Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, and I'm in health care, too. Unfortunately we have lost the ability to talk to each other, and you see it only took about 3 posts before someone brought in the term "death panels" so I don't think we're any closer to being able to talk about it in any intelligent, non-partisan way.
IMO the medical system does a great many things with profits first and quality of life secondary in the medical decision process.
The most egregious example from my own personal experience was when a very well respected University hospital decided to perform back surgery on one of our residents, a 96 year old female. No one that age should be put under anesthesia let alone operated on without even trying conservative measures first. End result was she was in ICU for more than 2 weeks, then sent back to us, where she lingered in agonizing pain and misery for another 2 weeks before she died. She was begging us to let her die from the minute she got back.
Surgery+ 2+ weeks ICU probably came to about $200-$300,000.00 for the hospital, paid for by Medicare, with no benefit to resident at all except to make the last month of her life the worst month of her life.
P.S. I feel I need to add that I do not think cutting Medicare funding is the solution. The problem is the way our health care is delivered, and the extremely high costs of our health care.
IMO: The standard for doctors is declining. Ie: Lady goes to her doctor with ingrown toe nail, he wants to amputate. Goes somewhere else, still has the toe.
I think we rely too heavily on more traditional things (drugs and slicing and dicing) rather then more non-traditional things.
We also don't put enough emphasis on preventative things.
The way to approach this is to limit health care to preventive/palliative care only after a certain age. I suggest but 67 could entertain 70-75 as well. Prior to that, one would get all the treatment they now get aimed at curing and prolonging life. But after the cutoff date, well then it is only preventative exams and pills and hospice. Aside from saving billions that could be better spent just about anywhere, it would encourage people to live healthier lifestyles when they were younger knowing that there would be no treatment for their problems after 67. A simple change like this would put Medicare in the black and allow the tax burden on younger workers to be reduced.
That's crazy! There are many people who have a great quality of life after 67, for goodness' sake. Many people still work at this age. I am aghast at this suggestion!
That's crazy! There are many people who have a great quality of life after 67, for goodness' sake. Many people still work at this age. I am aghast at this suggestion!
Good for them, but they cost too much to keep alive after that age. It's just the economic reality. Why should we ask young people to pay for them? Maybe an exception could be made for people still working on the condition that the care would return them to work. Otherwise, there is no economic sense in spending the kind of money we do simply to prolong the lives of unproductive people.
Good for them, but they cost too much to keep alive after that age. It's just the economic reality. Why should we ask young people to pay for them? Maybe an exception could be made for people still working on the condition that the care would return them to work. Otherwise, there is no economic sense in spending the kind of money we do simply to prolong the lives of unproductive people.
So.....your right to medical care should be tied to productivity?
What would you do with disabled children that are never going to be productive? Deny them medical care too?
27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life.
The question is can we still afford this kind of expense, and is it right to be spending this much for a hopeless causes when there are more productive ways to spend this money that would be in the better interest of the country and the general welfare of the people.
How could the system be improved.
It's even more bleak than that...
Quote:
This is when the discussions about courage and character by lawmakers, practitioners and patients moves front and center. These patients tend to be newborns with serious issues and the elderly, who are often quite ill. According to one study (Banarto, McClellan, Kagy and Garber, 2004), 30% of all Medicare expenditures are attributed to the 5% of beneficiaries that die each year, with 1/3 of that cost occurring in the last month of life. I know there are other studies out there that say slightly different things, but the reality is simple: we spend an incredible amount of money on that last year and month.
I think now you're seeing the true differences in a UHC system versus a right to life system like the US. You fall into that category that cost too much in a UHC system, so sorry, here's a nice card and we'll see you at the morgue. In America, you can at least try to beat it. Whatever, there's only one way to provide "healthcare for all" and it's a drastic change from the system we have now and with that comes drastic downsides.
No more monopolies known as hospitals.
No more right to life.
No more complicated medical machinery 5 miles from your home.
No more convenience.
No more diagnosis today, surgery tomorrow and Club Med the day after.
The main problem I have with those that push for UHC is they lie and obfuscate the realities that come with a UHC system that is "affordable." At least if they were honest people would vote for what they think is right. When they lie they try to trap everyone into a system that you'll no longer be able to go back to if you fall for their lies.
I have not given it much thought, but I think we need to come up with a better system than we currently have.
Would that also apply to younger people who have repeated drug incidents and have never contributed anything to society. just saying if we are going to pick people a drain on the nation. What about those who can't pay ;drop them from new ACA? How about if you can pay ;no care ;that would solve all medical cost problems for government.
The way to approach this is to limit health care to preventive/palliative care only after a certain age. I suggest but 67 could entertain 70-75 as well. Prior to that, one would get all the treatment they now get aimed at curing and prolonging life. But after the cutoff date, well then it is only preventative exams and pills and hospice. Aside from saving billions that could be better spent just about anywhere, it would encourage people to live healthier lifestyles when they were younger knowing that there would be no treatment for their problems after 67. A simple change like this would put Medicare in the black and allow the tax burden on younger workers to be reduced.
So.....your right to medical care should be tied to productivity?
What would you do with disabled children that are never going to be productive? Deny them medical care too?
I am not advocating denying care, just limiting it after a certain age. Old (over 67) people could still get their flu shots and such, but once they have that stroke or heart attack or cancer, economic reality demands that we let nature take its course.
27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life.
The question is can we still afford this kind of expense, and is it right to be spending this much for a hopeless causes when there are more productive ways to spend this money that would be in the better interest of the country and the general welfare of the people.
How could the system be improved.
Do you have a link for that statistic?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
