Too Old, Young, Middle-Aged for Hip Surgery

[FayeforCure]

in America.

Someone posted a "sob" story about an anecdotal Canadian:

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no.

We don't know the date of this occurrence ( was it around 2006?)
The title"too Old for Hip Surgery"   is also misleading in this case. "too Old for Hip Surgery" is Not true. What likely happened was that Mr Murray was found to need a complete hip replacement procedure rather than just a resurfacing:

Even in the United States, the hip resurfacing procedure, which is a more bone-conserving procedure than total hip replacement, was approved by the FDA only in May 2006.

Hip resurfacing, which is recommended for the younger active patients, is a technology that replaces the worn surfaces of the hip joint with caps of high carbide cobalt chrome. It differs from the conventional hip replacement in that it removes only the unhealthy bone and preserves the normal hip bone whereas the conventional total hip replacement procedure (THR) sacrifices a large quantity of normal bone.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5073.0.html


In contrast we have almost 50 million of uninsured Americans and another 50 million "junk" insured Americans, of all ages who CANNOT have ANY hip surgery, whether a complete one or the resurfacing procedure.

[CrysG]

I really am at the point of giving up with this board. Most wont care about healthcare until it happens to them. It's really a shame.

[BridgeTroll]

I have no idea what you are talking about here Faye... are you happy for the Canadians?  What Americans cannot get this?  What is junk insurance?

Crys... if anyone cares it is you, faye, me, tripoli, shwaz, and anyone else who has chimed in.  The problem crys is not with those of us who understand the problems but disagree with the fixes...

The problem is with the vast majority of Americans who are too busy yakking on their cell phones oblivious to the discussion.  They get their bumper stickers or talking points from their party of choice and never really understand or give a crap about what will soon be thrust upon them.

[CrysG]

BT,

The problem is that I don't see your fixes as fixes. They will go on and be the same as always. Unless your fixes make healthcare free and for everyone how are they any different from what we have now? If you have a system built solely on money and not on need then it's really not helping anyone.

[Shwaz]

If you have a system built solely on money and not on need then it's really not helping anyone.

You can say the same for unicare.. if it cost's too much money you're not getting any help.

[Tripoli1711]

Healthcare can never be free.  That is a huge misconception and sticking point.  Someone must pay for it.  Money is not evil.  Money is how the worth of a persons life is measured.  Most people do jobs.  To do their jobs they spend several hours a day doing whatever it is that they do.  People typically use 1/3 of every day working.  Their life is a finite resource.  We value their investment of the finite resource of their life through money.  People providing healthcare therefore deserve and want money.  They must be paid.

Whether the taxpayer pays for everyone's healthcare or each person pays for their own individual healthcare, it must be paid for.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[CrysG]

Whether the taxpayer pays for everyone's healthcare or each person pays for their own individual healthcare, it must be paid for.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.


That is my point already. YOUR already paying for the healthcare. People who don't have Insurance go to the ER, They don't pay so the ER charges more to Insurance Company's, the Insurance company's don't swallow that increase they charge more co-pay's or more for premiums. Either way your paying for them not to be covered. AND your paying to cover yourself.

[BridgeTroll]

The problem is that I don't see your fixes as fixes.

Really?  You have never really discussed them.  Your mind seems made up that rich people should pay for everybodys healthcare.  I posted a wiki titled Healthcare rationing 101 in Britain... check out the decisions a government run bureaucrat will make for you.

[BridgeTroll]

People who don't have Insurance

I think we have already agreed that this should be fixed... we are not ignoring these folks...

[CrysG]

 Your mind seems made up that rich people should pay for everybodys healthcare.


I'm not saying the rich pays for everyone's healthcare, I'm saying everyone pays for everyone's healthcare. I'm saying that it based of working adults between the ages 18-65.

[Sigma]

And roughly 50% of them who pay no taxes, so yes the rest will flip the bill.

If you are one who doees not pay taxes, then you really don't care what it costs, because it is of course - free.

[FayeforCure]

I posted a wiki titled Healthcare rationing 101 in Britain... check out the decisions a government run bureaucrat will make for you.

Yup, those corporate bureaucrats are much better at denying us healthcare!!! We are so much better off with those corporate bureaucrats.

And really, if we must have socialism, we should limit ourselves to corporate socialism, like bailing out banks, and health insurance companies by mandating that EVERY American buy tax payer subsidized private health insurance.



That is so much the solution we need: Expand the status quo. More of the same, cause its working so well.

CrysG, I'm out of here. Good thing the millenials are light years ahead of most on this board.

The fact that all civilized nations have a public option included in their universal healthcare system apparently isn't good enough for most on this board, because it might mean TOO MUCH COMPETITION for private insurance:

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Republicans have expressed their opposition to such a "government-run" program. They argue that it would devastate private insurance companies because customers would switch to less-expensive government-provided coverage.

With our shocking unemployment rate and with employer-provided health coverage evaporating for the millions of workers who are now jobless, it's time for Congress to pay attention.

The president and Congress should embrace the most efficient and fairest way to pay for universal health coverage.

See ya. I hope the exchange was interesting for the readers.

[BridgeTroll]

That is so much the solution we need: Expand the status quo. More of the same, cause its working so well.

Faye you are real good at talking to, and posting articles at everybody.  But you are not at all good at listening.  You have only heard what you wanted to hear... what your preconcieved and stereotypical vision of me and others will let you hear.  You have reduced the debate to what I always thought it would be...

Support uni care = loves babies and old people.
opposes uni care = hates babies and old people.

[CrysG]

BT,

We know you don't hate babies or old people, you hate to have to pay for their healthcare or the 18,000 people who die every year without it.

[BridgeTroll]