HR_Poke Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 7 hours ago, CPslograd said: I agree with you guys. But I still don't know what the answer is. My dads quality of like is awful, and if he didn't have a pacemaker or meds he would be dead. But the fact is we do have those things, and those things by themselves aren't astronomically expensive. So what do we do when he falls, or has to have a hernia surgery? Do we cut him off? Of course not, that's inhumane. On the other hand, the totality of his medical expenses post Parkinson's are very high. And since he is on Medicare you all are paying for lots of it. I guess my point is that it's not always as clean cut as not spending a ton of resources on the last 6 months. But that doesn't change the fact that you guys are right. My dad is miserable, and my moms quality of life has been ruined by this. It is important that we don't forsake our humanity. BR has talked about people that drop off their invalids at the hospice for society to deal with. And that's not right. On the other hand we now have to deal with things that a generation ago wouldn't have been an issue, because they'd be gone. medical advancements are a blessing and a curse. Probably need to enact some sort of logans run type scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokebball Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 9 hours ago, CPslograd said: I agree with you guys. But I still don't know what the answer is. My dads quality of life is awful, and if he didn't have a pacemaker or meds he would be dead. But the fact is we do have those things, and those things by themselves aren't astronomically expensive. So what do we do when he falls, or has to have a hernia surgery? Do we cut him off? Of course not, that's inhumane. On the other hand, the totality of his medical expenses post Parkinson's are very high. And since he is on Medicare you all are paying for lots of it. I guess my point is that it's not always as clean cut as not spending a ton of resources on the last 6 months. But that doesn't change the fact that you guys are right. My dad is miserable, and my moms quality of life has been ruined by this. It is important that we don't forsake our humanity. BR has talked about people that drop off their invalids at the hospice for society to deal with. And that's not right. On the other hand we now have to deal with things that a generation ago wouldn't have been an issue, because they'd be gone. We all have answers on this subject until it gets personal. 4 Quote The World Needs More Cowboys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roswellcoug Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 So are 24 MM people going to LOSE health insurance per the CBO? Or are 24 MM fewer people going to be insured? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NMpackalum Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 38 minutes ago, roswellcoug said: So are 24 MM people going to LOSE health insurance per the CBO? Or will 24 MM fewer people going to be insured? That's the 10 year estimate on people who are currently insured but may not choose insurance if there is no mandate. Again much ado about nothing until the amendment and reconciliation process is completed at which point the bill could be completely different. This is the part where you get to see what's in the bill before you pass it. Also, the rising cost estimate for 50+ year olds is based on qualified ACA plans which certainly would be more expensive than what most would choose since they really don't need contraception, maternity, pediatric psych coverage etc... Has the CBO scored anything healthcare related accurately ever? I have no opinion on it until the final bill is reconciled. The AMA and hospital associations opinions on it really doesn't represent prevailing physician opinions since only 15 percent of practicing docs are members, mainly because of these kinds of political lobbying efforts to keep the organization relevant. All we are seeing is political grandstanding and patients will be the victims. The media has obviously picked a side ignoring the fact that Obamacare is essentially insolvent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 If insurance companies are forced to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Why would any of us buy insurance until we want to file a claim? It would seem logical if this is true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPslograd Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 11 hours ago, NMpackalum said: That's the 10 year estimate on people who are currently insured but may not choose insurance if there is no mandate. Again much ado about nothing until the amendment and reconciliation process is completed at which point the bill could be completely different. This is the part where you get to see what's in the bill before you pass it. Also, the rising cost estimate for 50+ year olds is based on qualified ACA plans which certainly would be more expensive than what most would choose since they really don't need contraception, maternity, pediatric psych coverage etc... Has the CBO scored anything healthcare related accurately ever? I have no opinion on it until the final bill is reconciled. The AMA and hospital associations opinions on it really doesn't represent prevailing physician opinions since only 15 percent of practicing docs are members, mainly because of these kinds of political lobbying efforts to keep the organization relevant. All we are seeing is political grandstanding and patients will be the victims. The media has obviously picked a side ignoring the fact that Obamacare is essentially insolvent. In regards to your last sentence the conservative media seem to have taken sides as well. And as long as Rush and the rest give The junior senator from Kentucky and the freedom caucus cover, Obamacare ain't going away. They'll just keep grandstanding and dance on Ryan's grave, and find a way to excuse Trumps role in it. Idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwherb Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 7 hours ago, bluerules009 said: If insurance companies are forced to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Why would any of us buy insurance until we want to file a claim? It would seem logical if this is true. This is my concern, but I guess they wrote in a 30% surcharge if you have coverage lapses. Quote The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 6 hours ago, Jwherb said: This is my concern, but I guess they wrote in a 30% surcharge if you have coverage lapses. That still seems like a good bet for anyone with any wealth at all to self insure until you have a big claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwherb Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, bluerules009 said: That still seems like a good bet for anyone with any wealth at all to self insure until you have a big claim. I don't disagree. Didn't ACA get around this by limiting the enrollment periods? I remember I thought about doing it then, too... but came away convinced it wasn't possible. Quote The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 31 minutes ago, Jwherb said: I don't disagree. Didn't ACA get around this by limiting the enrollment periods? I remember I thought about doing it then, too... but came away convinced it wasn't possible. Yeah they had 2 month windows to buy insurance which is still pretty easy to deal with especially if you are comparing it to health care delivery times in Canada or Europe. Worst case you have to wait 10 months to get insurance which if you compare that to the average 9 month wait time for an MRI in canada makes it pretty comparable. If you reduce your exposure by paying $1500 for a physical at the start of each enrollment period and you invest the money you save by not buying insurance.. It would seem to me your odds of suffering harm would be really low and the likelihood is by the age of 65 you would have a huge investment fund as a result. If you did suffer a catastrophic car accident or some other medical emergency your investment fund would likely easley bridge you to the insurance enrollment period. There is not a lot that costs more then $100K in a year. (when my mother had cancer treatments the most that was spent was about $240K in a year, It cost us and the insurance company about $700K over 5 years). The one big exception to this would be a pregnancy. I would have catastrophic insurance in place because babies can really run up a bill. I think for any reasonably smart person even with a penalty and enrollment limitations it would make huge sense to self insure if you are healthy. If you are just going to piss the money savings down your leg then you would be better off buying the insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...