That's kinda interesting. That even WITH insurance, folks still go bankrupt. What that tells me is that y'all are fucked coming and going.
There are reasons for that. Most insurance does not cover experimental treatments, which most people want when they have diseases like cancer. I doubt that most of those are covered in England or Canada either.
Um, the only organs you can sell while you're still alive would be one kidney or a portion of your liver. Even that's dependent on your blood type and a host of other factors. You'd have to cut way down on, if not eliminate, your alcohol consumption. Then if your other kidney or the rest of your liver fails, you become part of the problem. Not the optimal solution.
Hey, I didn't say I would do it. I'm sure my liver's half-pickled and my kidneys clogged with bong resin by now.
Everyone I know who had to file bankruptcy for medical bills did not do so because of experimental treatments. It was run of the mill stuff that got them, like coverage which only paid part of the costs of being hospitalized. If it runs you thousands of dollars a day to be in the hospital, and your insurance doesn't cover the full amount (and in some cases doesn't begin to cover any of it until you've been in the hospital more than a couple of days), then having to stay more than a week (which can happen in cases of serious injury/illness) can put a big dent in your finances.
Make it opt out instead of opt in with the caveat being that only those who agree to donate can receive a donated organ. Also if you opt out, but then opt in at a later date there will be a 3 year waiting period before you are eligible. This would not apply to those under 18, who would be eligible even if their parents opted them out.
Plus let families of the deceased receive compensation for the organs of deceased family members. Not only would it help offset funeral costs, it would rightfully compensate them for organs that a lot of times go to the black market anyways.
You're talking about donation after death when you say make it opt-out, right? Not giving away organs while you're alive, as in the posts you quoted?
This may have been answered already, but I just want to dive in already. My grandmothers husband, who is in his 80s, is currently on dialysis 3 times a week. Paid for by the NHS. If he was off it, he would die in about three days. She's so dependant on him, has been since they met (about 40 years ago), that I'm pretty sure she would die soon after. Currently, as a family, the question is; at what point does he have no quality of life? The hospice workers (from a charity) have been trying to talk to her about that, but understandably, she's not ready to let go yet. The issue is: as this NHS is supporting him, to go off dialysis would be akin to suicide, and they're both very strong Catholics. In short, the NHS is the last issue here when it comes to her husband, as they're giving him the treatment he needs as long as he wants and needs it.
^So much for "UHC leads to Death Panels," eh? If I'm not mistaken, in the U.S., after private insurance for dialysis runs out - and it invariably does run out - Medicaid takes over. Yanno, that Evul Soshulist not-in-the-Constitution program that some say should be abandoned...some who apparently don't know anyone on dialysis. Some private insurers will pay for transplants. Whether or not they will pay lifetime for the anti-rejection drugs needed post-transplant, I don't know. Perhaps Dr. Drake Ramoray can address that.
Right. Because nobody with a personal stake in the subject would recognize a reasoned argument against socialized medical programs.
Wrodforge is Lanzman's toy box, where you spend all day bitching about what you DON'T want. How's about offering a practical solution for keeping your Mom on dialysis that doesn't involve Evil Gubmint?
I don't think Medicare was a good idea. But I can see that it has done some good over the last 40 years. That said, that doesn't mean it doesn't need modifying. Now, a National Health Care system for the U.S. might do a lot of good for many people in the United States over time. But I don't believe it would be good for the country or its people in the long run.
Lets start with leaving more of her money and my money in our respective pockets to deal with shit like that.
Annual cost of dialysis runs on average 66K a year. You and your Mom must make damn good money if lowering your taxes will allow you to save that much...
Narrow collectivist thinking. No, I wouldn't miraculously have the means overnight. But leaving more of my income in my hands gives me a better chance at saving some, maybe investing it for a gain. If whole families do the same then maybe they can better provide for their parents' care. You have to consider the impact over a lifetime of wage-earning, not just the next time you file your taxes. Now, if you'd argue that people cannot be trusted to take such responsibility for themselves and their families, I say that is a fatal flaw that should be allowed to remove itself from the gene pool.
^I'm not about to argue anything with anyone who actually believes he can save 66K a year if only the Evil Gubmint didn't steal his money for taxes.
I understand, pumpkin. Having to read anything other than "Fuck, yeah!" makes your widdle head hurt...
Okay, seriously, what do you really think would happen? Not only are you going to have to budget more for unforeseen emergencies and other necessary expenditures, but you're also going to pay higher prices for everything else because your disposable income is higher. How much better off you will be likely be is minimal at best and certainly a lot less than what you probably envision. On the other hand, you will be able to sleep better at night knowing that nobody is getting something for nothing anymore. I know that is probably enough for you, but it seems senseless to me.
