[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.[/quote]

I’ll second that. I’m not sure what our elected officials are thinking, but these programs aren’t going to do anything to stabilize the market, and I suspect that some of them will cause even further erosion.

BG, you may remember that, in a thread a few months back, I mentioned that my stepdaughter and her boyfriend are buying a house. They close next week. The house is part of this Fannie Mae Home Path program. They are taking advantage of several state programs that offer significant cash assistance with down payment and closing costs.

She is in her early 20s, he’s a few years older. No college for him, she has about a year’s worth of credits. Both of them have spotty employment records, and each is in a low-paying retail job that they’ve held for less than a year. Between them, they have about $8K in credit card debt, plus car payments. Yet not only are they buying a $250,000 house, but doing so bringing only $2,000 of their own money to settlement.

I can’t honestly blame them: they’d have to have more money than that up front if they were renting an apartment! And I’d be lying if I said that it makes me feel good to see her so excited and happy. But I’m not holding out much hope for their success in this venture. The house needs work, and will require a lot of regular maintenance, and I just don’t think either of them has that kind of patience. And with only two grand of their own money in it, there’s not much to keep them there when the going gets tough and the value has fallen by another 20%.

I just don’t get it! What is the purpose of providing even more taxpayer-funded assistance to get totally unqualified people into homes that they have little chance of keeping, and who will probably walk away when things get tight? As another Pigg mentioned in an earlier thread, shelter is a necessity, but buying a house is a choice.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.[/quote]

I’ll second that. I’m not sure what our elected officials are thinking, but these programs aren’t going to do anything to stabilize the market, and I suspect that some of them will cause even further erosion.

BG, you may remember that, in a thread a few months back, I mentioned that my stepdaughter and her boyfriend are buying a house. They close next week. The house is part of this Fannie Mae Home Path program. They are taking advantage of several state programs that offer significant cash assistance with down payment and closing costs.

She is in her early 20s, he’s a few years older. No college for him, she has about a year’s worth of credits. Both of them have spotty employment records, and each is in a low-paying retail job that they’ve held for less than a year. Between them, they have about $8K in credit card debt, plus car payments. Yet not only are they buying a $250,000 house, but doing so bringing only $2,000 of their own money to settlement.

I can’t honestly blame them: they’d have to have more money than that up front if they were renting an apartment! And I’d be lying if I said that it makes me feel good to see her so excited and happy. But I’m not holding out much hope for their success in this venture. The house needs work, and will require a lot of regular maintenance, and I just don’t think either of them has that kind of patience. And with only two grand of their own money in it, there’s not much to keep them there when the going gets tough and the value has fallen by another 20%.

I just don’t get it! What is the purpose of providing even more taxpayer-funded assistance to get totally unqualified people into homes that they have little chance of keeping, and who will probably walk away when things get tight? As another Pigg mentioned in an earlier thread, shelter is a necessity, but buying a house is a choice.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Ok. My head is spinning. I guess the other question I have is. If what we really need is some sort of minimum universal health coverage then why the hell is everything still going through insurance companies???[/quote]

Why else? Money. Lots and lots of it. The insurance companies and their associated businesses clean up big time.

That’s one reason they didn’t lobby harder against kids staying on their parents’ health plans: young, traditionally healthy kids improve the risk pool. Parents pay premiums for them, but the chances of utilization of health services are low. Insurance companies know that kids without coverage have a list of roughly 300 things other than health insurance that they’d rather spend their limited funds on. It was different 7 or 8 years ago when employment of the young was high, and employers were paying most or all of a hefty “single” premium”. In today’s economy, it’s a reduced premium on a parent’s plan, or nothing at all.

I understand why a large part of the population is against a single-payer system (although I believe that it’s the “boogeyman syndrome”: they’re more scared of things that don’t actually exist, but have been created by the PR flacks of insurance companies and opportunistic politicians). However, except for our country’s oldest citizens (75 & up), most of us grew up in the mindset that healthcare is something that we shouldn’t pay for directly; that’s what health insurance is for.

If you look at the traditional model of insurance, it was meant to ensure that if an unexpected illness or injury occurred, your family wouldn’t go broke paying for it. Look at life insurance or auto insurance or homeowners: all meant to cover the unexpected significant expense, not the routine maintenance items.

However, by the end of the 70s, several things had happened to upset the apple cart:

— We changed our pattern of consumption of health services significantly. Up thru the mid-sixties, people tended to their own illnesses, and those of their families. It’s completely different now: people are not just seeing a primary care doc much more frequently, but also specialists, and other health providers (physical therapists, nutritionists, dialysis techs, etc)

— We became a much more litigious society. Malpractice, personal injury, and class action lawsuits became a extraordinarily lucrative source of income for plaintiff’s lawyers, and sometimes even the patients. Successful cases are built on evidence, and nothing says “I am irreparably harmed” like lots and lots of health care-related bills. And then there are those multi-million dollar judgements. But the most expensive fallout from this change? Hospitals and health care providers are being incredibly proactive in practicing defensive medicine, resulting in the often-unnecessary ordering of tests, treatments, and consultations with specialists.

— We’ve become a society that believes we shouldn’t feel bad. Ever. Thanks to Hollywood tearjerkers, Lifetime movies, television medical heroes, reality shows, and the ever-helpful internet, we are bombarded from all sides with stories of complex medical conditions, the symptomatology of which closes matches what we’ve been feeling. So it’s off to the doctor, where, armed with knowledge gleaned from helpful drug company commercials, demands for the miraculous and instantaneous pharmaceutical cure are made. Hell, we don’t even want to deal with a mild cold – we take zinc the minute there’s a tickle in our noses, and keep a full and varied supply of antibiotics at the ready.

— We’ve made incredible advances in basic science research in the past thirty-five years. The development of sophisticated scientific instrumentation and equipment has led to discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry resulting in a new understanding of organisms and disease.

So the upshot is that the science behind health care has advanced, and we, as a society, take it for granted. We want to feel good all the time, we want to live forever, and we have no interest in how that happens or what it costs. The increase in employer-provided health benefits, and in the number of health-related entitlement programs have only aggravated the problem.

Years ago, people got sick, and they either got better or they died. It’s truly a wonderful thing that medical science has improved our chances of survival, but it’s come at a tremendous cost. There was a tremendous outcry against “death panels” during the health care reform debate, however health insurers have been making arbitrary decisions in life-and-death situations for years, and I didn’t ever see angry, over-the-top protests from the citizenry. In all likelihood, this is because most people aren’t in these types of situations until they reach an advanced age, so what the insurance companies are doing to others is not affecting them.

We either have to grow a pair, and out-and-out state that health care will not be available to those who can’t pay for it (and stop salving our consciences by insisting that everyone has access to it. They don’t. Period.) Or we have to decide that heath care is a right for everyone. For those in favor of the first option, just keep in mind that it could well be you or your children or your parents in the position of not being able to afford health care one day, and you’ll have to live with your decision at that point – don’t be turning “activist” overnight because you’re suddenly the ones affected.

To those in the second option camp, get your heads out of the sand and start educating yourself on what the actual costs of healthcare are. Study up on what the utilization trends are, and examine how you may be adding to the problem. Look at every insurance explanation of benefits that’s mailed to you, and compare it to what you’ve paid in premiums. Before you sign on with that lawyer, think about whether it’s actually malpractice, or if you’re just pissed because your surgeon wasn’t able to satisfy your vision of perky post-implant breasts.

If we allow things to continue the way things stand now, within 15 years only the very wealthy will be able to afford health care. Employers will continue passing on more and more of the costs on to their employees. And those depending on entitlement programs will find that their options are seriously reduced, or that the programs have been discontinued altogether.

If that happens, I’m fine with it. Not because I’m one of the fortunate wealthy. It’s because we’ve been in that position before as a nation, and yes, lots of people died, and many more suffered needlessly, and it affected our economic growth and national security.

If we don’t go that route, I’m okay with that, too. But we have to be realistic, and let go of some of our unrealistic expectations. We have to engage in serious study of health care econometrics and bioethics, and stop terming it “death panels”. We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Ok. My head is spinning. I guess the other question I have is. If what we really need is some sort of minimum universal health coverage then why the hell is everything still going through insurance companies???[/quote]

Why else? Money. Lots and lots of it. The insurance companies and their associated businesses clean up big time.

That’s one reason they didn’t lobby harder against kids staying on their parents’ health plans: young, traditionally healthy kids improve the risk pool. Parents pay premiums for them, but the chances of utilization of health services are low. Insurance companies know that kids without coverage have a list of roughly 300 things other than health insurance that they’d rather spend their limited funds on. It was different 7 or 8 years ago when employment of the young was high, and employers were paying most or all of a hefty “single” premium”. In today’s economy, it’s a reduced premium on a parent’s plan, or nothing at all.

I understand why a large part of the population is against a single-payer system (although I believe that it’s the “boogeyman syndrome”: they’re more scared of things that don’t actually exist, but have been created by the PR flacks of insurance companies and opportunistic politicians). However, except for our country’s oldest citizens (75 & up), most of us grew up in the mindset that healthcare is something that we shouldn’t pay for directly; that’s what health insurance is for.

If you look at the traditional model of insurance, it was meant to ensure that if an unexpected illness or injury occurred, your family wouldn’t go broke paying for it. Look at life insurance or auto insurance or homeowners: all meant to cover the unexpected significant expense, not the routine maintenance items.

However, by the end of the 70s, several things had happened to upset the apple cart:

— We changed our pattern of consumption of health services significantly. Up thru the mid-sixties, people tended to their own illnesses, and those of their families. It’s completely different now: people are not just seeing a primary care doc much more frequently, but also specialists, and other health providers (physical therapists, nutritionists, dialysis techs, etc)

— We became a much more litigious society. Malpractice, personal injury, and class action lawsuits became a extraordinarily lucrative source of income for plaintiff’s lawyers, and sometimes even the patients. Successful cases are built on evidence, and nothing says “I am irreparably harmed” like lots and lots of health care-related bills. And then there are those multi-million dollar judgements. But the most expensive fallout from this change? Hospitals and health care providers are being incredibly proactive in practicing defensive medicine, resulting in the often-unnecessary ordering of tests, treatments, and consultations with specialists.

— We’ve become a society that believes we shouldn’t feel bad. Ever. Thanks to Hollywood tearjerkers, Lifetime movies, television medical heroes, reality shows, and the ever-helpful internet, we are bombarded from all sides with stories of complex medical conditions, the symptomatology of which closes matches what we’ve been feeling. So it’s off to the doctor, where, armed with knowledge gleaned from helpful drug company commercials, demands for the miraculous and instantaneous pharmaceutical cure are made. Hell, we don’t even want to deal with a mild cold – we take zinc the minute there’s a tickle in our noses, and keep a full and varied supply of antibiotics at the ready.

— We’ve made incredible advances in basic science research in the past thirty-five years. The development of sophisticated scientific instrumentation and equipment has led to discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry resulting in a new understanding of organisms and disease.

So the upshot is that the science behind health care has advanced, and we, as a society, take it for granted. We want to feel good all the time, we want to live forever, and we have no interest in how that happens or what it costs. The increase in employer-provided health benefits, and in the number of health-related entitlement programs have only aggravated the problem.

Years ago, people got sick, and they either got better or they died. It’s truly a wonderful thing that medical science has improved our chances of survival, but it’s come at a tremendous cost. There was a tremendous outcry against “death panels” during the health care reform debate, however health insurers have been making arbitrary decisions in life-and-death situations for years, and I didn’t ever see angry, over-the-top protests from the citizenry. In all likelihood, this is because most people aren’t in these types of situations until they reach an advanced age, so what the insurance companies are doing to others is not affecting them.

We either have to grow a pair, and out-and-out state that health care will not be available to those who can’t pay for it (and stop salving our consciences by insisting that everyone has access to it. They don’t. Period.) Or we have to decide that heath care is a right for everyone. For those in favor of the first option, just keep in mind that it could well be you or your children or your parents in the position of not being able to afford health care one day, and you’ll have to live with your decision at that point – don’t be turning “activist” overnight because you’re suddenly the ones affected.

To those in the second option camp, get your heads out of the sand and start educating yourself on what the actual costs of healthcare are. Study up on what the utilization trends are, and examine how you may be adding to the problem. Look at every insurance explanation of benefits that’s mailed to you, and compare it to what you’ve paid in premiums. Before you sign on with that lawyer, think about whether it’s actually malpractice, or if you’re just pissed because your surgeon wasn’t able to satisfy your vision of perky post-implant breasts.

If we allow things to continue the way things stand now, within 15 years only the very wealthy will be able to afford health care. Employers will continue passing on more and more of the costs on to their employees. And those depending on entitlement programs will find that their options are seriously reduced, or that the programs have been discontinued altogether.

If that happens, I’m fine with it. Not because I’m one of the fortunate wealthy. It’s because we’ve been in that position before as a nation, and yes, lots of people died, and many more suffered needlessly, and it affected our economic growth and national security.

If we don’t go that route, I’m okay with that, too. But we have to be realistic, and let go of some of our unrealistic expectations. We have to engage in serious study of health care econometrics and bioethics, and stop terming it “death panels”. We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Ok. My head is spinning. I guess the other question I have is. If what we really need is some sort of minimum universal health coverage then why the hell is everything still going through insurance companies???[/quote]

Why else? Money. Lots and lots of it. The insurance companies and their associated businesses clean up big time.

That’s one reason they didn’t lobby harder against kids staying on their parents’ health plans: young, traditionally healthy kids improve the risk pool. Parents pay premiums for them, but the chances of utilization of health services are low. Insurance companies know that kids without coverage have a list of roughly 300 things other than health insurance that they’d rather spend their limited funds on. It was different 7 or 8 years ago when employment of the young was high, and employers were paying most or all of a hefty “single” premium”. In today’s economy, it’s a reduced premium on a parent’s plan, or nothing at all.

I understand why a large part of the population is against a single-payer system (although I believe that it’s the “boogeyman syndrome”: they’re more scared of things that don’t actually exist, but have been created by the PR flacks of insurance companies and opportunistic politicians). However, except for our country’s oldest citizens (75 & up), most of us grew up in the mindset that healthcare is something that we shouldn’t pay for directly; that’s what health insurance is for.

If you look at the traditional model of insurance, it was meant to ensure that if an unexpected illness or injury occurred, your family wouldn’t go broke paying for it. Look at life insurance or auto insurance or homeowners: all meant to cover the unexpected significant expense, not the routine maintenance items.

However, by the end of the 70s, several things had happened to upset the apple cart:

— We changed our pattern of consumption of health services significantly. Up thru the mid-sixties, people tended to their own illnesses, and those of their families. It’s completely different now: people are not just seeing a primary care doc much more frequently, but also specialists, and other health providers (physical therapists, nutritionists, dialysis techs, etc)

— We became a much more litigious society. Malpractice, personal injury, and class action lawsuits became a extraordinarily lucrative source of income for plaintiff’s lawyers, and sometimes even the patients. Successful cases are built on evidence, and nothing says “I am irreparably harmed” like lots and lots of health care-related bills. And then there are those multi-million dollar judgements. But the most expensive fallout from this change? Hospitals and health care providers are being incredibly proactive in practicing defensive medicine, resulting in the often-unnecessary ordering of tests, treatments, and consultations with specialists.

— We’ve become a society that believes we shouldn’t feel bad. Ever. Thanks to Hollywood tearjerkers, Lifetime movies, television medical heroes, reality shows, and the ever-helpful internet, we are bombarded from all sides with stories of complex medical conditions, the symptomatology of which closes matches what we’ve been feeling. So it’s off to the doctor, where, armed with knowledge gleaned from helpful drug company commercials, demands for the miraculous and instantaneous pharmaceutical cure are made. Hell, we don’t even want to deal with a mild cold – we take zinc the minute there’s a tickle in our noses, and keep a full and varied supply of antibiotics at the ready.

— We’ve made incredible advances in basic science research in the past thirty-five years. The development of sophisticated scientific instrumentation and equipment has led to discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry resulting in a new understanding of organisms and disease.

So the upshot is that the science behind health care has advanced, and we, as a society, take it for granted. We want to feel good all the time, we want to live forever, and we have no interest in how that happens or what it costs. The increase in employer-provided health benefits, and in the number of health-related entitlement programs have only aggravated the problem.

Years ago, people got sick, and they either got better or they died. It’s truly a wonderful thing that medical science has improved our chances of survival, but it’s come at a tremendous cost. There was a tremendous outcry against “death panels” during the health care reform debate, however health insurers have been making arbitrary decisions in life-and-death situations for years, and I didn’t ever see angry, over-the-top protests from the citizenry. In all likelihood, this is because most people aren’t in these types of situations until they reach an advanced age, so what the insurance companies are doing to others is not affecting them.

We either have to grow a pair, and out-and-out state that health care will not be available to those who can’t pay for it (and stop salving our consciences by insisting that everyone has access to it. They don’t. Period.) Or we have to decide that heath care is a right for everyone. For those in favor of the first option, just keep in mind that it could well be you or your children or your parents in the position of not being able to afford health care one day, and you’ll have to live with your decision at that point – don’t be turning “activist” overnight because you’re suddenly the ones affected.

To those in the second option camp, get your heads out of the sand and start educating yourself on what the actual costs of healthcare are. Study up on what the utilization trends are, and examine how you may be adding to the problem. Look at every insurance explanation of benefits that’s mailed to you, and compare it to what you’ve paid in premiums. Before you sign on with that lawyer, think about whether it’s actually malpractice, or if you’re just pissed because your surgeon wasn’t able to satisfy your vision of perky post-implant breasts.

If we allow things to continue the way things stand now, within 15 years only the very wealthy will be able to afford health care. Employers will continue passing on more and more of the costs on to their employees. And those depending on entitlement programs will find that their options are seriously reduced, or that the programs have been discontinued altogether.

If that happens, I’m fine with it. Not because I’m one of the fortunate wealthy. It’s because we’ve been in that position before as a nation, and yes, lots of people died, and many more suffered needlessly, and it affected our economic growth and national security.

If we don’t go that route, I’m okay with that, too. But we have to be realistic, and let go of some of our unrealistic expectations. We have to engage in serious study of health care econometrics and bioethics, and stop terming it “death panels”. We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Ok. My head is spinning. I guess the other question I have is. If what we really need is some sort of minimum universal health coverage then why the hell is everything still going through insurance companies???[/quote]

Why else? Money. Lots and lots of it. The insurance companies and their associated businesses clean up big time.

That’s one reason they didn’t lobby harder against kids staying on their parents’ health plans: young, traditionally healthy kids improve the risk pool. Parents pay premiums for them, but the chances of utilization of health services are low. Insurance companies know that kids without coverage have a list of roughly 300 things other than health insurance that they’d rather spend their limited funds on. It was different 7 or 8 years ago when employment of the young was high, and employers were paying most or all of a hefty “single” premium”. In today’s economy, it’s a reduced premium on a parent’s plan, or nothing at all.

I understand why a large part of the population is against a single-payer system (although I believe that it’s the “boogeyman syndrome”: they’re more scared of things that don’t actually exist, but have been created by the PR flacks of insurance companies and opportunistic politicians). However, except for our country’s oldest citizens (75 & up), most of us grew up in the mindset that healthcare is something that we shouldn’t pay for directly; that’s what health insurance is for.

If you look at the traditional model of insurance, it was meant to ensure that if an unexpected illness or injury occurred, your family wouldn’t go broke paying for it. Look at life insurance or auto insurance or homeowners: all meant to cover the unexpected significant expense, not the routine maintenance items.

However, by the end of the 70s, several things had happened to upset the apple cart:

— We changed our pattern of consumption of health services significantly. Up thru the mid-sixties, people tended to their own illnesses, and those of their families. It’s completely different now: people are not just seeing a primary care doc much more frequently, but also specialists, and other health providers (physical therapists, nutritionists, dialysis techs, etc)

— We became a much more litigious society. Malpractice, personal injury, and class action lawsuits became a extraordinarily lucrative source of income for plaintiff’s lawyers, and sometimes even the patients. Successful cases are built on evidence, and nothing says “I am irreparably harmed” like lots and lots of health care-related bills. And then there are those multi-million dollar judgements. But the most expensive fallout from this change? Hospitals and health care providers are being incredibly proactive in practicing defensive medicine, resulting in the often-unnecessary ordering of tests, treatments, and consultations with specialists.

— We’ve become a society that believes we shouldn’t feel bad. Ever. Thanks to Hollywood tearjerkers, Lifetime movies, television medical heroes, reality shows, and the ever-helpful internet, we are bombarded from all sides with stories of complex medical conditions, the symptomatology of which closes matches what we’ve been feeling. So it’s off to the doctor, where, armed with knowledge gleaned from helpful drug company commercials, demands for the miraculous and instantaneous pharmaceutical cure are made. Hell, we don’t even want to deal with a mild cold – we take zinc the minute there’s a tickle in our noses, and keep a full and varied supply of antibiotics at the ready.

— We’ve made incredible advances in basic science research in the past thirty-five years. The development of sophisticated scientific instrumentation and equipment has led to discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry resulting in a new understanding of organisms and disease.

So the upshot is that the science behind health care has advanced, and we, as a society, take it for granted. We want to feel good all the time, we want to live forever, and we have no interest in how that happens or what it costs. The increase in employer-provided health benefits, and in the number of health-related entitlement programs have only aggravated the problem.

Years ago, people got sick, and they either got better or they died. It’s truly a wonderful thing that medical science has improved our chances of survival, but it’s come at a tremendous cost. There was a tremendous outcry against “death panels” during the health care reform debate, however health insurers have been making arbitrary decisions in life-and-death situations for years, and I didn’t ever see angry, over-the-top protests from the citizenry. In all likelihood, this is because most people aren’t in these types of situations until they reach an advanced age, so what the insurance companies are doing to others is not affecting them.

We either have to grow a pair, and out-and-out state that health care will not be available to those who can’t pay for it (and stop salving our consciences by insisting that everyone has access to it. They don’t. Period.) Or we have to decide that heath care is a right for everyone. For those in favor of the first option, just keep in mind that it could well be you or your children or your parents in the position of not being able to afford health care one day, and you’ll have to live with your decision at that point – don’t be turning “activist” overnight because you’re suddenly the ones affected.

To those in the second option camp, get your heads out of the sand and start educating yourself on what the actual costs of healthcare are. Study up on what the utilization trends are, and examine how you may be adding to the problem. Look at every insurance explanation of benefits that’s mailed to you, and compare it to what you’ve paid in premiums. Before you sign on with that lawyer, think about whether it’s actually malpractice, or if you’re just pissed because your surgeon wasn’t able to satisfy your vision of perky post-implant breasts.

If we allow things to continue the way things stand now, within 15 years only the very wealthy will be able to afford health care. Employers will continue passing on more and more of the costs on to their employees. And those depending on entitlement programs will find that their options are seriously reduced, or that the programs have been discontinued altogether.

If that happens, I’m fine with it. Not because I’m one of the fortunate wealthy. It’s because we’ve been in that position before as a nation, and yes, lots of people died, and many more suffered needlessly, and it affected our economic growth and national security.

If we don’t go that route, I’m okay with that, too. But we have to be realistic, and let go of some of our unrealistic expectations. We have to engage in serious study of health care econometrics and bioethics, and stop terming it “death panels”. We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Ok. My head is spinning. I guess the other question I have is. If what we really need is some sort of minimum universal health coverage then why the hell is everything still going through insurance companies???[/quote]

Why else? Money. Lots and lots of it. The insurance companies and their associated businesses clean up big time.

That’s one reason they didn’t lobby harder against kids staying on their parents’ health plans: young, traditionally healthy kids improve the risk pool. Parents pay premiums for them, but the chances of utilization of health services are low. Insurance companies know that kids without coverage have a list of roughly 300 things other than health insurance that they’d rather spend their limited funds on. It was different 7 or 8 years ago when employment of the young was high, and employers were paying most or all of a hefty “single” premium”. In today’s economy, it’s a reduced premium on a parent’s plan, or nothing at all.

I understand why a large part of the population is against a single-payer system (although I believe that it’s the “boogeyman syndrome”: they’re more scared of things that don’t actually exist, but have been created by the PR flacks of insurance companies and opportunistic politicians). However, except for our country’s oldest citizens (75 & up), most of us grew up in the mindset that healthcare is something that we shouldn’t pay for directly; that’s what health insurance is for.

If you look at the traditional model of insurance, it was meant to ensure that if an unexpected illness or injury occurred, your family wouldn’t go broke paying for it. Look at life insurance or auto insurance or homeowners: all meant to cover the unexpected significant expense, not the routine maintenance items.

However, by the end of the 70s, several things had happened to upset the apple cart:

— We changed our pattern of consumption of health services significantly. Up thru the mid-sixties, people tended to their own illnesses, and those of their families. It’s completely different now: people are not just seeing a primary care doc much more frequently, but also specialists, and other health providers (physical therapists, nutritionists, dialysis techs, etc)

— We became a much more litigious society. Malpractice, personal injury, and class action lawsuits became a extraordinarily lucrative source of income for plaintiff’s lawyers, and sometimes even the patients. Successful cases are built on evidence, and nothing says “I am irreparably harmed” like lots and lots of health care-related bills. And then there are those multi-million dollar judgements. But the most expensive fallout from this change? Hospitals and health care providers are being incredibly proactive in practicing defensive medicine, resulting in the often-unnecessary ordering of tests, treatments, and consultations with specialists.

— We’ve become a society that believes we shouldn’t feel bad. Ever. Thanks to Hollywood tearjerkers, Lifetime movies, television medical heroes, reality shows, and the ever-helpful internet, we are bombarded from all sides with stories of complex medical conditions, the symptomatology of which closes matches what we’ve been feeling. So it’s off to the doctor, where, armed with knowledge gleaned from helpful drug company commercials, demands for the miraculous and instantaneous pharmaceutical cure are made. Hell, we don’t even want to deal with a mild cold – we take zinc the minute there’s a tickle in our noses, and keep a full and varied supply of antibiotics at the ready.

— We’ve made incredible advances in basic science research in the past thirty-five years. The development of sophisticated scientific instrumentation and equipment has led to discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry resulting in a new understanding of organisms and disease.

So the upshot is that the science behind health care has advanced, and we, as a society, take it for granted. We want to feel good all the time, we want to live forever, and we have no interest in how that happens or what it costs. The increase in employer-provided health benefits, and in the number of health-related entitlement programs have only aggravated the problem.

Years ago, people got sick, and they either got better or they died. It’s truly a wonderful thing that medical science has improved our chances of survival, but it’s come at a tremendous cost. There was a tremendous outcry against “death panels” during the health care reform debate, however health insurers have been making arbitrary decisions in life-and-death situations for years, and I didn’t ever see angry, over-the-top protests from the citizenry. In all likelihood, this is because most people aren’t in these types of situations until they reach an advanced age, so what the insurance companies are doing to others is not affecting them.

We either have to grow a pair, and out-and-out state that health care will not be available to those who can’t pay for it (and stop salving our consciences by insisting that everyone has access to it. They don’t. Period.) Or we have to decide that heath care is a right for everyone. For those in favor of the first option, just keep in mind that it could well be you or your children or your parents in the position of not being able to afford health care one day, and you’ll have to live with your decision at that point – don’t be turning “activist” overnight because you’re suddenly the ones affected.

To those in the second option camp, get your heads out of the sand and start educating yourself on what the actual costs of healthcare are. Study up on what the utilization trends are, and examine how you may be adding to the problem. Look at every insurance explanation of benefits that’s mailed to you, and compare it to what you’ve paid in premiums. Before you sign on with that lawyer, think about whether it’s actually malpractice, or if you’re just pissed because your surgeon wasn’t able to satisfy your vision of perky post-implant breasts.

If we allow things to continue the way things stand now, within 15 years only the very wealthy will be able to afford health care. Employers will continue passing on more and more of the costs on to their employees. And those depending on entitlement programs will find that their options are seriously reduced, or that the programs have been discontinued altogether.

If that happens, I’m fine with it. Not because I’m one of the fortunate wealthy. It’s because we’ve been in that position before as a nation, and yes, lots of people died, and many more suffered needlessly, and it affected our economic growth and national security.

If we don’t go that route, I’m okay with that, too. But we have to be realistic, and let go of some of our unrealistic expectations. We have to engage in serious study of health care econometrics and bioethics, and stop terming it “death panels”. We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I was referring to the same people to go to providers for repeat visits (2-4x mo) for themselves and/or their children and are usually just sent to the store to buy some ibuprofen or some other over-the-counter remedy. Since they have a very low co-pay, they just keep making appointments, even for just a hangnail. I’ve seen this phenomenon all my life, mostly with overprotective parents and hypochondriac adults.[/quote]

There have been empirical research showing that a significant co-pay (like $50) is very helpful in getting patient to use medical service judiciously.

I support higher copays.

Something like a flexible spending account combined with insurance wouldn’t be bad. Give people who use very little medical services something back at the end of the year. Something substantial like $500 or more. That might work for medicare/medicaid too.[/quote]

bearish, I am so with you on this one, girl! The healthcare problem in this country is extraordinarily complex (I speak as one who has worked in this arena for most of my life), and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone concerned: insurance companies, hospitals/providers, government regulators, malpractice attorneys, pharmaceutical companies. However, nothing will improve until the public, across the board, is made aware of the high cost of healthcare. And nothing makes one more aware, as many of our less fortunate citizens know, than a direct hit to the wallet.

I remember listening to friends gripe about their high insurance premiums. This was the good old days, 25 years ago, when many of them were paying $600 or $800 per YEAR for family coverage. I’d ask them to pull out their hospital bill for the birth of their last child, and ask them who was going to be paying the $15,000 not covered by their premiums (don’t jump all over me – I am NOT defending the insurance companies. But you don’t want me to get started on them.)

There are people who spend hours clipping coupons each week so that they can get 20 cents off a $2.59 bottle of dish soap, who don’t think twice before going in to see their doctor. Very often, it’s something that medical intervention won’t help (common cold?), or something that they’ve already seen the doctor about but haven’t followed his/her advice, or sometimes it’s simply for the care and attention.

Until we get people to invest more of their own money in their healthcare, they won’t realize the true value of it, and how fortunate they are to have it. I agree with Brian: raise those co-pays on basic doctor visits, and reward patients who don’t abuse the system. I don’t mean to make this as simple as it sounds – it’s not simple at all. Medicine is far from an exact science. But there are high-maintenance patience who overutilize health services because they refuse to change their lifestyle choices and continue to engage in risky behavior. Think about it: if you continued to get into fender-benders month after month, year after year, would State Farm continue to be a good neighbor and pay the repair bills? Despite the sincerity of their commercials, I don’t think they would.

As for you, flu, once again you have chosen to start a thread with a topic that is both newsworthy and postworthy (two full pages of thought-provoking posts in less than 12 hours!). I commend you, sir. As for your original post, there are many of my betters on this board who have articulated their positions skillfully, and you have been gracious in acknowledging that you were ill-informed when you started the thread. It’s understandable that most people form opinions based on their own experiences; unfortunately, that’s been a major hurdle in health care reform. The problem isn’t that there are many people who simply don’t want to pay for insurance; it’s that they CAN’T get insurance, at any price. There’s also an assumption that all people receiving employer-sponsored health insurance are paying the same premiums and receiving the same coverage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the real problem is that health care has become very, very expensive. And this will become exponentially worse as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Health care delivery as it stands today, will be unsustainable in the future. If middle-class America wants to be able to access decent healthcare in the future, we need to adjust our expectations, and we need to take some personal responsibility.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I was referring to the same people to go to providers for repeat visits (2-4x mo) for themselves and/or their children and are usually just sent to the store to buy some ibuprofen or some other over-the-counter remedy. Since they have a very low co-pay, they just keep making appointments, even for just a hangnail. I’ve seen this phenomenon all my life, mostly with overprotective parents and hypochondriac adults.[/quote]

There have been empirical research showing that a significant co-pay (like $50) is very helpful in getting patient to use medical service judiciously.

I support higher copays.

Something like a flexible spending account combined with insurance wouldn’t be bad. Give people who use very little medical services something back at the end of the year. Something substantial like $500 or more. That might work for medicare/medicaid too.[/quote]

bearish, I am so with you on this one, girl! The healthcare problem in this country is extraordinarily complex (I speak as one who has worked in this arena for most of my life), and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone concerned: insurance companies, hospitals/providers, government regulators, malpractice attorneys, pharmaceutical companies. However, nothing will improve until the public, across the board, is made aware of the high cost of healthcare. And nothing makes one more aware, as many of our less fortunate citizens know, than a direct hit to the wallet.

I remember listening to friends gripe about their high insurance premiums. This was the good old days, 25 years ago, when many of them were paying $600 or $800 per YEAR for family coverage. I’d ask them to pull out their hospital bill for the birth of their last child, and ask them who was going to be paying the $15,000 not covered by their premiums (don’t jump all over me – I am NOT defending the insurance companies. But you don’t want me to get started on them.)

There are people who spend hours clipping coupons each week so that they can get 20 cents off a $2.59 bottle of dish soap, who don’t think twice before going in to see their doctor. Very often, it’s something that medical intervention won’t help (common cold?), or something that they’ve already seen the doctor about but haven’t followed his/her advice, or sometimes it’s simply for the care and attention.

Until we get people to invest more of their own money in their healthcare, they won’t realize the true value of it, and how fortunate they are to have it. I agree with Brian: raise those co-pays on basic doctor visits, and reward patients who don’t abuse the system. I don’t mean to make this as simple as it sounds – it’s not simple at all. Medicine is far from an exact science. But there are high-maintenance patience who overutilize health services because they refuse to change their lifestyle choices and continue to engage in risky behavior. Think about it: if you continued to get into fender-benders month after month, year after year, would State Farm continue to be a good neighbor and pay the repair bills? Despite the sincerity of their commercials, I don’t think they would.

As for you, flu, once again you have chosen to start a thread with a topic that is both newsworthy and postworthy (two full pages of thought-provoking posts in less than 12 hours!). I commend you, sir. As for your original post, there are many of my betters on this board who have articulated their positions skillfully, and you have been gracious in acknowledging that you were ill-informed when you started the thread. It’s understandable that most people form opinions based on their own experiences; unfortunately, that’s been a major hurdle in health care reform. The problem isn’t that there are many people who simply don’t want to pay for insurance; it’s that they CAN’T get insurance, at any price. There’s also an assumption that all people receiving employer-sponsored health insurance are paying the same premiums and receiving the same coverage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the real problem is that health care has become very, very expensive. And this will become exponentially worse as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Health care delivery as it stands today, will be unsustainable in the future. If middle-class America wants to be able to access decent healthcare in the future, we need to adjust our expectations, and we need to take some personal responsibility.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I was referring to the same people to go to providers for repeat visits (2-4x mo) for themselves and/or their children and are usually just sent to the store to buy some ibuprofen or some other over-the-counter remedy. Since they have a very low co-pay, they just keep making appointments, even for just a hangnail. I’ve seen this phenomenon all my life, mostly with overprotective parents and hypochondriac adults.[/quote]

There have been empirical research showing that a significant co-pay (like $50) is very helpful in getting patient to use medical service judiciously.

I support higher copays.

Something like a flexible spending account combined with insurance wouldn’t be bad. Give people who use very little medical services something back at the end of the year. Something substantial like $500 or more. That might work for medicare/medicaid too.[/quote]

bearish, I am so with you on this one, girl! The healthcare problem in this country is extraordinarily complex (I speak as one who has worked in this arena for most of my life), and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone concerned: insurance companies, hospitals/providers, government regulators, malpractice attorneys, pharmaceutical companies. However, nothing will improve until the public, across the board, is made aware of the high cost of healthcare. And nothing makes one more aware, as many of our less fortunate citizens know, than a direct hit to the wallet.

I remember listening to friends gripe about their high insurance premiums. This was the good old days, 25 years ago, when many of them were paying $600 or $800 per YEAR for family coverage. I’d ask them to pull out their hospital bill for the birth of their last child, and ask them who was going to be paying the $15,000 not covered by their premiums (don’t jump all over me – I am NOT defending the insurance companies. But you don’t want me to get started on them.)

There are people who spend hours clipping coupons each week so that they can get 20 cents off a $2.59 bottle of dish soap, who don’t think twice before going in to see their doctor. Very often, it’s something that medical intervention won’t help (common cold?), or something that they’ve already seen the doctor about but haven’t followed his/her advice, or sometimes it’s simply for the care and attention.

Until we get people to invest more of their own money in their healthcare, they won’t realize the true value of it, and how fortunate they are to have it. I agree with Brian: raise those co-pays on basic doctor visits, and reward patients who don’t abuse the system. I don’t mean to make this as simple as it sounds – it’s not simple at all. Medicine is far from an exact science. But there are high-maintenance patience who overutilize health services because they refuse to change their lifestyle choices and continue to engage in risky behavior. Think about it: if you continued to get into fender-benders month after month, year after year, would State Farm continue to be a good neighbor and pay the repair bills? Despite the sincerity of their commercials, I don’t think they would.

As for you, flu, once again you have chosen to start a thread with a topic that is both newsworthy and postworthy (two full pages of thought-provoking posts in less than 12 hours!). I commend you, sir. As for your original post, there are many of my betters on this board who have articulated their positions skillfully, and you have been gracious in acknowledging that you were ill-informed when you started the thread. It’s understandable that most people form opinions based on their own experiences; unfortunately, that’s been a major hurdle in health care reform. The problem isn’t that there are many people who simply don’t want to pay for insurance; it’s that they CAN’T get insurance, at any price. There’s also an assumption that all people receiving employer-sponsored health insurance are paying the same premiums and receiving the same coverage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the real problem is that health care has become very, very expensive. And this will become exponentially worse as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Health care delivery as it stands today, will be unsustainable in the future. If middle-class America wants to be able to access decent healthcare in the future, we need to adjust our expectations, and we need to take some personal responsibility.

[Author]

Posts