Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express


JMS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yanno, if someone wants to live 112 miles from the suburbs of nowhere, that doesn't mean they get their own hospital.

 

Medical centers, internet consultations, helicopters, hell build vacuum tubes and send em like interoffice mail, the doing part would be easy, it's the wanting to part that seems to keep coming up short. There is a substantial element in your Republican Partay that seems to believe that people do not need medical attention, that they do not deserve medical attention, because if they did they would be rich already.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Yanno, if someone wants to live 112 miles from the suburbs of nowhere, that doesn't mean they get their own hospital.

 

So, it's cool if some people aren't covered. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Cant be responsible for what stupid people say. I think he is referring to the fact that by law emergency rooms have to stabilize trauma victims. But, of course that is not the only way people die. They die far more commonly of diabetes, heart failure, and cancer.  

 

It's not my Republican Party. I'm an 

independent. I was never arguing against universal healthcare coverage. Just whether or not there are systemic differences between Europe and America in regards to healthcare.

 

Edited by RedskinsMayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

So, it's cool if some people aren't covered.

 

No, let me speak slower, that doesn't mean they are not able to get medical attention, but it does mean the whole "A hospital every 50 miles thing" is just................well, I dunno, it's not even a strawman argument. Maybe something like a lintman argument, dustbunny, something like that....................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As medical technology progresses, many will be able to access telemedicine. He'll, it's already used on battlefields where feasible. Obviously, where hospitalization is necessary, people will be hospitalized.

Profit and greed emphasized over human beings is the problem, and until profit is eliminated, costs will continue to rise.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

1. The reason why we spend more now is not because we have more people.

 

2. We could reduce costs on what we're currently spending.

 

It is interesting that we spend more than anyone on health care, education, and infrastructure, get worse results, and yet the problem isn't systemic but instead could be solved by reducing costs. It almost sounds like that broadening the base to pay for it we keep hearing about.

6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

As medical technology progresses, many will be able to access telemedicine. He'll, it's already used on battlefields where feasible. Obviously, where hospitalization is necessary, people will be hospitalized.

Profit and greed emphasized over human beings is the problem, and until profit is eliminated, costs will continue to rise.

 

 

Maybe we should focus on medical research instead of "insuring everyone".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

It is interesting that we spend more than anyone on health care, education, and infrastructure, get worse results, and yet the problem isn't systemic but instead could be solved by reducing costs.

On the topic of healthcare, reducing costs isn't the solution. It's the objective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to confess that I have severe doubts as to some of the proposals being made in here, to reduce health care costs.  

 

Many of them seem too simplistic, if not outright impossible.  "Just mandate that insurance companies must charge lower premiums, and pay a higher share of the costs, without reducing coverage."  

 

Now, I do have a feeling that there may be ways to reduce at least some costs.  but I feel like some of them will require huge attitude shifts.  on society as a whole.  

 

A decade or two ago, I head a report about a study somebody had dome.  I'm going strictly by memory, and have no link to any such study whatsoever.  So let's just call it a hypothetical, and pretend that I'm making it up.  Just assume that what I remember, is true.  

 

The study looked at four expensive but common medical procedures.  One of them was cardiac bypass surgery, I forget the other three.  They took all of the patients who's doctor recommended cardiac bypass surgery, and divided them into two groups:  Those who had the procedure, and those who chose not to have it.  

 

And they looked at their survival rates, which the study defined as "how many of the people, in each group, are still alive, five years later?"  

 

And in three of the four procedures they looked at, having the procedure did not increase the odds of the patient being alive, five years down the road.  Their odds of dying were the same, whether they had the procedure or not.  

 

So, let's just assume that what I remember is actually true.  Let's assume that cardiac bypass surgery does not actually improve the patient's odds of being alive, five years from now.  

 

Should we, as a society, at least consider the possibility that maybe we shouldn't have a system where other people pay for that procedure?  

 

I know, it's certainly easy to demonize a decision of "well, Uncle Joe needs cardiac bypass surgery, or else the odds are he may have another heart attack.  but this big entity (government or an insurance company) isn't going to pay for it.  And you can't.  So, you're not going to get it."  

 

What about the patient who's been in a nursing home for the last two years?  She can't speak a complete sentence.  (Although does sometimes appear to understand sentences.)  Can't stand.  Can't feed herself.  Has to be changed, every few hours.  

 

Does it really benefit society (or the individual, for that matter) to pay for her to live in a nursing home for five years, waiting for some medical condition to come along that will eventually end this?  What is anybody actually getting, for that money?  

 

But what's the alternative?  Kick her out and let her die in the street?  'Good morning, Mrs. Smith.  you've been here nine months, today.  The nurser will be in shortly with your ,mandatory euthanasia."?  

 

The current system, I feel like, isn't right.  But I'm not at all sure that I see a path to a better one.  How do you get to a better world?  (Especially when I'm not at all sure that I can even say what that better world is.)  

 

Part of me really wishes that we, as a society, would decide that maybe we need to relax some of the phobias we have against things like hospice, and I think things like suicide, and even physician-assisted euthanasia.  

 

Apologies for the probably morbid view.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jumbo changed the title to Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

Maybe the risks/benefits of surgery aren't being communicated correctly. Like, instead of prolonging life at any cost, the quality of life is emphasized.

 

For example, when my brother had his heart attack, he coded twice in the ambulance on the way to a regional hospital.  They brought him back to life and it was difficult to stabilize him.  They told my SIL that she might have to make a decision that night, and she called me late that night.  I asked her if they had ever talked about what to do and she said he said if he could be saved to do so.  No written directive.

 

He was stabilized and the next day flown to Richmond Critical Care Hospital. Basically, they didn't check his brain for activity and they did some medical procedures to prolong his life for 2 weeks.  I knew he was dying after the first week because he was becoming jaundiced, but it was officially up to my SIL.  Finally, we had a family meeting with SIL, her family, my nephew and I, and decided to end things.  He officially died a few minutes later.

 

My point: if we had had brain test results, we could have ended his suffering and ours a couple of weeks earlier.  I'm not knocking the care  and effort made by the doctors and nurses because there was no written advanced directive.

 

After my stroke, I have a written advance directive with Do No Resusitate on it, I don't want my daughter to have to make that decision.  I am pretty healthy otherwise, but fear another stroke that might leave me a vegetable with no way out.

 

So if doctors could give a realistic prognosis instead of just going ahead and prolonging life at any cost, that would help some.

 

 

BTW, love the new title!

Edited by LadySkinsFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator B1 (eng).pdf

 

looks like we spend more per student that any other country on education. Should we not expect similar results in healthcare?

 

That's largely because of tertiary education (college).  We are easily number 1 there and are not number one in secondary or primary.  And anyway, the numbers are all in the same ballpark.  Even taking into account tertiary education, we are about 1.5X the OECD average. (and I can tell you a significant driver of our education costs is healthcare costs).

 

In terms of health care costs per capita, we're almost triple the OECD average.

 

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...