Our healthcare system is also the best if you ignore costs. The greed aspect not only denies more universal coverage, it also promotes medical advancements. That's why the best medical coverage is in the US. Why people from around the world tend to come to the US if they have the resources to do so. I'm not saying I'm against universal healthcare. I do believe everyone's entitled to at least some care. That the bar can't be set so high for not being screwed. But there is something to be said for needing some greed in order to promote advancements. On a personal level, my grandmother recently made full recover from cancer, IIRC stage 3. She's the only person among her friends with the diseases to make a recovery. She did so by seeking treatment at MD Anderson. And I am very thankful of tge "greedy healthcare system" likely saved her life.
Idealogues, demagogues, fanatics, zealots, those sorts. Everything is 'rationed', money has just been the traditional way of allotting things. With healthcare it is reasonable to ask if that is the best way. If you want to go real broke, real fast, have any kind of a medical issue treated without insurance. A minor out-patient surgery will probably show an unadjusted billing rate of $40,000 that your insurance company only gets billed $10,000 for on their negotiated rate. If you are not indigent and don't have insurance your bill is the $40,000. Anyone chooses to 'manage without health insurance' is just ill informed, fiscally irresponsible, or deciding to let The People carry his burden.
They don't make those decisions. They offer plans which the individual (or the employer) decides to purchase. The patient. Why would you purchase insurance from such a company (or why would you work for an employer with such a company as a provider)? You mean demand is greater than supply? I wonder if there is a mechanism to bring those two things in line. Medicare is going broke. The whole purpose of IPAB is to deny/lower medicare payouts to control costs. The plan you pay for, the contract you agree to, determines what is covered. The insurance company may not interpret it in a way you agree with, but they are not the arbiter of what is covered, the law and the plan are.
No - you purchase a plan, and then an insurer, at the time of your illness, possibly many years later - makes a determination of whether to pay for a given benefit. It is impossible for the patient to make an informed decision without knowing in advance what illness they will have and under what circumstances it will be. And, of course, insurers often deny benefits for random reasons, some of which are overturned on appeal - after it's too late for the patient. But regardless, by that standard, government insurance is the same - the individual chooses to enroll in Medicare and knows its stated coverage limits. They continue to have the option to purchase private insurance.
If you post a heavy subject in this political quicksand, it's going down. Death is sword of Damocles that has hung over everyone since humans became self aware. I try to think of it as the end of existence, the end of any perception, no thoughts, no sensations, nothing matters from that point before or after, and take that as a comfort. So death is fine once I get there, I won't care. It's the damn pain, incapacity and loss of dignity that scares the sh** out of me. My Mom is 90, healthy as a horse but she says she would just as soon die in her sleep tonight. She misses Dad, her friends are all dead or bed-ridden and she can't dance anymore. I just don't understand why Ethical Suicide Centers aren't just legal but as numerous as McDonalds. Set up an interview, prove you are sound mind (why that exactly matters is another discussion) put on record why you want to make the decision and check out, painlessly. There are 7 Billion people in the world, how many are happy living and how many might prefer to end their existence? Ethical Suicide Centers! brought to you by Prescott Pharmaceuticals!
Nope, your plan determines what benefits are paid, not the insurer. The insurer offers the plan for a premium you both decide to agree on. You and/or the insurer may disagree on what the plan says or covers, but that's no different than any other contract dispute. That's why it's going broke. A defined benefit that ignores cost. The system needs to be a defined contribution, a premium support program, a voucher program. Medicare recipients shopping for care creates the choice and competition that drives down prices in every other area of the economy.
Yep...renal failure in June, open heart surgery in July, six liters of fluid around the lungs removed in August, fistula inserted in November, cataract surgey (second) in December...insurance saved my hide (and pocketbook). No complaints with the system here. However, I am very glad no death panels had any say over my 65-year-old carcass. BTW, I am up and running 30 minutes a day on my treadmill and taking long walks with Rowdy Rocket.
Swallowing the time vortex from their companions, saving old men... Those two are pretty much the only I've seen... I'm still not taking the loss of David Tennant so well. I miss him so much...
I don't see how that is really any different than what government health care system does other than that in a single payer system taxes pay for the insurance but the benefits are already defined. Health care doesn't really work though like other goods and services. If you are having a stroke you can't really shop around for the best price for emergency treatment.
Glad to hear you are doing well but keep in mind you already had a death panel have a say over you. Your insurance still had to approve of the treatment. While as Commodore notes your plan defines benefits there are still review and approval processes for paying out those benefits especially if you got treatment at an out of network provider.
It doesn't have to be like that, if people would just ignore the trolls (or for the billionth time, at least don't quote them.) Thanks for posting the article. It doesn't really have political content -- it has medical facts with a helping of ethical opinions. I know a lot of conservative-voting physicians who have shared exactly similar thoughts about how they want to die. For those interested in the basic topic of end-of-life, I can recommend the following article as well. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande Humans overwhelmingly want three things when they pass: to be somewhat lucid, to be as physically comfortable as possible, and to be with loved ones. Who wouldn't want that? (It's a rhetorical question, trolls; we know you don't have loved ones, so you can skip the question.) A lot of people who die in intensive care don't get any of those three things, and it's really sad. Forget the bills and arguments about costs -- it's just ethically tragic, especially when so many people aren't given a choice about it.
Except it is - because if the insurance company waits long enough, you die and they win by default. That's true of all insurance - private or public. There's already private health care for seniors along with Medicare Advantage that allows for that competition. We also already have market competition in both the group insurance and individual insurance markets. It hasn't remotely worked in health care because health care isn't like every other area of the economy. At the current time, Medicare is far and away the most efficient health care cost control system we have at this time - and that's not to say Medicare does a good job at all. Everyone else is simply worse.
Not necessarily. If the bereaved family files suit for wrongful death (delaying treatment has been construed as an "accomplice" in civil suits), the insurance company risks far more in damages than they would have for treatment. BTW, I have been on full Medicare since November 1, so I have to see how that plays out (no pun intended, but Medicare paid for 80% of my eye surgery and supplemental insurance picked up the rest.
Sure - if the person has family, and they have the means and willingness to pursue it, etc. But at the end of the day, the insurer and the insured are not on equal footing here. It's not a simple contractual dispute, and the decision is often not made based on the welfare of the patient, but on the financial repercussions for the insurer. That is simply not at all an efficient way to manage health care policy. It doesn't lead to the best health care outcomes, not the most financially efficient outcomes. The whole structure of health insurance is in this country is not designed properly. But as rhad pointed out, this thread has been derailed, so I'll stop here.
Damn, thumbs! My comment was due to the loss of a close family member, with a week spent going back and forth with the hospital about how far the family was willing to go to treat that close family member, who was terminally ill. That was extremely unpleasant, to put it mildly. Personally? I merely deal with chronic pain from botched back surgery ("not the ideal result" in doctor/hospital lingo). Good lord, you've been through the ringer. Glad to hear that you survived and are recovering well. -
Ooops, quoted wrong Thumbs post, but am very happy to hear you are on the road to recovery Thumbs ! THUMBS UP FROM ME ! DD
