Jump to content

Wanna learn some things about American healthcare?


Recommended Posts

If you do, then read this: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/02-4

 

Here's a sample.

 

...Health Care as a Commodity

 

All of these differences in how we pay for health care may pale next to a more fundamental one: We view health care as a commodity and allow providers to set prices as high as the market will bear. The problem with that is that health care is a market in which we often don’t have enough information to shop and choose, and because most of us have a good chunk of our costs picked up by a third party – an insurance company – the market often ends up bearing ludicrously high costs.

It may sound obvious, but the biggest reason we spend so much on health care is not only because insurance companies take out profits and overhead — it’s that health care costs us more than citizens of other wealthy countries. Everything from pharmaceuticals to surgical procedures to tests costs us more than citizens of other rich countries (the linked study found only a single exception: cataract surgeries cost more in Switzerland). Even a basic checkup is more expensive here than in other highly developed states.

 

A big reason for that is that government cost controls – both soft and hard – are common in the rest of the world. Pharmaceuticals provide a good example. We paid $947 per person for prescription drugs in 2009, on average, which was almost double the $487 per person in the OECD as a whole, but we don’t take twice as many pills. We just let big pharma charge whatever it can get away with.

 

Some other countries only approve drugs at a price that’s in line with what those medications cost in other countries. Many countries evaluate new drugs not only on safety and efficacy, but also on whether they provide better value than existing medications. The U.K. has a board that sets the amount that its National Health Service will pay for a drug and limits how much profit drug companies can make from the British public.

As Jonathan Wolff, a professor at the University College London described it:

Each year pharmaceutical companies have to open their books to the [National Health Service] accountants and if the profits they make are above a certain level then there is a ‘clawback’. Furthermore, the agreements have to be renewed every few years and each time price cuts are negotiated as part of the contract. Hence although it appears that drug companies can charge what they want, in practice there are both price controls and profit controls, enforced by the government.

US big pharma, like other providers, argues that it needs to charge high prices to pay for innovative new research. But a 2006 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the pharmaceutical industry already benefited greatly from government-sponsored research: Much of the $25 billion the federal government spent on basic scientific research accrued to an industry that itself spent $39 billion on research and development. And, as economist Dean Baker has argued, there are other, more efficient ways to finance drug research, but they would also require more, not less, involvement by the government...

 

cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why is it we are behind other developed nations in certain outcomes, infant mortality and life expectancy being two of the obviously more important, yet we are at the absolute top of the heap in what we have to pay? This article goes a good way in explaining that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healthcare is an economic commodity no matter how socialist you attempt to make it DUMBASS. Let me guess..... If you make it an entitlement right is will all of a sudden be "free". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Why is it we are behind other developed nations in certain outcomes, infant mortality and life expectancy being two of the obviously more important, yet we are at the absolute top of the heap in what we have to pay? This article goes a good way in explaining that.

 

 

 

Infant mortality, along with being figured differently than other nations due to our technological breakthroughs in premature birth care, is also subject to POOR lifestyle choices like life expectancy.

 

Simply put, Americans don't live healthy lifestyles in comparison with other nations. We're fat, lazy and use booze and drugs to deal with our miserable existence. We're also HIGHLY spoiled in terms of healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it we are behind other developed nations in certain outcomes, infant mortality and life expectancy being two of the obviously more important, yet we are at the absolute top of the heap in what we have to pay? This article goes a good way in explaining that.

 

What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healthcare is an economic commodity no matter how socialist you attempt to make it DUMBASS. Let me guess..... If you make it an entitlement right is will all of a sudden be "free". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Infant mortality, along with being figured differently than other nations due to our technological breakthroughs in premature birth care, is also subject to POOR lifestyle choices like life expectancy.

 

Simply put, Americans don't live healthy lifestyles in comparison with other nations. We're fat, lazy and use booze and drugs to deal with our miserable existence. We're also HIGHLY spoiled in terms of healthcare.

 

No nutritionist agrees with that. In the '60s Americans consumed 1500 calories a day, and most of it was whole foods. Today, we consume 3,000 calories a day and most of it is processed. We buy what's on the shelves, what is cleverly marketed to us, we are counted upon by the food processors to be nearly totally ignorant of the nature of what food even is. How many Americans know that bread becomes a sugar and thence to fat and is stored as such because there's just too much of it for the body to use as fast as we put it in? Not many. How many know the difference between good carbohydrates -- the kind that metabolize slowly and do not become sugar -- and bad carbs? The good ones include red, yellow, orange, and green vegetables. The bad ones include breads, soft drinks, pastas, and snack foods, which we consume by the ton. It's far easier to eat fast food than to take the time to prepare whole foods. There are a lot of things working together that make us fat. To write it all off to "bad life decisions" is Republican-speak for "everything bad that happens to you is your own fault" -- absolving, of course, those who get wealthy by selling us what are essentially poisons and telling us how good and fun they are.

 

Pick up anything in the grocery store and you'll find a list of ingredients. It's the law that that list be on it. When this law was being debated in Congress, representatives of the food interests actually, with straight faces (they must have had electroshock therapy just before they came into the room so they wouldn't be laughing), told the Congress, or whatever committee was listening, that the cost of printing the ingredients would put them out of business. Never mind that labels were already on the products and that it was a matter of changing some of the type, for Pete's sake.

 

And if it were a matter of protecting trade secrets (the wine industry managed to get itself exempted from putting the list on their bottles, partially because they consider their ingredients to be trade secrets and partially because people would stop drinking it if they knew some of what's in those bottles), the industry reps could have just as easily said "Our product's appeal is its taste and we want to protect that for the same reason Coca-Cola protects their formula."

 

But they didn't say that. They said it would be too expensive to list the ingredients. Well, considering that the ingredients are listed in one color, while everything else on most labels is multi-colored (requiring multiple press runs on the labels at the time and therefore more expensive than printing the ingredient lists) so as to attract consumer attention and stimulate interest, the only reasonable response to that argument is a big fat horse laugh.

 

So they were gonna go out of business, were they. You'll notice the labels bearing thse ingredient lists are on everything we buy SO WHY IN HELL DIDN'T THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS, STRAIGHT? KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THEY WERE LYING. They have to put those ingredients on those labels in the order of amount, and if you look at those ingredients you find things you aren't too happy about. They figured that would happen which is the real reason they fought the law.

 

Hm. Fighting laws designed to inform and protect consumers. Fighting the creation of agencies that protect us. Republicans have fought the creation of every single law and agency and regulation that helps people -- the Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, worker safey laws, child labor laws, Jesus, you name it and they've fought it.

 

BECAUSE, GOD DAMN IT, MONEY IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM THAN THE LIVES OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big reason for that is that government cost controls – both soft and hard – are common in the rest of the world.

Hmmmm... that's odd. I don't think we have government cost controls on things sold by companies in industries such as TV's, computers, supermarkets, tools, appliances, and thousands more, but yet the inflation-adjusted prices for their products are constantly getting LOWER and LOWER. So how do you explain that, genius?

 

Moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you remove, homicide, suicide and accidents from the equation were number 1 in life expectancy....so you tell me was it a dumb question?

 

Growth in U.S. Life Expectancy Continues to Fall Behind That of Other Countries

Obesity, Smoking, Traffic Fatalities and Homicide Are Not to Blame. Research Points to Defects in Our Healthcare System

People_Walking5_art.jpg

America continues to lag behind other nations when it comes to gains in life expectancy, and commonly cited causes for our poor performance—obesity, smoking, traffic fatalities and homicide—are not to blame, according to a study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

 

article: http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/news/despite-high-spending-us-life-expectancy-continues-fall-behind-other-countries

 

It's so easy to find out the truth about things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Growth in U.S. Life Expectancy Continues to Fall Behind That of Other Countries

Obesity, Smoking, Traffic Fatalities and Homicide Are Not to Blame. Research Points to Defects in Our Healthcare System

People_Walking5_art.jpg

America continues to lag behind other nations when it comes to gains in life expectancy, and commonly cited causes for our poor performance—obesity, smoking, traffic fatalities and homicide—are not to blame, according to a study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

 

article: http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/news/despite-high-spending-us-life-expectancy-continues-fall-behind-other-countries

 

It's so easy to find out the truth about things.

 

You almost had me till the article praised the ACA.....yea no agenda there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Growth in U.S. Life Expectancy Continues to Fall Behind That of Other Countries

Obesity, Smoking, Traffic Fatalities and Homicide Are Not to Blame. Research Points to Defects in Our Healthcare System

People_Walking5_art.jpg

America continues to lag behind other nations when it comes to gains in life expectancy, and commonly cited causes for our poor performance—obesity, smoking, traffic fatalities and homicide—are not to blame, according to a study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

 

article: http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/news/despite-high-spending-us-life-expectancy-continues-fall-behind-other-countries

 

It's so easy to find out the truth about things.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Growth in U.S. Life Expectancy Continues to Fall Behind That of Other Countries

Obesity, Smoking, Traffic Fatalities and Homicide Are Not to Blame. Research Points to Defects in Our Healthcare System

People_Walking5_art.jpg

America continues to lag behind other nations when it comes to gains in life expectancy, and commonly cited causes for our poor performance—obesity, smoking, traffic fatalities and homicide—are not to blame, according to a study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

 

article: http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/news/despite-high-spending-us-life-expectancy-continues-fall-behind-other-countries

 

It's so easy to find out the truth about things.

 

Oh, no - now Devry is going to start screaming and crying again.

 

You're a MEAN LADY! And BIASED! And UNFAIR! Waaaaah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57563279/

 

Report: U.S. life expectancy lowest among wealthy nations due to disease, violence

WASHINGTON Not only do Americans live shorter lives than people in other wealthy nations, but they suffer more violent deaths compared to their peer countries, according to a report released Wednesday by two of the nation's leading health research institutions.

Researchers said the violence is due in part to the widespread possession of firearms and the practice of storing them at home in unlocked places.

Gun violence is just one of many factors contributing to lower U.S. life expectancy, but the finding took on urgency because the report comes less than a month after the shooting deaths of 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents. None of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents.

For many years, Americans have been dying at younger ages that people in almost all other wealthy countries. In addition to the impact of gun violence, Americans consume the most calories among peer countries and get involved in more accidents that involve alcohol. People living in the U.S. lose more years of their life before they reach 50 due to alcohol and drugs compared to all the other nations in the study. In general, Americans had the lowest chance of surviving to 50.

In total, there were nine areas where the U.S. came in below average, including infant mortality and low birth weight, injuries and homicides, adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STI), HIV and AIDS, drug-related deaths, obesity and diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease and disability. The differences were observed in all age groups up to 75.

Americans had the second-highest death rate from the most common form of heart disease, and the second-highest death rate from lung disease. People living in the U.S. also had the highest diabetes rates, with death rates from non-high school graduates with diabetes three times higher than those with some college. Americans also had the highest rate of infant mortality, STIs, teen pregnancy and car crash deaths.

The result is that the life expectancy for men in the United States ranked the lowest among the 17 countries reviewed, at 75.6 years, while the life expectancy for U.S. women ranked second lowest at 80.7 years right in front of Danish women. The countries reviewed included Canada, Japan, Australia and much of Western Europe.

The nation's health disadvantages have economic consequences. They lead to higher costs for consumers and taxpayers as well as a workforce that remains less healthy than that of other high-income countries.

"With lives and dollars at stake, the United States cannot afford to ignore this problem," said the report from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.

There were some areas where the U.S. excelled, including lower death rates from detectable cancers and control over cholesterol and high blood pressure. Also, Americans who made it to 75 were more likely to survive longer than most of the other people around the same age in other countries. However, these positives were not enough to outweigh the other sobering facts.

In attempting to explain why Americans are so unhealthy, the researchers looked at three categories: the nation's health care system, harmful behaviors and social and economic conditions. Researchers noted that the U.S. has a large uninsured population compared to other countries with comparable economies, and more limited access to primary care. And although the income of Americans is higher on average than that of other wealthy countries, the United States also has a higher level of poverty, especially among children.

Researchers said American culture probably plays an important role in the life expectancy rates falling short of other wealthy countries.

"We have a culture in our country that, among many Americans, cherishes personal autonomy and wants to limit intrusion of government and other entities on our personal lives and also wants to encourage free enterprise and the success of business and industry. Some of those forces may act against the ability to achieve optimal health outcomes," said Dr. Steven H. Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who served as chairman for the study panel.

The National Rifle Association did not immediately return calls seeking comment about the report, but in the past gun-rights advocates have fought any suggestion that firearms ownership has public health implications, and they have won cuts in the government's budget for such research.

The researchers reviewed an array of studies over the years. They estimated that homicide and suicide together account for about a quarter of the years of life lost for U.S. men compared to those in those peer countries. Homicide, they noted, is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 15-24. The large majority of those homicides involve firearms.

The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It's the lethality of those attacks that stands out.

"One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home. The statistics are dramatic," the report said.

For example, the United States has the highest rate of firearm ownership among peer countries - 89 civilian-owned firearms for every 100 Americans, and the U.S. is home to about 35 to 50 percent of the world's civilian-owned firearms, the report noted.

Woolf said that researchers had expected that homicide would be an important factor in explaining the health disadvantage that existed in younger adults in the U.S., particularly among young men.

"The size of the health disadvantage was pretty stunning. The fact that our risk of death from homicide is seven times higher and from shootings 20 times higher is pretty dramatic, but I would add that was probably just as important to us was the extent of the health disadvantage in young Americans that had nothing to do with violent injuries."

Woolf cited the statistics regarding premature babies and the high prevalence of illness among teenagers as equally disturbing as the statistics on guns and violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, Big Pharma is evil because they soak what they can out of their customers. Just like every industry basically does. Whatever the market will bear and all that.

 

There are many reasons why this guy's article can't get every nuance and cultural influence.

That would take LOTS of space and research time.

 

However, just to point out that the rich guys make too much here in America compared to the Swiss (or whatever) is just grousing.

My first reaction is "OK lefty, but you ALWAYS say that" then nod off.

 

Are we getting anything at all for the extra money? And is it truly THAT much more? Raw numbers are just statistics that can be applied in both directions (pro and con).

 

 

Regulating which frequencies on a chart for broadcasters, airports, telecommunications, etc. is just a pie chart of who gets what of the available ranges.

Government regulation - good.

 

Regulating medicine and medical procedures, pharmacies and pharmaceutical research AS WELL AS their profit/loss business models, patents, and who know what else isn't simple.

Government regulation - cumbersome, conflicting, slow. Is that good or bad? It's tougher than Bammycare asswipes thought so far and they aren't even doing all the Big Pharma . . .yet.

That'll be a hoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, Big Pharma is evil because they soak what they can out of their customers. Just like every industry basically does. Whatever the market will bear and all that.

 

There are many reasons why this guy's article can't get every nuance and cultural influence.

That would take LOTS of space and research time.

 

However, just to point out that the rich guys make too much here in America compared to the Swiss (or whatever) is just grousing.

My first reaction is "OK lefty, but you ALWAYS say that" then nod off.

 

Are we getting anything at all for the extra money? And is it truly THAT much more? Raw numbers are just statistics that can be applied in both directions (pro and con).

 

 

Regulating which frequencies on a chart for broadcasters, airports, telecommunications, etc. is just a pie chart of who gets what of the available ranges.

Government regulation - good.

 

Regulating medicine and medical procedures, pharmacies and pharmaceutical research AS WELL AS their profit/loss business models, patents, and who know what else isn't simple.

Government regulation - cumbersome, conflicting, slow. Is that good or bad? It's tougher than Bammycare asswipes thought so far and they aren't even doing all the Big Pharma . . .yet.

That'll be a hoot.

 

Ya well. Thanks to government regulation, it can take a manufacturer to spend up to 2 billion and 7-10 years before they can even START selling a drug assuming it's sellable.

 

Damned evil pharma. Almost as bad as those evil physicians and nurses. :lol:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57563279/

 

Report: U.S. life expectancy lowest among wealthy nations due to disease, violence

WASHINGTON Not only do Americans live shorter lives than people in other wealthy nations, but they suffer more violent deaths compared to their peer countries, according to a report released Wednesday by two of the nation's leading health research institutions.

Researchers said the violence is due in part to the widespread possession of firearms and the practice of storing them at home in unlocked places.

Gun violence is just one of many factors contributing to lower U.S. life expectancy, but the finding took on urgency because the report comes less than a month after the shooting deaths of 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents. None of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents.

For many years, Americans have been dying at younger ages that people in almost all other wealthy countries. In addition to the impact of gun violence, Americans consume the most calories among peer countries and get involved in more accidents that involve alcohol. People living in the U.S. lose more years of their life before they reach 50 due to alcohol and drugs compared to all the other nations in the study. In general, Americans had the lowest chance of surviving to 50.

In total, there were nine areas where the U.S. came in below average, including infant mortality and low birth weight, injuries and homicides, adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STI), HIV and AIDS, drug-related deaths, obesity and diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease and disability. The differences were observed in all age groups up to 75.

Americans had the second-highest death rate from the most common form of heart disease, and the second-highest death rate from lung disease. People living in the U.S. also had the highest diabetes rates, with death rates from non-high school graduates with diabetes three times higher than those with some college. Americans also had the highest rate of infant mortality, STIs, teen pregnancy and car crash deaths.

The result is that the life expectancy for men in the United States ranked the lowest among the 17 countries reviewed, at 75.6 years, while the life expectancy for U.S. women ranked second lowest at 80.7 years right in front of Danish women. The countries reviewed included Canada, Japan, Australia and much of Western Europe.

The nation's health disadvantages have economic consequences. They lead to higher costs for consumers and taxpayers as well as a workforce that remains less healthy than that of other high-income countries.

"With lives and dollars at stake, the United States cannot afford to ignore this problem," said the report from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.

There were some areas where the U.S. excelled, including lower death rates from detectable cancers and control over cholesterol and high blood pressure. Also, Americans who made it to 75 were more likely to survive longer than most of the other people around the same age in other countries. However, these positives were not enough to outweigh the other sobering facts.

In attempting to explain why Americans are so unhealthy, the researchers looked at three categories: the nation's health care system, harmful behaviors and social and economic conditions. Researchers noted that the U.S. has a large uninsured population compared to other countries with comparable economies, and more limited access to primary care. And although the income of Americans is higher on average than that of other wealthy countries, the United States also has a higher level of poverty, especially among children.

Researchers said American culture probably plays an important role in the life expectancy rates falling short of other wealthy countries.

"We have a culture in our country that, among many Americans, cherishes personal autonomy and wants to limit intrusion of government and other entities on our personal lives and also wants to encourage free enterprise and the success of business and industry. Some of those forces may act against the ability to achieve optimal health outcomes," said Dr. Steven H. Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who served as chairman for the study panel.

The National Rifle Association did not immediately return calls seeking comment about the report, but in the past gun-rights advocates have fought any suggestion that firearms ownership has public health implications, and they have won cuts in the government's budget for such research.

The researchers reviewed an array of studies over the years. They estimated that homicide and suicide together account for about a quarter of the years of life lost for U.S. men compared to those in those peer countries. Homicide, they noted, is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 15-24. The large majority of those homicides involve firearms.

The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It's the lethality of those attacks that stands out.

"One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home. The statistics are dramatic," the report said.

For example, the United States has the highest rate of firearm ownership among peer countries - 89 civilian-owned firearms for every 100 Americans, and the U.S. is home to about 35 to 50 percent of the world's civilian-owned firearms, the report noted.

Woolf said that researchers had expected that homicide would be an important factor in explaining the health disadvantage that existed in younger adults in the U.S., particularly among young men.

"The size of the health disadvantage was pretty stunning. The fact that our risk of death from homicide is seven times higher and from shootings 20 times higher is pretty dramatic, but I would add that was probably just as important to us was the extent of the health disadvantage in young Americans that had nothing to do with violent injuries."

Woolf cited the statistics regarding premature babies and the high prevalence of illness among teenagers as equally disturbing as the statistics on guns and violence.

 

In summary, we drink, drug and shoot ourselves to death when we're not eating and smoking ourselves to death........ ALL simple lifestyle choices that have little to nothing to do with "healthcare".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You almost had me till the article praised the ACA.....yea no agenda there.

Are you seriously saying Oh now I'll blow by all those facts because the article praised the ACA? If the article had said water's wet then praised the ACA would you then say water must be dry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously saying Oh now I'll blow by all those facts because the article praised the ACA? If the article had said water's wet then praised the ACA would you then say water must be dry?

If they were actually facts. No.

 

 

If the benefit of the doubt is needed in any way within the article, the author has to lose. Bammycare is shit. Can shit get shittier? So far, yes, and I guess we'll find out how much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously saying Oh now I'll blow by all those facts because the article praised the ACA? If the article had said water's wet then praised the ACA would you then say water must be dry?

That's the way it works with cons, when they can't refute something, they always fall back on denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the way it works with cons, when they can't refute something, they always fall back on denial.

"But a 2006 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the pharmaceutical industry already benefited greatly from government-sponsored research: Much of the $25 billion the federal government spent on basic scientific research accrued to an industry that itself spent $39 billion on research and development."

 

 

What does this mean? Seriously. In fredtalk, what does this statement actually say? It's not an argument meant to challenge. I don't get this convoluted sentence.

 

Anyone, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first, the US health care system is the most innovative and best system in the world. thereis 1 reason for that PROFIT. Greed is good and money talks. As far as big pharma, what most people don't understand that regardless of any govt research or govt subsidized research drug companies in the US spend billions in R&D per year. What needs to be changed to cut the cost of the drug to the consumer is the patent laws. Drug companies should be granted 99 year patents adn the clock should not begin to run until the drug is ready for the open market. Right now it's 20 years and the clock runs prior to fda final approval which could take years cutting in to the marketing time to recoup the initial investment.

 

Competition, profit and capitalism are the only way to run everything including health care. Imagine if we leased out our military, we would not have to ever pay taxes again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do, then read this: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/02-4

 

Here's a sample.

 

...Health Care as a Commodity

All of these differences in how we pay for health care may pale next to a more fundamental one: We view health care as a commodity and allow providers to set prices as high as the market will bear. The problem with that is that health care is a market in which we often don’t have enough information to shop and choose, and because most of us have a good chunk of our costs picked up by a third party – an insurance company – the market often ends up bearing ludicrously high costs.

It may sound obvious, but the biggest reason we spend so much on health care is not only because insurance companies take out profits and overhead — it’s that health care costs us more than citizens of other wealthy countries. Everything from pharmaceuticals to surgical procedures to tests costs us more than citizens of other rich countries (the linked study found only a single exception: cataract surgeries cost more in Switzerland). Even a basic checkup is more expensive here than in other highly developed states.

cc

Wow, they were on the right track, then took a hard left and fell off the cliff. Too bad.

The problem with our healthcare costs is because we have a 3rd party paying, and no one CARES what anything costs.

 

If YOU had to pay for your care out of your pocket, do you think you would know how much your last doctor's visit actually cost?

I'll guarantee you don't know, because you've never asked.

All you care about is whether your co-pay is $20 or $30.

 

Until we make people responsible for what they spend, the only way to control costs is by someone limiting access.

 

"But a 2006 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the pharmaceutical industry already benefited greatly from government-sponsored research: Much of the $25 billion the federal government spent on basic scientific research accrued to an industry that itself spent $39 billion on research and development."

 

 

What does this mean? Seriously. In fredtalk, what does this statement actually say? It's not an argument meant to challenge. I don't get this convoluted sentence.

 

Anyone, anyone?

Simple. The government has spent $25 Billion (doesn't say over how long a period) on research that was used and built on, by an additional $39 Billion in research by private industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously saying Oh now I'll blow by all those facts because the article praised the ACA? If the article had said water's wet then praised the ACA would you then say water must be dry?

 

 

You post an article, about a study done by the writer of the article, yet has no link to the actual study....and yet you claim what he said as fact. You got a link to the study? I'd like to read it, I got some free time between novels. :lol:

 

That's the way it works with cons, when they can't refute something, they always fall back on denial.

 

I understand Fred is a good little lamb, Baaa!,Baaa! But some folks don't believe everything they read on the internet, without being able to research it. You got a link to the study?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously saying Oh now I'll blow by all those facts because the article praised the ACA? If the article had said water's wet then praised the ACA would you then say water must be dry?

 

The article was trash in a lame attempt to attack healthcare for people's behaviors and lifestyle choices.

 

 

 

 

You post an article, about a study done by the writer of the article, yet has no link to the actual study....and yet you claim what he said as fact. You got a link to the study? I'd like to read it, I got some free time between novels. :lol:

 

The article was trash in a lame attempt to attack healthcare for people's behaviors and lifestyle choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...