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 personally do think there's a limit or should be a limit as to how much healthcare dollars we should spend to prolong the life of one patient we know is going to die anyways why not give them morphine and get it over with and save ourselves a few million dollars to prolong the life of one patient 4 months I know it seems cruel but sometimes you have to do a cost benefit analysis and make the tough choices.
If the pharmaceutical company wants to sell their product in their market they can lower the price or come to an agreement with that respective Nation. There are many pharmaceutical products that are way too expensive and they're that expensive because governments or the medical industry are willing to pay in a capitalist society you can bargain to come to a reasonable price so that each side can get the a benefit.
By spending $5 million to prolong the life of a cancer patient seven months all of us have to absorb those costs with higher insurance premiums and medical costs across the board.
I'm guessing you're not fighting for your life nor have a spouse, child or loved one battling a terminal illness.
Who do you suggest gets to make that determination on who gets to live or not? You? Insurance companies? Random strangers?
Most people who are battling a terminal illness and their families aren't really looking at the cost benefit analysis.
There are many times that insurance companies refuse to pay for certain treatments and people can't get the treatment they need. I've read horror stories over the years. It's a shame that insurance companies instead of doctors get to call the shots on who gets what.
One way insurance companies make good money is through legitimate denial of coverage. Not to mention illegitimate, which is less common. Many docs many times order testing, procedures, treatments and meds not proven useful or not indicated in that particular patient and at that particular time. By and large with a willing doc and accessible staff these barriers can be circumvented. But not always. It really helps to have a specialist is this field on hand to assist.
For instance our specialist was able to find a drug plan for my wife resulting in hundreds vs thousands of dollars per year for her medication. A necessary and potentially life saving medication some plans wouldn't cover.
I personally do think there's a limit or should be a limit as to how much healthcare dollars we should spend to prolong the life of one patient we know is going to die anyways why not give them morphine and get it over with and save ourselves a few million dollars to prolong the life of one patient 4 months I know it seems cruel but sometimes you have to do a cost benefit analysis and make the tough choices.
If the pharmaceutical company wants to sell their product in their market they can lower the price or come to an agreement with that respective Nation. There are many pharmaceutical products that are way too expensive and they're that expensive because governments or the medical industry are willing to pay in a capitalist society you can bargain to come to a reasonable price so that each side can get the a benefit.
By spending $5 million to prolong the life of a cancer patient seven months all of us have to absorb those costs with higher insurance premiums and medical costs across the board.
The extent of HC provided for those near death is dependent on the age of the patient, their medical/surgical condition, the potential for further QOL, along with the wishes of the patient and family. Of course all of this has to stay within ethical medical standards of care. Living wills are the best way to limit this immense sort of useless medical spending. Otherwise I know of no other humane way to limit it. Most people at or around 85 years of age do not want to be pushed into the future if the medical implications are too expensive, complicated, painful, or will not provide significant amount of QOL. When I was in medical training back in the '70's, that age was closer to 70.
My wife had terminal cancer at 62 and we've had over $5M in medical bills since 1/1/17. Of which HC insurance paid about 1/3 and willingly accepted by her providers as paid in full. At one point in 2018 she was 'no code', and I insisted on 'one more week'. She has recovered thanks to very expensive and extremely complicated new medical technologies. This week we are up snow skiing, and she is up to blue runs now.
I do agree that Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices. Part D has been an overly complicated failure since it was introduced during Bush2's years.
It's the equivalent of a dentist filling baby teeth in children. It's a waste of money. If a family wants an extra month of time with mom, they should have to pay out of their own pockets.
Not the best example...adults get cavities and sometimes find out about them because they HURT! You don't think baby teeth hurt when they are decayed? They need to be filled because they will have some of those baby teeth for years before their adult teeth come in.
6 weeks of time with a family member at the cost of $4k a week may not be the best use of limited healthcare dollars. And, maybe if it is not covered by insurance, for example, it encourages finding BETTER treatments that cost by adding months rather than weeks.
A known chronic condition. The kind that Obama forces insurers to cover, raising premiums for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Of course Medicare and Medicaids are social welfare, I miss your point there.
Since when was a BlueCross policy social welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Annual check ups are not necessary nor done anywhere I know on any regular basis. And typically not a large expense anyway. I hardly know anyone getting these so called 'executive physicals' anymore. With Medicare we do an annual Wellness visit. Cheap to do and we cover a whole lot of useful ground where more serious problems may be found early. If that is what you mean. But that is small potatoes.
Yet Obamacare forces insurers to cover them. The vast majority of the time, it turns up nothing. Insureds are paying for that wasted time.
You still have yet to articulate a strong business case for everyone being forced to enroll in one-size-fits-none comprehensive coverage unnecessarily e.g. NHS rather than having access to a variety of options that more optimally meet their needs, including, yes, self-insurance.
The reason cost of care is spiralling out of control partially has to do with the OVERUSE of insurance - prices rise when no one has to compete on price.
Last edited by albert648; 04-11-2022 at 06:21 PM..
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.
