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.
The vast majority of health care dollars are spent giving care during the last 6 months of life. All we have to decide when people are going to die, and then cut off medical care six months prior to that point. We'll save tons of money. Who's willing to volunteer themselves, their parents, and their spouse for this cost saving program?
Yes, you would save HUGE, ENORMOUS, GIGANTIC amounts of money in stopping care for people who have an overwhelming chance of dying... but like you said, who would volunteer their families and which doctor will allow a patient to die without trying to do something? We have a tough moral and ethical dilemma...
I agree, I would rather have the government stay out of health care for many, MANY reasons and they are a BIG problem... and yes, when a patient doesn't pay it increases the health care for everyone, not just those who can pay... so the problem compounds on itself... the problem will get worse yet as I doubt the government will leave "voluntarily" or that people and companies will allow the government to leave... I hope for the best and expect the worse.. it almost always seem to be the worse.... I place too much optimism in people to do the right thing...
Another good way to reduce health care costs is to just let people die in the streets. Especially those who have congenital problems or chronic illnesses that prevent them from working (and receiving employee-sponsored healthcare.) Its clearly their own fault for having parents with bad genes.
^Expected growth in federal Medicaid and Medicare spending obligations -- at current rates without more socialization of medical services and costs.
Also, people want cheap drugs (generics) but safe drugs (lots of monumentally expensive testing). Can't really have both if you want new drugs. Why would a drug company spend vast quantities of money ensuring safety when they'll have their legs kicked out from under them by early generics? Fast-tracking or lowering regulations can lead to unsafe/not fully tested drugs.
Yes, you would save HUGE, ENORMOUS, GIGANTIC amounts of money in stopping care for people who have an overwhelming chance of dying... but like you said, who would volunteer their families and which doctor will allow a patient to die without trying to do something? We have a tough moral and ethical dilemma...
Another good way to reduce health care costs is to just let people die in the streets. Especially those who have congenital problems or chronic illnesses that prevent them from working (and receiving employee-sponsored healthcare.) Its clearly their own fault for having parents with bad genes.
Yup, and it's going to be much more efficient in the future when we can predict diseases using genomics and proteomics. We can simply deny care to those who are bound to keel over from something drastic soon. Or abort them in the womb.
Another good way to reduce health care costs is to just let people die in the streets. Especially those who have congenital problems or chronic illnesses that prevent them from working (and receiving employee-sponsored healthcare.) Its clearly their own fault for having parents with bad genes.
Sukwoo what's your point with your posts? If it's sarcasm then the point is missing, since I have yet to see anyone recommend denying health care to anyone in any of these responses. If you are serious then I think you have issues beyond the interest of this forum.
Sukwoo what's your point with your posts? If it's sarcasm then the point is missing, since I have yet to see anyone recommend denying health care to anyone in any of these responses. If you are serious then I think you have issues beyond the interest of this forum.
Exactly how do you expect people who have chronic health problems, possibly of genetic origin, from getting insurance in the private market without the involvment of government?
Don't you want to get government out of healthcare? Without government involvement, these people are going to fall through the cracks and die.
Exactly how do you expect people who have chronic health problems, possibly of genetic origin, from getting insurance in the private market without the involvment of government?
Don't you want to get government out of healthcare? Without government involvement, these people are going to fall through the cracks and die.
Thank you for contributing to the forum instead of posting nonsense.
I don't object to government involvement to a certain degree, but not government management, of healthcare. I also don't object to government safety nets. But medicare and medicade or entitlement programs, much like social security. The barely work now, and in the future, like SS, they will be financially unfeasable. They need to be overhauled. But again we are getting into political discussions that should be discussed elsewhere.
Thank you for contributing to the forum instead of posting nonsense.
I don't object to government involvement to a certain degree, but not government management, of healthcare. I also don't object to government safety nets. But medicare and medicade or entitlement programs, much like social security. The barely work now, and in the future, like SS, they will be financially unfeasable. They need to be overhauled. But again we are getting into political discussions that should be discussed elsewhere.
I'm a physician, I have some degree of experience with the financial aspects of the healthcare system. I'm all in favor of entitlement reform. However, if you think medicare is a source of waste and bureaucracy, you should see the waste that's involved with private insurance.
Exactly how do you expect people who have chronic health problems, possibly of genetic origin, from getting insurance in the private market without the involvment of government?
Don't you want to get government out of healthcare? Without government involvement, these people are going to fall through the cracks and die.
I think you don't understand what is meant by government managed and government intervention... You talk about chronic health problems relating to genetic predisposition. Well, we already have something called "preexisting conditions". How do you combat it? Easily, make it illegal for companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions/genetic preconditions without government management of the system. Have you seen ANY and I do mean ANY senator/president actually bringing it up in Congress? I don't meant talk or rhetoric, I mean actual ACTION. No you don't, but they do bring up socialization and its for a good point. When taxpayers pay COMPANIES for health care treatment, you lose, Big Business wins. You talk about people falling through the cracks and dying and how many people will die when this government goes bankrupt? No police officers to help you, no fire trucks to save your home, no food stamps, no WIC, no any help whatsoever... and on top of that, other nations are asking YOU for help... Do you really want to go down that road? Then why do you insist America spend millions for a trillion dollar project? So that you save a few to doom many others? Much like the ponzi scheme...
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.
