Tissue valve or Mechanical Valve for your adults

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Zoltania;n871658 said:
I would have thought that valve replacement was a bigger deal because the heart itself is actually opened, while bypass surgery is more a matter of changing the plumbing outside the heart. Am I seeing this the wrong way?

I always thought so too, but now I am not as sure. Both require bypassing the heart using a "heart - lung machine"....both require general anesthesia......both require "cracking the sternum".....and a Bypass requires going to another area of the body to "harvest" the vein necessary for the bypass graft(s)......and valve surgery patients seem to go home a day or so sooner. My surgeon, while trying to address my fear prior to surgery "way back in '67" commented to me that the heart was really easy to work on since it was "a big firm muscle that just lay there during the surgery". Obviously, the operation is not as simple as sewing up lacerated finger.....but neither is it one of the most difficult or demanding operations that surgeons have to contend with. However, I do understand everything changes when it is YOUR heart.
 
I know this is horrible in a way but I almost hope Obamacare is repealed and a lot of the people who voted for Trump will lose their newly gotten Healthcare. I saw a few interviews on TV where people we're talking about how they loved the Affordable Care Act and how they received insurance for the first time under expanded medicaid but they hate Obamacare and it needs to go. Unfortunately they are unaware that Obamacare is just a nickname for the Affordable Care Act but hey they get to vote also.
Can we discuss religion also? I know things that others don't, believe me.
Dosvidanya.....
 
Last edited:
As I was reading that I thought you were contradicting yourself, then I got to the end.

We have folks in Australia who can't identify the difference between state and federal elections...

cldlhd;n871680 said:
Can we discuss religion also? I know things that others don't, believe me.
Dosvidanya.....
I'm open to suggestion...
 
pellicle;n871686 said:
As I was reading that I thought you were contradicting yourself, then I got to the end.

We have folks in Australia who can't identify the difference between state and federal elections...


I'm open to suggestion...

I was just quoting my inner Trump when I said I know things others don't ,believe me. Then you never actually reveal the info, like when he had peoe investigating Obama's 'real' place of birth and they were giving him 'great information' , we're still waiting for it.
I'm sure there are dumb people in Australia also, they're everywhere....
 
The last time this forum got involved in US politics it caused a permanent split among members and the creation of a separate web site. Passions run deep!! As much as I would love to jump into a political "keyboard" fight I know it will go nowhere except to cause hard feelings.......so I'm gonna sit on my hands.
 
There are aspects of the affordable care act that I appreciate (mandatory coverage for example). However, with so many different options - insurers have the ability to funnel us high users toward policies that group risk together - so we end up paying higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance. HSA type policies remain for individuals who have minimal need for health insurance, so they get bundled into lower premium, high deductible policies - but it doesn't cost them as much since they don't use it.

The thing that has always troubled me is that nobody is willing to address the astronomical increases in cost. Shuffling who bears the brunt of the cost between individuals and insurers is a never ending battle that does nothing to stem the exponential increases in charges.

ICD10 is something in the U.S. that has had a bigger impact on what we pay. As for a first hand experience that illustrates the issues I have been seeing. A specialist is seen annually for a condition that exists. In one year, the specialist bills a fixed amount for the visit, the insurance company reimburses the specialist based on an "agreed" charge, this is less than what was billed by the specialist. Because the patient has said insurance, the patient is only responsible for the agreed copayment (a modest fixed amount). The specialist adjusts revenue accordingly (they will never receive the difference between the "billed" amount and the "allowed" amount).

The next year - same visit, same procedures. This time, the specialist bills separately for five different things done for the appointment. The "visit" (representing only one of the five charges) is much less expensive, but the copay is double due to changes in coverage. Since the "copay" is only applicable to the "visit", the patient is now separately responsible to pay for the four other things done to prep (review two tests two different ways, essentially). So this year, the specialists total bill increased 20% and the "allowed" amount increased 20%. However, the patients share increased over 800% and the amount insurance had to pay decreased over 70%.

Meanwhile, premiums all went up.

The amount of cash we're are shelling out is increasing dramatically, while officially the healthcare "costs" only increased 20%. And, of course, from a gov't perspective, we are "insured" - so YAY!! We comply with the requirements of Obamacare (but isn't the word "Affordable" in the title of the actual act?)
 
Premiums always go up. The main problem with the bill was the main problem with all of them big money interests control the government. You couldn't get anything passed through Congress without the approval of the insurance companies. The US system is a hodgepodge mess and if the idea is to have everyone covered it's a very inefficient way of doing it. As for the people who say they like parts- the fact that kids are covered until they're 27 , they can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions ( like pretty much everyone on this website ) and deny them insurance-but don't like the mandate that everybody has to have insurance are living in a fantasy land. Although I won't tell my son this there is no Santy Claus. As most people know the way insurance works is those who use it are subsidized by those who don't so the way you pay for people with pre-existing conditions is by getting young healthy people in the pool. So those who go around telling the ill-informed that they're going to keep the good parts while getting rid of the others are playing them for fools. It's like saying you can sit on your *** forever and eat nothing but ice cream and you're going to have a six pack. I don't think anybody is claiming it's perfect but it's a lot better than what is going to be replaced with, oh I almost forgot it's been 8 years and there is not a single replacement waiting in the wings. It's easy to b**** and moan about how something somebody else did isn't perfect but when it's your time to step up it's a different story. The smart thing to do would have been absolutely nothing in regards to Health Care because once you change something after that everytime something goes up in price it'll always be your fault. My wife works at a big Health Care Facility in New Jersey and she can't tell you how many times people come in and complain that everything wrong with The Healthcare System is because of Obamacare even though their insurance has nothing to do with it. If their insurance company doesn't want to pay for something it's all automatically Obama's fault, they have to wait a half hour to see their doctor it's his fault etc... because we all know insurance companies never raised rates or denied the claim before 2008.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Even before Obamacare, I was lamenting the prior administrations creation of HSA's. All they did was pull young healthy insured individuals off the roles off more traditional insurance policies, which meant the only people that were keeping traditional insurance were those that needed it. So you have a bunch of high utilizers on one type of policy, with all the healthy people pulled away from sharing the cost.

As much as I hate the idea, since it goes against my political roots - single payer is really the only way to get a true cost sharing mechanism in place. But with a nation of over 300 million people - it's a logistical nightmare. Maybe each state have single insurance, which costs employers and individuals alike? I don't know what the answer is.

But I do know there is a lot on the cost end that is a mess and that's completely separate form who or how it's paid for.
 
I think the current way is even more of a logistical nightmare. If we're going to cover everyone why have a middle man who takes a third of health care spending? I would still like to see the health care providers be private so there is competition which should lead to better care and facilities as you would choose where to go it's just how it's paid for that would be a lot simpler and more efficient as a single payer. Hell if you want healthy people in the mix to keep your rates down then you're basically asking others to help defray your own health care costs. I mean 'your' in the general sense not you specifically.
 
cldlhd;n871704 said:
Hell if you want healthy people in the mix to keep your rates down then you're basically asking others to help defray your own health care costs. I mean 'your' in the general sense not you specifically.

I'm okay with me specifically on that. I want healthy people to defray my own health care costs. Otherwise insurance does nothing for me except hand my money over to the hospital, after a taking a cut to pay their costs.
 
dick0236;n871689 said:
.....so I'm gonna sit on my hands.

Yes Bob mentioned that before, hopefully we are less frantic in this group, but I'm not about to be the tester of that hypothesis. And I personally have no horse in this race either ...
 
pellicle;n871717 said:
Yes Bob mentioned that before, hopefully we are less frantic in this group, but I'm not about to be the tester of that hypothesis. And I personally have no horse in this race either ...

In a way I think everyone has a horse in this race, especially if our soon to be President has expressed much more love for the Russians than any of our traditional allies, including NATO. But it's a done deal so no use hand wringing.
 
cldlhd;n871723 said:
In a way I think everyone has a horse in this race, especially if our soon to be President has expressed much more love for the Russians than any of our traditional allies.
Yeah, like Saudi Arabia. And Hillary would have sorted it all out and made people rich by sending young men to die.
Obama blames the Russians for leaking the emails that made Hillary lose (he went into bat for her, even though she has been undermining him for years). Of course, she had nothing to do with the aforementioned emails.

Meanwhile... Trump claims the elections were rigged and then wins the elections.

"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."
 
I don't remember declaring my love for the Saudis. That ***** George W Bush was their ***** and Trump is Putins. Every American intelligence agency says they were behind the hacking but he doesn't believe it because he owes the Russians a few hundred million ,he's a traitor and a dupe. The funny thing about the emails is they never found anything but the paranoid hiding of them just played into the deserved aura of sleaziness around the Clintons. Not that Trump isn't at least as sleazy but he gets a pass. He could molest a 14 year old and people would say " oh that Donald " while outraged that slick Willie may have cornholed some Waffle house waitress on the outskirts of Little Rock back in 1978. I'm confused as to when Hillary was commander in chief and started a war? The Saudis have been a U.S. allie for 60 years unfortunately. The last war started by the U.S.was the Iraq war,unless you believe everything that happens in the Mideast is the work of America. I don't think we're omnipotent. I said before I'm no fan of Hillary but to believe she served the rich and the great orange one doesn't is idiotic. He ripped her for being in bed with Wall street and half his cabinet is Goldman Sachs,talk about in bed with the Saudis his Secretary of state is the CEO of Exxon Mobil -ha! So if any oil interest of Exxon needs American troops they'll be there tout suite so that will align well with your quote. Brush up on your Mandarin he'll probably give Australia to China for a good deal on some Hotel property.....
​​​
 
Last edited:
Yes that ***** Bush, but you did say 'traditional allies'.
Kruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine in the 50s, even though it has a majority Russian population. Hillary-land toppled a democratically elected government and replaced it with Neo-Nazi rabble. Then they went on a rampage against Russian people. Crimea held a referendum (like Kosovo) and they voted for autonomy. According to your logic, West Germany invaded East Germany. The Cold War is over, so your government wil need a new bogie man to scare people with.

Everyone that didn't vote for Hillary must be a traitor, just like the Confederates and their descendants.

Willie and Donnie have common pastimes, maybe they should have gotten together on ********* Island and sorted their **** out.
But, at least the American people get to keep their guns. You never know, they just might need them one day.
 
Agian;n871764 said:
Yes that ***** Bush, but you did say 'traditional allies'.
Kruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine in the 50s, even though it has a majority Russian population. Hillary-land toppled a democratically elected government and replaced it with Neo-Nazi rabble. Then they went on a rampage against Russian people. Crimea held a referendum (like Kosovo) and they voted for autonomy. According to your logic, West Germany invaded East Germany. The Cold War is over, so your government wil need a new bogie man to scare people with.

Everyone that didn't vote for Hillary must be a traitor, just like the Confederates and their descendants.

Willie and Donnie have common pastimes, maybe they should have gotten together on ********* Island and sorted their **** out.
But, at least the American people get to keep their guns. You never know, they just might need them one day.

The Russian annexation of Crimea happened in 2014 when Hillary wasn't even in government. This strange fascination on the right that seems to find her behind every nefarious action in the world is strange. I think she's just a politician and a poor one at that. My few right wing friends who have been brain washed by Rush Limbaugh have this weird condition where they vacillate between the government being utterly incompetent one minute to the same people being omnipotent and omnipresent and capable of pulling off thousands of conspiracies all over the world without leaving a fingerprint. The Republicans ripped Obama for being a ***** and only applying sanctions over Crimea. John McCain and his girlfriend Lindsay Graham wanted to go to war with Russia. Now they just elected a President who says he's not sure Russia even annexed Crimea or are involved in Ukraine. Seriously? We've entered a new era where we don't just argue policy but deny reality if we don't like it.
I never said those who voted for him are traitors I said he is. They're mostly Rubes... Donald has repeatedly come out strongly i favor of gun control , then against once he was running. It's funny 2 years ago Putin was liked by 7% of Republicans but now the orange one told them what to think he's pushing up near 40. They probably like the fact that he murders reporters who write bad things about him .
 
Two Aussies and a Canadian walk into a health care facility that specializes in heart valve replacement and start talking about American politics. An American that is dealing with a real heart valve issue walls out.

I'm as passionate as many about what is happening in American politics, but voicing my opinion about it does not belong on this forum. Please take it somewhere else.
 
Back
Top