Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Riggerjack »

Riggerjack wrote: ↑
So, you are thinking that before we fix an economic problem with a political solution, we just need to fix politics? Just somehow realign the incentives of Congressmen to be closer to the interests of their constituents?

Yes. Politics and economics are two sides of the same coin. Just human beings imposing rules on eachother and reacting to incentives.
This false equivalent has me scratching my head. Do you really see no moral difference between paying someone more to do something and beating someone until they capitulate? Are you really equally comfortable with using a carrot or a stick? Is that because you have never used either, or did you just use what was easier? When would you decide to use the he stick? When others were egging you on, or just when it was appealing?

Now I won't say forcing compliance is universally wrong, but I certainly wouldn't consider it equivalent to rewarding compliance. Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart... Paying people to work for me rather than simply enslaving them. Two sides, and all that, I guess. :roll:

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Riggerjack »

When costs get out of control in medical, the market IS being efficient. It makes perfect sense to spend anything and everything to save your life, the life of a loved one or, in the case of chronic disease, restore health to maximum functionality. Arguments can be made for some freer market systems to be in place for some parts of healthcare and this may help reduce costs. At the end of the day though, people are willing to spend what it takes (their money AND everyone elses) to maintain life and maximize health. Anyone who thinks differently has never had a chronic life altering illness, nor have they faced personal demise which could be prevented. IOW, if you are sick, you will pay whatever it takes to get healthy, the more complex and expensive our (society's) medical knowledge becomes, the more it becomes possible to spend greater amounts of money/resources.
And it is logical to want a yacht, since they exist, but strangely, there is still a conoe making industry. Maybe nobody told them?

Seriously, there are finite options, regardless of budget. If you have an inoperable brain tumor, and an unlimited budget, there are still only so many scans that can be ordered, so much snake oil to inject, or so many mind/body/spirit healing centers to attend.

The vast majority of medical treatment is not life saving. Most treatment is maintenance and diagnostic, and that can be priced by the average Joe, in the normal course of a business day. As I pointed out above, not every decision needs to be well informed for pricing to work.

While I think it is nice that you have never had to factor cost into healthcare, I can tell you it is factored in every day by some percentage of the customer base. I have known many people who have chronic pain or disability that isn't fixed for cost reasons. That you haven't made that choice is nice, but that's not the reality on the ground.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Riggerjack »

I'm not sure where those numbers come from, but Harvard Medical disagrees
Yeah. They came from an old doctor I used to see. I remember them just for their symmetry. A quick Google search confirms your numbers, with none for mine. Please disregard my 44% at 44 statement above.

But I stand behind my concept, that those who die early and quickly may not make overall costs go down by living longer, and possibly dying more slowly. Maybe our system only chuggs along because fat people die early and/or cheap.

Do we then subsidize Hostess to keep costs down?

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by BRUTE »

except they don't - they take decades of insulin, metformin, expensive personal care, emergency bypass operations.. the cost problem with the diseases of civilization is exactly that they don't kill quickly, but over decades.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9426
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

OTOH, the annual incidence of hip fractures is supposed to exceed 500,000 by 2040. Current cost per incidence being over $88,000. This is why I think it might not be a very good idea for a middle-aged female with low diabetes/heart disease risk to adopt an anti-estrogenic diet. IMO, our society focuses too much on what is likely to kill men in their 60s, and not enough on what is likely to disable women in their 80s.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Riggerjack »

I'm not making the claim that fat is good. I'm saying that we have a lot of people that die early and cheap. That better overall health may not be cheaper overall healthcare.
Insulin is cheap, $30/month, with no insurance. (I had a diabetic dog) I have no idea about metaformin. And most people don't get personal help, or bypass surgery.

This communal unhappiness with the choices of our fellow citizens is a byproduct of sharing their costs.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if that is unintended. I mean it's so divisive, and what a wonderful way to stir things up. If you believe that the rich divide and conquer the rest, this must resonate.

My mind doesn't work that way, but it is fun to speculate.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by BRUTE »

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 8:31 am
This communal unhappiness with the choices of our fellow citizens is a byproduct of sharing their costs.
t-shirt please. this is one of the defining principles of libertarianism for brute.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by classical_Liberal »

...
Last edited by classical_Liberal on Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3872
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 5:35 am
OTOH, the annual incidence of hip fractures is supposed to exceed 500,000 by 2040. Current cost per incidence being over $88,000. This is why I think it might not be a very good idea for a middle-aged female with low diabetes/heart disease risk to adopt an anti-estrogenic diet. IMO, our society focuses too much on what is likely to kill men in their 60s, and not enough on what is likely to disable women in their 80s.
Since the leading cause of death in US women is heart disease, and I'd guess a good share of those deaths occur before age 80, maybe it's not so bad focusing attention in such a way as to potentially have more women live into their 80s to begin with? I lost an aunt this weekend, perhaps ironically just 5 days after she fell and broke her femur a few inches from her hip. She probably fell from a combination of heavy duty pain medication and oxygen deficit due to lung cancer. She was too weak to seek any sort of treatment for the cancer after a ~10 year battle with heart disease. I don't think a focus on heart disease and it's precursors is a conspiracy against women.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Riggerjack »

If society suddenly decides it's OK for people to die if they can not afford life saving medical care, that could change. I don't see that kind of social change taking place any time soon, hence we have to make the ground rules even for all. A fair playing field.
Well, you seem more in touch with modern medicine than I am. So help me out here. What are you describing as life saving care? I ask, because I come from the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and nobody I grew up with has these expectations you describe.

As an example, let me tell you about my grandma's death. Sensitive readers should skip to the next post.

In 1997, my grandma was 91, had lung cancer, a shiny new hip(provided by Medicaid), and in her assisted living apt, she had a heart attack.

My sister and I saw her the next morning, she had a temp pacemaker in, and she was drugged to the gills. The docs were concerned about her kidneys. She had a catheter in, and we were trying to get her to eat ice chips, watching the bag for signs her kidneys were working.

After the first day, I cornered her doc, and asked about getting her on dialysis. He said dialysis was generally long term, once you started it, you rarely stopped. And that he couldn't justify putting a 91 year old woman with lung cancer, on Medicaid, on dialysis.

This is a level of honesty I doubt is available anymore, but this was 1997, and in a former VA hospital.

I went back to the ice chips. She spent the next 2 days unconscious, or delirious. When she was talking, most of it didn't make sense, but she was clear about wanting to die. I don't know what kidney failure feels like, but it sure looked unpleasant. In the middle of the night, the 3rd night we were there, a nurse came in and talked to us. They didn't have any real hope left, it was all about pain management, now. Then after her morphine, she said something about how she could give her more, if we wanted. You know, to help her along. The nurse gave her 3 more shots, and she was dead 20 minutes later.

My take away was that my grandma was euthenized because she was on Medicaid. The only part of this that seemed wrong was that they waited as long as they did.

I've told this story a few times since, and there is a variety of reactions. Some get pissed about the "extra pain management", some talk about suing the doc who wouldn't start dialysis. But I expect that the last 2 days after she started begging to die would be the only part that would have bothered her. She was tough.

I have known plenty of folks who get broken, and don't get fixed. I was working with one this last weekend. I honestly don't know many people who have this expectation of free medical, because they are poor. They know they will get minimum treatment, and shown the door.

I think this
If society suddenly decides it's OK for people to die if they can not afford life saving medical care, that could change. I don't see that kind of social change taking place any time soon, hence we have to make the ground rules even for all. A fair playing field.
is just a story middle class folks tell themselves as justification for a system that meets their needs, and allows them to feel better about deflecting the costs, because they do it for "the Poor."

But poor folk know better. It not their needs the system is set up to meet.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Riggerjack »

I am 7.5 years older than my wife. Actuarial tables make it very clear that odds of me out living her are very slim. When those late life decisions need to be made, those years left in her life will be a much higher priority than any additional months in mine. I have done this math, and most folks I know have at least thought about it.

So the idea that
A new cancer diagnosis that needs urgent, rather than emergent care has an extreme psychological impact on the seeker of services. Much more so than needing car repairs or a lawyer. Unlike car repair or a lawyer (or anything else I can think of), people are willing to pay ANY amount to regain health and avoid death. If there is any reasonable chance for recovery, it's logical to do so.

seems... soft. Sorry, I just can't think of a better term. I don't mean to be insulting. This just seems an unreasonable and selfish position to start from. And I'm pretty comfortable with being called selfish and unreasonable, but I can't wrap my head around this expectation.

Maybe this is where medicine is now, and I'm the one out of touch, but I can tell you I'm not the only one.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Dragline »

What usually happens is that its your wife or other close relatives deciding on your care. And in the US system, which is fixated on "choice", the doctor gives the choices and the relatives tend to choose the "preserve his life at all costs option". The doctors are trained differently outside the US.

This illustrates the problem (watch video): http://www.nextavenue.org/atul-gawandes ... lifes-end/

The book referenced is even better, though.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by BRUTE »

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 7:53 pm
.. grandma story ..
there is a rugged, individualistic romanticism to these types of stories. brute thinks that this type of story is very much part of the libertarian mythical canon (not meant in a negative way), comparable to the "heroic upper middle class doctor goes out of his way to save poor humans over summer break" myth liberals love.

very Bukowski.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Campitor »

The choice to extend life giving care "at all cost" doesn't only depend on money. All resources are finite which includes the doctors and nurses needed to treat patients. Physicians will steer patients to medical decisions that save on resources which can be better utilized by someone else and that includes medical attention and services. "At all cost" has always been and will continue to be a fantasy for those who are in need of or can make use of a single payer system regardless if said system exists or not.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9426
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I wrote:
This is why I think it might not be a very good idea for a middle-aged female with low diabetes/heart disease risk to adopt an anti-estrogenic diet.

IlliniDave said: Since the leading cause of death in US women is heart disease, and I'd guess a good share of those deaths occur before age 80, maybe it's not so bad focusing attention in such a way as to potentially have more women live into their 80s to begin with? I lost an aunt this weekend, perhaps ironically just 5 days after she fell and broke her femur a few inches from her hip. She probably fell from a combination of heavy duty pain medication and oxygen deficit due to lung cancer. She was too weak to seek any sort of treatment for the cancer after a ~10 year battle with heart disease. I don't think a focus on heart disease and it's precursors is a conspiracy against women.
According to the Women's Heart Foundation, a group advocating female specific heart disease research, "smoking, diabetes, and abnormal blood lipids erase a woman's estrogen protection." Affluent, non-smoking, white women who carry most of their fat on their lower body are the lowest risk group for the related set of disorders caused by central body obesity, but they are the highest risk group for eating disorders and coming up with fake illnesses (like non-symptomatic thyroid disease) to get prescription medications that are some variety of amphetamine, or taking up smoking and drinking in their teen years in order to maintain their weight.

I recently watched a few episodes of "Superfat vs. Superskinny", a terrible British show which teamed up anorexic and morbidly obese individuals, and on one of the episodes they featured a woman who is theoretically combating the obesity epidemic by traveling around the country with a campaign of "Ban Big Bums!" which makes no sense whatsoever based on what is known about the mechanics of these diseases. The point I keep trying to make, and only partially in defense of my own cookie addiction-lol, is that it is idiotic to engage in practices that would, or even might, lower estrogen protection in order to decrease BMI if your tendency is towards lower-body obesity. Since it is very rare for males to have tendency towards hour-glass or pear shape, my argument is somewhat sexist, and also racist, since there is variation in tendency towards lower-vs- central body obesity across ethnic groups within the female population.

Since the trend in this direction likely started with the cigarette-smoking, corset-abandoning flapper style of the 1920s, the medical community does not have possession of statistics that do not include women, such as my maternal grandmother, who drank, smoked and worked in a factory alongside male peers, and prior to that women were always dropping like flies due to complications of child-birth.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Chad »

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 8:16 pm
I am 7.5 years older than my wife. Actuarial tables make it very clear that odds of me out living her are very slim. When those late life decisions need to be made, those years left in her life will be a much higher priority than any additional months in mine. I have done this math, and most folks I know have at least thought about it.

So the idea that
A new cancer diagnosis that needs urgent, rather than emergent care has an extreme psychological impact on the seeker of services. Much more so than needing car repairs or a lawyer. Unlike car repair or a lawyer (or anything else I can think of), people are willing to pay ANY amount to regain health and avoid death. If there is any reasonable chance for recovery, it's logical to do so.

seems... soft. Sorry, I just can't think of a better term. I don't mean to be insulting. This just seems an unreasonable and selfish position to start from. And I'm pretty comfortable with being called selfish and unreasonable, but I can't wrap my head around this expectation.

Maybe this is where medicine is now, and I'm the one out of touch, but I can tell you I'm not the only one.
The psychological impact is very real. My mother was one of the most rational and common sense people I have ever known. She was not rational and common sense about her brain cancer treatment towards the end. She wanted a third brain surgery to have the cancer cut out, which is basically unprecedented with this type of disease. These are 7-9 hour operations that require a massive amount of resources. The first two had already cost her 60% or so of her ability to speak, read, think, and move. She was never someone that enjoyed sitting and watching TV, but it was basically all she could do after two surgeries. A third would have made her life worse and only barely slowed down the disease, and was not something she would have thought was a good idea if she were seeing this as a story on the nightly news. However, it wasn't a story anymore, it was happening to her. We talked her out of it, which was about the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. Having your mother tell you, "You want me to die" is extremely psychologically challenging. I only included that note to demonstrate how psychologically straining this ordeal can be and I don't see how it can be mitigated by the family, friends, etc. making the decisions.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3872
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 6:33 am
I wrote:
This is why I think it might not be a very good idea for a middle-aged female with low diabetes/heart disease risk to adopt an anti-estrogenic diet.

IlliniDave said: Since the leading cause of death in US women is heart disease, and I'd guess a good share of those deaths occur before age 80, maybe it's not so bad focusing attention in such a way as to potentially have more women live into their 80s to begin with? I lost an aunt this weekend, perhaps ironically just 5 days after she fell and broke her femur a few inches from her hip. She probably fell from a combination of heavy duty pain medication and oxygen deficit due to lung cancer. She was too weak to seek any sort of treatment for the cancer after a ~10 year battle with heart disease. I don't think a focus on heart disease and it's precursors is a conspiracy against women.


Actually, the portion of what you wrote that I was responding to was:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 5:35 am
IMO, our society focuses too much on what is likely to kill men in their 60s, and not enough on what is likely to disable women in their 80s.
Not sure what you were getting at with your response. My aunt's body type was pretty much the type you seem to idealize, voluptuous and somewhat increasingly pear shaped with age. Whether more protein, rigorous and strength-related exercise, and maintaining a lower relative body weight would have mattered is conjecture at this point. Dying in your 70s does reduce your chances of breaking a hip and becoming disabled in you 80s (true irrespective of gender too).

I dunno how different heart disease is between male and female, but I would guess attention and research funding for female-specific and gender-neutral is much more than male-specific. As a culture, we pay relatively little attention to men dying when it comes to what we elevate as "causes" to support in the medical realm.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9426
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@IlliniDave: It's very difficult to ascertain the statistics of death due to hip fracture because the complication, such as pneumonia due to loss of ability to leave bed, might be the immediate cause of death. The primary cause of hip fracture, which happens to females much more frequently than men, is osteoporosis, the primary cause of osteoporosis is estrogen deficiency in women and testosterone deficiency in men.
Younger women who stop menstruating -- such as thin athletes or girls with anorexia -- also have compromised bone density, says the U.S. Surgeon General's latest report, "Bone Health and Osteoporosis."
The author of the "Warrior Diet" also wrote "The Anti-Estrogen Diet." The aesthetic ideal for fitness is somebody who can pull themselves up on to a roof. That is hard to do if you are bottom-heavy, yet butt-fat is the primary store of estrogen after menopause. I do not even vaguely approach the ideal myself, but I would argue that the model for feminine health/fitness should be somebody like Iskra Lawrence, who carries a lot of fat, but also a high proportion of muscle on her lower body, with a relatively very low ratio of central body obesity. OTOH, women who naturally tend towards apple shape or large breasts/no ass (hallmark of low estrogen) will have to maintain much lower BMI in order to avoid diabetic syndrome, just like men. IOW, I think there should be a whole new category of sports/fitness which will recognize lower, rather than upper body, strength and endurance. And, I am not going to pay insurance rates based on BMI rather than WHR without registering significant protest. I feel sorry for all you skinny-shanks out there, but not sorry enough to lob some pity money your way ;)

IlliniDave
Posts: 3872
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave »

@7Wannabe5. Ah, okay, I get it, per usual we are essentially talking past each other, almost certainly because I am completely not up to the task of following your trains of thought (because I tend to stay anchored on a topic--in this case, is heart disease worthy of continued attention as a heath issue in humans or should it be replaced by concern over skeletal fragility of elderly women). I think topics are rather more fluid for you (or I'm very dense and unable to see the relevant connections). :)

Crossfit weighs lower/upper body strength equally (but lower bodies are much stronger so there's imbalance in that sense). Olympic weightlifting is much more about lower body strength than upper body strength. I'm sure there are others.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Chad »

IlliniDave wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 12:42 pm
Crossfit weighs lower/upper body strength equally (but lower bodies are much stronger so there's imbalance in that sense). Olympic weightlifting is much more about lower body strength than upper body strength. I'm sure there are others.
Crossfit uses Olympic lifts extensively. They are major components of the events during the Crossfit games too.

Locked