patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,261,510 comments by 15,063 users - ForcedTQ, RWSGFY online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 61 - 69 of 69 Search these comments
elliemae
2009 Dec 8, 1:53pm
And yes, America get used to death being a part of life. You can’t treat you body like sh!t then expect medicine to fix it all after a few weeks in the ICU. And you might have a living will but if your relatives aren’t on the same page as you they will keep that heart of yours beating until the ethics board steps in. And with all the advances in medicine we can keep dead people alive a very long time. Who’s gonna pay for it?
There's a medical ethicist in Salt Lake City who advocated DNR's and end-of-life decisions; her husband was in a bike accident and she's kept him alive at quite the cost. She said it changed her view completely.
That's the problem - people are all for ending life when there's no quality, in theory. When it's them or their family members, it's different. I've seen people keep family members alive at all costs, even when the family member wanted different. It just plain sucks.
Leigh
2009 Dec 8, 1:56pm
Oh, I understand that it is illegal to use a prescription med that isn't in your name but I find it wasteful to toss them when you know folks are struggling and deciding between meds and food and the heating bill. My spouse just mentioned that he's heard of specific, very expensive cancer meds being redistributed.
I just googled some terms and so far came up with this
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/24729.php
I'll need to read up on the specifics as I'd like to pass this info on to my patients if Oregon has similar laws.
PeopleUnited
2009 Dec 8, 4:18pm
And with all the advances in medicine we can keep dead people alive a very long time. Who’s gonna pay for it?
Exactly. Who is going to pay for it? If we try to "save the world" it will bankrupt and kill us all.
But like I said, I am ALL FOR CHARITY. As long as it is optional.
PeopleUnited
2009 Dec 8, 4:21pm
Oh, I understand that it is illegal to use a prescription med that isn’t in your name but I find it wasteful to toss them when you know folks are struggling and deciding between meds and food and the heating bill. My spouse just mentioned that he’s heard of specific, very expensive cancer meds being redistributed.
I just googled some terms and so far came up with this
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/StatePrescriptionDrugReturnReuseandRecyclin/tabid/14425/Default.aspx
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/24729.php
I’ll need to read up on the specifics as I’d like to pass this info on to my patients if Oregon has similar laws.
I'm not sure it is illegal to use it, but it is illegal to transfer it. Not to get into semantics though. I'm just saying if the law were enforced, it would be the person who transferred the drug that would be prosecuted (I believe).
tatupu70
2009 Dec 8, 8:20pm
I am all for VOLUNTARY wealth redistribution. Where I have a problem is when people are FORCED to do so
So, you're against car insurance then too?
PeopleUnited
2009 Dec 8, 10:27pm
I am all for VOLUNTARY wealth redistribution. Where I have a problem is when people are FORCED to do so
So, you’re against car insurance then too?
Sure. Warren Buffet and Gieco don't need mandatory customers.
elliemae
2009 Dec 8, 10:36pm
Leigh:
Just remember that some hospice nurse doesn't have the right to tell anyone what to do with the meds. They catch you in an emotional moment and demand that you waste the meds.
I've also seen hospice nurses take the meds, sell them or use them for themselves. It's their word against anyone else's.
Leigh
2009 Dec 8, 11:14pm
AdHominem, can you address this previous comment. It's a crucial part of the debate3. What would folks 65 and old do for insurance w/out Medicare? What would the housewife who has never worked out of the home and now is widowed do for health care? WHat are your solutions?
"OK, say we throw Medicare out the door. Take all the money she had been contributing these past 40 years and put it toward private insurance after retirement. How much money do you think that would be? Would it be adequate to afford the premiums in the ‘free market’, imagine all of her pre-existing conditions. Would she have enough funds for 20 years of premiums, co-pays and deductibles, medications? And consider the premiums would be based on age and health.
In my mind, the 65 and older folks drain the health care dollars. Not only would their premiums be sky high but there will be much more scrutiny of where the dollars are going. Yes, private insurance has ‘death panels’ just ask any transplant doctor."
Do you realize how much health care is consumed by this age group? You really think charity can absorb half of it. You will see death panels if charity is what the majority of this age group is left with. DO you realize how much an MI can cost you especially if it involves bypass surgery, an ICU stay and meds, assuming you lived? Would the debt get passed on to your loved ones?
« First « Previous Comments 61 - 69 of 69 Search these comments
I'd like to share with you the story of a lady who lives in a small rural community. These are actual events of the past week. She recently turned 65 and became "eligible for benefits" under Medicare. This meant enrolling in Medicare part D for prescription coverage as well as Medicare A and B for hospital and medical expenses. It came time for her to get refills on her maintenance medications so she called her pharmacy. Under her new "coverage" she was told she would have to pay out of pocket for her prescriptions or go elsewhere because the independent pharmacy she has used for the past 15 years does not do Medicare D plans.
So she had her prescriptions transferred to a pharmacy in another town farther away, that does do Medicare D plans. This, only to have three of the medications denied by the Medicare plan, requiring a "prior authorization" by the physician (in case you are unfamiliar with the concept, basically the doctor has to do extra paperwork to justify the prescription for the medication he has already written for). Upon notice that the doctor will need to do a prior authorization, the doctors office notifies the patient that she will need to see the doctor before they can proceed. So she schedules and comes in for an appointment but before she even gets to see the doctor, she shows the receptionist her new "insurance" card. The receptionist tells her that Medicare is not accepted at this clinic. She will need to find a new doctor and is given some information on a clinic 25 miles away. After 15 years she is without a doctor, has a new pharmacy in a new town, but is still unable to get 3 of her maintenance medications without paying out of pocket for the full amount.
Some believe that we need to expand Medicare and use it as a model for everyone else. I'm sure this lady would disagree.
The providers have spoken, and they are saying they would rather lose patients than deal with Medicare. The regulations are onerous and the compensation for services is not fair. More and more providers are either closing shop or refusing to contract with Medicare. This results in loss of choice for Medicare patients and everyone else. Add to that the 75+ billion dollars lost to fraud, waste and abuse each year and you have a pretty good idea of what Medicare is doing for us and to us.
It is time to get government out of the health care business. This lady was better off without their "help", and you are too.