Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

On top of that, 20 million people losing their coverage with a repeal is not something you have to dig deep in. It's the one message that Democrats did get through on in this election.

No, 20 million will not lose their coverage. As Hanni points out, those "new" recipients of Medicaid (12 million) will keep it. Second, one would expect many of the 95 million folks who "are no longer looking for a job" to get jobs, and hence health insurance (again assuming "real jobs" and not burger-flipping jobs). As crash points out, the percentage of that 95 million who would actually take a job is a matter of opinion.

So, if there are 8 million "losing" Obamacare, you have to compare that to how many of the 95 million get a job with benefits. Certainly, there are some of the Obamacare 8 million who are now being forced to buy "coverage" and who will be counted as part of the 8 million. And none of these calculations take into consideration what actually "having" health insurance means. Does it mean a $ 6,000 deductible for a poor person? Is that really "coverage"? I don't know.

And, because words matter, watch for the usage of obtaining health insurance versus obtaining health care. AA, how does your hospital handle an indigent person who shows up in the ER with a broken arm and who has no possibility of paying?

But I agree with all of you who posit that many Rs never expected to be in this situation regarding health insurance. The dog caught the car.

[Wild Hoss]

Sweden has had assisted euthanasia for decades, so for them I suspect it makes a difference in those numbers.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[froot loops]

The employer health care plan has gotten more expensive as the years have gone on. That has been a trend since long before the ACA was implemented. Saying return a thriving middle class to have those employees pick a health care plan is great boilerplate stuff, it's also a pipe dream. That's a big cost to the employer and one of the first things to get ditched to cut costs. The employer based system is an anachronism based on a historical oddity. It is a definite handicap when competing for jobs for multinational companies in comparison to other countries.

[entropy]

hoss..

and that data proves another thought I have... BabyBoomers continue to f'up this country.

heh to the old farts on this board... =)

[Ghengis Jon]

...I don't want to upset anybody's ethical applecart, but I have had several close relatives wither away and perish in ways that make this option real to me.

Those opposed to PAS have never had (very fortunate for them) a loved one die an agonizing death or become an unrecoverable vegetable. It is a decision the gov't or the legislature have no business being involved in. It is a decision solely for individual to make, imo.

It's compassionate and loving for an animal but murder/suicide for a human? Particularly for one's own self?

[froot loops]

No, 20 million will not lose their coverage. As Hanni points out, those "new" recipients of Medicaid (12 million) will keep it. Second, one would expect many of the 95 million folks who "are no longer looking for a job" to get jobs, and hence health insurance (again assuming "real jobs" and not burger-flipping jobs). As crash points out, the percentage of that 95 million who would actually take a job is a matter of opinion.

So, if there are 8 million "losing" Obamacare, you have to compare that to how many of the 95 million get a job with benefits. Certainly, there are some of the Obamacare 8 million who are now being forced to buy "coverage" and who will be counted as part of the 8 million. And none of these calculations take into consideration what actually "having" health insurance means. Does it mean a $ 6,000 deductible for a poor person? Is that really "coverage"? I don't know.

And, because words matter, watch for the usage of obtaining health insurance versus obtaining health care. AA, how does your hospital handle an indigent person who shows up in the ER with a broken arm and who has no possibility of paying?

But I agree with all of you who posit that many Rs never expected to be in this situation regarding health insurance. The dog caught the car.

The medicaid funding is not safe under the Ryan plan. It's unclear if the 12 million that got care under the expansion will keep it or only a portion of it will be able to keep it.

I don't know how his hospital did it but where my wife worked, they called it self pay. The hospital ate the cost and the consumer had huge bills they were unable to pay. So you can get your life saved but you had a financially devastating hole.

The broken arm analogy is incomplete. A lot of people that found themselves in ICU were because of chronic conditions that they couldn't go to the doctor and their condition got worse.

[Wild Hoss]

hoss..

and that data proves another thought I have... BabyBoomers continue to f'up this country.

heh to the old farts on this board... =)

I'm just going to keep this handy.

[froot loops]

One thing to consider about end of life issues is people assume that the person is only going to live a couple more months. I have known two people who were at deaths door more than a couple times, they had some expensive hospital stays and practically rose from the dead. One of them lived 14 more years with a few more hospital stays in the meantime.

[Hannibal]

Trump has never put forward a plan either...

I'm still waiting for the Democrat financial plan to provide public education, food, and health care for the tens of millions of third world immigrants (and their offspring) that we are supposed to welcome into the country with open arms and open borders (with record numbers of people already on food stamps and an economy that is consistently growing at less than 2%). Where is this burning desire for specifics when it comes to the ambitious pipe dreams of Community Organizers?

[iam416]

Heh.

[froot loops]

I'm still waiting for the Democrat financial plan to provide public education, food, and health care for the tens of millions of third world immigrants (and their offspring) that we are supposed to welcome into the country with open arms and open borders (with record numbers of people already on food stamps and an economy that is consistently growing at less than 2%). Where is this burning desire for specifics when it comes to the ambitious pipe dreams of Community Organizers?

The repeal is happening right now and he said there is a terrific replacement will takes it place at the same time. To pass a bill, you do need to provide specifics to congress to pass a law. It sounds like you want to deflect, but aren't you supposed to be the better party? You are in power, put up or shut up.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well, maybe not death panels...but what are some opinions on legalizing professionally-assisted suicide? This has got to become a bigger point of debate at some point IMO, stemming purely from the cost and resources that following through on a terminal diagnosis entails if nothing else. I’m sure the life insurance industry would lobby against it being accepted on a national level tooth and nail.

I don't want to upset anybody's ethical applecart, but I have had several close relatives wither away and perish in ways that make this option real to me.

"Death Panels" ..... I think everyone here understands that term was advanced by conservative opponents of any kind of federally owned and operated national health care program. The reason for that is that every national program, by it's nature, requires cost containment measures. Rationing care is a way to do that. You've all heard the arguments for and against that so, I'll not repeat them. Basically, if you are for a national health care scheme, you are for "Death Panels' or whatever one cares to call rationed care.

Assisted Suicide (also known by several other terms).......No universally accepted norms. Allowing or prohibiting it differs by country. The AMA has a policy statement that opposes it. However, the policy of being against it becasue it is inconsistent with the physicians role as a healer is being reexamined. 54% of practicing MDs in the US are in favor of it. The Supreme Court has ruled against it but grants the states the right to decide. 5 states allow it.

To me, this isn't complicated once you get past the ethical debate and focus on the practical aspects. (1) There are many ways to humanely care for and treat the terminally ill or disabled in the pathway to death outside of administering lethal drugs for the sole purpose of bringing on death. (2) Food and fluid intake restriction, in most cases, will kill you in 10-14d. It is unpleasant. The unpleasantness can be mitigated with legally prescribed Morphine through Hospice (Many MDs are hesitant to do this because they fear repercussions by state authorities so, there is that). Hospice medical directors are generally OK with this. If you or someone close to you is going to be admitted to Hospice care by an MD ordering such care, talk with the Hospice agency you are being directed to. You have a choice and usually there is more than one Hospice service you can choose from in your area.

If you do not already have (1) a Medical Power of Attorney, (2) Advance Directives that both meet the requirements of your state of residence and a plan in place that an immediate care taker is aware of, get them done.

The last statement, although frequently not understood and acted upon, can be problematic. In the event of a medical event that could potentially end your life or result in a level of disability that you do not wish to endure (e.g., a paralyzing and/or disabling hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke), an immediate care taker has to know your wishes. This is because in the absence of a legally acceptable Advanced Directive in the hands of an immediate caretaker empowered to act on your behalf and in accordance with your Advanced Directive, an attending MD in an ER at which you may present will take all measures to save your life and decrease the likelihood of impairment. There are all kinds of ways and lots of examples of how this can get screwed up.

Unfortunately, this kind of event produces an array of outcomes that are not at all predictable. My advice however, remains the same. Here are some common sense things to think about and do: the younger you are, the more physically fit you are as you age, the more likely you are to recover from a life threatening event. Talk about this with a person who is likely to become an immediate care taker. That person should know where you stand and then discuss outcomes with the attending MD who first treats you. No guarantee but whoever this is should be able to render a medical opinion regarding the probability of certain outcomes. Ask.

Understanding the impact of the timing and location that the event occurs is important. For example, being at home in the presence of an immediate care taker when an event occurs is one thing. Being at a remote location with an immediate care taker unavailable will complicate matters. I know of people who have a tattoo on their chest that says, "Get My Advanced Directives" or words to that effect. A bracelet can serve the same purpose. The point is that unless you are able, in some manner, to make your wishes known, you are not in control of what happens in the first few minutes and hours following a life threatening event. This also applies to EMS personnel (first responders) who, depending on state law, may administer immediate treatment to you. Think this through and have a discussion with your immediate care taker and physician who is knowledgeable in these matters (hard to find).

One final comment: Senile Dementia and Alzheimer's are in a category of their own in this discussion. It amounts to mental incompetency inside a healthy body. IMO, it is one of the worst end of life circumstances. Frankly, and in my experience, people afflicted with these conditions aren't suffering and when they are, there is usually some other disease present that will soon necessitate Hospice Care. If you have Medical Power of Attorney and the power to carry out your loved one's Advanced Directives, food and fluid restriction will bring about death with the unpleasantness of this for the patient mitigated with Morphine administered by Hospice. IMO, this is why you need to seriously consider a Long Term Care (LTC) Insurance policy. The sweet spot, as identified by most who study this, for buying one is between 60-64 depending on your circumstances. It's cheaper the earlier you purchase the policy and there are a ton of them out there to choose from. Very confusing actually. Do some research. Find a reputable agent with a reputable LTC Insurance provider.

Hope this helps. Up until about a year ago, I provided care for persons in an assisted living facility. When I first started doing this, I was petrified about bringing the discussion up with family and the resident. As time went on I got more comfortable about this and knowledgeable about dying and how to do it gracefully in the state of Georgia.

[Hannibal]

Basically, if you are for a national health care scheme, you are for "Death Panels' or whatever one cares to call rationed care.

This. Combine this wisdom with the graph that Entropy showed about where the majority of our health care discrepancies compared to the rest of the world come from and the conclusion is obvious.

National health care eventually = pulling the plug on granny

[Hannibal]

[youtube]yl163lNc4U0[/youtube]

[froot loops]

This. Combine this wisdom with the graph that Entropy showed about where the majority of our health care discrepancies compared to the rest of the world come from and the conclusion is obvious.

National health care eventually = pulling the plug on granny

Yeah, the argument would be more impressive if it was proved to be true. Conservatives used this as a scare tactic during the debate on the ACA. Everyone with a microphone decried the existence of death panels. They didn't materialize.

It would also be more impressive if you heard about the numerous horror stories from places with universal health care coverage. Are all these countries pulling the plug on granny?