<p>A friend said “if we hadn’t won the Revolutionary War, we would ALL have free health care”.</p>
<p>I don’t worry as much about myself as I do about my 20 something kids. One only has one more year on our health plan…then she will be 26, in grad school, and we will need to buy her an individual policy.</p>
<p>Roman, I’m betting there is something somewhere. You’re not that old you should be able to find something for 100 to 200, maybe even less each month.</p>
<p>If you need help send me your zip and age and I’ll help you look</p>
<p>Sent from my DROID BIONIC using CC</p>
<p>Lol me too :p</p>
<p>OT, but health care coverage through schools has become a MAJOR factor in my grad school decision. Something I’d never imagined as a factor.</p>
<p>Could everyone who fears the spector of government run, single-payer healthcare please, please read and reread alwaysamom’s post 53???</p>
<p>Our country is not the same as Canada. Whether the “spector” is something to be feared is open to debate. The fact that hard choices have to be made is not. We shouldn’t pretend there is one perfect answer because there is not. It’s all a matter of setting priorities and paying for those priorities. I find the “pathway” in the UK deeply disturbing, but it is a valid choice – or would be if the issues were addressed in an honest and respectful manner. I have no patience for sneakiness in such situations. Our country simply doesn’t have the money to do all the things that have been promised to various constituencies. Something has to give. We need to determine what will be cut.</p>
<p>What is the pathway in the UK?</p>
<p>It’s technically the “Liverpool Care Pathway” and here are a couple of links. I am not making a judgment as to the merits of the program. It is my belief that there are tough choices to be made and that they can’t be made through subterfuge.</p>
<p>[What</a> is the Liverpool Care Pathway? - Health News - NHS Choices](<a href=“http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/What-is-the-Liverpool-Care-Pathway.aspx]What”>http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/What-is-the-Liverpool-Care-Pathway.aspx)</p>
<p>[NHS</a> millions for controversial care pathway - Telegraph](<a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9644287/NHS-millions-for-controversial-care-pathway.html]NHS”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9644287/NHS-millions-for-controversial-care-pathway.html)</p>
<p>Ok…thanks for the links.</p>
<p>My pleasure! My feeling is that it is totally legitimate to look at end of life care, but that we need to be honest about the fact that there really will be death panels, even if it’s not pretty to stay so. There have to be. Also, the beginning of life. Which is a very painful subject (I was a 2 pound preemie 47 years ago), but also staggeringly expensive. No matter what, taxpayers can’t fund all things to all people all the time.</p>
<p>Zoosermom,</p>
<p>I was a preemie too. I was born 2 month earlier because my mom got sick and they had to induce her. I was actually born in one-payer system in a country that was bankrupt (former Soviet Union). </p>
<p>My parents bribed the hospital so that my mom and I had decent care. In fact, every time I would end up in a hospital (or had a need to get into the hospital), some strings were pulled and money exchange took place. I guess the health care was not free after all. Anyway, my mom shared with me the horror of having to listen to premature babies crying until they died because this is what was happening to most preemies. They were left to die with no care! </p>
<p>In fact, there was a joke circulating around when I was growing up. An American delegation was visiting Soviet Union and as part of the visit they were invited to tour the best hospital to show case free health care system we had. After the tour the delegation was asked what they thought of the free health care we had, the answer was that this type of “health care” the Americans can get for free any time they want too.</p>
<p>The healthy, well insured amongst us, never see the downside of our current system. They are naturally threatened by any change. We pay much more as a society to treat the sickest as they allow their health to deteriorate. Well care is cheaper than corrective care, but it will take generations to change. In the mean time HCR will cost us all more. But it is in the best interest of this country to do so. We are making an investment by increasing healthcare for all of our citizens. I favor single payor, and would prefer to remove the insurance margins from the equations. Bottom line , We all recognize public primary education for all citizens as a necessary public expense. Educated citizens are a benefit to all. Aren’t healthy citizens also a benefit?</p>
<p>Penzly, again. There are priorities to set and decisions to be made. The public education system in many places is very basic and doesn’t adequately educate students. The public health system can, also, only do so much. In both cases, the only way to ensure healthy, educated citizens is to take custody of those who can’t do for themselves. Otherwise we’ll always have to deal with pathology.</p>
<p>Here’s what I mean by choices. My mom is in her 80s with significant health, vision and mobility issues. She is in extreme pain due to arthritis in her neck and back. Over the last few months (since October) she has racked up over $50,000 in medical expenses including MRIs, specialist visits, etc. to determine the extent of her arthritis “just in case.” Now give me a break. That is absolutely irresponsible. At 60 one could justify the expense, but for a woman in her 80s with other major problems, the responsible thing to do is just manage the pain. But there is a sense that anything that can be done should be done. I don’t agree with that and this is my mother whom I love. But there are a lot of seniors who feel completely entitled to absolute comfort for 100 years. There have been a bunch of letters in my local newspaper lately on the subject (doesn’t the AARP mobilize its army well?) which show a staggering selfishness and a lack of real understanding of where the money comes from. It’s time we all got honest.</p>
<p>How to provide end of life care is a very complicated issue. My grandfather had terminal bone cancer. He developed treatable pnemonia. He was unconscious. It was decided by his wife and family to let him die. Morphine was turned up. Brain died. He didn’t die for two weeks. </p>
<p>My grandmother was retaining water. She told the doctor she wanted to die. She was mentally alert. He told her that can be arranged. “Don’t eat. We will give you something.” So that is what happened. She died in about 3 to 4 days.</p>
<p>The above examples are in the US. </p>
<p>Medical care that puts profits before health care bugs me whether it is in the UK or the US. </p>
<p>I think our country should look at what other countries are doing because other countries are providing health care at a lower cost to its citizens. Of course, people and institutions that benefit from the present system will fight to keep things the way they are. It’s in their self interest. I don’t expect people to act against their own self interest; although,
sometimes they do…</p>
<p>Sometimes what is one person’s self interest conflicts with another’s. If the US could afford the health care system it has now, I think the argument to keep the status quo would be stronger. But really? Can we
afford the health care system we have now? </p>
<p>It’s true. We have to make choices. We can’t pay for everything.</p>
<p>
No, we absolutely can not. But we should have the people elected to facilitate these decisions be completely honest about what the options are what they will do and cost.</p>
<p>The cost of the ACA is going to be staggering and leave tens of millions of people uninsured and create all sorts of unintended consequences (I read about a doozie yesterday). Is that really the best we can do or should expect? Shouldn’t there be some professional responsibility to tell it like it really is, particularly to the elderly? There should be, but there isn’t.</p>
<p>Kelsmom – All of the government inefficiency and complication you cite relates to the compromises required to preserve our privatized, employer-based insurance system because of hostility to single-payor. We devote an absolutely ridiculous amount of resources to things like (a) figuring out what coverage a sick person has, and which company is paying for what, (b) switching business from one company to another, (c) doctors and companies forming and breaking networks to deal with one another, and of course (d) building the brands of multiple companies.</p>
<p>In theory I love competition and markets. In practice, in the health care field competition and markets have utterly failed to restrain costs, improve outcomes, and allocate resources effectively. As far as I can tell, all of the incentives in the system are for bad, expensive, short-term care. It’s a massive game of musical chairs, trying to get people to have their chronic illnesses and end-of-life expense orgies on Medicare, while constantly selling people on the notion that more is better and they need the best.</p>
<p>Years ago, I reluctantly concluded that single-payor seemed the only workable way to go. And, yes, we need the “death panels”.</p>
<p>Im not disagreeing about the expensive end of life care questions. They are valid. I work for a high tech med manufacturer. I know the profit side, the liability side, and the increasing diagnostic abilities that we discover everyday. I also have a family member in a nursing home who is on a frequent flyer list with the local hospital due to age and extreme diabetes. This is a large issue. I tend to focus on the well care side of the justification as I think it is a much less emotional conversation</p>
<p>
If you run for office, I will vote for you.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I completely agree about outcomes, though. I think outcomes in some very extreme situations (like micro premies) have improved, and specialized technology has improved outcomes for some people. I think it’s not an accident that “60 is the new 40.”</p>
<p>However, how much money could we really save as a society if we weren’t so fat?</p>
<p>I don’t think ACA is the best we can do, but it is better than what we had before. We are not getting to perfection either. </p>
<p>I think every first world country provides healthcare at a much, much cheaper cost than the US does. I don’t know find that being the most expensive place in the world when it comes to healthcare is something to brag about.</p>
<p>When I look at what the world is doing, I think single payer is the way to go…</p>
<p>
I absolutely agree. There are a lot of selfish seniors out there.</p>
<p>
It’s not necessarily well care where the big money is spent, and there is some data saying that the extent of well care consumed in this country is not actually saving money on preventing diseases, it’s just a market unto itself. We are grown-ups and need to have the painful conversations. We are going to leave our children and grandchildren (as many of them as there actually are!) destitute. That matters.</p>