I'd be more comfortable with the gov handling these catastrophic cases if we could get even a baseline guess about how much it would cost to the US in total.
I don't think it's a "moral" issue so much as an economic one.
Good response :p
Obviously "everyone" was meant as a catchall. Feel free to insert whatever phrase you think fits best (disabled, underprivileged, sick etc etc)
I'd be more comfortable with the gov handling these catastrophic cases if we could get even a baseline guess about how much it would cost to the US in total.
I don't think it's a "moral" issue so much as an economic one.
But how do you divide the two?
I have been upfront and said that I think some lives are worth more than others.
The problem is, who decides and how do they decide it?
Old, etc etc
Deathpanel .org
I think I've gone over this before, but it takes around 20k/mo to keep me upright and mobile...(rational costs extra). Years ago, I went thru a period of unemployment and consequentially, lost my insurance. My meds were underwritten by the drug manufacturer and I received them gratis. I could still be receiving them as they apparently did not put an end date on my orders. During this same time period, my daughter underwent surgery to correct a malformation at the brain stem, in preparation for having her spine almost rebuilt due to extreme scoliosis (72 degree deflection across 2 axis). Her surgeries (600k+) were covered completely by the Shriners Hospital in Dallas.
It's not easy to find these avenues, but my doctors were an invaluable resource...they knew all about these programs and guided me to them.
It doesn't have to be an economic one though.
Don't try to put me in that pigeonhole. I'm a fiscal conservative but I don't toe the republican party line on social issues." Death panels" of some kind are inevitable for those that don't have the private means to pay for their own healthcare.
Hadn't read this before. Glad you found help for you and your daughter.
I am too. And while it seems counterintuitive for a fiscal conservative to pine for single payor, I think it had the potential to be more effective than our current model and consequently, maybe even more efficient from a cost/benefit viewpoint.
That being said, I could care less if we saved money by going single payor. If we approached the current level of expenditure with better outcomes, it's a win.
She gained 4 inches in height after surgery.
Free market systems are just a different way of rationing limited goods.
In this case, the rationing method is the ability to pay.
At some point you are right.
We do need to make some determination as to how much to spend. That is a hard reality we all need to face, especially as boomers age.
As an expert in insurance, and specifically health insurance, I will say that sigle payor would almost certainly be more efficient, even if the ultimate formation of the system gets monkeyed with by special interests, that seems probable.
Our system of cost-shifting is VERY inefficient, and I don't see any "free market" proposals beyond the deeply immoral "let them die if they can't pay".
That's another great example of how good (and expensive) health care has gotten. At 72% deflection, 50 years ago your daughter would be dead by 20.
Sad but true.
We actually may be living in the golden age of health care. The boomers are gonna break the bank.
She just turned 21 last month.
awesome!
We just need to import doctors from Cuba. 100% serious.
That's really gonna piss off the Pakistani and Indian doctors.
Nah. We need them too.
More than enough demand for primary care physicians.
, we will get into a bidding war with China over doctors. They are getting older a of a lot faster, as a society, than we are.
Think four grandparents, two parents, then one child supporting them all, add another generation.
8 great-grandparents, 4 grandparents, 2 parents, and one great-grandchild.
Get people living to 80, and this will be more common than one might think.
Notice the low rates for city dwellers. Now wrap your head around the fact that the largest migration in human history is taking place. A population the size of the US population just moved out of the country to the city. They will have kids in the aggregate at even lower rates going forward.Total fertility rateAccording to the 2000 [Chinese] census, the TFR was 1.85 (0.86 for cities, 1.08 for towns and 1.43 for villages/outposts). Beijing had the lowest TFR at 0.67, while Guizhou had the highest at 2.19
If you think our squabbles over health care are pressing... yikes.
No easy answer for that as we both know it. I think our ability to cover these sorts of things will determine how generous we can be.. Maslow's Hierarchy and all that. I do think that health care should be a priority, right under basic emergency services and judicial systems.
Good to hear Teysha, and I really appreciate your responses. I really have no clue about medical costs, being a) relatively healthy and b) under gov't health care.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)