Greater personal accountability for health care costs:

[Villages PL]

Some were disappointed that the conversation was limited to hospitals, smoking and being overweight. It was limited because I was referencing an article I read in the newspaper. And I happened to add "being overweight."

But this thread is open to EVERYTHING that might raise health care costs. That means smoking, being overweight, being anorexic, driving too fast, being an alcoholic, or a drug user, etc..

My position: I stand for greater accountability in all areas where lifestyle plays a role. If people don't take personal responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle, they should be the ones to pay higher health insurance premiums. Higher costs should not be shifted to those who play by the rules.

Note: Getting older is not a lifestyle choice. Everyone gets older whether they like it or not.

[graciegirl]

What if the insurance folks would decide that being a vegan was unhealthy? And raise your premiums?

Who is going to make these decisions? I just read that my insurance says it is "wise" to get mammogram screening until 69. Hmmm I feel that screenings may well stop being reimbursed for older women. It is also "suggested" you get pap tests until you are 65. Who is in charge of these guidelines?

We will soon know.

[Parker]

Sigh. How I miss the good old days when we all paid a modest monthly fee for great coverage that paid for everything. One didn't even have to think about it. No options, checking fine print for exclusions, etc. Can't we go back there?

[ilovetv]

Sigh. How I miss the good old days when we all paid a modest monthly fee for great coverage that paid for everything. One didn't even have to think about it. No options, checking fine print for exclusions, etc. Can't we go back there?

I wouldn't want to go back to the days of the dr. having nothing to offer except aspirin, penicillin shots and cobalt treatments for dreaded diseases. The incredible technology and knowledge we now have comes with a high price of research and development over decades for a single treatment, and medical workers' pay......all of which have to be heavily insured. When a major drug fails once approved and in use, like Vioxx...the lawsuits go on in perpetuity.

I do think however that people would be more accountable for their medical spending if THEY got the insurance payment to then pay the drs, hospitals and providers. Most people have NO idea how much they are spending and do not shop around for less costly treatment for things that can wait a bit.....or for things that have simple, over-the-counter remedies. Many people run to the ER for things responsible people would put a band-aid on.

[Suzi]

Some were disappointed that the conversation was limited to hospitals, smoking and being overweight. It was limited because I was referencing an article I read in the newspaper. And I happened to add "being overweight."

But this thread is open to EVERYTHING that might raise health care costs. That means smoking, being overweight, being anorexic, driving too fast, being an alcoholic, or a drug user, etc..

My position: I stand for greater accountability in all areas where lifestyle plays a role. If people don't take personal responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle, they should be the ones to pay higher health insurance premiums. Higher costs should not be shifted to those who play by the rules.

Note: Just the fact of getting older is not a lifestyle choice. Everyone gets older whether they like it or not.

I absolutely agree. If I learned that, without any question, that ANY refined sugar was the cause of dementia (as an example), I would give it up in a NY minute. Those who couldn't give it up, should pay more for their medical insurance. Its the same for other "choices" that we make. As Americans we are fortunate to have the freedoms to do many things. But with those freedoms comes extra self responsibility. In Michigan you can drive a motorcycle with or without a helmet. If you choose to ride without, you must prove that you have extra (catastropic) insurance. Seems fair doesn't it? How about jobs. Should people who choose not to have a job be afforded the same priviledges that people who have jobs? I really like to have a nice big, fat lobster once a month. But I worked hard all my life to put money away so that I could afford that treat. Should someone who spent every penny they ever had in their pocket be afforded the same treat? No, of course not. We all make choices, good or bad, and we all have to be responsible for those choices. I had 2 children because I could only afford 2. And this was before BCP's. I love children, I love my grandkids (and everyone elses too) but I was a responsible person and knew my limit. So, is it fair that I restrict myself but other people have as many as they choose?

Yes, I believe that self responsibility is one of our greatest faults in America.

[gomoho]

BUT... how is it fair I give up things I enjoy so I can have a lower insurance premium, but someone else is doing whatever they please and don't have to worry about the cost of the premium 'cause the government is covering the cost???

I am not talking about the fact I may live longer and healthier, but just the cost of my insurance premium affected by what I do while someone on the government's role does not have the same responsibility or suffer the consequence as a result of this choice.

[KeepingItReal]

What if the insurance folks would decide that being a vegan was unhealthy? And raise your premiums?

Who is going to make these decisions? I just read that my insurance says it is "wise" to get mammogram screening until 69. Hmmm I feel that screenings may well stop being reimbursed for older women. It is also "suggested" you get pap tests until you are 65. Who is in charge of these guidelines?

We will soon know.

Excellent question Gracie, many already note there are many risks to being vegan.

Age will soon be a primary determining factor, if not the only factor, for very expensive health treatments and procedures though no one will dare admit it right now.

[KeepingItReal]

My position: I stand for greater accountability in all areas where lifestyle plays a role. If people don't take personal responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle, they should be the ones to pay higher health insurance premiums. Higher costs should not be shifted to those who play by the rules.

Note: Just the fact of getting older is not a lifestyle choice. Everyone gets older whether they like it or not.


Too bad, but it makes absolutely no difference where we stand as it won't change a thing. Are you saying you are playing by the rules? If so by whose rules are you playing?

[Easyrider]

Some were disappointed that the conversation was limited to hospitals, smoking and being overweight. It was limited because I was referencing an article I read in the newspaper. And I happened to add "being overweight."

But this thread is open to EVERYTHING that might raise health care costs. That means smoking, being overweight, being anorexic, driving too fast, being an alcoholic, or a drug user, etc..

My position: I stand for greater accountability in all areas where lifestyle plays a role. If people don't take personal responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle, they should be the ones to pay higher health insurance premiums. Higher costs should not be shifted to those who play by the rules.

Note: Just the fact of getting older is not a lifestyle choice. Everyone gets older whether they like it or not.



Would have to disagree, age would have to included in the list of things that raise health care costs. Many are already arguing that that older people should be paying a lot more for health insurance since it's the older people that are a heavy burden on the health care system...Age is the main driver of the costs.

Do you think younger healthier people that seldom need health care should pay more to cover older people and those with pre-existing conditions while you pay less?

To apply your thinking would you argue that health insurance premiums should not go up as we get older and if so why?

What if all health premiums started going up say 5-10% each year after we reach say 60 since we are more likely to need health care each day we live.

Since you say we are all ageing like it or not it sounds fair if applied to everyone. View the numbers below and estimate the daily costs.....We all know a great number of these residents bills are being paid by only Medicaid after Medicare pays for the first 100 days or so.

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-will-medicaid-pay-nursing-home-assisted-living.html

Nursing homes are getting even more expensive -- with the average price tag now standing at more than $80,000 per year.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
The cost of living at a nursing home has soared to a new high of more than $80,000 per year.
Over the past five years, the median annual cost of private nursing home care has jumped 24% from $67,527 to $83,950, according to Genworth's 2013 Cost of Care Survey, based on data from nearly 15,000 long-term care providers. From 2012 to 2013 alone, the price climbed 4%.




Facts about Nursing Homes

There are 17,000 nursing homes in the United States.

1.6 million people live in nursing homes.

The average number of beds per home is 107, with an occupancy rate of 88 percent.

More than 90 percent of current residents are 65 years of age and over. Almost half are 85 years or over.

The average age upon admission to a nursing home is 79.

Women are almost three times as likely to live in nursing homes than men.

In 2000, 4.5 percent of Americans 65 years and older lived in nursing homes, a decline from 5.1 percent in 1990.

In 1999-2000, the average nursing facility patient required assistance with 3.75 activities of daily living. Five common activities are used to measure the functionality of a patient - bathing, dressing, transferring, toileting and eating.

42 percent of nursing home patients suffer from some level of dementia.

33 percent of nursing home patients have documented symptoms of depression.

67 percent of nursing home facilities were for-profit in 1999-2000, 26 percent were nonprofit and 7 percent were government owned and operated.


Sources: American Health Care Association, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.



view-source:http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-nursing-facility-residents/

Total Number of Residents in Certified Nursing Facilities
View Table in New Window

Location
Number of Nursing Facility Residents

Alabama 22,759
Alaska 621
Arizona 11,507
Arkansas 18,033
California 100,065
Colorado 13,724
Connecticut 25,493
Delaware 4,266
District of Columbia 2,588
Florida 72,373
Georgia 27,564
Hawaii 3,012
Idaho 4,276
Illinois 74,564
Indiana 39,045
Iowa 25,165
Kansas 18,497
Kentucky 22,680
Louisiana 25,522
Maine 6,345
Maryland 24,432
Massachusetts 42,160
Michigan 39,683
Minnesota 28,150
Mississippi 16,342
Missouri 37,329
Montana 4,729
Nebraska 12,227
Nevada 4,732
New Hampshire 6,892
New Jersey 45,443
New Mexico 5,447
New York 107,480
North Carolina 37,399
North Dakota 5,737
Ohio 77,702
Oklahoma 19,694
Oregon 6,982
Pennsylvania 80,310
Rhode Island 8,076
South Carolina 17,143
South Dakota 6,448
Tennessee 29,910
Texas 92,359
Utah 3,855
Vermont 2,848
Virginia 28,168
Washington 17,597
West Virginia 7,155
Wisconsin 29,467
Wyoming 2,395

[Barefoot]

What if the insurance folks would decide that being a vegan was unhealthy? And raise your premiums.

Too bad, but it makes absolutely no difference where we stand as it won't change a thing. Are you saying you are playing by the rules? If so by whose rules are you playing?


But this thread is open to EVERYTHING that might raise health care costs. That means smoking, being overweight, being anorexic, driving too fast, being an alcoholic, or a drug user, etc..

My position: I stand for greater accountability in all areas where lifestyle plays a role. If people don't take personal responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle, they should be the ones to pay higher health insurance premiums. Higher costs should not be shifted to those who play by the rules.

Who would make the decision on defining a "healthy lifestyle, and what criteria should be used? For instance ... I haven't eaten red meat in seven years! During a recent surgery, I lost a lot of blood and was prescribed iron pills which aren't doing the trick. The doctors are suggesting that I should include red meat as a daily part of my regular diet to buildup my blood iron and become healthier.

[Villages PL]

What if the insurance folks would decide that being a vegan was unhealthy? And raise your premiums?

Insurance companies usually have statistics to go by. For example, I believe if you buy a convertible car you will be charged a higher insurance premium. Partly it's because people riding in convertables do less well in rollover crashes etc.. We assume the cost of the insurance policy will be fair because many companies will be competing for your business.

Who is going to make these decisions? I just read that my insurance says it is "wise" to get mammogram screening until 69. Hmmm I feel that screenings may well stop being reimbursed for older women. It is also "suggested" you get pap tests until you are 65. Who is in charge of these guidelines?

First wait to see if they stop paying for older women. They might not. They have also said that PSA tests for men are of little or no value, but HMOs are still offering them at no cost to the patient. If they stop paying, we always have the option of going to a doctor and paying for it ourselves. Who's in charge of these guidelines? The free market will decide based on statistics. We have competition between HMOs and insurance companies.

[Villages PL]

BUT... how is it fair I give up things I enjoy so I can have a lower insurance premium, but someone else is doing whatever they please and don't have to worry about the cost of the premium 'cause the government is covering the cost???

I am not talking about the fact I may live longer and healthier, but just the cost of my insurance premium affected by what I do while someone on the government's role does not have the same responsibility or suffer the consequence as a result of this choice.

I think you might be referring to those who are on medicaid. Those who are on medicaid usually receive food "stamps" too. Perhaps there should be stricter rules on what they can buy with their food-stamp-card. How about "no processed foods" like chips 'n' dips, cookies, donuts, ice cream, frozen pizza etc.? Just natural whole foods.

[Villages PL]

Excellent question Gracie, many already note there are many risks to being vegan.

That's true because there may be some vegans who are not primarily interested in optimizing their health. Their main interest may have to do with the humane treatment of animals. They might like to drink lots of soda and eat BIG pancake breakfasts with lots of syrup etc.. The same could be said of carnivores who eat poor diets. This means testing of some sort is needed, just like they are doing at some hospitals to make sure their employees are not smoking. They could also test for weight, cholesterol, blood pressure etc.. A poor diet usually shows up in those numbers.

Age will soon be a primary determining factor, if not the only factor, for very expensive health treatments and procedures though no one will dare admit it right now.

It's already happening to a certain extent. Some hospitals have been known to turn people away because of their age. Big operations get riskier as one gets older and some hospitals don't want to take the risk.

[Villages PL]

Too bad, but it makes absolutely no difference where we stand as it won't change a thing. Are you saying you are playing by the rules? If so by whose rules are you playing?

Rules, or generally accepted guidlines, can be found in many places. For example, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association, to name a few. Then there's the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most people agree that smoking is an unhealthy habit and raises one's risk for lung disease, cardiovascular disease etc.. Most people agree that being overweight puts one at greater risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.. So there are many (common sense) rules based on multiple long term studies.

Do I play by the rules? Absolutely! And I saw my doctor yesterday. The nurse said, "I would pay to have your numbers", keep doing whatever you're doing." My blood pressure was 95/55 (And I don't take any medication). All of my numbers are consistently good. Once, a few years ago, my blood glucose was at 100. I worked on it and on my next blood test it was 86. Anyone can do it. It's just a matter of taking one's health seriously and taking action. I don't take my health for granted. BTW, at the end of my office visit, my doctor said, "okay, we have to get you out of here, healthy people in my office is bad for business." ;-)

[Barefoot]

.... at the end of my office visit, my doctor said, "okay, we have to get you out of here, healthy people in my office is bad for business."

We always like to hear of a fellow member getting good test results. If you are also happy and living a joyous lifestyle, then congratulations to you.

[gomoho]

We always like to hear of a fellow member getting good test results. If you are also happy and living a joyous lifestyle, then congratulations to you.

Ditto to the happy and joyous lifestyle!

[Barefoot]

We always like to hear of a fellow member getting good test results. If you are also happy and living a joyous lifestyle, then congratulations to you.

Ditto to the happy and joyous lifestyle!

In my humble opinion, it's not how long you live, but whether you live your life with joy and generosity.

[JP]

Moderation is the key to a long, happy, healthy life.
Restrictions are no guarantee for anything.
In the end, no matter what you do or how you live, life will throw you a curve ball and you are going to be out.

[tomjbud]

You are right about life throwing you a curve ball even if you do everything right. Back in December, I took my wife to the emergency room with the symptoms of a heart attack. The doctors did the standard tests expecting to find coronary artery disease. To their surprise, her arteries were clear with no sign of disease, yet she was in severe heart failure. After further testing, they found a congenital heart valve defect which went undetected for 56 years. After heart valve replacement surgery, and surviving several severe complications, I am happy to report that she is well on the road to recovery. Thank God we had good insurance - otherwise we would have been financially ruined.

[Pepperhead]

They have also said that PSA tests for men are of little or no value................

I would just like to point out that the panel that recommended that did not have a single urologist or oncologist on it and was chaired by a female pediatrician.

[dotti105]

Our health care system is seriously screwed up. I am a RN and I see it daily from the inside as well as being a patient and seeing it from the outside.

Last year I was out of work for 6 mo to have both thumbs reconstructed due to arthritis damage. Not fun.

But we have dual coverage. We both work and have great coverage. Now 15 months later the insurance companies are still fighting about who pays what. i spend hrs on the phone with the ins companies and with the facility where my surgery was done.
I seriously spend enough time on the phone to keep 1-2 employees busy 40 hrs a week. And our premiums are not cheap! They are just trying to pass the buck to each other and it end up back to me to pay the outstanding balance which should have been covered. Shameful!

Our system is totally screwed up!

I am hoping that the Affordable Care Act will clear some of this crap up. We already have done away with denial due to pre existing conditions, and with life time max. coverage.

Last year we went to Australia and talked with many couples our age. They have nationalized health care and LOVE it. In their 50's many will also take out personal coverage, but non of them felt that they did not get treatment when needed or were denied the best of care.

They were all perplexed as to why our system is so screwed up and why nationalized health care is so controversial. They compared it to tax dollars paying for schools, police and fire protection. It was really eye opening.

I personally would much prefer a single payer system. I blame much of our problems on the insurance companies and The Afforadable Care Act puts too much control in the Insurance industry's hands as far as I am concerned.

Hopefully we can learn form all the other industrialized nations who have single payer systems and much better health outcomes. If you look at our outcomes it is very embarrassing. We could do so much better. But American pride does not allow us to learn from others, we have to design it ourselves and spend years figuring out why it isn't working right before we evolve to a system that will work. Most of us will be dead and gone by then I am afraid.

[graciegirl]

Had a house guest from Austria and they are very proud of their system. I was appalled at their lack of choices and the wait they had to endure for things like mastectomy.

Have a person I exchange emails with in The Netherlands. They too are proud, but it isn't what we are used to here.

I very much fear that a good idea will end up being misused and abused just like all of the other things that the government monitors now.

I wish we could have it the old way.

[Villages PL]

Last year we went to Australia and talked with many couples our age. They have nationalized health care and LOVE it. In their 50's many will also take out personal coverage, but non of them felt that they did not get treatment when needed or were denied the best of care.

They were all perplexed as to why our system is so screwed up and why nationalized health care is so controversial. They compared it to tax dollars paying for schools, police and fire protection. It was really eye opening.

I personally would much prefer a single payer system. I blame much of our problems on the insurance companies and The Afforadable Care Act puts too much control in the Insurance industry's hands as far as I am concerned.

Hopefully we can learn form all the other industrialized nations who have single payer systems and much better health outcomes. If you look at our outcomes it is very embarrassing. We could do so much better. But American pride does not allow us to learn from others, we have to design it ourselves and spend years figuring out why it isn't working right before we evolve to a system that will work. Most of us will be dead and gone by then I am afraid.

Many years ago I saw a special report on TV about universal health care in France. It focused on a married couple who were both professionals with good incomes. They liked universal health care but admitted that their taxes were so high that they had little money left over. They didn't own their own home and lived in a small appartment. This was a long time ago, and, if I remember correctly, they paid something like a 60% tax rate.

About 10 years ago I did some online research to find out about health care in Canada. I found out what the population was at that time and then I found out what their national health care bill was. It came to something like $8,000. per person but not everyone pays for health care. Anyway, it's very difficult to figure out exactly what's going on. Some people pay a lot and some pay nothing. If you happen to ask those who get it for free, of course they will say they LOVE it. But if you ask those who are paying a large chunk of their income, it's likely you will get a different answer. So it all depends on who you ask.

[Villages PL]

In my humble opinion, it's not how long you live, but whether you live your life with joy and generosity.

Perhaps you will be "generous" enough to inform us how "joy and generosity" relates to the topic of this thread. And I will be "overjoyed" to be so informed.

[ilovetv]

Our health care system is seriously screwed up. I am a RN and I see it daily from the inside as well as being a patient and seeing it from the outside.

Last year I was out of work for 6 mo to have both thumbs reconstructed due to arthritis damage. Not fun.

But we have dual coverage. We both work and have great coverage. Now 15 months later the insurance companies are still fighting about who pays what. i spend hrs on the phone with the ins companies and with the facility where my surgery was done.
I seriously spend enough time on the phone to keep 1-2 employees busy 40 hrs a week. And our premiums are not cheap! They are just trying to pass the buck to each other and it end up back to me to pay the outstanding balance which should have been covered. Shameful!

Our system is totally screwed up!

I am hoping that the Affordable Care Act will clear some of this crap up. We already have done away with denial due to pre existing conditions, and with life time max. coverage.

Last year we went to Australia and talked with many couples our age. They have nationalized health care and LOVE it. In their 50's many will also take out personal coverage, but non of them felt that they did not get treatment when needed or were denied the best of care.

They were all perplexed as to why our system is so screwed up and why nationalized health care is so controversial. They compared it to tax dollars paying for schools, police and fire protection. It was really eye opening.

I personally would much prefer a single payer system. I blame much of our problems on the insurance companies and The Afforadable Care Act puts too much control in the Insurance industry's hands as far as I am concerned.

Hopefully we can learn form all the other industrialized nations who have single payer systems and much better health outcomes. If you look at our outcomes it is very embarrassing. We could do so much better. But American pride does not allow us to learn from others, we have to design it ourselves and spend years figuring out why it isn't working right before we evolve to a system that will work. Most of us will be dead and gone by then I am afraid.

I have no idea why, if you both have dual coverage insurance and both are "great", you would submit claims to both companies. If your own insurance doesn't pay for it, why would the spouse's company be expected to pay it?

And about the other countries with nationalized healthcare, which I like in concept but not the realities......a neighbor here is from Canada. She said they were moving to a new community and would have to use the primary doctor assigned to that community. When I asked "What if you don't like the new doctor?", the reply was, "I'd probably have no recourse, because to request a different doctor translates to having NO doctor, because there aren't enough of them."

As problematic as our system is, we can choose to go to a different doctor if the one we have is lazy, nasty, or a quack. This ability to choose, and pay for better care ourselves if need be, should not be underestimated.

[Barefoot]

And about the other countries with nationalized healthcare, which I like in concept but not the realities......a neighbor here is from Canada. She said they were moving to a new community and would have to use the primary doctor assigned to that community. When I asked "What if you don't like the new doctor?", the reply was, "I'd probably have no recourse, because to request a different doctor translates to having NO doctor, because there aren't enough of them." .

I've never heard of a doctor being assigned to a community, but perhaps it happens. Canadian doctors are very busy, and some are not accepting new patients. I can only speak about my own experience. A few years ago I moved to a small retirement community and chose a new local male doctor. I recently decided that I would prefer a female doctor, and I had a choice of two female doctors.

[DouglasMo]

What rules, whose rules??? And what about those people who never smoke and get lung cancer--the rates are rising.... you cannot, I repeat, cannot punish people who get sick or get old by making them pay more. Think about what you are saying. You are hoping because you "play by the rules" you won't get sick? You live in a fantasy world. Illness, injuries strike haphazardly. I don't care what anyone says. And for those who do also have a "family" predisposition you are punishing them... People think about what you are proposing and thinking...

Disregard -- this -- somehow I got pushed onto another post. I was answering a post about people who don't follow rules being charged more for insurance.......

[Easyrider]

What rules, whose rules??? And what about those people who never smoke and get lung cancer--the rates are rising.... you cannot, I repeat, cannot punish people who get sick or get old by making them pay more. You are hoping because you "play by the rules" you won't get sick? You live in a fantasy world. ...

You are hoping because you "play by the rules" you won't get sick? You live in a fantasy world.


:BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Easyrider]

[QUOTE=Easyrider;738994]Would have to disagree, age would have to included in the list of things that raise health care costs. Many are already arguing that that older people should be paying a lot more for health insurance since it's the older people that are a heavy burden on the health care system...Age is the main driver of the costs.

1. Do you think younger healthier people that seldom need health care should pay more to cover older people and those with pre-existing conditions while you pay less?

2. To apply your thinking would you argue that health insurance premiums should not go up as we get older and if so why?

What if all health premiums started going up say 5-10% each year after we reach say 60 since we are more likely to need health care each day we live.


Direct Question for Village PL Questions ask in post #9...

VillagePL please answer the questions 1 and 2 above. This was ask previously and no answer was given. Please explain why or why not. Use all the space you need and give us a complete answer.

[KeepingItReal]

.

Do I play by the rules? Absolutely! And I saw my doctor yesterday. My blood pressure was 95/55

You might want to have that BP checked again and consider treatment as anything under 60 Diastolic is considered low which is actually sometimes harder to treat than high BP. Also with a reading already low at 55 it could drop more at any time and cause you to pass out or go into shock.


From Everyday Health

At the other end of the spectrum is low blood pressure. Ogedegbe says that blood pressure is generally considered to be low when either systolic blood pressure is less than 90 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure is less than 60 mmHg.

If the blood pressure reading is under 90/60 mm Hg, it is called hypotension. Hypotension can result in a decreased supply of oxygen and nutrients to your brain, which can eventually lead to life-threatening shock.

Anyone can develop hypotension, but certain groups of people are more likely to experience it. For instance, up to 30 percent of older adults will get sudden drops in blood pressure while sitting or standing.

Low blood pressure (hypotension) is pressure so low it causes symptoms or signs due to the low flow of blood through the arteries and veins. When the flow of blood is too low to deliver enough oxygen and nutrients to vital organs such as the brain, heart, and kidney, the organs do not function normally and may be temporarily or permanently damaged.
Symptoms of Hypotension

Signs and symptoms, may include:

Dizziness
Fainting
Fatigue
Problems concentrating
Blurry vision
Nausea
Clammy, pale skin
Shortness of breath

[dotti105]

Had a house guest from Austria and they are very proud of their system. I was appalled at their lack of choices and the wait they had to endure for things like mastectomy.

Have a person I exchange emails with in The Netherlands. They too are proud, but it isn't what we are used to here.

I very much fear that a good idea will end up being misused and abused just like all of the other things that the government monitors now.

I wish we could have it the old way.

The insurance companies have made sure that there is no going back. When we raised our families, health care costs were under control, the more insurance got involved the more complicated it became for health care providers and for patients, the costs and red tape have just spiraled out of control.

When I tell our kids that it cost us $1000 for each delivery, including prenatal and postpartum care for each of them. They drop their jaws. Now a normal delivery is $10,000-$15,000. Heaven help you if there are any complications.

There's no going back, Gracie! We burned our bridges by letting insurance companies make all the rules. It's very sad.

My patients in the NICU end up with million dollar bills, many families file bankruptcy as a result. Our system is way out of control, unfortunately.

[rubicon]

IMHO it is very dangerous to have people whose only objective is reducing costs to be the only ones controlling.

Ask yourself why do we have a medical profession? why did it begin and why has so much effort and resources been employed to raise the standards of care? Why because society rightfully understands that alleviating suffering is a noble goal......

Now ask yourself why did we create insurance? the answer is simply to ensure risks that we could not handle. Insurance is the pooling of resources to help people cope with financial events that they otherwise could never afford.

Ask why do we have this controversy and the answer lies in greedy people patients, doctors insurers. doctors in an effort to protect themselves over-prescribe ie over treat. Insurance companies pushed in the early 1980's for more control of their insurance dollars to control what they believed to be higher cost resulting from over treating and plain mismanagement on the part of the medical community.

The Affordability Act is not a health act it is only a method of how health care will be distributed. it does nothing to improve the health care system and by an account of the majority will only make it worse and more costly.

So given this madness we have people who are charged with reducing costs as their only goal. since the higher medical cost are incurred in th last two years of a person lives what d you think is going to happen when the tires hit the road?

As to the experts on health care styles I wished they make up their minds as to what is good for us once and for all, Because their flip flopping only confuses the issue.

for me I am going to continue my life style of moderation and enjoy my across the board menu and the heck with the experts because I thin of those folks who pushed away the dessert cart just before the Titanic went down as one great columnist once said

[Villages PL]

What rules, whose rules??? And what about those people who never smoke and get lung cancer--the rates are rising.... you cannot, I repeat, cannot punish people who get sick or get old by making them pay more.

About lung cancer: A woman on my block died of lung cancer a few years ago. She had never smoked but lived in a large Texas city that had a lot of air polution (smog). Different people get lung cancer for different reasons that may or may not be avoidable. But smoking is totally avoidable.

I was just reading about the "Affordable Care Act" in the Daily Sun a few days ago, and it calls for charging older people more. Roughly, a 21 year old, non-smoker, would pay a little over $200 per month. And they comparred it to a 60 year old, non-smoker, who would pay several hundred dollars more. I don't remember exactly but I believe it was over $700 per month.

Think about what you are saying. You are hoping because you "play by the rules" you won't get sick? You live in a fantasy world. Illness, injuries strike haphazardly. I don't care what anyone says.

You made a wrong assumption which I suppose is common for anyone who's not used to talking about health risks. Playing by the "rules" basically means: Living a healthy lifestyle that's generally known to lower one's risk for disease. (No one is handing out guarantees.)

And for those who do also have a "family" predisposition you are punishing them... People think about what you are proposing and thinking...

We all have predispositions for one thing or another; all the more reason to practice a healthy lifestyle.

[Villages PL]

You are hoping because you "play by the rules" you won't get sick? You live in a fantasy world.


:BigApplause::BigApplause:

I didn't think I needed to state the obvious. Following the rules means living a healthy lifestyle in order to lower one's risk. Nothing is guaranteed.

[Villages PL]

Would have to disagree, age would have to included in the list of things that raise health care costs. Many are already arguing that that older people should be paying a lot more for health insurance since it's the older people that are a heavy burden on the health care system...Age is the main driver of the costs.

In my opening post I talked about "accountability" and taking responsibility. Getting older is not a lifestyle choice. Everyone gets older. So, for example, an older person who smokes should pay more than an older person who doesn't smoke. An older person who is overweight should pay more than an older person who's not overweight.

1. Do you think younger healthier people that seldom need health care should pay more to cover older people and those with pre-existing conditions while you pay less?


No, I don't think a younger healthier person should pay more to take care of older people, assuming that he/she is living a healthy lifestyle. Only those with unhealthy lifestyles should be charged more. About "pre-existing conditions": It's getting too hypothetical, it might depend on what caused the pre-existing condition. Should I pay less? I'm in medicare so I do pay less. But I keep myself healthy and I don't use anything close to what I pay in. Many in Medicare, who live unhealthy lifestyles, use much more than they pay in. And that's why medicare is having difficulty. Those in medicare who take health risks, like smoking, should pay more. That would help keep medicare solvent.


2. To apply your thinking would you argue that health insurance premiums should not go up as we get older and if so why?

People should not be charged more simply because they get older. Of course there will be increases because of inflation in medical care etc..

What if all health premiums started going up say 5-10% each year after we reach say 60 since we are more likely to need health care each day we live.

I'm 72 and totally healthy. Not too long ago there was a man who lived to 114 and was totally healthy up until one month before he died. A Mexican woman just died at 115 and was never sick. A man who lived in Leesburg died at 109 and was never sick. And there were many many more, too many to mention all of them. They all lived healthy lifestyles. Why charge people a "penalty" simply because they get older?

[gomoho]

My mother is 94 and in almost perfect health - takes an iron pill and Aricept. She rarely has a medicare claim and is paying her own way in memory care, so there are old folks not requiring medical attention.

As far as medicare having difficulty it can be attributed to fraud and waste much more than care that is provided. They will pay for anything as long as it is coded correctly. It makes my hair stand on end when someone says "why wouldn't I have that treatment I may not have really needed - I don't have to pay for it". Yes you do with you tax dollars. People we all need to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Easyrider]

I'm 72 and totally healthy. Not too long ago there was a man who lived to 114 and was totally healthy up until one month before he died. A Mexican woman just died at 115 and was never sick. A man who lived in Leesburg died at 109 and was never sick. And there were many many more, too many to mention all of them. They all lived healthy lifestyles. Why charge people a "penalty" simply because they get older?

An older person who is overweight should pay more than an older person who's not overweight.*

People should not be charged more simply because they get older. Of course there will be increases because of inflation in medical care etc..

Should I pay less? I'm in medicare so I do pay less.*



How do you know what lifestyle they lived and how healthy they were, any facts to support the comment? Seems there is always an experience or story to fit every situation.
People that think they are perfectly healthy find out different everyday. I would guess every member of your entire family is also just as healthy as you.

Basically you are saying everyone that is not perfect like you think you are, should be paying more and you should be paying less as you say you do..

I don't think we need to picking on any particular group and pointing fingers at others including the elderly is where I stand. Ha! ha! :boom:

[Villages PL]

How do you know what lifestyle they lived and how healthy they were, any facts to support the comment? Seems there is always an experience or story to fit every situation.
People that think they are perfectly healthy find out different everyday. I would guess every member of your entire family is also just as healthy as you.

Your questions indicate that you don't really believe that lifestyle has very much to do with anything. But I know differently because I have been studying this subject for many years. I know from experience.

Basically you are saying everyone that is not perfect like you think you are, should be paying more and you should be paying less as you say you do..

No, again you're reading things into my statements that I never said. I never said that I think I'm perfect. Do you have a grudge against people who live healthy lifestyles and are healthy? I don't eat processed foods and I'm at my ideal weight. Should I pay the same as people who overindulge in processed foods and are overweight? If you think it's fun to take that risk, you should also have the fun of paying for that risk.

I don't think we need to picking on any particular group and pointing fingers at others including the elderly is where I stand. Ha! ha! :boom:

It's not "picking" and it's not "pointing fingers". It's called facing reality and taking responsibility. And I believe there are health insurance companies that already do this. Even the Affordable Care Act, which I'm not a fan of, distinguishes between smokers and non-smokers.

[Barefoot]

Rules, or generally accepted guidlines, can be found in many places. For example, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association, to name a few. Then there's the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most people agree that smoking is an unhealthy habit and raises one's risk for lung disease, cardiovascular disease etc.. Most people agree that being overweight puts one at greater risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.. So there are many (common sense) rules based on multiple long term studies.

Do I play by the rules? Absolutely! And I saw my doctor yesterday. The nurse said, "I would pay to have your numbers", keep doing whatever you're doing." My blood pressure was 95/55 (And I don't take any medication). All of my numbers are consistently good. Once, a few years ago, my blood glucose was at 100. I worked on it and on my next blood test it was 86. Anyone can do it. It's just a matter of taking one's health seriously and taking action. I don't take my health for granted. BTW, at the end of my office visit, my doctor said, "okay, we have to get you out of here, healthy people in my office is bad for business." ;-)

Perhaps you will be "generous" enough to inform us how "joy and generosity" relates to the topic of this thread. And I will be "overjoyed" to be so informed.

In a discussion about health care costs, you were proudly giving the detailed results of your medical tests, and rightly so. Your results are great. I was making a point that emotional health is also important, as with a life lived with joy and generosity. I think there are two components to healthy living, body and mind. For instance, some people with healthy bodies could be depressed or have emotional issues that also cost money to treat. I'm sorry if you found my comments superfluous.

[Easyrider]

Your questions indicate that you don't really believe that lifestyle has very much to do with anything. But I know differently because I have been studying this subject for many years. I know from experience.

NO, my questions indicate I don't believe you have the facts to back up most of the things you say. No medical training, no medical background.

No, again you're reading things into my statements that I never said. I never said that I think I'm perfect. Do you have a grudge against people who live healthy lifestyles and are healthy? I don't eat processed foods and I'm at my ideal weight. Should I pay the same as people who overindulge in processed foods and are overweight? If you think it's fun to take that risk, you should also have the fun of paying for that risk.

NO BUT, I do not like for people to think themselves better than anyone else and trying to tell others what they should be doing. Constant bragging is a real turn-off to even those that might otherwise consider what you are trying to say. Even in your answer above more bragging again. Everyone should pay more than you, right.. If you really do not think yourself perfect as you said above, tell us some of your shortcomings or at least one, we are definitely interested!

It's not "picking" and it's not "pointing fingers". It's called facing reality and taking responsibility. And I believe there are health insurance companies that already do this. Even the Affordable Care Act, which I'm not a fan of, distinguishes between smokers and non-smokers.

I believe it is pointing fingers at others and it is a real turn off,,,What about what the rest believe, does it matter? :boom: :boom:

Everyone should pay more for most anything imaginable but still you want to exclude yourself from increased premiums due to age though it has been proven to be the major contributor to costs. NO I do not believe the elderly should be paying more either but not for the same reason as you apparently. But then you said the elderly too should be paying more if they do this or that such as eating processed foods which of course you don't do..

1.6 million people live in nursing homes in the U.S. More than 90 percent of current residents are 65 years of age and over. Almost half are 85 years or over.

42 percent of nursing home patients suffer from some level of dementia. The average age upon admission to a nursing home is 79. Ha Ha!:boom:



...

[Villages PL]

In a discussion about health care costs, you were proudly giving the detailed results of your medical tests, and rightly so. Your results are great. I was making a point that emotional health is also important, as with a life lived with joy and generosity. I think there are two components to healthy living, body and mind. For instance, some people with healthy bodies could be depressed or have emotional issues that also cost money to treat. I'm sorry if you found my comments superfluous.

I agree that emotional health is important too. If a person is optimistic, has a positive outlook, is happy, joyous and generous, it's good for one's immune system. It's just that emotional health is not something that typically gets measured for the purpose of trying to lower health care costs. Should happy people pay less for health insurance? :)

[Villages PL]

...No, my questions indicate I don't believe you have the facts to back up most of the things you say. No medical training, no medical background.

Search: The Obesity Index, The Cost of Obesity by State

The above site states, in the opening paragraph: The cost of treating illness related to obesity (in the U.S.) is as high as 149 billion per year.

This information comes from a reliable source, a division of the Centers for disease Control and Prevention.

[twinklesweep]

Our health care system is seriously screwed up. I am a RN and I see it daily from the inside as well as being a patient and seeing it from the outside.

Last year I was out of work for 6 mo to have both thumbs reconstructed due to arthritis damage. Not fun.

But we have dual coverage. We both work and have great coverage. Now 15 months later the insurance companies are still fighting about who pays what. i spend hrs on the phone with the ins companies and with the facility where my surgery was done.
I seriously spend enough time on the phone to keep 1-2 employees busy 40 hrs a week. And our premiums are not cheap! They are just trying to pass the buck to each other and it end up back to me to pay the outstanding balance which should have been covered. Shameful!

Our system is totally screwed up!

I am hoping that the Affordable Care Act will clear some of this crap up. We already have done away with denial due to pre existing conditions, and with life time max. coverage.

Last year we went to Australia and talked with many couples our age. They have nationalized health care and LOVE it. In their 50's many will also take out personal coverage, but non of them felt that they did not get treatment when needed or were denied the best of care.

They were all perplexed as to why our system is so screwed up and why nationalized health care is so controversial. They compared it to tax dollars paying for schools, police and fire protection. It was really eye opening.

I personally would much prefer a single payer system. I blame much of our problems on the insurance companies and The Afforadable Care Act puts too much control in the Insurance industry's hands as far as I am concerned.

Hopefully we can learn form all the other industrialized nations who have single payer systems and much better health outcomes. If you look at our outcomes it is very embarrassing. We could do so much better. But American pride does not allow us to learn from others, we have to design it ourselves and spend years figuring out why it isn't working right before we evolve to a system that will work. Most of us will be dead and gone by then I am afraid.

The insurance companies have made sure that there is no going back. When we raised our families, health care costs were under control, the more insurance got involved the more complicated it became for health care providers and for patients, the costs and red tape have just spiraled out of control.

When I tell our kids that it cost us $1000 for each delivery, including prenatal and postpartum care for each of them. They drop their jaws. Now a normal delivery is $10,000-$15,000. Heaven help you if there are any complications.

There's no going back, Gracie! We burned our bridges by letting insurance companies make all the rules. It's very sad.

My patients in the NICU end up with million dollar bills, many families file bankruptcy as a result. Our system is way out of control, unfortunately.

I could not agree more, Dotti; I have read through this entire thread, and you are the only one who is willing to make the point that the reason there is no "going back" is that the insurance industry (with its lobbyists0 is so firmly entrenched that there will never be an escape from our medical offerings being determined by insurance company management and implemented by insurance company clerks.

IMHO, this is the absolute worst thing about the Affordable Health Care Act—that to get it passed, the insurance industry had to be kowtowed to and had to be left with the powers that it had somehow acquired over the years. Even so, the two improvements cited by Dotti—"denial due to pre existing conditions, and with life time max. coverage"—are significant. I expect more to emerge in time.

Though this has to do with the kind of person I am, I cannot—and likely will never be able to—understand what anyone's objection is to all folks having access to heath care (as is the case in most developed nations). If I were a wagering person, though, I would bet (and wish I were wrong...) that those who object are not those who end up clogging our hospitals' ERs with sore throats and sprained ankles (that we all end up paying for anyway!) but who cannot afford to go to a doctor....

Indeed a broken system!

[DouglasMo]

Ridiculous conversation...first, now lung cancer is occurring more often in people who do not, I repeat do not, smoke. Most life threatening diseases are a part and parcel of getting old and genes. Cancer is familial or indiscriminate or caused by the environment. All of the above posts seems to want to "punish" the sick because they got sick!!! When you are ill like that the last thing you need is to have large bills, people pointing fingers at you that you could have stopped it by "being healthy" Folks, we are mortal, not immortal, and unless you die in an accident, some illness is probably going to get you. How many do you know die peacefully in their sleep? Now you are talking about making people pay more when they get sick? Please!!!

As for the Affordable Care Act... if it's so great, why did Congress who voted it in, voted themselves and their staff out of it??? Because the staff threatened to quit on them.... and now what is going on with Labor and this Act...I just got a glimpse of it on the news..seems some kind of accommodation has been made.... So Congress and maybe Labor and Congress staff doesn't have to deal with Affordable Care... What Does That Tell You??????

[Villages PL]

Ridiculous conversation...first, now lung cancer is occurring more often in people who do not, I repeat do not, smoke.

What's your conclusion? It's okay to smoke because you might get lung cancer anyway?

Most life threatening diseases are a part and parcel of getting old and genes. Cancer is familial or indiscriminate or caused by the environment.

That may be true but mainly because of the poor lifestyle environment that most people promote.


All of the above posts seems to want to "punish" the sick because they got sick!!!

That's the emotional interpretation. It's not about that at all. It's simply about paying appropriately for the risk one chooses to take. Just as one would do with any other type of insurance. If one buys a house in a flood zone one pays more for insurance to cover the added risk of flooding. It's a simple concept.

When you are ill like that the last thing you need is to have large bills, people pointing fingers at you that you could have stopped it by "being healthy" Folks, we are mortal, not immortal, and unless you die in an accident, some illness is probably going to get you. How many do you know die peacefully in their sleep? Now you are talking about making people pay more when they get sick? Please!!!

Theatrics asside, it's not about charging sick people more. It's about charging higher premiums to those who choose to take higher (undue) risks. One's premium would go down as soon as the risky behavior is discontinued.

[Jayhawk]

I'm 72 and totally healthy. Not too long ago there was a man who lived to 114 and was totally healthy up until one month before he died. A Mexican woman just died at 115 and was never sick. A man who lived in Leesburg died at 109 and was never sick. And there were many many more, too many to mention all of them.

Jim Fixx was credited with helping start America's fitness revolution, popularizing the sport of running and demonstrating the health benefits of regular jogging. Fixx died in 1984 at the age of 52.

Buddy Holly was healthy as a horse and dies at 22 in a plane crash

Natalie Wood was 43, beautiful, healthy, and drowned.

They all appeared to be healthy, happy people. Then life happened.

You are 72, and while you may be healthy at least by your definition, I doubt you are very happy. That comes through in your vibe, even though you don't think so I'm fairly sure.

I do, however, wish you the best.

[DouglasMo]

I'm saying don't punish people because they get sick. You can have a healthy lifestyle and get cancer. You can have an unhealthy lifestyle and not get sick. How do you know the future? This whole thread is ridiculous and unfair by your rules. and I am out of it.

Reply to VillagesPL

[Villages PL]

Jim Fixx was credited with helping start America's fitness revolution, popularizing the sport of running and demonstrating the health benefits of regular jogging. Fixx died in 1984 at the age of 52.

Well, so much for running and jogging being a cure-all. Some of my athlete friends have lived very unhealthy lifestyles. They were addicted to overexercising and eating junk food to fuel their workouts.

Buddy Holly was healthy as a horse and dies at 22 in a plane crash

That's a risk that frequent fliers take. Do airline pilots pay more for life insurance? They should.

Natalie Wood was 43, beautiful, healthy, and drowned.

Accidents happen and not all accidents can be avoided. This thread is not about eliminating all risks, that would be impossible. Just lifestyle risks that we know of that are very costly to the nation and can be observed by a doctor. A doctor wouldn't necessarilly know how often one goes swimming and under what conditions.

They all appeared to be healthy, happy people. Then life happened.

Yes, but obesity and smoking, etc., doesn't just "happen" out of the blue. It's the result of continuously making unhealthy lifestyle choices.


About happiness: I can tell you one thing, being healthy makes it so much easyer to feel a sense of contentment and happiness. I wish more people would try it.

[Barefoot]

Theatrics asside, it's not about charging sick people more. It's about charging higher premiums to those who choose to take higher (undue) risks. One's premium would go down as soon as the risky behavior is discontinued.

What you're suggesting would be impossible to design/administer/manage. Who would decide what is risky and what isn't? And would they just take people's word for it, that they don't smoke, exercise regularly and eat only healthy food? haha.

Who would set the acceptability bar for those who choose to take higher risks? If someone exercises daily but eats fried food, should they pay a higher premium than someone who doesn't exercise and eats salads? The intricacies would be unmanageable. Who would monitor the "risky behavior" and deem it has been discontinued for a long enough period?

Not only is it an unwieldy and impossible idea, but there is something mean about the idea of penalizing anyone who is less than perfect.

[Easyrider]

Not only is it an unwieldy and impossible idea, but there is something mean about the idea ... let's penalize anyone who is less than perfect.

:BigApplause::BigApplause:

Seems everyone should be penalized for something except for one poster..........

[Easyrider]

I'm saying don't punish people because they get sick. You can have a healthy lifestyle and get cancer. You can have an unhealthy lifestyle and not get sick. How do you know the future? This whole thread is ridiculous and unfair by your rules. and I am out of it.



:BigApplause::BigApplause:

[graciegirl]

Search: The Obesity Index, The Cost of Obesity by State

The above site states, in the opening paragraph: The cost of treating illness related to obesity (in the U.S.) is as high as 149 billion per year.

This information comes from a reliable source, a division of the Centers for disease Control and Prevention.

Search. Obsessive eating disorders. http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20556862,00.html

When our health practices and everyone else's health practices become uppermost in our minds, when we balk at tests that are considered to be important by most doctors and when we spend most of our time thinking about how we can improve other peoples health and worry about how their unhealthy practices will cost us money.. Then something is wrong. It isn't being helpful or altruistic or beneficial, it is living out of balance....for most of us anyway. Life is too short to worry about this stuff all of the time. Making life longer may be the goal....but for WHAT????

[Villages PL]

I'm saying don't punish people because they get sick.

I agree. No one is suggesting that.


You can have a healthy lifestyle and get cancer.

Yes, that's true. In that case you wouldn't pay a higher health insurance premium.


You can have an unhealthy lifestyle and not get sick. How do you know the future? This whole thread is ridiculous and unfair by your rules. and I am out of it.

If you would just think about it, it would work the way that most insurance works. As I said: If you buy a house in a flood zone, you will pay more for insurance to cover the risk of flooding. But the insurance company doesn't know if, or when, the next flood will come. It may never come in your lifetime but you will still pay for the risk you take.

[Villages PL]

Who would decide what is risky and what isn't?
And would they just take people's word for it, that they don't smoke, exercise regularly and eat only healthy food?

Statistics on risk can be found everywhere. That's how insurance companies decide how much to charge. Whether it's car incurance, house insurance, business insurance, flood insurance, or health insurance, they have statistics. No need to worry about that. About smoking: They would rely on blood tests, just as they are now doing at many hospitals that don't allow newly hired workers to smoke. The other big risk is being overweight or obese. This can easily be checked and backed up by other numbers like cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar etc..



Who would set the acceptability bar for those who choose to take higher risks? If someone exercises daily but eats fried food, should they pay a higher premium than someone who doesn't exercise and eats salads? The intricacies would be unmanageable. Who would monitor the "risky behavior" and deem it has been discontinued for a long enough period?

The limits have already been set for many years. When you go to the doctor the nurse checks your weight, hight and blood pressure. Then you get a blood test. The blood test checks for many different things and everything has an upper and lower limit.

Not only is it an unwieldy and impossible idea, but there is something mean about the idea of penalizing anyone who is less than perfect.

There are studies that indicate how one's risk increases as BMI increases. As the number goes up from 18 to 19 and from 19 to 20 and so on. But this idea does not expect perfection because you can go all the way up to 25. With a BMI of 25, one may have 20, 30 or more pounds of excess fat. The doctor would check your percentage of body fat in addition to your BMI. Obesity would be even worse, as far as excess body fat. We're not talking about perfection at all. Far from it. And as far as meanness goes, I think there's something mean about making those with healthy lifestyles pay for the unhealthy lifestyles of others.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Some were disappointed that the conversation was limited to hospitals, smoking and being overweight. It was limited because I was referencing an article I read in the newspaper. And I happened to add "being overweight."

But this thread is open to EVERYTHING that might raise health care costs. That means smoking, being overweight, being anorexic, driving too fast, being an alcoholic, or a drug user, etc..

My position: I stand for greater accountability in all areas where lifestyle plays a role. If people don't take personal responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle, they should be the ones to pay higher health insurance premiums. Higher costs should not be shifted to those who play by the rules.

Note: Getting older is not a lifestyle choice. Everyone gets older whether they like it or not.

I guess that would be OK if someone could agree on exactly what "the rules" are. If someone doesn't have much time and they'd prefer to enjoy that time as much as possible by engaging in things that might not be all that healthy would you deny them that choice?
If someone believes that a vegan diet is a healthy choice but another believes that cutting down on sugars and carbohydrates while eating meat who is going to decide who is correct. There are plenty of experts who have plenty of evidence supporting both of these choices.
Health insurance as it exists in America today, by it's very nature shifts the costs from the least healthy to the healthiest of us. I really don't believe that there is anything you can do to alter that other than eliminate health care coverage completely and have everyone pay for their own health care out of their pockets.

[Villages PL]

Search. Obsessive eating disorders. When Eating Healthy Turns Obsessive - Food Recipes - Health.com (http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20556862,00.html)

When our health practices and everyone else's health practices become uppermost in our minds, when we balk at tests that are considered to be important by most doctors and when we spend most of our time thinking about how we can improve other peoples health and worry about how their unhealthy practices will cost us money.. Then something is wrong. It isn't being helpful or altruistic or beneficial, it is living out of balance....for most of us anyway. Life is too short to worry about this stuff all of the time.

In that case, one shouldn't do those things you mentioned above.


Making life longer may be the goal....but for WHAT????

Being healthy is the goal and living longer is usually a side effect of achieving that goal.

[Villages PL]

I guess that would be OK if someone could agree on exactly what "the rules" are. If someone doesn't have much time and they'd prefer to enjoy that time as much as possible by engaging in things that might not be all that healthy would you deny them that choice?

No, I wouldn't deny someone who was diagnosed with a terminal disease, for example.

If someone believes that a vegan diet is a healthy choice but another believes that cutting down on sugars and carbohydrates while eating meat who is going to decide who is correct. There are plenty of experts who have plenty of evidence supporting both of these choices.

It would be impossible to check up on exactly what foods people are eating. That's why I said that this would all be decided by a person's exam numbers. For example, regardless of a person's diet (whether high carb, low carb, vegan or carnivore) being overweight (with high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high cholesterol) is unhealthy and risky.


Health insurance as it exists in America today, by it's very nature shifts the costs from the least healthy to the healthiest of us. I really don't believe that there is anything you can do to alter that other than eliminate health care coverage completely and have everyone pay for their own health care out of their pockets.

Years ago I applied for health insurance on my own. The company was Blue Cross and they really asked a lot of questions. I don't remember all of them but I wouldn't be surprised if they asked about my age, height and weight. I answered all the many questions and then I was accepted and told what the monthly premium would be. You can't just get a quote over the phone. You have to answer the questions on paper and sign your name. And when you sign, you agree that false information can result in having your policy canceled. Back then it was only $100. per month but I thought it was a lot of money for being young and healthy. So I never went through with it. I'm not sure but I think they require a physical once you start paying. So, yes, I believe there's no cost shifting with that type of insurance.

If you work for a company that provides group insurance, I suppose it depends on the employer to try to hire healthy people. Otherwise, rates might be much higher because of one or two people.

The Affordable Care Act distinguishes between smokers and non-smokers. Whether or not they distinguish between normal weight, overweight or obese I don't know.

I believe that Medicare could do what I'm suggesting regarding smoking and being overweight. I don't see why not.

[Easyrider]

Search. Obsessive eating disorders. When Eating Healthy Turns Obsessive - Food Recipes - Health.com (http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20556862,00.html)

When our health practices and everyone else's health practices become uppermost in our minds, when we balk at tests that are considered to be important by most doctors and when we spend most of our time thinking about how we can improve other peoples health and worry about how their unhealthy practices will cost us money.. Then something is wrong. It isn't being helpful or altruistic or beneficial, it is living out of balance....for most of us anyway. Life is too short to worry about this stuff all of the time. Making life longer may be the goal....but for WHAT????

:BigApplause:

Sadly some can never recognize their own mistakes and problems, just those of everyone else. Replies just feed this and keeps it going, I am out too..

[graciegirl]

:BigApplause:

Sadly some can never recognize their own mistakes and problems, just those of everyone else. Replies just feed this and keeps it going, I am out too..


Me too. I had no intention to hurt but it is now an exercise in futility.

[Villages PL]

Oh, I just remembered something important. Those who have a poor driving record will also pay a higher health insurance premium. Yes, because they will represent a higher risk for physical injury and may need long term care if they get into an accident. It's all about being an adult and paying for the risks you take.