A REAL American hero

apple0154 said:
The reason I hold the insurance company responsible is because medical insurance companies enable such practices to take place. We can't expect the individual doctor to forego his complete fee while another doctor receives full payment from someone else. That's another problem with the "pay or suffer" system. It prevents allowing other factors to be considered such as I mentioned previously regarding the family man vs the elderly gentleman.
Click to expand...

Another reason is you enter into a contract with an insurance provider.
 
WinterBorn said:
Once again you are avoiding answering a simple, direct question.

You are ranting about the insurance companies putting profits before lives. Why do you exempt the hospital and doctors when they did the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

I don't enter into a prearranged contract with a hospital or a doctor. If you are in an auto wreck, and they rush you to a hospital, the doctors will use every method in their powers to save your life. BUT, they don't do that for free. If you can't pay, everyone with health insurance is burdened with the tab. That's why all insured pay at least $1,000 more per year to pay for the uninsured.
 
Bfgrn said:
I am not an expert on transplant eligibility criteria, but it's not hard to speculate that a prognosis that is grossly shorter than the norm would be deemed ineligible. The proper question should be: Should an insurance company have to pay for any procedure that will prolong a LOVED ONE'S LIFE even for a short time?

THAT is why the phony 'death panel' argument by the right was so egregious. End of life counseling puts that decision in the hands of the most important party...the PERSON
Click to expand...

So you are still avoiding actually answering the question? Is it so hard to give a simple answer?

And the "loved ones" argument is total nonsense. Emotions are not what you base a complex system on. If my daughter were dying I would want the world to spend $10 million to prolong her life one day. Would you want the insurance company to have to pay that?
 
Bfgrn said:
I don't enter into a prearranged contract with a hospital or a doctor. If you are in an auto wreck, and they rush you to a hospital, the doctors will use every method in their powers to save your life. BUT, they don't do that for free. If you can't pay, everyone with health insurance is burdened with the tab. That's why all insured pay at least $1,000 more per year to pay for the uninsured.
Click to expand...

You did not enter into a prearranged contract with the insurance company guaranteeing you unlimited funding for medical procedures, so that argument is bogus.
 
WinterBorn said:
So you are still avoiding actually answering the question? Is it so hard to give a simple answer?

And the "loved ones" argument is total nonsense. Emotions are not what you base a complex system on. If my daughter were dying I would want the world to spend $10 million to prolong her life one day. Would you want the insurance company to have to pay that?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, simple answers don't fit complex issues. There are criteria in place for transplants, you are aware of that, aren't you?
 
Bfgrn said:
I'm sorry, simple answers don't fit complex issues. There are criteria in place for transplants, you are aware of that, aren't you?
Click to expand...

YOu are still dodging the question. Yes I am aware that there are criteria in place for transplants. But we are discussing whether or not she was eligible, but whether the insurance company is a murderer for not paying for it. This is not a medical question, but a financial one.

Let me put it into simpler terms, and maybe you will answer. Do you think the insurance companies should have to pay any amount necessary in order to prolong a patients life, even if its just a matter of months?
 
Bfgrn, as I reread my question, I am thinking you won't answer that one either.

Here is a very simple and uncomplicated question.


Should insurance companies be required to pay an unlimited amount for any treatment that will prolong a life, regardless of the length it is prolonged?
 
Ice Dancer said:
People can decide their own risk in the same way they do for auto insurance...the point being cost savings born from the ability to tailor coverage based on things like age/sex/weight/lifestyle etc. coupled with interstate competition and access to health coopertaives would go a long way in saving on health coverage-and not require huge deficits.
Click to expand...

But that's just it, people can't decide the risk because they don't know. One is aware of the cost should their car be totalled in an accident but how many people know the cost of a heart attack? Furthermore, if genetic testing was perfected and one was told they had a 20% chance of developing a certain illnes then, at least, they would have an idea of the risk.

All your suggestions would lower cost but we come back to how does one choose coverage without sufficient knowledge of their body? An analogy would be considering fire insurance without knowing if oil lamps and candles are used rather than electric lights? Fire insurance on a home heated with a wood stove/fireplace as opposed to electric heat is more expensive because there is a greater risk of fire.

Then we have young people who believe they're invincible which is one reason family insurance now covers them.

Finally, we have to remember there are countries with medical plans which complain when the cost rises from 9% to 10% gdp while other countries complain when it increases from 8% to 9% gdp all the while the US cost is 16% gdp. The point being all the news from countries whining about government medical costs should be taken with a few grains of salt.
 
WinterBorn said:
Bfgrn, as I reread my question, I am thinking you won't answer that one either.

Here is a very simple and uncomplicated question.


Should insurance companies be required to pay an unlimited amount for any treatment that will prolong a life, regardless of the length it is prolonged?
Click to expand...

I will make it even simpler for you...give me a hard dollar amount a human life is worth? Then we will have a cutoff point and can call the funeral home when that totally is reached.
 
Bfgrn said:
I will make it even simpler for you...give me a hard dollar amount a human life is worth? Then we will have a cutoff point and can call the funeral home when that totally is reached.
Click to expand...

A simple question and you refuse to give a simple answer? So you advocate forcing the insurance companies to spend an unlimited amount of money to prolong any life?

Wow.
 
apple0154 said:
But that's just it, people can't decide the risk because they don't know. One is aware of the cost should their car be totalled in an accident but how many people know the cost of a heart attack? Furthermore, if genetic testing was perfected and one was told they had a 20% chance of developing a certain illnes then, at least, they would have an idea of the risk.

All your suggestions would lower cost but we come back to how does one choose coverage without sufficient knowledge of their body? An analogy would be considering fire insurance without knowing if oil lamps and candles are used rather than electric lights? Fire insurance on a home heated with a wood stove/fireplace as opposed to electric heat is more expensive because there is a greater risk of fire.

Then we have young people who believe they're invincible which is one reason family insurance now covers them.

Finally, we have to remember there are countries with medical plans which complain when the cost rises from 9% to 10% gdp while other countries complain when it increases from 8% to 9% gdp all the while the US cost is 16% gdp. The point being all the news from countries whining about government medical costs should be taken with a few grains of salt.
Click to expand...

OH fer cying out-loud apple a 50 year old woman knows she does't need/want obstetcrics care and the 20-40 year old knows they don't want knee and hip replacement care or annual mammo-grams...we are not talking catastrophic choices here! Waxing hysterical on this idea is stupid. I live in an area where I am pretty comfortable not buying tornado or hurricane insurance...but my chances for a fire are as equal to that of anyone else...

People can decide their own risk in the same way they do for auto insurance...the point being cost savings born from the ability to tailor coverage based on things like age/sex/weight/lifestyle etc. coupled with interstate competition and access to health coopertaives would go a long way in saving on health coverage-and not require huge deficits.
 
WinterBorn said:
So it is unethical to make one doctor forego his fee while paying another in full. But its ok for one patients to receive a million dollars worth of treatment while other insurance customers pay the same rates and receive only minor benefits?
Click to expand...

But that's just it. A government plan would ensure everyone is entitled to the same benefits.

So you are saying the insurance company should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or they are murderers. But the hospital and surgeons, who also sat idly by and watched this young woman die, should not be expected to give up even a small portion of their monies? lol (sorry, the laugh just jumped out)
Click to expand...

How would that work? Let's suppose the attending physician does accept less. Is he/she expected to negotiate with the operating room nurses regarding their compensation? Negotiate with the hospital regarding charges for the operating room? Negotiate the compensation for the anesthesiologist? The other nurses and orderlies involved?

And isn't the hospital a public hospital? Aren't they required by law to provide life saving care? But they are not murderers?
Click to expand...

I never understood the fine print about hospitals but I imagine there must be some loop holes.
 
Bfgrn, I was trying to make a simple point. Your obstinate refusal to answer shows you saw what I was doing.

Unless you advocate forcing insurance companies to pay unlimited amounts for any life saving procedure, you are advocating "death panels". I doubt you think Cigna should be forced to spend millions of dollars to prolong the life of a 102 year old alcoholic who smokes 2 packs a day. So you are arguing about where to draw the line.


Now, can we continue with why the hospital and the surgeons are not murderers?
 
Bfged raves against the machine first, then seeing facts goes ohh!!
Go to college bfged, excuses are for losers.
 
apple0154 said:
But that's just it. A government plan would ensure everyone is entitled to the same benefits.



How would that work? Let's suppose the attending physician does accept less. Is he/she expected to negotiate with the operating room nurses regarding their compensation? Negotiate with the hospital regarding charges for the operating room? Negotiate the compensation for the anesthesiologist? The other nurses and orderlies involved?



I never understood the fine print about hospitals but I imagine there must be some loop holes.
Click to expand...

Would the gov't plan provide unlimited funding for any life saving procedures, regardless of how long the life was prolonged?

The doctor bills the patient directly, but the nurses and other support personnel do not. So the drs and the hospital could have performed the surgery and eaten the costs as easily as the insurance company could.
 
Ice Dancer said:
People can decide their own risk in the same way they do for auto insurance...the point being cost savings born from the ability to tailor coverage based on things like age/sex/weight/lifestyle etc. coupled with interstate competition and access to health coopertaives would go a long way in saving on health coverage-and not require huge deficits.
Click to expand...

Zappa would never get insurance if coverage was based on weight!

Phew! Dodged that cheeseburger...errrrr... bullet!!!! :rofl:
 
Ice Dancer said:
OH fer cying out-loud apple a 50 year old woman knows she does't need/want obstetcrics care and the 20-40 year old knows they don't want knee and hip replacement care or annual mammo-grams...we are not talking catastrophic choices here! Waxing hysterical on this idea is stupid. I live in an area where I am pretty comfortable not buying tornado or hurricane insurance...but my chances for a fire are as equal to that of anyone else...

People can decide their own risk in the same way they do for auto insurance...the point being cost savings born from the ability to tailor coverage based on things like age/sex/weight/lifestyle etc. coupled with interstate competition and access to health coopertaives would go a long way in saving on health coverage-and not require huge deficits.
Click to expand...

Just remember. Pretty much everything in Apple's life healthwise can be seen as fairly catastrophic. He needs to take his coke-bottled lenses off and use a reality filter!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top