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.
That's right, any time the government or a third party is paying, they get to call the shots and decide when you die. Or you could pay yourself and call the shots.
Docs along with the patient, the living will and family do this sticking to sensible medical standards of care. I can hardly remember any 3rd parties getting involved during the acute process. Certainly not Medicare.
Docs along with the patient, the living will and family do this sticking to sensible medical standards of care. I can hardly remember any 3rd parties getting involved during the acute process. Certainly not Medicare.
Well, then that certainly invalidates the claim of insurance companies acting as death panels. But reinforces the fact that Medicare will allow you to flagrantly continue care if you want.
I think it's valid points made by both sides...what is the point of insurance if you are just going to get it once you get sick as well as the point that insurance if it's not going to cover what you actually need it for?
One of the things Obamacare was supposed to do was push more people to have insurance and increase the pool of people paying into it. That didn't necessarily pan out (although record numbers are signing up now). People don't have insurance for a number of reasons...turned 26 and off parents, lost their job, can't afford it, etc. Maybe a good compromise would be that pre-existing conditions must be covered as long as you were previously covered by insurance in the past 12 or 18 months. This way, you don't have people who have no insurance from age 26 until they are 35 and then all of a sudden realize they need it to treat something. What this WOULD do is allow people who had insurance and then lost their job only to find out 4 months later that they have cancer, to be able to sign up again and have it covered.
I think it's valid points made by both sides...what is the point of insurance if you are just going to get it once you get sick as well as the point that insurance if it's not going to cover what you actually need it for?
One of the things Obamacare was supposed to do was push more people to have insurance and increase the pool of people paying into it. That didn't necessarily pan out (although record numbers are signing up now). People don't have insurance for a number of reasons...turned 26 and off parents, lost their job, can't afford it, etc. Maybe a good compromise would be that pre-existing conditions must be covered as long as you were previously covered by insurance in the past 12 or 18 months. This way, you don't have people who have no insurance from age 26 until they are 35 and then all of a sudden realize they need it to treat something. What this WOULD do is allow people who had insurance and then lost their job only to find out 4 months later that they have cancer, to be able to sign up again and have it covered.
It really should be like any other form of insurance. The problem isn't requiring people to have it (although that's not Constitutional). The problem is saying "everyone has to have it ...THEREFORE we will set the price either through government action or subsidies." There's no real point to requiring someone to have it if you're going to say the government will essentially be the one paying for it. Now, if you treated it like actual insurance, then I'm with you. But that would require the following:
- Anyone can choose to have it or not.
- Rates are determined by the insurer.
- If you don't have it and can't pay, then that's your problem.
Well, then that certainly invalidates the claim of insurance companies acting as death panels. But reinforces the fact that Medicare will allow you to flagrantly continue care if you want.
Medicare is too loose, and there are surely savings to be had there. But I'll let my daughter work on it with her new geriatric practice.
I think it's valid points made by both sides...what is the point of insurance if you are just going to get it once you get sick as well as the point that insurance if it's not going to cover what you actually need it for?
One of the things Obamacare was supposed to do was push more people to have insurance and increase the pool of people paying into it. That didn't necessarily pan out (although record numbers are signing up now). People don't have insurance for a number of reasons...turned 26 and off parents, lost their job, can't afford it, etc. Maybe a good compromise would be that pre-existing conditions must be covered as long as you were previously covered by insurance in the past 12 or 18 months. This way, you don't have people who have no insurance from age 26 until they are 35 and then all of a sudden realize they need it to treat something. What this WOULD do is allow people who had insurance and then lost their job only to find out 4 months later that they have cancer, to be able to sign up again and have it covered.
That was the way it was under HIPAA, before the ACA, though it had to be continuous. But a lot of people who have never had insurance, or had it and then let it lapse for one reason or another do not qualify that way.
My population is middle class, blue collar retirees mainly from the upper Midwest. And many more local lower class. Few rich. In 40 years I have been with very few dying patients/families out of thousands where their end of life expectations and desires were way out of line with sensibility. Sure it could be easy to spend a quick and useless $10-100K. But not millions.
What are your statistics?
The aggregate data reflects your experience Hoonose.
"Medicare spending during the year of death decreases with age after age 73 (Figure 1), suggesting that patients, families, and providers may be opting for less intensive and less costly end-of-life interventions for beneficiaries as they grow older. Specifically, per capita Medicare spending among decedents in 2014 peaked at age 73 ($43,353) and decreased by almost half ($23,181) by age 95."
Another new Medicare study debunks the idea that there is "explosive health care spending in the final months of life." Only 12 percent of older adults showed that pattern.
That was the way it was under HIPAA, before the ACA, though it had to be continuous. But a lot of people who have never had insurance, or had it and then let it lapse for one reason or another do not qualify that way.
Yes...it's the lapse part that I think can help address the pre-existing conditions. If you had insurance from age 23 to 40, got laid off, lost insurance and then 5 months later, you find out you have cancer, you should be able to sign back up and have it covered. If you rolled the dice from age 23 to 40 and never had insurance, then you're out of luck.
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.
