http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...care-limit.html


Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l#ixzz0Rm7UUPS0

G.V.D.

You're right, we all should pay for the 100's of 1000's of dollars of life-saving emergency medicine this baby required, on the vanishingly small chance the baby could be saved. I mean we're talking way below 1% chance of survival, but that doesn't matter, we should spare no effort to save the baby.

Unless of course we're talking about the baby of someone uninsured... Because screw those guys.

IR----I am only asking a question....but you're right in that I'm right....and you're wrong.

Looks like "Death Panels" will be resurrected from the dead and chaired by our illustrious carpet baggers on the left.

So you think that baby, AFTER it's born, should not get the best medical care available? Has the liberal left indoctrinated you to the point that not only is abortion OK but with holding medical care for the living is ethical and only to be viewed in dollars and cents????? I thought the limp wristed left was supposed to compassionate and caring....pfft.

Pretty f.ckin heartless take on a situation that should you ever find yourself or spouse facing I imagine you'd be crying a different tune.

But hey at least you got to cradle that infant in your arms till it died...I mean that was pretty nice of them "Docs"...they coulda' just thrown that baby in the dumpster.

They let you kids use the internet at recess or are ya just home with the sniffles?

Get out and get some excercise fatty or Irishrogue will withhold your gastric bypass surgery funds...

You do know that is a different country don't you?

What would Cuba do?

"Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages"

You'd think this situation would be right up the Republican alley. The baby wasn't aborted and a ton of money was saved instead of the taxpayer picking up the tab. Or are you for higher taxes now?

If viable is the term we are gonna' use to determine whether or not we initiate life saving care then I would submit that most CPR performed on a trauma patient is unsuccessful...should all EMT's..firefighters...ER techs...nurses...paramedics...etc stop responding and attempting to resuscitate anyone involved in trauma since it is EXTREMELY unlikey that CPR will fail? At least without electricity/drugs most CPR (medical and trauma) is wholly unsuccessful...

Slippery slope....

OK RvW, you be the judge. It's your tax dollars at work. Oh, and if you spend them on attempting to save the premie which has a very low probability of survival, those dollars won't be available for measures that would have a high probability of success on other patients. What would you do?

Whether it's public or private health insurance at work, I don't see spending scarce resources on low probability outcomes - let research take care of that, since all of today's high probability outcomes were once low probabilities, but that's a separate subject. Public or pooled resources ought to be spent were the best gain per dollar spent is attained. If people want to cover extraordinary measures that have a low probability of success, they can buy special, expensive, coverage for that or just pay for it out of pocket themselves if they're rich enough. Yep, being rich has its benefits.

So again, what would you do? And why?

Sg

I am wholly against "society" or doctors making my choices for me and my loved ones. Especially when money is their motivating factor.

..and the viability of a trauma CPR is still close to 0% (hard to circulate blood when they've exanguinated)....doesn't mean we shouldn't try.....how many Airlift NW flights (at huge costs) result in the inevitable death of the patient (and sometimes of the crew and chopper)?

..and CPR is "sometimes" effective as long as drugs and electricity (defib) is employed...it is not "often" successful, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted. Even though it allocates resources and money to what most likely will result in a "failed" attempt.

I worked as a firefighter/EMT/Rescue diver for years and have seen first hand the futility involved in the endeavor but never witnessed a fellow first responder act as the final judge. The only time that scenario would come into play would be a triage of a mass casualty incident....and then that would fall on the shoulders of the medical incident commander...a job nobody ever wants.

Rationing of care and with holding care should be left to miserable f.ckin countries with a socialist agenda....

Sensitive topic, no doubt.

Only thing that hasn't been covered...

WHO is going to be the one to tell the new Mother that it was decided by the Gov't mandate that her baby should not live?

ISO

I know a lady that was born dead. The doctors gave up on the baby and were trying to keep the mother going after an emergency c section. Someone looked over at the baby and it moved.

The lady is in her 50's now and has lived a great life. Can't put a price tag on human life.

Amen.

I've seen some pretty incredible things that no one expected to happen...happen. When money is our primary motivator decency and compassion and science will take a back seat.

Dude, you're not getting it. People make decisions on money versus lives *all the time*.

Auto manufacturers do it.

Cities budgeting for their police force expenditures do it.

Airplane manufacturers do it.

Civil engineers do it.

Doctors do it.

The drama here is not socialist or communist, it is pragmatist. Simply put, people put value on human lives ALL THE TIME.. You might have traded off money for your own life when you bought that fuel-efficient-but-not-crash-worthy car. The engineers building the bridge you drove across this AM didn't build it to never fail, they built it to have an acceptable risk of not failing.

And the reason you want intelligent cost/benefit decisions made at the end of life, be it a premature baby or a convalescent senior, is because the money has to come from somewhere.. Unless you're independently wealthy and are spending your own savings, that somewhere is a pool (insurance, medicare, etc) shared by us all. Just like your mass casualty example, there isn't enough resource (in your case first responders, in mine money) to give everyone everything we could possibly imagine giving them.

Nobody here wants to deny ordinary care (e.g. CPR) to everyone. What we are talking about is EXTRAORDINARY care (e.g. 6 months of ICU care for what is medically an unviable fetus)...

Salmo---I don't mind paying taxes.....and I pay plenty. I'd rather have them try and save that newborn than to send a f.ckin insane murderer to the county fair..only to escape and cost us 10's or 100's of thousands more searching for his ass. I'd realocate our tax money to reform our prison system so that we didn't pay for any f.ckin procedure they need while denying it to the innocent. Under my system prison would be for bad m'frs not petty drug crimes and they would earn their keep...no cable no "free" medical/college/law school....hard work making sand to export to the middle east.

There is a lot more I would do but first I'd try and save money from the c.cksuckers that are siphoning it out of the system before denying it to the innocent.

Think welfare...think no more DEA...think strong borders without a major drain from illegals that contribute nothing..Zero..nada....think less prisons...less corrupt prison guards sucking our tax money.

Big topic but I would like to give the most vulnerable in our society like kids, the disabled and the mentally challenged like hohbomb a chance at something better.

I heard the fish are biting.

IR----I understand what you are saying and the examples you cite are fair but when you carry that cost/benefit analysis over to healthcare you are wrong....or at least very frightening to many of us that are worried that Obamacare will lead to exactly that.

We go to extraordinary measures with our life saving actions in this country and rightfully so... but if one starts analyzing cost/benefit ratios against all things, we will all lose and so will those that compassionate people should defend.

How compassionate was it to shoot your dad, asshat??



BTW, you got a problem with fat people?

Dude you don't get it....CPR isn't ordinary care....and that fetus in ICU for 6 months has more than once grown up and lived a healthy, productive life. I don't think you are any more qualified playing God than I am...but if you think you know for certain what the future holds good luck.

Engineers and the other examples you cite don't guarantee that the bridge will last forever anymore than doctors do...everything will eventually fail but should the bridge not have been built because we know it won't last forever? Should the doctor not try his/her best because they know death is possible and eventually inevitable?

We shoulda killed Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawking while we had the chance....and yeah they're rich but insurance paid/ pays for their care....

They were REALLY mean to you, weren't they?

WTF?????

You really are f.cking idiot.....

At least I didn't shoot my dad...

Did those mean prison guards teach you grammar?

This [censored] is over your head and reasonable discussion is too....I understand you limitations. Really I do.

RvW,

Actually, I think most people will read our two messages and conclude that in fact *you* are the guy who's confused:

a) CPR isn't ordinary care? Really? I learned how to do it when I was 14, as did lots of other 14 year olds. 14 year olds are not a lot of things, but ordinary comes to mind.

b) You then go off and talk about bridges being built even though they might fail some day. While I appreciate and agree with this pragmatic and candidly pretty obvious point, I have no idea how it relates to the topic at hand.

c) Your point about "more than once this ridiculously expensive technique saved a life!!!" proves you missed my point.

What if I told you there was a 1 in 100 procedure, cost $1000, that could save a baby's life. Would you do it? What if it cost $10,000. What if it cost $100,000? What if it cost $1,000,000. This is a legitimate medical ethics question--and we must get comfortable with answering it. At the extremes, the answers are easy -- you would obviously spend $10, for a 1% chance at saving a baby's life. You would obviously NOT spend $1 Billion to save the baby's life. Somewhere in the middle is the uncomfortable place where yes turns into no. Modern technology has made this scenario not theoretical, but actual. We must decide.

Still confused...or are ya' having following your own line of "reasoning"?

No, you're just confused. Let me see if I can un-confuse you with a scenario: Ask yourself this question -- what magnitude earthquake could said bridge withstand as you drove across it. There absolutely *is* a point at which it'll collapse... Guaranteed. And a whole bunch of "Bridge DEATH PANEL members" made up some engineering guidelines for what reasonable bridge building standards are.

These are all life-and-death decisions, and the reason you make standards up in advance is so that the emotion of a singular situation doesn't cause you to constantly make bad decisions. This holds for bridge building, and for decisions about what extrordinary measures should be used to attempt to save individual lives.

So, RvW, are you implying that here in the good ol' USA--ranked 37th in the world on healthcare, btw--this scenario would never play out as long as we stop "Obamacare?" It's because the UK has socialized healthcare that this happened?

Why didn't that lady have supplemental health insurance? After 5 miscarriages she didn't think that might be wise? There's no law in the UK forbidding additional insurance. So why is it the government's fault?

Are you honestly going to try and convince us that here in the US--most expensive healthcare in the world with least return, btw--if she was lucky enough to find insurance after having 5 miscarriages, that the insurance company wouldn't have made the same decision? C'mon, now.

IR-------I agree with everything in your last post! Nothing lasts forever...hence my........." Engineers and the other examples you cite don't guarantee that the bridge will last forever anymore than doctors do...everything will eventually fail but should the bridge not have been built because we know it won't last forever? Should the doctor not try his/her best because they know death is possible and eventually inevitable?"


I suppose that your "bridge death panels" would be my "doctors consulting" with each other to find the best course of treatment for the Bridge/Patient.

No only if that's the model we use.

Having what???

"TROUBLE"?!? (with grammar again?)

In a nutshell.

I guess that everyone can keep clapping their gums, but that said all there is to say that matters.

I didn't realize "Obamacare" was already in action. If it isn't, how did this happen?

Did someone get shot?

Surprised to see AM throwing some logic into the mix... a nice change I must say. Quality of life AFTER a medical procedure SHOULD be a deciding factor. I'm pretty sure that I could keep my dog alive for another couple of years but I doubt I will. That is life.

That is one TINY hand...

I am now intending to hijack this thread, but this ranking pisses me off. Here are the criteria that the WHO uses to rank countries healthcare. If you look at the criteria you will see that they favor socialized systems HEAVILY!

Five factors went into WHO's calculation:

• Health level, as defined by a measure of life expectancy, which shows how healthy a country's population is. This factor gets a 25 percent weight.

• Responsiveness, which includes factors such as speed of health services, privacy protections, choice of doctors and quality of amenities. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.

• Financial fairness, which measures how progressive or regressive the financing of a country's health care system is — that is, whether or not the financial burdens are borne by those who are economically better off. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.

• Health distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care resources are allocated among the population. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.

• Responsiveness distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care responsiveness (which we defined above) is spread through society. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.

Common sense began and ended in the third post, by IrishRogue. From there on it's just responding to an individual that is clearly barking mad.

I didn't leave anything out. Those are their published criteria. But if you would like to discuss longevity perhaps we should factor in fatalities from auto accidents and the murder rate. We are the highest in the world in both categories, which does impact our life expectancy numbers. If you remove those from the figures our life expectancy goes up near the top.

Not going to argue cost, cause I am sure we agree something needs to be done. Based on other threads I know we won't agree how to get er done!

Vic... you need to stop for a second... put aside that fierce nationalistic and partisan pride and realize that not everything bad is the fault of Obama and Democrats.

Until you do... the only person you're foolin' is yourself.

Uh??? Where did I even mention Obama? I posted the criteria that the WHO uses to rank healthcare.

So the 50,000 people that die on our roads every year don't impact the life expectancy numbers? How many other countries have a stat any where near that?

I am way too opinionated to even consider having a dialog on this, but I do know from working as a Medicaid auditor, this state and every other state, has many people in the condition described above. Many are 100% bed ridden and unresponsive in any way. Their care is paid for by our tax dollars, state and federal. More than 25 years ago these people cost us more than$300 per day. I have no idea what the expense is now but am sure that in Washington State alone the cost is in the millions per year. The decision is deeply personal but the result is often a child abandoned to intensive lifelong care at government expense. The cost is enormous, the answer to the problem imponderable.

Seems a lot of you are missing the point.

What about saving a life...just because...


IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

It is not about dollars, it is about our humanity and our right to have a chance for life. You don't let people die because of money. The system we have now is not the greatest and could use help, but it still works.

ISO

ISO,

If you can see past the blinding glow of the halo you've placed around your head, you'd realize that we all want to save lives, lots of them.

The difference is that you want to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at 19 week premature babies who are unlikely to survive, much less lead long healthy lives. The rest of us want to take that same money and save geometrically more lives by providing preventive and regular care for the working poor in our country.

Or is it only the RIGHT THING TO DO if it is for 19 weeks pemature babies?

I'm starting to think that this thread should be the one titled "The Joke Thread"...

Fish on...

Todd

That's about as far from reality as you can get. One small example, if you need a liver transplant a panel gives you points for different criteria. Financial resources is one of the big factors in the point system. Also, if you are rich you can fly to an area that has a shorter waiting list for a liver. That's what that Apple executive Jobs did.

Why do you think the insurance corps deny experimental procedures that might save a life. Money.

If it was only about saving lives we would soon be spending the whole GNP on health care.

The question is whether to spend the money on a hopeless premature baby , extending the life of a 90 year old cancer patient a few more weeks or on people who can have long term benefit. There is and never will be a health care system that is not making these decisions in one form or another. What we have in this country is NOT WORKING for many people. Do you even have a clue as to how many bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses? Get sick and lose everything....ya that sure works.

OK Row--

This time the baby is Mexican.

The mother just now crossed the border and crapped it out at the nearest US hospital.

It's now a "Natural Born United States Citizen."

Now how do you feel about it?

Yeah that's what I thought, dumfuk.

He's gone over the edge, now ANYTHING you say will be contsrued
as Obamabashing and will be addressed as such.......TFF!!!!

Now contemplate KK's kid...the mother is Nubian............never mind.

OK. Then you get the job of telling the Mothers of those babies that you decided they were too expensive and as such had to die.

Fair enough?

MB

I'll tell them.


Fair enough?

Okay, I'll split the work with Dan it sounds like. Someone has to do it, might as well be us.

I'll bet there are a lot a people unafraid to man-up when need be.

I'd rather tell a mother we had to let her little one go than tell her that we spent every penny she had to keep the child alive for who-knows-how-long, so now she can raise it and the rest of her family while bankrupt and destitute.

RvW,

Had I known you were incapable of having a rational discussion about this subject I would not have asked you how you would do it. As it was, you didn't answer the question but veered off track. Deflection is common among folks who can't or won't discuss the very topic they raised.

Irish Rogue qued this up perfectly. It always is a benefit:cost analysis. It has to be as long as dollars are scarce, which they always are, and needs are great, which they always are. The most cost effective treatments will occur, and the treatments that are not won't. That's the way it always has been; that's the way it is now; and that's the way it will be, regardless of health care reform, Obama, RvW, or whatever.

Count me in to join IR and Dan S. to tell anyone the obvious if they cannot contain their emotions sufficiently for rational discussion.

Wow, Todd's right; this has become the joke thread. Maybe the health care debate is only impossible because so many Americans can only debate with their emotions instead of rational thought. Obama and socialism aren't even a convenient smokescreen.

Sg

Crucial point here - insurance corps are withholding OUR money that we paid in, yet they treat it like THEIR money.

Nobody wants to deliver news like that.............but it's part of the deal.

My dad used to talk about how you deliver the uncomfortable news that someone has cancer, and won't be around for long. He said it was about the hardest part of his job to deliver news nobody ever wanted to hear.

But let's be honest...........news like this is delivered every day. Nobody WANTS to do it, but they HAVE TO do it.

And rationalize care..or they the same ?

Depends on if you mean "Ration" (opposition speak) or "Rationalize" which I don't undertsand in this context.

Rationing is life. We have limited resources, anyone who tells you things aren't already rationed is full of shite. It's rationed by your doctor and by your insurance company. Both have competing profit interests, incidentally, in today's system.

"Crucial point here - insurance corps are withholding OUR money that we paid in, yet they treat it like THEIR money."

Never forget that insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying claims.

boy howdy! that's business.....

That's why I can't figure out for the life of me WHY the right-wing extremists defend them so adamantly???

Because it is the opposite of what the Democratic President wants.

For both parties, defeating the other party has become more important than solving problems. It sucks.

4-Salt,

Cuz right wingers are pro-business even if it's against their self interest. "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!" Also, they may hold stock in a profitable insurance company, or sit on the Board of Directors of one, etc. Or they could just be irrational and stupid. Remember, always check out the easiest explanation first.

Sg

Yes, it does get delivered every day. Tomorrow we find out if my 76 yo. dad has Leukemia..odds are high that he does, but I'll be damned if I'll accept it till all the test results are in.

BTW, I DO understand cost/benefit. With adults we can [generally] make a rational decision..ie: "Is it worth going through the treatment?"

My dad's already decided he will not undergo chemo and radiation. Not because of money, but just because he's decided that at his age he would prefer not to go through all that misery. Fortunately, there is another option that has presented itself that is worth a shot.

ISO

I can understand the wealthy, investor-class, corporatist Republicans supporting the insurance oligopoly Salmo.

I was thinkin' more of the regular schmo, high school educated, lower middle-class folk that showed up at the healthcare town halls carryin' "Obama is Hitler" signs... and tellin' the Congress people, "keep the government outta my Medicare"!

There is a real disconnect there...

Mike... I wish your dad well.

Seems like ALL Republicans think they are the "wealthy, investor class, corporatist"(s)...

Apparently you are so self-absorbed with dillusions of grandeur to realize that YOU are the one thinking about human life as a dollar sign $$$$$$$$.........completely antithetical to your post.

But blame the corporations always goes over well with the stupid and the democrats....but I repeat myself.

I'm pretty sure any "buyer's remorse" has it's roots in the perception that Obama hasn't pushed harder for single payer health care and we are not withdrawing from Iraq. He has not pushed the progressive agenda that he ran on hard enough.

But they still built the bridge...correct?

Or did they decide early in the planning stages that since it would eventually fail.....ahhh f.ck it.... it's gonna' break anyhow so we shouldn't waste any money on building it?

I didn't say anything about Afghanistan and if you pay attention to the news Obama is saying we don't need single payer to fix the system. I just read the article today. Just for the record I'm not a fan of Obama. IMHO the system weeds out any candidate might disturb the special relationship the big corporations and Wall Street have with our government, that is they own it.

Yup! Congress is being SO stealthy in fact... they're writin' bills with no public option and mandated coverage that is nothin' but a pure giveaway to the insurance companies.

All of this of course is a smokescreen to cover the REAL bill which is buried in the fine print on page 1143.

Yer a regular Sherlock Holmes for sleuthin' that out Hank!

Um, yeah.

That's the way it works, right?

Are Red Herring Skanks ?

Hank, I think KK is referring to Red Label Herring.

Robo-Bartender

A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. A guy came in for a drink and the robot asked him, "What's your IQ"? The man replied, "130".
So the robot proceeded to make conversation about physics, astronomy, investments, insurance, and so on.
The man listened intently and thought, "This is really cool".

Another guy came in for a drink and the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man responded, "100." So the robot started talking about the weather, football, baseball, action movies and so on. The man thought to himself, "Wow, this is really cool".

A third guy came into the bar. As with the others, the robot asked, "What's your IQ?" "I'm not too sure," the man replied, "but someone told me that it's about 70." "That's cool,' the robot said. "So, what's the Republican Party up to these days?

Um, yeah.

You're singing to the choir, my friend.

But I thought I remembered that Congress writes the laws, and the President either signs them, or vetoes them.

I've forgotten a lot of sh!t from school, though.

I haven't been following along much, so maybe someone could fill me in.......

Who's still touting the "If you like your insurance plan you can keep it" spiel?

And the mandatory enrollment....how's that settling in?

How about the "risk pools make things cheaper" slant working out?

Here's what I think. If you don't have insurance now, you ain't gonna voluntarily buy it...even at a reduced rate, because you already spend all your money on other shlt. BUT you could end up with insurance anyway, because "I said so" and you will have to figure out how to readjust your monthly expenditures.....so screw you, you are now insured. Sorry it ain't gonna be free if you're working.....someone lied to you.

And if you are working and have insurance, if it is any kind of decent plan at all, you will lose in this deal....big time. Why? because your boss is not about to negotiate a deal to maintain the cost of your present plan when a cheaper one (and "cheaper" is a high point of negotiations now) is available. So "yes" you could keep your plan, but that's like saying, "Sure, you can afford a 747".....not for long, bud. So now that you no longer have the plan you used to, but have a similar, cheaper plan shared by millions more, you can count on longer delays for treatment, consultations, and every other thing associated with mass medical treatment. Oh, and many more mistakes as well....count on it. Happens any time there are assembly lines.

Remember KK saying how the wonderful, amazing risk pools could make the cost of insurance so much cheaper? Remember how I made the statement that risk pools are for normal participants.....not NEEDY participants? Hail, enter "mandatory enrollment" (were there not claims initially that this would not happen?)....to get money from those who don't need insurance because they are presently healthy and young (and perhaps foolish). But their money's good enough to fix Syphillis Sam's rotting appendage, or deliver Annie Squats M. Outs 12th nipple-hanger. And now neither has to wait for emergency care, they can just make an appointment for every ache, pain, cough, itch, or bump they encounter.

Same ol' story......no consequences for unacceptable choices. It's the Leftist way. No point in acting responsibly if their is no penalty for not.
A hand up is different than a hand out, but the line has been blurred by enabling do-gooders. Which isn't so bad by itself, but now they want me to pay for it. I say, chase your dream on your own damn nickel. Get a job and produce something, or starve in the gutter....your choice.


Ahhhhh

Nice you and retoad like to call these errors out.. Funny shiit right there...

bwp.....I never said that young people shouldn't buy insurance...hence the "foolish" remark. I implied that young people "think" they don't need insurance because they are young and bullet proof. And they are, for the most part (it worked for me). The point was that healthy people are forced to contribute to the health insurance "pie" in order for the cess pool....er risk pool to be viable.

As far as corruption in the health insurance game goes.....we don't disagree so much.....it exists big time and everybody knows it and something needs to be done about it.....

Me, I'd just cut their profit margin and audit the Hell out of them to make sure they comply......you know, the same way we do oil companies......

As far as your bride goes.....I couldn't be more saddened. You both have my sincerest hopes and will be included in my prayers.

As a society, medical costs are one of the most vexing problems we face, and nothing in any of the health care/health insurance bills is going to do anything about that. Frankly, as a society, we are at war with death, and in every case, death always wins. We have medical care and procedures and procedures used in the last 3-6 months of life that are simply unaffordable and unsustainable as a society and these costs are what drive insurance costs for everyone. Until we accept the inevitablity of death in our lives, and adjust our attitudes accordingly, I don't see much change coming, despite all the hope I have......

Blue water pro, truer words were never spoken. I've been battling cancer for close to four years now. It comes and goes. Went thru 8 weeks intense radiation. Now I'm told it has continued to increase but it is several years away from getting serious at the rate it is growing. But not a day goes by that I don't know it's there and think about it. I can only count the things I have been able to do with my life that most will never see or even attempt. So I feel lucky.

When I had surgery they gave me morphine in recovery. That stuff damn near killed me but it felt so good I didn't care. So my instructions are, if things get bad, give me morphine, lots of it! My doctor is very pragmatic and open with me.

We are lucky to have good insurance but I will never opt to hang on if things get bad. That is just plain selfish!

When I had the surgery the Doc told me if it had not been discovered I would not have made it 6 months. So I consider it all a bonus now.

In your well-researched and obviously expert opinion, could you please share which NW health insurance carriers are on the brink of failing in the next couple of years?

The insurance companies are not driving reform. I'd like to see a reliable source stating otherwise. Really, I would.

In reading the meaningless drivel of this thread, I finally found one statement that closely mirrors my own view. This, by alanmikkelsen:

"Until we accept the inevitablity of death in our lives, and adjust our attitudes accordingly, I don't see much change coming, despite all the hope I have......"

It isn't health insurance reform that this country needs. It's a mindset change. People die. It's sometimes terrible, and often frightening. Insurance companies are doing an INCREDIBLE job of keeping costs down.

It's a shame that we think we can sit around eating Twinkies all day long, drinking beer and watching TV, all the while contributing - oh, somewhere in the range of $50-$150/month for a few years of health insurance, and then when (surprise) our hearts begin to fail, we can run crying to the insurance company to fork over $250,000-$400,000 for new ones so we can screw them up, too.

Make basic, preventive care affordable to those who want it. A visit to the general practitioner in the northwest costs $120-$210 on average. Charge people $30/month and let them go to the doctor twice a year for a checkup. If you elect a colonoscopy once a year, you should expect to pay around $600 - roughly one-third of the cost.

The problem with healthcare is that no one knows how much it really costs to get sick. A friend of mine complains that his oral cancer drugs cost him $85 last month (GASP!!!). I showed him that his oral cancer drugs cost his insurance company nearly $17,000 in the same amount of time.

Health insurance is cheap and misused and misunderstood. It's education we need, not reform.

BWP - I'm disappointed. I asked one question and you didn't even answer it. Instead you made jokes and insulted me and created an argument of your own.

I'll counter your argument when I get home from work, but I'd really like to see which insurance companies are calling in favors with congress and asking for mandated coverage.

In the meantime, reread my post and see if a good night's sleep let you see a few things you couldn't last night.

"How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are."

"there's health care. It wasn't that long ago that when a kid broke his leg playing stickball, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun put a thermometer in his mouth, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.

But like everything else that's good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they're run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. In the U.S. today, three giant for-profit conglomerates own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They're not hospitals anymore; they're Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. America's largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it's not a right, it's a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they're always pushing the Jell-O.

Because medicine is now for-profit we have things like "recision," where insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you've been paying into your plan for years.

When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism. "

Bill Maher.

Here's a plan that will sell itself......cannot lose.


Free medical coverage.......free.....as in fking free for everyone who is a citizen of the US up until age 18......because kids shouldn't bear the injustices of their parents.

After that.....pay up, baby....you are now enlisted.

What do yo think?

If I have to answer right now, the answer is always "no." It's a good start, but needs a few more details for complete buy in. From what I've heard, everybody being enlisted and paying into the pool is a major part of the concept.

Sg

I'd drop the age to 16, since that's the legal employment age. Start paying in as soon as possible.

No??? Really???? Fk Me. that seems like a shoo in to me..... you know, the ol' heartstringpullin' "save the kids" thing.....

Man, I can't believe you said NO.....you drinkin' again?....still?

from what I've seen in this country... even if everybody is enlisted in the program you can bet the only ones paying into the pool will be the middle and upper classes...

Ok, now this irritates the beejezus out of me and here is why.

What the UK Has in common with "obamacare" is beyond me. but lets forget that for a moment. As a past "QA reviewer for most of the major Health insurance companies in the US, Let me explain a few facts;

Currently, Healthcare companies in the US are doing just this very thing as a "Quality Assurance" Procedure. How many of you have had to get a second opinion before your provider wanted to do surgery? How many of you who needed surgery, had to wait while your doctor had to get "Prior Authorization to perform your surgery? Are you aware that your surgeon has to get authorization "after the fact" even in emergency situations. That your health insurance company can, and does decide an emergency as determined by your doctor(s) may not be an emergency, and can deny that surgery after you have had it.

Health insurance providers have, and do deny coverage for cases stated in the original post here in the US. When i was reviewing a case of a premature baby, it was becoming evident that the care would exceed a million dollars. As we reviewed the daily charts of this premie, we referred to the baby as our "Million dollar baby", and we were all deeply commited to its care. The CEO, called the nurse reviewers and QA people into a video conference and demanded that we tell the parent to take the baby off life support. The butt chewing we all received for not demanding this was done ourselves was outrageous. By the time the conference was over, the nurses and QA reviewer all quit on the spot. But the CEO called the hospital administrator and cut off all care. This was not the first time i had witnessed something like this, but it was my last. I have since left the Health insurance field all together. I have a conscience.

People, Wake Up, this is our health care, Corporate profit outweighing both medical care, which saved this babies life, and the "Right" of all of us to be treated with dignity, respect, and receive care that is between us and our doctors. This is the current system we live with. Dont blame this on "Obamacare", this has been in effect since the first HMO started in 1978, and continues today. When we all, conservative and liberal demand better we will get it. and not until. As a footnote, this baby survived, and lives a productive, normal life at the age of 15 today.

Sorry this is my first post, and a rant, but i just cant stay quiet on something so important.
really, I'd rather be; justfishin.

Based on the Just Fishin' post, I repeat my post back on 9/22 in this thread:

Never forget that insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying claims.

I rest my case.

Just fishin, if Obama said it was a good idea to stop hitting yourself in the foot with a hammer, not only would all the R's in Congress immediately run out and hit themselves in the foot with a hammer just one time to prove him wrong...the R voters would keep hitting themselves in the foot until their foot turned to oatmeal.

This hasn't been about health care from the very beginning, because everyone already knows exactly what you put in your post, and that health care these days has nothing to do with health, or care...just money.

All the R's know that, and all the partisan R supporters know it...they will, however, continue to vote against their own interests and the interests of the country on straight partisanship.

How the Republican leadership and loudmouths on the radio have convinced about half of America to vote against their own interests and for the interests of the top .5%, I have no idea...but if anything is going to change in this country, they either have to get on board with it...or stand on the tracks and get run over.

It wasn't always that way...but it sure is now.

Fish on...

Todd

You are right about some of the Democratic members of Congress Aunty. Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln in the Senate and the "Blue Dogs" in the House are definitely the ones holding reform legislation up.

Todd is talking about the opinion of the American electorate though mostly. While the R's in Congress don't wield a lot of power to stop a bill from being passed... the right-wing noise machine, with the help, blessing and financing of the insurance and pharma conglomerates and the Republican Party is doing it's abject best to sway public opinion with their campaign of misinformation, propaganda and out and out LIES.

Because a good many Americans are stupid and easily manipulated due to their prejudice and biases, this campaign has been somewhat successful. Because it has... Democrats in red States and in conservative, rural districts have been afraid to support reform for fear of losing the next election.

So... even though the R's are the minority in government, they've still been able to have quite an impact.

I think it's high time that the progressives in this country start to speak out like the conservatives have and get this reform legislation, complete with a robust public option passed!

NYT polls find a slim majority in favor, and the Kaiser poll finds a significant majority in favor...

Reading a Rasmussen poll is like going to an NRA meeting and taking a poll on Rosie O'Donnell...and then thinking it represents a cross section of America.

Not so much.

Fish on...

Todd

some numbers I want to see...

-how many of the currently unisured believe that health care premiums will be force on them...

-How many of the currently insured like the policy they are currently insured with and are afraid that they will have to pony up to cover the currently uninsured...

do you really think government health insurance is going to look out for anyones interest? Its f'n insurance for God sakes... you can only pay out what is paid in minus profit and overhead... And I'll take a privateers profit over a government overhead anyday of the week

government run health care is going to look out for one interest... and that is how many votes it will get me in the next election... as far as I'm concerned the only thing that government health care has going for it is a huge tax base to draw from.

"Not a penny added to the deficit."
Let's see now, government administration costs plus actual pay out to doctors, hospitals, etc., minus premiums divided by the number of working stiffs minus the unemployed equals budget neutral. I don't see a problem any where in all that, do you?

In fact, in order to cover the varying unemployment numbers alone, the premiums will HAVE to be too high to cover those times when unemployment is its highest. That means there will be a profit pool which can be used for other non related uses......perhaps a refund? Oh wait that would be another hierarchy of administration.

I know enough to know that I don't have the answer, but then that's not my job, is it?.....I vote people into office who are supposed to figure this stuff out......instead look what I get....people taking more money away and telling me that it's for my own good. If you can't figure out that adding more expenses to your monthly bill will lessen your profits, I don't know what to say. Force our "Elected"s to accept their own product and maybe we'll get something worth while.

So am I hearing now that the party that was declared dead months ago is keeping the liberators from freeing the captives??

[quote=blue water pro]I honestly believe that most people do NOT understand our current health care & how the for profit works against their interest.[quote]

BWP - Still waiting for that list of insurance companies lobbying for reform.

I contribute $57.81 per paycheck for my insurance. That brings the monthly total to a whopping $115.62/month. I would encourage anyone else reading this to actually find out how much you contribute to your insurance, too. It won't be no $550.

Fact - insurance companies are in the business of collecting premium.

Fact - any denied claim (money a company doesn't pay out) means more money for the company at the end of the year (duh).

Fact - health insurance is only expensive to the policyholder if he never goes to the doctor. $300/month premium = $3,600 annually. No claims? Should have put that money in the bank. You just lost $3,600!!

Fact - health insurance is an amazing deal for the policyholder if she gets cancer/in a car wreck/breaks an arm/needs knee surgery/has a baby. $300/month in premium = $3,600 annually. Knee surgery = $60,000. $500 deductible + 20% coinsurance to a $2,500 maximum (thank you ins co for the maximum!) Policyholder was billed $60,000 and only paid $6,600!! Insurance saved her over $50,000!!

Fact - premiums will go up for the policyholder the next year. Look up the term "loss ratio."

Fact - an insurance company can't cancel the policy at the end of the term. Look up the term "guaranteed renewable."

BWP - you act as if it is a bad thing that insurance companies cover healthy people. The FACT is, health insurance companies need the premiums from the healthy people to offset a very minor part of the population that is sick.

Insurance companies negotiate with doctors to SAVE money. This, in turn, keeps the premium costs down for you and me. (Remember LOSS RATIO?)




[quote=blue water pro]I honestly believe that most people do NOT understand our current health care & how the for profit works against their interest.[quote]

I'm with you on that one, BWP.

Oh, also fact - Insurance companies owed not one red cent to anyone injured or killed in the attacks on 9/11. Acts of war are excluded from coverage in every insurance policy out there.

Out of the goodness of their hearts, insurance companies paid over $9 billion (with a B) that they could have rightfully kept.

Thank you insurance companies.

You want reform? Educate yourself on the costs of disease.

It doesn't stop with Insurance companies. Ask why we pay more than the rest of the world for medical devices and drugs that are invented and produced right here. Not only do we provide substantial tax breaks for that R&D we also pay up again at the till. Real reform would mean we US citizens pay the least amount and the rest of the world ponies up to reimburse us for all of that R&D we provide them.

Don't you care about the rest of the world?

Sure I do. It's a great place to deport Republicans to.

That's contradictory.

I was going to let it slide, but since you asked...

What is it you have against the AHIP reform propsals? It reads to me like they match up almost word for word with your complaints.

"Our proposal includes new consumer protections and market rules to guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions, discontinue basing premiums on a person’s health status or gender, and get everyone covered" - http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=28003

“As the process progresses, health plans will continue working with members of Congress to enact bipartisan legislation this year that will cover all Americans, make coverage more affordable, and improve quality.” - http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=28332

"All Americans need to have affordable, portable coverage." -http://www.americanhealthsolution.org/assets/Uploads/ahipreformpolicyproposal.pdf


Anyway, I'd like to see just a few details about why you're against universal coverage, against ending pre-existing conditions exclusions, against removing Evidence of Insurability in individual policies which would guarantee coverage for anyone who applies, regardless of health, and why you're against coverage that would streamline administrative processes and create a universal treatment database to show the best way to treat disease.

I just want to know what changed your mind, since you were so adamant earlier that these are the types of changes that need to happen.

There's a difference?

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 900 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq .

You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people..

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans... oh hell no