Should this little girl be medically covered?

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/health/health-care-insurance-lifetime-caps/index.html

In short, the story is about a little girl with a horrific issue, where she has frequent multiple seizures. Obamacare eliminated lifetime insurance caps (the father, who is a video game designer, has an insurance company whose lifetime cap is 5 million, which they expect to hit before this girl's 5th birthday.)

But should insurance companies be allowed a lifetime cap? I mean, 5 million dollars for one little girl... how many people have to pay into an insurance company just to pay for this one girl?

It's grim to think that allowing such policies would ultimately spell a death sentence for this little girl, but can we afford to keep everyone alive? I'd hate to see good insurance companies go down the tubes because they happen to end up covering these rare cases where a person has a symptom that costs roughly a million a year to cover.

Even the parents are aware of this. They said that they know no other insurance company would take her, and that if they ran an insurance company they wouldn't even take their own daughter. (I don't fault them for doing everything within the law to try to support their daughter; any good parents would.)

Quite the thorny issue.

[boutons_deux]

The DC politicians aren't mature, serious, human-oriented enough to answer such questions with laws and regulations.

If DC politicians can be paid enough to address such non-viable life and EOL issues, then MAYBE they might address it. I'm of course doubtful.

[ChumpDumper]

Does she wear a hoodie?

[TeyshaBlue]

The first step towards a universal, single payor system would be for the Fed to provide catastrophic coverage (outside Medicare/Medicaid) for those who either cannot afford or qualify for coverage.

[CosmicCowboy]

Valid question from the OP. Medicine is just getting too good and too expensive for us to afford it. 20 years ago she would probably have just died as an infant and it wouldn't have been anyone's fault...just a random "act of god".

[ChumpDumper]

Well, do we value life or not?

Or only to a certain dollar amount?

[101A]

Federal govt. as stop loss of last resort (at 500K lifetime - very few have those kinds of dollars spent on them and live - other than premature births). Relatively few claims; maximum possible spread for risk. There's many reasons that is a good idea.

It'll never happen.

[cheguevara]

we're too busy spending those dollars killing little girls overseas

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, do we value life or not?

Or only to a certain dollar amount?

Honestly?

Probably only to a certain dollar amount.

I can't tell you what that is but there has got to be a limit eventually.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The DC politicians aren't mature, serious, human-oriented enough to answer such questions with laws and regulations.

If DC politicians can be paid enough to address such non-viable life and EOL issues, then MAYBE they might address it. I'm of course doubtful.

Well, it looks like you aren't either.

Oh, yeah. And gfy

[TeyshaBlue]

Honestly?

Probably only to a certain dollar amount.

I can't tell you what that is but there has got to be a limit eventually.

Does there?

[cheguevara]

:lmao Palin was right about the death panels

[Winehole23]

death panels! rationing!

[DarrinS]

Free pills and dildos for Georgetown law coeds. Problem solved.

[TeyshaBlue]

Also, this OP is predicated upon the belief that absent insurance, all care will evaporate. While that is an outcome, it is only one of many possible outcomes. Having spent a bit of time exploring alternative methods of acquiring health care, due in part to my continuing battle with disease, I can state with some confidence that there are programs available that most of us are, at best, only dimly aware of.
But, finding that assistance takes effort and it's not a cost neutral solution for many. But, it's also not always a brickwall either.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I wonder how many of these "rare" cases there really are. I wouldn't think it's around 10%, but it could be higher.

There was a lady here that was affected by the limit. I believe ours is 2 million though. It was her little boy. He had a rare disease that no one had an answer to. They went allllll over the country to find a doctor that had some sort of cure for it. Ultimately, he ended up getting a bone marrow transplant. It wasnt a definite cure, but he's been great for a few years. Having said that, I don't know what the limit should be.

[ChumpDumper]

Fee pills and dildos for Georgetown law coeds. Problem solved.Dildos? That's where your mind went when discussing this little girl? Nice.

It certainly could be argued that "fee" pills could reduce the number of kids needing the kind of health care talked about in the OP.

[CosmicCowboy]

Does there?

Sure...medical technology has advanced so far that people rarely die anymore until they are really old and all fucked up but it costs a fortune to keep them alive. Hell, a friend of mines dad just died a couple weeks ago and he hasn't even recognized his son for the last 2 years. Just in my lifetime I can remember when you heard someone had a heart attack your next question was "when is the funeral?" Now, almost all heart issues can be repaired or replaced but it costs mega-bucks and those people stay alive continuing to use all the latest expensive treatments...knee and hip replacements, etc.

[boutons_deux]

"Medicine is just getting too good" probably not, don't believe the press releases, eg, cancer.

"and too expensive for us to afford it."

... has been and will be too expensive compared to other countries that get better outcomes.

US health care industry is a extractive industry, extracting excessive wealth from Human-Americans, much like the financial sector extract excessive wealth. Extremely poor bang for the bucks.

[TeyshaBlue]

Progress has a price which, left undisturbed, will be reserved only for those that can afford it. This was, ostensibly, what insurance was created to protect someone from. Now that insurance no longer functions as insurance, we have caps.

While there is no doubt money spent on those whose lives are largely done, I would suspect that there are an order of magnitude more whose lives are not quite done yet, and benefit significantly from treatment. Don't examine the exception without considering the rule, CC.

[Big Empty]

You hear people argue about others on welfare all the time, mainly "i saw this woman with a gold watch and an iphone at the grocery store and she pulled out her lone star card" I agree by the way. If they can't afford food why are they buying expensive clothes and gadgets. At the same time, why is there a child tax credit. If you cant afford kids dont have them or take responsibilty. That money could be used for situations like this as well as the social security mess.

[CosmicCowboy]

Progress has a price which, left undisturbed, will be reserved only for those that can afford it. This was, ostensibly, what insurance was created to protect someone from. Now that insurance no longer functions as insurance, we have caps.

While there is no doubt money spent on those whose lives are largely done, I would suspect that there are an order of magnitude more whose lives are not quite done yet, and benefit significantly from treatment. Don't examine the exception without considering the rule, CC.

Oh, no doubt. I don't mean to come across as callous but really, what IS a life worth? When does personal responsibility start and stop? Should the alcoholic bum holding the sign on the corner REALLY get that taxpayer funded liver transplant? Should he get the liver just because he was in line first and a 16 year old child that needs one doesn't get it in time? What standard do we use? We simply can't afford to give 100% of the people cradle to life extended grave gold standard health care.

[TeyshaBlue]

The premise of placing a monetary value on something that cannot be evalutated monetarily is fatally flawed. We have to understand and accept that somethings are evaluated with different criteria than a $ sign.


Edit: And again, CC, you are focusing on the exception rather than the majority population.

[Winehole23]

again, CC, you are focusing on the exception rather than the majority population.makes it somewhat easier to kick everyone into the same ditch

[CosmicCowboy]

The premise of placing a monetary value on something that cannot be evalutated monetarily is fatally flawed. We have to understand and accept that somethings are evaluated with different criteria than a $ sign.


Edit: And again, CC, you are focusing on the exception rather than the majority population.

you asked for an opinion...I'm just throwing some out...I'm not saying that I have all the answers...

So do we decide based on a points system?

Say...

You start at birth with 100 points...you lose a point every year
If you are overweight you lose X points
If you smoke or drink you lose Y points
If you are on a documented regular exercise program add Z points
etc.

Then say...a bypass operation requires 35 points. If you are 40 years old and exercise, no problem. If you are 70 years old and smoke and drink and are overweight you are just shit out of luck.

[coyotes_geek]

The premise of placing a monetary value on something that cannot be evalutated monetarily is fatally flawed. We have to understand and accept that somethings are evaluated with different criteria than a $ sign.


Edit: And again, CC, you are focusing on the exception rather than the majority population.

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.

Again, just playing devils advocate here.

[Blake]

It's grim to think that allowing such policies would ultimately spell a death sentence for this little girl, but can we afford to keep everyone alive? I'd hate to see good insurance companies go down the tubes because they happen to end up covering these rare cases where a person has a symptom that costs roughly a million a year to cover.

lol everyone. We should just go Logans Run to solve the problem of health care costs.

stupid article.

[TeyshaBlue]

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.

Again, just playing devils advocate here.

Yes, and Yes. In the former, it's usually in response to a legal challenge...lawsuit for unlawful death, negligence, etc as a compensatory action. Not, as in insurance, a preventative. In the latter, individuals deciding how much life insurance to carry, that is a choice that the individual is allowed to make.
In the case of the OP, there is no choice allowed.

I understand your point, and it's a good one in establishing prior monetization of life in the form of compensatory claims. But, the situation in the OP is not about compensation. It's about prevention and survival.




Edit: After thinking about this a bit longer, I ignored the tort aspect of court awards. Those are definately a combo of punitve/compensatory actions. You have a stronger point than I initially thought.

[Blake]

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.

Again, just playing devils advocate here.

Bit of difference in deciding how much a beneficiary should receive after death than deciding how much it's worth to keep someone alive.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol everyone. We should just go Logans Run to solve the problem of health care costs.

stupid article.

Sometimes I envy the Carousel. I could use the time off.:depressed

[TeyshaBlue]

you asked for an opinion...I'm just throwing some out...I'm not saying that I have all the answers...

So do we decide based on a points system?

Say...

You start at birth with 100 points...you lose a point every year
If you are overweight you lose X points
If you smoke or drink you lose Y points
If you are on a documented regular exercise program add Z points
etc.

Then say...a bypass operation requires 35 points. If you are 40 years old and exercise, no problem. If you are 70 years old and smoke and drink and are overweight you are just shit out of luck.

I respect your opinion, CC. It's certainly not a minority opinion at this point in time.
It's issues like this that make parsing/rationing/delivering healthcare such a colossal pain in the ass.:toast

[Blake]

Sometimes I envy the Carousel. I could use the time off.:depressed

:lol ? :cry ?

[coyotes_geek]

Yes, and Yes. In the former, it's usually in response to a legal challenge...lawsuit for unlawful death, negligence, etc as a compensatory action. Not, as in insurance, a preventative. In the latter, individuals deciding how much life insurance to carry, that is a choice that the individual is allowed to make.
In the case of the OP, there is no choice allowed.

I understand your point, and it's a good one in establishing prior monetization of life in the form of compensatory claims. But, the situation in the OP is not about compensation. It's about prevention and survival.




Edit: After thinking about this a bit longer, I ignored the tort aspect of court awards. Those are definately a combo of punitve/compensatory actions. You have a stronger point than I initially thought.


Bit of difference in deciding how much a beneficiary should receive after death than deciding how much it's worth to keep someone alive.

Fair points. I'll take a different tact. Say instead of talking about a 5 year old girl who needs $1M/yr in medical care we're talking about a 65 year old woman needing the same treatment. Still okay to focus solely on keeping that woman alive and not worry about how much it costs?

[TeyshaBlue]

Fair points. I'll take a different tact. Say instead of talking about a 5 year old girl who needs $1M/yr in medical care we're talking about a 65 year old woman needing the same treatment. Still okay to focus solely on keeping that woman alive and not worry about how much it costs?

Yes. Still okay and (kill me nao!) morally justified.

[boutons_deux]

We saw how the Repugs, in 100% perfectly bad faith, starting screaming "death panels" about the ACA section that provided funds for EOL counseling.

The Repugs would act similarly in this thread's topic, to defend the $1M/year, because that $1M goes to docs, hospitals, BigPharma. The insurance companies will raise their premiums w/o limit (nobody can stop them). Human-Americans held hostage by yet another predatory, avaricious vampire squid.

[coyotes_geek]

Yes. Still okay and (kill me nao!) morally justified.

Okay, fine. Now she's 85 years old and wears a hoodie. Still worth it? :p:

[TeyshaBlue]

We saw how the Repugs, in 100% perfectly bad faith, starting screaming "death panels" about the ACA section that provided funds for EOL counseling.

The Repugs would act similarly in this thread's topic, to defend the $1M/year, because that $1M goes to docs, hospitals, BigPharma. The insurance companies will raise their premiums w/o limit (nobody can stop them). Human-Americans held hostage by yet another predatory, avaricious vampire squid.

...enhanced by the ACA which parks a guaranteed 6 course dinner at the table of the insurance companies.

[TeyshaBlue]

Okay, fine. Now she's 85 years old and wears a hoodie. Still worth it? :p:

Ok. The line must be drawn somewhere.:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

We saw how the Repugs, in 100% perfectly bad faith, starting screaming "death panels" about the ACA section that provided funds for EOL counseling.

The Repugs would act similarly in this thread's topic, to defend the $1M/year, because that $1M goes to docs, hospitals, BigPharma. The insurance companies will raise their premiums w/o limit (nobody can stop them). Human-Americans held hostage by yet another predatory, avaricious vampire squid.

Dumbass. Democrats wrote the fucking bill and didn't have the balls to go single payer.

[coyotes_geek]

Ok. The line must be drawn somewhere.:lol

:hat

[boutons_deux]

single payer/PO would have been filibustered in the Senate, DOA.

ACA is a dog's lunch and badly underchieves because that what the corrupt corporate/political swamp throws up.

[Sec24Row7]

People die every day in other countries because they can't afford a 50 dollar shot... or because no one will give them a 10 mile truck ride to the village doctor...

There has to be a line somewhere...

[Thompson]

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.


Practically, you have to put dollar values on peoples' lives. Air travel could be safer (more frequent inspections for cracks in the wings, etc.), but at $6,000 a ticket to cover the cost, no one flies anymore. Same thing with health insurance. It's not pleasant, but practically there have to be caps. Otherwise, the resulting cost makes the service cease to be an option for anyone, and a lot more are harmed than the rare disorder here or there.

[boutons_deux]

US Army paid $50K per dead to Bales' victims' families.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, do we value life or not?

Or only to a certain dollar amount?

I would argue we only value life to a certain dollar amount. We don't feed all the hungry, we don't shelter all the homeless, we don't immunize all the sick, etc etc.

This happens even on a lesser scale... for instance, we don't set speed limits to 5 MPH on the highways to prevent car accidents.

[LnGrrrR]

The first step towards a universal, single payor system would be for the Fed to provide catastrophic coverage (outside Medicare/Medicaid) for those who either cannot afford or qualify for coverage.

Fair enough, but how many little girls like this do you think are out there? I'm just wondering what the bill to the gov would be if they enacted a policy like this.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, this OP is predicated upon the belief that absent insurance, all care will evaporate. While that is an outcome, it is only one of many possible outcomes. Having spent a bit of time exploring alternative methods of acquiring health care, due in part to my continuing battle with disease, I can state with some confidence that there are programs available that most of us are, at best, only dimly aware of.
But, finding that assistance takes effort and it's not a cost neutral solution for many. But, it's also not always a brickwall either.

I didn't mean for it to assume that all insurance would disappear. But at a million dollars a year per care for this girl, I don't think it's realistic to assume that the family would receive enough donations/assistance to cover it. If you have experience otherwise, enlighten me. :)

[Blake]

Fair points. I'll take a different tact. Say instead of talking about a 5 year old girl who needs $1M/yr in medical care we're talking about a 65 year old woman needing the same treatment. Still okay to focus solely on keeping that woman alive and not worry about how much it costs?

What if?

What should be the age cut off iyo?

[LnGrrrR]

While there is no doubt money spent on those whose lives are largely done, I would suspect that there are an order of magnitude more whose lives are not quite done yet, and benefit significantly from treatment. Don't examine the exception without considering the rule, CC.

The OP was more about the law repealing the cap on lifetime payouts, but that wasn't very clear. Mea culpa.

[Blake]

Fair enough, but how many little girls like this do you think are out there? I'm just wondering what the bill to the gov would be if they enacted a policy like this.

I wonder how many insurance execs out there make more than $5 million a year

[LnGrrrR]

lol everyone. We should just go Logans Run to solve the problem of health care costs.

stupid article.

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)

[LnGrrrR]

What if?

What should be the age cut off iyo?

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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?

[Blake]

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)

Old, etc etc

[Blake]

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?

Deathpanel .org

[TeyshaBlue]

I didn't mean for it to assume that all insurance would disappear. But at a million dollars a year per care for this girl, I don't think it's realistic to assume that the family would receive enough donations/assistance to cover it. If you have experience otherwise, enlighten me. :)

I think I've gone over this before, but it takes around 20k/mo to keep me upright and mobile...(rational costs extra:lol). 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.

[TeyshaBlue]

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.

It doesn't have to be an economic one though.

[CosmicCowboy]

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.

[RandomGuy]

Well, do we value life or not?

Or only to a certain dollar amount?

yva0VSN1_T4

[CosmicCowboy]

I think I've gone over this before, but it takes around 20k/mo to keep me upright and mobile...(rational costs extra:lol). 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.

Hadn't read this before. Glad you found help for you and your daughter.

[TeyshaBlue]

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.

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.

[RandomGuy]

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.

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.

[TeyshaBlue]

Hadn't read this before. Glad you found help for you and your daughter.

She gained 4 inches in height after surgery.:lol:toast

[RandomGuy]

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.

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".

[CosmicCowboy]

She gained 4 inches in height after surgery.:lol:toast

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

We actually may be living in the golden age of health care. The boomers are gonna break the bank.

[TeyshaBlue]

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.

She just turned 21 last month.:tu :)

[CosmicCowboy]

She just turned 21 last month.:tu :)

awesome! :toast

[RandomGuy]

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?

3hQC3nkftrk

[RandomGuy]

We actually may be living in the golden age of health care. The boomers are gonna break the bank.

We just need to import doctors from Cuba. 100% serious.

[CosmicCowboy]

We just need to import doctors from Cuba. 100% serious.

That's really gonna piss off the Pakistani and Indian doctors.

[RandomGuy]

That's really gonna piss off the Pakistani and Indian doctors.

Nah. We need them too.

More than enough demand for primary care physicians.

Hell, we will get into a bidding war with China over doctors. They are getting older a hell 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.

[RandomGuy]

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

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.


If you think our squabbles over health care are pressing... yikes.

[LnGrrrR]

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?

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.

[LnGrrrR]

I think I've gone over this before, but it takes around 20k/mo to keep me upright and mobile...(rational costs extra:lol). 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.

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.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe China should start thinking that female babies are a good thing... :lol

[GSH]

Does she wear a hoodie?


You're second only to Boutons in coming up with totally ignorant fucking things to say. But I think you put more effort into it, so there's still hope.

[clambake]

teysha......thats your daughters name, right?

and best wishes to both of you........including your awesome wife.

[clambake]

teysha......thats your daughters name, right?

and best wishes to both of you........including your awesome wife.

[GSH]

I think I've gone over this before, but it takes around 20k/mo to keep me upright and mobile...(rational costs extra:lol). 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.


We have friends in town who came from Mexico illegally. (Citizens now.) A cousin came from Mexico illegally, about two years ago. She started having horrible headaches, and went to the emergency room. They found a large tumor inside her skull. The situation was bad enough that they set her up for surgery the next day. The testing, operation, and all the follow-up care came to over $1M. She paid nothing. Nada.

We are not exactly the hard-hearted society that some people claim.

I'm glad you got the healthcare you and your daughter required, Teysha. One thing a lot of people should realize about medications being "under-written" by the drug companies. Those drug companies pass the cost on to all their other customers, in the form of higher prices. My wife takes Copaxone for MS - an injection every day. The cost of the drug has gone up from about $2,100 per month to its current $3,600 per month, even though drugs used to go down in price after they have been on the market for a while. It's because so many people are being "under-written", and those costs are being passed on.

I'm not bitching about people getting the medication for free. I'm just pointing out that there is MUCH more subsidized healthcare going on than this administration will admit to.

[Jesus]

Are we not all human? Every life is precious.

[Blake]

Are we not all human? Every life is precious.

God sent Jesus to die.

[ElNono]

Frankly, when you look at how much money we spend to kill people, $1M/year looks like a drop in the bucket, especially for a rare case like the OP indicates.

A single F16-D (just the unit cost, without maintenance) would pay for 19 years of treatment...

[mingus]

I do not think people should be forced to pay for anyone's health care. I think it should be done out of love. In a perfect world, where everyone cared about one another, yes the girl should be medically covered. But if people do not want to pay, then I do not think that they should be forced to pay. I've personally donated large amounts of time, money, and energy to helping people with a variety of medical, psychiatric, and economic conditions, and I do it out of love. Hopefully, more can do the same. For me, personally, if I wake up in the girls situation tomorrow, I would be in peace whether I get the money or not.

[coyotes_geek]

What if?

What should be the age cut off iyo?

If forced to pick between rationing healthcare via a spending cap or an age cap, I think the spending cap is more fair to more people. So I don't think we should pick an age where we cut people off.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't think it's a "moral" issue so much as an economic one.

Yep. As icky as it feels to try and put a price on life we have to accept the reality that our financial resources are not unlimited.

[TDMVPDPOY]

a simple operation shouldnt costs much, why not just outsourced it to foreign country who can do it cheaper with the same service?

[coyotes_geek]

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.

It's inevitable for everyone. Even the private insurers have a limit on how much they're going to spend on you.

[coyotes_geek]

I think I've gone over this before, but it takes around 20k/mo to keep me upright and mobile...(rational costs extra:lol). 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.

Sorry to hear about this. Good to hear you're finding a way through it. :tu

[Drachen]

I do not think people should be forced to pay for anyone's health care. I think it should be done out of love. In a perfect world, where everyone cared about one another, yes the girl should be medically covered. But if people do not want to pay, then I do not think that they should be forced to pay. I've personally donated large amounts of time, money, and energy to helping people with a variety of medical, psychiatric, and economic conditions, and I do it out of love. Hopefully, more can do the same. For me, personally, if I wake up in the girls situation tomorrow, I would be in peace whether I get the money or not.

You are already being forced to pay for the care of others via your taxes and the cost of your medicine.



A simple operation shouldnt costs much, why not just outsourced it to foreign country who can do it cheaper with the same service?

Some insurance companies are already doing this. They are paying for their insured to get a flight, hotel, food, etc for them and a family member to some other country to get their surgeries done.

[coyotes_geek]

a simple operation shouldnt costs much, why not just outsourced it to foreign country who can do it cheaper with the same service?

I remember reading an article once about people doing exactly this. People would travel to Central America or India to get operations at a fraction of the cost.

I don't remember the details about whether or not U.S. insurance was covering these trips, or if U.S. law even allows them to.

Either way, it's a good idea.

[Drachen]

I remember reading an article once about people doing exactly this. People would travel to Central America or India to get operations at a fraction of the cost.

I don't remember the details about whether or not U.S. insurance was covering these trips, or if U.S. law even allows them to.

Either way, it's a good idea.

They are and its allowed.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's commonly called medical tourism. A lot of elective and cosmetic surgery gets done that way.

[RandomGuy]

We have friends in town who came from Mexico illegally. (Citizens now.) A cousin came from Mexico illegally, about two years ago. She started having horrible headaches, and went to the emergency room. They found a large tumor inside her skull. The situation was bad enough that they set her up for surgery the next day. The testing, operation, and all the follow-up care came to over $1M. She paid nothing. Nada.

We are not exactly the hard-hearted society that some people claim.

I'm glad you got the healthcare you and your daughter required, Teysha. One thing a lot of people should realize about medications being "under-written" by the drug companies. Those drug companies pass the cost on to all their other customers, in the form of higher prices. My wife takes Copaxone for MS - an injection every day. The cost of the drug has gone up from about $2,100 per month to its current $3,600 per month, even though drugs used to go down in price after they have been on the market for a while. It's because so many people are being "under-written", and those costs are being passed on.

I'm not bitching about people getting the medication for free. I'm just pointing out that there is MUCH more subsidized healthcare going on than this administration will admit to.

Add in the fact that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is... medical bills. A quick google search will find the studies if anyone cares to look, I have linked them here before.

This means that the costs of the uninsured not only get passed on to people with insurance companies, when other debts get discharged or modified in this process, such as credit card bills or car payments, or house loans, or whatever else gets monkeyed with, THOSE costs get passed on to everyone who borrows money for anything.

All of this acts like a tax.

You don't see it, but you pay for it in EVERYTHING you buy, and with lower earnings rates on saved money. The method of shifting these costs uses a LOT of administrative services. It would be interesting to get a study to quantify this, but my gut says this is VERY inefficient.

[RandomGuy]

It's commonly called medical tourism. A lot of elective and cosmetic surgery gets done that way.

It will be ramped up in the future. 1/4 the cost of conventional hip replacement, your own condo to recouperate with, a nurse:patient ratio of 1:1, a month of post op treatment, etc.

You get western hospital administrators and certifications, but use the labor costs of other countries.

The trick has been getting insurance companies to sign on, and worries about liabilities, but insurance companies are starting to realize they can save money.

Wiki seems to have expanded a bit on their entry since I last checked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

Cuba figures prominently there. Lift the sanctions, and you can have a ready-made pool of cheap doctors.

[RandomGuy]

They are and its allowed.

Confirmed.

[coyotes_geek]

Letting Americans import their prescription drugs from whereever they could buy them cheaper would also do wonders.

[coyotes_geek]

They are and its allowed.

:tu

Good to know.

[RandomGuy]

Obamacare sucks, they found out about the death panels years ago. I'd be a lot more worried if I was elderly tbh, I know that healthcare is a big problem but throwing people under the bus is bullshit.

The "death panels" thing was debunked years ago.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

[RandomGuy]

More bits to keep in mind:
The majority of your health care spending will be in the last 10 years of your life.
There is a 25% chance you will be incapacitated during that time, and require SOMEONE to make the call to keep you alive using machines or other highly expensive methods. In the end you will still die. That someone is usually a lifelong mate or close relative out of their normal mind with grief.
Studies have shown that simple things like DNR's or making your wishes about the amount of effort you want spent keeping you alive in a vegatative state, can cut health care costs considerably.

[RandomGuy]

End-of-life counseling, basically presenting people with their realistic options in those situations, allows a lot of people to make the call about being alive on machines before it happens. Most choose not to be held in that state. Hell, I would make the same call, and have let my wife know this.

This could be considered a "death panel", I guess. The study I read about showed that counties with good end-of-life counselling programs spent almost half as much per capita on medical costs, as the most expensive things are avoided.

We are all going to die. Suck it up, and figure out how you want to go.

[RandomGuy]

50% of our medical spending is on 5% of the population.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/5-of-americans-made-up-50-of-us-health-care-spending/251402/

Suck on that for a while.

[JoeChalupa]

Cheney got a heart and there are always circumstances when it comes to healthcare. Death panels? Do I hear Sarah Palin? :lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

More bits to keep in mind:
The majority of your health care spending will be in the last 10 years of your life.
There is a 25% chance you will be incapacitated during that time, and require SOMEONE to make the call to keep you alive using machines or other highly expensive methods. In the end you will still die. That someone is usually a lifelong mate or close relative out of their normal mind with grief.
Studies have shown that simple things like DNR's or making your wishes about the amount of effort you want spent keeping you alive in a vegatative state, can cut health care costs considerably.

I have a DNR. My wife tries to execute it each morning.:depressed

[RandomGuy]

I have a DNR. My wife tries to execute it each morning.:depressed

LOL. My alarm clock pointedly ignores mine.

[Agloco]

Okay, fine. Now she's 85 years old and wears a hoodie. Still worth it? :p:


Ok. The line must be drawn somewhere.:lol

The hoodie being the limiting factor no doubt.


I have a DNR. My wife tries to execute it each morning.:depressed

:lol

And finally......


Frankly, when you look at how much money we spend to kill people, $1M/year looks like a drop in the bucket, especially for a rare case like the OP indicates.

A single F16-D (just the unit cost, without maintenance) would pay for 19 years of treatment...

I don't believe affordability from a societal standpoint is as much of an issue as most make it out to be. NoNo's post points this out quite succinctly. The sad truth is that is a large amount of inertia to overcome as it relates to the care of people (I should say "others" here for better perspective).

[JoeChalupa]

Romney Justifies Denying Health Care To People With Preexisting Conditions: ‘We Can’t Play The Game Like That’. On Leno lastnight.

[CosmicCowboy]

Romney Justifies Denying Health Care To People With Preexisting Conditions: ‘We Can’t Play The Game Like That’. On Leno lastnight.

Logically, we can't.

People are rational. If they knew they could always buy insurance when and if they got sick then they wouldn't waste the money paying those premiums BEFORE they got sick. It's simply not rational.

[CosmicCowboy]

Compare it to car insurance. If you could drive without paying for insurance and then go buy insurance to fix your car AFTER you have a wreck, you would be an idiot to pay a car insurance premium every month you didn't have a wreck.

[JoeChalupa]

Logically, we can't.

People are rational. If they knew they could always buy insurance when and if they got sick then they wouldn't waste the money paying those premiums BEFORE they got sick. It's simply not rational.

I concur. But I think that an otherwise healthy person should be able to get insurance and then not be denied because an examination found cancer or the beetus. Now, I can understand if a person who is terminally ill wants insurance but I also don't think Romney has ever had to worry about insurance and simply doesn't have the understand or compassion of the uninsured. Well, perhaps he does he just doesn't across as giving a damn.
He was still as a board last night on Leno.

[CosmicCowboy]

I concur. But I think that an otherwise healthy person should be able to get insurance and then not be denied because an examination found cancer or the beetus. Now, I can understand if a person who is terminally ill wants insurance but I also don't think Romney has ever had to worry about insurance and simply doesn't have the understand or compassion of the uninsured. Well, perhaps he does he just doesn't across as giving a damn.
He was still as a board last night on Leno.

They can. The insurance just wouldn't cover the cancer or diabetes because they were pre-existing conditions.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is the terminal flaw in the new health care legislation.

For it to work, everyone would have to purchase insurance.

The $400 fine/tax for not buying insurance is a joke. That won't cover a months premium.

Rational people will pay the $400 fine and then go get insurance when they get sick. Insurers will pass the cost off to the dummies that try to "do the right thing" and pay their monthly premiums before they get sick.

Nothing changes except the costs are even higher with the new mandates.

[JoeChalupa]

They can. The insurance just wouldn't cover the cancer or diabetes because they were pre-existing conditions.

And that is the problem.

[elbamba]

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.

Again, just playing devils advocate here.

To take it a step further, courts and especially administrative courts put a monetary value on body parts. Workman Comp administrative hearings routinely take the body part injured/lost, give it a value and determine whether it will ever recover. I once had a client lose the use of his left arm. He was almost 70 so they gave him around 50,000. I have not taken a workman comp case since.

[LnGrrrR]

Frankly, when you look at how much money we spend to kill people, $1M/year looks like a drop in the bucket, especially for a rare case like the OP indicates.

A single F16-D (just the unit cost, without maintenance) would pay for 19 years of treatment...

I think that's only partially tangent. After all, those F-16s end up working out to about a million a year as well... We have some old airplanes in our fleet.

Course, I am one who thinks we should scale down our military in order to afford more domestic security/spending, so I agreed with they our main point. I just would've used all the gas the military uses as an example instead of the jets. :)

[JoeChalupa]

So bottom line is that if one gets diagnosed with an illness they are pretty much screwed the rest of their lives?

[JoeChalupa]

Those billions we are spending in Afghanistan each week could help here at home.

[CosmicCowboy]

So bottom line is that if one gets diagnosed with an illness they are pretty much screwed the rest of their lives?

Bottom line, like the President says, everyone should buy insurance if the system is going to work.

[Agloco]

They can. The insurance just wouldn't cover the cancer or diabetes because they were pre-existing conditions.

That would be perfectly useless tbh.

Un and Under insurance is a downward spiral. You wind up being obligated to take care of these people in emergent situations on down the road. That's a far greater cost burden.

EDIT: Missed the context. Was this in reference to universal care?

[ElNono]

There's such an obvious conflict of interest with the whole healthcare-insurance system as the primary driver of care access. The rest of the world figured it out a long time ago.

[CosmicCowboy]

Those billions we are spending in Afghanistan each week could help here at home.

Sorry, they have already used those projected savings elsewhere.

[ElNono]

Bottom line, like the President says, everyone should buy insurance if the system is going to work.

Or move away from the insurance system into universal care + an optional, secondary insurance system...

[ElNono]

This is the terminal flaw in the new health care legislation.

For it to work, everyone would have to purchase insurance.

The $400 fine/tax for not buying insurance is a joke. That won't cover a months premium.

Rational people will pay the $400 fine and then go get insurance when they get sick. Insurers will pass the cost off to the dummies that try to "do the right thing" and pay their monthly premiums before they get sick.

Nothing changes except the costs are even higher with the new mandates.

Actually, the terminal flaw is that it doesn't do anything to control costs. Increasing the pool won't bring down medical service prices, just make insurance companies fatter...

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, the terminal flaw is that it doesn't do anything to control costs. Increasing the pool won't bring down medical service prices, just make insurance companies fatter...

It actually increases costs. You can't add coverage for an additional 30 million people for free. The ones that are paying now will just have to pay more.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, the terminal flaw is that it doesn't do anything to control costs. Increasing the pool won't bring down medical service prices, just make insurance companies fatter...

It actually increases costs. You can't add coverage for an additional 30 million people for free. The ones that are paying now will just have to pay more to cover the cost of the ones riding for free.

[ElNono]

It actually increases costs. You can't add coverage for an additional 30 million people for free. The ones that are paying now will just have to pay more.

But you aren't adding "coverage for an additional 30 million people for free". Whoever of those 30 million decides to get insurance, will have to pay for it. Those who do not, will have to pay the fine.

Don't forget those 30 million people were going to get services anyways, and we were going to foot the bill. There's no new demand from a medical services standpoint. Allegedly, the fine would be used to offset what we had to pay to cover these uninsured people.

Again, there's nothing addressing the medical services cost, which is a huge part of the equation. The other problem I see is that while in theory increasing the pool should drive premiums down, there's nothing preventing the insurance companies to keep pricing at market-bear prices, so the difference would go to make their bottom line fatter. There's also no guarantees that the pool will increase, since the penalty really isn't as punitive as obtaining insurance.

[CosmicCowboy]

But you aren't adding "coverage for an additional 30 million people for free". Whoever of those 30 million decides to get insurance, will have to pay for it. Those who do not, will have to pay the fine.

Don't forget those 30 million people were going to get services anyways, and we were going to foot the bill. There's no new demand from a medical services standpoint. Allegedly, the fine would be used to offset what we had to pay to cover these uninsured people.

Again, there's nothing addressing the medical services cost, which is a huge part of the equation. The other problem I see is that while in theory increasing the pool should drive premiums down, there's nothing preventing the insurance companies to keep pricing at market-bear prices, so the difference would go to make their bottom line fatter. There's also no guarantees that the pool will increase, since the penalty really isn't as punitive as obtaining insurance.

You still aren't getting it.

Insurance premiums are what...$400 a MONTH for an individual?

The fine is $400 a YEAR.

Insurance companies will be required to cover pre-existing conditions.

Rational people will DROP their insurance and only pick it back up when they get sick.

[coyotes_geek]

It actually increases costs. You can't add coverage for an additional 30 million people for free. The ones that are paying now will just have to pay more.

It's not so much adding coverage for 30 million people for free as it is a question about whether it's more efficient to pay for those 30 million people by having hospitals overcharge everyone else's insurance, or to create a new federal bureaucracy to provide the insurance to those people directly.

That being said, I see no reason why anyone should expect things to get more efficient by getting the government more involved.

[Winehole23]

The fine is $400 a YEAR.
The annual penalty for not having minimum essential coverage will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per individual or a percentage of the individual’s taxable income. For any dependent under the age 18, the penalty is one half of the individual amount.

 The flat dollar amount per individual is $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016.

After 2016, the flat dollar amount is indexed to inflation. The flat dollar penalty is
capped at 300% of the flat dollar amount. For example:

o A family of three (two parents and one child under 18) would have a flat dollar
penalty of $1737 in 2016;

o A family of four (two parents and two children over 18) would have a flat dollar
penalty of $2,085 in 2016 because the 300 % cap would apply.

 The percentage of taxable income is an amount equal to a percentage of a household’s income (as defined by the Act) that is in excess of the tax filing threshold (phased in at 1% in 2014; 2% in 2015; 2.5% in 2016). For example:

o If an individual has a household income of $50,000, the percentage would be 1%
of the difference between $50,000 and the tax threshold (which is $9,350 for an
individual in 2010). Assuming the tax threshold is $10,000 in 2014, this individual
would be subject to a percentage penalty of $400. Because this percentage
penalty is greater than the flat dollar penalty for 2014 (which is $95), he would
pay the percentage penalty.

Generally, the annual penalty is capped at an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage available through the state Exchange.

(PPACA §§ 1501 and 10106 adding IRC §5000A(c); § 1002 of Reconciliation Bill).https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

[CosmicCowboy]

Whether $400 or $700 or $1000 per person the fact is it's still a lot cheaper to pay the fine and then go buy insurance if you get sick.

BTW, thanks for the link.

[Winehole23]

cheaper true, but you're still low balling it. $695 times three isn't $700.

[Winehole23]

the edit didn't help your math

[CosmicCowboy]

cheaper true, but you're still low balling it. $695 times three isn't $700.



Whether $400 or $700 or $1000 per person the fact is it's still a lot cheaper to pay the fine and then go buy insurance if you get sick.

BTW, thanks for the link.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm currently paying almost $1000 a month per family on my group plan that I provide my employees.

[Winehole23]

a $2000 fine might affect the feasibility of such a choice for a lot of people. (but of course not for you)

[CosmicCowboy]

a $2000 fine might affect the feasibility of such a choice for a lot of people.

Really?

$2000 vs. $10,000?

You are apparently a smart guy.

Which one would YOU choose?

[Winehole23]

feasibility. if people can't afford the cost of (let's say)$400 per month for health insurance, it's fair to say they'll have trouble coming up with the $2000 penalty.

[ElNono]

You still aren't getting it.

Insurance premiums are what...$400 a MONTH for an individual?

The fine is $400 a YEAR.

Insurance companies will be required to cover pre-existing conditions.

Rational people will DROP their insurance and only pick it back up when they get sick.

You still aren't adding "coverage for an additional 30 million people for free", you're simply making those sick pay more than those who are not sick at a given time, from a pool of largely healthy people (we're still dumping the high risk pool to medicare)

And the medical service cost still isn't addressed, which is the major driver of cost in general.

[JoeChalupa]

Bottom line, like the President says, everyone should buy insurance if the system is going to work.

But not everyone can if they have pre-existing conditions that won't be covered.

[JoeChalupa]

I wouldn't drop my insurance if that were the case many would drop their insurance now.

[CosmicCowboy]

feasibility. if people can't afford the cost of (let's say)$400 per month for health insurance, it's fair to say they'll have trouble coming up with the $2000 penalty.

I'm saying that healthy people that can AFFORD the insurance will drop it and pay the fine instead (thus saving money) knowing they can go out and get insurance to pay for it if and when they get sick.

[CosmicCowboy]

I wouldn't drop my insurance if that were the case many would drop their insurance now.

I'm not understanding you. Are you saying that if pre-existing conditions were legally required to be covered by the insurance companies and you were healthy you would still choose to buy health insurance and pay for it every month you were healthy instead of just waiting until you got really sick to buy it?

[boutons_deux]

the problem with the penalty is that it is nowhere near close to the $3K - $4K /year it costs for individual health insurance. the penalty must be adjusted to match insurance cost.

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn.

Even Boutons gets it.

[Blake]

What will the penalty be for not paying the penalty?

[CosmicCowboy]

What will the penalty be for not paying the penalty?

:lmao

You need to read the SC transcript from the first day where the guy defending it was asked exactly that.

[ElNono]

Don't most people that actually have insurance get it through their jobs?

I thought individual insurance was pretty rare as it is because of the high cost.

[ElNono]

What will the penalty be for not paying the penalty?

IIRC, it will be charged as a tax, thus tax evasion would probably be it.

[Blake]

IIRC, it will be charged as a tax, thus tax evasion would probably be it.

So jail time? Where one's medical needs are covered?

[ElNono]

BTW, there are individual, high deductible plans for as low as $300/mo around here...

One of those might actually be a cheaper option than paying the penalty. And then you could switch plans as needed, obviously.

[ElNono]

So jail time? Where one's medical needs are covered?

Well, you would temporarily lose your freedom and be liquidated also. Not sure it's such a tempting offer.

[boutons_deux]

"One of those might actually be a cheaper option than paying the penalty"

IIRC, no. the penalty is under $1000/year, vs $3k-$4K/year for individual catastrophe insurance.

[RandomGuy]

This is the terminal flaw in the new health care legislation.

For it to work, everyone would have to purchase insurance.

The $400 fine/tax for not buying insurance is a joke. That won't cover a months premium.

Rational people will pay the $400 fine and then go get insurance when they get sick. Insurers will pass the cost off to the dummies that try to "do the right thing" and pay their monthly premiums before they get sick.

Nothing changes except the costs are even higher with the new mandates.

There is federal and state funding for various plans. Much of the insurance is subsidized depending on income.

Honestly, a single payor system, i.e. medicare would be vastly more efficient from a cost perspective.

Ramp up the taxes a bit, offer everybody insurance coverage. Medicare/-aid scales up.

That would, at least, have the benefit of making costs more out in the open.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

You need to read the SC transcript from the first day where the guy defending it was asked exactly that.

Penalty for the first year the program kicks in, 2015: $15.

Penalty scales up after that, a softly scaling scale.

[ElNono]

"One of those might actually be a cheaper option than paying the penalty"

IIRC, no. the penalty is under $1000/year, vs $3k-$4K/year for individual catastrophe insurance.

Not really, as pointed out by WH earlier:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5737562&postcount=130

[coyotes_geek]

So jail time? Where one's medical needs are covered?

Either jail or law enforcement confiscating your property and auctioning it off.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not really, as pointed out by WH earlier:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5737562&postcount=130

Really.

He's talking per individual and not family which is the only rational way to discuss it since family size varies.

[RandomGuy]

Penalty for the first year the program kicks in, 2015: $15.

Penalty scales up after that, a softly scaling scale.

Got that wrong. It wasn't $15, it was $95. Sorry about that.


Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085)per family or 2.5% of household income.
The penalty will be phased-in according to the following
schedule: $95 in 2014,
$325 in 2015, and
$695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014,
2.0% of taxable income in 2015,
and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty
will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option
exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009
the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

[ElNono]

Really.

He's talking per individual and not family which is the only rational way to discuss it since family size varies.

But don't forget the penalty is either the flat fee amount or a percentage of income whichever is larger.

Also, I don't agree that per individual is the only rational way to discuss this, seeing that insurance companies do normally provide discounts for family plans vs individual plans. There are no such discounts on the penalty (but there is a cap).

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm actually reading the court transcripts. It's fascinating reading. I highly recommend it if this subject really interests you.

[ElNono]

I'm actually reading the court transcripts. It's fascinating reading. I highly recommend it if this subject really interests you.

link? thanks

[Woo Bum-kon]

I'd take care of her free of charge.

[CosmicCowboy]

link? thanks

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx

[ElNono]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx

:tu

[spursncowboys]

It sucks that this girl's insurance will not cover past 5 million but what are the other options. I doubt that the government option would give her more than 5 million.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What i want to know is what is costing $1.25m per year. Is she constantly int he hospital taking up a bed? Is it a nurse having to work in their home? What exactly costs that much?

For that cost you should be able to hire multiple doctors at full time. Something just seems wrong that even constant care would cost that much. At $1.25m annually you should be able to hire 3 full time nurses to be around 24 hours a day and still have over a million dollars to have all sorts of medical equipment.

[LnGrrrR]

What i want to know is what is costing $1.25m per year. Is she constantly int he hospital taking up a bed? Is it a nurse having to work in their home? What exactly costs that much?

For that cost you should be able to hire multiple doctors at full time. Something just seems wrong that even constant care would cost that much. At $1.25m annually you should be able to hire 3 full time nurses to be around 24 hours a day and still have over a million dollars to have all sorts of medical equipment.

Probably the medication, I'm guessing...

[SnakeBoy]

Probably the medication, I'm guessing...

Doubtful, she's on 2 anti seizure meds according to the article and even the newer meds aren't all that expensive. Here's a chart of the costs of the more commonly used ones...
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/anticonvulsants.htm

Older ones like phenobarbitol are dirt cheap. My guess would be most of the cost of her care was from the hospitalizations and tests to diagnose the cause of her epilepsy. From the article, the parents are just guessing that the costs are going to continue at the same rate but they should go way down as the girls seizures are brought under control.

The article is seriously lacking details which is to be expected from a piece meant to pull at our heart strings in favor of Obamacare.

[Yonivore]

St. Jude's Childrens' Research Hospital will treat childhood cancer without regard to a family's ability to pay. The Shriner's -- yes, those awful Masons -- have hospitals all over the country that will treat childhood burn victims and other maladies (mainly orthopedic, I believe), also without regard to a family's ability to pay. I know there are other physicians, clinics, and hospitals that will -- on a case-by-case basis -- provide free or charitable medical care.

And, there are a multitude of private charitable organizations that stand ready to defray whatever cost is associated with caring for a chronically ill child or loved one.

I have no doubt, particularly in the case of a child and because her condition is so rare, a benefactor can be located to help ensure her continued medical care until such time she either no longer needs it or her body is no longer able to tolerate the condition and she dies.

That's why these stories get aired. In the end, someone, a group of someones, or a an entire nation, always steps up to the plate.

[ChumpDumper]

Except when they don't.