EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
Was the elderly market too small to attract their interest? Respectfully, Supposn
Elderly market is 80% of market so of course they are interested. Make sense now??
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was the elderly market too small to attract their interest? Respectfully, Supposn
"Fraud" is integrated in the "market". the "market" is essentially inhuman because it is based entirely on materialism. It is concerned only with itself and increase. Life re-enforces life, the "market" re-enforces feces.
in a market economy you say, how can I help you more than competition"Fraud" is integrated in the "market"
Those who propose that it will adjust for the benefit of humans deceive any who would believe.
Systems such as this are created by people and should serve people, not greedy instincts.
.
'Capitalism' without controls has shown itself to be against our best interests every bit as much as Marxist-Stalinism. The history is evident.
Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance.
In terms of our population's deaths, disabilities, and sufferings, and financial costs to our nation's aggregate entities, we may now be more or less paying the costs for M4A, but we're not obtaining all of the benefits that M4A would provide.
Regardless of USA's future medical insurance policies and practices, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance would reduce the costs to government and/or nongovernment medical insurers and be to our nation's best interests. State regulators of medical insurers practices and fees would expect medical insurance prices to reflect the burden of costs shifted to the federal government.
Respectfully, Supposn
Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance. … I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...
Andylusion, if as you posted, “There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes”, how could it gain votes? Why would both Democratic and Republican presidents sign bills to enact and expand the federal Medicare programs, unless there was an continues to be a need and demand for the federal Medicare program?Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance. …Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance. … I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...
There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes. The more you make people dependent on government, the more you lock in future support by the public for politicians like yourself. Why do you think FDR was able to get 3 terms? Buying votes.
But there was no demand for it, whatsoever, before FDR came up with his plan to enslave people with government entitlements.
But let's move beyond that.
There is no medical screenings and preventative measures that are cost effective. Virtually none. … But there is promise of success, no guarantee of anything.
There is no way to "prevent" a health issue.
Second, even with screening and vaccination, you have no idea who is going to get cancer, and who will not. Because of this, you have to have screenings for everyone.
If you have screenings for everyone, then you are going to spend way more money on screenings, than it would cost to simply treat people who get the illness.
This is true in nearly every case.
Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention
You'll need a subscription to read that.
But the research shows generally that preventative medicine is not cost effective. Again, it's not that complex of a issue. All the cancer screening in the world, does not stop you from getting, or dying of cancer. All the cancer screening in the world, does not reduce the cost of treatment, and hospitalization by even a dollar. It might increase your chances of surviving cancer, yes. But it does not reduce the cost.
This is why in most of the rest of the world, preventive care is actually far more rare than in the US. Far fewer women have mammograms in the UK and Canada, than women in the US. Far fewer.
And the reason why, is because the government is paying for it, and the government knows those things are expensive, with little cost benefit.
In the US, private people pay for it, and thus there is more of it.
So saying you want government to take over providing preventive care, is in reality saying you want less preventive care. ...
Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses. but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.… I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. …
Andylusion, if as you posted, “There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes”, how could it gain votes? Why would both Democratic and Republican presidents sign bills to enact and expand the federal Medicare programs, unless there was an continues to be a need and demand for the federal Medicare program?Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance. …Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance. … I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...
There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes. The more you make people dependent on government, the more you lock in future support by the public for politicians like yourself. Why do you think FDR was able to get 3 terms? Buying votes.
But there was no demand for it, whatsoever, before FDR came up with his plan to enslave people with government entitlements.
But let's move beyond that.
There is no medical screenings and preventative measures that are cost effective. Virtually none. … But there is promise of success, no guarantee of anything.
There is no way to "prevent" a health issue.
Second, even with screening and vaccination, you have no idea who is going to get cancer, and who will not. Because of this, you have to have screenings for everyone.
If you have screenings for everyone, then you are going to spend way more money on screenings, than it would cost to simply treat people who get the illness.
This is true in nearly every case.
Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention
You'll need a subscription to read that.
But the research shows generally that preventative medicine is not cost effective. Again, it's not that complex of a issue. All the cancer screening in the world, does not stop you from getting, or dying of cancer. All the cancer screening in the world, does not reduce the cost of treatment, and hospitalization by even a dollar. It might increase your chances of surviving cancer, yes. But it does not reduce the cost.
This is why in most of the rest of the world, preventive care is actually far more rare than in the US. Far fewer women have mammograms in the UK and Canada, than women in the US. Far fewer.
And the reason why, is because the government is paying for it, and the government knows those things are expensive, with little cost benefit.
In the US, private people pay for it, and thus there is more of it.
So saying you want government to take over providing preventive care, is in reality saying you want less preventive care. ...
Credible medical authoraties did not claim early detection and treatment prevents illnesses. What USA’s American Medical association, state medical associations, and hospitals, all advocate earlier screening and treatment as general policies to net reduce costs and induce better medical outcomes of illnesses that do occur.
Within the initial post of this thread, this excerpted paragraph from the thread, “Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance” was quoted by you:Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses. but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.… I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients? Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses.
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. …
Regarding the costs for screening, credible medical authorities did not advocate for everyone be screened for all possible illnesses. To imply otherwise reveals basic ignorance of medical matters that most other people are generally aware of. Respectfully, Supposn
Andylusion, pay for what? Medicare for all, or federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, or federal entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance?... Even if we assumed that preventive care was a win, and even if we assumed it was cost effective, neither of which are true..... How do you propose we pay for it? Did you miss the Federal Budget? We have a national debt of $22 Trillion, and we currently have a deficit of about $1 Trillion. Even if we cut the military budget 100%, we would still be in deficit.
So... do tell... where are you going to getting the hundreds of billions to fund all this preventive medical care?
Within the initial post of this thread, an excerpted paragraph from the thread, “Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance” was quoted by you, but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.… Andylusion, if as you posted, “There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes”, how could it gain votes? Why would both Democratic and Republican presidents sign bills to enact and expand the federal Medicare programs, unless there was an continues to be a need and demand for the federal Medicare program?
Credible medical authoraties did not claim early detection and treatment prevents illnesses. What USA’s American Medical association, state medical associations, and hospitals, all advocate earlier screening and treatment as general policies to net reduce costs and induce better medical outcomes of illnesses that do occur.
Within the initial post of this thread, this excerpted paragraph from the thread, “Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance” was quoted by you:Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses. but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.… I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. …
Regarding the costs for screening, credible medical authorities did not advocate for everyone be screened for all possible illnesses. To imply otherwise reveals basic ignorance of medical matters that most other people are generally aware of. …
DGS49, everyone needs medical insurance. Almost all of USA’s more wealthy residents are not concerned with the cost of their medical insurance and they are medically insured.… the current practice of employer-subsidized insurance for "most Americans" works pretty well, so the majority of Americans are not motivated to try something dramatically different.
Therefore, any "solution" must be directed to the minority of the population (but still tens of millions) who do NOT have access to employees-subsidized insurance, without fucking things up for the majority who are doing fine, health-insurance-wise.
The rational solution was (1) to make low-cost, minimal coverage available to healthy young people (who for the most part don't need health insurance), …(2) … (3) …
…
DGS49, everyone needs medical insurance. Almost all of USA’s more wealthy residents are not concerned with the cost of their medical insurance and they are medically insured.… the current practice of employer-subsidized insurance for "most Americans" works pretty well, so the majority of Americans are not motivated to try something dramatically different.
Therefore, any "solution" must be directed to the minority of the population (but still tens of millions) who do NOT have access to employees-subsidized insurance, without fucking things up for the majority who are doing fine, health-insurance-wise.
The rational solution was (1) to make low-cost, minimal coverage available to healthy young people (who for the most part don't need health insurance), …(2) … (3) …
…
I doubt if a majority of USA’s legal residents that are medically insured, are participants of an employers’ subsidized affordable medical insurance plan.
Many employees cannot afford to participate in any of their employers’ plans. If some employees and their families cannot afford the copayments integral to the employer subsidized plans’ copayments, they’re not effectively insured, (i.e. they’re not insured by any affordable medical insurance plan).
The annual income qualification thresh-hold for Medicaid is extremely low. I suppose most of USA’s working poor do not qualify for Medicaid and cannot afford their employers’ subsidized plans (if their employers do have such plans).
Almost all elderly Social Security income recipients are coved by Medicare, and their monthly insurance payments are deducted from their monthly checks. I suppose most of them do not have any additional substantial additional incomes or ex-employers’ or union’s subsidized medical insurance.
Hospital emergency room care is among the most expensive forms of medical care. The uninsured and those that cannot afford to pay the deductibles or copayments required by their medical insurance coverage, use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care providers. Because of these peoples’ difficult situations, they’re most unlikely to seek care sooner rather than later. These people have much fewer assets and incomes, hospitals cannot recover the expenses of their care. Those otherwise unrecovered expense not paid for by charity donors, and/or governments, may be reflected by hospitals’ increased prices. Much of hospitals increased prices are passed on to medical insurers and then to medical insurance payers. The majority of those using USA hospitals as their primary care providers, are legal residents of the USA.
Respectfully, Supposn
Polishprince, everyone needs some form of medical insurance.Everyone needs medical care, at least some of the time. Not everyone needs "medical insurance".
Medical insurance protects the premium payer from excessive costs in the area of health care. Those who have no intention to pay for medical care- because they are indigent and don't have a pot to urinate in- might still need care if they have a medical emergency. Those folks would be better taken care of through public and private,including church related, charity practices. Many Christian churches have set up non-profit health care practices including the Sisters of Mercy. Not only Catholic churches, but Baptists, Methodists, Jewish, etc.religious groups have set up hospitals too. Never heard of an Atheist Hospital or an Agnostic Hospital.
DGS49 and Andylusion, credible government, or non-profit, or commercial USA medical insurance plans that that are subsidized by a Federal screening and preventative procedures subsidy, would be prohibited from billing clients for: (1) Any amounts from the costs of the patience’s annual care that would otherwise be insured; ( i.e. no “annual deductibles”); (2) the costs for any of the screening and preventative procedures specified within the contract between the federal government and the administrators accepting the subsidy for their individual insurance plans.… I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...