|
Post by William L. Rupp on Jul 27, 2009 13:11:52 GMT -8
Yes, worried, and here's why. I will turn 67 in October. (Sweet biscuits! Sixty-seven! That's old!). My wife, who essentially robbed me from the cradle, will turn 74 in Sept. (Not true, of course; she was 41 and I 34 when we met, but let's move on). My wife has several somewhat troubling health issues. The one that is front and center right now is her knees. She has no . . . as in zero . . . cartilage left in either knee. We have been tossing around the idea of her getting a knee replacement in at least one knee, the one that is less problematic. And it is a big problem to have no cartilage left in your knees, in case you were not clear on that point. She can walk, but with some difficulty, and going up and down stairs is a real trial for her. Here's the problem. The Democrats are proposing sweeping health care reform that will almost certainly bring about serious health care rationing. There will be a government board that will tell doctors what they can and cannot prescribe. And people over 70 are very likely going to have to get used to the idea that their number one duty to society is to shut up and not cause trouble. This is rationing, and the President and his allies do not acknowledge that concern, even to debunk it. Anyway, I would really love to be wrong, but everything I hear about this new plan (really plans, since there seem to be more than one floating around) tells me that the whole concept is very, very bad. Am I crazy to be afraid? If so, tell me why so I can pass the information along to my wife, who is afraid that if she doesn't have an operation soon she may never be able to get one. Oh, yes, I'll also tell Jonah Goldberg, since he seems be concerned as well. . . www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20090727none_dare_say_rationing_obamacare_just_that_and_costly/AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 27, 2009 13:17:00 GMT -8
You are pretty close to right on target.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 27, 2009 15:13:12 GMT -8
Not even close. Medicare does not 'ration' health care now. Why would you think a similar type of plan would do so for the general population.
Guess what. If you attempted to get private insurance with that pre-existing condition you would have a hard time getting treated right now.
On a side note. If your wife is in good enough shape to weather the operation and recovery. Run.. don't walk to the Ortho guy and get it done now. She will feel so much better. My father-in-law had both knees done and said he should have had it done years ago. I'm thinking the same thing about my hip. Good luck to her.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 27, 2009 16:23:34 GMT -8
Yes, worried, and here's why. I will turn 67 in October. (Sweet biscuits! Sixty-seven! That's old!). My wife, who essentially robbed me from the cradle, will turn 74 in Sept. (Not true, of course; she was 41 and I 34 when we met, but let's move on). My wife has several somewhat troubling health issues. The one that is front and center right now is her knees. She has no . . . as in zero . . . cartilage left in either knee. We have been tossing around the idea of her getting a knee replacement in at least one knee, the one that is less problematic. And it is a big problem to have no cartilage left in your knees, in case you were not clear on that point. She can walk, but with some difficulty, and going up and down stairs is a real trial for her. Here's the problem. The Democrats are proposing sweeping health care reform that will almost certainly bring about serious health care rationing. There will be a government board that will tell doctors what they can and cannot prescribe. And people over 70 are very likely going to have to get used to the idea that their number one duty to society is to shut up and not cause trouble. AzWm Will, I have to ask. What's preventing her from getting the surgery now? If you're that worried about what Obama's health care plan will do, why isn't she in a operating room now? As I wrote on here, my mother had to go through 3 years of pain before her insurance covered her hip replacement in '79 (amazingly enough, it's held up for 30 years - damn good orthopedic surgeon). Back in the late '70s I lived a block from her in OB. She'd walk down Narragansett from her bus stop on Sunset Cliffs and 3 blocks away I'd know it was her simply because of the way she limped. And for 3 years she was living with that debilitating pain in her hip while she was working at a register at the Downtown Woolworth while standing 8 hours a day on a concrete floor. I will say, however, that with AARP, it's very unlikely that people over 70 will be told to STFU, because AARP won't allow it and with the Boomers running the AARP show, it gets less and less unlikely. Unless you've got a ton of bucks, our current system does not take care of our seniors unless they've got the bucks. It's really rather simple Will, the system is broken and all the arguments that the right-wing wants to bring up about tort reform are nonsense because the insurance companies are making huge profits while not providing the necessary services. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 27, 2009 16:33:17 GMT -8
Not even close. Medicare does not 'ration' health care now. Why would you think a similar type of plan would do so for the general population. Guess what. If you attempted to get private insurance with that pre-existing condition you would have a hard time getting treated right now. On a side note. If your wife is in good enough shape to weather the operation and recovery. Run.. don't walk to the Ortho guy and get it done now. She will feel so much better. My father-in-law had both knees done and said he should have had it done years ago. I'm thinking the same thing about my hip. Good luck to her. Damn, I'm glad you're here. The line up against me was looking ugly. And BTW, you are quite correct. Knee replacements are pretty much routine at this point. I'm not sure why Ms. William hasn't had her's done. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by temeculaaztec on Jul 28, 2009 7:35:44 GMT -8
My wife has worked the past ten years as an X-Ray Tech for two of the BEST orthopedic surgeons in North County, Dr. Paul Milling and Dr. Joseph Mann (yes, father of the ex-Aztec hoopster). She says have it done now! The technology for knee replacements is so advanced from where it was 10-15 years ago. BTW, even Dr. J.M., a self-confessed liberal educated at Berkeley (undergrad) and Northwestern (Med. School) has serious reservations about the Obama/Demo. healthcare plan. I do agree with Bob that she should do it now.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 28, 2009 9:08:27 GMT -8
One has to deal with the fact that probably the fastest way to limit the growth of health care spending is to limit services. There is just no way around that, and anyone who denies that fact is not dealing with reality. (Tort reform is also very important, but Obama seems not to have heard of that term.)
We have all heard about the long waiting periods that exist in nationalized health plans for certain treatments. If the treatment you are waiting for patiently (no pun intended) is not life threatening, then the delay is merely annoying. But, if the case is one that could be fatal. . . Well, that is quite another matter.
The basic problem is this. Obama and his fellow collectivists wish to completely reshape the U.S. health care system, not just remedy its weak points.
Speaking for myself, I do NOT want a government board to tell doctors what treatments they can prescribe for me or my family. And that is exactly what the Democratic plan has in store for us.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 28, 2009 9:28:02 GMT -8
Not even close. Medicare does not 'ration' health care now. Why would you think a similar type of plan would do so for the general population. Guess what. If you attempted to get private insurance with that pre-existing condition you would have a hard time getting treated right now. On a side note. If your wife is in good enough shape to weather the operation and recovery. Run.. don't walk to the Ortho guy and get it done now. She will feel so much better. My father-in-law had both knees done and said he should have had it done years ago. I'm thinking the same thing about my hip. Good luck to her. Damn, I'm glad you're here. The line up against me was looking ugly. And BTW, you are quite correct. Knee replacements are pretty much routine at this point. I'm not sure why Ms. William hasn't had her's done. =Bob Thanks =Bob I'll continue to chime in on certain issues but, like on the last board, you'll probably have to bear the brunt of the onslaught. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 9:34:32 GMT -8
One has to deal with the fact that probably the fastest way to limit the growth of health care spending is to limit services. There is just no way around that, and anyone who denies that fact is not dealing with reality. (Tort reform is also very important, but Obama seems not to have heard of that term.) We have all heard about the long waiting periods that exist in nationalized health plans for certain treatments. If the treatment you are waiting for patiently (no pun intended) is not life threatening, then the delay is merely annoying. But, if the case is one that could be fatal. . . Well, that is quite another matter. The basic problem is this. Obama and his fellow collectivists wish to completely reshape the U.S. health care system, not just remedy its weak points. Speaking for myself, I do NOT want a government board to tell doctors what treatments they can prescribe for me or my family. And that is exactly what the Democratic plan has in store for us. AzWm Which of course has nothing to do with your wife and why she isn't getting knee replacement surgery now. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 28, 2009 10:44:16 GMT -8
Not even close. Medicare does not 'ration' health care now. Why would you think a similar type of plan would do so for the general population. Medicare is very expensive and can not be expanded to the general population without rationing. I agree with your advice to get it done now.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 14:20:52 GMT -8
Not even close. Medicare does not 'ration' health care now. Why would you think a similar type of plan would do so for the general population. Medicare is very expensive and can not be expanded to the general population without rationing. I agree with your advice to get it done now. Saw today that 46 percent of Medicare goes to people in their last two years of life. That's the reason insurance companies refuse to cover seniors. And you have to be pretty damn destitute to get Medicare payments if you are placed in a home. My cousins checked on it for my uncle when he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and got told to sell his house, sell all his assets, sell everything that he wanted to leave to his kids. He refused to do that and wound up paying 6 grand a month for the home he was in for a year and a half until he died. It cost him a lot of his assets, but he was able to leave his house and some assets to his kids. In the meantime, my mother-in-law's care, who is closing in on the final stage of Alzheimer's, costs 1600 a month in Canada and it is not some crummy care facility. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 28, 2009 15:40:06 GMT -8
Medicare is very expensive and can not be expanded to the general population without rationing. I agree with your advice to get it done now. Saw today that 46 percent of Medicare goes to people in their last two years of life. That's the reason insurance companies refuse to cover seniors. And you have to be pretty damn destitute to get Medicare payments if you are placed in a home. My cousins checked on it for my uncle when he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and got told to sell his house, sell all his assets, sell everything that he wanted to leave to his kids. He refused to do that and wound up paying 6 grand a month for the home he was in for a year and a half until he died. It cost him a lot of his assets, but he was able to leave his house and some assets to his kids. In the meantime, my mother-in-law's care, who is closing in on the final stage of Alzheimer's, costs 1600 a month in Canada and it is not some crummy care facility. =Bob Tell me how that fits into the discussion. Medicare is too expensive to use as a model. Canada is rationing care. Canada is looking for new immigrants. I am not going! That leaves you!
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 28, 2009 16:51:50 GMT -8
Not even close. Medicare does not 'ration' health care now. Why would you think a similar type of plan would do so for the general population. Medicare is very expensive and can not be expanded to the general population without rationing. I agree with your advice to get it done now. How? Medicare SETS THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES and the insurance companies follow. They rairly pay more than Medicare does for any procedure. Medicare has a significantly lower overhead and does not make a profit. On a procedure by procedure basis, Medicare is much less expensive than private insurance. The PROBLEM with Medicare is that there currently IS NO RATIONING as there is with private insurance. If there is a medical necessity, you get the treatment. There is no clerk being paid to deny procedures so that the company can show a bigger profit. I've always wondered why these pencil pushing dildo clerks are not charged with practicing medicine without a license for denying care that a doctor has ordered.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 17:02:42 GMT -8
Saw today that 46 percent of Medicare goes to people in their last two years of life. That's the reason insurance companies refuse to cover seniors. And you have to be pretty damn destitute to get Medicare payments if you are placed in a home. My cousins checked on it for my uncle when he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and got told to sell his house, sell all his assets, sell everything that he wanted to leave to his kids. He refused to do that and wound up paying 6 grand a month for the home he was in for a year and a half until he died. It cost him a lot of his assets, but he was able to leave his house and some assets to his kids. In the meantime, my mother-in-law's care, who is closing in on the final stage of Alzheimer's, costs 1600 a month in Canada and it is not some crummy care facility. =Bob Tell me how that fits into the discussion. Medicare is too expensive to use as a model. Canada is rationing care. Canada is looking for new immigrants. I am not going! That leaves you! =Bob
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2009 12:00:58 GMT -8
Medicare is very expensive and can not be expanded to the general population without rationing. I agree with your advice to get it done now. How? Medicare SETS THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES and the insurance companies follow. They rairly pay more than Medicare does for any procedure. Medicare has a significantly lower overhead and does not make a profit. On a procedure by procedure basis, Medicare is much less expensive than private insurance. The PROBLEM with Medicare is that there currently IS NO RATIONING as there is with private insurance. If there is a medical necessity, you get the treatment. There is no clerk being paid to deny procedures so that the company can show a bigger profit. I've always wondered why these pencil pushing dildo clerks are not charged with practicing medicine without a license for denying care that a doctor has ordered. You got part of it right and part of it wrong. You are right that Medicare has no rationing. What you do not understand is that the lower rate that Doctors can charge Medicare is made up on charges to other patients especially those without any insurance and someone to be their advocate. That is where the expense of the program comes in. Expand your mind and question where will the funds for care going to come from if a Medicare type reimbursement system is expanded. When Doctors leave the system and go into a "black market" type practice you will have both an increase in the overall cost and severe rationing of care for those in the system. We have got to be real careful and pragmatic when looking to change our system.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 29, 2009 13:20:11 GMT -8
How? Medicare SETS THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES and the insurance companies follow. They rairly pay more than Medicare does for any procedure. Medicare has a significantly lower overhead and does not make a profit. On a procedure by procedure basis, Medicare is much less expensive than private insurance. The PROBLEM with Medicare is that there currently IS NO RATIONING as there is with private insurance. If there is a medical necessity, you get the treatment. There is no clerk being paid to deny procedures so that the company can show a bigger profit. I've always wondered why these pencil pushing dildo clerks are not charged with practicing medicine without a license for denying care that a doctor has ordered. You got part of it right and part of it wrong. You are right that Medicare has no rationing. What you do not understand is that the lower rate that Doctors can charge Medicare is made up on charges to other patients especially those without any insurance and someone to be their advocate. That is where the expense of the program comes in. Expand your mind and question where will the funds for care going to come from if a Medicare type reimbursement system is expanded. When Doctors leave the system and go into a "black market" type practice you will have both an increase in the overall cost and severe rationing of care for those in the system. We have got to be real careful and pragmatic when looking to change our system. You are correct in that someone without insurance of any kind will be charged 'full boat'. This is usually the guy working for a small business or himself. He cannot afford insurance but makes too much money to qualify for government assistance. This is the guy that NEEDS universal health care!!!!! As I said before, Medicare sets the reimbursement baseline. The insurance providers try real hard not to pay any more than what Medicare does. That is why Scripps Clinic refused to accept Blue Cross for quite a while and currently does not accept Pacificare. Scripps wanted more and was willing to drop them. Scripps now accepts Blue Cross so I assume that the insurance company ponied up more $$.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 29, 2009 13:29:18 GMT -8
Saw today that 46 percent of Medicare goes to people in their last two years of life. That's the reason insurance companies refuse to cover seniors. And you have to be pretty damn destitute to get Medicare payments if you are placed in a home. My cousins checked on it for my uncle when he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and got told to sell his house, sell all his assets, sell everything that he wanted to leave to his kids. He refused to do that and wound up paying 6 grand a month for the home he was in for a year and a half until he died. It cost him a lot of his assets, but he was able to leave his house and some assets to his kids. In the meantime, my mother-in-law's care, who is closing in on the final stage of Alzheimer's, costs 1600 a month in Canada and it is not some crummy care facility. =Bob Tell me how that fits into the discussion. Medicare is too expensive to use as a model. Canada is rationing care. Canada is looking for new immigrants. I am not going! That leaves you! I didn't say that Medicare should be used as a model. I was simply pointing out where so much of Medicare's money goes. 146 Billion for people in their last year of life in 2008. People like you always want to bring up Medicare and its inefficiencies in any heath care discussion. I'm simply showing why the inefficiencies exist. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2009 15:35:45 GMT -8
Tell me how that fits into the discussion. Medicare is too expensive to use as a model. Canada is rationing care. Canada is looking for new immigrants. I am not going! That leaves you! I didn't say that Medicare should be used as a model. I was simply pointing out where so much of Medicare's money goes. 146 Billion for people in their last year of life in 2008. People like you always want to bring up Medicare and its inefficiencies in any heath care discussion. I'm simply showing why the inefficiencies exist. =Bob There is not a person in this discussion that does not understand that point. It is why Medicare can not be a model and it is also why people in Medicare will suffer if they are included in a new program that is all enclusive.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2009 15:38:43 GMT -8
You got part of it right and part of it wrong. You are right that Medicare has no rationing. What you do not understand is that the lower rate that Doctors can charge Medicare is made up on charges to other patients especially those without any insurance and someone to be their advocate. That is where the expense of the program comes in. Expand your mind and question where will the funds for care going to come from if a Medicare type reimbursement system is expanded. When Doctors leave the system and go into a "black market" type practice you will have both an increase in the overall cost and severe rationing of care for those in the system. We have got to be real careful and pragmatic when looking to change our system. You are correct in that someone without insurance of any kind will be charged 'full boat'. This is usually the guy working for a small business or himself. He cannot afford insurance but makes too much money to qualify for government assistance. This is the guy that NEEDS universal health care!!!!! As I said before, Medicare sets the reimbursement baseline. The insurance providers try real hard not to pay any more than what Medicare does. That is why Scripps Clinic refused to accept Blue Cross for quite a while and currently does not accept Pacificare. Scripps wanted more and was willing to drop them. Scripps now accepts Blue Cross so I assume that the insurance company ponied up more $$. I can find nothing to differ with you on this. I just want all to see why Congress must be very careful in any reform. We do not want to fix one problem and create two more as a by product.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 29, 2009 17:35:38 GMT -8
I didn't say that Medicare should be used as a model. I was simply pointing out where so much of Medicare's money goes. 146 Billion for people in their last year of life in 2008. People like you always want to bring up Medicare and its inefficiencies in any heath care discussion. I'm simply showing why the inefficiencies exist. =Bob There is not a person in this discussion that does not understand that point. It is why Medicare can not be a model and it is also why people in Medicare will suffer if they are included in a new program that is all enclusive. I won't disagree on not folding Medicare into a new system, but I think that Medicare as something of a model would work for those between 21 and 60. I don't see it as being as inefficient for healthy people as you see it being. What is bothering me at this point are the "Deathers" (as opposed to the "birthers). Whackos, including at least one member of Congress, claiming that the House bill will lead to the government deciding when you die is ridiculous. WTF; there are 3 bills in the House and two in the Senate and at this point it's all just sausage making. And in the meantime, the big heath insurance companies spent 133 million in the last quarter to fight any sort of change. I'm sorry, Win, but what does it tell you about their worries over profits (not to mention what their profits must be) if they are willing to spend that many bucks to defeat any change in the system? =Bob
|
|