Darwinism relative to healthcare:

Darwinism relative to healthcare:


Modern medical technology is very expensive for all segments of our population. Proponents of the Darwinist theory applied to medicine suggest that rather than government schemes such as Medicaid and Medicare, those that cannot afford modern medical treatment and devices should survive as best as they can.


Darwinism limits persons with insufficient financial resources and and/or an over-abundance of financial responsibilities to the remainder of their lives with lesser comforts and/or lesser durations. Our societies, families must also to some extent share and endure those individuals' crippled or lesser limbs, poorer sight or blindness, poorer hearing or deafness, or lesser physical coordination, or lesser cognizant, or shorter life spans.


It's not unusual to encounter Darwinism within discussions of medical insurance.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Darwinism relative to healthcare:


Modern medical technology is very expensive for all segments of our population. Proponents of the Darwinist theory applied to medicine suggest that rather than government schemes such as Medicaid and Medicare, those that cannot afford modern medical treatment and devices should survive as best as they can.


Darwinism limits persons with insufficient financial resources and and/or an over-abundance of financial responsibilities to the remainder of their lives with lesser comforts and/or lesser durations. Our societies, families must also to some extent share and endure those individuals' crippled or lesser limbs, poorer sight or blindness, poorer hearing or deafness, or lesser physical coordination, or lesser cognizant, or shorter life spans.


It's not unusual to encounter Darwinism within discussions of medical insurance.
Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Actually the problem with such an approach is that when others in a community get ill.. they can infect others.. despite the fact they have access to healthcare.

When it comes to disease and illness.. and individuals survival, depends on the health of others in the community.

Dangerous subject.

Political spin is the real reason that Darwinism in the "species advanced by natural selection" sense ends up adversarial to healthcare but only in the who can pay for it sense. Even if we just talk about who can afford healthcare in the Republican sense there is still avoidance of responsibility of life's choices, it is just narrowed to who can pay for healthcare. And that is why the argument from Republicans entirely falls apart, Darwinism becomes a false narrative to rally around as all we are talking about is who can and cannot get help for the consequences of their actions.

Modern medicine as a whole is expensive for a host of reasons, but different models of healthcare have different levels impact to those costs. Healthcare insurance, as a participant in the model, can have wide ranging implications depending on how much influence they have on those models. And in itself, healthcare insurance companies as a decision maker in healthcare for a patient further cloud who can obtain and what can be obtained to deal with the consequences of life's choices.

All things considered this subject can go all kinds of sideways, probably intentionally, just because of political ideology on who should and should not benefit from healthcare.

I'm Supposn said:

Darwinism relative to healthcare:


Modern medical technology is very expensive for all segments of our population. Proponents of the Darwinist theory applied to medicine suggest that rather than government schemes such as Medicaid and Medicare, those that cannot afford modern medical treatment and devices should survive as best as they can.


Darwinism limits persons with insufficient financial resources and and/or an over-abundance of financial responsibilities to the remainder of their lives with lesser comforts and/or lesser durations. Our societies, families must also to some extent share and endure those individuals' crippled or lesser limbs, poorer sight or blindness, poorer hearing or deafness, or lesser physical coordination, or lesser cognizant, or shorter life spans.


It's not unusual to encounter Darwinism within discussions of medical insurance.
Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Problem is that we are paying 2 times as much for healthcare as everyone else and aren't good at controlling costs. So if anything Darwinism is going to take out our inefficient society. Darwinism doesn't really apply to humans anymore since we have such high survival rates. Even if people die early from lack of healthcare, chances are that they will be able to reproduce before they die and pass on their genes. Or even if they go bankrupt trying to afford healthcare, they will still pass on their genes. In addition, we are on the cusp of genetic engineering which will make Darwinism completely unnecessary.

I'm Supposn said:

Darwinism relative to healthcare:


Modern medical technology is very expensive for all segments of our population. Proponents of the Darwinist theory applied to medicine suggest that rather than government schemes such as Medicaid and Medicare, those that cannot afford modern medical treatment and devices should survive as best as they can.


Darwinism limits persons with insufficient financial resources and and/or an over-abundance of financial responsibilities to the remainder of their lives with lesser comforts and/or lesser durations. Our societies, families must also to some extent share and endure those individuals' crippled or lesser limbs, poorer sight or blindness, poorer hearing or deafness, or lesser physical coordination, or lesser cognizant, or shorter life spans.


It's not unusual to encounter Darwinism within discussions of medical insurance.
Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Ah Social Darwinism, we truly are living in a new gilded age aren't we?

I'm Supposn said:

Proponents of the Darwinist theory applied to medicine suggest that rather than government schemes such as Medicaid and Medicare, those that cannot afford modern medical treatment and devices should survive as best as they can.

Click to expand...

You seem to be referring to some kind of new age version of Eugenics. Please don't name your disgusting idea after such a brilliant man.

There's a movie about this exact topic staring Denzel Washington called John Q. If you'd like to know more about how your idiotic idea will play out you might want to check it out. It wasn't a particularly good film, but neither is your idea.

jaeger19 said:

Actually the problem with such an approach is that when others in a community get ill.. they can infect others.. despite the fact they have access to healthcare.

When it comes to disease and illness.. and individuals survival, depends on the health of others in the community.

Click to expand...

It's not just about the community, in medical ethics all individual lives have equal value and should receive adequate care for their survival. Medicine is literally defying Darwinism, which we moved past long ago when we started evolving primarily along cultural lines. Social Darwinism wants us to regress back to an ethical state that is really itself just another modern ideology to be used by the rich, to hoard more of their own wealth. Ironic that an ideology based on evolution would devolve society in such hideous ways.

There is a reason this is primarily an Anglo-American ideology and that it emerged in a time of great inequality.

I'm Supposn said:

Darwinism relative to healthcare:


Modern medical technology is very expensive for all segments of our population. Proponents of the Darwinist theory applied to medicine suggest that rather than government schemes such as Medicaid and Medicare, those that cannot afford modern medical treatment and devices should survive as best as they can.


Darwinism limits persons with insufficient financial resources and and/or an over-abundance of financial responsibilities to the remainder of their lives with lesser comforts and/or lesser durations. Our societies, families must also to some extent share and endure those individuals' crippled or lesser limbs, poorer sight or blindness, poorer hearing or deafness, or lesser physical coordination, or lesser cognizant, or shorter life spans.


It's not unusual to encounter Darwinism within discussions of medical insurance.
Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Perhaps the answer is low cost clinics that specialize in preventative medicine, rather than frequenting the ED when things go sour.
That doesn't prevent people from drinking too much, from smoking, from taking drugs, from eating too much fat and sugar, or sitting in front of the box all day. Not judging, we all have a vice. Heck, some don't even have access to healthy food, or just can't afford it. Some cheap burger meat and a few buns to feed the family is cheaper than buying and preparing fresh veggies.
We can do better. We just have to sit down and talk and get things done, instead of drawing partisan lines and spitting on each other for the sake of DA PARDY.
What we probably won't be able to solve is the fact that the rich will always have more. Our politicians, Hollywood, the uber rich, the ones in power, they just are. No denying it.

Lovebug said:

Perhaps the answer is low cost clinics that specialize in preventative medicine, rather than frequenting the ED when things go sour.
That doesn't prevent people from drinking too much, from smoking, from taking drugs, from eating too much fat and sugar, or sitting in front of the box all day. Not judging, we all have a vice. Heck, some don't even have access to healthy food, or just can't afford it. Some cheap burger meat and a few buns to feed the family is cheaper than buying and preparing fresh veggies.
We can do better. We just have to sit down and talk and get things done, instead of drawing partisan lines and spitting on each other for the sake of DA PARDY.
What we probably won't be able to solve is the fact that the rich will always have more. Our politicians, Hollywood, the uber rich, the ones in power, they just are. No denying it.

Click to expand...

The problem is..no one wants to pay for preventative medicine... no one wants to pay you to prevent a problem.. and its hard to track the value.

Lots of lip service to preventative medicine... but the actual practice and payment for it? Not likely.

There is the often overlooked aspect of healthcare which can have a profound impact on preventable deaths....Preventive medicine; the leading causes of preventable death can be addressed through primary prevention and education.

Unfortunately, the citizens of the US have been largely programed to want the "magic pill solution" rather than take responsibility for thier lifestyle choices as it relates to healthy living.

Why do I need exercise to lose weight and lower my lipids? Just give me a pill.

Why should I stop smoking when I can get an 02 bottle to pull arounds behind me.

Who needs to walk when Medicare will give me a scooter?

Taking personal responsibility for our health seems to be an anathema in our nation.

jaeger19 said:

The problem is..no one wants to pay for preventative medicine... no one wants to pay you to prevent a problem.. and its hard to track the value.

Lots of lip service to preventative medicine... but the actual practice and payment for it? Not likely.

Click to expand...

This isn't just about preventative medicine. If your son is born with five major heart defects, preventative medicine and a good diet won't redesign his defective ticker. Good God, people.

jaeger19 said:

The problem is..no one wants to pay for preventative medicine... no one wants to pay you to prevent a problem.. and its hard to track the value.

Lots of lip service to preventative medicine... but the actual practice and payment for it? Not likely.

Click to expand...

Jaeger, I posted this within another internet group's forum. Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition.

I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.
The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical provider’s grievous failure. An insurance organization directly or indirectly causing or worsening the condition of who was then their client, that eventually caused or increased the amount of the catastrophic medical expense would be the insurer’s failure.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Jaeger, I posted this within another internet group's forum. Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

I agree. I think insurance should provide 5 visits a year without copays.

I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents

Click to expand...

Bad idea.

The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical provider’s grievous failure.

Click to expand...

bad idea.. particularly on the part of the providers. We already bear a higher cost in this country due to defensive medicine.

jaeger19 said:

I agree. I think insurance should provide 5 visits a year without copays.

[federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents] Bad idea.

bad idea.. particularly on the part of the providers. We already bear a higher cost in this country due to defensive medicine.

Click to expand...

Jaeger19, "preventive medicine" is the very best "defensive medicine".
Why are you opposed to federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents?
Respectfully Supposn
////////////////////////

Transcript of a post within another internet group.

Originally Posted by Supposn:
Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition.
I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition. ...

Originally Posted by Into the Night:
...WRONG. That money from the federal government is NOT free. YOU pay for it, whether through federal taxation, through the costs of federal regulations, and through the devalued dollar from the federal government printing too many of them. ...

Response by Supposn: Into the Night, you're correct, we all currently pay for catastrophic medical expenditures that occur in the USA.

To the extent those catastrophic costs are covered by insurance, they're passed on to those purchasing the insurance which increases prices to consumers, and/or employers, and/or unions, and/or non-profit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
To the extent those price increases don't recover the additional cost, the deficiency remains with the insurers, that are profit or nonprofit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
Who or whatever entities eventually pay those catastrophic costs are taxpayers or government agencies funded by taxpayers. Catastrophic medical costs consequentially reduce governments tax revenues or are direct costs to governments.

It would be to insurers benefit to insist their clients avail themselves at no additional costs to themselves, for reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to their conditions. If their clients do not comply, they may be charged additional increased fees because they're failing to prevent medical and financial risks. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.

The additional fees would be passed on to the government and thus absolve the insurers of any responsibility due in such cases to the patients refusing preventive diagnostic and preventive services.
Respectfully, Supposn

Jaeger19, "preventive medicine" is the very best "defensive medicine".
Why are you opposed to federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents?
Respectfully Supposn

Click to expand...

Well.. if you are saying that providers can be sued for medical expenses.. above and beyond a civil malpractice lawsuit.. well then.. providers are going to do more defensive medicine.


Defensive medicine is when you order unnecessary tests.. because the patients thinks they need them.. and so on and you want to avoid that accusation that you did not do all you could for them.
Defensive medicine is conservatively estimated to cost the US healthcare about 46billion a year.

jaeger19 said:

Well.. if you are saying that providers can be sued for medical expenses.. above and beyond a civil malpractice lawsuit.. well then.. providers are going to do more defensive medicine.
Defensive medicine is when you order unnecessary tests because patients may think they need them.. and so on and you want to avoid that accusation that you did not do all you could for them.
Defensive medicine is conservatively estimated to cost the US healthcare about 46billion a year.

Click to expand...

Jaeger19, unnecessary tests and procedures are excessive or exaggerated medical practices.
Reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic screening services or procedures applicable to the patients' conditions are prudent defensive medical practices.

Reread post #14. Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Jaeger19, unnecessary tests and procedures are excessive or exaggerated medical practices.
Reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic screening services or procedures applicable to the patients' conditions are prudent defensive medical practices.

Reread post #14. Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Umm no.. defensive medicine is when you order unnecessary tests and procedures in order to avoid litigation or deal with patients etc. .. that would accuse you of not doing all you could for them.

That's what defensive medicine is.

You can make up all the definitions you want.. but I just stated what defensive medicine is.

jaeger19 said:

Umm no.. defensive medicine is when you order unnecessary tests and procedures in order to avoid litigation or deal with patients etc. .. that would accuse you of not doing all you could for them.

That's what defensive medicine is.
You can make up all the definitions you want.. but I just stated what defensive medicine is.

Click to expand...

Jaeger19, because prudent, reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic screening services or procedures applicable to the patients' conditions are not an absolute necessity, you consider them as entirely unnecessary? Please reconsider what you're contending.

For an insurer to be found financially liable, the insurance administrative policy would:
(1) Directly or indirectly CAUSED healthcare providers not to have positively offered the patient what's the prudently recommended conventional preventive or diagnostic screening cost-free services or procedures applicable to the specific patients' condition.
(2) AND lack of those specific services or procedures were contributing factors to the consequential specific actual catastrophic medical costs behalf of the patient; (e.g. if a patient was not offered a free chest X-ray, that could have consequentially contributed to the catastrophic costs of late stages cancer treatments, but would not have consequentially contributed to the catastrophic costs of a heart transplant).
(3) OR the insurer did not notify the federal government of the healthcare provider's report of the patient's refusing the no-cost recommended preventative services or procedures. Healthcare providers not reporting such refusals to the insurance administrators would be held legally liable for government's costs; not to offer the recommended free services or procedures would be cases of medical malpractice.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Jaeger19, because prudent, reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic screening services or procedures applicable to the patients' conditions are not an absolute necessity, you consider them as entirely unnecessary? Please reconsider what you're contending.

Click to expand...

Supposn.. that is the most absurd statement I have seen you make. HOW you can make that statement about my position is an absolute mystery. Defensive medicine is not providing "prudent and reasonably conventional preventative services"...

Its providing unnecessary services merely to avoid litigation and angry patients.

(1) Directly or indirectly CAUSED healthcare providers not to have positively offered the patient what's the prudently recommended conventional preventive or diagnostic screening cost-free services or procedures applicable to the specific patients' condition.

Click to expand...

So they have to provide all screening and preventative services as cost free? Notice you put cost free services.

Secondly.. providers already have a legal obligation to offer prudent services to a patient regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. Its then up to the person do decide whether they want to pay or not.

Sir.. you are not arguing anything that remotely resembles healthcare.

jaeger19 said:

... Its providing unnecessary services merely to avoid litigation and angry patients.

So they have to provide all screening and preventative services as cost-free? Notice you put cost-free services.

Secondly.. providers already have a legal obligation to offer prudent services to a patient regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. Its then up to the person do decide whether they want to pay or not.

Sir.. you are not arguing anything that remotely resembles healthcare.

Click to expand...

Jaeger19, many medical insurance policies currently waive certain medical preventive or screening procedures from being subject to the individual insurance contract's annual deductible clause which absolves the insurer from covering a finite threshold of the patient's annual medical expenses on the patients behalf.

[I suspect that it may be due to the Affordable Care Act, (ACA). This is a desirable policy from both the nation's economic a social well being.
The logic is that of a “stitch in time”. There are many medical procedures and tests and procedures recommended for patients with specified physical conditions or symptoms that are considered to be cost-effective; (they eventually in aggregate reduce those patients lifetime medical costs and sufferings or increase life expectancy.]

I believe that's good public policy and if it requires government subsidy of medical insurance plans to further expand the policy and eliminate any co-payments due to those costs, that would be federal revenue well spent. The government should subsidize all (government or non-government) qualifying insurance contracts that have those provisions.

Respectfully, Supposn