Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 5, 2014 13:17:36 GMT -5
but are you actually downgrading? in all honesty, if your premiums are going up that much, you very likely had one of the policies that the ACA deemed substandard. in placing you in the minimum standard plan, you're seeing increased premiums to match the increased coverages between the two policies. have you compared apples to apples as far as your coverages go? If the plan provided the coverages she needed, it met her needs. While she may be getting "extra coverage" for that $$, it in't something she needs so why should she have to pay for it? That's one of the thing that angers me about the ACA (The bill... not you Chive ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) ). Where does the govt get off deciding what coverage you need? If I am an adult, I should be able to decide myself what coverage I need. How does any Washington politician know better than me what coverage I need? How can they decide it is "substandard" when I am happy with it I understand why they set minimums with car insurance (they set liability because that affects other people... not the insured). But they don't mandate collision or comp coverage.... we are smart enough to do that ourselves. Why not with medical? Part of the reason is people don't pay attention to their insurance until they need it. A lot of people seem to think insurance is insurance & there is no difference. So there were absolute crap plans being sold for way more than they should have been with awesome coverage like - will cover $100/day for hospitalization. Or the plans where you can purchase separate coverage for incidents...$4/month for heart attacks, $7/month for breast cancer.
And then there is the issue of spreading costs. If we make maternity coverage optional, then clearly only women planning to have kids would pay for it & it would cost a fortune.
So I get wanting some minimum level of coverage & certain things covered. They did take it too far IMO though.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 5, 2014 13:18:32 GMT -5
Going to the actual source material from the article: "While more than 8 million consumers have enrolled in health insurance coverage through the ACA exchanges, 56% of respondents reported no change in their practice’s patient population size through April and 24% reported a slight increase. Practices expect a small shift in this trend through the end of the year. Thirty percent of respondents projected no change to their practice population size by the end of 2014 and 44% predicted a slight increase. These figures illustrate that most practices are not being inundated by new ACA exchange patients but do expect to treat somewhat more of these patients as the year progresses." And what does this mean? "• 62% of respondents reported moderate to extreme difficulty with identifying a patient that has ACA exchange coverage as opposed to traditional commercial health insurance." .... They can't even tell the difference? What I find interesting about these statistics is that they don't consider the number of care providers who left the profession over the past few years. We saw some great reports of people abandoning their educational envestment because practicing medicine was no longer worth the hassle and aggravation that the ACA was going to create. If you reduce the number of Docs, I bet the the paitent count at the remaining Docs wouold increase (as indicated in GMT's quote). Right? So, did the number of medical care providers really decrease? Or was that just media hype? Or are less people now availabe to provide services, and the media hype the implication that patient counts are up because more people now have access to medical care services? What's the true story? Fewer Docs, or more total patients?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 5, 2014 13:20:33 GMT -5
Or was that just media hype? That is my guess. A few may have decided to retire early, but overall I am guessing it didn't really change much. Would be interesting to know if there was an impact.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,876
|
Post by chiver78 on Nov 5, 2014 13:20:39 GMT -5
but are you actually downgrading? in all honesty, if your premiums are going up that much, you very likely had one of the policies that the ACA deemed substandard. in placing you in the minimum standard plan, you're seeing increased premiums to match the increased coverages between the two policies. have you compared apples to apples as far as your coverages go? If the plan provided the coverages she needed, it met her needs. While she may be getting "extra coverage" for that $$, it in't something she needs so why should she have to pay for it? That's one of the thing that angers me about the ACA (The bill... not you Chive ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) ). Where does the govt get off deciding what coverage you need? If I am an adult, I should be able to decide myself what coverage I need. How does any Washington politician know better than me what coverage I need? How can they decide it is "substandard" when I am happy with it I understand why they set minimums with car insurance (they set liability because that affects other people... not the insured). But they don't mandate collision or comp coverage.... we are smart enough to do that ourselves. Why not with medical? you're good. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) as far as the government deciding minimums, do the math - a few $ worth of preventative care is going to save a lot more in treatments down the line in most cases. think early cancer detection, diabetes maintenance and control vs. amputations when left unchecked, early detection of the start of heart disease, etc. unlike your vehicle, you can't just go out and buy a new body when the old one becomes too expensive to maintain. just my two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 13:22:18 GMT -5
If the plan provided the coverages she needed, it met her needs. While she may be getting "extra coverage" for that $$, it in't something she needs so why should she have to pay for it? That's one of the thing that angers me about the ACA (The bill... not you Chive ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) ). Where does the govt get off deciding what coverage you need? If I am an adult, I should be able to decide myself what coverage I need. How does any Washington politician know better than me what coverage I need? How can they decide it is "substandard" when I am happy with it I understand why they set minimums with car insurance (they set liability because that affects other people... not the insured). But they don't mandate collision or comp coverage.... we are smart enough to do that ourselves. Why not with medical? Part of the reason is people don't pay attention to their insurance until they need it. A lot of people seem to think insurance is insurance & there is no difference. So there were absolute crap plans being sold for way more than they should have been with awesome coverage like - will cover $100/day for hospitalization. Or the plans where you can purchase separate coverage for incidents...$4/month for heart attacks, $7/month for breast cancer.
And then there is the issue of spreading costs. If we make maternity coverage optional, then clearly only women planning to have kids would pay for it & it would cost a fortune.
So I get wanting some minimum level of coverage & certain things covered. They did take it too far IMO though.
and when someone who didn't get maternity coverage finds themselves pregnant and has to pay for the care themselves, the shit would hit the fan and it would be all over the news about pregnant women being denied care due to inability to pay.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Nov 5, 2014 13:39:30 GMT -5
Angel! and @singlemominmd I understand both of those concerns. What scares me about this is it is just another representation of the infantalizing of our society. If you are an adult, you are supposed to be old enough to take care of your own business. Failing to read your plan or to get the appropriate coverages (or pay when you said you don't want maternity and get "accidentally" pregnant) is your issue as an adult. To me, this is similar to all those idiots that didn't bother to read their loan documents and then bitched about how the "evil banks took advantage of them" during the loan crisis. To these people, I say grow up and act like adults. If you are too stupid or lazy to read your policies and take care of your business, get a conservator to handle your affair. It isn't the govt's job to protect us from our own laziness or ignorance. Especially when that "protection" impacts the lives of the people who ARE responsible enough to handle their business.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 5, 2014 13:58:50 GMT -5
If the plan provided the coverages she needed, it met her needs. While she may be getting "extra coverage" for that $$, it in't something she needs so why should she have to pay for it? That's one of the thing that angers me about the ACA (The bill... not you Chive ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) ). Where does the govt get off deciding what coverage you need? If I am an adult, I should be able to decide myself what coverage I need. How does any Washington politician know better than me what coverage I need? How can they decide it is "substandard" when I am happy with it I understand why they set minimums with car insurance (they set liability because that affects other people... not the insured). But they don't mandate collision or comp coverage.... we are smart enough to do that ourselves. Why not with medical? you're good. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) as far as the government deciding minimums, do the math - a few $ worth of preventative care is going to save a lot more in treatments down the line in most cases. think early cancer detection, diabetes maintenance and control vs. amputations when left unchecked, early detection of the start of heart disease, etc. unlike your vehicle, you can't just go out and buy a new body when the old one becomes too expensive to maintain. just my two cents. Yes, do the math.
The math says that although preventive care sounds like it will save money, it actually doesn't.
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/08-07-prevention.pdf
"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall. That result may seem counterintuitive. For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending—for that individual. But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. Even when the unit cost of a particular preventive service is low, costs can accumulate quickly when a large number of patients are treated preventively. Judging the overall effect on medical spending requires analysts to calculate not just the savings from the relatively few individuals who would avoid more expensive treatment later, but also the costs for the many who would make greater use of preventive care.
....
Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how preventive care affects costs.3 After reviewing hundreds of previous studies of preventive care, the authors report that slightly fewer than 20 percent of the services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs. Providing a specific example of the benefits and costs of preventive care, another recent study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society estimated the effects of achieving widespread use of several highly recommended preventive measures aimed at cardiovascular disease—such as monitoring blood pressure levels for diabetics and cholesterol levels for individuals at high risk of heart disease and using medications to reduce those levels.4 The researchers found that those steps would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive services, on average. Of particular note, that study sought to capture both the costs and benefits of providing preventive care over a 30-year period."
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,876
|
Post by chiver78 on Nov 5, 2014 14:06:49 GMT -5
you're good. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) as far as the government deciding minimums, do the math - a few $ worth of preventative care is going to save a lot more in treatments down the line in most cases. think early cancer detection, diabetes maintenance and control vs. amputations when left unchecked, early detection of the start of heart disease, etc. unlike your vehicle, you can't just go out and buy a new body when the old one becomes too expensive to maintain. just my two cents. Yes, do the math.
The math says that although preventive care sounds like it will save money, it actually doesn't.
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/08-07-prevention.pdf
"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall. That result may seem counterintuitive. For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending—for that individual. But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. Even when the unit cost of a particular preventive service is low, costs can accumulate quickly when a large number of patients are treated preventively. Judging the overall effect on medical spending requires analysts to calculate not just the savings from the relatively few individuals who would avoid more expensive treatment later, but also the costs for the many who would make greater use of preventive care.
....
Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how preventive care affects costs.3 After reviewing hundreds of previous studies of preventive care, the authors report that slightly fewer than 20 percent of the services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs. Providing a specific example of the benefits and costs of preventive care, another recent study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society estimated the effects of achieving widespread use of several highly recommended preventive measures aimed at cardiovascular disease—such as monitoring blood pressure levels for diabetics and cholesterol levels for individuals at high risk of heart disease and using medications to reduce those levels.4 The researchers found that those steps would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive services, on average. Of particular note, that study sought to capture both the costs and benefits of providing preventive care over a 30-year period."
and if preventive care wasn't used, that patient likely wouldn't be around for that whole 30-year period. of course it's going to cumulatively mean more costs. please go back to where I said (and agreed with others) that the ACA is not perfect. it isn't, but I am happy that it has allowed more people access to affordable insurance that allows them to even see a doctor at reasonable pricing. I've said many times on this board and elsewhere that there is still a ton of work to be done, and people both sides of the aisle need to pull their heads out of their collective asses and get to work.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 5, 2014 14:06:59 GMT -5
Angel! and @singlemominmd I understand both of those concerns. What scares me about this is it is just another representation of the infantalizing of our society. If you are an adult, you are supposed to be old enough to take care of your own business. Failing to read your plan or to get the appropriate coverages (or pay when you said you don't want maternity and get "accidentally" pregnant) is your issue as an adult. To me, this is similar to all those idiots that didn't bother to read their loan documents and then bitched about how the "evil banks took advantage of them" during the loan crisis. To these people, I say grow up and act like adults. If you are too stupid or lazy to read your policies and take care of your business, get a conservator to handle your affair. It isn't the govt's job to protect us from our own laziness or ignorance. Especially when that "protection" impacts the lives of the people who ARE responsible enough to handle their business. That really gets into whether the govt should protect the idiots. I'm going to guess with welfare, ue, social security, the credit card laws, the mortgage laws, and everything else, the answer many would give is yes. We are all morons that need to protected by big govt laws.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 14:10:50 GMT -5
Actually, government attempts to protect you from the idiots.
Society must deal with the morons, as you term them. The question is how,,and with the least impact on 'the rest'..
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 5, 2014 14:13:46 GMT -5
and if preventive care wasn't used, that patient likely wouldn't be around for that whole 30-year period. of course it's going to cumulatively mean more costs. please go back to where I said (and agreed with others) that the ACA is not perfect. it isn't, but I am happy that it has allowed more people access to affordable insurance that allows them to even see a doctor at reasonable pricing. I've said many times on this board and elsewhere that there is still a ton of work to be done, and people both sides of the aisle need to pull their heads out of their collective asses and get to work. If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 14:17:32 GMT -5
As long as health care is for profit, saving money will not be a priority of the industry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 14:18:27 GMT -5
and if preventive care wasn't used, that patient likely wouldn't be around for that whole 30-year period. of course it's going to cumulatively mean more costs. please go back to where I said (and agreed with others) that the ACA is not perfect. it isn't, but I am happy that it has allowed more people access to affordable insurance that allows them to even see a doctor at reasonable pricing. I've said many times on this board and elsewhere that there is still a ton of work to be done, and people both sides of the aisle need to pull their heads out of their collective asses and get to work. If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
I don't think you can lump all preventive care together. controlling a kid's asthma so he doesn't end up in the hospital probably saves money. screening everyone for some weird ailment most likely doesn't. personally I feel the mammogram every year starting at age 40 is not a good use of money but I know I'm going to get ripped for that.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 5, 2014 14:19:54 GMT -5
and if preventive care wasn't used, that patient likely wouldn't be around for that whole 30-year period. of course it's going to cumulatively mean more costs. please go back to where I said (and agreed with others) that the ACA is not perfect. it isn't, but I am happy that it has allowed more people access to affordable insurance that allows them to even see a doctor at reasonable pricing. I've said many times on this board and elsewhere that there is still a ton of work to be done, and people both sides of the aisle need to pull their heads out of their collective asses and get to work. If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
I think it really depends on the type of preventative care. I imagine preventative care in kids <10 absolutely saves money. Maybe we need to be more selective in what preventative care is covered.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 14:20:28 GMT -5
If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
I don't think you can lump all preventive care together. controlling a kid's asthma so he doesn't end up in the hospital probably saves money. screening everyone for some weird ailment most likely doesn't. personally I feel the mammogram every year starting at age 40 is not a good use of money but I know I'm going to get ripped for that. They're actually pretty cheap as far as medical tests go. I just had my first and it was $320.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 5, 2014 14:21:59 GMT -5
As long as health care is for profit, saving money will not be a priority of the industry. But the problem is that the same can be said of government. Government isn't known as a paragon of responsible spending, quality service or decent systems.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 5, 2014 14:22:32 GMT -5
I don't think you can lump all preventive care together. controlling a kid's asthma so he doesn't end up in the hospital probably saves money. screening everyone for some weird ailment most likely doesn't. personally I feel the mammogram every year starting at age 40 is not a good use of money but I know I'm going to get ripped for that. They're actually pretty cheap as far as medical tests go. I just had my first and it was $320.
I wonder if it is more that early screening means you catch more people in the early stages when it is treatable, but costs us more because now we are treating more people. In other words, are we saving lives with the preventative care, but spending more money to do it. Is it worth it if it means more lives are saved?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 5, 2014 14:23:29 GMT -5
If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
I don't think you can lump all preventive care together. controlling a kid's asthma so he doesn't end up in the hospital probably saves money. screening everyone for some weird ailment most likely doesn't. personally I feel the mammogram every year starting at age 40 is not a good use of money but I know I'm going to get ripped for that.
Actually I'd bet there are a decent number of people who are in agreement with you. I had a long, hard discussion with my dr about this and the only reason I'm getting them annually is because my sister had an aggressive form of breast cancer. Before she was diagnosed I got them done every 2-3 years.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 5, 2014 14:23:35 GMT -5
If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
I don't think you can lump all preventive care together. controlling a kid's asthma so he doesn't end up in the hospital probably saves money. screening everyone for some weird ailment most likely doesn't. personally I feel the mammogram every year starting at age 40 is not a good use of money but I know I'm going to get ripped for that. You can't. And that's part of why it makes sense to actually get data on what types of preventive care do save money versus just claiming they all do. BTW, I'm with you on the mammogram thing, but the reason you'll get ripped is also the reason it's tough to have government involved in healthcare - people get passionate and political about the issue instead of looking at the data.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Nov 5, 2014 14:24:48 GMT -5
If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
I don't think you can lump all preventive care together. controlling a kid's asthma so he doesn't end up in the hospital probably saves money. screening everyone for some weird ailment most likely doesn't. personally I feel the mammogram every year starting at age 40 is not a good use of money but I know I'm going to get ripped for that. No ripping here - I agree with you entirely:
www.cbsnews.com/news/mammograms-x-rays-may-increase-breast-cancer-risk-in-some-women-with-specific-genetic-mutations/
I haven't had a mammogram in over ten years, and never intend to have one again. HOWEVER, I do get an annual breast screening exam using thermography. When administered and interpreted correctly, it can detect cancerous activity 5-10 years earlier than a mammogram. A mammogram cannot detect cancer until a tumor actually forms and become big enough for an x-ray to see. Thermography detects angiogenesis (blood vessels being formed and growing to support a tumor) in its earliest stages.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,876
|
Post by chiver78 on Nov 5, 2014 14:25:29 GMT -5
and if preventive care wasn't used, that patient likely wouldn't be around for that whole 30-year period. of course it's going to cumulatively mean more costs. please go back to where I said (and agreed with others) that the ACA is not perfect. it isn't, but I am happy that it has allowed more people access to affordable insurance that allows them to even see a doctor at reasonable pricing. I've said many times on this board and elsewhere that there is still a ton of work to be done, and people both sides of the aisle need to pull their heads out of their collective asses and get to work. If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
there's no need to be condescending. I'm sorry that you don't think it's good to ensure that everyone has affordable access to health insurance. but you can't tell me that it was better overall to have millions of uninsured people ignoring their aches and pains until they land in the ER - the cost of which gets pushed back to the insured. if you can sit back and say that was a better system, then I don't think there's anything I'm going to say to change your mind. now to read the posts that came in after this one.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 5, 2014 14:26:30 GMT -5
They're actually pretty cheap as far as medical tests go. I just had my first and it was $320.
I wonder if it is more that early screening means you catch more people in the early stages when it is treatable, but costs us more because now we are treating more people. In other words, are we saving lives with the preventative care, but spending more money to do it. Is it worth it if it means more lives are saved?
If we're still talking about mammograms specifically, there's actually a lot of debate on how many lives are actually saved. There's a growing concern among scientists that we're aggressively treating many growths that would never have developed into cancer. And although that sounds good on the surface of it, the treatments themselves aren't just expensive, they have their own risks and health issues. "Treatment" sounds so positive, but the side effects can be severe and permanent.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 5, 2014 14:28:14 GMT -5
I wonder if it is more that early screening means you catch more people in the early stages when it is treatable, but costs us more because now we are treating more people. In other words, are we saving lives with the preventative care, but spending more money to do it. Is it worth it if it means more lives are saved?
If we're still talking about mammograms specifically, there's actually a lot of debate on how many lives are actually saved. There's a growing concern among scientists that we're aggressively treating many growths that would never have developed into cancer. And although that sounds good on the surface of it, the treatments themselves aren't just expensive, they have their own risks and health issues. "Treatment" sounds so positive, but the side effects can be severe and permanent. Just preventative care in general - blood tests, mammograms, pap smears, prostate exams, etc. Preventative care probably costs money because we found the issue & treated it vs letting it go on until it became apparent on it's own & potentially untreatable.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 5, 2014 14:31:32 GMT -5
If it makes you feel happy, that's good. But let's at least talk facts, not feelings here and stop bringing up the idea that the money spent on preventive care results in a cost savings. We have to talk about facts in order to pull our heads out of our asses to fix things. If we aren't talking about facts, nothing will be fixed.
there's no need to be condescending. I'm sorry that you don't think it's good to ensure that everyone has affordable access to health insurance. but you can't tell me that it was better overall to have millions of uninsured people ignoring their aches and pains until they land in the ER - the cost of which gets pushed back to the insured. if you can sit back and say that was a better system, then I don't think there's anything I'm going to say to change your mind. now to read the posts that came in after this one. I'm not trying to be condescending, so I apologize for using a tone that suggested that. When we "talk" about these issues on the board, I think it's most productive to try to keep feelings out of the debate since those are so subjective. In trying to limit posting to facts, my tone probably sounds stilted.
Healthcare is so incredibly complicated that the level of complexity is one of the main reasons that I don't want government heavily involved. Our government's not good at dealing with facts, examining data, ignoring special interests and feelings and setting up efficient systems. If you want to interpret that as me wanting children to die in the streets, I can't stop you. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 14:31:48 GMT -5
Research on annual mammograms for everyone is neutral at best... But my doc is highly upset that I won't do them... That's a covered procedure man... They are missing out.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 5, 2014 14:35:08 GMT -5
And your point is? I'm not sure if you are mocking me or not... At some point everyone who is born will die. A significant portion of medical spending is not in "curing" cancer, but merely prolonging the life of those who develop it, or other end of life care. Tell me, if you knew for a fact that your kids and grandkids would have to personally pay off your medical bill of $400K or more just so you could have a few more years on the planet would you take the treatment? I think most folks would not burden their family with that kind of debt. But let's make it a cost to "society" and then it suddenly becomes more palatable? Yes, medical advances are amazing - but I think we've advanced beyond the point where equal access to those expensive advances is feasible for all. Not mocking you. If the cost would credit debt and be a "burden", I won't. If the cost would be a smaller donation to the Opera this year, I would. I support a frank conversation: "Whether you live or die will be based on your financial resources. If you have the money, you will receive excellent care. Down the scale to the potential that you might die on the street in excursiating pain." If that is what we are going to have, let's say it. Well said. That is exactly the discussion we need to be having as a country. Problem is, no one wants to own up to it.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Nov 5, 2014 14:39:51 GMT -5
Research on annual mammograms for everyone is neutral at best... But my doc is highly upset that I won't do them... That's a covered procedure man... They are missing out. I don't think your doctor is worrying about missing out on some $$ by not getting your mammogram. If you think that is why your doctor cares/is upset, I would recommend getting a new doctor. Most doctors I know tend to err on the side of caution. They want to do the tests just to make sure and to double/triple check that you are okay. By recommending the testing, they want to make sure they have done all they can to ensure that thy see stuff coming. There also may be a small component of CYA for the doctor. Many people will refuse testing and then, if something comes up later, they get mad at the doctor because the doctor didn't "see the issue coming". They start talking about malpractice suits and how the doc is incompetent, all while failing to take responsibility for their part/decisions in the outcome. I don't think this applies in your case, OPED, but I'm sure your doc has had some history with patients who do that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 14:40:01 GMT -5
there's no need to be condescending. I'm sorry that you don't think it's good to ensure that everyone has affordable access to health insurance. but you can't tell me that it was better overall to have millions of uninsured people ignoring their aches and pains until they land in the ER - the cost of which gets pushed back to the insured. if you can sit back and say that was a better system, then I don't think there's anything I'm going to say to change your mind. now to read the posts that came in after this one. I'm not trying to be condescending, so I apologize for using a tone that suggested that. When we "talk" about these issues on the board, I think it's most productive to try to keep feelings out of the debate since those are so subjective. In trying to limit posting to facts, my tone probably sounds stilted.
Healthcare is so incredibly complicated that the level of complexity is one of the main reasons that I don't want government heavily involved. Our government's not good at dealing with facts, examining data, ignoring special interests and feelings and setting up efficient systems. If you want to interpret that as me wanting children to die in the streets, I can't stop you. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif)
I have lived in Canada all my life and I have no problems with the medical system here. Having gone through a life threatening health issue with my daughter for many years I have not a bad word to say about the treatment she received over the course of 5 years. The only problem I see is people who abuse the system, no matter what system you have there will be abusers. Having said that I am increasingly thankful that I do not have to deal with insurance companies over health issues. I can only imagine the extra burden that puts on families already stressed.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,876
|
Post by chiver78 on Nov 5, 2014 14:41:00 GMT -5
there's no need to be condescending. I'm sorry that you don't think it's good to ensure that everyone has affordable access to health insurance. but you can't tell me that it was better overall to have millions of uninsured people ignoring their aches and pains until they land in the ER - the cost of which gets pushed back to the insured. if you can sit back and say that was a better system, then I don't think there's anything I'm going to say to change your mind. now to read the posts that came in after this one. I'm not trying to be condescending, so I apologize for using a tone that suggested that. When we "talk" about these issues on the board, I think it's most productive to try to keep feelings out of the debate since those are so subjective. In trying to limit posting to facts, my tone probably sounds stilted.
Healthcare is so incredibly complicated that the level of complexity is one of the main reasons that I don't want government heavily involved. Our government's not good at dealing with facts, examining data, ignoring special interests and feelings and setting up efficient systems. If you want to interpret that as me wanting children to die in the streets, I can't stop you. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif)
I've been on YM for a little while now, thanks. I've even participated in a discussion or two. moving on. in an effort to discuss and analyze facts - do you consider the system the way it was prior to the ACA, where many uninsured people would get their healthcare needs met by the ER, to be a better system than what we have now with the ACA? clearly you think the ACA is inadequate, so what tweaks would you make to it, to make it more efficient?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 5, 2014 14:46:26 GMT -5
Not mocking you. If the cost would credit debt and be a "burden", I won't. If the cost would be a smaller donation to the Opera this year, I would. I support a frank conversation: "Whether you live or die will be based on your financial resources. If you have the money, you will receive excellent care. Down the scale to the potential that you might die on the street in excursiating pain." If that is what we are going to have, let's say it. Well said. That is exactly the discussion we need to be having as a country. Problem is, no one wants to own up to it. It's a tough discussion to have. At the heart of it is the idea that the life of someone who doesn't have money is less important than the life of someone who does. I don't think that's the case -- when strictly speaking numbers, condition X costs $Y to treat and if you don't have $Y, you can't get treatment. Simple math. But those on the bottom of the socioeconomic scale see it as a judgment of their worth as a human being, and I can understand why. I'm not sure how such a discussion would be started in a productive manner.
|
|