Health Care

memebag · #1 06-29-2012, 03:59 PM

My wife's mom is old and sick. She has great insurance and a decent pension. As her health declines, though, it isn't enough to provide the care she needs. Her pension is too much for her to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for assisted living or a nursing home.

The result is that she lives at home, alone. She can't really take care of herself, so things get bad. When things get bad, they get really bad. That means a trip to the emergency room, weeks or months in 24/7 care, therapy, etc., but then they throw her out and she's on her own again, and the cycle starts again.

The end result is a lot of suffering for her, and a huge cost for us. By "us", I mean everyone paying for health insurance and Medicare. If she qualified for more regular, maintenance-level care, stuff like someone to check her oxygen equipment and help her bathe, the cost would be far less than all of the hospitalization and intensive recovery care.

Why do we have such an inefficient system? The answer is simple. If we reduced the cost of her health care, the health care and health insurance industries would make less money. Her suffering, and all of our suffering, creates jobs, funds lobbies, influences legislation, and guarantees that all of this suffering will continue.

memebag · #2 06-29-2012, 04:04 PM

Oh yeah, and the solution is to remove the profit motive from health care. No one should be paid extra to make my wife's mom go to the emergency room.

**HecticArt** · #3 06-29-2012, 04:08 PM

The suffering continues, but the insurance company ceo's are sitting on large boats sipping champagne. So they will continue to lobby to keep the status quo.

I'm sorry to hear that your MiL isn't well.

memebag · #4 06-29-2012, 04:23 PM

[quote=HecticArt;297765]The suffering continues, but the insurance company ceo's are sitting on large boats sipping champagne. So they will continue to lobby to keep the status quo.

I'm sorry to hear that your MiL isn't well.[/quote]

Yeah, it really sucks. Hope I die before I get old. Really.

It isn't all boats and champagne. The health insurance industry employs a lot of regular folks. They would suffer if we fixed healthcare, but it's the kind of suffering where you look for a new job, not the kind where you lay on the floor in pain for hours unable to move, barely breathing while your brain dies.

Manco · #5 06-29-2012, 11:57 PM

There are plenty of examples of markets with true competition where both profit and great service at a good price can all co-exist. Just because something has no profit does not mean that it is good service or inexpensive. I feel for your mother-in-law's situation, it is tragic that anyone needs to suffer, but there is no such thing as a perfect system where 100% of everyone gets exactly what they need when they need it.

We can do better, unfortunately Obamacare is not the real solution. I doubt Pelosi, Reed or Obama has even read the full bill even to this day. We need reform but not this reform.

memebag · #6 06-30-2012, 01:19 AM

[quote=Manco;297815]There are plenty of examples of markets with true competition where both profit and great service at a good price can all co-exist.[/quote]

Sure, but none of them profit from suffering. There is no market here. There are no choices my mother in law could make that would reduce her suffering. All she can do is get worse to get treatment, then get better, then stop being treated, then get worse to get treatment. Competition can't make that better. What little competition there is only serves to maximize profit for providers at our expense.

My mother in law doesn't need her insurance or Medicare to spend more money on her. They gladly pay her staggering hospital bills every time she goes. What they won't do is pay less to keep her healthy, which would keep her out of the emergency room, ICU, critical care, etc.

How can anyone argue against spending less money and reducing suffering? No ideology can justify that.

Manco · #7 06-30-2012, 04:07 AM

[quote=memebag;297821]My mother in law doesn't need her insurance or Medicare to spend more money on her. They gladly pay her staggering hospital bills every time she goes. What they won't do is pay less to keep her healthy, which would keep her out of the emergency room, ICU, critical care, etc.

How can anyone argue against spending less money and reducing suffering? No ideology can justify that.[/quote]

I agree, there are definitely ways to improve things and you make a good example of possibilities for potential savings and better care.

**HecticArt** · #8 06-30-2012, 09:36 AM

[quote=Manco;297815]There are plenty of examples of markets with true competition where both profit and great service at a good price can all co-exist. Just because something has no profit does not mean that it is good service or inexpensive. I feel for your mother-in-law's situation, it is tragic that anyone needs to suffer, but there is no such thing as a perfect system where 100% of everyone gets exactly what they need when they need it.

We can do better, unfortunately Obamacare is not the real solution. I doubt Pelosi, Reed or Obama has even read the full bill even to this day. We need reform but not this reform.[/quote]

Romneycare is not the problem that the right wing media makes it out to be. It's a small tax on those without insurance. If you have insurance, you don't pay the tax. The fact that preexisting conditions are covered, ceiling limits are removed, and that people can seek preventative treatment will reduce the burden on the existing system. We (you, me, the entire country) are already paying for the uninsured through inflated health care costs. The inefficiency of the way that it's being handled today is why people like Meme-in-Law suffer.

Romneycare may very well need some adjustment, but it's time to stop trying to repeal it, and time to start refining it. It was created by a republican, and the conservative Supreme Court Justice was the one that validated it's constitutionality.

Biaviian · #9 06-30-2012, 11:36 AM

[quote=HecticArt;297833]It's a small tax on those without insurance. [/quote]

It's not a tax, it is a fine. Even Obama admits that it is not a tax.

Manco · #10 06-30-2012, 11:41 AM

[quote=Biaviian;297843]It's not a tax, it is a fine. Even Obama admits that it is not a tax.[/quote]

It is a fine for not buying a product which is why the SCOTUS decision is quite curious that they would call it a tax. This is why this mess needs to be repealed and start over.