Reducing the cost of medicare/ health insurance

[bctbct]

Tonights episode of 60 Minutes profiled health care costs.

They estimate last year that 50 billion dollars was spent on patients the last 2 months of their lives.

One patient was an 85 yo woman with advanced liver failure and heart disease.
She saw 25 specialists and received a pap smear and treatment for depression.

Another man who was 68 and had kidney and liver failure wanted a double transplant(450k).

His doctors would not approve because he was too weak.

His doctor explained to him that there was really nothing they could do for him, if he arrested would he like them to perform CPR? His answer was yes.

I can honesty say that I am not that selfish.

There were many other examples of what imo was wasteful efforts.



Should we have set guidelines for treatment based on age/condition?

Is there such a thing as too little too late?

discuss

 

[FoBoT]

see, death panels, there you go
kill all the old people, sounds great

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

see, death panels, there you go
kill all the old people, sounds great

Don't be an ass. There are plenty of wasteful (and non-wasteful) procedures/actions done on people before they die. And none of them have anything to do with the so-called death panels.

And there a lot of reasons why that happens. A lot of times, the families won't admit the futility, and thus press for "do everything possible", when we know that it won't matter. But they won't believe it, and you end up coding people for an hour, or spend lots of money to prolong the inevitable by a few days.

 

[XZeroII]

Don't be an ass. There are plenty of wasteful (and non-wasteful) procedures/actions done on people before they die. And none of them have anything to do with the so-called death panels.

And there a lot of reasons why that happens. A lot of times, the families won't admit the futility, and thus press for "do everything possible", when we know that it won't matter. But they won't believe it, and you end up coding people for an hour, or spend lots of money to prolong the inevitable by a few days.

Maybe you didn't know this, but what the OP described is what the death panels were all about. It was about the gov't deciding who lives and who dies. It would be like the gov't saying that you're too old so you don't get treatment. This is exactly what the OP was describing.

Personally, I think it's definitely a waste, but morality seems to dictate that we do everything that we can for people. It's a balancing act that I don't think everyone will ever agree on.

 

[spidey07]

Just take a pill, Obama says. Just look at his healthcare czar.

Wake the fuck up people. Cutting costs means cutting care. This experiment has been tried before and it has failed.

Look no farther than the recent gubment recommendations on a god damn mammogram. The goal is to reduce treatment. Reducing treatment means more deaths. This is what gubment controlled healthcare is.

But by all means trumpet and cheer the loss of control of your life and destiny, you stupid, ignorant people.

 

[blackangst1]

Death panels in PC speak is refusal of care due to cost. And no one does it more than Medicaid. I posted the report in another thread today by the industry grade card.

 

[Ozoned]

Just take a pill, Obama says. Just look at his healthcare czar.

Wake the fuck up people. Cutting costs means cutting care. This experiment has been tried before and it has failed.

Look no farther than the recent gubment recommendations on a god damn mammogram. The goal is to reduce treatment. Reducing treatment means more deaths. This is what gubment controlled healthcare is.

But by all means trumpet and cheer the loss of control of your life and destiny, you stupid, ignorant people.

You know, if we had the technology to do genetic defect screening, in vitro, and simply get rid of all the defective people before they are born, just think of all the money we could save.

It would be quite moral also, as the unborn aren't actually people anyway. (The precident already exists for this).

 

[bctbct]

50 billion didnt save lives, it delayed death.

 

[TruePaige]

Just take a pill, Obama says. Just look at his healthcare czar.

Wake the fuck up people. Cutting costs means cutting care. This experiment has been tried before and it has failed.

Look no farther than the recent gubment recommendations on a god damn mammogram. The goal is to reduce treatment. Reducing treatment means more deaths. This is what gubment controlled healthcare is.

But by all means trumpet and cheer the loss of control of your life and destiny, you stupid, ignorant people.

Yeah, because the rest of the civilized world having much better care for much less is using fairy magic.

Are you mentally challenged? Go ahead and grow old, be sure to turn down that "socialist" health care! :biggrin:

 

[boomerang]

As long as we let preemies die, those born with severe birth defects, Down's Syndrome and the like why not? Actually, if a newborn does not take its first breath through normal means, condemn them to death.

People of any age that develop brain tumors should die. Middle aged people who need stents too. Pacemakers? Take a pill. If the pill doesn't cut it, too damned bad. Some cancers are considered curable, but the dirty secret of modern medicine is that many cancers either return or come back in a different form. One bout of cancer is the limit for those between the ages of 20 and 40. Another and treatment will be denied. If you develop cancer prior to age 20 you're weak and should die. Over 40 what's the sense?

Some people are accident prone. More than one broken bone in a five year period, you're high risk and the bone should not be set. More than one DUI should be grounds for denial of health care benefits. If you can't control yourself, why should we pay to keep you healthy and drinking excessively? Fatties will be denied benefits.

Those carrying recessive genes that have a high potential for defective children should not be allowed to conceive.

I could go on, but most will get the point. Once you start, where do you stop? Will these decisions be made on a case by case basis, or will guidelines be set. If guidelines, can they be appealed or will they be etched in granite? Who makes these decisions? Elected or appointed?

Oh, I almost forgot the most important rule. Congress and their extended families will be exempt from any of these rules - for life.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[bctbct]

Just take a pill, Obama says. Just look at his healthcare czar.

Wake the fuck up people. Cutting costs means cutting care. This experiment has been tried before and it has failed.

Look no farther than the recent gubment recommendations on a god damn mammogram. The goal is to reduce treatment. Reducing treatment means more deaths. This is what gubment controlled healthcare is.

But by all means trumpet and cheer the loss of control of your life and destiny, you stupid, ignorant people.

Pretty sure the recommendation was to reduce screening because there was close to a 90% false positive rate.

BIG DIFFERENCE

 

[Genx87]

My bullet points for healthcare reform.

1. Disconnect between consumers and the cost of the system.
2. End of life care accounts for the majority of a persons healthcare costs.

It doesnt matter who we decide pays for the system(public vs private). That wont reduce the costs in the system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

50 billion didnt save lives, it delayed death.

If it comes down to it, all you can do is delay death. You can save the most money by eliminating medicine entirely.

 

[boomerang]

If it comes down to it, all you can do is delay death. You can save the most money by eliminating medicine entirely.

Now that is a provocative concept. Survival of the fittest in its purest form.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Now that is a provocative concept. Survival of the fittest in its purest form.

Well we need to cut costs. That's what health care is all about.

 

[spidey07]

You know, if we had the technology to do genetic defect screening, in vitro, and simply get rid of all the defective people before they are born, just think of all the money we could save.

It would be quite moral also, as the unborn aren't actually people anyway. (The precident already exists for this).

Gattica was way ahead of it's time, IMHO.

 

[Ozoned]

Gattica was way ahead of it's time, IMHO.

We hope it was....

 

[Schadenfroh]

Now that is a provocative concept. Survival of the fittest in its purest form.

That would also end medical related lawsuits, thus fewer lawyers....

 

[boomerang]

Hell yes. We do too many things half-assed in this country. If we're serious about cutting health care costs this is the way in its most pure form. It cannot be done in a less expensive manner. As an added bonus, what could be more fair than to deny health care to everybody? The bills as they have been written thus far, will necessarily reduce coverage for those with insurance and increase coverage for those without. This is quite obviously unfair. By eliminating coverage for everyone, true fairness will be achieved. Why it's liberal utopia. The playing field must be leveled and costs must be reduced. Someone call Harry Reid.

Two questions.

Would it apply to Congress?

Would it apply to illegals?

 

[boomerang]

That would also end medical related lawsuits, thus fewer lawyers....

We're on to something here boys. All hail Hayabusa Rider! Huzzah!

 

[Greenman]

50 billion didnt save lives, it delayed death.

The entire point of medicine is to delay death. The question is how much will it cost per day. If it's ten bucks a day then pretty much everyone would agree on the price. When the number hits a grand a day is when the questions of worth start getting asked.

 

[Ozoned]

The entire point of medicine is to delay death. The question is how much will it cost per day. If it's ten bucks a day then pretty much everyone would agree on the price. When the number hits a grand a day is when the questions of worth start getting asked.

The current reform language would suggest that the question isn't how much, but rather~Who is going to pay.

 

[blackangst1]

Gattica was way ahead of it's time, IMHO.

We're already halfway there: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DNA+manipulation+goes+large-scale.+(experiments+on+mice)-a017935110

Geneticists have scored another victory on the playing field of the mouse genome. In what they call chromosome engineering, researchers have succeeded in deleting, inverting, or rearranging not single genes but large, selected blocks of mouse DNA

 

[spidey07]

We're already halfway there: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DNA+manipulation+goes+large-scale.+(experiments+on+mice)-a017935110

Geneticists have scored another victory on the playing field of the mouse genome. In what they call chromosome engineering, researchers have succeeded in deleting, inverting, or rearranging not single genes but large, selected blocks of mouse DNA

To be fair congress and the executive branch passed and executed a law to prevent using genetic information regarding healthcare. I can't recall the exact bill that BUSH executed into law.

 

[blackangst1]

To be fair congress and the executive branch passed and executed a law to prevent using genetic information regarding healthcare. I can't recall the exact bill that BUSH executed into law.

Yah I know. But, besides the fact this happened at Baylor, (affixing tin foil hat) Im sure you are aware of "black budgets"? Divisions of the military fall into this.

Anyway. Didnt wanna derail thread