Do we let people die who do not have health insurance

[Mac1958]

We are going to end up with single payer.

I remain hopeful that our "leaders" (cough, har har) won't go all the way to Single Payer and will instead stop at what I want, an expansion of the Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, a smart combination of public and private funding.

The problem is, the danger is, most people don't know the distinction between the two, and it's possible our "leaders" (cough, har har) don't either.
.

Oh the commissions, you would see dollar signs rolling in my eyes like a slot machine. lol

Do you sell those plans? You bet, imagine if you and the insurance companies had a wide open playing field with no age qualifications.

And imagine what bringing in young, healthy people to the plans would do to premiums.

I get pissed just thinking about it. The whole thing is just sitting there, ready to go.
.

Yes, I do and also do Medicare seminars for one of the largest insurers. Do very well. I also sell under 65 and do well not very but just well lol.

For five years one of the big ones used to bring me in when they were putting their MA plans together as the "finance guy". Really, really fascinating stuff. Each insurer has its own proprietary software that calculates premium costs for benefits. So, moving from a $10 doc co-pay to a $0 doc co-pay might increase the premium $3 a month, that kinda thing.

It really drives me nuts that we just can't expand this to all. Obviously some tweaks would need to be made, particularly on the doc reimbursement schedule, but this is just ridiculous.
.

 

[debbiedowner]

The point is we all sit here arguing with one another and in reality, no one lets another die, unless of course they murdered them. I don't like obamacare and don't like this piece of shit they have put together. Although I did not like or agree with the individual mandate as an individual I understand why the insurance companies demanded it.
You cannot insure everyone with pre x unless there is a mix of healthy people. If I hadn't have already seen in the past the mismanagement of high risk pools that went down the tubes I might be all for that today, I am not.

We will have to see how this pans out because I cannot see it going anywhere in present form.

 

[debbiedowner]

We are going to end up with single payer.

I remain hopeful that our "leaders" (cough, har har) won't go all the way to Single Payer and will instead stop at what I want, an expansion of the Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, a smart combination of public and private funding.

The problem is, the danger is, most people don't know the distinction between the two, and it's possible our "leaders" (cough, har har) don't either.
.

Oh the commissions, you would see dollar signs rolling in my eyes like a slot machine. lol

Do you sell those plans? You bet, imagine if you and the insurance companies had a wide open playing field with no age qualifications.

And imagine what bringing in young, healthy people to the plans would do to premiums.

I get pissed just thinking about it. The whole thing is just sitting there, ready to go.
.

Yes, I do and also do Medicare seminars for one of the largest insurers. Do very well. I also sell under 65 and do well not very but just well lol.

For five years one of the big ones used to bring me in when they were putting their MA plans together as the "finance guy". Really, really fascinating stuff. Each insurer has its own proprietary software that calculates premium costs for benefits. So, moving from a $10 doc co-pay to a $0 doc co-pay might increase the premium $3 a month, that kinda thing.

It really drives me nuts that we just can't expand this to all. Obviously some tweaks would need to be made, particularly on the doc reimbursement schedule, but this is just ridiculous.
.

Did you work with the actuaries or are you one? It would verily easy to switch over with tweaks to the reimbursements. We have put scenarios and costs together at the office, but then again we're not actuaries. This is Medicare for all, but we also wonder how a mixture of Medicare and the ones who wanted to go through underwriting with a lower premium would cost.

 

[Mac1958]

I remain hopeful that our "leaders" (cough, har har) won't go all the way to Single Payer and will instead stop at what I want, an expansion of the Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, a smart combination of public and private funding.

The problem is, the danger is, most people don't know the distinction between the two, and it's possible our "leaders" (cough, har har) don't either.
.

Oh the commissions, you would see dollar signs rolling in my eyes like a slot machine. lol

Do you sell those plans? You bet, imagine if you and the insurance companies had a wide open playing field with no age qualifications.

And imagine what bringing in young, healthy people to the plans would do to premiums.

I get pissed just thinking about it. The whole thing is just sitting there, ready to go.
.

Yes, I do and also do Medicare seminars for one of the largest insurers. Do very well. I also sell under 65 and do well not very but just well lol.

For five years one of the big ones used to bring me in when they were putting their MA plans together as the "finance guy". Really, really fascinating stuff. Each insurer has its own proprietary software that calculates premium costs for benefits. So, moving from a $10 doc co-pay to a $0 doc co-pay might increase the premium $3 a month, that kinda thing.

It really drives me nuts that we just can't expand this to all. Obviously some tweaks would need to be made, particularly on the doc reimbursement schedule, but this is just ridiculous.
.

Did you work with the actuaries or are you one? It would verily easy to switch over with tweaks to the reimbursements. We have put scenarios and costs together at the office, but then again we're not actuaries. This is Medicare for all, but we also wonder how a mixture of Medicare and the ones who wanted to go through underwriting with a lower premium would cost.

I'm just a financial advisor, they just brought me in to have a retirement planning perspective, and because I've worked with seniors for so long.

That's an interesting thought. It would be interesting to see if the insurers would want to retain the underwriting component and then have some kind of worst-case scenario premium as well. My concern there would be what effect lower premiums might have on provider compensation, and keeping that worst-case premium down. Interesting, though.
.

 

[debbiedowner]

Oh the commissions, you would see dollar signs rolling in my eyes like a slot machine. lol

Do you sell those plans? You bet, imagine if you and the insurance companies had a wide open playing field with no age qualifications.

And imagine what bringing in young, healthy people to the plans would do to premiums.

I get pissed just thinking about it. The whole thing is just sitting there, ready to go.
.

Yes, I do and also do Medicare seminars for one of the largest insurers. Do very well. I also sell under 65 and do well not very but just well lol.

For five years one of the big ones used to bring me in when they were putting their MA plans together as the "finance guy". Really, really fascinating stuff. Each insurer has its own proprietary software that calculates premium costs for benefits. So, moving from a $10 doc co-pay to a $0 doc co-pay might increase the premium $3 a month, that kinda thing.

It really drives me nuts that we just can't expand this to all. Obviously some tweaks would need to be made, particularly on the doc reimbursement schedule, but this is just ridiculous.
.

Did you work with the actuaries or are you one? It would verily easy to switch over with tweaks to the reimbursements. We have put scenarios and costs together at the office, but then again we're not actuaries. This is Medicare for all, but we also wonder how a mixture of Medicare and the ones who wanted to go through underwriting with a lower premium would cost.

I'm just a financial advisor, they just brought me in to have a retirement planning perspective, and because I've worked with seniors for so long.

That's an interesting thought. It would be interesting to see if the insurers would want to retain the underwriting component and then have some kind of worst-case scenario premium as well. My concern there would be what effect lower premiums might have on provider compensation, and keeping that worst-case premium down. Interesting, though.
.

You're probably right to much to the mix. Just do Medicare for all and get it over with.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So you want socialized health care?---- that's a good example of 'trickle down'......actual health care services 'trickle down' to everybody as everything becomes rationed.....

HOW do all the other countries have health care for their citizens? Why are we alone in the civilized world?

They don't. At least at the level and quality we currently enjoy.

This is false. Many countries have BETTER health care than the US. Your quality and outcomes are not better than other countries. They're worse. The US is ranked 34th in the world for health care.

Maybe you are right. I do know my Canadian next door neighbors feel very differently. They relocated due to waiting times when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. I understand this is antidotal, but it happened.

Could you provide a link to the 34 number? Curious about the methodology used to arrive at that ranking. After all, Michael Moore believes Cuba has superior healthcare.

This is the latest ranking I could find.

World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

The health care industry has sold Americans in the idea that they have the world's best care because to say otherwise would slow down their gravy train.

With government funded healthcare the costs and payments are carefully controlled. Your free market private health care couldn't charge whatever the traffic will bear.

Look at your drug prices. An EPI pen (for emergency allergy treatment) costs $650 in the US and $70 in Canada.

In regards to your neighbour, anyone I know who has had cancer had no wait for treatment. My mother-in-law had a big delay in getting treatment for her colon cancer (5 months) because her physician thought she had early symptoms of IBS, and didn't even test for cancer for months. As soon as she was tested for cancer, they admitted her and removed it.

These rankings are 17 years old and were debunked years ago

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes, and do now.

It's all about money, more than ever before.

Back in yon olden days, when I worked in ER, no one was pushed out door to die. Instead, the uninsured would be "turfed", usually by ambulance, to a county hospital. Needless to say, that resulted in county hosp's going broke, operating in the red.

Reagan signed EMTALA which still stabilizes the sick and then discharges with instructions to see your reg physician for follow up. People who don't have or can't pay do indeed due.

EMTALA is, in very large part, the reason the US now has very few burn centers or trauma centers.

In contrast, other countries man their ambulances and helicopters with MDs.

What really impressed me is that the staff of pharmacies are incredibly well trained and drugs that are still scrip only and very expensive in the US are Orc and affordable in their countries. The kicker is that, in some cases, we pay higher taxes.

EMTALA was an attempt by the federal government to "help" us by making it against federal law to for hospitals to turn anyone away and all it did was help drive up the cost. Glad you recognize the interference of the federal government only made things worse, like they usually do, but hey, they should be completely in charge of all of our health care decisions, right?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Joe Biden

✔ @JoeBiden


Slashing Medicaid hurts kids, the elderly, people with disabilities and those struggling with addiction. All for tax breaks for the wealthy.


Follow
https://twitter.com/download
Joe Biden

✔ @JoeBiden
Especially now, when so many communities are struggling with opioid addiction, the bill's drastic cuts to Medicaid are cruel.

1
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=878379025634390016

 

[Divine Wind]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

 

[JBond]

Joe Biden

✔ @JoeBiden


Slashing Medicaid hurts kids, the elderly, people with disabilities and those struggling with addiction. All for tax breaks for the wealthy.


Follow
Joe Biden

✔ @JoeBiden
Especially now, when so many communities are struggling with opioid addiction, the bill's drastic cuts to Medicaid are cruel.

1

Nope. I have zero interest in financing people's problems due to their drug abuse. That goes for fat slobs also. Eat yourself with into the size of three normal healthy people, deal with it fat ass.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The point is we all sit here arguing with one another and in reality, no one lets another die, unless of course they murdered them. I don't like obamacare and don't like this piece of shit they have put together. Although I did not like or agree with the individual mandate as an individual I understand why the insurance companies demanded it.
You cannot insure everyone with pre x unless there is a mix of healthy people. If I hadn't have already seen in the past the mismanagement of high risk pools that went down the tubes I might be all for that today, I am not.

We will have to see how this pans out because I cannot see it going anywhere in present form.

Conservatives advocate for personal accountability, which I agree with.
Why would they not be for a mandate that holds people accountable for their healthcare.

 

[sartre play]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

Wish it was that simple.

 

[ElmerMudd]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

 

[task0778]

You know how most if not all states have an uninsured motorist fund that basically covers the costs of an accident where the at fault person is uninsured? Well maybe that's what we need for health insurance, every single employee pays a tax into an uninsured healthcare insurance fund, say 1% or whatever. That money would go to a health care provider who treats an uninsured person who requires treatment, not elective or preventative stuff. If it's for a pre-existing condition then I would authorize the gov't to garnish that person's income by a certain amount for as long as it takes to pay off the medical bill. I think they do that in Switzerland BTW.

Thoughts?

 

[task0778]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

Presumably we are talking about the IPAB here, a board of 15 un-elected bureaucrats who will decide the criteria for who gets access to what care, and even who is denied care. The IPAB is not yet in effect, but the ACA has provisions for that to happen. I think that's how many other countries with some form of Single Payer are holding down the costs of health care, or at least one way of doing it. Do we want to go down that road?

 

[eddiew]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

My wife told me if Trump wins again in 2020 to put a pillow over her head and end it for her

 

[ElmerMudd]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

Presumably we are talking about the IPAB here, a board of 15 un-elected bureaucrats who will decide the criteria for who gets access to what care, and even who is denied care. The IPAB is not yet in effect, but the ACA has provisions for that to happen. I think that's how many other countries with some form of Single Payer are holding down the costs of health care, or at least one way of doing it. Do we want to go down that road?

Every private or public insurance has individuals who decide what will be covered and what will not. ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care.
Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA.

 

[ElmerMudd]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

My wife told me if Trump wins again in 2020 to put a pillow over her head and end it for her

Trump would like to eliminate everyone who does not support him. One strategy is to make living in a Trump America intolerable.

 

[task0778]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

Presumably we are talking about the IPAB here, a board of 15 un-elected bureaucrats who will decide the criteria for who gets access to what care, and even who is denied care. The IPAB is not yet in effect, but the ACA has provisions for that to happen. I think that's how many other countries with some form of Single Payer are holding down the costs of health care, or at least one way of doing it. Do we want to go down that road?

Every private or public insurance has individuals who decide what will be covered and what will not. ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care.
Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA.

"ACA mandated certain coverage's so a board cannot decide to not cover essential care."

This is not true, the ACA does in fact create the IPAB which would in fact control access to health care in terms of determining who gets what treatment. What went on before that is irrelevant, the current GOP HC proposal does not do that.

"Trumpcare allows boards to eliminate care that is mandated by ACA"

Really? Tell me about it, what care that is mandated by the ACA will be eliminated by the GOP Senate proposal? And don't you think you oughta wait and see what the final version is before you complain about it? I don't think we'll see Ryan or McConnell telling us we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.

 

[eddiew]

When someone chooses not to buy health insurance and they do not have money to pay for doctor and/or hospital what do we do. Should we refuse service? Should we let them die? It is their choice to not have Insurance.
Do we provide service and let the government pay for what they cannot pay. The government is us. Why should we pay for someone who chose not to spend their money on insurance?

The responsible end up paying for the irresponsible.

1) We all die.
2) There is a difference between choosing not to pay for health insurance and not being able to afford health insurance.
3) Let's just be realistic. Set up death panels which will determine who is worth saving and who is not.. Let's off a bounty to old, sick or retarded people who volunteer for euthanasia by paying their families $100,000.

The distorted definition of death panels is a travesty. Death panels are actually a way for each of us to make our own decisions on end of life healthcare while we are still healthy. Our medical system will keep us alive for as long as possible unless we give instructions not to. You can choose to say how far you want the doctor's to go in life saving care. It can save the individual from suffering and save money at the same time. You still have the option of instructing doctors to do everything they can doe as long as they can.
"Death Panels" provide personal accountability on end of life decisions so others do not have to make the decisions.
Those who are against them are irresponsible.

My wife told me if Trump wins again in 2020 to put a pillow over her head and end it for her

Trump would like to eliminate everyone who does not support him. One strategy is to make living in a Trump America intolerable.

That's been the repubs game for as long as I can remember When dems in power do all they can to make things miserable and then blame dems