Luxury medicine

  • Thread starter Thread starter royal_archer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

royal_archer

Guest
I am interested in hearing what you all consider to be luxury medicine. These would be things that most people would not be willing to pay for in order to get it added to their insurance. Categorically things that many would consider to be to expensive for the extra quality or length of life and things that are cosmetic in nature.

To start things off, here are some easy ones.

Rogain

Cryogenic suspended annimation

Viagra

Chest enlargements.

Accupuncture
 
This is really a tough question, and I think a person would need to know more about medicine than I do. But here goes.

Yes, those things that are cosmetic; not to return a disfigured person to a more normal appearance, but those (like breast enlargement) that are designed to make a person abnormal.

Yes. All the Viagra kinds of things. Also in vitro fertilization.

I have seen some cases in which providers were “milking the system”, for example, ordering multiple, multiple expensive tests on an 80 year old dying from multi-organ failure.

But my pet peeve probably is the truly massive prescription of psychotropic drugs by primary care physicians; most of whom have no idea at all what they’re doing when they prescribe them. No preliminary psych testing. No blood levels taken. No real diagnosis. No psych followup. Just handing out pills for , e.g., “depression”, then other pills to counteract some of the side effects, then more pills to counteract the disgestive disturbances caused by the pills. Acceptance of purely subjective self-diagnosis by patients. Crazy. If it was up to me, psychotropics could be prescribed only by psychiatrists, and they, then, would be required to follow up with the proper blood level testing, psychologist referrals, and so on.
 
royal_archer said:
I
Accupuncture
Click to expand...
I hope you never have to deal with chronic pain

any or all of the things you list could be a medical necessity for some people, so unless you are in a position to have the full medical history of each and every individual who elects one of these procedures, it would probably be better not to cast a judgement, unless you wish to frame the discussion in this way:
for me to use this procedure, I would consider it a luxury, not a necessity.
 
puzzleannie said:
I hope you never have to deal with chronic pain

any or all of the things you list could be a medical necessity for some people, so unless you are in a position to have the full medical history of each and every individual who elects one of these procedures, it would probably be better not to cast a judgement, unless you wish to frame the discussion in this way:
for me to use this procedure, I would consider it a luxury, not a necessity.
Click to expand...
I think the way it was originally posed is whether one would be willing to pay for its coverage under health insurance. That’s a subjective judgment, of course. Still, since we will soon be called upon to pay for other peoples’ overutilization, if overutilization there will be (and it’s hard to think otherwise) we might legitimately object to paying for certain things. It does not take a lot of questionable overutilization to result in a huge bill.
 
puzzleannie said:
I hope you never have to deal with chronic pain

any or all of the things you list could be a medical necessity for some people, so unless you are in a position to have the full medical history of each and every individual who elects one of these procedures, it would probably be better not to cast a judgement, unless you wish to frame the discussion in this way:
for me to use this procedure, I would consider it a luxury, not a necessity.
Click to expand...
could you please elaborate on how those things would be medicaly necesary in terms of saving a life, grant independent living, or reduce extreme pain to a manageable level?

Rogain

Cryogenic suspended annimation

Viagra

Chest enlargements.

Accupuncture
 
Ridgerunner said:
I think the way it was originally posed is whether one would be willing to pay for its coverage under health insurance. That’s a subjective judgment, of course. Still, since we will soon be called upon to pay for other peoples’ overutilization, if overutilization there will be (and it’s hard to think otherwise) we might legitimately object to paying for certain things. It does not take a lot of questionable overutilization to result in a huge bill.
Click to expand...
Since some think we we are a democracy, we can expect 51% to be making these judgements for the other 49%.
 
puzzleannie said:
I hope you never have to deal with chronic pain

any or all of the things you list could be a medical necessity for some people, so unless you are in a position to have the full medical history of each and every individual who elects one of these procedures, it would probably be better not to cast a judgement, unless you wish to frame the discussion in this way:
for me to use this procedure, I would consider it a luxury, not a necessity.
Click to expand...
As for the accupuncture: I have heard mixed reviews. Many consider it to be essentially faith healing or a matter of mind over matter. Others consider it to be a religious based endevor. Is it approved by the AMA?
 
We’ll add “health” clubs and spas to the list

Also “reproductive services” or any other activities related to facilitating fornication or marital relations.
 
royal_archer said:
As for the accupuncture: I have heard mixed reviews. Many consider it to be essentially faith healing or a matter of mind over matter. Others consider it to be a religious based endevor. Is it approved by the AMA?
Click to expand...
Well, I would say if it is or is not efficacious and how it works is a different idea than if it isa luxury. If it is used for pain management, then I would say no. If it was for cosmetic reasons then yes. As another matter, if a person thinks it works, would you rather not cover it, but approve something that would be more expensive?
 
jman507 said:
Well, I would say if it is or is not efficacious and how it works is a different idea than if it isa luxury. If it is used for pain management, then I would say no. If it was for cosmetic reasons then yes. As another matter, if a person thinks it works, would you rather not cover it, but approve something that would be more expensive?
Click to expand...
If it were cheeper than traditional medicine and worked It would be worth considering. But if it is just a trendy thing to try and didn’t actually work but made money off of many people giving it a “try” then it is a luxury. I have gotten the impression it really isn’t effective for the vast majority of people and is sort of like the hot rock or massage thereapy treatments.
 
royal_archer said:
If it were cheeper than traditional medicine and worked It would be worth considering. But if it is just a trendy thing to try and didn’t actually work but made money off of many people giving it a “try” then it is a luxury. I have gotten the impression it really isn’t effective for the vast majority of people and is sort of like the hot rock or massage thereapy treatments.
Click to expand...
Well I would say, what one might want to focus on is the people who it works for, and to try to figure out why. That way one can find a proper context it can be used. Really if it can manage pain, without the invasive nature of surgery or the risk assosiated with pain killers, it would be a much better alternative. If one can discern how it can be used effectivly, wasteful use can better be avoided. Emerging techniques can always seem a bit out of the mainstream, but may later be better understood and gain mainstream approval.
 
jman507 said:
Well I would say, what one might want to focus on is the people who it works for, and to try to figure out why. That way one can find a proper context it can be used. Really if it can manage pain, without the invasive nature of surgery or the risk assosiated with pain killers, it would be a much better alternative. If one can discern how it can be used effectivly, wasteful use can better be avoided. Emerging techniques can always seem a bit out of the mainstream, but may later be better understood and gain mainstream approval.
Click to expand...
So, should someone be able to opt out of accupuncture in order to get a lower insurance rate? Or should insurance companies be permitted to ot cover it in order to give there customers better rates?
 
royal_archer said:
So, should someone be able to opt out of accupuncture in order to get a lower insurance rate? Or should insurance companies be permitted to ot cover it in order to give there customers better rates?
Click to expand...
I don’t really care so much about that. If we are talking of accupuncture, I would say they should place any new evidence taken in consideration within a context of medical and financial aspects of health care. If you have a lower cost alternative that is effective at least in certain circumstances and has lower risks associated with it, I think it would be foolish to dismiss it. There is no need to cover it until it can be ascertained about how to effectively use it.
 
There was an interesting study that was being done on acupuncture, but I don’t know if the results are out yet. One of the difficulties is that it can be difficult to test against a placebo. But it seems effective for some things - in the East it is sometimes used in place of anethesia for surgery.

I have rarely had the issue of wanting to opt out of insured health care. Basic stuff is all covered here, and drugs and other things come under my husbands health plan. I did recently wish it would cover more for massage therapy. There are also some things I wish it did cover - a private hospital room, and midwifery care specifically.

I wouldn’t really want to pay for purely cosmetic services, though I don’t know any plans that do, so it seems like a moot point to me.

Viagra? Well, if it was to correct a real organic problem, I don’t see why not. Many things depend upon the context.
 
Bluegoat said:
There was an interesting study that was being done on acupuncture, but I don’t know if the results are out yet. One of the difficulties is that it can be difficult to test against a placebo. But it seems effective for some things - in the East it is sometimes used in place of anethesia for surgery.

I have rarely had the issue of wanting to opt out of insured health care. Basic stuff is all covered here, and drugs and other things come under my husbands health plan. I did recently wish it would cover more for massage therapy. There are also some things I wish it did cover - a private hospital room, and midwifery care specifically.

I wouldn’t really want to pay for purely cosmetic services, though I don’t know any plans that do, so it seems like a moot point to me.

Viagra? Well, if it was to correct a real organic problem, I don’t see why not. Many things depend upon the context.
Click to expand...
I’d consider private hospital rooms to be a luxury.

As for viagra, I don’t think it makes people healthier, it just provides “enhanced performance”.
 
royal_archer said:
I’d consider private hospital rooms to be a luxury.

As for viagra, I don’t think it makes people healthier, it just provides “enhanced performance”.
Click to expand...
I agree with the Viagra totally. As for Private room. After dealing with women in my own family. I think private room should be case by case basis. I know for a fact lack of privacy could kill my own mother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top