How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[heydaralon]

Now, I could be wrong about this, but I think the vast majority of healthcare spending, the kind that is being used to keep someone alive, is going to old people. I'm not saying kill the old people.

I believe when its your time to go, its your time to go. But before we even get there, I know if people lived healthier lives a lot of this stuff would take care of itself, but I'm not a miracle worker. The type of healthcare that isn't the most common, healthy people in the prime of life needing life saving treatments or medication, wouldn't be as hard to fund if that was all we were funding with health insurance or medicare.

If you say that taking away funding for these treatments that keep people alive will result in them dying as a result, then it seems to me that what you're advocating is extending life beyond its natural span. Again, if you want to do that, fine, but I see it as being different than the other type of care that aims to preserve life that has been temporarily threatened with termination prematurely, and I place more importance on allowing people to live a full life.

Maybe separating the two and treating them differently would help, rather than having lifecare and oldcare coming out of the same pot, and in competition for funding.

I read that a huge percentage of health care spending is one people who are in their last throes of life. You bring up an interesting point, although I think if you divided up healthcare into two pools the keep dying old people alive pool would grow immediately and would still end up using a huge amount of healthcare resources. I'm not wholly unsympathetic to that either. I can't imagine having to make a call to hasten a loved ones death (or my own) because they are elderly and its cheaper, even though decisions like that have to be made. I realize I am making an appeal to emotion, but I understand the mentality of wanting to keep a relative alive at all costs, even if it is not realistic.

[Okeefenokee]

Now, I could be wrong about this, but I think the vast majority of healthcare spending, the kind that is being used to keep someone alive, is going to old people. I'm not saying kill the old people.

I believe when its your time to go, its your time to go. But before we even get there, I know if people lived healthier lives a lot of this stuff would take care of itself, but I'm not a miracle worker. The type of healthcare that isn't the most common, healthy people in the prime of life needing life saving treatments or medication, wouldn't be as hard to fund if that was all we were funding with health insurance or medicare.

If you say that taking away funding for these treatments that keep people alive will result in them dying as a result, then it seems to me that what you're advocating is extending life beyond its natural span. Again, if you want to do that, fine, but I see it as being different than the other type of care that aims to preserve life that has been temporarily threatened with termination prematurely, and I place more importance on allowing people to live a full life.

Maybe separating the two and treating them differently would help, rather than having lifecare and oldcare coming out of the same pot, and in competition for funding.

Most of the money goes to people with treatable longterm illness like diabetes and chronic pain. Stuff that strikes every age group. An illness like cancer can cost tens of thousands of dollars sometimes, but that's not really unmanageable. It's when you have to spend money each month for the next forty years that shit adds up.

Can't you offset spending on long term diabetes and chronic pain with healthy lifestyle choices? Not that I think you could force people to change, but a cultural adjustment might be possible. The whole time I was in Germany I saw people everywhere, every day, outside exercising. Old ladies out biking and walking all over the place. Walking paths that stretch for miles across the countryside between villages. Tons of families out taking walks every Sunday.

[StCapps]

Also, let's not forget that once you get really sick (like needing chemo for cancer) you can't work and either getting back to work and/or finding work is hard as hell. Which in turns leads to decisions like, should this little bit of money go towards my rent/mortgage, food, or my cancer drugs?

And then you end up with this.....

[Okeefenokee]

Now, I could be wrong about this, but I think the vast majority of healthcare spending, the kind that is being used to keep someone alive, is going to old people. I'm not saying kill the old people.

I believe when its your time to go, its your time to go. But before we even get there, I know if people lived healthier lives a lot of this stuff would take care of itself, but I'm not a miracle worker. The type of healthcare that isn't the most common, healthy people in the prime of life needing life saving treatments or medication, wouldn't be as hard to fund if that was all we were funding with health insurance or medicare.

If you say that taking away funding for these treatments that keep people alive will result in them dying as a result, then it seems to me that what you're advocating is extending life beyond its natural span. Again, if you want to do that, fine, but I see it as being different than the other type of care that aims to preserve life that has been temporarily threatened with termination prematurely, and I place more importance on allowing people to live a full life.

Maybe separating the two and treating them differently would help, rather than having lifecare and oldcare coming out of the same pot, and in competition for funding.

I read that a huge percentage of health care spending is one people who are in their last throes of life. You bring up an interesting point, although I think if you divided up healthcare into two pools the keep dying old people alive pool would grow immediately and would still end up using a huge amount of healthcare resources. I'm not wholly unsympathetic to that either. I can't imagine having to make a call to hasten a loved ones death (or my own) because they are elderly and its cheaper, even though decisions like that have to be made. I realize I am making an appeal to emotion, but I understand the mentality of wanting to keep a relative alive at all costs, even if it is not realistic.

Like I said, I come from a background that negates that being likely to happen. I wouldn't get the option to spend a pile of money on Grandmama to keep her alive. She's been ready to go home since Grandpa died. My great grandmother lived healthily to 93, and told us a couple years before she passed that she was waiting for the Lord to decide it was time, because she was tired. Pawpaw was in the hospital from a car wreck when they discovered he had three terminal illnesses. He had us take him home where he was comfortable rather than spending his last days in a hospital bed. Grandpa said a prayer with Grandmama, and convinced her to go home from the hospital and get some rest. After she left, he told my uncle to tell the doctors to turn off the machines.

I agree, it would suck to have to struggle with not being able to let go.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Can't you offset spending on long term diabetes and chronic pain with healthy lifestyle choices? Not that I think you could force people to change, but a cultural adjustment might be possible. The whole time I was in Germany I saw people everywhere, every day, outside exercising. Old ladies out biking and walking all over the place. Walking paths that stretch for miles across the countryside between villages. Tons of families out taking walks every Sunday.

The cost of Type 1 Diabetes can't be offset by lifestyle choices--people suffering from it need insulin daily. One of the major factors which the world never takes into account when looking at the USA's supposedly terrible healthcare is that we do more research than any other country into curing such diseases--diseases which sometimes affect fewer than one percent of the population.

[Okeefenokee]

Can't you offset spending on long term diabetes and chronic pain with healthy lifestyle choices? Not that I think you could force people to change, but a cultural adjustment might be possible. The whole time I was in Germany I saw people everywhere, every day, outside exercising. Old ladies out biking and walking all over the place. Walking paths that stretch for miles across the countryside between villages. Tons of families out taking walks every Sunday.

The cost of Type 1 Diabetes can't be offset by lifestyle choices--people suffering from it need insulin daily. One of the major factors which the world never takes into account when looking at the USA's supposedly terrible healthcare is that we do more research than any other country into curing such diseases--diseases which sometimes affect fewer than one percent of the population.

Understood. Isn't there a rise in type 2, though?

More common in adults, type 2 diabetes increasingly affects children as childhood obesity increases. There's no cure for type 2 diabetes, but you may be able to manage the condition by eating well, exercising and maintaining a healthy weight. If diet and exercise aren't enough to manage your blood sugar well, you also may need diabetes medications or insulin therapy.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... c-20169860

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Isn't there a rise in type 2, though?

More common in adults, type 2 diabetes increasingly affects children as childhood obesity increases. There's no cure for type 2 diabetes, but you may be able to manage the condition by eating well, exercising and maintaining a healthy weight. If diet and exercise aren't enough to manage your blood sugar well, you also may need diabetes medications or insulin therapy.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... c-20169860

It's strangely prevalent among federal employees--seriously--there's never a empty space in the type two lot.

[jediuser598]

Quick rundown

"Repeal" and "repeal and replace" were intentional lies.

The US will have single-payer "healthcare" before the 2024 election.

Some happy; some sad. All enslaved.

It's not slavery if you're free to leave.

[jediuser598]

But you're all perfectly fine with making that decision for other people, but when it's people making that decision for you it's unfair? No. If you do the math, you do it with your own kids in mind. That's fair. I don't buy Carlin's fallacy.

No Jedi.

Nobody, zero people, should ever be put in charge of making decisions like that with their own personal families interest as the base. I'm not making that decision for myself anymore than you should make that decision for your own self.

If we decide that public policy is free healthcare for everyone no matter what the cost, we'll be broke in 15 minutes. You may WANT the state to spend $400,000 so grandma can be alive for 15 more minutes, but anyone who is not related to her knows that's an utter waste of money and has almost no value in return. Deciding by your criteria guarantees us the most expensive system possible.

As I said, this is the same reason you don't put the mother of a dead kid on the jury for the accused.

But our families are at stake. Whether it is today tomorrow or many years down the road, you're going to get sick and going to need care. The legislation we design will cover both us/ours as well as other people. We should be thinking about that upfront. What a lot of people are doing is cutting up the safety net because they think they are safe, and they're doing it because well, it doesn't concern them, it's someone else's health so it doesn't matter, right? Thing is when they fall, are they ok with just dying? Are they ok with just their son or daughter dying?

We make these laws and are governed by these laws.

Think of it this way, if congress passed ethics reform, or tax reform, or healthcare reform, and exempted themselves, wouldn't you flip your shit? This is the same thing.

[skankhunt42]

It's not a public good. For every example you can think of where someone needs care, I can probably find the same amount of people who abuse the system constantly. I would imagine that the people that abuse it if it were free would probably gain more traction.