Insurance Agent Forum

[GreenSky]

Everyone seems to agree that if we were not overweight, stopped smoking, etc. that our heatlhcare costs would be lower. Our great leader in Washington, while he smokes his cigarettes assures us that he has a better idea about how the heatlhcare delivery and insurance system should work.

Let's assume that there is Medicare for all or something similar, with our taxes (which of course won't increase) paying for all of this. And let's also assume that there would be massive expenditures to assist us in kicking our smoking habit, losing weight, reducing cholesterol, and everything else that kills us.

We would all live longer.

So wouldn't that mean that we'd have even more very old people burdening the system with massive medical bills?

It would appear to me that being healthy now only delays the inevitable expenditure in our last year of life. Unless the feds decide there is no value in old people and lets all of us (okay, you) die.

Rick

[Frank Stastny]

It will only cost us less if we do not have insurance and pay our own medical bills.

Other than that drink, smoke, eat to excess and jump out of airplanes if that is your thing. It ain't gonna make no difference.

It will only make a difference if all people decide to become healthy. Maybe not even then especially if the program is govt run. All we have to do is look around at the physical condition of Americans to know that is not going to happen.

[Mr. Bill]

Face it, bodies break down over time. Why do you think they sell Depends at Costco? Has nothing to do with drugs, cholesterol, walking, etc.

Ummm, then again, maybe Suzanne Somers is right, and all women over 60 need is a daily dose of vaginal injections.

Suzanne Somers' Daily Routine: Hormones, Vaginal Injections And 60 Pills (VIDEO)

And every time I hear a man over 60 say "I need to pee", well, you get the drift. Might as well smoke, booze it up, and enjoy the fried chicken.

[stuy119]

We will have lower costs if more people are healthy - it's the basis of lowering costs, period.

There will be fewer doctor interactions, which will help out in two ways: 1, fewer claims and 2, less chances for malpractice lawsuits (a HUGE driver of healthcare costs).

Additionally, we'll be looking at fewer claims related to heart disease, cancer, and diabetes if more people are healthy, stop smoking, etc.

So, in essence, yes we'll have lower healthcare costs - but other costs will increase in different "support" areas for elderly citizens.

[GreenSky]

I don't know if that's true. The more people living to 90 and over means more people will need medical care (not to mention nursing homes).

It's an interesting issue. The obvious answer is for people (other than me) to drop dead by 60.

Rick

[Paradigm]

Originally Posted by GreenSky

I don't know if that's true. The more people living to 90 and over means more people will need medical care (not to mention nursing homes).

It's an interesting issue. The obvious answer is for people (other than me) to drop dead by 60.

Rick

ala Logan's Run huh; but I think they only had until 30, well Alexander the Great accomplished alot in 30 years.

[policy doctor]

Let's see....In the UK and other socialist countries....if you're 65 and over there are many medical procedures they don't do with public money.

Perhaps that is the underlying intent here with healthcare reform...after all, demographics of baby boomers will upset all entitlement programs from SS, Medicare, Medicaid and etc., etc., etc.

OTOH...you can't have too many healthy folks or else Big pharma, insurance co's,. medical institutions and providers, cemeteries, etc, etc, how will they make money?

So let's not clean up our water (flouride free) or clean air (bomb, chem trails, nuclear tests, crop dusting) etc.

Seems there is a ratio mix here. 30/70 or 40/60. 10/90 is too low....20/80 not profitable enough. HMMM

[SportsNut]

Originally Posted by GreenSky

Let's assume that there is Medicare for all or something similar, with our taxes (which of course won't increase) paying for all of this.

Ooops...

House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes

Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, said.

Now there is a scary thought, Charlie Rangel being in charge of reforming the fiscal side of healthcare. Wasn't he the guy who recently had some problem paying his own taxes, and was nearly drummed out of the leadership role...?

BTW... I will believe that 400 Billion of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid when I see it. Ain't gonna happen folks.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

And every time I hear a man over 60 say "I need to pee", well, you get the drift. Might as well smoke, booze it up, and enjoy the fried chicken.

Tis true but there is also sort of a an equity argument that could be made in regard to people who may have worked all their lives and need a little tinkering in older age. We can agree that there all sorts of medical and ethical issues that go with maintaining the very, very old but if a man or woman reaches their 60's and 70's and needs to have that prostate, breast, or colon worked on a little when they may have previously had a healthly life then so what?

That same person may have supported the serial breeders turning out five or six crack babies who burned through a couple million each in the first six weeks of life and then weekly visits to the hospital thereafter for the next twenty years with the overdoses, gunshot wounds, and free gastric bypasses and sleep apnea studies.

There should be a way that a person can build up credits for having good health to be cashed in when needed versus this frigging frequent flier program that so many people are using.

[emptyeternity]

Rick, I see your question, and I dont think healthcare prices would come down even if we were healthy. Its like gasoline is still going up, even though demand is down. Was your question an illustration for how no matter what, we will get screwd if not by big biz then by big fed??
Im more curious to know the reasons for this thread...

[Winter]

Even without regard to the longevity issue there is no evidence that preventive medicine saves money in the aggregate. I dont say that to speak against it because it is a good thing for individuals who have access to it. But if public policy is planned around the idea that there are tremendous savings to be had, the data is not there.

First of all, preventive medicine has a tremendous cost by itself so unless you really find savings to offset then it is costly. In theory you intercept all these illnesses that would be more costly down the road. In practice, some of the preventive screenings are not really all that effective which is why recommendations for mammagrams and psa's etc bounce around all the time. In addition getting everyone on preventive care uncovers lots of illnesses to be treated. Again, I am not saying it is not a good thing. Just that I would not plan any savings around it and you would be lucky that it does not drive costs much, much higher.

If you google, around on the question "does preventive medicine reduce costs" or "save money" etc. you will see quite a few studies to this effect.

[GreenSky]

Originally Posted by emptyeternity

Rick, I see your question, and I dont think healthcare prices would come down even if we were healthy. Its like gasoline is still going up, even though demand is down. Was your question an illustration for how no matter what, we will get screwd if not by big biz then by big fed??
Im more curious to know the reasons for this thread...

Just too much time on my hands.

Rick

[stuy119]

Originally Posted by Winter

Even without regard to the longevity issue there is no evidence that preventive medicine saves money in the aggregate. I dont say that to speak against it because it is a good thing for individuals who have access to it. But if public policy is planned around the idea that there are tremendous savings to be had, the data is not there.

First of all, preventive medicine has a tremendous cost by itself so unless you really find savings to offset then it is costly. In theory you intercept all these illnesses that would be more costly down the road. In practice, some of the preventive screenings are not really all that effective which is why recommendations for mammagrams and psa's etc bounce around all the time. In addition getting everyone on preventive care uncovers lots of illnesses to be treated. Again, I am not saying it is not a good thing. Just that I would not plan any savings around it and you would be lucky that it does not drive costs much, much higher.

If you google, around on the question "does preventive medicine reduce costs" or "save money" etc. you will see quite a few studies to this effect.

Preventative medicine =/= staying healthy.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by stuy119

Preventative medicine =/= staying healthy.

Preventive