• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do Americans pay more for health care?

Dittohead not! said:
I wonder why they don't? Insurance companies could save a lot of money by simply contacting the patient and asking, "Did you really have a (whatever procedure)? If the answer is no, then they could deny the claim and then make the provider's life miserable by nitpicking every claim. Medicare could go one better by imposing a stiff fine. Fraud would become less profitable, or so it seems to me.
Click to expand...

Or we could just cut out the middleman, the insurance company, and accomplish the same thing. Why do I need to hire an insurance company to pay for a $100 doctors bill? I don't hire an insurance company to write a check to the gas station when I purchase a $100 tank of gas.

And why do we pay them so much to write checks for us? When I canceled my "good insurance" the cost had just gone up to $800 a month. To do what? Write two or three $100 checks a year? Litterally, they charge as much as $6,000 for $300 worth of doctors bills. My major medical plan is $6,000 a year cheaper than my "good" insurance was. My deductable is less than $6,000. So why did I ever think that my "good" insurance was good? It was a ripoff.

On top of that, the $100 doctor visit checks are now just $60 because I started going to a doctor that doesn't accept insurance (and is thus cheaper).
 
imagep said:
Or we could just cut out the middleman, the insurance company, and accomplish the same thing. Why do I need to hire an insurance company to pay for a $100 doctors bill? I don't hire an insurance company to write a check to the gas station when I purchase a $100 tank of gas.

And why do we pay them so much to write checks for us? When I canceled my "good insurance" the cost had just gone up to $800 a month. To do what? Write two or three $100 checks a year? Litterally, they charge as much as $6,000 for $300 worth of doctors bills. My major medical plan is $6,000 a year cheaper than my "good" insurance was. My deductable is less than $6,000. So why did I ever think that my "good" insurance was good? It was a ripoff.

On top of that, the $100 doctor visit checks are now just $60 because I started going to a doctor that doesn't accept insurance (and is thus cheaper).
Click to expand...


Over the past year and few months I have spent 175k in health care dollars. This year I met my deductible 2.5k in two days.
 
imagep said:
Or we could just cut out the middleman, the insurance company, and accomplish the same thing. Why do I need to hire an insurance company to pay for a $100 doctors bill? I don't hire an insurance company to write a check to the gas station when I purchase a $100 tank of gas.

And why do we pay them so much to write checks for us? When I canceled my "good insurance" the cost had just gone up to $800 a month. To do what? Write two or three $100 checks a year? Litterally, they charge as much as $6,000 for $300 worth of doctors bills. My major medical plan is $6,000 a year cheaper than my "good" insurance was. My deductable is less than $6,000. So why did I ever think that my "good" insurance was good? It was a ripoff.

On top of that, the $100 doctor visit checks are now just $60 because I started going to a doctor that doesn't accept insurance (and is thus cheaper).
Click to expand...

If the truth be known most of us are hypocrites, group insurance policies are socialistic and yet so many are against universal health care, no person should go without health care, doctors who refuse to treat any person in need should have their licenses to practice revoked for violating the HIPPOCRATIC OATH

excerpts from the HIPPOCRATIC OATH

I will make every effort to ensure that the rights of all patients are respected, including vulnerable groups who lack means of making their needs known, be it through immaturity, mental incapacity, imprisonment or detention or other circumstance.

My professional judgment will be exercised as independently as possible and not be influenced by political pressures nor by factors such as the social standing of the patient. I will not put personal profit or advancement above my duty to patients.
 
You get what you pay for and we have the best health-care in the world.
 
The Baron said:
You get what you pay for and we have the best health-care in the world.
Click to expand...

You can repeat a lie as often as you want to and in the end it is still a lie,Even with the cost of USA health care we are far behind other industrialized nations

Ranking 37th

excerpts from the article


Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

Comparisons also reveal that the United States is falling farther behind each year (see graph). In 1974, mortality among boys and men 15 to 60 years of age was nearly the same in Australia and the United States and was one third lower in Sweden. Every year since 1974, the rate of death decreased more in Australia than it did in the United States, and in 2006, Australia’s rate dipped lower than Sweden’s and was 40% lower than the U.S. rate. There are no published studies investigating the combination of policies and programs that might account for the marked progress in Australia. But the comparison makes clear that U.S. performance not only is poor at any given moment but also is improving much more slowly than that of other countries over time. These observations and the reflections they should trigger are made possible only by careful comparative quantification of various facets of health care systems.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Over the past year and few months I have spent 175k in health care dollars. This year I met my deductible 2.5k in two days.
Click to expand...

Which, along with the post above it, illustrates why we should have a catastrophic care that covers everyone, while we all pay for basics out of pocket. It would do more to bring down the cost of medical care than anything else.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Which, along with the post above it, illustrates why we should have a catastrophic care that covers everyone, while we all pay for basics out of pocket. It would do more to bring down the cost of medical care than anything else.
Click to expand...

It might bring it down some, but not enough to really make it affordable for all. Maybe not even a majority.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Which, along with the post above it, illustrates why we should have a catastrophic care that covers everyone, while we all pay for basics out of pocket. It would do more to bring down the cost of medical care than anything else.
Click to expand...


We do, the quirk is all other resources have to be depleted.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Medical insurance. The concept of medical insurance is an abomination and that's what is ruining our healthcare system.

It's really very simple. Insurance is a form of gambling. You bet the insurance company that you'll get sick, and they bet you won't. Like any good bookie, they bet the odds. The longer the odds against them, the more money you have to bet against them for them to make money.

And the odds? One hundred percent. Everyone get sick and dies eventually, and you spend more money on healthcare during the last year than you do the entire rest of your life.

So how much do they have to charge you to make money? More than 100% of what it costs to provide everyone with healthcare in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes that is the root of all evil. Health cannot possibly be a for profit operation. (excuse the pun) That is why the HCR plan 9Obamacare) had to be demonized by the pubs. In the world standing the US is like #27? in HC. That is unacceptble for this nation. Plus the ins. co. haver got to a point that if your infant is a lil under & or over wt. they will cancel your child as having a pre-existing condition.
 
imagep said:
That does make sense on alcohol and tobacco, and we already do that, but who is to define "junk food"?

A #1 value meal at McD's consists of essentially a roll, a very small serving of steak, a potato, and some salad with dressing. So would we have a sin tax on steaks, potatos, bread, and salads?

What if I made twinkees at home? Would I have to pay a tax on homemade junk food?

Sometimes the what would seem like the most sensable ideas arn't really sensable because they aren't pratical.
Click to expand...

The FDA would decide what products were labeled junk foods, applying a tax code to identify what food and drink products are taxable is already being done with other items, if nothing else the sin tax could offset some of the medical costs attributable to the consumption of junk food and drinks
 
cpwill said:
I actually went out today and got some work on this sort of stuff, let me read it through and I'll digest and see what we got - I haven't forgotten I told you I would see what was out there.
Click to expand...

okedoke, the best piece of research that I found on this subject seemed to come from the work of the University of Chicago economist John Cochrane. Cochrane has worked up a model of "Health-Status-Change" insurance, which guards against dramatic shifts in your premium costs. So, for example, if you were suddenly diagnosed with cancer, and your regular health insurance premiums shot up the next time you renewed your policy, your HSC insurer would be required to make up the difference, either over time or in a lump sum which would be placed into an custodial-HSA-like-account (so that it could grow for you in the meantime) from which you would be free to draw the difference. So your while your premiums would go up, your out of pocket coverage of them wouldn't.

It seems to act as a kind of reinsurance, except aimed at the individual consumer rather than the insurers. It is quite plausible (and indeed, likely) that insurance agencies will begin to offer this product as an addendum to their current product line - one of the nations largest health insurers, UnitedHealth Group, already does - but if not you would be able to purchase it rather affordably on your own. the number of people who are going to need heart transplants is rather small, and the HSC insurer is only looking at a payout if some kind of permanent (read: would extend into or beyond your next policy renewal, the definition of "permanent" seemed to indicate also that it would include "long term") dramatic shift occurs in your health.

There are a couple of tangital benefits. Since the reinsurers are now footing the extra premium cost; regular health insurers now have a financial incentive to compete for sick people just as they compete for the healthy ones already (insurance companies don't care where the money comes from - they only care that it comes). It also shifts the "dump" power back from the insurer to the individual. If one's health status get's suddenly worse in the middle of a contract - the insurer is forced by law after all to honor it's contract and pay up; that's that insurance is. If, however, your health status suddenly get's better, then you as a consumer can be easily wooed away by another company with the promise of lower rates - leaving you technically in the net positives once you figure in your HSC payouts. People no longer have to fear losing their insurance - insurers have to fear losing their customers, and will be forced to take competitive steps (perhaps they'll hire talking geckos) to try to convince them to stay.

For people like you who are already in the situation where you face astronomical costs, Cochrane acknowledges the "importance of fully addressing the transition" to the HSC system. Because you can't really purchase insurance - just prepay healthcare (as insurance is a guard against catastrophic events - and yours has already occurred), then the free insurance market doesn't have a non-prohibitive answer for you. Basically he argues that this is a place for government to step in to subsidize the initial generation of 'high risk' (or however you wish to describe them) plans.

The last one led me to wonder how politically palatable it might be - would there be a constituency against any government creation and subsidization of healthcare plans, especially given the gearing up to fight Obamacare (which included such a subsidy for nearly everybody). However, it turns out that even the CATO guys are fine with this solution - which they describe as being perhaps market inefficient, but not meant for a large enough percentage of the population to make such a program prohibitively expensive, and still fundamentally equitable. If the CATO dudes are willing to back government subsidization of plans the kind and cost of which you would have to get in that system, then I'm betting you won't see anyone else on the Right argue against it.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
okedoke, the best piece of research that I found on this subject seemed to come from the work of the University of Chicago economist John Cochrane. Cochrane has worked up a model of "Health-Status-Change" insurance, which guards against dramatic shifts in your premium costs. So, for example, if you were suddenly diagnosed with cancer, and your regular health insurance premiums shot up the next time you renewed your policy, your HSC insurer would be required to make up the difference, either over time or in a lump sum which would be placed into an custodial-HSA-like-account (so that it could grow for you in the meantime) from which you would be free to draw the difference. So your while your premiums would go up, your out of pocket coverage of them wouldn't.

It seems to act as a kind of reinsurance, except aimed at the individual consumer rather than the insurers. It is quite plausible (and indeed, likely) that insurance agencies will begin to offer this product as an addendum to their current product line - one of the nations largest health insurers, UnitedHealth Group, already does - but if not you would be able to purchase it rather affordably on your own. the number of people who are going to need heart transplants is rather small, and the HSC insurer is only looking at a payout if some kind of permanent (read: would extend into or beyond your next policy renewal, the definition of "permanent" seemed to indicate also that it would include "long term") dramatic shift occurs in your health.

There are a couple of tangital benefits. Since the reinsurers are now footing the extra premium cost; regular health insurers now have a financial incentive to compete for sick people just as they compete for the healthy ones already (insurance companies don't care where the money comes from - they only care that it comes). It also shifts the "dump" power back from the insurer to the individual. If one's health status get's suddenly worse in the middle of a contract - the insurer is forced by law after all to honor it's contract and pay up; that's that insurance is. If, however, your health status suddenly get's better, then you as a consumer can be easily wooed away by another company with the promise of lower rates - leaving you technically in the net positives once you figure in your HSC payouts. People no longer have to fear losing their insurance - insurers have to fear losing their customers, and will be forced to take competitive steps (perhaps they'll hire talking geckos) to try to convince them to stay.

For people like you who are already in the situation where you face astronomical costs, Cochrane acknowledges the "importance of fully addressing the transition" to the HSC system. Because you can't really purchase insurance - just prepay healthcare (as insurance is a guard against catastrophic events - and yours has already occurred), then the free insurance market doesn't have a non-prohibitive answer for you. Basically he argues that this is a place for government to step in to subsidize the initial generation of 'high risk' (or however you wish to describe them) plans.

The last one led me to wonder how politically palatable it might be - would there be a constituency against any government creation and subsidization of healthcare plans, especially given the gearing up to fight Obamacare (which included such a subsidy for nearly everybody). However, it turns out that even the CATO guys are fine with this solution - which they describe as being perhaps market inefficient, but not meant for a large enough percentage of the population to make such a program prohibitively expensive, and still fundamentally equitable. If the CATO dudes are willing to back government subsidization of plans the kind and cost of which you would have to get in that system, then I'm betting you won't see anyone else on the Right argue against it.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's totally like, some people are interested in finding solutions, instead of running at magical "fallacy of a single cause" solutions. :shock:
 
cpwill said:
For people like you who are already in the situation where you face astronomical costs, Cochrane acknowledges the "importance of fully addressing the transition" to the HSC system. Because you can't really purchase insurance - just prepay healthcare (as insurance is a guard against catastrophic events - and yours has already occurred), then the free insurance market doesn't have a non-prohibitive answer for you. Basically he argues that this is a place for government to step in to subsidize the initial generation of 'high risk' (or however you wish to describe them) plans. .
Click to expand...


What the State of Texas has done as well as several other States is set up a high risk pool. What they do is double the average rate of your area. I'm not sure how they figure up the average. And that is the rate it is adjusted annually. Obviously this is not enough to cover the costs so proportionately health insurance companies operating in the State have to make up the difference. Last year that difference was 98 million.

okedoke, the best piece of research that I found on this subject seemed to come from the work of the University of Chicago economist John Cochrane. Cochrane has worked up a model of "Health-Status-Change" insurance, which guards against dramatic shifts in your premium costs. So, for example, if you were suddenly diagnosed with cancer, and your regular health insurance premiums shot up the next time you renewed your policy, your HSC insurer would be required to make up the difference, either over time or in a lump sum which would be placed into an custodial-HSA-like-account (so that it could grow for you in the meantime) from which you would be free to draw the difference. So your while your premiums would go up, your out of pocket coverage of them wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting but what about the people that don't make enough money to pay the premiums in the first place and or after they become ill? And with an HSA account I'm not sure there is one out there or is going to be created that would pay an interest rate high enough to match the increases with out depleting the capitol of the account.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
What the State of Texas has done as well as several other States is set up a high risk pool. What they do is double the average rate of your area. I'm not sure how they figure up the average. And that is the rate it is adjusted annually. Obviously this is not enough to cover the costs so proportionately health insurance companies operating in the State have to make up the difference. Last year that difference was 98 million.
Click to expand...

this plan seems to be based around keeping one's premiums at a rough parity - i couldn't give you the actual math, but it sounds like for first-generationers like you your subsidy would be larger than what you are describing in the high risk pools.

Sounds interesting but what about the people that don't make enough money to pay the premiums in the first place and or after they become ill?
Click to expand...

the premiums for high-deductible plans of the kind that are matched with HSA's are comparatively pretty low, and employers actually save alot of money by moving to them instead, even as their employees build wealth.

Indiana offered HSA's, which have patients save money in tax-free accounts (where it grows and remains theirs forever and ever unless theys pend it) matched with high deductible plans to it's employees. Employees began to respond to price signals, and medical costs per patient were reduced by 33% and expenditures to the state were reduced by 11%.

Whole Foods instituted HSA's, and let's the employees choose what they want the company to fund. This institutes price pressure on the medical side (WF covers the high-deductible plan 100%), and their CEO points out that as a result Whole Foods' per-capita costs are much lower than typical insurance programs, while maintaining employee satisfaction.

Wendy's instituted HSA's, and saw the number of their employees who got preventative and annual checkup care climb even as they saw claims decrease by 14% (in one year).

...and so on and so forth. because high-deductible plans with HSA's allow insurance to function as insurance, it isn't susceptible to the same market distortion as the majority of our health-insurance plans are.

And with an HSA account I'm not sure there is one out there or is going to be created that would pay an interest rate high enough to match the increases with out depleting the capitol of the account.
Click to expand...

:shrug: well, from Indiana's experience, after a couple of years:

..Unused funds in the account—to date some $30 million or about $2,000 per employee and growing fast—are the worker's permanent property. For the very small number of employees (about 6% last year) who use their entire account balance, the state shares further health costs up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,000, after which the employee is completely protected...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: well, from Indiana's experience, after a couple of years:
Click to expand...


In the second straight year in which we've been forced to skip salary increases, workers switching to the HSA are adding thousands of dollars to their take-home pay. (Even if an employee had health issues and incurred the maximum out-of-pocket expenses, he would still be hundreds of dollars ahead.)
Click to expand...

What are they counting as take home pay? Are they counting the HSA dollars as take home pay? If so that would be a bit misleading since they are restricted dollars supposedly.
 
:shrug: money is fungible, and even if the employee uses the max, he still ends up a few hundred dollars ahead of the game. I would suggest that complaining because an increase in take-home pay goes into an account that grows tax-free and is earmarked to cover your medical funds is splitting hairs when the alternative is nothing.


and an 11% reduction in government costs? that's pretty impressive when we're looking at a healthcare-driven debt crises.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: money is fungible, and even if the employee uses the max, he still ends up a few hundred dollars ahead of the game. I would suggest that complaining because an increase in take-home pay goes into an account that grows tax-free and is earmarked to cover your medical funds is splitting hairs when the alternative is nothing.


and an 11% reduction in government costs? that's pretty impressive when we're looking at a healthcare-driven debt crises.
Click to expand...


I can only trade it for health care not a stick of gum if I want.

Any hows I'm glad to see your support of government run health care:

Also like Obamacare, HIP is fiscally unsound and pushes states’ Medicaid costs onto federal taxpayers. Every $1 Indiana spends on HIP triggers at least $2 of spending by the federal government; no matter what state you call home, you’re paying for Mitch Daniels’s government-run health-care plan. Even so, an independent review found that Daniels’s cigarette-tax hike hasn’t kept pace with Indiana’s share of the spending, and further cost overruns may be on the horizon. If Obamacare remains on the books, Daniels wants to put all new Medicaid enrollees into HIP, with the feds paying 100 percent of the cost.
Mitch Daniels
 
Dittohead not! said:
Is it because of widespread obesity? Alcohol consumption? an aging population? outrageous malpractice suits? all of the above?

Check it out here:

Now, how can we bring those costs under control?
Click to expand...

We don't have to invent the wheel all we have to do is follow the example set by other industrialized countries, our health care system is the most costly in fact at least twice as expensive as other countries that have universal health care and making matters worst are the poor results we are getting from our health care.

The answer is simple we pay more because we DO NOT have universal health care

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare « True Cost – Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit


Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception [1]. The following list, compiled from WHO sources where possible, shows the start date and type of system used to implement universal health care in each developed country [2]. Note that universal health care does not imply government-only health care, as many countries implementing a universal health care plan continue to have both public and private insurance and medical providers.



Country Start Date of Universal Health Care System Type
Click links for more source material on each country’s health care system.
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier
United States 2014 Insurance Mandate

U.S. ranks last among seven countries on healthcare performance | Healthcare IT News

Suggested Content
Survey: U.S. physicians lag behind those in other countries in IT use
U.S. ranks last in study of six nations' health systems
United States lags other nations on care quality
U.S. lags behind in primary care IT, survey finds
U.S. last in study of six nations' health systems
Survey: U.S. patients report high rate of medical errors
Countries unite on patient safety
Countries unite on patient safety
Kiwi companies bring healthcare IT expertise to the U.S.
Down Under IBA seeks share of U.S. market
 
winston53660 said:
I think all these things are good ideas. My problem is when one confronts a catastrophic situation like a heart transplant. The first year alone in 2008 (it was either 08 or 06) costs on average 787k. And there after drug costs range from 1.5k to 2k per month for life.

And when I say my problem I really do mean my problem. I'm in this situation.
Click to expand...

I feel for you.. I have been a heart patient all my life.. My aortic valve was replaced 3 years ago with a mechanical one.. I am now on blood thinners for life and heart regulation meds..

So I can associate with you..
 
Last edited:
DemonMyst said:
I feel for you.. I have been a heart patient all my life.. I have had over 18 heart related surgeries, 7 major or open heart.. My aortic valve was replaced 3 years ago with a mechanical one.. I am not on blood thinners for life and heart regulation meds..

So I can associate with you..
Click to expand...


Are you taking carvedilol (coreg)? If so I wonder if you have any side effects from it?

I went to the drs this week and my prognosis changed a bit. At first it was around 2 - 3 years before an LVAD now they are projecting 4-5 years before I will need a LVAD.
 
winston53660 said:
Are you taking carvedilol (coreg)? If so I wonder if you have any side effects from it?

I went to the drs this week and my prognosis changed a bit. At first it was around 2 - 3 years before an LVAD now they are projecting 4-5 years before I will need a LVAD.
Click to expand...

I am on Metopalol or however it is spelled, Diovan, and Coumadin.. Well.. Let's hope that gets extended even more.. Right now my mitral valve is being called stiff.. So at some point I might need it replaced.. The patch from childhood from my Vetricular Ceptal Defect is holding up good.. My Dr. checked all my childhood repairs when he did the Aortic valve replacement.. So for right now I am stable.. I just get up to a bunch of pills and go to bed with a bunch of pills.. I have been deemed handicapped because of the condition my heart is in and the effect my meds have on me.. I have to maintain an INR level of 2.5 to 3.5 and I guess that is pretty high.. I just know that it takes awhile for me to stop bleeding sometimes.. Just the little finger poke they give me to check my INR can take up to 30 minutes to stop bleeding.. It sucks.. I can remember just getting a little bandaid when I was little.. Now my finger is practically wrapped in gause for a little finger stick.. It sucks..

I really wish that some people could argue this issue from our perspective..
 
DemonMyst said:
I am on Metopalol or however it is spelled, Diovan, and Coumadin.. Well.. Let's hope that gets extended even more.. Right now my mitral valve is being called stiff.. So at some point I might need it replaced.. The patch from childhood from my Vetricular Ceptal Defect is holding up good.. My Dr. checked all my childhood repairs when he did the Aortic valve replacement.. So for right now I am stable.. I just get up to a bunch of pills and go to bed with a bunch of pills.. I have been deemed handicapped because of the condition my heart is in and the effect my meds have on me.. I have to maintain an INR level of 2.5 to 3.5 and I guess that is pretty high.. I just know that it takes awhile for me to stop bleeding sometimes.. Just the little finger poke they give me to check my INR can take up to 30 minutes to stop bleeding.. It sucks.. I can remember just getting a little bandaid when I was little.. Now my finger is practically wrapped in gause for a little finger stick.. It sucks..

I really wish that some people could argue this issue from our perspective..
Click to expand...

A little over a year ago I went to the ER with pitting edema up to my waist that literally popped up overnight. Within about 90 minutes there was a panel of doctors in front of me saying " Hello welcome to the cardiac unit." I'm like "WTF?" At the time my ejection fraction was 10%. Anyhows it turns out I have one of the rarest conditions a person can have. Isolated left ventricular non-compaction, less than 1 out of 100,000 people it is estimated have this. And the "cure" is a transplant. Prognosis from the time of diagnosis 5 years.

Anyhows like you I wake up to a mouthful of pills and go to bed with pills. My INR is supposed to be btwn 2 and 3. And mesquito bites bleed like crazy now. I take a heavy dose of coreg that makes me pretty goofy. It causes me pass out with exertion esp. on hot days.

Right now the doctors are pretty hip on LVADS for me. It is an implanted pump that takes over for your left ventricle and is used as a bridge to a transplant. We shall see what happens.

I really wish that some people could argue this issue from our perspective.
Click to expand...

We can always try:peace
 
winston53660 said:
A little over a year ago I went to the ER with pitting edema up to my waist that literally popped up overnight. Within about 90 minutes there was a panel of doctors in front of me saying " Hello welcome to the cardiac unit." I'm like "WTF?" At the time my ejection fraction was 10%. Anyhows it turns out I have one of the rarest conditions a person can have. Isolated left ventricular non-compaction, less than 1 out of 100,000 people it is estimated have this. And the "cure" is a transplant. Prognosis from the time of diagnosis 5 years.

Anyhows like you I wake up to a mouthful of pills and go to bed with pills. My INR is supposed to be btwn 2 and 3. And mesquito bites bleed like crazy now. I take a heavy dose of coreg that makes me pretty goofy. It causes me pass out with exertion esp. on hot days.

Right now the doctors are pretty hip on LVADS for me. It is an implanted pump that takes over for your left ventricle and is used as a bridge to a transplant. We shall see what happens.



We can always try:peace
Click to expand...

Well.. Please know I will alway wish you the best.. Us cardiac people got to stick together.. My biggest issue right now is that my sternum never fused properly after my last surgery.. So it causes me constant pain.. Breathing hurts, lifting a gallon of milk hurts, coughing hurts, sneezing, and a lot of other things.. The really bad part is, because of the valve my heart is almost always in a state of congestive heart failure.. And what is a symptom of that?? A cough... Oh joy.. So.. I do take a lot of pain pills.. Which leaves me loopy at times.. Especially when I have to take a dilauded.. I love how it handles the pain.. But how I hate how loopy it makes me.. It is like I am living in a fog sometimes..

Such is life..

It is nice to meet another heart patient..
 
DemonMyst said:
Well.. Please know I will alway wish you the best.. Us cardiac people got to stick together.. My biggest issue right now is that my sternum never fused properly after my last surgery.. So it causes me constant pain.. Breathing hurts, lifting a gallon of milk hurts, coughing hurts, sneezing, and a lot of other things.. The really bad part is, because of the valve my heart is almost always in a state of congestive heart failure.. And what is a symptom of that?? A cough... Oh joy.. So.. I do take a lot of pain pills.. Which leaves me loopy at times.. Especially when I have to take a dilauded.. I love how it handles the pain.. But how I hate how loopy it makes me.. It is like I am living in a fog sometimes..

Such is life..

It is nice to meet another heart patient..
Click to expand...

Good to meet you too. We can swap stories about pretty nurses:)
 
winston53660 said:
I can only trade it for health care not a stick of gum if I want
Click to expand...

no, it merely frees up the money that you would have otherwise spent on healthcare for that gum

Any hows I'm glad to see your support of government run health care
Click to expand...

not at all; this is premium support, a subsidy. similar to the Ryan Plan, in fact :)

Also like Obamacare, HIP is fiscally unsound and pushes states’ Medicaid costs onto federal taxpayers. Every $1 Indiana spends on HIP triggers at least $2 of spending by the federal government; no matter what state you call home, you’re paying for Mitch Daniels’s government-run health-care plan.
Click to expand...

gosh, good thing the 2012 House budget block grants it, eh. now how much in Medicare taxes come from Indiana v flow back into it?

Even so, an independent review found that Daniels’s cigarette-tax hike hasn’t kept pace with Indiana’s share of the spending,
Click to expand...

can't open PDF but i'll take your word for it - taxes often do disappoint by not raising the revenue that is expected of them.

and further cost overruns may be on the horizon.
Click to expand...

'may be' ?

If Obamacare remains on the books, Daniels wants to put all new Medicaid enrollees into HIP, with the feds paying 100 percent of the cost.
Mitch Daniels
Click to expand...

dude. this is michael cannon. i like him, but understand that this is the guy who complained that Daniels fixed Medicaid too well (it's welfare, after all, you're supposed to be suffer). I'm willing to take that complaint when we are dealing with our healthcare system.




but still, if these are the best critiques of the systemic changes that can have the results that we saw above.... i'm good with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom