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 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.
We are talking about Medicare which is for all intents and purposes is UHC for U.S. seniors.
First you ration by age, what's next, by usefullness, contribution to the greater good?
I do think we can allow those that want to end this experience, a dignified way out. Let the patient decide, if they are able.
Hey! There ya go. "Usefulness and contribution." Therefore, if someone of any age is or becomes unemployed, eliminate them. After all, fair is fair.
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.
Well the majority of just about everyone's healthcare is spent in the last 6 months of their life no matter what age they die. So I would assume that would hold true for a system that is for people aged 65 and older.
Want a more "productive" way to spend money? Get 'em when they are young....mandatory sterilization of drug addicted people of child bearing age. Each birth prevented saves millions in medical care, education, foster care, future welfare payments, jail costs etc. That is where the true cost savings are
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.
We're all hopeless cases. None of us will be here in 100 years. Today it's the last year you don't want paid for...then the last 5....then the last 20...Where do you draw this line in the sand?
Does a year of life have no value?
No matter what age you die, your last year of life is likely to be the most expensive one from a medical care cost point of view. My mom had a stroke at the age of 44. Her ICU bill was over $30K back in 1982. I guess we should have just left her on the floor to die....it would have been cheaper.
We are talking about Medicare which is for all intents and purposes is UHC for U.S. seniors.
Okay, and how would it be different if it was for all?
It wouldn't. The ratios would be the same for the most part. Five percent of the whole population would still use the vast majority of the allocated funds and 1/3 of that population would use the largest proportion amongst them.
No matter how well you take care of yourself.....you are still going to end up living the last year of your life......... with all of the costs involved.....whether that last year is at 70 or 85-95.
This is quite true! What we really do not want is unnecessary testing and treatments that make no common sense with the elderly or dying patient. And the best pathway to make sure that this happens in the most sensible way is through direct involvement with the primary care physician. The primary care physician should be the one who knows and understands the patients medical condition most thoroughly,especially as it relates to the patients effective age, social milieu and prognosis. There should be a living will specifically set out, discussed and agreed upon. I also think we need to make more discussions and steps towards sensible euthanasia. Overall I do not think we can legislate reducing these costs. However with some proper nudging in the right places a huge amount of money can be saved without compromising on the care, contentment and best interests of our elderly.
Well the majority of just about everyone's healthcare is spent in the last 6 months of their life no matter what age they die. So I would assume that would hold true for a system that is for people aged 65 and older.
Want a more "productive" way to spend money? Get 'em when they are young....mandatory sterilization of drug addicted people of child bearing age. Each birth prevented saves millions in medical care, education, foster care, future welfare payments, jail costs etc. That is where the true cost savings are
Newborns addicted to Heroin or Cocaine have been declining. Newborns addicted to prescription opioids has tripled in the past 10 years.
Be aware it is not a crime in the U.S. to be addicted to drugs.
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.
Many people with Downs Syndrome...... who are never going to be productive..... have heart problems that require heart surgery to stay alive. What about them? What if they get cancer? Should they just get palliative care?
They are a bigger drain on society than a 68 year old who could live independently for many years after heart surgery......without expensive, special care.
What I am driving at, is that heart surgery, etc. shouldn't be tied to an arbitrary age or productivity.....but more on the likelihood of a successful outcome. And that is something that can only be determined on a case by case basis.
Newborns addicted to Heroin or Cocaine have been declining. Newborns addicted to prescription opioids has tripled in the past 10 years.
Be aware it is not a crime in the U.S. to be addicted to drugs.
Not saying its a crime. Just giving OP ideas of how we can be more "productive" in our spending.
Sarcasm on:
Next prevent the births of the chronically underemployed: #1 the disabled #2 African Americans See we can really get the savings rolling (no Medicaid, section 8, special schooling, welfare) when we throw morality aside!
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.
