Originally Posted by The Rani

Unless you get raped, pregnancy is not a "risk." It's a direct consequence of your actions, and having "insurance" against it is a ridiculous concept.

Birth control does fail on occasion.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Unless you get raped, pregnancy is not a "risk." It's a direct consequence of your actions, and having "insurance" against it is a ridiculous concept.

Some pregnancies are more complicated than others. You don't know if you'll get an uncomplicated pregnancy or a typical one. In that respect, there is a role for insurance.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Birth control does fail on occasion.

IIRC correctly, about half of all unplanned pregnancies are the result of birth control failure. Indeed, here is the link to the stat: http://www.ehow.com/about_5047607_re...l-failure.html.

Now, to be fair, many of these failures were the result of not using the method properly. However, sometimes a woman will use it properly and still accidents happen.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Unless you get raped, pregnancy is not a "risk." It's a direct consequence of your actions, and having "insurance" against it is a ridiculous concept.

I agree with you 100%. The idea of using "insurance" to pay for part of the population's healthcare IS ridiculous.

Originally Posted by TnT

I agree with you 100%. The idea of using "insurance" to pay for part of the population's healthcare IS ridiculous.

Especially preventive care.

TNT and Rani, you do know the difference between Christmas day and April fools day, right?

Originally Posted by Deb C

TNT and Rani, you do know the difference between Christmas day and April fools day, right?

What's that?

Originally Posted by The Rani

What's your guess about how many of them end up in county hospitals?

How's a county hospital different from a private one? Don't they charge for services?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How's a county hospital different from a private one? Don't they charge for services?

Some public hospitals are designated as indigent care centers. We don't call them county hospitals here, but the concept seem to be the same.

I know that you can't be refused emergency service at any hospital with the capacity to provide emergency treatment. Once the emergency is over and the patient is stable, no-pay cases are transported, as they say in med-speak.

The health care reform debate exposes some of the pathologies of America. First, that its capitalist system is above else the definitive "profits first" system. Second, that even with our success in inducing productivity, we have failed badly at achieving any semblance of social justice. Employers have their employees in a helpless position -- completely at their mercy for all basic needs and with only a nominal chance to go elsewhere. Where else are workers so dependent upon the whim of a boss? Third, economic inequality is severe by world standards and even by historical standards in America. If Americans got honest pay for honest work instead of getting what tycoons and corporate bureaucrats deemed appropriate (that is, just as little as possible for a precarious level of survival for persons deemed "useful') then even the cost of medical care would be affordable whether a single-payer or even a subsidy-free, personal-mandate system. Fourth, the medical insurance cartel is better at grabbing wealth than at improving medical care, indicating that cost and service have no connection. Fifth and finally it exposes the inherent corruption of our political system. Too many people have effective veto power, including people (lobbyists) who have no defined rule in our system.

The Wall Street Journal
December 29, 2010
Insurers Bid for State Medicaid Plans
By Avery Johnson

Health insurers are preparing to capitalize on $40 billion of new
opportunities to run privately managed Medicaid plans for the states, which
would position insurers to benefit from the health overhaul's expansion of
Medicaid in 2014.

Medicaid is one of health insurers' few bright spots, as their margins are
pressed by regulatory crackdowns on premiums in their traditional policies.
Gail Boudreaux, UnitedHealth's executive vice president, told investors last
month that: "The Medicaid space is a significant long-term growth
opportunity for us. It's a big market that's getting even bigger."

Budget crises mean cash-strapped states are more willing than ever to
outsource their programs to private companies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...934403286.html

How could Medicaid be privatized? It's aid for people that cannot afford health care. Wouldn't that be difficult to make a profit off of?

The bankers never had a problem making money off of federal student loans - landlords can also bank on Section 8. It is a disaster for the American people, but yes, even social programs can be converted in to vehicles of profit.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

How could Medicaid be privatized? It's aid for people that cannot afford health care. Wouldn't that be difficult to make a profit off of?

One example is the Medicare Advantage programs, such as Essence and United Health Care. They get 13 or 14 percent more to manage Medicare patients.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the insurance industry wants in on our safety net health care, it is for profit.

I just ran into another case of what's wrong with American health care.

I have a federal blue cross plan which works very well (although I'm not going to be able to afford this particular plan post-retirement.) My prescription copays are usually very low--granted my two regular medications are generic now.

Well, I have minor ear problems from time to time and one struck this week, so it was off to the doctor for me. He looked, said there was some inflammation but nothing serious, and wrote me a scrip for drops--a mixture of acetic acid and hydrocortisone, which as you know has been around for decades.

I went and got it filled. My copay was $29.00, which is very unusual. When I asked I was informed--get this--that the actual cost, which I regret to say all of you are helping to pay for, is just over $200 for this tiny little bottle containing two well-known ingredients..

Now there has got to be a story in how on earth the drug-maker is getting away with setting this price, which has to be more than ten times cost. I don't have time to run it down myself, although I'm awfully tempted to try to do so--but it's absolutely ridiculous.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The health care reform debate exposes some of the pathologies of America. First, that its capitalist system is above else the definitive "profits first" system. Second, that even with our success in inducing productivity, we have failed badly at achieving any semblance of social justice. Employers have their employees in a helpless position -- completely at their mercy for all basic needs and with only a nominal chance to go elsewhere. Where else are workers so dependent upon the whim of a boss? Third, economic inequality is severe by world standards and even by historical standards in America. If Americans got honest pay for honest work instead of getting what tycoons and corporate bureaucrats deemed appropriate (that is, just as little as possible for a precarious level of survival for persons deemed "useful') then even the cost of medical care would be affordable whether a single-payer or even a subsidy-free, personal-mandate system. Fourth, the medical insurance cartel is better at grabbing wealth than at improving medical care, indicating that cost and service have no connection. Fifth and finally it exposes the inherent corruption of our political system. Too many people have effective veto power, including people (lobbyists) who have no defined rule in our system.

I have some libertarian tendencies, but the Heath care (non)System is the main issue that I have with most Republicans. We do need a system that is not primarily based on employment.In my opinion the chief culpret is the medical cartel itself and then only secondarily the insurance companies.The insurance industry has limited leverage to control costs dictated by the medical cartel.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I just ran into another case of what's wrong with American health care.

I have a federal blue cross plan which works very well (although I'm not going to be able to afford this particular plan post-retirement.) My prescription copays are usually very low--granted my two regular medications are generic now.

Well, I have minor ear problems from time to time and one struck this week, so it was off to the doctor for me. He looked, said there was some inflammation but nothing serious, and wrote me a scrip for drops--a mixture of acetic acid and hydrocortisone, which as you know has been around for decades.

I went and got it filled. My copay was $29.00, which is very unusual. When I asked I was informed--get this--that the actual cost, which I regret to say all of you are helping to pay for, is just over $200 for this tiny little bottle containing two well-known ingredients..

Now there has got to be a story in how on earth the drug-maker is getting away with setting this price, which has to be more than ten times cost. I don't have time to run it down myself, although I'm awfully tempted to try to do so--but it's absolutely ridiculous.

A drug called Avastin, made by Astra Zeneca, cost a cancer patient as much as $100,000 a year. The pharmaceutical industry has long argued that its high prices were due to covering the costs of research. But by 2006 some companies were charging so much for their medicine that it was discovered that this excuse didn't hold water.

It is common for some pharmaceuticals to raise their prices several times that of inflation. Not everyone pays attention to the price beyond their copays like you did. Shocking isn't it?

There's a very informative book about the pharmaceutical industry's slick marketing and how they make billions from sick patients. An investigative reporter, Melody Petersen, wrote the book Our Daily Meds. So if anyone is ready to read eye popping statistics of how we are held hostage by these corporations, I highly recommend this shocking critique of medicine in this country.

Originally Posted by independent

The bankers never had a problem making money off of federal student loans - landlords can also bank on Section 8. It is a disaster for the American people, but yes, even social programs can be converted in to vehicles of profit.

Great examples!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do what? Pregnancy and STDs are risks of having unprotected sex, not being young.

I think it's an obvious sliding scale of relevance, no? I mean, like car insurance rates for the young are much higher than for the middle-aged.

Originally Posted by Deb C

A drug called Avastin, made by Astra Zeneca, cost a cancer patient as much as $100,000 a year. The pharmaceutical industry has long argued that its high prices were due to covering the costs of research. But by 2006 some companies were charging so much for their medicine that it was discovered that this excuse didn't hold water.

My brother's life was probably shortened by a few months because of Avastin. He had lung cancer that had metasticized to his liver. He was taking a chemo cocktail to buy him a few more months of life. In that cocktail was Avastin.

He seemed to be doing great on the chemo; he was able to continue to work, only missing some days. However, he was having a nagging cough.

One summer day 16 months ago, he was talking on the phone to my sister, when he started to get that cough again. However, when he coughed this time, he coughed up blood. Something burst, and within a minute, he was dead.

According to this, Avastin can cause serious, and sometimes fatal side effects. My brother's oncologist also admitted that my brother was one of the unlucky ones who had a horrible result due to Avastin.

An outside advisory panel that carefully weighed the evidence last July concluded by a 12-1 vote that the drug’s risks, which include serious side effects like internal bleeding, hypertension and vascular perforations, did not outweigh its benefits. Still, Genentech, a unit of Roche, immediately announced yesterday that it would demand another hearing to present new data that might convince the FDA to rethink its decision

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My brother's life was probably shortened by a few months because of Avastin.

That seriously sucks. I know two other people who have died from cancer treatment. One from radiation, the other from chemo. They would have been better off spending their final months resting comfortably with their families.
Doctors need to be a lot more responsible about discussing risks/benefits with their patients, and patients need to become a lot more proactive about asking questions before agreeing to treatment.
Expensive does not always mean better, despite what we have been conditioned to believe.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My brother's life was probably shortened by a few months because of Avastin. He had lung cancer that had metasticized to his liver. He was taking a chemo cocktail to buy him a few more months of life. In that cocktail was Avastin.

He seemed to be doing great on the chemo; he was able to continue to work, only missing some days. However, he was having a nagging cough.

One summer day 16 months ago, he was talking on the phone to my sister, when he started to get that cough again. However, when he coughed this time, he coughed up blood. Something burst, and within a minute, he was dead.

According to this, Avastin can cause serious, and sometimes fatal side effects. My brother's oncologist also admitted that my brother was one of the unlucky ones who had a horrible result due to Avastin.

I'm so sorry to read about your brother's death due to side affects of Avastin. The book that I recommended in an earlier post, Our Daily Meds, is full of the consequences of way too many drugs that we are told are safe. And, it's not until too many people have died that the pharmaceuticals are forced to take it off the market.

Yeah, my dad was supposed to take some cholesterol medicine but it totally messed him up with dizzy spells and kidney problems and a heart murmur. Went off that and on to a new diet and improved more than the meds had without the side effects.

I'm a big fan of biochemistry myself and took quite a few college-level classes around the subjects. So at least I can put some research in to the things my doctor tells me and feel a little informed about my choices. I'd say that most long-term prescriptions are basically a death sentence. They rarely address the cause of disease, but come with their own set of side-effects.

I know I'm going to end up like my 90 something year old civic grandma. Not only does she not trust the banks, but she also doesn't trust the doctors very much and still refuses to take any kind of long term prescriptions. (Of course, antibiotics and steroids and surgery all have their occasional place, but most long term problems can only really be fixed with diet and exercise)


By the way, did I mention that I finally got some "Federally-approved" insurance? My doctor laughed at my policy after her billing team spent an hour on the phone with Blue Cross arguing about whether or not I could charge a "free checkup" since I had a cold. BCBS wanted to charge me $150 for a sick visit. Finally, I got 15 minutes with the doctor, who ordered me to go make another appointment at a diagnostic clinic for blood work. Then charged BCBS $150 for that 15 minute paperwork fest they call a checkup.

America has just gotten too stupid. I don't want to play this game anymore.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That seriously sucks. I know two other people who have died from cancer treatment. One from radiation, the other from chemo. They would have been better off spending their final months resting comfortably with their families.
Doctors need to be a lot more responsible about discussing risks/benefits with their patients, and patients need to become a lot more proactive about asking questions before agreeing to treatment.
Expensive does not always mean better, despite what we have been conditioned to believe.

I wish we'd get to the point where we can really have this discussion in this country, without it getting sidelined by some idiot who spins it into "grandma will have to face a Death Panel."

So many people waste so much money on marginal treatments that give them less-than-marginal returns. Sure, it contributes to the body of medical knowledge, but at what cost?

Originally Posted by Xer H

I wish we'd get to the point where we can really have this discussion in this country, without it getting sidelined by some idiot who spins it into "grandma will have to face a Death Panel."

So many people waste so much money on marginal treatments that give them less-than-marginal returns. Sure, it contributes to the body of medical knowledge, but at what cost?

It's not only grandma facing a "death panel;" it's anyone without money or health insurance. Nobody wants to think about the cost/benefit ratio of treatment. People just assume that more money means better care.