PDA

View Full Version : You Gotta look..



M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 09:12 AM
...at this:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx08_brady/pr_100728_hc_chart.html

Is this a typical expensive government CF or what?

JDogger
08-04-2010, 09:17 AM
I wonder how that would compare to a chart of the current healthcare system. JD

road kill
08-04-2010, 09:22 AM
Makes perfect sense, right Yardley???:D

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/obama_chart.jpg



RK

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 09:22 AM
...at this:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx08_brady/pr_100728_hc_chart.html

Is this a typical expensive government CF or what?
Actually, the way the chart is drawn, it would look almost the same if it were simply titled Your Current Health System. What it illustrates is the complexity of what we do now.

M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 09:45 AM
I wonder how that would compare to a chart of the current healthcare system. JD

Pretty simple really:

1. Consumer makes decision to buy and selects a company
2. Insurance Company either accepts or rejects
3. Company reimburses providers for their services
4. Company pays other expenses-marketing, premium taxes, printing, administration, etc.
5. Company hopes to show a profit which is more difficult due to government involvement and mandated benefits

JDogger
08-04-2010, 10:31 AM
I tend to agree with Yardley's observation.

What would really simplify healthcare though, is if it was not-for-profit.
Which is what many hoped for from Obama, not a bill which only profits the insurance industry.

It's not all about Obama hate. His low approval numbers also reflect disatisfaction with this imperfect HC bill from who supported him originally and wanted to see universal single payer HC, and it would have been easy to pay for.
Get out of the policing and nation building business.

JD

M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 02:40 PM
I tend to agree with Yardley's observation.

What would really simplify healthcare though, is if it was not-for-profit.
Which is what many hoped for from Obama, not a bill which only profits the insurance industry.

It's not all about Obama hate. His low approval numbers also reflect disatisfaction with this imperfect HC bill from who supported him originally and wanted to see universal single payer HC, and it would have been easy to pay for.
Get out of the policing and nation building business.

JD

Look how well it's working after 40 years in England.

JDogger
08-04-2010, 05:10 PM
Look how well it's working after 40 years in England.

Measured how and by who? Here's a poll by Gallup that shows a higher level of satisfaction in Canada and GB as opposed to the US.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx

JD

luvmylabs23139
08-04-2010, 05:27 PM
Well the British system sucks and yes it does just let people die.
Have a heart attack in the UK and if you happen to be 70 the answer is to stick you in a general group ward, no ICU no attempts to save you and tell your family that you will die in the next few days.

JDogger
08-04-2010, 05:45 PM
Well the British system sucks and yes it does just let people die.
Have a heart attack in the UK and if you happen to be 70 the answer is to stick you in a general group ward, no ICU no attempts to save you and tell your family that you will die in the next few days.

How often do you return to GB, and if and when you do...do ever have need to avail yourself of healthcare?

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 05:47 PM
Well the British system sucks and yes it does just let people die.
Have a heart attack in the UK and if you happen to be 70 the answer is to stick you in a general group ward, no ICU no attempts to save you and tell your family that you will die in the next few days.
Do you have any real references for that assertion?

luvmylabs23139
08-04-2010, 05:53 PM
I go less often than I used to. Prior to loosing my last grandparent a few years ago I went at least once a year. That system basically told my grandmother to die and I will never forget it. I could not believe walking into the hospital and not seeing any attempt to save her. I was there within 24 hours of her heart attack. Considering getting a flight out on no notice that was as fast as possible.She was the first of the 4 I lost and the others all died of old age in their 90's.

luvmylabs23139
08-04-2010, 05:55 PM
Do you have any real references for that assertion?

Yeah, they let my grandmother die and I saw it! They made no attempt to save her, just stuck in a ward to die.:confused:

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 06:14 PM
No one rational likes death. My mother died at the age of 70 when her kidneys finally shut down. We did not hook her up to dialysis machines which would have extended her life. The fact was that she had been paralyzed and aphasic for 26 years. She had been bed ridden and incontinent for nine months and could understand almost nothing happening around her. She died peacefully, surrounded by her family and friends. My father died at the age of 79. No doctor saw him in the three weeks prior to his death. He had advanced cancer of his colon and liver, along with a 7 inch long aortal aneurysm waiting to pop if nothing else did him in. As the end approached, he went from mentally alert, but in pain, to mentally oblivious within a couple of days. In accordance with insurance requirements for hospice care, with which we all agreed, he was not eligible for any treatment other than palliative care. When he became unmanageable at home, we moved him to a residential hospice and he died in my arms one week later.

Withdrawal of treatment for other than pain management is an appropriate medical decision. It should be made in consultation with the patient or the patient's guardian. I am sorry that did not happen with you and your mom. However, there is nothing wrong with making a decision to withhold services and those decisions are made mandatory by both commercial and public health plans in return for coverage of personal care services that are otherwise not reimbursed. For ten days treatment of aspirational pneumonia following a minor hernia procedure, my father faced bills of $250,000, including over $50,000 out of his own pocket. For two weeks of care immediately prior to dying, the total cost to insurance companies was $1500, with no out of pocket charges owed. I was glad that our health care system is finally beginning to learn to accept death when it is appropriate, while continuing to fight when it is not.

luvmylabs23139
08-04-2010, 06:24 PM
There was no consult, no nothing. It was, you had a heart attack, you will die soon, please hurry we could use the bed, oh and if you want, your family may bring you a brandy etc.

M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 06:24 PM
Measured how and by who? Here's a poll by Gallup that shows a higher level of satisfaction in Canada and GB as opposed to the US.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx

JD

JD, your info is a little old -2003. I have been reading lately where there is a move afoot to return to a more traditional delivery system for both financial reasons and displeasure with the system. I found an interesting article but I can't get it to load for some reason. Oh well, I don't live in England anyway. It's Cuba isn't it?

dnf777
08-04-2010, 06:33 PM
There was no consult, no nothing. It was, you had a heart attack, you will die soon, please hurry we could use the bed, oh and if you want, your family may bring you a brandy etc.

I am sorry for your loss, especially under those circumstances. In a generic sense however, not aimed at your family, I can tell you that I see situations not infrequently where that is the most compassionate loving advice you could receive.

I have also seen dying and suffering prolonged at all costs (not financial costs, but emotional and painful) because we do not accept or understand death well.

Much of it has to do with our society being so removed from the life cycle. We're born in sterile, decorated birthing suites where the birthing instruments fold neatly away out of site after being born. Babies and placentas are whisked away from mom and cleaned and dolled up to look pretty barely after taking their first breath. Not many hunt, and see their food before they eat it. Our food comes from well-lit mega stores in neat, appealing boxes, with no hint of something dying to provide us sustenance. Our big-macs just magically appear in a clean paper bag, from a big clown in a yellow suit. We don't see cows in our yard anymore....or chickens, or pigs.

Death and dying are just not part of our modern culture, and we have lost the ability to deal with it or accept it when it becomes inevitable in any comfortable way. Death has been called "the enemy".

That's not to say it should be welcomed or ushered in before its time...but we often try to postpone it far beyond meaningful life has left.

We just lost our grandmother, and I mention that only to reveal that this post is more introspective, than aimed at your loss.

Gerry Clinchy
08-04-2010, 07:27 PM
I also recall the article mentioned by Mike. In fact, I think I put the link on one of the health care threads ... but who could find it since there have been so many?

Absolutely, there is a time when palliative care and a peaceful death is the best answer. But those decisions should not necessarily be based on an arbitrary age or event. When a 65-yr old becomes a statistic, not a person, something is surely lost in our society.

We are seeing the UK system struggle. I'd expect Canada will be next to falter. The Scandanavian countries are also having financial problems with their pension & health care programs. Perhaps we should pay attention to their experience & come up with something better than that if we are not happy with our present system.

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 07:35 PM
I also recall the article mentioned by Mike. In fact, I think I put the link on one of the health care threads ... but who could find it since there have been so many?

Absolutely, there is a time when palliative care and a peaceful death is the best answer. But those decisions should not necessarily be based on an arbitrary age or event. When a 65-yr old becomes a statistic, not a person, something is surely lost in our society.

We are seeing the UK system struggle. I'd expect Canada will be next to falter. The Scandanavian countries are also having financial problems with their pension & health care programs. Perhaps we should pay attention to their experience & come up with something better than that if we are not happy with our present system.
I think the approach we adopted will work better for us. However, in looking at the financial problems being experienced in other countries, it is worth remembering that those "problems" result from the fact that they are spending half of what we spend as a percentage of GDP, or less than half of what we send per person. Where they may ration certain types of services covered for the population as a whole (recogizing that everyone has the right to pay for care themselves), we ration care by having a significant percentage of our population excluded from all but emergency care. That results in thousands of unneeded deaths ad contributes to overall mortality and morbidity rates that do not compare favorably with other developed nations.

dnf777
08-04-2010, 07:59 PM
I also recall the article mentioned by Mike. In fact, I think I put the link on one of the health care threads ... but who could find it since there have been so many?

Absolutely, there is a time when palliative care and a peaceful death is the best answer. But those decisions should not necessarily be based on an arbitrary age or event. When a 65-yr old becomes a statistic, not a person, something is surely lost in our society.

We are seeing the UK system struggle. I'd expect Canada will be next to falter. The Scandanavian countries are also having financial problems with their pension & health care programs. Perhaps we should pay attention to their experience & come up with something better than that if we are not happy with our present system.

Also, other systems besides health care are faltering in the dismal economies, so it may not all be related to the type of health care delivery system. Probably impossible to sift through all the variables.

I agree, chronologic age should not be used as a criteria in most cases. I doubt there are any 90+ year olds that should be considered for organ transplants, just to illustrate that there are certain limits that are reasonable.

Gerry Clinchy
08-04-2010, 08:06 PM
I think the approach we adopted will work better for us. However, in looking at the financial problems being experienced in other countries, it is worth remembering that those "problems" result from the fact that they are spending half of what we spend as a percentage of GDP, or less than half of what we send per person. Where they may ration certain types of services covered for the population as a whole (recogizing that everyone has the right to pay for care themselves), we ration care by having a significant percentage of our population excluded from all but emergency care. That results in thousands of unneeded deaths ad contributes to overall mortality and morbidity rates that do not compare favorably with other developed nations.

Do we really believe that everyone will get all the health care they need under ANY system? Remember, if all the wealth in the country were divided equally among all the people, we'd each come out with about $9000 ... how much health care could any of us buy with that?

Until the Obamacare plan goes into effect we really won't know how the scales balance ... deaths now due to care unavailable v. deaths later due to care rationed.

How each country evaluates care effectiveness varies. It is often mentioned that infant mortality is higher in the U.S. than other countries. Read an article recently that U.S. evaluates infant mortality based on one-year survival of infants, while most other countries evaluate only by live birth. That's an apples and doorknobs comparison. It seems quite obvious that the U.S. is going to come out with a worse number based on the method of evaluation that is used. So, if we really are going to compare various countries, there has to be a consistent standard for evaluation.

It has taken 40 years for the UK to find its system crumbling. Most of us won't be around by then ... if we are convinced that our present system doesn't work, we should also note which other systems also can't hold up.

It has been admitted, even by Obama, that health care coverage premiums will increase ... for those who pay them. Those who pay them will be paying more for their own coverage since they will also be paying for all those added who will pay only part of their costs (or none of their costs). How long before that becomes a single-payer system? How long after that before someone decides that health care should be non-profit ... with doctors on a paycheck & hospitals run per govt regulations? So, it might take us a bit more than 40 years to go through the whole cycle already completed by the UK system.

The only way to pay for more care for more people is to create more wealth. Distributing existing wealth is not the same thing. I'm no Bill Gates, but I sure hope we have more like him in the years to come.

badbullgator
08-04-2010, 08:10 PM
Makes perfect sense, right Yardley???:D

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/obama_chart.jpg



RK


Wow a pretty chart and no Henry??????

JDogger
08-04-2010, 08:54 PM
I go less often than I used to. Prior to loosing my last grandparent a few years ago I went at least once a year. That system basically told my grandmother to die and I will never forget it. I could not believe walking into the hospital and not seeing any attempt to save her. I was there within 24 hours of her heart attack. Considering getting a flight out on no notice that was as fast as possible.She was the first of the 4 I lost and the others all died of old age in their 90's.

Sorry for your loss. I've been through it twice this spring with my own family, here in this country. The decision to withdraw or withhold life-support is never an easy one, but it is made here too by third parties sometimes. Just replace government with insurance companies. We don't always get what we want.

No magic wands regards, JD