Dudes, just report the blatant political post to the mods and move on. If it gets like 20 reports that post will disappear in an hour. Instead we now get to hear everyone else's views on Bernie as well (plus presidential age limits, apparently).

Refresher Course (resized).jpg

On your blatantly political comments? Sure I voted you down. And the Bernie guy as well. You are both way out of line.

Agreed that that it's a stretch to assume that the church itself could pay much or anything toward his medical bills. It's less of a stretch to think the church might have basic liability insurance that could help out. Of course you generally have to work the insurance company over if you want to get coverage (sadly that's where a lawyer might end up being helpful). But it's a good idea for OP to find out if there's any insurance that could help cover the costs without bankrupting the church.

No wonder you guys are so salty. Politics aside I think we can all agree that Connecticut is one of the absolute worst states in the country. The rest of New England has it totally beat for natural beauty and recreation, nearby NYC is the place to be for big city $$$ and culture, and Connecticut's only recent contribution of consequence is that it was the birthplace of Lyme disease (and even that is like 30 years old). I'd feel pretty bitter myself if I were stuck there, regardless of the tax situation.

There was also essentially no cure for cancer then, no open heart surgery, probably only 5-10% of today's medications available, and still relatively limited interventions for most major illnesses. Plus doctor's could smoke in the exam rooms. "Health care" is basically an entirely different product now than it was 50 years ago, so it's hard to directly compare the costs.

I saw sometime in the 1960s on a cursory google on open heart surgery, but I just looked it up again and apparently it was first tried (I'm assuming unsuccessfully) in 1893. http://www.jsums.edu/gtec/dr-daniel-hale-williams/
So I'll have to withdraw that one since you can't be more than 80, 90 years old tops.

I do stand by my point that there's been an exponential growth in the variety of treatments available vs. 50 years ago, though, so even if the delivery system were perfect it's hard to imagine how medical expenses (as a proportion of patient income) could have remained steady.

Sure. Though I would add insurance companies to your list of causal factors. They're all transaction costs that aren't directly related to providing health care to patients. Some level of administration cost is unavoidable in such a giant and complex system, but the percentage of money spent on transaction costs in healthcare is outrageous.

Asked and answered right at the start of the thread: