Healthcare.

No this isn't another Obamacare rant, but what it is, is a thought on health care structure as a whole.
Unfortunatly let me get this out of the way and say no we cannot help everyone. I am going to look at this from a strictly median position and only say what I believe is best for the business of health care and everyone who uses it. My morals may seem to come into play a bit so please forgive me but I'm only human.

Let's look at health care like this:

>Person A eats fast food every day,smokes and drinks heavily, and is just overall not healthy. His yearly medical bills are around $500,000.
>Person B is an athlete, the picture perfect version of health. Their yearly medical bills are only $5,000 a year due to check ups and minor occurrences.
>Person C is just a normal every day person, not perfectly healthy but not unhealthy by any means. Their medical bills are only $15,000 a year.

Obviously companies are going to want B and C the most because they would make alot more money and can be covered easily. However, they don't want people like A but unfortunately these people are insured, so this drives whatever price savings the other two could have had out the window because they have to meet equilibrium. (Now when I'm talking about people who are in this range its people who cost this much do to lifestyle choices, however its not entirely impossible to say we can throw cancer patients and other higher costing patients into this group.)

Now what I'm getting at is saying instead of allowing them to cause this, why not limit every client to $80,000 or so? If they pass this mark then they are dropped or just not paid for after that mark for that year. This would make more sense because not only would it give those people an initiative to not go pass that mark but it would also allow those who have much lower yearly costs to pay far less than they ever could. If they do then it's just their responsibility to pay the bills, if they can't well then thats unfortunate but it shouldn't be anyone elses problem.

So what I'm asking is, should we remove the problematic minority to help the coping majority?

 

Person C gets cancer, aids, or some other horrible disease and is dropped from his healthcare plan.

You've missed the point of healthcare entirely.

 

Explain your reasoning to how I missed it?

Also yes that a possible event, however the company has the right to drop them if they're coverage will become too costly. Another possiblity would be Person C can be allowed the limit coverage he's always had because with that limit they will be helped to that point.

 

So basically, if you get an illness that will cost you a lot of money, you can expect to have to pay for everything on your own up front because you have no insurance or healthcare?

Usually yes. Welfare and government aid is a good example. Cleaning up bad neighborhoods is another good example. But for this instance, I'd say no. Evening things out would suffice in this situation.

 

From a country which has a pretty good social health care programme, i find it hard to comprehend how you can justify people spending thousands of dollars a year, if not more, just to be well..

This is a moral issue, but it also has economic benefit behind it. If people can maintain a higher level of health, the retirement age can be increased, and people will also be off work less. This can increase the overall supply of your economy, and allow it to grow.

 

Up to the limit yes, unfortunately making exceptions for people with specific needs will only open controversy for those who don't need the increase because it was their fault to begin with.

Which country if you don't mind my asking?
Yes the idea of social healthcare can be appealing the only problem is collectively the raise in taxes does equal out to the original payments. Also the reasoning behind this healthcare structure is to allow people to get what they pay for in a sense. Unfortunately the economic aspect of a country is a large part of it so even in medical if you can afford it I don't see why you shouldn't get the top doctors or not held in the waiting line behind people who don't have insurance.

However this is just my opinion on the topic.

 

Josh is from the United Kingdom.

From a country where healthcare is free, i can sort of understand where you are coming from Trinity, but a life shouldn't be based around how much it will cost to save it. Yes in the UK we do get a lot of alcohol, junk food, idiotic and drug abuse cases in the hospitals which is all paid for by the government what has to be taken into consideration is the impact on the familys.

I personaly know a friend who lost their uncle because a hospital in South Africa where he lived would not let the person be admitted because 1: he never had any health insurance and 2: he couldnt afford the treatment. The reason the person went to hospital was not because he had a heart attack, or a stroke caused by smoking, excessive eating e.t.c. but his wife was mugged and in the process of trying to stop the mugger he got stabbed in the chest.

I know I'm speaking from an outside observation but if insurance company's started to put limits on health care, then whats to say that after a while they will not pay for cases like mentioned above because it is over the limit they set when all the person was trying to do is protect their wife.

 

Just the thing i was thinking about, if they would limit it to 80.000$ for every person, then cancer, etc people who need like 100.000+$ for theyr medical bills, then they will just be ignored, that wouldn't be normal to me..

 

In Australia everyone is allowed to have Private Health Cover.. There are only conditions like your must be 17-85 or do u smoke.. Alot of places don't require a medical check and they are supported by the government

 

Unfortunately it has to be based on how much it will cost to save a life because this is other people using their money to pay for your bills. I think people tend to forget sometimes that healthcare isn't some limitless pool, to pay for your checkup or your surgery it's either coming out of the pocket of your policy holder or (most likely) coming from the payments of other insured individuals. So if you think of it like a business man, that $500,000 a year patient is doing much more damage then they think, which in turn causes the insurer to spread that cost through everyone elses premiums because he has to compensate the loss.

Well I can't speak much for South Africa since I've never been, however in the U.S. if you enter a hospital they are required to help you up until you are stable if you don't have insurance. So obviously no check-ups,painkillers, or hell they don't even need to take the knife out if they left it in your chest. Just have to make sure you'll live.

Unfortunately they would be turned down (although I do support keeping them until they are stable).

Yes they would be ignored because they went past the alloted limit. You have to realize this a company with finite resources, so if they can't pay the full amount of someones cancer treatment then they raise the premiums of others who don't cost as much. I know it's not their fault for having cancer but unfortunately we have to be more pragmatic instead of protective.

 

this is a perfect reason why money should not factor into our lives so much.

you say that a large portion of people should not be able to get healthy because some other would have to pay too much.

I live in canada and we have great health care. I do not pay too much in taxes.

my best friend, who smoked drank and also kept very fit by going to the gym, was diagnosed with cancer a year ago.

the last year he has been in and out of chemo. if he was in the states he would not have been able to pay for his medical bills. thankfully, since we have free health care, my friend has just been declared momentarily cancer free after a bone marrow transplant.

cancer strikes without warning costs much more than 80,000 $


i would say i am against yourp plan simply because while health my be an ok predictor or future health, it does not predict it sufficiently

ex.
person A doesn't end up getting cancer despite smoking every day and his bills are suprisingly low
person B gets cancer out of the blue and needs more than 80,000 in medical care
person C slips and falls in some ice and breaks his hip and needs more than 80,000$ for medical bills

see what i am saying
there are many more expensive medical variables that can not be predicted by current health.


also, one person getting cancer would not raise premiums an incredible amount.


it disturbs me, having read that you feel denying people health care in order to save some other people money is pragmatic.

 

But it does and it will. Saying it shouldn't won't change the fact that it does.

Large portion? I believe people that reach over $100,000 in medical expenses are a minority.

Yes it does, however a regular agency thats holds the policies of many citizens does not need it's prices increased because of a stroke of bad luck for one person (obviously I mean the small group this relates to). Possibly conditions can be met for unexpected events such as cancer however if we're just going with the setup now, they are getting help up to an extent. There are other supplemental businesses out there that will cover the cost of cancer tests,chemo,oxygen baths,etc what have you. However these are not necessary they are as said "Supplementary treatments". Although in some types it is completely necessary so I would assume there would be some precaution if the chemo was absolutely needed for their physical stability. So I cannot fully answer what would occur in this situation.

Then he would be part of the people who has a low yearly bill and even so he is still a minority through his actions and having low bills.

As I said, it would need to be seen whether or not the treatment is absolutely necessary.

The average cost for a fractured hip is around 27,000 (http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00121)
Along with physical therapy which is around 250 per 60 minute session (this is the pricing where I live and for what I went to physical therapy so thats the only statistic I have on this price) and around 3-4 times a week (4 for calculations sake) for 8 weeks on average, so $8,000.

The cost exceeding $80,000 would be improbable. Even if it did it would most likely be from necessary work for making someone stable. (Remember that when I'm saying they have to pay out of pocket I'm speaking of not for absolute necessary things that are required for you to be stable, but more of like...a luxery? If you want to call it that,that is.

Not talking about one person, I'm using the one person as a representation of the group he's in.

How wouldn't it be pragmatic? It would benefit the majority, and would convince the WILLING minority to join that majority.

 

i think your idea is good for small insurance companies, but for government agencies that affect every citizen, i think it is a bad idea, as the minority that does need very expensive medical care does not effect the premiums much.

and in a small company insuring a few employees, your system may be better.



living in canada, i do not know much about the actual costs of american medical care.
i just know that there are many situations that are compeltely unexpected that amount to much more than 80,000 dollars. ex. many accidents cause multiple problems that add up to create a large sum of money - many people live on disability and need other care for extended periods of itme that add up to more than 80,000 dollars.

what are we supposed to do with seniors, let them age until they reach the 80,000 dollar limit?

 

First of all i want to say that this is my own opinion - well the healthcare in USA is a system for the people that have decent amount of money, but if ur poor and unemployed and have no insurence and suddenly get a lethal sickness/condition u will not be able to literally pay for ur own life. Me, living in sweden we all have already payed for the healthcare through our taxes. and i think that way is much better...

 

My friend had a heartattack at the age of 10 days, his heart had a leak, and they took the arteries from his leg, put them into his heart, and tried to make shit work in their again. The doctors told his parents, he had only a 40% chance of survivng.

His options if he lived in the states:

A) Parents get a loan to try and save their childs life, which by the time they got one, he would have been long dead, and they would spend the rest of their life in debt.
B)Hope insurance covers it, but its very high risk so you better hope you have good insurance.
C)Die, because you weren't born into a wealthy enough family.

 

i dont like healthcare... if you want healthcare you should be able to decide but instead it makes you pay for it and pay for other peoples health care... so we are paying for poor peoples health care even though they are drug addicts who spent all their money on drugs and booze

 

yea, because of their bad decisions and socioeconomic disadvantages, they should die. I dont want to help someone who is down on their luck. It is not my problem. This doesn't make me an immoral or cheap person.

/sarcasm