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 issue isn't about "choosing" to be ill. Americans don't become diseased in any greater numbers as a percentage of the total population than we did 50 or 100-years ago. If anything, because of better personal habits, we are healthier and live longer than ever.
The problem is technology and medical advancements have excelled in recent years and with good results.
Who will pay for these amazing treatments? Who is actually going to foot the bill?
About a decade ago, I began hearing the refrain that unlimited medical treatments are somehow a new "right".
This newfound philosophy basically went unchallenged. Treatments costing the same as a new Rolls-Royce are now a "right"?!!
If someone has leukemia should their treatment be paid for by someone else? What if the patient was 31 (or 59), destitute, and had a history of drug abuse. Further, generally unhealthy, infected teeth, and heart disease. Should someone shell-out $200,000 for this patient's treatment? How about $400,000?
The older patient with the higher tab was my brother. He had a scar that went from his nuts to his chest. He was delerious for a week after being cut on so extensively. He lived another 7-months.
We are convinced he would have lived longer without such traumatic surgery. The nearly $400,000 bill was paid by medicaid and much was just written-off by the various providers. The $400,000 was real money. The money was wasted because there was no concern for whether the costs of his treatments were logical, given his general health.
Very sad, but I'm sure it happens hourly in the medical world. I miss him very much.
The treatments are now here, but can cost astronomically. That's the unintended consequence of technology.
Is anyone worth a $million-dollar operation? How about $2-million?
We don't get to pretend anymore that it's just a figure on a bill.
Naturally, someone with means is more likely to see a doctor on a regular basis and has an incentive to take good care of themselves. The patient with means has insurance and understands the importance of it.
But if the destitute patient that has paid little or nothing into the system gets his/her treatment for free, why shouldn't the person of means also get that advantage? After all they are the ones actually paying the bills!
Society has to answer these questions, but the questions are never asked because they are controversial and we end up in some obtuse argument about income inequality.
The marketplace can absorb these terrific hospital bills as long as Economics 101 is allowed to work.
Allow emotions to take over and look at what we get.
We have an opportunity to fix this complicated problem. This time we need to listen to the right people.
Excellent points, and I would also add that NO ONE should be expecting others to pay for anyone's medical care that's needed as a result of their own poor health choices. Smokers? The obese? Diabetes as a result of horrendous eating habits? Heart disease as a result of choosing to remain unfit? Drug/alcohol abusers? They should pay for the medical care needed for their self-induced health problems on their own dime, even if they have insurance for other unforseen health issues.
Those with (pre)existing medical conditions should indeed pay a higher premium for coverage. It is only logical, and is exactly the way auto and home insurance is calculated. You wouldn't expect State Farm to reimburse you for accident repairs unless you have a policy in place. To apply for coverage after a crash would be turned down of course.
Health insurance is a concern for all, but the way Obama and his minions forced it on the American people without concensus was bound to fail. It will soon be repealed and replaced with a more equitable mechanism. Especially for those that will actually be footing the bill for the controversial solution.
Your last paragraph with reference to a black man doesn't help your cause.
Wonderful! Since you seem to be in on it, please tell us what that more equitable mechanism is. I for one am all ears.
I refuse to buy health insurance until I can tailor my plan for me. I don't need to have all that female junk added for me since I am a guy.
Get rid of the mandate.
I'm sorry but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Insurance is a pool of people - both male and female. I don't need a prostate test either but it's covered under my company plan because we INSURE A POOL OF PEOPLE BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.
Theres a LOT of interaction between parts of the ACA. It was believed at the time it was passed that it would have to be tweaked to keep it functioning. Most of those needed tweaks have been DOA with the House and Senate.
And suddenly the Republicans are realizing...they have it all. The house, Senate, and Presidency. And they have inherited ACA....but if they kill it....they don't have a replacement. They have NEVER had a functional replacement, what they had was a target to drum up hate against, that they kept as weak as possible.
And even they can see that the parts are all interconnected. But...its the great evil! Theyve been saying it for a long time. What do they do?
And then they ALSO have a ton of people who dont comprehend what would happen if they just made it disappear. They too have bought into the propaganda.
Yeah its going to be fascinating to watch.
Fortune has their take on what Trumpcare might look like based Trump's policy position on healthcare reform you can read online and what Paul Ryan has been working on for quite a while. Some comments here imply Trump has no plan just wants to repeal Obamacare and that is not true. Trump wants to keep the pre-existing conditions provision as well as children under 26 staying on their parents plan. Expanding HCA's as being able to sell insurance across state likes are part of it. Relying on free market instead of government controls to keep costs down.
That is the biggest difference between Obama-Clinton and Trump. Trump believes in the free markets. Obama-Clinton the government as to be involved in everything, like Obama's famous "You couldn't built that" without the government speech.
Excellent points, and I would also add that NO ONE should be expecting others to pay for anyone's medical care that's needed as a result of their own poor health choices. Smokers? The obese? Diabetes as a result of horrendous eating habits? Heart disease as a result of choosing to remain unfit? Drug/alcohol abusers? They should pay for the medical care needed for their self-induced health problems on their own dime, even if they have insurance for other unforseen health issues.
Most disease does not present itself simply because of poor personal habits or abuse. Most is multi-factorial, and many people endure personal abuse without developing disease. Who would you have review, examine and make these determinations?
Simple remedy : get government OUT OF HEALTH CARE.
BAN health insurance.
Eliminate limited liability.
End licensing.
That should bring down costs, ASAP.
Most all our people value good health and life itself. Very risky for many people, and very expensive. There are few other things in our world better suited to insurance.
Fortune has their take on what Trumpcare might look like based Trump's policy position on healthcare reform you can read online and what Paul Ryan has been working on for quite a while. Some comments here imply Trump has no plan just wants to repeal Obamacare and that is not true. Trump wants to keep the pre-existing conditions provision as well as children under 26 staying on their parents plan. Expanding HCA's as being able to sell insurance across state likes are part of it. Relying on free market instead of government controls to keep costs down.
That is the biggest difference between Obama-Clinton and Trump. Trump believes in the free markets. Obama-Clinton the government as to be involved in everything, like Obama's famous "You couldn't built that" without the government speech.
Interesting. You read the Fortune article and see a successful outcome for a plan better than the ACA. I read the same article and see no clear way to a better plan than the ACA.
"Moreover, Republicans may find that it is much easier to criticize and produce legislation to repeal a less than perfect bill when they know it is ultimately not going to be signed into law, than actually producing a new law that will accomplish all that Obamacare did plus address its imperfections."
"A new health care reform law must be able to build upon Obamacare’s efforts to expand coverage to those historically unable to obtain affordable health coverage. Although the insurance reforms under Obamacare were expensive to implement, they were successful in expanding quality health coverage to those previously without it and in greatly reducing the percentage of individuals who are uninsured in this country. In addition, the idea of expanding the use of HSAs is already well underway. While enrollment in these vehicles has been increasing, the greatest beneficiaries continue to be wealthier individuals. "
"We should not be fooled into thinking that any replacement comprehensive health law is going to be less costly than Obamacare if it is going to work. "
I've always seen the ACA as just a cobbled-together compromise solution. The best you can say for it is that it's better than what we had before. But "Trumpcare" will run into the same issues that the ACA ran into - the "need" to preserve the insurance industry and the rising costs of medical treatment. There is an obvious way to resolve both these problems, but it won't happen.
To those who oppose the ACA how would you deal with people with pre-existing conditions with your health plan?
Yeah, it's called "you pay a lot more for your healthcare coverage." It's always amusing how liberals are like "omg, I have this intricate puzzle for you!" and it turns out to be something along the lines of "what is 1+1?"
Simple remedy : get government OUT OF HEALTH CARE.
BAN health insurance.
Eliminate limited liability.
End licensing.
That should bring down costs, ASAP.
You also forgot:
Tort reform where if no actual malpractice can be found the plaintiff's lawyer has to pay 100% of all costs plus punitive damages with no cap.
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.
