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.
This thread has lost focus - which should be SUGGESTIONS to address the high medical cost of covering preexisting conditions (and, by default, medical care in general). Going away to die early probably isn't going to cut it here.
But that's what it's going to come down to either way. If you do it my way, it's pay for services. If you do it with socialized medicine, it's death panels and rationing. It's a fantasy to believe that everyone can get millions of dollars of care -- even if you're talking about the insured. That means that even if you say "well, I have insurance through my employer!" That's great. At some point, if everyone wants everything, the system collapses. That's just math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
And guess what folks - there AREN'T easy answers.
That's right, but the point is that people who want there to be one just say "ahh, we'll just keep giving everyone everything because I'm scared to tell someone no because that would make me mean." So they pretend that's a viable solution.
Since a thread entitled "Anti Obamacare People: Any Suggestions For Pre-Existing Conditions?" morphed into a discussion of who shouldn't be incurring medical expenses strikes me as a good indicator that there will be no coverage of pre-existing conditions under "Trumpcare" - not that there appears to be any existing Trumpcare proposals. Repeal and replace will probably turn into repeal and disappear.
That's right, but the point is that people who want there to be one just say "ahh, we'll just keep giving everyone everything because I'm scared to tell someone no because that would make me mean." So they pretend that's a viable solution.
Certainly some truth to what you say - look at every President who tries to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem right before they leave office. But to not digress - there ARE some intractable issues here. Just like humans have that doggone tendency to not want to go off and die like good little Eskimos they also tend to dislike uncertainty. Can you imagine trying to wean us off employer-based healthcare? The shame here will be if the new Administration tries to wean us off social security and Medicare but neglects to address that littler outlier.
Can you imagine trying to wean us off employer-based healthcare? The shame here will be if the new Administration tries to wean us off social security and Medicare but neglects to address that littler outlier.
It's actually easy to do that. You just make it optional to opt out and then everyone will do so. The problem is if you do that, all of the massive bureaucracies built around those things collapse and a lot of government workers become unemployed. They won't let that happen without fighting really hard.
Because life expectancy numbers are mostly impacted by improvements earlier in life before you hit senior age.
Life from 65 has been improved on more than life since birth. Since 1960 we're up about 8 or 9 years from birth. This is because simple public health and standards of living have improved enough to satisfy most kids. Few kids need more than this to thrive. Sure vaccinations too. But by and large most kids don't need high tech medicine.
But the big change for seniors started in the '70's when medical technologies really started to make an impact for so many.
I took over a cardiac practice in 1981, and the bad heart failure patients had about a 50% chance of living 6 months. But with new medical technologies, mainly ACE inhibitors, 90% were alive after 10 years!
I took over a cardiac practice in 1981, and the bad heart failure patients had about a 50% chance of living 6 months. But with new medical technologies, mainly ACE inhibitors, 90% were alive after 10 years!
Neat, and ACE inhibitors are extremely cheap, so we don't need to spend much at all on the elderly!
Actually, there isn't a shortage of doctors "compared to other 1st world industrialized nations." That's just you randomly making things up (as usual). Also, this isn't a "privatized for-profit system," which is also you just making things up (as usual). In fact, in the UK, which is a nationalized system, there were so few physicians they had to import foreigners to do the work, a practice they sharply curtailed when some of the Muslim physicians started killing people, as you recall. Also, many foreigners come to America for training, so as is the case with everything, America is supporting the world.
I thought i'd do the homework since njquestions is incapable.
He claims that there's a shortage of doctors in the UK.
The facts?
But that's what it's going to come down to either way. If you do it my way, it's pay for services. If you do it with socialized medicine, it's death panels and rationing. It's a fantasy to believe that everyone can get millions of dollars of care -- even if you're talking about the insured. That means that even if you say "well, I have insurance through my employer!" That's great. At some point, if everyone wants everything, the system collapses. That's just math.
That's right, but the point is that people who want there to be one just say "ahh, we'll just keep giving everyone everything because I'm scared to tell someone no because that would make me mean." So they pretend that's a viable solution.
If you are younger we pay the millions if needed. But that is not common at all. The elderly typically become less medically aggressive over the years, and most folks 80-85+ are very realistic about their heakth prospects and then their HC spending expectations. (In the early '70's this number was about 70 years.) Living wills and sensible primary healthcare communications and support of the patient and family usually results in a cost tolerable demise. Few patients or families want too far out of sensible line with end of life care, or go into anything like the millions.
But that is not common at all. The elderly typically become less medically aggressive over the years, and most folks 80-85+ are very realistic about their heakth prospects and then their HC spending expectations.
That's not borne out in real life, however. I mean, perhaps in your particular population, maaaaaybe. But generally, it's quite the opposite, statistically speaking.
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.
