Nobel Prize Sold: It seems like the 'historic' ACA has missed the mark...

[xocet]

May 29 2015, 7:23 pm ET
Physicist Leon Lederman's Nobel Prize Medal Sells for $765,000
by Alan Boyle

The Nobel Prize gold medal that physicist Leon Lederman won in 1988 was auctioned off on Thursday for a winning bid of $633,335, plus a buyer's premium that brought the final price to $765,002.

...

Lederman used his share of the money from the 1988 Nobel Prize to buy a vacation cabin in Idaho — which he and his wife now use as their principal residence.

Ellen Lederman, who is 67, told AP that she and her husband have been living comfortably in retirement, but that they now face potentially costly medical bills and uncertainty following a diagnosis of dementia for the Nobel-winning physicist.

"It's terrible," she said. "It's really hard. I wish it could be different. But he's happy. He likes where he lives with cats and dogs and horses. He doesn't have any problems with anxiety, and that makes me glad that he's so content."

...

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/physicist-leon-ledermans-nobel-prize-goes-auction-block-n365671

It is shameful that the US will not provide health care (not merely mandated health insurance) to all of its citizens.

[MineralMan]

1. What does ACA have to do with this?

The man is old enough to be on Medicare. The problem is that, with dementia, a lot of care is needed that isn't covered by any insurance, other than long-term care insurance. Since this family has resources and property, Medicaid will not cover long-term care, should the man need to be in a care facility.

So, they're selling his Nobel Prize medal to pay for care and to support themselves.

ACA isn't the problem. Dementia is the problem. Trying to blame this on ACA is not going to work.

[MohRokTah]

2. I think it's more the entire healthcare system as it stands today.

If we were capable of redirecting all the money spent on insurance premiums today in this country to a single payer system, we'd have more than enough to cover long term care in these sorts of cases as well as everybody else.

The real problem with that is the interconnected nature of the insurance industry and banking. Taking all insurance out of the economic picture would result in an economic disaster that would make the Great Recession of 2008 seem like a small blip by comparison.

The key will be a slow movement to Medicare for all with premiums being paid for with Medicare taxes. Increase those taxes to reach a level where equilibrium is reached. Long term, it will be cheaper than the current system with better medical outcomes and no bankruptcies due to healthcare issues.

[MineralMan]

8. I agree. We should have single-payer in this country.

Even with that, though, long-term care for dementia patients will continue to be a problem. Basic long-term care, which Medicaid will provide now, once other resources are exhausted, is, well, basic. It's not what many people would prefer, frankly. A higher level of care for dementia patients is unlikely to be covered in a single-payer system either.

Being a baby boomer with three parents in their final years, this problem is something I'm acutely aware of. The cost of high-quality care in a memory care facility is more than most people can imagine. While a more basic form of care is available, it's not up to the expectations of most people, but it is only the minimum care. That is what a single payer system would provide, too.

This is going to be a real issue for some long time to come, especially with the baby boomer generation quickly aging into the group that will need this care. It's a problem that has yet to be addressed, but one that will soon become very, very visible.

[nichomachus]

22. Other countries provide long-term care

You keep referring to the limitations of Medicare, and you're right. Medicare is better than no Medicare, but it has limitations. That's why "Medicare for all" is a false goal and a distraction. We should provide health care for all period.

No one should face bankruptcy because if medical bills.

[MineralMan]

23. Some do. I looked at Sweden and the UK.

It can be difficult to get long-term care, and there are many hoops to jump through. Not everyone qualifies for government funded long-term care, and quality of facilities varies widely. Why? It's very, very costly. In Sweden, for example, it uses 3.9% of GDP. In most cases, people without funds will qualify for basic care services. As everywhere, the quality of those varies, depending on where you happen to live.

It's not as simple as you seem to think.

[Recursion]

32. "It's not as simple as you seem to think."

I wish there were a big banner across the top of DU that said that in 48 point font. It's true about so many things.

[MineralMan]

33. Yes. That would be really good.

We tend to talk about other countries' health care systems without really knowing the details. Every country and every healthcare system is struggling to deal with an aging population. In Sweden, according to the source I looked at, they are estimating that people over 65 will be 25% of the population soon. Planning for long-term care is difficult, regardless of the system.

For our over-65 population, we already have a single-payer system. It does not, however, address long-term care very well. Other nations have similar problems for their geriatric population. Frankly, none of us knows how and how well they deal with it. Finding out would take a great deal of research.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. I think your analysis is pretty much on target.

Insurance money of all kinds is invested in instruments such as stocks & bonds, which is a major source of profit for the companies. Your insurance rates can be as much affected by market movements as by shifts in actuarial risk patterns.

[xocet]

4. It does not have to work. Not having health care for all is the problem. The fact that this...

situation can occur even after the 'historic health care reform' known as the ACA shows that the ACA is unfortunately woefully inadequate when compared to people's true needs.

I hope that you have a spare Nobel Prize to sell in your retirement years to help out with your medical bills.

[Fred Sanders]

5. They also bought a vacation home in Idaho, and sold their old home, so the medical bills were...what? The ACA is a good thing

[xocet]

7. Please reread the article. It does not indicate what you think it does. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

10. Still nothing about the ACA...do not force me to read it again!

[xocet]

14. There is no force involved, but still you should reread it....

[Lancero]

6. Still, how does this article relate to the ACA being a failure?

The article doesn't mention anything about the ACA, and despite you saying that he HAD to sell the prize for medical bills the article outright says that 'He spent his portion of the money (I'm assuming this means what he recieved after taxes) on a vacation cabin"

Honestly, this kind of stretching and overlooking is something I'd expect to see on a RW blog.

[xocet]

12. Your assumption is incorrect according to the article. Look back at the word 'share' and trace it..

through the article. Then go to the link on the Nobel website. Once you have that. Imagine going back to the late 1980's. Then figure out when the cabin was purchased. Then rethink your posting....

[Lancero]

16. Having reread it, it seems that they sold the prize off...

"To rase the awareness of physics research in the US and around the world".

I was incorrect on what the money was used for, however I'm still not seeing ANY mention of the ACA, or that the prize was sold off to pay bills.

[MineralMan]

11. That Nobel Prize winner is not on an ACA insurance plan. He is in the

Medicare system, which is a single-payer system. ACA doesn't apply to his situation. I'm also of Medicare age, and can vouch for the quality of the care that is available to me if I need it. That care does not include high-quality long-term care for dementia. Nor will it. Basic dementia care is available, once personal finances have run out, but it's not the level of care many people would be satisfied with.

ACA is not Medicare, which is what is involved in this case. Fortunately, they have that Nobel Prize to sell, so he'll be able to get high-quality care that is far better than the basic care. But ACA is not involved in any way in this situation. ACA isn't failing him, since he is not covered under ACA.

We need a better, single-payer healthcare system. That's certainly true. ACA is not a single-payer system. Medicare, on the other hand, is a single-payer, government-run system. That's what this man has. Is it adequate for his needs? On a basic care level, yes. On a high-quality care level, no.

Dementia care is a problem for even the best single-payer socialized systems. It requires a lot of manpower to deliver and facilities in which to deliver that care. It's a growing problem that will continue to grow in the future. ACA doesn't address it, since most people in need of such care are on Medicare, a single-payer system.

[xocet]

13. I agree with your assessment that a better healthcare system is needed. n/t

[MineralMan]

15. That's not going to happen until we wake up and start electing

Democratic supermajorities to Congress. No Republican-dominated Congress will ever improve healthcare. We complain about things in this country, but we do not do what is required to change them. We're really stupid that way. Mid-term elections happen and Democrats don't bother to go and vote. Republicans do. So, Republicans win. We can stop that, if we really want to.

You want better healthcare? Elect Democrats. GOTV. It will not happen until we do that. It is that freaking simple.

[justhanginon]

17. Thank you. That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. Without a

Democratic controlled congress better healthcare is just a dream no matter who is elected president. The republicans are trying their best to destroy, through lawsuits and constant repeal votes in congress, what healthcare we have now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. and Democrats bashing strong Democratic candidates doesn't help downticket...

[HuckleB]

26. Exactly.

[jwirr]

27. When we think of health care for all we need to remember that a good deal of the people are

already covered by government programs: Medicare, Medicaid, state programs such as MNCare, military health systems, VA, Indian Health Services and government insurance programs for employees to mention a few. In these programs it is not so much new coverage but consolidating the programs into a more efficient single program. We are already covering the cost of these programs.

After they are consolidated then it is a matter of how we get everyone who is not covered into the system. Also another part of the problem is to make sure that the final product actually covers all types of health care including long term care, dental and medications.

As to getting better care at some agencies than others - IMO this is a matter of discrimination and/or neglect. And it should not be allowed. Money should not determine the level of care in a government paid program. We use government money to pay for foster care for my disabled daughter and the state has the responsibility to monitor the level of care provided by each facility public or private.

[progressoid]

20. Dementia is the problem?

So is cancer and diabetes and heart disease and obesity and on and on.

The system would work so much better if only people wouldn't get sick.

[MineralMan]

21. In this particular case, yes, dementia is the problem.

And the man is covered by Medicare, not an ACA policy. I'm addressing the OP, not health care in general.

[tazkcmo]

3. Not can't

Won't is the word.

[Tanuki]

18. Actually, it seems that a celebrity auction house approached the 92-year-old Nobel laureate

and his 67-year-old second wife out of the blue with a proposal to sell the medal. They had apparently never thought of selling it, and in the pre-auction stories Mrs. Lederman didn't mention medical expenses and indicated that while they had enjoyed having it, they really didn't have much space or use for it in their retirement cottage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/05/27/physicist-leon-lederman-is-auctioning-off-his-1988-nobel-prize/

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article22598979.html

Even the story that you cite only mentions "potential" medical expenses, not actual ones. The reasons that one or both of the Ledermans may have for monetizing Lederer's Nobel medal are really anyone's guess. It's quite a stretch to try to pin this on the ACA.

[HuckleB]

24. Indeed. The OP takes a really strange turn. Thanks for clarifying the story.

[xocet]

29. It seems that many understand though you do not. Please expound on what confused you. n/t

[HuckleB]

30. I understand perfectly well.

Please don't pretend otherwise. Thank you.

[xocet]

31. It certainly does not appear so. Thank you though for your reply. n/t

[corkhead]

19. Word is Bill O'Reilly bought it to put next to his Peabody

[Recursion]

25. Our single payer Medicare system is what is making them pawn the prize

Not sure what ACA has to do with this.