Posted on 03/03/2013 9:53:11 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
When Sean Recchi, a 42-year-old from Lancaster, Ohio, was told last March that he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, his wife Stephanie knew she had to get him to MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Stephanie’s father had been treated there 10 years earlier, and she and her family credited the doctors and nurses at MD Anderson with extending his life by at least eight years.
(Excerpt) Read more at healthland.time.com ...
Medical care is expensive because the industry is joined at the hip to government and to the legal and insurance industries, with all aspects of free market economics completely removed, leading to all the waste, fraud, and corruption that implies. Yes, it’s really that simple.
Absolutely. NO DISCUSSION. Your post is right on the mark.
Too much of our health care money is wasted. Old people need to really understand that death is normal and natural. Throwing money at the problem does not change the inevitable outcome - death. I believe this is in part due to the failure by too many people to really accept the promise of Christianity - our life here is temporary and just a prelude to a better eternal life.
In fifty years, it will make little difference if old Martha dies in 2013 or 2018. Either way, Martha will be gone and probably forgotten. However, if in fifty years, taxpayers are still paying for Martha's extra five years, that will make a difference. Right now, our country is becoming flooded with old Marthas.
Of course, if old people want to spend a lot of money to unnecessarily extend their miserable lives, it should be their own money. The taxpayer is tapped out.
Expensive, wasteful spending to unnecessarily extend lives should be left up to the individual on a "pay as you go" basis. Pay as you go - and, when you stop paying, it's time for you to go.
Expensive, wasteful spending to unnecessarily extend lives should be left up to the individual on a "pay as you go" basis. Pay as you go - and, when you stop paying, it's time for you to go.
And here's the problem with your "compassionate" (not) answer. Who determines "old"...who determines what's a "miserable" life, and who determines what's "unnecessary?"
Karl Denninger had a good rant on the subject today. Says health care costs are 10 times what they should be.
Let’s add this up.
First, you are willing to pay just about anything...to live as long as possible. And if a dimwit says you need to pay $7k a year for health insurance....you will pay it. And if a hospital conducts an operation for $44k, and your bill at the end of six weeks is $79k...you will pay it. No arguments.
Second, if any of the various doctors, nurses or ambulance drivers screws up....there’s 100k lawyers in America who are ready in an instant to sue...for a minimum of $100k.
Third, you have a wide array of insurance folks acting as middle man, and likely going home with thirty percent of whatever you pay for your yearly premium.
Fourth, your Congressmen and Senators are in the middle of this whole mess...for no apparent reason, except to make campaign funding off the real players of the game.
Finally, drugs are driving this nation’s economy. You discover that Vicodin is a great drug....and that pain you’ve suffered from since high school football days? We can fix that....with the normal dose, and a bit of an extra dose (from some local dealer)...which is all illegal, and will eventually make you imagine that the tooth-fairy is real, and that the guys on Amish Mafia are real mafia characters.
For instance, suppose that the Submitted Charges come to $5,000; but the Plan Allowance is just $1,800. That means that there is an insurance adjustment in the amount of $3,200--neither the insurance carrier nor the patient is obligated to pay this--and if the insurance carrier pays 85 percent of the $1,800 balance, that leaves just $270 as coinsurance for the patient.
That's right. Just $270 out of $5,000 in Submitted Charges, in this example...
Most people can spot "old" just like they can spot "pornography."
Like I said, I think all of these decisions should be left to the individual. As long as they keep paying, keep treating. They will let you know when it's time to stop because they will quit paying. That's "what pay as you go" means.
The Lord is waiting for each of us. Trust Him.
And I have little use for anyone who thinks just because someone is old (in your opinion) they should not have the right to care.
Correct , what a racket insurance is.
You do realize you could turn your definitions toward children who are going to be born with birth defects, and live a life where they are dependent on health care their entire lives (people abort because they’re told the child’s quality of live will be miserable)...so should the parents who choose to bring such a child in the world put on the “pay as you go” plan too. And when the money runs out, just let the kid die.
Same thing with some accident victims or war injuries, health care will be required the rest of their lives...are they on the pay as you go plan too.
I’m really not against limiting some services for the elderly, but I do believe that is already happening to a degree. My dad has a heart valve problem, and he was told in a younger person they’d operate, but in an older person, they just manage the disease. Makes perfect sense to him, and me. Women don’t get mammograms or pap smears past a certain age, men don’t get PSA’s past a certain age, colonoscopies also could have an age cut off, because treatment past a certain age is more of a risk than a benefit. And I’m all for that sort of managing of costs.
I agree that old people have a right to care and even wasteful care if they want to pay for it. It should be their choice.
Well, you should give Obamacare your full support because it authorizes the ‘death panels’ designed to deny care to the ‘old’ just as you think should happen.
A sick twisted interpretation of Christianity.
Using your logic why should anyone treat any illness at any age. Maybe the Lord is calling you home and you having that operation is being disobedient to Gods will.
In reality you are saying “screw the old and infirmed, why should I have to pay for them” and trying justify it claiming it's Gods will.
You are the poster boy of why the left think Christians are whack jobs
i’ve determined you should quit consuming oxygen on this planet!
I believe that even very old people should be able to get a colonoscopy if they pay for it.
Like you and me, most folks know that when it's time to go, it's time to go. However, if some atheist insists on fighting the inevitable no matter what the cost, he/she should bear that wasteful cost.
I paid for this oxygen!!! ;-)
Like I said, I'm against all government involvement in health care.
And, I would never deny care to the old. The patient should make that decision, and pay for it.
This problem has really only developed in the last half century. Prior to that, no one wasted huge amounts of money to unnecessarily extend the lives of people who were dying. For thousands of years, we had the good sense to "let them go" when their bodies wore out. Death is normal. Death is natural. Death is good.
You have a firm grasp of the problem, unfortunately the actual solution remains illusive.
What we need is a drug that fights governmental cancer (a politanoma?).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.