Old people in nursing homes -- Thanks Trump and Congress - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

crockett · 06-25-2017, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjorn_Tasty1

"The 150 residents of Dogwood Village include former teachers, farmers, doctors, lawyers, stay-at-home parents and health aides ? a cross section of this rural county a half-hour northeast of Charlottesville. Many entered old age solidly middle class but turned to Medicaid, which was once thought of as a government program exclusively for the poor, after exhausting their insurance and assets."

So they lost their savings during the Obama period and now want the republicans to take care of them.

Idiot.. Obamacare has nothing to do with people on medicare..

crockett · 06-25-2017, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

What's the answer?

There are three. As more people become poorer and unable to afford US healthcare, they die earlier. As more people become poorer and unable to afford US healthcare, the US adopts the proven system of National Healthcare. As more people become poorer and unable to afford US healthcare, you pay more and more.

Because the facts are clear that under successive governments most people are getting poorer.

How much have you put away for your old age?

This is the problem with people like Robbie, he's been sheltered his entire life from reality.

It doesn't matter if you have the best insurance in this country, if you come down with a conic illness they WILL find a way to drop you. They will deny payment treatment and what savings you had will be gone.

If you happen to get cancer and expect to pay for it yourself you can expect to pay around $20k for a round of chemo in the US. That's just a 1 round. Depending on the cancer you can go through 1 to 3 rounds. So potentially $60k just in chemo treatment which doesn't include all the treatment you went though to get to that point or the drugs..

The drugs for cancer treatment on average cost around $100k for a year. Meaning you can be paying $160k for just chemo and drugs and we haven't even talked about any surgery to remove the cancer or any of the countless doctor visits.

Treating cancer in the US will cost you into the 100s of thousands of dollars under our healthcare system because our govt wont create laws to control price gouging.

People like Robbie have no clue of this reality because he thinks he knows everything and won't listen to people who have seen it.

My grandmother had just under a million dollars in savings. She spent a bit over 10 years in a assisted living ficality at the end of her life. She was lucky and was for the most part healthy with no major issues before she died.

Every bit of that million dollars was gone long before she died. She eventually ended up on medicare because the healthcare system in thus country ate through a large savings like that like it was nothing.

How many people have even close to a million in savings? How many even have $10k?

crockett · 06-25-2017, 07:12 AM

Also I wanted to add the BS lies that Obamacare has failed is complete lies being pushed by Republicans. Obamacare works perfectly well in states that wanted it to work.

Republican run states purposely did not properly fund it so it would fail in their states. It's like buying a new car and not putting gas in it then bitching to the auto manufacturer saying you can't drive it.

Republicans purposely attempted to make it fail by not allowing it to work as intended. Even under this situation millions of people were still able to get access to healthcare.

Republicans keep running g around saying Obamacare has failed so their dumb dumb voters will believe their lies.

The simple fact is Obamacare works just fine in states that took it to heart and wanted it to work..

Republicans didn't want it to work and they purposely undermined it while fucking people over in their own states just because of politics and failed ideology.

This is a clear example of Republicans putting party before country and the good of the people. Republicans couldn't stand the thought that a democratic president had put together a working healthcare system for our country.

Republicans put so much effort into claiming it was worse than Hitler if it succeed it made them look like fools. So instead of working for the people and helping solve issues they instead lied and attempted to make issues worse.

It's the pinnacle of party politics in this country and clear example of a political party caring more about their brand name than what is good for the people..

Who would have ever expected that their voters were so stupid they would vote against their own interests and for failure.

Tasty1 · 06-25-2017, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Idiot.. Obamacare has nothing to do with people on medicare..

i said they lost their money during the Obama PERIOD, not talking about care.
What did Obama do? Why is that lost money Trumps fault?

Paul Markham · 06-25-2017, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Paying more taxes does not lower heathcare costs.

Costs can only be lowered by finding where the waste is -- and doing something about it.

The number #1 waste of money is in how healthcare is delivered in the USA: In an adversarial way with monetary interests being the prime driver. The uninsured get healthcare too late and influence the delivery costs and outcomes disproportionately negatively. There are too many medical errors made -- competence is lacking in well paid healthcare (no answer here

).

Universal healthcare with easy access to doctor visits and early treatment will cut a lot of excessive costs out. Not using the hospital ER room for non traumatic treatment situations will lower costs. Hospital ER rooms are the most expensive 'immediate care' situations. There should be walk in 24 hr immediate care in dense urban areas. Even if it is a skeleton staff after midnight a child with a fever or a minor laceration can be tended to.

New taxes to support a failing system will only make things worse.

Paying more in taxes to a 90% public healthcare service has lowered the price.

I agree with you that more visits to doctors does prevent a lot of problems. How do you do that without ramping up the costs of whatever system is used? The higher the system costs are the higher the cost of increasing care.

New taxes removes the need to pay so much for private healthcare. So you pay less.

Paul Markham · 06-25-2017, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

How is it that since the beginning of time humans prospered without health insurance and without any government involvement in healthcare, but past couple of decades it somehow became "obvious" and "the only" solution?

People died of conditions they now cure.

Robbie · 06-25-2017, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem with Obamacare is it failed to address the core problem. Healthcare in the hands of the private sector.

The blue ones are all in the public sector.

Replies like this prove that many in the US have been brainwashed into thinking that the private sector can be better trusted to supply services like healthcare, education, etc. When the proof shows the opposite. Even with staff earning more there is no reason why it costs more in the US than it is in the private sector.

As for CEOs having one less yacht or one less mistress. The people who run public sector healthcare have neither.

You're leaving out something. The Federal Govt. heavily REGULATES the health care system in the U.S., and has been doing so since long before ObamaCare.

And it's the Federal Govt. which set the rules allowing Big Pharma, hospitals, Big Insurance, etc. to price gouge the U.S.

You really had to live here to have seen it happen.
The Feds went so far as to stop people from crossing the Canadian border to get life-saving drugs that they could not afford to buy here in the U.S. and pressured the Canadian govt. to check ID and NOT sell to US citizens.

And that happened back in the 1980's after HMO's went into effect.

No...the healthcare industry, big pharma, and big insurance have lobbyists that spend so much money in Washington D.C. that getting the price gouging to stop wasn't going to happen.

With govt. involved it destroyed the market. The lobbyists made sure of that. They didn't want a competitive field.

They had Congress set up the regulations so it benefitted them.
That's the way our corrupt govt. works.

Before govt. got involved here in the U.S., we used to pay our medical expenses out of pocket. It wasn't expensive at all.
The only thing you needed was "catastrophic insurance". In case you were in a car wreck or had a heart attack, etc.

Trying to compare us to European countries that are much smaller and have a tiny economy compared to the United States...just doesn't work. Especially when the U.S. has spent so much money in Europe post-WW2 helping all those country's regain their footing in the first place.

CoolMikey · 06-25-2017, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Also I wanted to add the BS lies that Obamacare has failed is complete lies being pushed by Republicans. Obamacare works perfectly well in states that wanted it to work.

Republican run states purposely did not properly fund it so it would fail in their states. It's like buying a new car and not putting gas in it then bitching to the auto manufacturer saying you can't drive it.

Republicans purposely attempted to make it fail by not allowing it to work as intended. Even under this situation millions of people were still able to get access to healthcare.

Republicans keep running g around saying Obamacare has failed so their dumb dumb voters will believe their lies.

The simple fact is Obamacare works just fine in states that took it to heart and wanted it to work..

Republicans didn't want it to work and they purposely undermined it while fucking people over in their own states just because of politics and failed ideology.

This is a clear example of Republicans putting party before country and the good of the people. Republicans couldn't stand the thought that a democratic president had put together a working healthcare system for our country.

Republicans put so much effort into claiming it was worse than Hitler if it succeed it made them look like fools. So instead of working for the people and helping solve issues they instead lied and attempted to make issues worse.

It's the pinnacle of party politics in this country and clear example of a political party caring more about their brand name than what is good for the people..

Who would have ever expected that their voters were so stupid they would vote against their own interests and for failure.

"properly fund" means increasing taxes, cause in real world $$$ doesn't just grow on trees. So no shit that many states were opposed to raising taxes. Who wants to pay more taxes? Certainly not I or anyone I know, and I doubt you want to pay more either.

If I had to guess many in this thread, including you, pay fuck all in taxes, so it makes zero difference to you if taxes get raised or lowered. So it's quite easy for you all to play arm-chair philosophers, claiming how universal healthcare is a "right" or how it's the only sensible solution, you wouldn't be paying for it anyway, so universal healthcare is all benefits for you without any of the downsides.

Paul Markham · 06-25-2017, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

You keep saying "will", but do you have ANY evidence that that has happened since ObamaCare? Clearly more people are insured now, so there should be some evidence of lowered costs?

Because all Obamacare did was make sure everyone is covered. Something most civilised countries enjoy. In America, the private sector runs most healthcare and controls prices.

To really lower the costs the Nationalised Systems have to be adopted.

Robbie · 06-25-2017, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

People died of conditions they now cure.

That's not true. As a child I had both sets of GREAT-grandparents and all of their brothers and sisters (Great-Aunts and Great-Uncles)

Our family reunions in the 1960's were HUGE.

And the population of the United States kept growing and growing.

Using the false narrative you just laid out...everybody would have been dying young instead of getting medical care when they needed it and living to ripe old ages.

CoolMikey · 06-25-2017, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Because all Obamacare did was make sure everyone is covered. Something most civilised countries enjoy. In America, the private sector runs most healthcare and controls prices.

To really lower the costs the Nationalised Systems have to be adopted.

You must have misunderstood what I meant. I'm going to make up some numbers to make it clearer.

Imagine that before ObamaCare 70% of people had health coverage, now 90% have it. If going from 70% to 90% did not decrease costs at all, what makes you think that going from 90% to 100% will?

crockett · 06-25-2017, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjorn_Tasty1

i said they lost their money during the Obama PERIOD, not talking about care.
What did Obama do? Why is that lost money Trumps fault?

Why is lost money Obama's fault? You are just making up some condition by claiming people lost money because of Obama.. You don't say why you just say it's Obamas fault..

Obama didn't cause the housing crash, Obama didn't create our for profit healthcare system..

Yet you blame Obama..

CoolMikey · 06-25-2017, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Why is lost money Obama's fault? You are just making up some condition by claiming people lost money because of Obama.. You don't say why you just say it's Obamas fault..

Obama didn't cause the housing crash, Obama didn't create our for profit healthcare system..

Yet you blame Obama..

It's not Obama's fault, your grandmother simply mismanaged her retirement funds. It's no one's fault but her own. If she didn't fuck up, your parents and you would have been set for life.

Paul Markham · 06-25-2017, 08:43 AM

Uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than privately insured counterparts.

More American White Women Are Dying Prematurely
As the Supreme Court considers the fate of Obamacare, new data shows that death rates among white women are on the rise.

No Solution to Worst Health Care Problem: Dying Early

Quote:

More US babies die on their first day than in 68 other countries, report shows

?The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.?

So far Obamacare is all you have to change that. It's sad to see some Americans so against paying more to help their fellow citizens.

It's sadder to see why some are anti paying less to get a better system.

Paul Markham · 06-25-2017, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's not true. As a child I had both sets of GREAT-grandparents and all of their brothers and sisters (Great-Aunts and Great-Uncles)

Our family reunions in the 1960's were HUGE.

And the population of the United States kept growing and growing.

Using the false narrative you just laid out...everybody would have been dying young instead of getting medical care when they needed it and living to ripe old ages.

You're mad.

https://www.google.cz/search?q=us+li... oBoGe2-Uf7iM:

Paul Markham · 06-25-2017, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

You must have misunderstood what I meant. I'm going to make up some numbers to make it clearer.

Imagine that before ObamaCare 70% of people had health coverage, now 90% have it. If going from 70% to 90% did not decrease costs at all, what makes you think that going from 90% to 100% will?

Are the 90% getting exactly the same cover at the same price?

I think you'll find that there were certain provisions put in that put up the costs. If I'm wrong it shows how corrupt the US healthcare system is.

Paul Markham · 06-25-2017, 08:53 AM

In the UK they tried to make people with property pay for their own elderly care nursing home bills by selling the house and losing all but $160,000.

The young thought this was outrageous, so they didn't pass the law and now the young have to pay the bills. But some will get to have the house passed onto them.

Someone has to pay.

crockett · 06-25-2017, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

It's not Obama's fault, your grandmother simply mismanaged her retirement funds. It's no one's fault but her own. If she didn't fuck up, your parents and you would have been set for life.

No one mismanaged anything, it's what healthcare costs. You are bringing up Obama for who knows what reason.

The point I was making is even if you are responsible and save a million bucks for your retirement thinking you can cover your expenses the costs are insane.

The fact you took it as money mismanagement just shows you aren't even listening..Much more it shows you have zero clue what healthcare cost in this country for elderly people who require long term care.

Bladewire · 06-25-2017, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Also I wanted to add the BS lies that Obamacare has failed is complete lies being pushed by Republicans. Obamacare works perfectly well in states that wanted it to work.

You're arguing with mostly with foreigners who don't know/understand that.

Red states that wanted it to fail handicapped the Medicare subsidies and gave permission to insurance companies to double, triple their rates, basically giving a huge profit windfall to health insurance companies fucking over consumers. No insurance companies lost profit the last 8 years, ALL had profit increases.

Whenever you bring this easy to verify fact up with redhats they melt down, it's not in their programming. They won't research it themselves, look at the stick increases etc. they'll just ignore it .

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...es-110116.html

Insurers' Profits Have Nearly Doubled Since Obama Was Elected | The Weekly Standard

Making a killing under Obamacare: The ACA gets blamed for rising premiums, while insurance companies are reaping massive profits - Salon.com

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-best-solution

"Some will take this as a sure sign that President Obama?s ?sellout? to big insurance companies has worked exactly as intended: ?to multiply the profits of five giant insurance companies.?"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...der-obamacare/

Robbie · 06-25-2017, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You're mad.

https://www.google.cz/search?q=us+li... oBoGe2-Uf7iM:

Dude, the life expectancy of people has been going up for years and years. It's an AVERAGE of everyone.

A lot of that has to do with medical advances. A huge amount of it has to do with less deaths during childbirth.
None of it has to do with people having or not having insurance.

Come on...don't start cherry picking stuff to try and "prove" something. Let's just discuss things and make our points without deception.

EDIT: And if you look closely at that link you posted...it clearly states that on AVERAGE, people were living into their late 70's back in 1960. Not sure why you think I'm "mad". I think I made a pretty sane and precise point that you are wrong when you say people were dying because they didn't have insurance.

It's b.s.
I never had anyone in my family or knew any friends who died because they didn't have health insurance. Did that ever happen to anyone? Probably. But that would definitely be the exception and not the rule.

Bladewire · 06-25-2017, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Dude, the life expectancy of people has been going up for years and years. It's an AVERAGE of everyone.

A lot of that has to do with medical advances. A huge amount of it has to do with less deaths during childbirth.
None of it has to do with people having or not having insurance.

Come on...don't start cherry picking stuff to try and "prove" something. Let's just discuss things and make our points without deception.

EDIT: And if you look closely at that link you posted...it clearly states that on AVERAGE, people were living into their late 70's back in 1960. Not sure why you think I'm "mad". I think I made a pretty sane and precise point that you are wrong when you say people were dying because they didn't have insurance.

It's b.s.
I never had anyone in my family or knew any friends who died because they didn't have health insurance. Did that ever happen to anyone? Probably. But that would definitely be the exception and not the rule.

See! Redhat completely ignores the insurers income reports showing their profits.

Redhats aren't programed for truth, only propoganda regurgitation.

RedFred · 06-25-2017, 03:03 PM

"It's a God-given right to carry a gun into a school but a privilege for a doctor to help you if you're sick" -Republican logic

kane · 06-25-2017, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

In the UK they tried to make people with property pay for their own elderly care nursing home bills by selling the house and losing all but $160,000.

The young thought this was outrageous, so they didn't pass the law and now the young have to pay the bills. But some will get to have the house passed onto them.

Someone has to pay.

In the US, that is basically how it goes. Several years ago my mom had some serious health issues and ended up living in a nursing home for about 1.5 years. She was 68-years-old and retired so we applied for Medicaid to pay for the nursing home. At first, they denied her because she had a life insurance policy that came with a $5,000 cash value. They made her convert that policy so it didn't have a cash value because the $5,000 was too much net worth to qualify otherwise.

crockett · 06-25-2017, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You're leaving out something. The Federal Govt. heavily REGULATES the health care system in the U.S., and has been doing so since long before ObamaCare.

And it's the Federal Govt. which set the rules allowing Big Pharma, hospitals, Big Insurance, etc. to price gouge the U.S.

You really had to live here to have seen it happen.
The Feds went so far as to stop people from crossing the Canadian border to get life-saving drugs that they could not afford to buy here in the U.S. and pressured the Canadian govt. to check ID and NOT sell to US citizens.

And that happened back in the 1980's after HMO's went into effect.

No...the healthcare industry, big pharma, and big insurance have lobbyists that spend so much money in Washington D.C. that getting the price gouging to stop wasn't going to happen.

With govt. involved it destroyed the market. The lobbyists made sure of that. They didn't want a competitive field.

They had Congress set up the regulations so it benefitted them.
That's the way our corrupt govt. works.

Before govt. got involved here in the U.S., we used to pay our medical expenses out of pocket. It wasn't expensive at all.
The only thing you needed was "catastrophic insurance". In case you were in a car wreck or had a heart attack, etc.

Trying to compare us to European countries that are much smaller and have a tiny economy compared to the United States...just doesn't work. Especially when the U.S. has spent so much money in Europe post-WW2 helping all those country's regain their footing in the first place.

You are purposely leaving something out Robbie...

The US govt doesn't regulate what big Pharma can charge for their medications, something that every single one of the countries on that chart does. The reason our costs are so high is because price gouging is NOT regulated...

Paul Markham · 06-26-2017, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Dude, the life expectancy of people has been going up for years and years. It's an AVERAGE of everyone.

A lot of that has to do with medical advances. A huge amount of it has to do with less deaths during childbirth.
None of it has to do with people having or not having insurance.

Come on...don't start cherry picking stuff to try and "prove" something. Let's just discuss things and make our points without deception.

EDIT: And if you look closely at that link you posted...it clearly states that on AVERAGE, people were living into their late 70's back in 1960. Not sure why you think I'm "mad". I think I made a pretty sane and precise point that you are wrong when you say people were dying because they didn't have insurance.

It's b.s.
I never had anyone in my family or knew any friends who died because they didn't have health insurance. Did that ever happen to anyone? Probably. But that would definitely be the exception and not the rule.

There are more elderly than there has ever been. So your family anecdote means nothing. The problem is paying for their care.

Do the young pay it or do the elderly pay for it while being young? There is no other option.

As for health insurance that's another matter that could be included in the health insurance. As you're in favour of the American system how much more do you think it will cost?

I assume you are putting money away for your old age, you should calculate to live to 80. That's maybe 30 years without an income. Marie should calculate living to 90, 40 years without an income.

Paul Markham · 06-26-2017, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

In the US, that is basically how it goes. Several years ago my mom had some serious health issues and ended up living in a nursing home for about 1.5 years. She was 68-years-old and retired so we applied for Medicaid to pay for the nursing home. At first, they denied her because she had a life insurance policy that came with a $5,000 cash value. They made her convert that policy so it didn't have a cash value because the $5,000 was too much net worth to qualify otherwise.

Which is how it should be. The old should lose what they have to pay for their care within reason. Or the young pay for it.

Paul Markham · 06-26-2017, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

You are purposely leaving something out Robbie...

The US govt doesn't regulate what big Pharma can charge for their medications, something that every single one of the countries on that chart does. The reason our costs are so high is because price gouging is NOT regulated...

US Government regulates healthcare, but not the prices it charges.

Barry-xlovecam · 06-26-2017, 04:33 AM

Let me use an analogy to make something clear;

If you have an automobile that has a 6 cylinder engine that is misfiring and running on 5 cylinders, that engine will sputter, chug along and stink emitting unburnt gasoline. If you regulate its speed to 15 mph/25 kmh it will still stink the same amount just take longer to travel the same distance.

The healthcare system in the USA stinks and changing the flow of money to the same services will not fix the problem.

Universal Healthcare, if badly delivered, will have most of the same problems.

The US government cannot take property without compensation. As it stands today, most healthcare is delivered by private entities with property rights. So, any comparison with places with long standing universal healthcare -- where the peoples' tax money has built healthcare infrastructure for many decades -- is not relevant and ludicrous to the US American healthcare *crisis* for many.

The only reasonable alternative I can see, is that the US government form a government owned entity like the USPS (post office), sell bonds and build a competing infrastructure. The government for years has maintained Veterans Hospitals, administered Medicare and funded Medicaid.

The US government already knows what the mistakes are -- maybe they can get it right this time.

A National Healthcare could be a huge competitive force, could offer liability relief to health professionals it employs lowering salary expectations. Building or buying and renovating existing healthcare facilities that will fail is not unfair competition -- this competition is in the public interest.

So what it really does boil down to is: Just who has their hand in who's pocket in Congress?

Barry-xlovecam · 06-26-2017, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Comparing practices across different countries for the same condition also reveals major opportunities for improvement. The reimbursement for a total joint replacement care cycle in Germany and Sweden is approximately $8,500, including all physician and technical services and excluding only outpatient rehabilitation. The comparable figure in U.S. medical centers is $30,000 or more.

Since providers in all three countries report, in aggregate, similar margins on joint replacement care, U.S. providers? costs are likely two to three times as high as those of their European counterparts.

By comparing process maps and resource costs for the same medical condition across multiple sites, we can determine how much of the cost difference is attributable to variations in processes, protocols, and productivity and how much is attributable to differences in resource or supply costs such as wages and implant prices.

Our initial research suggests that although inputs are more expensive in the United States, the higher cost in U.S. facilities is mainly due to lower resource productivity.

Harvard Business Review
The Big Idea: How to Solve the Cost Crisis in Health Care
https://hbr.org/2011/09/how-to-solve...in-health-care

long read ... Easier to mouth sound bytes

BaldBastard · 06-26-2017, 05:11 AM

Rising health insurance costs are not an American specific issue

Cost of healthcare in Australia is much less than the USA, but if you just look at the insurance premiums we pay, they have at least doubled in the past 5 years.

I'd guess that scenario is the same in every country.

kane · 06-26-2017, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Which is how it should be. The old should lose what they have to pay for their care within reason. Or the young pay for it.

Can you explain to me what good it does society to have someone who is old lose everything they have worked for just because they got sick or injured and needed medical care?

HairyChick · 06-26-2017, 05:40 PM

My nursing home bill is $300/day. I've been here eight years and six months. After seven figures went for six months' hospitalization, I was put on Mass Health aka Medicaid. I've seen our former district attorney here, a state senator, business owners, and other wealthy people. I see lots of Medicare recipients, too.

I'm the youngest one here by twenty-five years or more. Several families have talked about the future in funding

I'm moving July 19th to a home being built by the commonwealth. The agency running the house promises an entirely different setup, from my own room to decent food we choose.
But, it's all state money. I move from Medicaid to a state-sponsored home. I had a meeting today about the transition. They have to look up the fees as I asked about it. I'll get $200/month or more for personal expenses. Here I get $54.80/month from SSDI; the rest the Home gets. $54.80 but $25 for hosting my sites. Let's just say my credit cards are maxed out.

If nursing home payments are reduced, a lot of people will end up in the horrible facilities. I'm in one of the best but could write a book on the inadequacies. I have amnesia but have my mind. Many people here are senile or have dementia and can't speak up.

Our country needs to take care of the elderly and incapacitated. Veterans served. We paid taxes. We contributed to society.

Robbie · 06-26-2017, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

US Government regulates healthcare, but not the prices it charges.

Yeah they do "regulate" it...they fucking hold hands with them and allow them to price gouge us and there's nothing we can do about it. And when we try to buy our pharmaceuticals from other country's...the Federal Govt. tries to stop that as well. The govt. "regulates" the high prices by the legislation they have passed that gives Big Pharma, Big Hospital Corp., and Big Insurance everything they need to milk the system. And ObamaCare was the BIGGEST gift of them all.

It's like dealing with the mafia in the old days.

HairyChick · 06-26-2017, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

You are purposely leaving something out Robbie...

The US govt doesn't regulate what big Pharma can charge for their medications, something that every single one of the countries on that chart does. The reason our costs are so high is because price gouging is NOT regulated...

I'm on nine medications daily plus five others as needed. My Morphine daily, three times a day of twenty milligrams, is over $600 a month. They use a pharmacy up North rather than locally. They deliver but their prices are crazy. Oyxcodone is $950 for sixty pills. I could buy it on the street at a cheaper price

CoolMikey · 06-26-2017, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Can you explain to me what good it does society to have someone who is old lose everything they have worked for just because they got sick or injured and needed medical care?

Old person can't take it with them to the grave, so there is nothing really wrong if an old person "loses everything." Also, it's clearly better to invest in a young person rather than old. So if given a choice, it makes more sense to setup a tax system where young get more, while old get less. ObamaCare goes against that logic, they squeeze the young, to subsidize healthcare for the old.

RedFred · 06-26-2017, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PamWinterReturns

My nursing home bill is $300/day. I've been here eight years and six months. After seven figures went for six months' hospitalization, I was put on Mass Health aka Medicaid. I've seen our former district attorney here, a state senator, business owners, and other wealthy people. I see lots of Medicare recipients, too.

I'm the youngest one here by twenty-five years or more. Several families have talked about the future in funding

I'm moving July 19th to a home being built by the commonwealth. The agency running the house promises an entirely different setup, from my own room to decent food we choose.
But, it's all state money. I move from Medicaid to a state-sponsored home. I had a meeting today about the transition. They have to look up the fees as I asked about it. I'll get $200/month or more for personal expenses. Here I get $54.80/month from SSDI; the rest the Home gets. $54.80 but $25 for hosting my sites. Let's just say my credit cards are maxed out.

If nursing home payments are reduced, a lot of people will end up in the horrible facilities. I'm in one of the best but could write a book on the inadequacies. I have amnesia but have my mind. Many people here are senile or have dementia and can't speak up.

Our country needs to take care of the elderly and incapacitated. Veterans served. We paid taxes. We contributed to society.

How does it feel that there are people on here that say disabled people are welfare leeches and pieces of shit? Disgusted I'm sure.

kane · 06-26-2017, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

Old person can't take it with them to the grave, so there is nothing really wrong if an old person "loses everything." Also, it's clearly better to invest in a young person rather than old. So if given a choice, it makes more sense to setup a tax system where young get more, while old get less. ObamaCare goes against that logic, they squeeze the young, to subsidize healthcare for the old.

So what if someone retires at 65 then they get sick at 70 and by age 72 they have recovered and are back to living their lives? They could live another 10-20 years. If they had to chew up all their resources paying for healthcare now they are going to live out the rest of their life broke and on the system costing even more.

They can't take it with them, but they can leave any money/assets they have to family members. Do you think this money and/or assets would be better used if it ended up in the hands of this person's family or if it ended up in the pockets of shareholders and CEO bonuses?

Tasty1 · 06-26-2017, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

So what if someone retires at 65. They get sick at 70 and by age 72 they have recovered and are back to living their lives. They could live another 10-20 years. If they had to chew up all their resources paying for healthcare now they are going to live out the rest of their life broke and on the system costing even more.

They can't take it with them, but they can leave any money/assets they have to family members. Do you think this money and/or assets would be better used if it ended up in the hands of this person's family or if it ended up in the pockets of shareholders and CEO bonuses?

In Holland it is the same. People that save must pay extra in a nursing house, people that didn't save get it for free/cheap. You don't have to sell your house, but if it is already sold, you must 'eat' it up first. So even in a social country that is the case now cause Healthcare cost too much.

Is it fair that i have to pay extra tax so a rich elderly can give his/her children money when they die? And who will be paying for me than in 20 years when everything is even more expensive?

HairyChick · 06-26-2017, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedFred

How does it feel that there are people on here that say disabled people are welfare leeches and pieces of shit? Disgusted I'm sure.

Very disgusted. Wait until they become disabled. You can't work depending on the disability. Your friends are there at first, then most go away. Welfare? I paid into the Social Security system for decades. I won't live long enough to collect. I'll never get back what I paid in.

People here who bash the disabled are ignorant fools. Most probably earn enough for a Big Mac weekly while living with mommy and daddy.

Would I change my situation to working eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, $20k a month? Gee, let me think about that ....

Leeches? I'd gladly trade places and get away from SSDI. It's easy to judge others from a moral throne.

Matt 26z · 06-26-2017, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GspotProductions

ford aren´t moving to Mexico, only China

like, well done Trump, you idiot

You are one of the biggest morons in the history of this forum.

Cars are manufactured in close proximity to the market buying them. Japanese brands sold in the US like Toyota, Nissan and Honda are not made in Japan. They are made in North America. The same strategy is used by US automakers for cars sold in Asia and Europe.

CoolMikey · 06-26-2017, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

So what if someone retires at 65. They get sick at 70 and by age 72 they have recovered and are back to living their lives. They could live another 10-20 years. If they had to chew up all their resources paying for healthcare now they are going to live out the rest of their life broke and on the system costing even more.

They can't take it with them, but they can leave any money/assets they have to family members. Do you think this money and/or assets would be better used if it ended up in the hands of this person's family or if it ended up in the pockets of shareholders and CEO bonuses?

There is no right answer to this, but someone has to pay the bills, either "old" or "young."

What you said doesn't sound "right", but I think sending a bill for "old" person's healthcare to "young" person like ObamaCare does is more fucked up. Why should "young" person have to pay for something that has nothing to do with him? Shouldn't each person be responsible for his own life, his own expenses, etc?

Isn't it pretty obvious that previous generation failed to properly plan for retirement and old age related health care costs? Why should the "young" be paying for mistakes of the previous generation? Isn't it obvious that ones that made the mistake should now pay the price? It's unfortunate that it might mean that "old" will spend their retirement in poverty, but that's the only fair solution. Offloading mistakes to the next generation certainly is not fair.

HairyChick · 06-26-2017, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

Old person can't take it with them to the grave, so there is nothing really wrong if an old person "loses everything." Also, it's clearly better to invest in a young person rather than old. So if given a choice, it makes more sense to setup a tax system where young get more, while old get less. ObamaCare goes against that logic, they squeeze the young, to subsidize healthcare for the old.

UNCoolMikey. You proved you are a dumbass with that statement. Old people worked hard to save and buy a house, car, put kids through college, etc. You can't take it to the grave but you can leave it to kids, relatives or charity. My mom is leaving her houses to my best friend. He flies up yearly to visit me. He's been there for me as I was for him.

Young people can earn a living. Old people need assistance. Old people helped finance this country, helped create jobs, helped raise the young.

If an old person loses everything, YOUR taxes will subsidize them. YOUR money will help support them. They paid for decades for you; now it's your turn.

Not fair? Move to 🇰🇵 North Korea. Or, how about Russia? Or try Moldavia.

kane · 06-26-2017, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjorn_Tasty1

In Holland it is the same. People that save must pay extra in a nursing house, people that didn't save get it for free/cheap. You don't have to sell your house, but if it is already sold, you must 'eat' it up first. So even in a social country that is the case now cause Healthcare cost too much.

Is it fair that i have to pay extra tax so a rich elderly can give his/her children money when they die? And who will be paying for me than in 20 years when everything is even more expensive?

Perhaps it would be fair to have some kind of asset evaluation. If a person has a little money in a retirement fund and maybe a house that has some equity in it etc, they don't have to surrender those assets because they aren't amounting to much. However, if someone has hundreds of thousands or even millions in their bank account then they have to pay.

Of course, to me, the best situation would be universal healthcare so everyone was covered from cradle to grave.

kane · 06-26-2017, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

There is no right answer to this, but someone has to pay the bills, either "old" or "young."

What you said doesn't sound "right", but I think sending a bill for "old" person's healthcare to "young" person like ObamaCare does is more fucked up. Why should "young" person have to pay for something that has nothing to do with him? Shouldn't each person be responsible for his own life, his own expenses, etc?

Isn't it pretty obvious that previous generation failed to properly plan for retirement and old age related health care costs? Why should the "young" be paying for mistakes of the previous generation? Isn't it obvious that ones that made the mistake should now pay the price? It's unfortunate that it might mean that "old" will spend their retirement in poverty, but that's the only fair solution. Offloading mistakes to the next generation certainly is not fair.

Why should young people pay into Social Security which is then given to old people even though they can't start drawing it themselves until they are 65? If they die before that, too bad. Why should single people pay for people with kids' education? Why should any of us pay for police, fire, rescue etc. even if we never actively use them?

The general idea, like social security, is that younger people who are working pay for older people who are not and then when those younger people are old they will collect and the current generation of young people pay. To me, you judge a society by how they take care of the sick and old. To just tell old people, "Fuck off, live in poverty!" so you might be able to save a few tax dollars is pretty fucked up.

CoolMikey · 06-26-2017, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Perhaps it would be fair to have some kind of asset evaluation. If a person has a little money in a retirement fund and maybe a house that has some equity in it etc, they don't have to surrender those assets because they aren't amounting to much. However, if someone has hundreds of thousands or even millions in their bank account then they have to pay.

Of course, to me, the best situation would be universal healthcare so everyone was covered from cradle to grave.

I don't get it, if you have assets that are enough to cover the costs, then obviously you can afford to pay it.

So, you can afford to pay for something, but you don't want to, and instead you want to have someone else pay for it? How does that make any sense?

RedFred · 06-26-2017, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

I don't get it, if you have assets that are enough to cover the costs, then obviously you can afford to pay it.

So, you can afford to pay for something, but you don't want to, and instead you want to have someone else pay for it? How does that make any sense?

You sound like you're about 19 years old at the most.

kane · 06-26-2017, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

I don't get it, if you have assets that are enough to cover the costs, then obviously you can afford to pay it.

So, you can afford to pay for something, but you don't want to, and instead you want to have someone else pay for it? How does that make any sense?

Maybe this will clear up my position:

If you have a bunch of cash in the bank or liquid investments like stocks etc. I have no problem with having to use those to pay for medical bills. What I don't like is when people have retirement accounts like 401K accounts or they have life insurance policies that they have to cash in to pay for medical bills.

To me, it seems crazy that a person who has a modest retirement fund that they worked their whole life accumulating should have to cash it all in and live in poverty the rest of their lives simply because they got sick or injured.

Sunny Day · 06-26-2017, 08:44 PM

Big drawback to medical tourism is you have to be rich or have private insurance.
Medicaid won't pay. Medicaid won't even pay across state lines, even if it would save the Medicaid money.

Medicaid being run by each state means 50 different set of rules. My girlfriend's brother moved from Maryland to Kansas. In Maryland he had Maryland Medicaid. Year after he moved to Kansas, he got a letter from Maryland, stating he was still on their program. Can't use it, as Maryland won't pay for doctors and hospitals in Kansas and he moved here as he was going to become homeless there.

Kansas won't put him on Medicaid until he become 65 or disabled.

Robbie · 06-26-2017, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Day

Big drawback to medical tourism is you have to be rich or have private insurance.

Not really.
If you ever go to Tijuana you will find dozens of clinics with U.S. doctors working in them. These doctors also have offices in San Diego and spend half their time in each place. Thousands of U.S. residents go there every year for affordable surgery.
I know plenty of people who have had surgery done there and were able to pay for it out of pocket.

Medical tourism isn't for emergency life-saving type surgeries. It's for the kind of surgeries you can plan for. Like hip replacement, etc.

Here's an article on it:
Medical Tourism: What is it, and What are the Costs, Benefits - Men's Journal

Paul Markham · 06-26-2017, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Let me use an analogy to make something clear;

If you have an automobile that has a 6 cylinder engine that is misfiring and running on 5 cylinders, that engine will sputter, chug along and stink emitting unburnt gasoline. If you regulate its speed to 15 mph/25 kmh it will still stink the same amount just take longer to travel the same distance.

The healthcare system in the USA stinks and changing the flow of money to the same services will not fix the problem.

Universal Healthcare, if badly delivered, will have most of the same problems.

The US government cannot take property without compensation. As it stands today, most healthcare is delivered by private entities with property rights. So, any comparison with places with long standing universal healthcare -- where the peoples' tax money has built healthcare infrastructure for many decades -- is not relevant and ludicrous to the US American healthcare *crisis* for many.

The only reasonable alternative I can see, is that the US government form a government owned entity like the USPS (post office), sell bonds and build a competing infrastructure. The government for years has maintained Veterans Hospitals, administered Medicare and funded Medicaid.

The US government already knows what the mistakes are -- maybe they can get it right this time.

A National Healthcare could be a huge competitive force, could offer liability relief to health professionals it employs lowering salary expectations. Building or buying and renovating existing healthcare facilities that will fail is not unfair competition -- this competition is in the public interest.

So what it really does boil down to is: Just who has their hand in who's pocket in Congress?

The only way to logically beat the system.

06-25-2017, 08:53 AM	#67
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	In the UK they tried to make people with property pay for their own elderly care nursing home bills by selling the house and losing all but $160,000. The young thought this was outrageous, so they didn't pass the law and now the young have to pay the bills. But some will get to have the house passed onto them. Someone has to pay. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-26-2017, 04:33 AM	#78
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Let me use an analogy to make something clear; If you have an automobile that has a 6 cylinder engine that is misfiring and running on 5 cylinders, that engine will sputter, chug along and stink emitting unburnt gasoline. If you regulate its speed to 15 mph/25 kmh it will still stink the same amount just take longer to travel the same distance. The healthcare system in the USA stinks and changing the flow of money to the same services will not fix the problem. Universal Healthcare, if badly delivered, will have most of the same problems. The US government cannot take property without compensation. As it stands today, most healthcare is delivered by private entities with property rights. So, any comparison with places with long standing universal healthcare -- where the peoples' tax money has built healthcare infrastructure for many decades -- is not relevant and ludicrous to the US American healthcare crisis for many. The only reasonable alternative I can see, is that the US government form a government owned entity like the USPS (post office), sell bonds and build a competing infrastructure. The government for years has maintained Veterans Hospitals, administered Medicare and funded Medicaid. The US government already knows what the mistakes are -- maybe they can get it right this time. A National Healthcare could be a huge competitive force, could offer liability relief to health professionals it employs lowering salary expectations. Building or buying and renovating existing healthcare facilities that will fail is not unfair competition -- this competition is in the public interest. So what it really does boil down to is: Just who has their hand in who's pocket in Congress?

06-26-2017, 05:40 PM	#82
HairyChick Slowly dying Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Padanaram Posts: 3,091	My nursing home bill is $300/day. I've been here eight years and six months. After seven figures went for six months' hospitalization, I was put on Mass Health aka Medicaid. I've seen our former district attorney here, a state senator, business owners, and other wealthy people. I see lots of Medicare recipients, too. I'm the youngest one here by twenty-five years or more. Several families have talked about the future in funding I'm moving July 19th to a home being built by the commonwealth. The agency running the house promises an entirely different setup, from my own room to decent food we choose. But, it's all state money. I move from Medicaid to a state-sponsored home. I had a meeting today about the transition. They have to look up the fees as I asked about it. I'll get $200/month or more for personal expenses. Here I get $54.80/month from SSDI; the rest the Home gets. $54.80 but $25 for hosting my sites. Let's just say my credit cards are maxed out. If nursing home payments are reduced, a lot of people will end up in the horrible facilities. I'm in one of the best but could write a book on the inadequacies. I have amnesia but have my mind. Many people here are senile or have dementia and can't speak up. Our country needs to take care of the elderly and incapacitated. Veterans served. We paid taxes. We contributed to society. __________________ ***************************************** Anti-Semites have Small Penis Syndrome. The only known treatment is electroshock therapy combined with cerebellum removal. Fortunately, it’s a tiny procedure. *****************************************

06-26-2017, 08:44 PM	#98
Sunny Day Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,406	Medical Tourism Big drawback to medical tourism is you have to be rich or have private insurance. Medicaid won't pay. Medicaid won't even pay across state lines, even if it would save the Medicaid money. Medicaid being run by each state means 50 different set of rules. My girlfriend's brother moved from Maryland to Kansas. In Maryland he had Maryland Medicaid. Year after he moved to Kansas, he got a letter from Maryland, stating he was still on their program. Can't use it, as Maryland won't pay for doctors and hospitals in Kansas and he moved here as he was going to become homeless there. Kansas won't put him on Medicaid until he become 65 or disabled.

06-25-2017, 07:12 AM	#53
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 74,652	Also I wanted to add the BS lies that Obamacare has failed is complete lies being pushed by Republicans. Obamacare works perfectly well in states that wanted it to work. Republican run states purposely did not properly fund it so it would fail in their states. It's like buying a new car and not putting gas in it then bitching to the auto manufacturer saying you can't drive it. Republicans purposely attempted to make it fail by not allowing it to work as intended. Even under this situation millions of people were still able to get access to healthcare. Republicans keep running g around saying Obamacare has failed so their dumb dumb voters will believe their lies. The simple fact is Obamacare works just fine in states that took it to heart and wanted it to work.. Republicans didn't want it to work and they purposely undermined it while fucking people over in their own states just because of politics and failed ideology. This is a clear example of Republicans putting party before country and the good of the people. Republicans couldn't stand the thought that a democratic president had put together a working healthcare system for our country. Republicans put so much effort into claiming it was worse than Hitler if it succeed it made them look like fools. So instead of working for the people and helping solve issues they instead lied and attempted to make issues worse. It's the pinnacle of party politics in this country and clear example of a political party caring more about their brand name than what is good for the people.. Who would have ever expected that their voters were so stupid they would vote against their own interests and for failure.

06-25-2017, 03:03 PM	#72
RedFred Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 9,782	"It's a God-given right to carry a gun into a school but a privilege for a doctor to help you if you're sick" -Republican logic

06-26-2017, 05:11 AM	#80
BaldBastard Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Sydney Posts: 14,558	Rising health insurance costs are not an American specific issue Cost of healthcare in Australia is much less than the USA, but if you just look at the insurance premiums we pay, they have at least doubled in the past 5 years. I'd guess that scenario is the same in every country.