Locked Post

Best care in the world

... just don't get old

By Posted August 29, 2009 23:10:28External Link

Here's a recent Op-Ed piece from the NY Times that points out an interesting side effect of the current US healthcare system. 


Until Medical Bills Do Us Part

Critics fret that health care reform would undermine American family values, not least by convening somber death panels to wheel away Grandma as if she were Old Yeller.

But peel away the emotions and fearmongering, and in fact it is the existing system that unnecessarily takes lives and breaks apart families.

My friend M. — you’ll understand in a moment why she’s terrified of my using her name — had to make a searing decision a year ago. She was married to a sweet, gentle man whom she loved, but who had become increasingly absent-minded. Finally, he was diagnosed with early-onset dementia.

The disease is degenerative, and he will become steadily less able to care for himself. At some point, as his medical needs multiply, he will probably need to be institutionalized.

The hospital arranged a conference call with a social worker, who outlined how the dementia and its financial toll on the family would progress, and then added, out of the blue: “Maybe you should divorce.”

“I was blown away,” M. told me. But, she said, the hospital staff members explained that they had seen it all before, many times. If M.’s husband required long-term care, the costs would be catastrophic even for a middle-class family with savings.

Eventually, after the expenses whittled away their combined assets, her husband could go on Medicaid — but by then their children’s nest egg would be gone, along with her 401(k) plan. She would face a bleak retirement with neither her husband nor her savings.

A complicating factor was that this was a second marriage. M.’s first husband had died, leaving an inheritance that he had intended for their children. She and her second husband had a prenuptial agreement, but that would not protect her assets from his medical expenses.

The hospital told M. not to waste time in dissolving the marriage. For five years after any divorce, her assets could be seized — precisely because the government knows that people sometimes divorce husbands or wives to escape their medical bills.

“How could I divorce him? I loved him,” she told me.

“I explored a lot of options with an attorney here in town,” she added. “The attorney said, ‘I don’t see any other options for you.’ It took about a year for me to do the divorce, it was so hard.”

So M. divorced the man she loves. I asked him what he thought of this. He can still speak, albeit not always coherently, and he paused a long, long time. All he could manage was: “It’s hard to say.”

Long-term care constitutes a difficult and expensive challenge in any health system. But the American patchwork, full of cracks through which people fall, has a special problem with medical expenses of all kinds bankrupting couples.

A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance, but the gaps and inadequacies left them unprotected when they were hit by devastating bills.

M. still helps her husband and, quietly, continues to live with him and care for him. But she worries that the authorities will come after her if they realize that they divorced not because of irreconcilable differences but because of irreconcilable medical bills. There were awkward questions from friends who saw the divorce announcement in the newspaper.

“It’s just crazy,” she said. “It twists people like pretzels.”

The existing system doesn’t just break up families, it also costs lives. A 2004 study by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, found that lack of health insurance causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths a year. That’s one person slipping through the cracks and dying every half an hour.

In short, it’s a good bet that our existing dysfunctional health system knocks off far more people than an army of “death panels” could — even if they existed, worked 24/7 and got around in a fleet of black helicopters.

So, for those of you inclined to believe the worst about President Obama, think it through. Suppose he is indeed a secret, foreign-born Muslim agent who is scheming to undermine American family values while killing off as many grandmothers as possible.

If all that were true, why on earth would he be trying so hard to reform our health care system? We already know how to prod families into divorce and take a life unnecessarily every 30 minutes — all we need to do is reject reform and stick with exactly what we have.

+124 Karma 217 Replies 10 Referrals
August 30, 2009 11:18:59

Dementia?  Obama's advisor has a solution for that.

"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason"

-Ezekiel Emanuel

 

August 30, 2009 11:42:23

I think you have been misinformed, Island Dog.

In her Post article, McCaughey paints the worst possible image of Emanuel, quoting him, for instance, endorsing age discrimination for health-care distribution, without mentioning that he was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation, where there is an absolute scarcity of resources. She quotes him discussing the denial of care for people with dementia without revealing that Emanuel only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy. She notes that he has criticized medical culture for trying to do everything for a patient, "regardless of the cost or effects on others," without making clear that he was not speaking of lifesaving care but of treatments with little demonstrated value. "No one who has read what I have done for 25 years would come to the conclusions that have been put out there," says Emanuel. "My quotes were just being taken out of context." 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090812/us_time/08599191583500

August 30, 2009 11:44:06

"The social or, in the economist's language, the macro level entails the proportion of the gross national product (GNP) allocated to health care. The patient, or micro, level entails determining which individual patients will receive specific medical services; that is, whether Mrs. White should receive this available liver for transplantation. Finally, there is an intermediate level called the service or medical level that entails determining what health care services will be guaranteed to each citizen. These socially guaranteed services have been called 'basic' or 'essential' medical services … So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services … Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues … Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

- Hastings Center Report in 1996, Ezekiel Emanuel

Betsy McCaughey said, "Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy." According to McCaughey (and apparently Island Dog), Emanuel "explicitly defends discrimination against older patients."

 

Of the 1996 Hastings Center Report, Emanuel said, "I was examining two different, abstract philosophical positions to see what they might offer in the context of redoing the health-care system and trying to reduce resource consumption in health care. It's as abstractly philosophical as you can get on a practical question. I qualified it in 27 different ways, saying it wasn't my view." He also said, "As far as rationing goes, it's nothing I've ever advocated for the health system as a whole, and I've talked about rationing only in the context of situations where you have limited items, like limited livers or limited vaccine, and not for overall health care."

Emanuel said that his words were selectively quoted, and misrepresent his views. He said, "I find it a little dispiriting, after a whole career's worth of work dedicated to improving care for people at the end of life, that now I'm 'advocating euthanasia panels.'" Emanuel spent his career opposing euthanasia and received multiple awards for his efforts to improve end of life care. Emanuel said, "It is incredible how much one's reputation can be besmirched and taken out of context" and "No one who has read what I have done for 25 years would come to the conclusions that have been put out there."

 

---

So, Island Dog, how do you feel about besmirching the reputation of a man like Ezekiel Emanuel? Righteous? Clever?

Anything to win a debate? Kill a good man's reputation just to push your anti-social agenda?

Or are you just dumbly quoting what your republican "friends" tell you to quote?

August 30, 2009 12:41:32

The point was less about the giving or the withholding of care from those with advanced dementia.

The point was more that they and everyone related to them is essentially forced to become destitute.

Even in the case of advanced dementia the point of withholding care is not that they should be put to sleep or otherwise left to suffer but that extraordinary measures should not be taken to prolong a life that in most normal people's judgement is not worth living.

August 30, 2009 12:51:31

Mumblefratz
The point was less about the giving or the withholding of care from those with advanced dementia.

The point was more that they and everyone related to them is essentially forced to become destitute.

Even in the case of advanced dementia the point of withholding care is not that they should be put to sleep or otherwise left to suffer but that extraordinary measures should not be taken to prolong a life that in most normal people's judgement is not worth living.

*The underscoring is mine for the sake of relevance of this response.

That would violate the law and Medical Ethics unless a Living Will or express statement by a Health Care Proxy of the patient's prior choosing who is well acquainted with the patient's prior expressed desires.

August 30, 2009 14:02:22

Anything to win a debate? Kill a good man's reputation just to push your anti-social agenda?

I have read plenty about Emanual, to say he's a good man is ridiculous.  He's just as bad as his brother.

Look deeper.

And LOL at the daily show.

 

August 30, 2009 14:06:08

That would violate the law and Medical Ethics unless a Living Will or express statement by a Health Care Proxy of the patient's prior choosing who is well acquainted with the patient's prior expressed desires.
Yep. I agree. But like k10 mentions such a case does not belong high up on a list of potential organ recipients.

In any case as I mentioned before, the primary point of this thread are the financial ramifications. The OP did not bring up anything related to withholding of care. That was an off-topic point interjected by ID, who, as an aside, is perfectly capable of defending himself if he feels that Aroddo’s post constitutes a personal attack.

August 30, 2009 14:15:24

I.D. Is a tireless worker here...he provides endless, good counsel to members about so many topics that I simply boggle at trying to enumerate/list them.

He is also tireless in quoting out of context in his favor.

So he's either deliberatly lying ... or too ...... busy thinking things through.

August 30, 2009 14:19:14

So, Island Dog, how do you feel about besmirching the reputation of a man like Ezekiel Emanuel? Righteous? Clever?

Anything to win a debate? Kill a good man's reputation just to push your anti-social agenda?

Or are you just dumbly quoting what your republican "friends" tell you to quote?

 

Arrodo, your banned for being spiteful  [e classic][/e]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHOOPS... wrong thread [e classic][/e]

August 30, 2009 18:03:35

Aroddo
I.D. Is a tireless worker here...he provides endless, good counsel to members about so many topics that I simply boggle at trying to enumerate/list them.

He is also tireless in quoting out of context in his favor.

So he's either deliberatly lying ... or too ...... busy thinking things through.

I must respectfully disagree. I.D.'s politics differ significantly from mine, but I attribute no base motivations to that. It's his right to believe as he wishes, and my duty (as well as his) to defend that right to the death. Without that willingness, we have no American Republic...we would have a selfish mob.

That was an off-topic point interjected by ID, who, as an aside, is perfectly capable of defending himself if he feels that Aroddo’s post constitutes a personal attack.

I'm sure he is. However, we all exist in a civil context which encourages each of us to point out wrongs when they occur.

"Thou shalt not stand idly by." and "Thou shalt bear witness." are two significant Commandments.

Relating to the OP, I must agree with the writer (as I have in other places) and I am sorry if I digressed from your intention in posting this, however I think that (and other digressions) could have been prevented by stating the purpose or intended question/part of this topic you wished to discuss.

August 30, 2009 19:06:42

I'm not all that pedantic. Digressions are inevitable and can sometimes be beneficial. But simply prodding the thread back on track is usually sufficient.

I noticed in another thread where you made an appeal to keep things civil and I do appreciate and agree with that attitude. Of course neither side is blameless but it does seem, at least to me, that most of the hate and vitriol comes from the right rather than the left.

Politics is not my forte nor is it my primary interest in coming to these intertwined sites. My primary interest has been and continues to be GalCiv2 (which is the site I mostly visit) and I usually try to stay away from politically charged topics but I do make occasional exception to this rule and more so for the topic of healthcare because of how strongly I feel about this topic.

I’ve been around these forums for about 3 years now and JU in particular has always impressed me with it’s intolerance of the left. Anyway like I said I generally don’t go to forums for political discussion but I recently started reading some of the stuff on the Huffington Post just to see how that compares to the attitudes expressed here.

Obviously they are at least as left wing biased as JU is right wing biased but I was impressed by how much less hate there is there versus here. Of course I only read the articles and don’t read any of the comments. Perhaps if I did then I might find it to be more like here.

In any case usually I find that people tend to morph the discussion into topics that they feel more comfortable criticizing. Obviously for those that support the status quo it’s far easier to object to “death panels” and invalid claims that the current administration supports denial of care for older folks than it is to address such an obvious shortcoming of the current system that someone is essentially forced to divorce someone that they clearly love simply to keep themselves out of the poorhouse.

But it’s precisely this aspect of the current healthcare system that I wish to discuss. In particular the facts that 62% of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills and that of those 78% of them had medical insurance at the onset of their illness. With statistics like these how can anyone that’s not a millionaire feel secure with their current medical insurance coverage? I know I don’t and by all reasonable standards I'm considered rather well off.

But even those that are otherwise very well off (I make $180,000 per year BTW) are really only one serious illness away from the poorhouse. That scares me more than the disease itself. Doesn’t it you?

August 30, 2009 21:27:03

Both scare me equally....the poorhouse can't really kill me, but disease certainly can.

I do find having to contemplate how to wall off things so others are protected most distressing. Together with that, I realize that what would be (what I consider) ideal isn't attainable and even if it were, it wouldn't be as ideal for some as it would be for me.

Still, whether a person has more Left or more Right leanings, the thought of abandoning the ill, breaking up marriages when a mate is needed most, and other even more horrific choices bring me to conclude that the current system must be altered.

Together with that, everything has a price tag simply because resources are limited.

How we solve these problems as a society is the bequeath we will leave to our children. We should lose the anger, and discuss things as adults.

August 30, 2009 21:50:16

We should lose the anger, and discuss things as adults.

Now if only the politicians would follow that advice.  Wanting to ram any health care bill through congress before the august recess was not in any fashion being bi-partisan or fair to anyone. The health care system needs reform and any meaningful reform will need input from both parties and experts in the medical and social fields (speed readers are excluded).

With the present crop of politicians on both sides, I don't hold much hope of this happening.  The 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude and the display of arrogance from the majority of politicians (Demoncrat and Republican) doesn't bode well.

August 30, 2009 22:21:41

Ramming anything anywhere never causes much comfort....  [e digicons][/e]

Unfortunately, too much polarity has existed too long. It started some time ago.

Self righteousness and "I'm right/you're wrong" needs addressing from the grass roots level, but that appears to be a universal trait these days. I'm sick of the yelling, lies and misreresentations which characterize the "The ends justify the means". They never do.

To expect people to learn the facts and then discuss them is futile also.

This really doesn't bode well for us all.

@ Hankers:

Was that a Freudian typo, btw? Too funny/ironic, if it was! If not, then I'd say that's indicative of the problem.

(Demoncrat and Republican)

August 30, 2009 22:33:19

To my thinking, the arguments should be grounded in fundamental principles of human interaction and dignity, not 'right' or 'wrong' which are subjective conclusions requiring some frame of reference.  Given that the fruits we now enjoy in life are the product of a society grounded in human autonomy & self-determination, it seems odd to me that so many wish to see a society grounded in the needs of the society/state as determined by self-appointed elites.

August 30, 2009 22:48:43

Wanting to ram any health care bill through congress before the august recess was not in any fashion being bi-partisan or fair to anyone.
No it isn't, but then to be bi-partisan requires that two parties take part and so far there's clearly no interest on the Republican side in doing that. The only thing the Republicans want to do is to obstruct any change whatsoever no matter what.

In my opinion, and it seems that this attitude is gaining support, I want the Democracts to do *something*. It is after all why I at least voted for them. No point in having a majority if you don't have the balls to use it. It's starting to look like that's what will happen and from my point of view that's a good thing.

August 30, 2009 23:07:30

In keeping with the Hippocratic principle of 'first, do no harm,' I'm thinking doing *something* - simply because one can - might not be the best plan of treatment. 

August 31, 2009 00:25:35

I want the Democracts to do *something*. It is after all why I at least voted for them

I guess maxing out the the US beyond it's formerly hosed state for the next few generations is something... so check off one fulfilled Obama supporter.

August 31, 2009 00:32:06

In keeping with the Hippocratic principle of 'first, do no harm,' I'm thinking doing *something* - simply because one can - might not be the best plan of treatment. 
Many people share that opinion ... perhaps even as many as don't.

To me and many others, doing anything without at the very least a public option, is doing nothing, and doing nothing is not an acceptable option.

We've tried doing nothing for at least 15 years and that really hasn't worked.

August 31, 2009 00:34:50

so check off one fulfilled Obama supporter
Not yet, but hopefully soon.

August 31, 2009 00:49:33

Can't tell you how many times, in my medical career anyway, doing 'nothing' was far better than doing 'something,' even life-saving at times.  Again, can does not mean must, or even should.

August 31, 2009 00:56:41

We've tried doing nothing for at least 15 years and that really hasn't worked.

That's, for lack of a more accurate term, a lie.  Government has been relentlessly insinuating itself into healthcare for the last 40+ years, especially the past 20 or so.  It sure ain't been sittin' around 'doing nothing.'  The more involved and proscriptive it has gotten, the more expensive, complicated and inefficient healthcare has become.  Say what you will about eyewitness testimony, but I have been present at the scene of the crime, as they say - in the exam room - for more than 34 of those years.

August 31, 2009 01:27:08

The efficiency of the DMV, the compassion of the IRS.

You want government 'health' care? The above is what you'll get. Actually, that's the *best* you'll get. The reality will be more like allowing a 5 year old with Tourette's syndrome to do your PHD defense.

We've tried doing nothing for at least 15 years and that really hasn't worked.

Actually, 'nothing' hasn't really happened. Neither party is particulary good at letting things take their course, though that is nearly always the best choice.

It may seem counter intuitive, but 'doing nothing' is, far more often, the BEST choice in most situations, especially when it comes to some form of external intervention.

The idea that there is some person, or group, that somehow magically 'knows' what is the best course of action is simple mythology.

There's a concept, called the 'wisdom of the crowd', whereby the individual actions of people within a group manage to provide the best results in nearly any situation (and, no, claiming that the 'crowd' chose a moron to represent them is not an effect of the wisdom of the crowd).

Nearly every advocate of government involvement in anything (healthcare included), and who rails against the 'evil' corporate influences,  manages to avoid recognizing the elephant in their room. And that is the fact that those corporate characters would not have the influence that they currently have, if it were not for the fact that they could lobby and call upon the powerful and influential government.

Every single one of the real problems that exist in regards to health insurance is a direct result of lobbying the government for those powers.

If we didn't have this enormous government bureacracy, there wouldn't be any incentive for private industry to lobby for special favors. There would be plenty of competition that would meet the needs of nearly every person who really wanted coverage.

If you really want to stick it to the insurance companies, don't vote for government health care, since the insurance companies will simply figure out a way to include themselves in it, one way or the other, with lobbying and money. What you need to do is to advocate for a complete, level playing field where the incumbent companies have to compete with each other (across the board, and across state lines), and to also compete with any other company that wants to toss its hat in the ring.

Government doesn't care about the many, it only cares about the few, those who throw money at it. If you give health care to the government, it is completely assured that those who are worse off now, will still be worse off.

 

There's room to fix our current system. But we fix it by making it possible, and profitable, for the market to cover the outliers. We don't fix it by giving power over it to an organization that is more interested in special favors from 'influential' personages.

 

 

 

August 31, 2009 01:33:55

 

As I've mentioned in other topics...  the US Government has a long history of corruption and spending money poorly and thus not worthy of managing a MAJOR responsibility such as healthcare for the entire country!  It's like not buckling your seatbelt with a speeding drunk driver!!  

Any healthcare for the entire country should be approached cautiously and with many small testings which gradually grow for larger test groups each in competition not only financially, but for overall quality.  Instead they're going to cannonball a healthcare program which will have the same results as a gaming company developing a game without any developer testing, QA testing, or beta testing...  just write up all game components and sell it.........  the cannonball approach is a complete nightmare.

The US government needs to improve it's existing responsibilities before taking a new major responsibility such as healthcare!  You don't go assigning an extra class to a college student who already has bad grades!

 

 

August 31, 2009 02:15:10

The efficiency of the DMV, the compassion of the IRS.
The compassion and efficiency of Default Credit Swaps.

Naked unregulated capitalism is not always a good thing. The financial mess we're in today did not come about because of too much government regulation, but too little.

Sooner or later the US will join the rest of the civilized world and provide UHC for all of its citizens and all the stupid analogies in the world will not stop it.

It can't come soon enough for me.

Stardock Forums v1.5.3112.18688
© 1995-2009 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.
All times are EST. The time is now 03:50:56
Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000062   Page Render Time: