Did anyone ask for more expensive care than you recommended? When I talk to my doctors, I don’t study the cost either (not that I actually know it.) I do look up what the drug does, and the background of whatever symptoms I have. I tend to think that my physician is recommending the treatment I need, and I am happy to start with the cheapest of equally effective treatments. Perhaps your patients assumed that if you said they should have a CT scan, it was for a good reason? And I assume it was.
Well duh, this is America, where it’s not a problem until after it’s happened. And lest this post be taken as nonsensical, I say that in all seriousness.
Not at all true.
Well, I guess the reason I said “some” is because you’d need to define preventative care. Give everyone a complete physical every year? Unlimited lab tests? No matter what their underlying health or lifestyle choices?
If we make sure to allow people to make their own decisions before the crisis (which is the thing Her Mooseness objected to) we’d spend even less. My 93 year old father-in-law is well past the stage where he wants extraordinary measures, and at 58 I am understanding that position more and more. Why is it the right objects both to end of life care for all and allowing people to make their own choices about ending their life if they are terminally ill?
Evidently, you’ve never priced health insurance. Do that before you post nonsense.
(Bolding mine) Yet the fact that they paid all their lives doesn’t matter? Not to mention that you are actually advocating letting the elderly die rather than give them 5 years of life because it might cost money? Eugenics, anyone? It’s good, economical public policy!
I’m on blood thinning drugs to prevent a stroke, and even with excellent insurance the co-pay is a lot more than $4 a month. With no insurance some of them are relatively cheap and some are pretty expensive. However they all are less per year than one day of intensive care. If you can guarantee that all drugs to reduce the risk of heart attack are $4 a month, I’d be for no drug insurance. In the real world, we need it.
Sorry, Voyager, but I think you’d be one of those unfortunates that would be ‘allowed’ to die by some others in this thread. 
(ETA: Just so you don’t feel bad, since I’m fairly old myself and in relatively poor health, I’d probably be joining you too. No heroic measures for the likes of us, sadly…at least not if some of our fellow 'dopers have their way)
-XT
So you’re disagreeing that we have a minimum wage (in most states), and that the purpose of the minimum wage is to make sure that any one person can afford his needs?
How is that different than food stamps or unemployment insurance? Those are also used heavily by people who have paid into the system for years. Not everyone on those programs is a lifetime welfare recipient who never pays taxes.
I checked into the local hospital under Medicare with a co-pay of $1300 and was advised to act like I was gonna die, to rack up the bill. do to the fact that over $1300 bucks would be covered and not one penney out of my pocket.
I believe one of the reasons Social Security is in jeopardy – probably the biggest reason – is because the government is always borrowing funds from it? Remember the whole “lock box” concept?
There’s that and then there is the fact that it was meant to support people when the average lifespan was only a couple of years longer than the retirement age. Now people are taking early retirement and living to be 97. It wasn’t meant to support people for 35 years.
Social security really isn’t in jeopardy per se, that is mostly cooked up and propagated by the right wing and private financiers so they can pursue a Leninist strategy to privatize it (which luckily failed). It is basically a ‘shock doctrine’ agenda. Scare people, then promote right wing economic solutions to fix them.
If we raised the SS tax rate from 12.4% up to 14.2%, it would be solvent until 2080. So for every $1000 you earn you and your employer would each have to put an extra $9 in taxes.
Or we could raise the cap from 102k up to 150k or so, or put a 4% SS tax on all incomes above 102k. That’d make it solvent. Point is, the fears about social security being insolvent are mostly exaggerated by people looking to privatize it.
http://www.factcheck.org/article302.html
Social Security Deficit and Payroll Taxes
The percent of taxable payroll is the portion of an employee’s payroll tax that goes toward Social Security and is currently set at the rate of 12.4 percent, half of which is paid by the employer and the other half by employee. Over 75 years, the Trustees estimate the actuarial deficit is 1.8 percent of taxable payroll. This means that for the system to be completely solvent over the next 75 years, without adjusting benefits, payroll taxes would have to go up to 14.2 percent immediately. And to be solvent for the “infinite future,” the $10.4 trillion shortfall equals 3.5 percent of taxable payroll, or a tax increase to15.9 percent of wages.
Slightly cutting benefits, slightly increasing the retirement age, slightly increasing the tax rate and/or slightly increasing the cap will keep the system solvent until the 22nd century.
There should be no cap on paying into social security, only a cap on drawing out from it. Regardless of what your income is you should pay the 12.4%, but you can only withdraw as if you put in at the 102k mark. That would solve Social Security without raising the percentage at all. And people could still be completely unproductive for 35 years. So every CEO making 100m per year will be paying 12.4m into social security and as such they can support more than 100 people who are withdrawing.
One of the goals of social security was to make the workforce more productive. By giving the elderly a pension system, their kids didn’t have to quit the workforce to stay home and take care of them (keeping tens of millions of skilled workers in the labor force), or to build their careers around their parents needs instead of around their kids needs. Plus it encourages the elderly to leave the labor market and make way for lower earning, more physically fit younger workers to take their place in the workforce.
For $600 billion a year, its a pretty good system. Its contribution to productivity and GDP growth is probably in the trillions (as a guess).
Sure, that doesn’t change the fact that hedge fund managers can go ahead and dig into their pockets and contribute to social security. If it causes them to get more of their compensation in terms of stock and other benefits packages, then great. It would be a good thing if these guys weren’t simply looting companies and then moving on to the next company they can loot.
Did you bother to read the post I was responding to? I’m assuming you did not.
Yet there are still strings attached. Try getting a Big Mac with food stamps and see what happens. Try collecting unemployment insurance after starting a new job. My point is that IF you receive a handout from the government THEN don’t be surprised if there are strings attached. If you are getting healthcare paid by the government then why can they NOT tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself since they are picking up the tab?
If you are retired and get a social security check then you have paid into the system. Is that even arguable? Yes, it is possible that a spouse receives a survivors benefit without contributing to the system, but they are receiving their partner’s benefits.
I’m aware of that. But, I do think that the constant borrowing of social security funds should be curtailed, if not banned all together.