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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.......

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


:BigApplause::BigApplause:

Direct Question for Village PL
 

[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.

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