Originally posted by sh76here's the problem.
The same logic applies to a 6 year old who needs a bone marrow transplant. If the government is going to pay for his operation so that he can live another 80 years, I don't like the idea of the government refusing to keep grandma alive for one more year.
I envision a future in which there will be vast new hospitals filled with legions of semi-comatose grandmas being kept alive indefinitely by the most incredible technology - with Medicare trying to cover all the costs. Meanwhile everyone will be paying 70% or more of their salaries on taxes just to pay for all of this - and the federal debt will still be too great to manage.
Also -- almost everyone entering the healthcare field will be employed in the effort to keep all these people alive (because that's where the big money will be flowing to). Which will leave major shortages in people who provide healthcare to everyone else who isn't "at the end of life".
do you have a solution to this scenario that doesn't involve some insurance company or government making that final decision about who to keep alive?
Originally posted by sh76The same logic does not apply. The marrow transplant for the 6 year old may result in that child growing up to be a productive member of the society that provided the funds for the transplant.
The same logic applies to a 6 year old who needs a bone marrow transplant. If the government is going to pay for his operation so that he can live another 80 years, I don't like the idea of the government refusing to keep grandma alive for one more year.
Spending large sums of money to keep grandma alive one more year produces nothing that contributes to the whole.
Think of any society as an ideally self-sustaining mechanism. Your medical technologies can produce significant gains in length of life, but your money-producing technologies cannot keep pace with the cash outflow. That model simply will not sustain.
Does it really matter whether the person deciding to pull the plug works for an insurance company or the government?
And if you take a tour of any American nursing home, you will soon wonder how many of those grandmas and grandpas are being well served by enduring.
Originally posted by MelanerpesMaybe they can negotiate down the rates of keeping people alive. Also, perhaps, public education campaigns can be launched to encourage people to do living Wills and/or healthcare directives. In my experience (and I do a lot of elder law), most people don't want to be kept alive in a near vegetative state if terminally ill in any case. If everyone had a living will, 90% of them would want to be taken off life support in those cases.
here's the problem.
I envision a future in which there will be vast new hospitals filled with legions of semi-comatose grandmas being kept alive indefinitely by the most incredible technology - with Medicare trying to cover all the costs. Meanwhile everyone will be paying 70% or more of their salaries on taxes just to pay for all of this - and the fede ...[text shortened]... e some insurance company or government making that final decision about who to keep alive?
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76but this just makes way too much sense 😀
Maybe they can negotiate down the rates of keeping people alive. Also, perhaps, public education campaigns can be launched to encourage people to do living Wills and/or healthcare directives. In my experience (and I do a lot of elder law), most people don't want to be kept alive in a near vegetative state if terminally ill in any case. If everyone had a living will, 90% of them would want to be taken off life support in those cases.
we all saw what this issue turned into at all those town meetings a couple months ago.
Originally posted by sh76It happens today with insurance companies denying treatment. Why aren't you bothered by that?
I will say that the prospect of any government policy that gives any bureaucrat the power to determine that a person is not worth keeping alive and therefore the authority to "pull the plug" on that person, scares me greatly.
Not you perhaps but too many keep a blind eye to the current status and bring forth scare tactics that if enacted, and they won't be, simply replicate what happens today.
1 edit
Originally posted by sbacatHow much money are you worth? To figure out the value of your life, or at least in regards to Big Brother, take the following test.
[b]The same logic does not apply. The marrow transplant for the 6 year old may result in that child growing up to be a productive member of the society that provided the funds for the transplant.
Spending large sums of money to keep grandma alive one more year produces nothing that contributes to the whole.
1. If you are a tax paying member of society give yourself 10 points
2. For every 10 years life expectancy add another 2 points for each decade you expect to live.
3. Are you a conservative? If so, subtract 2 points.
4. Are you a white male who was born in the US? If so, subtract another 2 points.
5. Do you live in a house or apartment with a square footage under 1200 square feet? If so, give yourself 1 point. Subtract 1 point for every square foot over 1200 square feet.
6. Do you drive a car the size of a lawn mower and/or use public transportation? If you do, give yourself 1 point.
7. Do you drive an SUV? If so, subtract 10 points.
8. Do you revere the elderly and unborn? If so, subtract 5 points.
9. Do you look up to and glorify those in Hollywood? If so, add 5 points.
10. Does it bother you that Big Brother now controls every aspect of your existence from your medical treatment all the way down to your education and soon your energy expenditures? If not, give yourself 1 point. If it does bother you, sign up for one of our "reeducation" classes and give yourself 10 points.
Originally posted by sh76You have nothing to fear my friend. By impying that Big Brother would abuse his unlimited power in our lives is simply fear mongering.
I will say that the prospect of any government policy that gives any bureaucrat the power to determine that a person is not worth keeping alive and therefore the authority to "pull the plug" on that person, scares me greatly.
Originally posted by badmoonAn insurance company's refusal to pay will never cause a hospital to pull the plug on life sustaining treatment. Any doctor who pulls the plug on a patient for failure to pay would be put in jail.
It happens today with insurance companies denying treatment. Why aren't you bothered by that?
Originally posted by sbacatHave you seen any research that would suggest that this scenario is likely to happen?
The same logic does not apply. The marrow transplant for the 6 year old may result in that child growing up to be a productive member of the society that provided the funds for the transplant.
Spending large sums of money to keep grandma alive one more year produces nothing that contributes to the whole.
Think of any society as an ideally self-sustainin ...[text shortened]... you will soon wonder how many of those grandmas and grandpas are being well served by enduring.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorrahttp://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Have you seen any research that would suggest that this scenario is likely to happen?
or, with graphs:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf
You're spending more than you're producing and the rate of expenditures is increasing faster than the economy is growing. There will inevitably be a tipping point if we haven't passed it already.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's a math problem, really, isn't it? More people living longer. If X increases and Y does not, inevitably X becomes greater than Y.
This is about the US which has a dysfunctional health care system. Is it likely to happen in countries with well-functioning health care systems?
The argument in the US is over who gets to pull the plug.
But let's assume a perfectly run healthcare system. Somebody in that system must decide when additional care isn't warranted.
Here, it actually is a doctor, but the arguments avoid that topic. When my mother stopped getting better, it was a doctor who made that call as a medical opinion. I didn't understand it at the time, but it essentially shifted her out of the column where the mechanism worked at healing her and into the column where she was to be kept moderately comfortable while waiting to die.
The issue with who pays for it and death panels and all of that is really moot. Somebody's going to pull the plug because doctors make their livings from providing healthcare and somebody somewhere has to say, that one's beyond helping.
It's tragic that the US spends so much on healthcare and so much of that expenditure is total wasted revenue. Aging population will inevitably strain any economy regardless of how well the healthcare system is run. Once you have more people drawing on the financial resources produced than you have people producing, it's a simple math problem.
Originally posted by sbacatWhere is it not a doctor?
It's a math problem, really, isn't it? More people living longer. If X increases and Y does not, inevitably X becomes greater than Y.
The argument in the US is over who gets to pull the plug.
But let's assume a perfectly run healthcare system. Somebody in that system must decide when additional care isn't warranted.
Here, it actually is a doctor, but ...[text shortened]... inancial resources produced than you have people producing, it's a simple math problem.
Originally posted by sh76So who bears the cost of the continuing treatment? Does the hospital absorb it and pass it on to everyone else?
An insurance company's refusal to pay will never cause a hospital to pull the plug on life sustaining treatment. Any doctor who pulls the plug on a patient for failure to pay would be put in jail.
What currently happens in the US if a costly life sustaining treatment, which is not already being administered, is not covered by insurance and the patient doesn't have the means to pay for it? Will the patient be given the treatment anyway?
Originally posted by richjohnsonYes; the patient will receive the treatment.
So who bears the cost of the continuing treatment? Does the hospital absorb it and pass it on to everyone else?
What currently happens in the US if a costly life sustaining treatment, which is not already being administered, is not covered by insurance and the patient doesn't have the means to pay for it? Will the patient be given the treatment anyway?
If the patient is eligible for Medicaid, they can apply after the fact (you can get up to 3 months retroactive coverage). Otherwise, the hospital has to eat it. They can sue the patient if they like after the fact (or sue the estate if the patient dies). But, in general, the hospital will have to eat it.
A hospital cannot deny life sustaining coverage for inability to pay.