Two Fatal Flaws in Health Reform Resuscitation

Reader Comments
Back to article

I am a woman of 73, on Medicare Primary-UHC Secondary,my husband is 81, and on the same Ins. I mention this because I personally see the 'new health reform' regarding Medicare and the 'elderly' taking place.1) a bro-in-law passed away 2 yrs.ago,his body was in such bad condition due to IBM -Inclusive Body Myotosis similar to ALS,then he was infected with MRSA,the hospital wouldn't admit MRSA and just gave him antibiotics that are resistant to that disease, after his limited stay at the hospital due to Medicare guidelines,he was told,or rather his 'wife' was told to take him home,enjoy each day with him,and get Hospice.So, she did, it nearly killed her too! A 300 lb. 6'3" man, to be cared for by a little 5'2" wife, having to take care of this man she loved so much, but incapable of moving himself and no walking ability or any strength in his legs. It was difficult but she managed to care for him.When the end days seemed apparent where was Hospice?On his last few days Hospice just told the family to increase morphine and other med's, and basically had the family treat him with these med's until he died.This was so horrible for my sister/the wife, she still feels that she in effect hastend his death. (OKLA)
Another situation is this:the friend of the man/bro-in-law above stated, was a veteran (as was my bro-in-law)and he is in his late 80's,as well as his wife,
he has lived with 1/3 of a heart that is still working,having many surgeries and heart issues.Just this year 2011,his wife took him to the ER suffering from one of his heart issues,they told this elderly but spritely couple to go home and do NOT return to ER ever again,as they can do no more for her husband!The wife was devastated, crying and telling my sister about the event.She was told to get Hospice for her husband,(who was that very morning preparing breakfast for the 2 of them!!)What!!!? Is this the 'Death Panel' rules already in effect!!!?(Texas)
Now, another event:Another bro-in-law in the state of Arkansas just passed away 10/3/11,he was taken to a hospital away from their small town due to no specialist in Cardiology in their small town.He had suffered from COPD,and major lung problems for years,and he had a severe stroke 4 yrs.ago,though he had been rehabilitated to some degree,he had never been diagnosed with heart problems,though he apparently had a massive heart attack with 100% blocked arteries(the doctor's said),though NEVER diagnosed with any heart problems!!? My question is,how could someone be dead of a massive heart attack with all his arteries blocked,and never had a diagnosis of any heart problems?So, being on Medicare,do doctors have to stay within one ailment at a time for the doctors to get paid? Or,what is going on? Based on the doctors diagnosis of him this time it was so severe that my sister elected to have the 'no resuscitation' be started. She elected to take him home,his time was up at the hosp.due to(Medicare rules)he died in her arm as soon as he was home!

B Bernstein of TX 4:32PM October 16, 2011

Too bad she hasn't read the bill before spouting off about it. She is wrong on almost everything. Medicaid expansion comes with the fed paying almost all the costs plus by paying for the expansion of Community Health Centers 25 million more people will have a place and doctors to go for excellent primary health care. That is in addition to the 20 million now being served by the 1200 centers in operation now.
Medicare expenditures CAN be cut without cutting benefits by eliminating fraud and the are a number of provisions in the bill to put the needed reforms in place.
Nothing in this bill bars re admissions to hospitals for legitimate reasons. The problem is that most are for the problems caused by preventable medical errors and hospital acquired infections. Reduce those and the hospitals will do fine. This bill gives a financial incentive to do that. Also they need to stop kicking people out too soon which leads to readmission.
A big part of this bill is for targeted insurance regulation covering all the things she mentioned and more. Why does she feel the need to sound off about something she knows nothing about? And why does this mag give her space?

Sam Dobermann of NM 3:06AM March 25, 2010

generation half www movit

houstontow of AZ 3:51PM March 07, 2010

pre estimated related web

thackercor of AZ 7:24AM March 07, 2010

uncertain cap http://cardiobrief.org ces less http://www.physorg.com

randsonleg of AZ 7:24AM March 07, 2010

We don't live within a free-market. "Government regulations also prohibit people from buying insurance from companies that are headquartered out of states that have a different set of regulations. This is an obvious barrier to entry, which decreases the supply of competing insurance companies and thus raises the price. As I noted before, each state determines the provisions that insurance companies must abide by. This means that the regulators essentially grant monopolies in each state, since insurance licenses must go through them. The barriers to entry in the health-insurance market are thus appalling."
http://mises.org/story/3727

Doc of AZ 3:50PM February 26, 2010

We could prevent many health problems with a healthier life style. Control weight - eat a healthier diet- stay physically and mentally active. Avoid stress by being in harmony with your God (whatever that may be) , yourself and your daily problems. Don't compromise your immune system by harboring hate, envy or getting even. Train yourself to relax by meditation or other methods including prayer. A healthy person requires less medical expenses. Health costs will continue to rise until we become more health aware. My wife and I are well into our 80 plus of age and on no prescription medication. I do not have a good gene background. We need to promote a better life style. Not likely this will happen.

David Mattichak of VA 11:27PM February 25, 2010

The blank check that medicare and medicaid recipients have with doctors and hospitals has to be CANCELLED. The system cannot afford to permit patients to go from doctor to doctor seeking miracle treatments, to have bypass surgeries and joint replacements for octogenarians, and expensive drug regimens with little result. Will someone speak the truth? Controlled access with a gatekeeper must be imposed.

Jeh of NC 6:04PM February 23, 2010

we spend more than any other country and yet our population is sicker; lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates.
some of the comments here are

Mike of AZ 10:15PM February 18, 2010

@ John of KS:
Are you joking? Medicare is anything BUT a "great trail run" of a "successful single payer system." The trust fund is going bankrupt and after 50 years the government STILL hasn't figured out a good formula for payments. To top it off, the whole thing is essentially Fee-For-Service, which just provides a perverse incentive to do more billable procedures and would essentially PUNISH a very efficient doctor who performed minimal procedures and achieved good health outcomes for his patients. Sounds like a real shining star example to me........
As for single payer chopping off 1/3 of costs, I wouldn't be so sure. There are plenty of regional non-profit insurance companies who have administrative costs in the single digits AND run a 2-3% profit margin in a GOOD year. I'm not saying there's a problem with the system in many areas, but all these platitudes and criticisms about crooked insurers making ridiculous profits and casually denying care are not the truth everywhere, as there ARE decent non-profit insurers who do a great job while making pretty slim profits.
The bottom line is that there is no free lunch here. If you want to expand insurance coverage, someone has to pay, and while it sounds politically popular to demand that insurers cough up their "extra" cash, the health insurance landscape is really a complex one. The issue with letting the federal government compile the formula for this is that there are literally hundreds of insurers across this country, and only a handful are really "problem" examples. If the Senate bill was passed as drafted, in 2-3 years the "insurance tax" would quite literally bankrupt many of the smaller and regional insurers in this country who are currently achieving stellar quality and customer satisfaction ratings. The really big insurance lobbied for the tax to be applied in such a way that they could get out of paying most of the bill, leaving it to regional health plans to cough up the whole amount. Do that, and we would be left with the WellPoints and Uniteds - the very insurers that the White House and many politicians are criticizing.

Brad of PA 4:14PM February 18, 2010