"Obamacare"

[dogs4thewin]

I have no idea what your medical history is, and apologies if I seemed harsh, because I still am not quite sure the rationale behind much of this discussion.

taking medication (over a long period of time) can ruin your liver. I have been on medication for years and will likely remain on it for the rest of my natural life. Therefore, if I know that I will have to take medication after receiving the new liver and I know that the medication could ruin the new liver why would I ruin a second liver when there are many other people who need one who may or may not have been on long-term medication for much of his or her life.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

taking medication (over a long period of time) can ruin your liver. I have been on medication for years and will likely remain on it for the rest of my natural life. Therefore, if I know that I will have to take medication after receiving the new liver and I know that the medication could ruin the new liver why would I ruin a second liver when there are many other people who need one who may or may not have been on long-term medication for such of his or her life.

It definitely depends on the medication. Is it a medication known to have a high likelihood of hepatic failure?

 

[dogs4thewin]

It definitely depends on the medication. Is it a medication known to have a high likelihood of hepatic failure?

no idea what I do know is that I am now 20 21 in a week have been on anti-depressions since I was 15 or so have been on seizure medication since I was 16 and seeing as how my disability is probably what causes the seizures and my disability will remain for life: therefore unless I decide I want to risk seizures I will need to remain on that medication.

 

[doubtingmerle]

what I do know is that I am now 20 21 in a week have been on anti-depressions since I was 15 or so have been on seizure medication since I was 16 and seeing as how my disability is probably what causes the seizures and my disability will remain for life: therefore unless I decide I want to risk seizures I will need to remain on that medication.

I am sorry to hear about your condition.

I would think "Obamacare" would greatly help you. Before "Obamacare" insurance companies would have had the right to refuse you because of pre-existing conditions. "Obamacare" assures that you will always be able to get health insurance, and if you cannot afford to pay for insurance, the new law will help you with the payments.

But nobody is forcing you to take a liver transplant. You are welcome to discuss that with your doctors and others, and decide for yourself what is best for you.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

no idea what I do know is that I am now 20 21 in a week have been on anti-depressions since I was 15 or so have been on seizure medication since I was 16 and seeing as how my disability is probably what causes the seizures and my disability will remain for life: therefore unless I decide I want to risk seizures I will need to remain on that medication.

I agree with skeptical merle -- the Affordable Care Act will likely help you. I do not know if you are on your parents' insurance, but if so, you'll be able to do that for 5 more years.

It sucks to live with seizures. But I don't think you should think of yourself as deserving less care because of your current state of health. Everyone, in my eyes, deserves the best that is available.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Repeal it, allow for tort reform (driving down malpractice ins), allow people to purchase insurance across state lines (breaking regional monopolies), and allow people to purchase the kind of ins. They want (I'm not married, I don't need ins. related to women's health).

Would this lower costs enough to allow significantly more people to buy health insurance?

Medical malpractice costs 2.4% of total healthcare costs (Cost of Medical Malpractice Tops $55 Billion a Year in U.S. - US News and World Report) So the most that eliminating malpractice cases could do is lower rates 2.4%. That is not going to help most people much who cannot now afford it.

And what if a careless doctor amputates the wrong leg? If we eliminate malpractice cases, the patient would not have a leg to stand on in court (bad pun intended).

And selling insurance across state lines would cause huge issues, and benefit little. See Articles: The Folly of Interstate Health Insurance Competition and Will Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines Reduce Costs? - Forbes)

So your plan does nothing to help those who are refused insurance due to pre-existing conditions, and does little to make it affordable to those who cannot afford it.

Meanwhile 40,000 die each year in America because they have no health insurance. Do you have any suggestions that will change that significantly?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I am sorry to hear about your condition.

I would think "Obamacare" would greatly help you. Before "Obamacare" insurance companies would have had the right to refuse you because of pre-existing conditions. "Obamacare" assures that you will always be able to get health insurance, and if you cannot afford to pay for insurance, the new law will help you with the payments.

But nobody is forcing you to take a liver transplant. You are welcome to discuss that with your doctors and others, and decide for yourself what is best for you.

Well I am NOT stupid. There is a REASON they had the right to refuse me and I UNDERSTAND that. Why do you think it is tougher for say you to get life insurance than me? Why do you think if you have wrecks and/or tickets on your record it is harder to get auto business is business Just like another example, you can get cancer insurance to pay for cancer treatment if you should develop it IF and only IF you have NOT already HAD cancer (In Georgia it is over the past decade. Why because the FACT of life is that depending on various factors you are likely to relapse once you have had it. You are talking to someone who in the past three years has had two family members (close) family members to battle cancer that is just the way life works.
As for the mal-practice cases that is the risk you take. This is why before you have a major operation you sign a paper stating you UNDERSTAND the risks of dying ECT

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Well I am NOT stupid. There is a REASON they had the right to refuse me and I UNDERSTAND that. Why do you think it is tougher for say you to get life insurance than me? Why do you think if you have wrecks and/or tickets on your record it is harder to get auto business is business

I think it's unethical to hold care hostage for those who need it the most.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think it's unethical to hold care hostage for those who need it the most.

It is but business in this secular society fairly or not does not always work based on ethics.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

It is but business in this secular society fairly or not does not always work based on ethics.

That's why we have laws that protect people taken advantage of by unethical business practices. I won't argue that from a bottom line standpoint, yeah, denying insurance for people with pre-existing conditions makes sense. But from a human point of view, that is absurd. Do we want our society to let business do all the unethical things they want to do to make a buck?

Are you also opposed to worker's rights? Child labor laws? More instances where ethics trumps the bottom line. I want to live in a society where take that stand.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is a REASON they had the right to refuse me and I UNDERSTAND that. ..You are talking to someone who in the past three years has had two family members (close) family members to battle cancer that is just the way life works.

Currently life in America works such that many with pre-existing conditions find it impossible to get insurance, and medical costs are beyond their reach. Sadly, many of them die.

But life does not work that way in every country. In other advanced economies, the government would see that you got the medical coverage you needed for life.

You do not deserve to be left without insurance and to be faced with insurmountable bills. You deserve to be treated like a human being, and to have access to the medical care you need. That is why I strongly agree that we need at least "Obamacare", and probably need to expand it further.

We are all pulling for you here. We hope you get the care you need. Don't ever sell yourself short. Don't ever say that you are unworthy of the care that is available to others in America.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's why we have laws that protect people taken advantage of by unethical business practices. I won't argue that from a bottom line standpoint, yeah, denying insurance for people with pre-existing conditions makes sense. But from a human point of view, that is absurd. Do we want our society to let business do all the unethical things they want to do to make a buck?

Are you also opposed to worker's rights? Child labor laws? More instances where ethics trumps the bottom line. I want to live in a society where take that stand.

I will from a human standpoint help people and act in an ethical manner. I want to own my own business one day which will be run with ethics but you pointed out and we ALL know from a STRICT standpoint of money (which is sadly how this country runs with or without laws, if it didn't we wouldn't have over 2,000,000 people locked up tonight, it makes sense. By the way, there is also some ethics to REFUSING treatment, which as I pointed out earlier people are more likely to do when they have to fork it out themselves. Now there are people like me who would do it any now just for everyone's sake ( even if it all is run by taxes people are still paying for it., but there are people who will just keep sacking money when they KNOW they will NOT get any better. I am talking about people who are deathly ill with no chance of getting better and just keep having things done any now because they can. NOT those who are exspacted to heal or those who are hospice taking pain medications and other things to stay comfortable during their final days, weeks months. I am saying those who next to KNOW there is NOTHING that can be done and just keep using money anyway. Or people who know that a treatment may save them for a few months. Now transplants and things that last for years OK, but like I knew of a man with cancer ( do not know what kind if any insurance he had) but any now there was no treatment left they COULD HAVE DONE that would have given him a few more months TOPS. He chose to somewhere between the medical bills and common sense to refuse that last treatment.

 

[jgarden]

Should a so-called civilized society find it tolerable that the life expectancy of the average citizen in Mississippi is 6.7 years less than his/her counterpart in Hawaii, and that the lifespan of the average American is approximately 3 years less than that of the average Canadian?

Factor in the fact that America already spends almost 18% of its GDP on healthcare, as compared to 11% in Canada, and one can only conclude that there are $ trillions being siphoned out of the system by special interest groups - $ trilions in "blood money" that translate into taking an average of 3 years off the life of every American!

Those special interests that are campaigning against Obamacare, are the same interest groups that are profiting from the average America dying 3 years before their Canadian neighbors.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Should a so-called civilized society find it tolerable that the life expectancy of the average citizen in Mississippi is 6.7 years less than his/her counterpart in Hawaii, and that the lifespan of the average American is approximately 3 years less than that of the average Canadian?

Factor in the fact that America spends almost 18% of its GDP on healthcare, as compared to 11% in Canada, and one can only conclude that there are $ trillions being siphoned out of the system by special interest groups - $ trilions in "blood money" that translate into taking an average of 3 years off the life of every American!

average being a key word. In GENERAL, note I said GENERAL there will be exceptions like you could argue me (born disabled now with seizures, but In GENERAL the better one takes care of himself or herself the less medial care they will need or at the very least the older they will need it. For example, and I hate to use my own family but my father's mother recently deceased at 75 was not very active and had Diabetes and various other health problems. Her husband who has BEEN deceased for 16.5 years and little over half but anyway died at 67, but he also drank smoked and did not seek medical even the basic cheaper kind when he needed it. As opposed to my mother's parents both of whom are still alive and despite being on medications still able to work (even picking food from the garden in season) me ma (grandmother) is 73 and papa (grandfather) is 76. Why because while papa used to smoke he quit before I was born, he never drank, they have stayed active me ma never drank or smoked and they DO seek medical treatment when they need it, at the first sign when it is easier and USUALLY cheaper to treat (even though it can still be high) so part of lifespan has to do with the way you treat yourself.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I will from a human standpoint help people and act in an ethical manner. I want to own my own business one day which will be run with ethics but you pointed out and we ALL know from a STRICT standpoint of money (which is sadly how this country runs with or without laws, if it didn't we wouldn't have over 2,000,000 people locked up tonight, it makes sense. By the way, there is also some ethics to REFUSING treatment, which as I pointed out earlier people are more likely to do when they have to fork it out themselves. Now there are people like me who would do it any now just for everyone's sake ( even if it all is run by taxes people are still paying for it., but there are people who will just keep sacking money when they KNOW they will NOT get any better. I am talking about people who are deathly ill with no chance of getting better and just keep having things done any now because they can. NOT those who are exspacted to heal or those who are hospice taking pain medications and other things to stay comfortable during their final days, weeks months. I am saying those who next to KNOW there is NOTHING that can be done and just keep using money anyway. Or people who know that a treatment may save them for a few months. Now transplants and things that last for years OK, but like I knew of a man with cancer ( do not know what kind if any insurance he had) but any now there was no treatment left they COULD HAVE DONE that would have given him a few more months TOPS. He chose to somewhere between the medical bills and common sense to refuse that last treatment.

Here's my points:

1. Health care should not be run from the strict standpoint of money.

2. No one should have to make the choice between foregoing treatment or going into debt for their medical bills.

3. End of life care is definitely something that needs more discussion if we are going to be serious about cutting costs in health care. The general trend in the US is to keep the life-support machines on at all costs, and no one ever wants to discuss end of life issues or DNRs or anything like that. It's tragic to see people decay and wither away on machines in their last bits of life.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Here's my points:

1. Health care should not be run from the strict standpoint of money.

2. No one should have to make the choice between foregoing treatment or going into debt for their medical bills.

3. End of life care is definitely something that needs more discussion if we are going to be serious about cutting costs in health care. The general trend in the US is to keep the life-support machines on at all costs, and no one ever wants to discuss end of life issues or DNRs or anything like that. It's tragic to see people decay and wither away on machines in their last bits of life.

Going to number three then. How do you propose end off life be dealt with? because as I said many who HAVE insurance that they ARE paying for directly (not through taxes) are more likely to forgo certain treatment or have the machines cut off. Just in my short 20 years I have noticed this.

 

[jgarden]

average being a key word. In GENERAL, note I said GENERAL there will be exceptions like you could argue me (born disabled now with seizures, but In GENERAL the better one takes care of himself or herself the less medial care they will need or at the very least the older they will need it. For example, and I hate to use my own family but my father's mother recently deceased at 75 was not very active and had Diabetes and various other health problems. Her husband who has BEEN deceased for 16.5 years and little over half but anyway died at 67, but he also drank smoked and did not seek medical even the basic cheaper kind when he needed it. As opposed to my mother's parents both of whom are still alive and despite being on medications still able to work (even picking food from the garden in season) me ma (grandmother) is 73 and papa (grandfather) is 76. Why because while papa used to smoke he quit before I was born, he never drank, they have stayed active me ma never drank or smoked and they DO seek medical treatment when they need it, at the first sign when it is easier and USUALLY cheaper to treat (even though it can still be high) so part of lifespan has to do with the way you treat yourself.

According to the CIA World Factbook, 49 other countries, including Canada, all exceed America's average life expectancy and none of them have citizens exempt from diabetes and other health problems.

In addition, all spend substantially less on healthcare but still manage to ensure that none their citizens are deprived of medical care for monetary reasons.

Collectively, Americans are currently paying for what should be the "Cadillac" of the world's medical systems, but are being "brainwashed" by special interest groups into accepting far less - including 50 million citizens uninsured.

 

[dogs4thewin]

According to the CIA World Factbook, 49 other countries, including Canada, all exceed America's average life expectancy and none of them have citizens exempt from diabetes and other health problems.

In addition, all spend substantially less on healthcare but ensure that all their citizens are not deprived of medical care for monetary reasons.

Americans are currently paying for what should be the "Cadillac" of all medical systems, but are being "brainwashed" by special interest groups into accepting far less - including 50 million citizens uninsured.

I didn't say those nations did not. I just said that the better care you take of yourself the less likely you will need medical care that is just common sense.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Going to number three then. How do you propose end off life be dealt with? because as I said many who HAVE insurance that they ARE paying for directly (not through taxes) are more likely to forgo certain treatment or have the machines cut off. Just in my short 20 years I have noticed this.

It's not an insurance thing, it's a thing that doctors need to be aware of. It's very common that in ICU situations that critical care docs that are desperate to keep their patients alive refuse to start the discussion of end of life with the patients and families.

Most people, from what I've seen as a student, are far less concerned about how it's going to get paid for and are more concerned about keeping a loved one alive.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I didn't say those nations did not. I just said that the better care you take of yourself the less likely you will need medical care that is just common sense.

Early primary care is another big thing. If you're insured and see a doctor routinely for check-ups you're far more likely to control your potential health problems before they become catastrophic (like hypertension, diabetes, etc).

There are a lot of people living with chronic, treatable illness and are asymptomatic, but not receiving preventive care. These people are the ones that end up in the ER with complications 10 years down the road.