply if we approach them one at a time instead of turning this into a partisan political competition as Obama/Pelosi/Reid have done.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 10, 2009)

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



Stable coverage is not a moot talking point.  As costs continue to sprial out of control, more and more people will find themselves without coverage.  On top of this, more jobs will be moved to countries where the employer doesn't have to pay for the health coverage of its employees.   And of those companies that can't move their operations out of the US, many will close their doors.  We are literally facing a meltdown of our economy if we do not stabalize costs to a managable level.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



There is a world of difference between health insurance and auto insurance.

And exactly WHO would offer those incentives?  What would they be?  Who would bear the cost subsidizing because that's what "incentives" would likely amount to.

The government.

Not to mention - you seem to keep ignoring the facts.  No one is talking about the "government taking over" - they are talking about adding a public plan to cover those not currently covered and to promote real competition.  Why are you so afraid of that?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



If people who are well were willing to pay higher premiums so that people with pre existing conditions could be insured at standard rates, insurance companies would have an incentive to insure them, but if company A charged a higher rate to everyone and insured people with pre existing conditions and company B charged a lower rate and excluded people with pre existing conditions, healthy people would choose company B and company A would, in effect, become a high risk pool.  Insurance companies don't insure people with pre existing conditions at standard rates because healthy people don't want to subsidize them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Um, no.  I realize that you automatically default to "the government has to do it" on everything, but actually, if you take the government out of the equation, the market offers the incentives.  Yeah, people who aren't the most desirable insurance prospects are always going to have to pay more than those who are, because they're going to end up costing the insurance company more in claims.

Once again, look at auto insurance.  When it became necessary for everyone to have at least liability coverage, companies offering plans to those who are routinely turned down for insurance proliferated.  And then many of the major companies got in on the act, because they could see there was a niche to be filled and money to be made.  The same can be said for life insurance to older people and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Right now, there's comparatively little competition in health insurance (compared to other industries) primarily because of government interference.  The solution isn't to just throw up your hands and assume only the government can handle things because they've hamstrung everyone else.  The solution is to move them out of the way and let the market handle it.

And if you really think "Oh, we're just suggesting a LITTLE more government intervention, not that they take the whole enchilada", then you're too naive to be allowed out without a babysitter.  Try listening to your leaders when they talk once in a while, instead of just sighing happily in your pink, fuzzy clouds.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 10, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



That could be a reasonable approach, but how will it stabalize overall costs?  The ever increasing costs of healthcare as a percentage of GDP is going to lead to the downfall of our entire economy.  In 1970, the cost of healthcare was responsible for around 7% of GDP; today it is 17%, by 2025 it will reach 25%, by 2035 it will reach 35%, and by 2080 it will hit nearly 50% of GDP, with the bulk of spending coming from private care, not Medicare and Medicaid.  

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/11-13-LT-Health.pdf

If spending on healthcare reaches these levels, there won't be any money left for anything else.  Where will all of this money come from?  It certainly won't be from the working stiffs who won't even be able to make their rent payment.  The problem currently is that most people do have adequate coverage and so they are satisfied.  

What nobody wants to discuss is the fact that we are at the breaking point.  Costs are going to continue to rise in dramatic fashion unless there are drastic changes, and it is going to leave a great many with the choice between paying for healthcare or everyday living expenses.  In other words, we're going to have an awful lot of people without healthcare coverage.  The more that becomes a reality, the sooner we will see drastic changes.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 10, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That is correct.  What is interesting is the reaction of those who were once healthy, who then find themselves with a pre-existing condition and in that same boat as so many others.  And with more advanced genetic testing, we're going to see much more of this down the road.  Should a woman get a genetic test that reveals she has a high risk for developing breast cancer?  It sounds like a good idea, but she might then have to start paying much more for her health coverage is the test is positive.

I have hemochromatosis.  The disease only manifests itself after a very long period of time, and only if it is not discovered early on.  For instance, my kids may have it, and if they do, they can stop it from becoming a problem simply by donating blood a few times per year.  If they do this, the complications of storing too much iron will never become a problem because the blood removal will keep their iron levels normal.  But guess what?  If the insurance company finds out they have the genetic marker for hemochromatosis, they will be denied coverage.  That is assuming they want to purchase a private policy.  Of course, they could get coverage through an employer, but only because that is mandated by the goverenment.

So, this genetic mutation, that causes no problem at all if found early on, is reason enough for the insurance companies to deny coverage.  Just imagine what they will do for those with greater risks.  And as for hemochromatosis, it is estimated that over 1 million Americans have the markers for it, but most don't realize it.  With more genetic testing, three quarters of our population will end up in high risk pools eventually.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Health care costs are rising because our population is aging and this has created a market for expensive treatments to prolong life and to improve the quality of life.  Nothing in the current circus in Congress addresses this issue.  Certainly there are some economies to be had, but as long as our population continues to age, health care costs will continue to rise and the only way to stop it is to ration health care by denying expensive treatments to some people.  Inevitably, this will mean that in the future people who can pay for these expensive treatments out of their own pockets will get them and people who rely on their health insurance, public plan or private plan, will not.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Having a genetic marker for a disease is not dissimilar to having a family history of this disease.  Insurance companies multiply the probability of having the disease by the expected costs of treating the disease to determine their risk exposure.  Insuring a child with a genetic marker for such a disease is vastly different from insuring an adult who already has the disease because even if the child never did anything to prevent the onset of the disease, the costs of treating it would be spread over so many years that the difference in risk would be small.  In fact, discovering the genetic marker early in life would on average make such a person a very low risk for developing the disease and I'm sure insurance company actuaries understand this.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Has anyone really pin pointed the reasons why the costs are rising so fast?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 10, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



You would think, but that is not the case.  With hemochromatosis, if you have the genetic marker, you will not be accepted for a private insurance policy.  It doesn't matter whether or not you are young or old, or if you have actually developed any complications.  You are a risk, therefore you are denied.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



If that's still true, it's only because so few people have yet been identified as carrying genetic markers for diseases that the insurance companies have not yet figured out what the true costs are for insuring them.  The fact is that turning away people who on average will not cost them significantly more is turning away profits, and we both know insurance companies don't want to turn away profits.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



There are a multitude of reasons, and one big one is that our population is aging, but it is not aging nearly as fast as many other countries with much lower overall costs.  Also, we are paying for the rapid advancement in new technologies and new treatments.  The problem with many of these new technologies is that they are extremely expensive because they aren't used all that frequently.  

What does bother me though is the idea that greater demand and more competition will reduce prices.  What we have seen over the last three decades is an aging population which has led to the need for more medical services than ever with more doctors and hospitals than ever to treat those people and create the competition necessary to control prices.  But it hasn't worked out that way.

Based on normal rules of capitalism, providing a service or selling a product to more people almost always reduces costs, but not so in healthcare.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



In fact, services and procedures that were available thirty years ago and are still in use today are cheaper and safer.  On the other hand, health care today is a very different package of services than it was thirty years ago.  In theory, price competition for the same product will increase efficiency and that will tend to drive prices down to a level where alternative uses of capital and labor will bring no greater rewards, and that has happened for those procedures, such as cataract surgery or joint repair, etc., that have been around for a long time, but newer procedures that require newly discovered or invented drugs or the purchase of new diagnostic or therapeutic equipment will always be more expensive because of patents and investment costs that have to be recovered.  

Health insurance creates the market for these new expensive treatments that then drive up the cost of health insurance.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Just to take on your figures, because they obviously vary state to state.  Six years ago my spouse had first to drop a policy with a well known name to get away from it and into the Indiana "risk pool"; With a rare syndrome with unknown medical risks no one realy wanted to insure for. As her prior insurer knew her conditon, the insurance she needed to drop was costing $1,100/month, and the insurance available in the risk pool was $323/month with a $1,500 deductible.  She was 58.  

I was 4 years older, a male, and I changed policies to a well known company (Anthem-BlueCross/Blue Shield) and got mine for just $153/month with a $1,000 deductible. Of course that was then and those prices have changed drastically.  My comment above in an earlier post (post #100) applies to why I think the government is primarily the cause of that change.

Now I'm on Medicare and SS at 68.  My total medicare costs are now $326. no deductible but with co-pays and my insurance takes up almost exactly 27% of my SS check.  This means of course that I have to stay in good physical condition to keep some income coming in while drawing down a small part of my savings hoping it all will work out to a big zero in about 15 years on the outside.  My physical condition is of primary concern to me.

If all states had all insurance providers available, and of course if the states did not promote government mandates and other costs on an insurance co more onerous than Indiana does, a better situation would prevail nation wide.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Denying someone healthcare because it will cut into profits is the ultimate in rationing.
> ...


 
That is simply false
Socializing healthcare has done nothing but make people sicker, the government has control of everything and you people cannot see just what a web they weave.

Damn anyone who tries to deny my son healthcare on the basis of his progressive and awful disease. I pay for it, and work extra hours to pay for the one medication that helps with the pain, while the state tries to push a 20,000 dollar a year medicine into his veins. Which by the way we decided against, The side affects could kill him

Damn the government to hell


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 10, 2009)

Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass."   The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.

to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 10, 2009)

PixieStix said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Health care is not denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not even health insurance is denied because of pre-existing conditions. Every state has an agency with assigned risk health insurance policies available for virtually any pre-existing condition.
> ...


Huhh...?  I think we are in agreement here.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...


 
Yeah, we are, I quoted the wrong post,   sorry all is good


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass."   The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
> 
> to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.



Bullshit.

Each person was slammed by fate (the disease).  However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them.  That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 10, 2009)

Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.

Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"

Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

PixieStix said:


> Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
> The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.
> 
> Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"
> ...



Ah yes, the freedom to choose.

So why did my mom have to sue to get reimbursed for out of network treatment that saved her life when in network treatment would only refer her to a psychologist to help her deal with death?

Some "freedom" that was.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
> ...


 
I don't know, but the answer may be at the link

Price controls on insurance premiums create another form of implicit rationing. Premium caps, which Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is currently threatening to impose, force private insurers to manage care more tightly  i.e., to deny coverage for more services. Rating restrictions prevent insurers from pricing health insurance according to a purchaser's risk. According to Harvard economist and Obama adviser David Cutler, rating restrictions unleash adverse selection, which drives comprehensive health plans from the market. That rations care by forcing many consumers to accept less coverage than they would prefer. Rating restrictions also encourage insurers to avoid the sickest patients or skimp on their care  another form of implicit rationing.

Placebo - Why the Democrats&#039; Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## American Horse (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Ah yes, the freedom to choose.
> 
> So why did my mom have to sue to get reimbursed for out of network treatment that saved her life when in network treatment would only refer her to a psychologist to help her deal with death?
> 
> Some "freedom" that was.


  Well at least she could sue. Try that when a government agency is determining your mom's health treatments.  And furthermore with a private (corporate) insurance company you (or your mom)  have the power to drag them into small claims court, in your own state and town, while acting as your own attorney, while they have to incur the costs of sending an attorney to plead their case.  Did you know that?  Try that with the coming Burea-of-federal-cost-accounting-and-medical treatment or whatever they end up calling it.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2009)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass."   The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
> 
> to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.



If profit is the only "moral compass" in use - exactly HOW is that better then someone who's "moral compass" is badly calibrated?

What makes profit so "good" or "ethical" when it has a history of leaving a lot of suffering in it's wake?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass."   The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
> ...



I didn't say it was ok, I just said it was the way things happen.   It is not lovely, it just is.

In a market system, you bid up the price of a doctor visit and you pay for the health care you can afford.  In the case of Pixie here, you give up a lot of extra to get the extra health care.

Lack of government does not mean a lack of doctors.   Given the way the world works, quite the reverse.  The government restricts entry into the medical profession quite severely.  For both good reasons and bad, but we can argue that in another thread.

But in a government controlled system, health care is rationed by political need.  Hillarycare would have assigned doctors to communities.  0bamacare isn't as bad as that.  (Or good, ymmv depending on if you were the doctor or the community)
but politics is different and very smelly kettle of fish entirely.  Do you want your health care determined by cheese paring republicans out to do some budget cuts, or by a doctor who has a clue, but is kind of expensive?   elections go both ways, and health care just plain is expensive.  Do we shut down schools to provide more health care, or do we euthenize to support the schools?  What about national parks?  Close em down or leave granny to rot on her gurney?   Right now, that is not a question here.    In much of the world, it is.    Which way do you want to go on these questions?

And politics goes back and forth anyway.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, and pork barrel politics are forever.   Government health care means West VA gets a terrific state of the art hospital, whereas you have a short staffed clinic with not enough nurses, beds or medications if the city where  you live voted the wrong way.    That is not the issue with private care.  You get the health care you vote for, rather than the health care congress vote for.  And unless you live in WV, you will probably loose out on that one.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes, the freedom to choose.
> ...



Right, because nobody can ever sue the government 

Smalls claim court?  For medical bills?  Are you joking me?  Small claims court is limited to, I believe, $5,000.  That would cover maybe a day in the hospital.  Maybe.  

The only reason my parents avoided declaring bankruptcy because of hundreds of thousands of medical fees is because my mom is a lawyer and she knows her rights.  They improperly denied her, she was able to fight it and get them to reimburse her.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


 Cuckoo yourself, and right back atcha.  Ask your mom then, about the possibility of suing the FedGov on an issue like this and see what she tells you.  I think you're being rediculously optimistic about getting better results suing the Gov than suing a Corp.



> Smalls claim court?  For medical bills?  Are you joking me?  Small claims court is limited to, I believe, $5,000.  That would cover maybe a day in the hospital.  Maybe.


You didn't say we were talking about a hospital stay, but instead a course of treatment. I still think you are exagerating on that cost, first day maybe, because it includes lots of possibllities, but every subsequent day mayby not so much.



> The only reason my parents avoided declaring bankruptcy because of hundreds of thousands of medical fees is because my mom is a lawyer and she knows her rights.  They improperly denied her, she was able to fight it and get them to reimburse her.


 Which is good to hear, but she did succeed, proving my point; so go ahead and ask her.....and try not coming on with the Cuckoos when someone is trying to have a civil conversation with you.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2009)

When it comes to lawsuit...I'm not sure there is that much difference between suing the government or a corporation.  Unless you have a lot of money - or the potential to win a lot of money and thus interest a lawyer - or a class action suit - you have little leverage.  A lot of corporations look at the risk/benifit ratio when it comes to lawsuits - it is often worth the risk of simply paying off a potential lawsuit in order to get your potentially faulty product on the market and realize the profit - particularly pharmaceuticals.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass."   The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
> ...



Horseshit, "no one is caring for them".  Frankly, I'd much rather depend on having someone care for me medically because it's in HIS interests to do so than waiting for someone to come do it just because they're remarkably generous, altruistic creature with a strong "moral compass".  THAT really WOULD have me dead.

And here's a newsflash for you, Sparky.  Death is never pleasant, and everyone does it anyway, rich or poor, no matter how much medical care they get or who pays for it.  Life sucks, and if you're looking for the government to change that, well . . . I for one just hope you're holding your breath while you wait.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> When it comes to lawsuit...I'm not sure there is that much difference between suing the government or a corporation.  Unless you have a lot of money - or the potential to win a lot of money and thus interest a lawyer - or a class action suit - you have little leverage.  A lot of corporations look at the risk/benifit ratio when it comes to lawsuits - it is often worth the risk of simply paying off a potential lawsuit in order to get your potentially faulty product on the market and realize the profit - particularly pharmaceuticals.


Thanks Coyote, and I noticed that you qualified your statement in a couple of interesting ways.  This conversation was not about winning a lot of money in a lawsuit but to get an insurance company to adhere to a needed treatment procedure.  

A government agency might be more or less compliant, but the lines of communications in bureaucracies are sclerotic, and those of corporations are more reactionary to bad publicity while the option of government to interfere at some point still remains open, but that is non existent when the government is the single review authority; well, except for appealing to one's congressional representative.

I'd rather to try to force an insurance company to do the right thing than to force the government to do the right thing.  One thing about it, when that becomes the government't purview to decide which procedure is cost effective, there will be lots of people complaining and few remedies for their situation.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You keep saying "let the market handle it." But that's the problem. This whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if "the market had handled it" well. Frankly, insurance companies should have seen this coming and started to offer at least more pooled insurance plans for employers. I've noticed in the last few months there are some insurance companies advertising low-cost plans on television. Why did they wait so long?

Using just my own firm that I recently retired from, every time the health plan came up for renewal, Prudential would raise our rates and individual deductibles, even though we consistently had a low claim history. Finally, we did an exhaustive search comparing plans and told Prudential to take a hike. The plan we ultimately decided upon wasn't much better, but the owners decided it was time to send a strong message to Prudential. Not to single out Prudential only, if all companies did this instead of becoming complacent about automatic jumps by their existing insurers and just accepting it as a necessary evil, insurers would have become much more nervous about competition a long time ago and done something about it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



Although nominal by comparison, you do pay an annual deductible on Part B as well as a deductible per incident under Part A Medicare. In addition to the monthly Medicare premium for Part B, also nominal by comparison, Medicare will still only cover 80% of approved charges. So it isn't free, and even Medicare is expensive for _very_ poor elders. And when doctors start ordering up expensive tests for old people, 20% of those costs soon become huge debts. 

I don't think most doctors intend to put that burden on their patients, they just don't THINK. My neighbor recently had to drive 40 miles to the hospital for a doctor-ordered bone density scan, which cost just under $100 for the actual test by the radiologist. But the hospital charged $300 for filling out a form and a ratty hospital gown while she sat in an ice cold room for only 10 minutes before the actual test. Since she hadn't yet met the Medicare deductible for 2009, you can guess that she was not a happy camper.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass."   The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
> ...



What's fascinating to me is that the cons are so selective as to which "moral compass" to defend or kick to the curb as insignificant. I could bring up several analogies, but that would change the topic matter, so I'll leave it to the imagination which of those I'm talking about.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 10, 2009)

PixieStix said:


> Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
> The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. *If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure.* If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.
> 
> Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"
> ...



Sure. And why is that expected to happen when private control over health care has done the complete opposite for over 30 years?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes, the freedom to choose.
> ...



First off, the US government gets sued all the time. Second, what would small claims court have to do with wrongful treatment, which is basically a claim of fraud or contract violation with an arbitrary figure, plus punitive damages, which small claims courts don't deal with.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> When it comes to lawsuit...I'm not sure there is that much difference between suing the government or a corporation.  Unless you have a lot of money - or the potential to win a lot of money and thus interest a lawyer - or a class action suit - you have little leverage.  A lot of corporations look at the risk/benifit ratio when it comes to lawsuits - it is often worth the risk of simply paying off a potential lawsuit in order to get your potentially faulty product on the market and realize the profit - particularly pharmaceuticals.



I believe part of one of the myriad "plans" now being debated in Washington includes an arbitration board, which would be the first stop anyway, in determining fault. That would also take care of the booming legal business which wants to sue over everything from illness incurred by taking a wrong drug, to an ingrown toenail caused by a heavy hospital blanket. [Exaggerated of course.]


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



You're really quite amazing. So Coulter-esque.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



A very important point.  The reason I put scare quotes around it all the time.  The term is so personal and dependent on the the person making the argument.  I imagine there are quite a few folks around that if you wanted to make a moral compass argument around them, you wouldn't want to use theirs.

The moral compass of state action is, as a general rule from experience, badly broken.    Individual action is the best way to go.  There are always good people in the worst of times and places.   The best government on earth lacks the moral standards of a rabid polecat.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
> ...


 
Maybe beause health care has NOT been in the hands of the private sector the last 30 years, you are fooling yourself if you think it has been 

*Medicaid: wreaking havoc in health care *

*How New York State's runaway Medicaid spending is strangling the taxpayers and undercutting the quality of medical care* 

New York State's Medicaid program was launched more than 30 years ago as a way of financing health care for the neediest of our citizens. But today our Medicaid program has emerged as a monstrous, $24.5 billion budget-buster at both the state and local levels. And it ties up so much of its money supporting a bloated health-care industry that it cannot even offer coverage to more than 3 million uninsured New Yorkers. 

About two-thirds of the money goes to provide taxpayer-financed health insurance coverage for welfare recipients, disabled, low-income and other needy residents of the state. The rest of the money pays for nursing-home care and home health care for the elderly and others who need long-term caremost of whom were not classified as "needy" until they began to require such intensive and expensive health-care services.
This nearly $25 billion program costs the taxpayers over $1,300 a year for every man, woman and child in the state. Directly (through their own taxes) and indirectly (through taxes paid by businesses from which they buy goods and services), the average family of four in New York is paying over $5,000 a year to support the Medicaid program.
That $5,000, as it happens, is close to the cost of basic health insurance coverage for a family of four. In other words, on average _each_ family of four in the state is paying in Medicaid taxes about what it would cost to insure that whole family. Yet with all that money, Medicaid covers less than one-fifth of tour population.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



And I want you to keep that stunning smile,...

A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients.
Iraq War veteran Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment so instead took the drastic action to remove 13 of his teeth that were giving him severe pain.
The 42-year-old, from Beverley, East Yorkshire, had not had his teeth looked at since seeing the army dentist in 2003. He had not been registered with a dentist of his own since 2001. He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.'
Man pulls out 13 of his own teeth with pliers 'because he couldn't find an NHS dentist' | Mail Online


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You have GOT to be kidding.  Health care hasn't been a free market since well before I was even born, and you SERIOUSLY have the gall to blame the way things are now on the market?  Try looking at your beloved government, with its insistence on employer-based health insurance benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, regulations on insurance company competition . . .



MaggieMae said:


> Using just my own firm that I recently retired from, every time the health plan came up for renewal, Prudential would raise our rates and individual deductibles, even though we consistently had a low claim history. Finally, we did an exhaustive search comparing plans and told Prudential to take a hike. The plan we ultimately decided upon wasn't much better, but the owners decided it was time to send a strong message to Prudential. Not to single out Prudential only, if all companies did this instead of becoming complacent about automatic jumps by their existing insurers and just accepting it as a necessary evil, insurers would have become much more nervous about competition a long time ago and done something about it.



Actually, most companies DO shop around for better deals.  Can't imagine where you got the idea that they didn't.  Doesn't mean that rates don't still sometimes have to go up for various reasons.  Meanwhile, your example shows us exactly why the market DOES work:  your company was able to move to something better.  Now you tell me how that's going to happen when the "insurance company" in question is the government.  What are you going to do, shop around for a better, cheaper one?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



What's fascinating to ME is that the liberals are so selective as to which "moral compass" to invoke.  Looks like the only "morality" they recognize is Big Government and socialism.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
> ...



Private control?  Oh, please.  The last "optional public plan" the government offered in health care was Medicare, which now holds 97% of its market share, and it and Medicaid make up a HUGE proportion of health care spending.  In fact, the government is the number one payer of health care expenditures in the country.  Tell me how that's "private control over health care for the last 30 years".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



I'll take that as a compliment, both because I like Coulter and because I know you don't.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 11, 2009)

PixieStix said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...



Some states misuse their Medicaid grants, for sure. But I would ask where those people would get health care if NOT for Medicaid? Ironically, you and I are already paying for those who fall through the cracks (not poor enough for Medicaid, not wealthy enough to afford private insurance) because those folks will use the "free" services of hospital emergency rooms, the cost of which the hospitals need to make up by overbilling you or your insurer. Without Medicaid, that problem would be overwhelming.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 11, 2009)

[quote-PoliticalChic]And I want you to keep that stunning smile,...

A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients.
Iraq War veteran Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment so instead took the drastic action to remove 13 of his teeth that were giving him severe pain.
The 42-year-old, from Beverley, East Yorkshire, had not had his teeth looked at since seeing the army dentist in 2003. He had not been registered with a dentist of his own since 2001. He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.'
Man pulls out 13 of his own teeth with pliers 'because he couldn't find an NHS dentist' | Mail Online[/quote]

Your point? As far as I know government sponsored "dental" treatment isn't even a consideration in the USA, although some make the case that it should be because poor dental health equals poor dietary health equals poor health in general.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 11, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...



Every time there's a thread regarding health care, the conversation somehow gets diverted to the belief that the current reform proposals involve single-payer, universal care. THEY DO NOT. We _should_ be discussing the excalating cost of health care INSURANCE, which is what Congress is dealing with at the present time, and how to assure that people who NEED health care can get INSURANCE to cover it--not the health care itself. 

Those who argue that the private sector has done a good job are just flat-out wrong. When more and more middle-class and even upper middle-class familities can no longer afford to maintain thousands of dollars in annual premiums and/or ridiculous deductibles, that is NOT the fault of the federal government but the fault of the free market gone nuts--because they can.

Rising Health Insurance Rates Hurting Businesses, Families and Individuals
_
In looking at some of the reports, the results are fairly startling. In Pennsylvania, for example, health care and health insurance premiums rose 6.4 times faster than earnings, or 86.2 percent rise in the cost of premiums versus a 13.2 percent rise in earnings. In Missouri, health insurance premiums rose 76.1 percent while earnings rose only 17.3 percent. Similar findings were seen in other states such as Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and so on. According to Families USA, this represents an even greater burden on people as their incomes stagnate while health care costs continue to rise._


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 11, 2009)

So here's what I think will happen.

Congress will develop a health care reform plan dealing strictly with some sort of government guarantee that ALL eligible Americans will be covered by health insurance. The details will be worked out over the next few months, and a final bill will be voted upon.

*However,* that bill will include a moratorium on the government carrying out such a program for X-number of years (3 to 5 would be reasonable) during which time the private sector would need to get its own act together and REFORM their own methods of delivery so that more people would be eligible for coverage, at reasonable costs.

That's broadly put, but in my opinion, it's as far as any health care reform will go during Obama's first term. But at least ONE DOCUMENT will be out there, waiting in the wings, and another session of back-to-back draft plans muddying up the intent won't be required.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



The question is, why are health insurance costs rising so quickly?



> While rising health care premiums are a concern for everyone, it is not surprising that many fail to link the cost of health coverage to rising medical spending.
> 
> In economic terms, the fact of rising health insurance premiums is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator &#8212; an effect rather than a cause. Among the varying theories of why premiums are increasing, one fact remains irrefutable &#8212; rising medical costs are a primary driver of the cost of health coverage.
> 
> ...



http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6524018.html

In other words, higher premiums are the result of higher costs for covered services, not examples of price gouging by private insurance companies.  When you are sick or injured, you are glad for the enhanced yet costly advances in medical services available to you, but if you don't want to pay for the higher costs they require, they won't be there when you need them.  

The most disturbing thing about this whole debate is that the really intractable problems effecting the higher costs of health insurance, the high costs of newer diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and the aging of our population, are not being addressed at all, and many who have no answers for these real problems try to persuade voters that it is all the fault of private insurance companies.  In this respect, neither Congress nor the White House had dealt with this issue responsibly.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



While rising costs for tech procedures is a valid argument--in general--it doesn't address why a person must buy a one-size-fits-all policy which covers an array of procedures and is not offered one that costs less and covers less. I've never seen a health care policy application that asks the potential subscriber to list what HE wants covered. The questions only involve his existing health condition.


----------



## Meister (Jul 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> So here's what I think will happen.
> 
> Congress will develop a health care reform plan dealing strictly with some sort of government *guarantee that ALL eligible Americans *will be covered by health insurance. The details will be worked out over the next few months, and a final bill will be voted upon.
> 
> ...



I believe that it's going to cover all illegals in this country, also.  That demographic is part of the 45-50 million uninsured.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I can't imagine what tests and procedures you wouldn't want covered, but what you suggest involves customized underwriting which would involve separate actuarial evaluations for thousands, at least, of tests and procedures and this would add a great deal to the cost of the policy.  There are insurance companies that will insure just about anything you want to insure if you can afford it, but the cost of determining the risk and the smaller sample of experience the company has to work with for exceptional policies makes the cost fairly high.  

However, if such a choice were possible and there were no extra costs involved in it, it would still be a bad idea for a few reasons.  First, few people have the competence to make wise decisions about what coverage to exclude.  Second, young, healthy people would be tempted to exclude coverage for age related diseases, such as heart disease, many types of cancer, etc., until they are older and more likely to need this coverage, and that would mean since the potential cost of treating these diseases is spread over a smaller group of people and the risk for this group is much higher the cost of insurance for older people would go up.  

Imagine a time when genetic testing is more developed and refined and its application is more widespread.  Suppose you find out that you have none of the genetic markers for a particular disease; you might ask to have coverage for that disease excluded from your policy to reduce your premium.  Your neighbor, SallySue, however, has found that she has the markers for that disease and she is dismayed to find her next month's premium bill has gone up.  When she calls the insurance company, they tell her that since MaggieMae has dropped that coverage, there are fewer people to spread the potential costs over and therefore she must bear more of this burden.

The one size fits all plan is uniquely suited to the insurance business because it averages potential costs over those who have almost no risk as well as those who are at high risk and this makes healthcare available to almost everyone.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > So here's what I think will happen.
> ...


Either that or they will continue to go to emergency rooms for "free care" ... that free care costs about $1,000. per visit.
Sadly, our government under 8 years of Bush did nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, although the GOP complains of it constantly.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 11, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



There is no reason for anyone to go to ER's for routine care, and if they do, they should be turned away.  There are plenty of free clinics, US Public Health Service clinics and clinics run by medical schools and teaching hospitals, and anyone without insurance who refuses to use them should not be treated by ER's and if ER's do treat them, they should not be reimbursed.  

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page

free clinics in philadelphia - Google Search


----------



## Meister (Jul 11, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Ya know Junkie, I get real tired of the 8 yearts of Bush bullshit.  What about the 8 years under Clinton????  WTF did he do about the borders and immigration?  Nothing, that's what?  Why not pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass and say that politicians have done nothing about it.  Your post is absolutely pathetic.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


It seems to me that the GOP screams loudest about illegal immigration. It's one of their vote-getters along with abortion ... they also have not outlawed abortion .. nor will they.


----------



## Meister (Jul 11, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Pathetic attempt of a deflection, Junkie.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > So here's what I think will happen.
> ...



No, it isn't and no it won't.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 12, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Wow, if only it actually worked that way, health care reform regarding insuring everyone wouldn't even be an issue. You've used the most excellent talking point of the insurance lobby. I can turn your last paragraph on its head and ask why someone who is *not* at high risk needs to pay for the higher premiums because of those who *are* at high risk and therefore choose cadillac coverage?

Can't existing mega insurers figure out simple plans that cover preventive checkups, then have choices of add-ons to cover potential catastrophic events? Can't they write policies like Medicare which will cover a FREE health profile during the first calendar year of enrollment in Part B? Can't they write inexpensive policies that cover only preventive medicine (which most young people would opt for)?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 12, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You're forgetting that ILLEGAL immigrants do not have to reveal any personal information if they go to a hospital ER.  Also, most are ignorant of any other health care facilities that might be available, so the hospital ER would be their first stop. It is what it is, because of hospital code of not turning anyone away who is in need of emergency medical assistance. I believe anyone (including illegals) ARE turned away from hospital ERs if they arrive just for basic checkups, maternity care, etc.

The problem of llegal immigrants in general is a whole 'nuther issue.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



The argument I was responding to was that because illegals are not covered by health insurance they go to ER's for routine care, at $1,000 per visit, and this would not happen if they were covered by health insurance.  This argument is also put forward in support of extending health insurance to those Americans who cannot afford to pay for it or otherwise choose not to have it, and it has no validity there either: there are free or inexpensive alternatives to ER's for routine care, medical and dental, for everyone in the US now.  

The problem comes if you should require diagnostic or therapeutic procedures beyond simple tests or procedures that might be performed in a doctor's office.  This more expensive care is still available to you if you first spend down your assets and income to a level that qualifies you for Medicaid.  US Health Service clinics and most free clinics routinely help patients apply for Medicaid benefits.

However, I do agree with you that too few of the people, illegal or otherwise, who need these services know where or how to find them, and it is scandalous that those who are clamoring for trillion dollar programs to overhaul the health insurance programs in this country have made no attempt to direct these people to the facilities that already exist near them and are able to serve them now.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Again, if young healthy people pay only for the medical services they have a high probability of needing in the near future, then older and sicker people will have to pay much more for their insurance, effectively throwing all of them into high risk pools, and of course, as these younger people age, their insurance costs will have to rise dramatically because those younger than they now are will not be sharing the costs of insuring them.  

Both Medicare and private insurance programs operate on the same principle, that young healthy people will pay much of the cost of providing medical care for older and sicker people.  Indeed, a key component of the health insurance overhaul now being considered by Congress is that all insurance companies should be forced to insure people with pre existing conditions at standard rates, thus forcing healthy people to pay even more for their insurance to offset the higher costs of caring for these sick people.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 12, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Well, again, I don't think anyone can generalize how "free" clinics operate anymore than they can generalize how all hospitals operate. With regard to myself, I once found myself without a car in the dead of winter but with an excruciatingly painful absessed tooth, so I walked to the clinic nearby rather than climb the hill to the hospital ER. At the time I had no insurance, but I also didn't qualify for Medicaid. So the clinic treated my tooth with antibiotics and sent me a bill. Granted, they undoubtedly treat similar situations where those bills don't get paid, but I don't believe all clinics operate with free, open-door-to-all policies, even if they are non-profit.

That same hospital charges the same outrageous sums for mundane things like aspirin, just like big city hospitals where there are many illegal immigrants. We have barely any where I live. So there's a flaw in that rationale too.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 12, 2009)

The reason health care reform has historically been so difficult to achieve is that it is such a personal, inyourface issue. Everyone has a story to tell which supports his "side" of the issue. Regardless what gets passed, or not, there are also mini-issues that any health care reform has yet to even address. 

One of those I've been thinking about is how family size might eventually enter into the equation. For example, maybe one reason a family may decide that two children are enough is because of the potential cost of health care for any more kids. So would a "universal" plan one day become so out of control, cost-wise, that limitations on family size would be needed unless that family could afford more children at its own expense? A cap of sorts? John & Kate should have stopped after their first set of triplets maybe? 

There are all kinds of moral questions that haven't even come into play yet, which is why I have never fully supported an all-government sponsored health CARE program. Although I do support health INSURANCE availability for everyone. I've always seen this as two separate issues.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Not all clinics are free clinics, but free clinics are really free.  National Health Service clinics ask you if you have insurance or the ability to pay something towards your care, and if you answer, no, they treat you for free - no documentation required.  If you do a google search for free clinics in your city, you will find a number that will either treat you for free or charge you on a sliding scale basis depending on what you say your income is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I listen to leftists talk, both those in office and those in the general public who support those in office.  Then I look at history, at how every single mammoth, out-of-control government program we have started out with a small, modest, limited proposal and tons of promises that it would NEVER go any farther and certainly not where it eventually went.  Then I listen to you giving me the same promises that no, no, NO!  We're not proposing universal, single-payer, government-run health care.  GOD, no!  All we're talking about is THIS little program, that only moves a LITTLE bit in that direction, but will NEVER go that far.  And then I dig in my heels and say, "I'm not falling for that bullshit again", and I fight against the end of the slippery slope that I know is coming.

Give a leftist an inch, they'll take the whole damned ruler.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 13, 2009)

If it appeared to be inevitable that there would be a single payer healthcare system - but unfortunately then it would be too late - voters should demand that congress have to be on the same plan as ordinary citizens.  After all, didn't Obama say that would be a good standard during the campaign?  

A public outcry for that would draw attention to how luxurious the plan of congress is, and get their attention to how much they would prefer not to be limited to the rationing, which most of them know will result when used to drive medical costs down.  

They need to know that ordinary folks realize that a government "insurance plan"  - their proposed entrée - will drive out all private insurance plans, because government doesn't have to compete.

But even if they accepted this ultimatum, as deceptive as we know they are, how long would it be until they exempted themselves from that lack of advantage or found a way around it as if it never existed?

So the "damning" phrase to unite behind is:
* " Congress... On the same Plan "*


----------



## Coyote (Jul 13, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jul 13, 2009)

American Horse said:


> If it appeared to be inevitable that there would be a single payer healthcare system - but unfortunately then it would be too late - voters should demand that congress have to be on the same plan as ordinary citizens.  After all, didn't Obama say that would be a good standard during the campaign?
> 
> A public outcry for that would draw attention to how luxurious the plan of congress is, and get their attention to how much they would prefer not to be limited to the rationing, which most of them know will result when used to drive medical costs down.
> 
> ...



I really don't see us as going to a single payer system.  Our country is very individualistic and pro-market in comparison with others.  We have a powerful special interest group in the insurance industries.  I don't see that changing.  I think a more realistic example is a comparison with public schools - those who can afford it can choose private, those who can't or don't want to choose the public option.


----------



## Meister (Jul 13, 2009)

Coyote said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > If it appeared to be inevitable that there would be a single payer healthcare system - but unfortunately then it would be too late - voters should demand that congress have to be on the same plan as ordinary citizens.  After all, didn't Obama say that would be a good standard during the campaign?
> ...


Coyote, I am all for everyone who wants healthcare to have it.  My problem is I'm afraid that the government will eventally squeeze out the private sector through regulations, and mandates leaving no other options.  I'm also concerned on the cost for me if I want my own private insurance.  I will pay for it, and it's not cheap, but then I will be pay more taxes for the government run insurance...and that's not going to be cheap.
There has to be a way with tax credits for both the insurance companies to supply the insurance to the people who need it, and tax credits for the people who need it.  This could be done without the government taking control.  I don't think that would be a good thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 13, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jul 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote, I am all for everyone who wants healthcare to have it.  My problem is I'm afraid that the government will eventally squeeze out the private sector through regulations, and mandates leaving no other options.  I'm also concerned on the cost for me if I want my own private insurance.  I will pay for it, and it's not cheap, but then I will be pay more taxes for the government run insurance...and that's not going to be cheap.
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jul 14, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 14, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jul 14, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 15, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 16, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



And here in the US, we have 50 million people whose only access to health care is the emergency room. And that number is increasing daily as the economy continues to worsen.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 16, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 16, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jul 16, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> If you do some research you will find that private healthcare providers are on the rise in Canada and the UK.
> CBC News In Depth: Health care
> 
> A new role for overseas and independent healthcare providers in England : Department of Health - Publications
> ...



Not exactly.  If you do some research - you'll find that while they have complaints about their healthcare those complaints do not go so far as to want to emulate ours.

The top ten countries rated for quality healthcare do not include the U.S.

I think what you are finding is some countries moving towards a mixture of public and private options - which is not what we have now but is what is on the table now.  That is not the same as "moving to our form of healthcare".

Do they want our form of healthcare?  Apparently there are a lot of myths perpetrated in the very heated debate over health care and comparisons to that in other countries.

For example, Canada: Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post
Would Canadians trade their system? Ice Station Tango: Canadians Wouldn't Trade Their Healthcare System For Ours


----------



## Barb (Jul 16, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> _
> When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.
> 
> ...



 My great aunt, in her late 80's, with numerous age-related health issues, was in the hospital. They found cancer, gave her chemo, and it killed her. She was dying anyway, but they had to "treat" her cancer rather than keep her comfortable. We all die. Medicine should avoid prolonging the the process and concentrate on comfort, especially when their cure is more lethal than the disease.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## American Horse (Jul 16, 2009)

Barb said:


> My great aunt, in her late 80's, with numerous age-related health issues, was in the hospital. They found cancer, gave her chemo, and it killed her. She was dying anyway, but they had to "treat" her cancer rather than keep her comfortable. We all die. Medicine should avoid prolonging the the process and concentrate on comfort, especially when their cure is more lethal than the disease.


Barb, anyone has the right to have chemo or not to have it. Someone, either she or her agent signed off on that.  Now in the case of emergency rescuscitation we have a different scenario.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 16, 2009)

Coyote said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jul 16, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 16, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 16, 2009)

Barb said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > *Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:*
> ...



The same thing happened to my mother, who had bone cancer, the most painful of all cancers. The docs and hospitals continued to keep her sick with the chemo even knowing that once cancer reaches bone marrow, it is deadly and no amount of drugs will help. She was in such excruciating pain (only allowed those "measured doses" of morphine, presumably so she wouldn't get hooked---  ), that my father finally grabbed her doctor by the throat one morning and screamed, in a hallway full of people, that if he didn't give my mother enough morphine to put her in a coma and free from pain, he would kill him. She died a week later. The doctor lived. True story.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 16, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > My great aunt, in her late 80's, with numerous age-related health issues, was in the hospital. They found cancer, gave her chemo, and it killed her. She was dying anyway, but they had to "treat" her cancer rather than keep her comfortable. We all die. Medicine should avoid prolonging the the process and concentrate on comfort, especially when their cure is more lethal than the disease.
> ...



That isn't the way it used to be, even a decade ago. Doctors were all gung-ho to try all sorts of chemo cocktails to "first do no harm." And the patients and the patient's families trusted THEIR advice.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

Coyote said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > If you do some research you will find that private healthcare providers are on the rise in Canada and the UK.
> ...



Interesting how you sneeringly suggest "doing some research" and can't even be bothered to research the message board you're posting in, where this same WHO report has been utterly, thoroughly debunked and discredited as any sort of conclusive source.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



What'd your mother, who was actually accepting and allowing the treatments, have to say about it?  You know, before your father demanded that they kill her.

NO Family members, and saying that the father demanded they "kill her."


----------



## Coyote (Jul 16, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Interesting how you sneeringly suggest "doing some research" and can't even be bothered to research the message board you're posting in, where this same WHO report has been utterly, *thoroughly debunked and discredited as any sort of conclusive source.*



That's a matter of opinion.

Ever thought about growing up?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how you sneeringly suggest "doing some research" and can't even be bothered to research the message board you're posting in, where this same WHO report has been utterly, *thoroughly debunked and discredited as any sort of conclusive source.*
> ...



Exactly the incisive, indepth rebuttal I expected from you.  "My source may be a joke around here, but you're a big poophead!  Nyah nyah!"

That about does it for any credibility you deluded yourself you were going to earn around here.  FLUSH!


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yes, the WHO is a joke 

If the WHO is a joke "around here" that speaks volumes more about "around here" than about the WHO.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 16, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Thank you for answering my question through example 

Do you ever post anything interesting or substantial or useful or are you just here to spew your bile?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I'm sure the WHO and their biased report aren't a joke to YOU.  On the other hand, you're a joke to everyone else, so . . .

As part of "around here",  I'm proud and pleased to know that you disagree and disapprove.  Please continue to do so, because the day that you ever like anything I do, I'm going to be seriously worried.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You don't get to speak for everyone else, tool.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 16, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



She would writhe, scream out in pain, and from exhaustion then sleep for awhile. Then wake and do the same. She wasn't exactly in the mood for conversation.

It was about a six-month process for her, starting with just a nonstop, boring ache in her lower back (not like your basic every day back pain), which got progressively worse so that the only way she felt comfortable at home, before being hospitalized, was lying on her stomach, draped over the bed so that her back would be completely rigid but with pressure toward her stomach, not her back. Chemo treatments always made her deathly sick, and pain was managed by opiates in pill form, until they no longer worked.

This was in the mid 70's when people weren't as educated in cancer treatments and how so often they just don't work, and doctors know certain patients like my mother don't stand a chance no matter what they do. But they didn't _SAY SO_, in those days. So we all just trusted that she would get better, and so did she, in spite of how horrible it was to watch her have to go through that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



No, but I do get to speak for my observations, and I haven't observed anyone who respects you that I would piss on if they were on fire.  By all means, though, luxuriate in the high regard of people who routinely inspire derisive laughter.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Wow, you mean far-right wingers like you don't like me?  I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.  Just as shocked as your implication t hat you would let people die because you disagree with their political beliefs.

But then, its all par for the course for a complete fuckwit like yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



So basically, you never asked any questions or said a damned thing until your father finally made a ridiculous public scene?  Mightn't it have been a better and more productive response to have sat down and talked to the doctors before getting to that point?

And frankly, all you've really done is make a case for more individual patient control over health care, not for a change in which bureaucrats are running things.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



No, I mean that only extremely far left-wing twits DO like you.  And no, I wouldn't let them die for disagreeing with me.  I'd let them die for being so ignorant that they endanger the gene pool.  Not everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, but virtually everyone who's ignorant disagrees with me . . . and thinks you're the height of intellect, which should tell you something.

Hey, "fuckwit"!  What a brilliant riposte!  I say, you've left me speechless with your breathtaking, rapier wit!  

And the WHO report is still a debunked joke, just like you.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 16, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Listen, you fucking witch-- you have NO IDEA what went on BEFORE my mother died. If you think we sat around picking our noses, you're the type of asshole who would blame your own mother if she got killed by the drunk driver who might have been your boyfriend.

The topic of this particular thread is to ration or not, and the OP gave one scenario where it would be acceptable. My own mother's condition is another.

Now go to hell.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Get your panties out of their wad.  I swear, this is why it took so long for women to get the vote:  most are incapable of carrying on a debate without getting all hysterical and vaporish.

I don't need to know what went on before your mother died, and here's a newsflash, Princess: I don't care.  YOU brought it up, YOU shoehorned it into the debate in an attempt to use the sob-story, "I'm a victim, pity me and be silenced by my victimhood" ploy that's so popular with leftists, so you don't have the option of now getting your tampon all in an uproar and demand that I not comment on YOUR subject matter.  In the future, if you don't want people to talk about the way your family behaves, I suggest that you not base your arguments on them.

Your mother's death is NOT an example of "when it's appropriate to ration".  It's an example of when it's appropriate for THE PATIENT or THE PATIENT'S FAMILY to decide on medical treatment.  That you would consider it a good idea for anyone else, whether it be an insurance provider, a government bureaucrat, or a doctor to decide to ration your mother's care because you didn't have the gumption to do it for yourself is vile.  Deal with the fact that your family dropped the ball and move on.

And in the future, if you don't want to hear people's opinions of your life story, don't turn the message boards into your own personal group therapy session.  If you do, be prepared for the fact that not everyone is going to see you as the besieged saint that you do.


----------



## Barb (Jul 16, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > My great aunt, in her late 80's, with numerous age-related health issues, was in the hospital. They found cancer, gave her chemo, and it killed her. She was dying anyway, but they had to "treat" her cancer rather than keep her comfortable. We all die. Medicine should avoid prolonging the the process and concentrate on comfort, especially when their cure is more lethal than the disease.
> ...



 This was over twenty years ago, and Aunt Louise was 1, a good Catholic woman, 2, in a good Catholic hospital, and 3, raised to be unswervingly trusting of authority, especially medical authority. Informed consent means the patient is in complete possession of and understanding of all facts. She may have been, but because of 1,2,and 3, she would understandably bow to religious and medical authority. My problem is that the authorities should damned well have known better and acted in her best interest rather than their own ideology or profit. Would you not agree?


----------



## Barb (Jul 16, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I'm so sorry about your mom Maggie. I worked as a CNA for years and the stupidity of "protecting" the dying from addiction issues was one of the most frustrating things I've ever had to witness. We had a woman who ended up dying for months, screaming in pain, turned every fifteen minutes, and denied not only pain meds but proper diagnosis because of "issues" with her mental status and a "history" of drug seeking. She died from ovarian cancer, undiagnosed until the very end. Another patient (favorite of mine) complained of tooth pain every night. The admin and rn's (lower case very much intended) thought she'd become "addicted" to tylenol, and refused it to break her of her addiction. She died from a fucking heart attack because none of them connected tooth pain (common symptom of heart trouble for women, we present differently) to the possibility of real problems. 
Your father was a loving husband to do what he did, no matter what some hag on here has to say.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 17, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



She's talking about the 1970's - cancer, it's treatment, and public discussion about it were very very different then they are now not to mention she may have been a child at the time.  You may not have been born then, but immaturity is no excuse for idiocy

Is this your normal method of debate or are you just an angry little person trying to compensate?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 17, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> And frankly, all you've really done is make a case *for more individual patient control over health care, *not for a change in which bureaucrats are running things.



You already have bureaucrats running things - whether it's insurance bureaucrats or government bureaucrats it's in any patient's best interest to be informed and pro-active.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 17, 2009)

Barb said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



I totally agree. Who read medical magazines in those days except the profession? We put ALL our faith in those whom we assumed to be smarter and wiser.


----------

