Docs tell 83-year-old Swede she's 'too old' for treatment

[editec]

Skogh has suffered from pain and numbness in her legs since 2004....Docs tell 83-year-old Swede she's 'too old' for treatment - The Local

American Health Care Insurance Corporations tell 17,000 people a day they are too unemployed for health care.


Clearly, based on that counter-headline we ought to completely socialize medicine, right?

Yeah, that's right, now something like 17,000 people a day are losing their HC coverage, Ozz.

Based on that dismal figure your point (while valid) probably isn't going to get much political traction in here in this brave new America we're creating.

Are they losing their coverage because they lost their job?

Why is health insurance tied to employment anyway?

The historic explaination is that there was a time when wages were frozen, and it made more sense to give people benefits (that are not taxable) than higher wages.

Why isn't it more like car insurance, where you can shop around for the company that provides what you need at the price you can afford?

See above

That way even if you lose your job, you'd still have your health insurance. Or am I being too naive here to think this is an option that would work?

No you're not niave, you're just making sense. And in this nation gone slightly nuts, asking questions based on having a brain makes you appear to be niave.

Friend of mine lost his job...his COBRA payments are $1800 a month.

Now imagine how much those payments would be if he was just shopping around for that insurance.

One good thing about some people's idea that we simply do nothing about HC is that sooner than most of us think, almost NOBODY regardless of what they do or who they work for, would have third party HC insurance.

Then the cost of HC would crash much as the price of real estate is crashing.

The second hand price for Porches and Mercedes formerly owned by doctors would drop like a stone, too.

The invisible hand of the market would be something to see in action, let me tall yas.

Since I'm currently healthy, I'd ALMOST enjoy seeing that happen, too.

A lot of you who are currently amployed and sanguine about the system we have now would pretty quickly discover that you're really socialists, I'll wager.

 

[Old Rocks]

My wife and I have an excellant health care package through my job. I will be 66 in November. My wife has serious pre-existing conditions. And she is a decade younger than I. Anyone in my position understands fully the shortcomings of the present system.

Time for change.

 

[johnrocks]

Medicare has different problems, Physicians opting out of Medicare and a 30 trillion dollar unfunded liability that will be hitting it in a few years if nothing is done about it.

Easy to fix. Medicare now has for clients the people that are most likely to require care, the old and disabled. So require all Americans to have Medicare. Then we would have many that do not use the system for years at a time, other than preventive checkups.

I have thought that that would be the way to do it for a long time but no one has offered that as a plan ,have they? I wonder if that could erase the unfunded liabilities that is twice our current GNP?

 

[mskafka]

It is not uncommon for a physician to advise against a surgery or other invasive treatment, when someone has an extensive medical history. For example-I recently saw a 95 year old male with a massive subdural hematoma. (for those of you who don't know, a brain bleed)

This man had a medical history, and daily medication list that was over 3 pages long.

Do you think that he was a good candidate for surgery? Common sense would tell anyone that he wasn't.

 

[mskafka]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

geez because they don't have patient neglect in the united states. How about having the wrong leg cut off, or scissors left inside of you, how about the wrong dose being given to the twins of a celebrity and almost killing them.
How about a man who is 40 years old who is young and expected to recover but is sent to a privately run nursing home and is neglected so bad he later slips into acoma and dies due to infections he developed from bed sores.
Oh! wait all that shit happens in the United States! We are also rated something like 30th or 34th in the world with the current system we have in health care.

It's sad, but true.

 

[xotoxi]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

Do you think that medical errors only occur in countries with government-run nationalized medicine?

None of that stuff could ever occur in this country.

 

[auditor0007]

No, that's just it. Uncle isn't telling them who they can and cannot see . . . uncle is not refusing treatment for them because they are too old . . . uncle is not telling them too bad, you can't have this surgery, go home and suffer till you die.

Uncle Sam is running the show with MEDICARE and they chose NOT to tell 'them' how to be doctors or be involved in your personal care, otherwise they would have and could have stuck their noses in to it and dictated it down to the T....because it is uncle sam's government program....

and honestly, I am not so certain MEDICARE doesn't have some kind of cutoff for certain treatments or certain medicines?

seems like they would? like 105 yrs old, wanting chemo to kill colon cancer that came merely from being old and cells falling apart? does Medicare still pay for this....? Maybe they do, if the doc thinks they can live to 115 with the chemo?

Correct. I believe that if health care were 'socialized' (or whatever term) that uncle would be telling patients, especially older patients, what was and wasn't acceptable treatment, options, etc. It would be coming from some 'government health care specialist' through to your doctor, but it would not be a choice you and your doctor would make together. It would come to governemnt dictating it down to a T . . . or as close as they could get. Call me a crazy right-wing loon for thinking this. I don't trust Obama or his administration and I sure don't think government running the health care business is the right way to fix the problem.

How's Medicare working out? I heard they will be belly up in 10 years or so. Government running it will just create more red tape, more bureaucracy, more cost, more, more, more. It always does. And I don't buy Obama's 'it's this (gov't health care) or the status quo'. Who says there are only two ways to skin a cat?

The argument that Medicare will be broke very soon is true. However, what is the reason for this? Could it be that the rate we are paying for Medicare has not increased over the years as costs have spiraled out of control? If we had capped the amount private insurers could charge, how much money would they now have for healthcare spending?

The argument is absurd to say the least. Medicare is supported by taxes which have not been increased for Medicare spending. On the other hand rates for private health insurance have more than doubled in real dollars and as a percentage of income.

Yes, the government underestimated the costs of Medicare, but the same argument holds true for private insurance. Who in 1980 believed we would be paying so much for healthcare today?

 

[auditor0007]

Medicare has different problems, Physicians opting out of Medicare and a 30 trillion dollar unfunded liability that will be hitting it in a few years if nothing is done about it.

Again, you talk about the unfunded liability of Medicare, and it is true. But how much is the unfunded liability of private care in that same timeframe? Is it not as much or even more? Just as with Medicare, the unfunded liability of private insurance and private healthcare can only be paid for with more funding, no matter where that funding comes from. This is why costs must be controlled to some extent, or we will end up spending half of our GDP on healthcare at some point, which of course will decimate our economy.

 

[auditor0007]

Are they losing their coverage because they lost their job?

Why is health insurance tied to employment anyway? Why isn't it more like car insurance, where you can shop around for the company that provides what you need at the price you can afford? That way even if you lose your job, you'd still have your health insurance. Or am I being too naive here to think this is an option that would work?

I think having health insurance provided by employers is one of the main reasons costs are spiraling out of control. Then again, under current rules, if you have private insurance and develop any type of pre-existing condition, then you will be denied coverage through any other insurance company. Actually, the same company will deny you coverage or triple your rates if you move to another state.

Then why aren't they addressing this instead of trying to put it into the control of the government? If they really wanted to reform health care why don't they change the rules/ways the health insurance companies provide their services? Why don't they try and fix what is already in place and is already working (to a large extent) instead of having yet another government controlled program?

The answer comes down to ideology. The problem is that when this issue was resting in on the side of the more conservative, it was not addressed in any manner, rather it was ignored. So now that the other side wants to address it in a manner they are more comfortable with, those who are more conservative in their thinking are crying foul, but not once did you or anyone else try to make changes that could have been constructive. Instead, you now bitch about the alternative, and this is what drives me nuts, because there were solutions, but too many people kept their heads stuck in the sand.

 

[auditor0007]

Medicare has different problems, Physicians opting out of Medicare and a 30 trillion dollar unfunded liability that will be hitting it in a few years if nothing is done about it.

Easy to fix. Medicare now has for clients the people that are most likely to require care, the old and disabled. So require all Americans to have Medicare. Then we would have many that do not use the system for years at a time, other than preventive checkups.

I have thought that that would be the way to do it for a long time but no one has offered that as a plan ,have they? I wonder if that could erase the unfunded liabilities that is twice our current GNP?

Not quite that simple. Until costs are brought under some control, they will continue to rise and eat up a much larger percentage of GNP, regardless of who is running the system. Again, with our current system, the private side has just as many if not more unfunded liabilities as Medicare. One point though; through such a system, everyone would pay into the system, and that is something that is not happening currently.

Many young healthy people choose to go without insurance. But then if they become sick, they complain about not being able to get coverage at a reasonable price. This does not address the problem of those who do pay for coverage, get sick, and then get booted out of the system due to their pre-existing condition. But the truth is, the majority who are denied coverage never paid in the first place. This is why, even in a private system, some form of insurance should be mandatory, even if it is only a high deductible plan with an HSA.

 

[editec]

So something and we might make a mistake

Do nothing and the mistakes will continue to make themselves.

The solution is not about how HC is funded, folks.

Privately funded or publically funded the systemic problems will continue to make any funding solution we impose virtually meaningless in a decade or two.

 

[Emma]

True, there are many complications to consider when one is older. But according to the article, the woman - who decided for herself that she wanted/needed the surgery - didn't have complications, she was just refused the surgery because she was too old.

In addition to Skogh's age, the fact that she had previously undergone heart surgery also made her ineligible for the operation, doctors explained.

Christer Andersson, head of medicine at Linköping University Hospital, denied that age was the deciding factor in the diagnosis.

He told the Östgöta Correspondenten that county health official don’t prioritize patients based on age, but that age can play a factor if it is deemed the patient is unable to handle a course of treatment.

ALL treatment is weighed upon risk vs benefit. When you have an older person (or anyone, for that matter) with (often) multiple co-morbidities, the responsible thing to do is to go the conservative route. That's not to say you can't find a doctor who'll throw caution to the wind and perform more extensive treatment in spite of elevated risk. All of this happens here, it happens now, and it's been happening since the beginning of medicine.

This lady was lucky. It sounds like she wasn't a good surgical candidate.

 

[Emma]

My parents are 86 and 81, both suffer physical problems. Mom has severe rheumatoid arthritis and has been on Remicade (among other treatments) for years. Dad suffers compressed nerves in his back and sees a chiropractor for some relief. I can't imagine what the quality of their health care would be if uncle ran the show. Well, after reading this article . . . . maybe I can.

uncle DOES run the SHOW, it's called MEDICARE and tax payers pay for it!

I'm honestly glad they like it and it is GOOD for them zoom!

care

No, that's just it. Uncle isn't telling them who they can and cannot see . . . uncle is not refusing treatment for them because they are too old . . . uncle is not telling them too bad, you can't have this surgery, go home and suffer till you die.

Yeah, 'he' is.

 

[Emma]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

Do you think that medical errors only occur in countries with government-run nationalized medicine?

None of that stuff could ever occur in this country.

For every incident they post that occurred in a 'socialist health care system', I can post two that I've witnessed myself. And thanks to Teh Google, I can also post evidence of other incidents that happened in this country.

 

[johnrocks]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

Do you think that medical errors only occur in countries with government-run nationalized medicine?

None of that stuff could ever occur in this country.

For every incident they post that occurred in a 'socialist health care system', I can post two that I've witnessed myself. And thanks to Teh Google, I can also post evidence of other incidents that happened in this country.

I know, I just don't want government or corporations controlling my healthcare decisions,there has gotta be a better way,imho than to have this as our only choices.

 

[Emma]

Do you think that medical errors only occur in countries with government-run nationalized medicine?

None of that stuff could ever occur in this country.

For every incident they post that occurred in a 'socialist health care system', I can post two that I've witnessed myself. And thanks to Teh Google, I can also post evidence of other incidents that happened in this country.

I know, I just don't want government or corporations controlling my healthcare decisions,there has gotta be a better way,imho than to have this as our only choices.

?

Who do you think controls your healthcare decisions now?

Unless you are strictly private pay all the way, someone IS deciding that for you.

And even IF you are entirely self-pay, physicians still decide upon how they will treat patients based upon risk vs benefit.

 

[johnrocks]

For every incident they post that occurred in a 'socialist health care system', I can post two that I've witnessed myself. And thanks to Teh Google, I can also post evidence of other incidents that happened in this country.

I know, I just don't want government or corporations controlling my healthcare decisions,there has gotta be a better way,imho than to have this as our only choices.

?

Who do you think controls your healthcare decisions now?

Unless you are strictly private pay all the way, someone IS deciding that for you.

And even IF you are entirely self-pay, physicians still decide upon how they will treat patients based upon risk vs benefit.

I was watching Charlie Rose a couple weeks ago and Paul Krugman was on there pitching a single payer plan and he said government already controls 60% of healthcare in the USA so why does private markets get the blame? I think group health insurance is one of the dumbest things there is,8% of us have individual health insurance and I think that is the way to go Emma.

 

[johnrocks]

Medicare has different problems, Physicians opting out of Medicare and a 30 trillion dollar unfunded liability that will be hitting it in a few years if nothing is done about it.

Again, you talk about the unfunded liability of Medicare, and it is true. But how much is the unfunded liability of private care in that same timeframe? Is it not as much or even more? Just as with Medicare, the unfunded liability of private insurance and private healthcare can only be paid for with more funding, no matter where that funding comes from. This is why costs must be controlled to some extent, or we will end up spending half of our GDP on healthcare at some point, which of course will decimate our economy.

What unfunded liability with for profit private care?

 

[Emma]

I know, I just don't want government or corporations controlling my healthcare decisions,there has gotta be a better way,imho than to have this as our only choices.

?

Who do you think controls your healthcare decisions now?

Unless you are strictly private pay all the way, someone IS deciding that for you.

And even IF you are entirely self-pay, physicians still decide upon how they will treat patients based upon risk vs benefit.

I was watching Charlie Rose a couple weeks ago and Paul Krugman was on there pitching a single payer plan and he said government already controls 60% of healthcare in the USA so why does private markets get the blame? I think group health insurance is one of the dumbest things there is,8% of us have individual health insurance and I think that is the way to go Emma.

That doesn't negate what I said above.

 

[johnrocks]

?

Who do you think controls your healthcare decisions now?

Unless you are strictly private pay all the way, someone IS deciding that for you.

And even IF you are entirely self-pay, physicians still decide upon how they will treat patients based upon risk vs benefit.

I was watching Charlie Rose a couple weeks ago and Paul Krugman was on there pitching a single payer plan and he said government already controls 60% of healthcare in the USA so why does private markets get the blame? I think group health insurance is one of the dumbest things there is,8% of us have individual health insurance and I think that is the way to go Emma.

That doesn't negate what I said above.

I'm just stating there is another option Emma, how about Health Savings Accounts for starters or allowing insurance companies to sell their policies nationally or giving people who want individual health insurance the same tax breaks as group insurance? There are options other than corporate or government based,imho anyway.