Health Care Reform.

[mike3]

Hi.

I saw someone post a comment on a forum where they said this:

"The fact remains that we could pay for most or all of a really significant healthcare reform program (not the half-assed thing we have now, which amounts to a further entrenchment of corporate interests, a guaranteed market for them) if we simply would not indulge ourselves in the illusion that people can be made to live forever, or that an additional three months of non-sentience at the end of a 90-year-life is worth cancer screening for a hundred young parents. But no politician in this country could ever win a single election on such an intellectually responsible position.”

Discuss.

 

[casebro]

I don't know the origins, but "90% of a persons health care cost are in the last (x) years of life".

I guess I think it is true.

But also, I don't hear that it costs $200,000 to die, lately.

My elderly Dad just recently died, at home, under Hospice care. I think the estate costs for his care will be about $1500, for the copay of two broken hip surgeries, both within 90 days of his passing. So the high cost of dying need not be so high.

So far as the high cost of of so much preventative medicine goes, I agree. So much of today's Medical Progress is to prevent a disease that affects 1/5000 of us. OH WOW!!! You can cut the risk by 80%! Making your chances 1/1,000. Mortgage your children's future for that? I don't think so.

And some of the chemotherapy falls in to the same boat. $50,000 to live a couple weeks longer, sick from the chemo for the last couple months of your life. I don't think so.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Preventative care tends to be on the cheaper side of medical costs. When I see examples of universal health care systems part of the cost savings effort is that prevenative care for everyone tends to come in cheaper than reactive care for the smaller number of people who fall ill. See vaccines for instance.

A friend of mine has recovered from her cancer at 18 to 20 by treatment including chemotherapy. She roughly added 50 to 60 years to her life, not a few weeks. Probably worth the cost.

 

[Beerina]

On the other hand, "preventative care" got a big jumpstart 25 years ago with the emergence of "HMOs", which claimed to use an up-front bulge in costs doing preventative stuff to cut costs in the long run.

It seemed odd to me at the time that the new dentist we went to suddenly wanted to drill all this stuff my old dentist didn't care to.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a ripoff.


Now I may be wrong, but I am most certainly no where near 100% wrong. And while capitalist insurance might be laggard in adopting new tech, readily adopting all the new, fancy, expensive tech, much of which does not prove out, is hardly a cost savings, either.

 

[Trakar]

Now I may be wrong, but I am most certainly no where near 100% wrong. And while capitalist insurance might be laggard in adopting new tech, readily adopting all the new, fancy, expensive tech, much of which does not prove out, is hardly a cost savings, either.

Please provide evidence to support your assertion that you are not 100% wrong.

Seriously "capitalist insurance" is something we should have all invested in a long time ago, it seems that we are constantly being plagued by the harms done to our society by capitalists,...or at least those who assert that their actions are done in the name of that extremist and mostly dysfunctional, economic theory ideal. There's a reason no purely capitalistic economy has ever existed, yet alone proven successful in more than a greatly diluted and heavily regulated mixed economy setting.

 

[joobz]

Now I may be wrong, but I am most certainly no where near 100% wrong. And while capitalist insurance might be laggard in adopting new tech, readily adopting all the new, fancy, expensive tech, much of which does not prove out, is hardly a cost savings, either.

In your consideration, be sure to include the extra policing costs that must exist (paid for by hospitals) to ensure that the health insurance companies actually cover what they agreed to cover. The "hidden" cost of modern insurance isn't just in greater premiums, but also in out of pocket expenses (co-pays, and limited coverage).

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know the origins, but "90% of a persons health care cost are in the last (x) years of life".

I guess I think it is true.

Depends. If you have say hemophilia you have bills of about $800,000 a year for life. So you will have to change jobs a lot because you will max out your lifetime coverage in a year or two at any job.


So what do you do about patients like that? They can live a long time with the care, but it is very expensive. When do you kill them?

 

[Darat]

Hi.

I saw someone post a comment on a forum where they said this:

"The fact remains that we could pay for most or all of a really significant healthcare reform program (not the half-assed thing we have now, which amounts to a further entrenchment of corporate interests, a guaranteed market for them) if we simply would not indulge ourselves in the illusion that people can be made to live forever, or that an additional three months of non-sentience at the end of a 90-year-life is worth cancer screening for a hundred young parents. But no politician in this country could ever win a single election on such an intellectually responsible position.”

Discuss.

I don't think that has much to do with the failings of the USA system - many other countries provide a universal healthcare system and achieve better health outcomes than the USA and that costs less per head than the USA system.

 

[mhaze]

Hi.

I saw someone post a comment on a forum where they said this:

"The fact remains that we could pay for most or all of a really significant healthcare reform program (not the half-assed thing we have now, which amounts to a further entrenchment of corporate interests, a guaranteed market for them) if we simply would not indulge ourselves in the illusion that people can be made to live forever, or that an additional three months of non-sentience at the end of a 90-year-life is worth cancer screening for a hundred young parents. But no politician in this country could ever win a single election on such an intellectually responsible position.”

Discuss.

They are called "Death Panels". Because no one likes to use those words and because politicians can't use them, people who use the phrase "death panels" are ridiculed. Groups that support "Obamacare" tell bald faced lies and say, nope, no death panels.

So, Mike3...how do you like those Death Panels? Let's hear it, not just that lame "discuss". And it's okay, really it is...you can use the phrase "Death Panels".

 

[MattusMaximus]

Wait, I think I've seen this movie before...


... or was it this one?

 

[Beerina]

Please provide evidence to support your assertion that you are not 100% wrong.

Seriously "capitalist insurance" is something we should have all invested in a long time ago, it seems that we are constantly being plagued by the harms done to our society by capitalists,...or at least those who assert that their actions are done in the name of that extremist and mostly dysfunctional, economic theory ideal. There's a reason no purely capitalistic economy has ever existed, yet alone proven successful in more than a greatly diluted and heavily regulated mixed economy setting.

I am not even sure these are intelligible sentences.

 

[Beerina]

In your consideration, be sure to include the extra policing costs that must exist (paid for by hospitals) to ensure that the health insurance companies actually cover what they agreed to cover. The "hidden" cost of modern insurance isn't just in greater premiums, but also in out of pocket expenses (co-pays, and limited coverage).

In the first round of this, back in 1992, I recall the insurance companies, in a panic, said they'd just cover the uninsured. While a bit odd, they seemed to think that a better deal and workable, when threatened with seizure of their entire business.