Sounds like our country needs to adopt a Darwinism philosophy....:idunno:

Sounds like our country needs to adopt a Darwinism philosophy....:idunno:

 

Don't agree. My grandfather served in World War II, worked hard his entire life and raised four children who are all productive members of society, including my father who is himself a small business owner. Now that his medical expenses are through the roof as he closes in on 90 years old, we're just going to cut him off?

Don't agree. My grandfather served in World War II, worked hard his entire life and raised four children who are all productive members of society, including my father who is himself a small business owner. Now that his medical expenses are through the roof as he closes in on 90 years old, we're just going to cut him off?

 

Nope. Family can help. People live life, they get old, they die. It's the way the world works. It's a harsh reality, but it's a reality never the less.

Technology is advancing so fast that it will create the conflict. Can we ask taxpayers to provide the elderly with a never ending supply of artificial hearts, lungs, joints, etc regardless of the cost? Under the current system, we say yes. Can that continue as the technology keeps getting better. All I am saying and I think all that Krugman is saying, is that the time is coming when we will need to confront the issue. Let me give you an example. If your ten year old child needed very expensive life saving treatment, most of us would sell everything we have and beg borrow or steal whatever we needed to get them the treatment. Would you do the same for a 90 year old parent? 100 years old? Would you do the same to try to save yourself? Would you leave your spouse penniless? Right now Medicare pays for whatever treatment the elderly, I consultation with their doctors and families, need. When the technology was limited, the cost to society as a whole was also limited. The day is coming when the technology will be such that we will have to decide how much healthcare people will receive at public expense.

 

Perhaps that is why healthcare should have been kept private, or if the government wants to get involved, set price ceilings on some of these products and services. Wait a minute, my economics degree tells me a price ceiling might lower innovation in the medical field and lower the amount of qualified individuals willing to train in this field. Maybe we should just go back to the market, where healcare providers would start to charge less for their services if their wasn't an inflated, protected, insurance industry that filters money their direction. What do you know, they would have to make healthcare affordable to stay in business.

^ The first step ought to include cost-control measures that have been sadly lacking in Medicare legislation. Democrats don't like it but the more time goes by, I think some level of privatization that creates competition for services might be part of that answer. I don't want to live in a country where we have to make decisions about who gets good health care and who doesn't so we absolutely HAVE TO find ways to start controlling costs.

 

What cost-control measures would improve the affordability of healthcare other than increasing competition through privatization?

 

Spending control, premium caps, and cost caps are dangerous roads to travel down.

Here is Srah Palin's original quote concerning "death panels":

 

Government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Here is Srah Palin's original quote concerning "death panels":

 

 

It's always a great day when my guy Shooter reappears. The thread just got a lot smarter.

No, Palin didn't predict that it would be necessary, she said it was here and she ran against it. She continues to repeat it. It is not in the ACA. Never was.

 

Yes, she did predict that it would be neccessary, right in the quote below.

 

Government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

 

Looks like Krugman is coming around to the conclusion she reached years ago. Visionary perhaps?

Lots of good points here. Nice debate about health care and how to maybe reform it.

 

 

 

Too bad we didn't get the chance to have this informed debate before the ObamaCare was shoved through congress, sight-unseen.

Lots of good points here. Nice debate about health care and how to maybe reform it.

 

 

 

Too bad we didn't get the chance to have this informed debate before the ObamaCare was shoved through congress, sight-unseen.

 

Well, they had to pass it so they could know what was in it. Paraphrasing Speaker Pelosi's point.

I believe this is an example of the 'death panel' philosophy.

 

Government panel recommends fewer and later mammograms, no self-exams | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

 

Today is a government panel and maybe a 'guideline'. In the future, under a single payer (controller) system - it will just be the law.

 

"Breast cancer before your 50 and not detected? So sad, too bad. It cost too much for all those tests."

 

Like the hated corporations the government will at some point be driven by the bottom line. And with the over committed promises they will have to cut services and proactive tests.

 

Obamacare now provides no-charge contraceptives by law but mammogram tests are still subject to a deductible. Improvement for women?

Perhaps that is why healthcare should have been kept private, or if the government wants to get involved, set price ceilings on some of these products and services. Wait a minute, my economics degree tells me a price ceiling might lower innovation in the medical field and lower the amount of qualified individuals willing to train in this field. Maybe we should just go back to the market, where healcare providers would start to charge less for their services if their wasn't an inflated, protected, insurance industry that filters money their direction. What do you know, they would have to make healthcare affordable to stay in business.

 

Does your economics degree consider factors such as the AMA depressing the number of available doctors, or the fact that innovation might be depressed because of Big Pharma spending all its money promoting stiffeners and other vanity drugs rather than solving real problems?

I believe this is an example of the 'death panel' philosophy.

 

Government panel recommends fewer and later mammograms, no self-exams | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

 

Today is a government panel and maybe a 'guideline'. In the future, under a single payer (controller) system - it will just be the law.

 

"Breast cancer before your 50 and not detected? So sad, too bad. It cost too much for all those tests."

 

Like the hated corporations the government will at some point be driven by the bottom line. And with the over committed promises they will have to cut services and proactive tests.

 

Obamacare now provides no-charge contraceptives by law but mammogram tests are still subject to a deductible. Improvement for women?

 

Pretty sure none of this would be an issue if the insurance racket weren't in the way.

Don't agree. My grandfather served in World War II, worked hard his entire life and raised four children who are all productive members of society, including my father who is himself a small business owner. Now that his medical expenses are through the roof as he closes in on 90 years old, we're just going to cut him off?

 

I believe a contributing factor will be the person's, in this case your father's, quality of life. Some people are quite vibrant, alert and happy at 90 and over. There are others who's quality of life is not so good. My siblings and I face that choice with a mother with alzheimers. We recently had to discuss whether, under certain circumstances whether to prolong her life with a feeding tube. We may not call them death panels, but these type of decisions are happening as we speak, but currently not by a 3rd party, but by family....at least hopefully anyway.

What people don't seem to be able to get through their heads is that when Palin described all of this "great evil" she was speaking about the ACA. The stuff she was describing was not in the ACA. The problem that Krugman describes is very real regardless of whether health care is paid for through government, insurance or individual resources.