Healthcare Slightly Different Discussion

[Desk trauma]

I've never had a child with a serious illness, but for those who do, $500 isn't going to cut it.

Reread that post. That's the deductible.

 

[Hank77]

yes by my logic

Do you think that maybe that is an easy answer for you because you know that it is very unlikely that will ever happen?
What would you do if you couldn't get Medicare or Medicaid?

 

[Hank77]

yes by my logic

I do give you credit for being consistent.

 

[Hetta]

Reread that post. That's the deductible.

And there are plenty who could not afford a $500 deductible for their children's care - and a $4k-$5k deductible for adults? Wow. I still have 4 kids who are considered adults on our healthcare plan. While we're responsible savers and healthy, it would only take a few of us having a sickness to deplete those savings - and what about those who live paycheck to paycheck?

I have a family member whose daughter suffered from serious seizures throughout her adolescence. She almost died twice. They are wealthy people, but when the doctors kept "trying out" different meds on her, it became extremely expensive. Thankfully, the doctor was able to often find "samples" which were lower or no cost. I just think that you can't gamble with people's lives like that. Not everyone has $4k to put up for their health, or $500 to put up for their kids' health.

Cue the: people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them heartless response. (Not from you.)

 

[Hetta]

I think this country is messed up and about to become more so if the rich Republican elite has its way. Can't afford healthcare? Then you'll just have to die. This is party of Christ, btw - self named. (They skip the parts about caring for the sick, or say that is the responsibility of the church.) I've come across countless examples of situations that shouldn't exist and DON'T exist where I come from. Such as the quite elderly woman (early 70s I believe) who is an acquaintance where I used to live. She's well past retirement but stayed on at work for the sake of health benefits. Her husband just passed away a few months ago but had suffered a serious health condition for a long time. She sacrificed retirement and time spent with him so that she could pay for his treatment. Read that sentence a few times and see whether it makes sense to any of you. I'm grateful that, when we go back home, my husband and I won't have to make such a decision. When we retire, we will continue to have universal healthcare, and neither of us will have to make such a horrible decision. That's how it should be when people have worked their entire lives, paid their taxes, and contributed to the economy.

 

[Hetta]

Someone sent me a video this morning - I can't link it successfully - but it was a British politician, who, at a political gathering where a person was talking about the cost of healthcare to the poor said "suicide is an option." That is really what the rich believe - and apparently many of the poor it seems from the OP. Suicide is an option ...

 

[ananda]

That's how it should be when people have worked their entire lives, paid their taxes, and contributed to the economy.

No it shouldn't be that way.

• If you're expecting others to work to pay you - more than what you put into the system - to address your preferred form of suffering, then that's theft. You would be stealing the labor, blood, and sweat of others, preventing them from using all of the fruits of their labor to address their preferred forms of suffering in their preferred ways.
  
• If you're expecting to get out equal to what you put into the system through your work, then why not be a proponent for the ability to save that money for yourself through your working years, and use that savings when you need it, to freely address your preferred issues in a way you wish to address them?
• If you expect to use less than what you put into the system through your work, then you should feel free to donate the fruits of your labor to do just that.

In regards for those people who cannot afford to pay for <insert their preferred type of suffering here> and demand that others must help them - the hard truth is that they would still be in the "more" category. Their priorities regarding their preferred form of suffering may not be the same priority for others - others who are all undergoing their own forms of suffering. It is up to those in the "less" category to help them.

 

[bhsmte]

Let us say that every one must have health insurance for certain things, BUT instead of all sorts of different things suppose we HAD to choose between everyone having to have coverage for only LARGE unexpected things such as a car wreck medical bill or other accident bills, OR the country could require everyone to have insurance for preventive care medical treatments resulting from those such as operations to remove cancer ECT, BUT not both it either have to be big time things that people have NO control over or things that people do such as going to doctor for check-ups and test as they get older ECT?

If that was the ONLY agreement that could be reached between the Republicans and Democrats which would you rather see covered?

Difficult to separate the two. Here is why; prevention is absolutely huge in regards to health, especially as we age. There are known risk factors for all the major diseases that impact humans and having adequate healthcare aimed at nipping these risk factors in the bud early, can eliminate many of the major health issues and expenditures down the road.

It is not unlike how one needs to care for their car. You can have some kind of coverage for major mechanical failures, but if you never get the oil changed in the interim, it is only a matter of time before the engine blows out.

 

[ananda]

While we're responsible savers and healthy, it would only take a few of us having a sickness to deplete those savings - and what about those who live paycheck to paycheck? I have a family member whose daughter suffered from serious seizures ... I just think that you can't gamble with people's lives like that ... skip the parts about caring for the sick ...

For example, I prioritize spiritual and mental development far more than physical development/maintenance (especially most allopathic ways of doing so). Why should my blood & sweat be stolen to pay for your priorities (e.g. allopathic(?)-physical), to the detriment of mine (spiritual/mental/holistic/naturopathic)?

 

[dogs4thewin]

That may be your opinion, but you have no right to impose it upon others who believe it is better to seek healing and to live. You are quite welcome to end your life as and when you please, just don't expect me to choose to not receive treatment when I need it.

At SOME point we will ALL die. I am talking about cases whereby the person either has NO idea what is going on because they are mentally gone or TERMINALLY ill where they have no hope of improving and are doped up on pain medication all the time.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Do you think that maybe that is an easy answer for you because you know that it is very unlikely that will ever happen?
What would you do if you couldn't get Medicare or Medicaid?

Well, I have LONG sense concluded that I will at some point die may not be today, tomorrow may not be for decades but it WILL happen. In fact not only will it happen, but because of my CP I have a max average lifespan a decade shorter than I would otherwise.

 

[dogs4thewin]

And there are plenty who could not afford a $500 deductible for their children's care - and a $4k-$5k deductible for adults? Wow. I still have 4 kids who are considered adults on our healthcare plan. While we're responsible savers and healthy, it would only take a few of us having a sickness to deplete those savings - and what about those who live paycheck to paycheck?

I have a family member whose daughter suffered from serious seizures throughout her adolescence. She almost died twice. They are wealthy people, but when the doctors kept "trying out" different meds on her, it became extremely expensive. Thankfully, the doctor was able to often find "samples" which were lower or no cost. I just think that you can't gamble with people's lives like that. Not everyone has $4k to put up for their health, or $500 to put up for their kids' health.

Cue the: people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them heartless response. (Not from you.)

Well, people should not have kids that they KNOW they cannot afford/

 

[dogs4thewin]

Someone sent me a video this morning - I can't link it successfully - but it was a British politician, who, at a political gathering where a person was talking about the cost of healthcare to the poor said "suicide is an option." That is really what the rich believe - and apparently many of the poor it seems from the OP. Suicide is an option ...

Well, in a sense it is. I am not saying that it is an option that people should take nor is it an option I would encourage, but if you are looking at it from the standpoint of simply options you cannot force people to live and you certainly cannot force people ( even with force of law) to live in such a way that they will live as long as possible.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I kinda agree with your OP. Everyone should be required to have health insurance, but only for high cost medical expenses. That would be a catastrophic care policy that pays for expenses over a certain amount--maybe something like $4-5K per year for each adult, and $500 yearly per child. The best way to do this is through single payer, non-profit insurance. And it must be mandatory for 2 reasons:

1) When as much of the population as possible pay premiums into the system, it spreads the risk over the largest number of people. Thus, the premium becomes as low as possible for everyone.

2) If you allow people to go without insurance, the cost of their care is shifted onto those who are insured. If they wind up in the ER with an injury, or some other health crisis (as they may be eventually) they must be treated until they're stable. That's a federal law (EMTALA.) But their costs are ultimately added to what all the rest of us pay. Which increases everyone else's health insurance premium. The uninsured are freeloading on all of us who do buy insurance. And don't say that EMTALA could be repealed, because that's not gonna happen.

Then, the insurance companies can sell optional supplemental plans to customers who want their deductibles covered. It shouldn't be that expensive because the carriers' liability--at most--is limited to the deductible amount. This framework is based on the Medicare model, which is simple to understand, and is well-accepted.

Getting people stable is all that is mandated. This may take a lot of money or a little money. They OUGHT to repeal it and only treat people who need to be stableized that is to say not ALLOW people to use the ER as a general doctor. Note I did not say that it would happen I said it SHOULD.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think this country is messed up and about to become more so if the rich Republican elite has its way. Can't afford healthcare? Then you'll just have to die. This is party of Christ, btw - self named. (They skip the parts about caring for the sick, or say that is the responsibility of the church.) I've come across countless examples of situations that shouldn't exist and DON'T exist where I come from. Such as the quite elderly woman (early 70s I believe) who is an acquaintance where I used to live. She's well past retirement but stayed on at work for the sake of health benefits. Her husband just passed away a few months ago but had suffered a serious health condition for a long time. She sacrificed retirement and time spent with him so that she could pay for his treatment. Read that sentence a few times and see whether it makes sense to any of you. I'm grateful that, when we go back home, my husband and I won't have to make such a decision. When we retire, we will continue to have universal healthcare, and neither of us will have to make such a horrible decision. That's how it should be when people have worked their entire lives, paid their taxes, and contributed to the economy.

Well, such people either through regular social security or after two years of SSDI ( not SSI) are allowed on Medicare which covers 80% of the costs. Many choose to get additional coverage but it is NOT required.

 

[jayem]

They OUGHT to repeal it and only treat people who need to be stableized that is to say not ALLOW people to use the ER as a general doctor. Note I did not say that it would happen I said it SHOULD.

OK, but wishful thinking doesn't solve problems. Unreimbursed care burdens our health care system, and ultimately burdens all of us. It's only worsened when people don't carry insurance. The primary purpose of mandatory catastrophic coverage is not to improve health or save lives. It's to ensure financial responsibility. So that if you get really sick, you have a financial resource to pay for your big-ticket medical expenses, and not dump them on the rest of us. And if that's not the essence of conservative economic thinking, then I don't know what is.

 

[Hetta]

Well, people should not have kids that they KNOW they cannot afford/

So are parents supposed to figure out when their child is in vitro whether they have a sickness? Again, my kids have had the most minor issues - ear infections, etc - but my family member who gave birth to a child who developed seizures, what then? Just give the kid up for adoption?

 

[Hetta]

Well, in a sense it is. I am not saying that it is an option that people should take nor is it an option I would encourage, but if you are looking at it from the standpoint of simply options you cannot force people to live and you certainly cannot force people ( even with force of law) to live in such a way that they will live as long as possible.

But he is saying that if a person cannot afford medical care, they could just kill themselves.

We are talking about two different things. You are talking about those who are terminally ill and have no desire to live. I agree that they should be allowed to choose to die. But if a person has an illness that can be treated, but they cannot afford the treatment, should they kill themselves?

 

[Hetta]

Getting people stable is all that is mandated. This may take a lot of money or a little money. They OUGHT to repeal it and only treat people who need to be stableized that is to say not ALLOW people to use the ER as a general doctor. Note I did not say that it would happen I said it SHOULD.

So you don't think that people should hope for a cure, just for stability. So perhaps the researchers should stop searching for a cure to cancer and other disease, as "stability" is all that matters.

 

[Hetta]

Well, I have LONG sense concluded that I will at some point die may not be today, tomorrow may not be for decades but it WILL happen. In fact not only will it happen, but because of my CP I have a max average lifespan a decade shorter than I would otherwise.

Should your parents have had you? After all, they couldn't afford your healthcare. What should happen to a person like you? Should you not have any coverage any longer? Should we just let you die?

*This isn't what I agree with, I'm just following your argument to its logical conclusion, as you are ill and on benefits.