Universal Health

[ttwtt78640]

Can you back up your statement that "things like obesity" that are making our health care the most expensive in the world?

Obesity and its related medical condidtions account for about 20% of our current total medical spending. That does not even count the indirect costs (disability, unemployment and absenteeism) of obesity.

Economic Costs of Obesity | Healthy Communities for a Healthy Future

A bit more information on where the bulk of our medical costs are incurred:

Forbes Welcome

 

[Paleocon]

I strongly believe the benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the negatives. The government has the moral duty to make sure each and every citizen has healthcare/insurance. Socialized medicine ensures that nobody is left untreated. A healthy population= a happy population. Look to France and the Nordic countries for success stories.

Socialized medicine leads to death, like all forms of socialism.

Other people disagree with you.

There is also some middle ground, socialized insurance, which makes a lot of sense to me, but unfortunately middle ground is rarely considered.

Socialized insurance, is not.

For socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Insurance doesn't produce anything, they just handle money.

 

[ludin]

Sorry. Wrong guess.

We actually are short doctors.

this refutes nothing about what I said.
but it is a great strawman as I said nothing about doctor shortages.
I know we are short doctors.
there is a huge doctor shortage.

 

[ksu_aviator]

I think that you are missing a particular aspect of the phrase... UNIVERSAL. Means for everyone everytime... nobody gets denied.

It never works that way. The name is just a name. You could call it free for everyone and it would still be expensive and exclusive.

 

[Absentglare]

Obesity and its related medical condidtions account for about 20% of our current total medical spending. That does not even count the indirect costs (disability, unemployment and absenteeism) of obesity.

Economic Costs of Obesity | Healthy Communities for a Healthy Future

A bit more information on where the bulk of our medical costs are incurred:

Forbes Welcome

And i cited a study in the Netherlands where they analyzed the obese, smokers, and healthy people. The healthy people had the highest total costs because they lived longer.

Based on the results of their study, fighting obesity was not seen as a real means to decrease health care costs.

 

[Absentglare]

Socialized medicine leads to death, like all forms of socialism.



Socialized insurance, is not.

For socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Insurance doesn't produce anything, they just handle money.

This is strange because you are using socialism incorrectly twice and correctly once.

Socialized medicine does not lead to death. Dying leads to death.

Socialized insurance is a middle ground. That's where the government owns the health insurance industry. Hell, it could charge premiums to the public. Socialized insurance is where the government owns and operates the health insurance industry, like medicare and medicaid.

Socialized health care is ownership of the entire health care industry, including hospitals, like the VA system.

Really, since every member of the public is forced to participate in the health care industry, it's ridiculously stupid that we refuse to manage it properly.

We could even have a system like in Switzerland, where it's very private, but also successfully regulated.

 

[Paleocon]

This is strange because you are using socialism incorrectly twice and correctly once.

Socialized medicine does not lead to death. Dying leads to death.

Socialized insurance is a middle ground. That's where the government owns the health insurance industry. Hell, it could charge premiums to the public. Socialized insurance is where the government owns and operates the health insurance industry, like medicare and medicaid.

Socialized health care is ownership of the entire health care industry, including hospitals, like the VA system.

Really, since every member of the public is forced to participate in the health care industry, it's ridiculously stupid that we refuse to manage it properly.

We could even have a system like in Switzerland, where it's very private, but also successfully regulated.

Socialism requires collective ownership of the means of production. So it is inaccurate to use it to refer to insurance, because insurance doesn't produce anything.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Obesity and its related medical condidtions account for about 20% of our current total medical spending. That does not even count the indirect costs (disability, unemployment and absenteeism) of obesity.

Economic Costs of Obesity | Healthy Communities for a Healthy Future

A bit more information on where the bulk of our medical costs are incurred:

Forbes Welcome

So, 20%, which doesn't mean 20% more than is spent by other nations. If obesity accounts for 20% of our out of control medical costs, what accounts for the rest?

The idea that we spend twice as much as the rest of the world on medical care because Americans are fat just doesn't quite pencil out, not that obesity isn't a huge health problem in this country and in the rest of the wealthy world.

 

[Dittohead not!]

this refutes nothing about what I said.
but it is a great strawman as I said nothing about doctor shortages.
I know we are short doctors.
there is a huge doctor shortage.

Sorry, you're right.

Your post was about the quality of doctors in the US, not the quantity.

So, I simply should have asked you to back up your statement that we have the best doctors.

But, then, the thread is about the relative cost of health care where there is and isn't universal health care, so we're both off the subject anyway.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, 20%, which doesn't mean 20% more than is spent by other nations. If obesity accounts for 20% of our out of control medical costs, what accounts for the rest?

The idea that we spend twice as much as the rest of the world on medical care because Americans are fat just doesn't quite pencil out, not that obesity isn't a huge health problem in this country and in the rest of the wealthy world.

There are many factors that drive up total US medical care costs and a big one is spending on R&D which must come from somewhere even if the (ultimate) benefits are shared by all. An example is cancer "treatment" research - which costs gobs of money and often extends the survival rate for only a few months yet at a huge cost per patient "treated" to a brief extension of life (and of questionable quality).

My last link, in the post to which you replied, has more bearing on our desire to treat every patient, as agressively (expensively?) as possible right up untill they die. One must remember that every birth will result, eventually, in death. We cannot alter the if, we can only alter (very slightly, in many cases) the when (and how) death will occur.

Discussions of this very basic reality always devolve into talking about "death panels" but one cannot ignore cost/benefit analysis when trying to control costs for the greater good. We have (easily?) accepted the concept of declaring a car to be a total loss, for seriously mechanically failed (or crash damaged) cars, even whan each such car could be repaired but only at a cost exceeding the value of the repaired vehicle and for a limited amount of time before the next mechanical failure. The time will (must?) come when we decide that it is better to spend $100K to treat ten folks with easier to repair conditions and longer/higher life expectacies rather than to treat just one person (with that entire $100K) that will soon die anyway.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There are many factors that drive up total US medical care costs and a big one is spending on R&D which must come from somewhere even if the (ultimate) benefits are shared by all. An example is cancer "treatment" research - which costs gobs of money and often extends the survival rate for only a few months yet at a huge cost per patient "treated" to a brief extension of life (and of questionable quality).

Yes, a part of medical care is R and D.

Did you think that only the US supports R and D? Where was the AIDS vaccine developed? Where was heart transplant surgery developed? Not all medical breakthroughs come from the USA.

My last link, in the post to which you replied, has more bearing on our desire to treat every patient, as agressively (expensively?) as possible right up untill they die. One must remember that every birth will result, eventually, in death. We cannot alter the if, we can only alter (very slightly, in many cases) the when (and how) death will occur.

Discussions of this very basic reality always devolve into talking about "death panels" but one cannot ignore cost/benefit analysis when trying to control costs for the greater good. We have (easily?) accepted the concept of declaring a car to be a total loss, for seriously mechanically failed (or crash damaged) cars, even whan each such car could be repaired but only at a cost exceeding the value of the repaired vehicle and for a limited amount of time before the next mechanical failure. The time will (must?) come when we decide that it is better to spend $100K to treat ten folks with easier to repair conditions and longer/higher life expectacies rather than to treat just one person (with that entire $100K) that will soon die anyway.

No doubt end of life care is way more expensive than needed. Yes, everyone dies eventually, and, when that end comes, there is little benefit in extending that life for a few more days at enormous cost. And you're right that shouting about "death panels" isn't helping the situation.

One would think that a majority Christian nation would accept death as merely a passage into a better life, but that doesn't seem to be the case, does it?

Did you know that most doctors, the people with the most experience in the sort of thing you're talking about, mostly choose to do their dying at home rather than in a hospital? Interesting, no?

 

[Absentglare]

Socialism requires collective ownership of the means of production. So it is inaccurate to use it to refer to insurance, because insurance doesn't produce anything.

It doesn't have to produce a good.

Imagine if Blue Cross was owned by the government. The hospitals would still be privately owned, but the health insurance paying for the procedures is owned by the government.

 

[Paleocon]

It doesn't have to produce a good.

Imagine if Blue Cross was owned by the government. The hospitals would still be privately owned, but the health insurance paying for the procedures is owned by the government.

And regardless of whether that is a good or bad idea, it's not socialist anymore than farm subsidies are.

 

[imagep]

And regardless of whether that is a good or bad idea, it's not socialist anymore than farm subsidies are.

We tend to have two different definitions of socialism.

Technically, socialism as an economic system, is when the government owns the means of production, and production does includes services (a shoe shiner produces shined shoes, just like an insurance company produces the service of spreading risk).

But the other is actually more commonly used, and it's any social program (hence "social-ism").

I have always found it interesting that insurance itself, is socialistic in nature, in the fact that many parties contribute into a risk pool, and then withdraw on an as needed bases. Socialist Jesus would very much approve of universal insurance.

 

[Paleocon]

We tend to have two different definitions of socialism.

Technically, socialism as an economic system, is when the government owns the means of production, and production does includes services (a shoe shiner produces shined shoes, just like an insurance company produces the service of spreading risk).

But the other is actually more commonly used, and it's any social program (hence "social-ism").

I have always found it interesting that insurance itself, is socialistic in nature, in the fact that many parties contribute into a risk pool, and then withdraw on an as needed bases. Socialist Jesus would very much approve of universal insurance.

Insurance isn't a service in the way shoe shining or healthcare are services, because it doesn't provide a tangible good. It's more a "service" like a casino.

And "Socialist Jesus" is nothing but a fantasy of your imagination.

 

[imagep]

Insurance isn't a service in the way shoe shining or healthcare are services, because it doesn't provide a tangible good. It's more a "service" like a casino.

I see little difference between the service that a casino offers and a shoe shine.

And "Socialist Jesus" is nothing but a fantasy of your imagination.

According to the Bible, Jesus was clearly socialist. Now that said, Jesus may indeed have been someones imagination, but not mine, I didn't write the bible.

 

[jaeger19]

Not enough government?

Complaining about defense spending, about the Iraq war, about the patriot act- that was all complaining about how we wanted to spend more on defense, how we wanted to invade more than just Iraq, and how we wanted to give up even more freedoms than the patriot act?

Do you not see that this overgeneralization is fatally flawed ?

You mean when the liberals authorized Bush to go to IRAQ? You means the calls for single payer government insurance, calls for more environmental regulations to stop "global warming".. calls for limiting transfats and even one prominent liberal made 16 ounce drink cups for soda an issue. Not to mention all the calls for simply MORE SPENDING.

Do you not see that my point is dead on? You personally have been calling for a massive government take over of not just the medical insurance industry.. but for a government take over of healthcare industry itself.

 

[jaeger19]

I suppose that is the radical conservative view on life. A young person is interested in medicine, dreams of being a doctor, but heck, he can only make $200,000/yr, and IT pays $400,000. The latter doesn't really match his aptitudes and desires, but hey, it's no brainer- money is everything.

Seeing your doctor the same day you phone is nice, but not so nice when he tells you your $800/month medical premium doesn't cover your needed procedure, and now your choice is death or bankruptcy. I think I would rather wait a week.

No its a real life decisions... A young person interested in medicine has to look at delaying his life 8-10 years. 4 years of college, 4 years of med school and another couple of years at least for residency. At a WHOPPING educational cost. About 200,000 or more when you consider interest.
And of course those years are filled with nights of studying to wee hours of the morning. And then internships and residencies where you work 14 or more hours per day (used to be worse)

Of course then you get to be a physician.. and have to answer to the beeper.. or now cell phone. Your kids get trained like Pavlov's dogs... when Dad's beeper or cell phone goes off.. well their time with dad is done. You get the stress of dealing with human beings who are sick, and injured and doing the best you can in an atmosphere that doesn't let you treat patients the way you know they need to be treated.

And then.. after you just save someones life... they bitch about their bill.. which is 10 grand less than the Ford truck that they just bought. but they will make those Ford Truck payments.

By the way.. bankruptcy is a choice that lets you get out of your medical bills. Its not medical bills that bankrupts you.. its other bills or being out of work due to medical reasons. When you go into bankruptcy.. medical providers are last in line. but the dealership will get your new Ford Pickup back. And I will get nothing.

 

[jaeger19]

Spending less tends to get you less, but throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away. France still spends less than half as much as the USA for its #1 rated health care system, and that nation has a complex and interrelated economy as well.

We could do better, and must. We can't afford to continue to spend nearly 9 grand per person on health care.

Why not? Why can't we spend it? I want you to answer that... and then answer if you think that we can't continue to spend on houses, trucks, and everything else in the economy. And the vast majority of money that is spent on healthcare.. stays here in the form of great wages to nurses, receptionist, doctors, etc..

 

[jaeger19]

And i cited a study in the Netherlands where they analyzed the obese, smokers, and healthy people. The healthy people had the highest total costs because they lived longer.

Based on the results of their study, fighting obesity was not seen as a real means to decrease health care costs.

Again. So you answer for healthcare spending is that we should all get obese so that we die earlier...

Dude you need to step back and understand what that study MEANS.

 

[jaeger19]

So, 20%, which doesn't mean 20% more than is spent by other nations. If obesity accounts for 20% of our out of control medical costs, what accounts for the rest?

The idea that we spend twice as much as the rest of the world on medical care because Americans are fat just doesn't quite pencil out, not that obesity isn't a huge health problem in this country and in the rest of the wealthy world.

Because who said its just obesity? Obesity.. stress, smoking, length of time spent working, cultural factors (immigrants that did not get healthcare prior to coming here), costs of education, costs of malpractice, costs of rents, R and D, and so on.

 

[Paleocon]

According to the Bible, Jesus was clearly socialist.

This is, simply put, a lie. No where does the Bible indicate that in any way.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Why not? Why can't we spend it? I want you to answer that... and then answer if you think that we can't continue to spend on houses, trucks, and everything else in the economy. And the vast majority of money that is spent on healthcare.. stays here in the form of great wages to nurses, receptionist, doctors, etc..

The cost of health care has been going up far and away faster than the cost of "houses, trucks, and everything else in the economy" for decades now. It is now to the point that even upper middle class people have difficulty paying medical bills and/or purchasing medical insurance. The lower middle class, let alone the poor, can't begin to pay an average of nine grand per person, and so depend on either the government or employer paid health insurance.

And most of the money that gets spent does not go to wages of health care professionals.

Example: When my son was born in '69, the cost of a normal childbirth and an overnight stay in the hospital was $250.

When my grandson was born in '01, the cost had soared to $10,000, or forty times as much.

When my last grand nephew was born recently, the cost had again more than doubled.

So, do doctors and nurses get 80 times as much in salaries as they did in '69, or is the lion's share of the money going somewhere else?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Because who said its just obesity? Obesity.. stress, smoking, length of time spent working, cultural factors (immigrants that did not get healthcare prior to coming here), costs of education, costs of malpractice, costs of rents, R and D, and so on.

and the cost of procedures as well.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes, a part of medical care is R and D.

Did you think that only the US supports R and D? Where was the AIDS vaccine developed? Where was heart transplant surgery developed? Not all medical breakthroughs come from the USA.



No doubt end of life care is way more expensive than needed. Yes, everyone dies eventually, and, when that end comes, there is little benefit in extending that life for a few more days at enormous cost. And you're right that shouting about "death panels" isn't helping the situation.

One would think that a majority Christian nation would accept death as merely a passage into a better life, but that doesn't seem to be the case, does it?

Did you know that most doctors, the people with the most experience in the sort of thing you're talking about, mostly choose to do their dying at home rather than in a hospital? Interesting, no?

1. Yes other countries do R and D.. and when they develop a new technology.. they export it to the US where it gets paid for.. and when it is perfected and becomes cheaper,, then they adopt it in their countries with single payer.

2. the cultural difference in America is that we think of the individual and their desires and not group think. You may not think that a lung surgery to reduce a tumor, and a round of radiation and therapy... is worth the extra two months of functional life it gives my patient. Being able to see their grandchild be born before they die? They think its priceless.

Hopefully you are never in a position to decide whats really important to you. I'd rather not have a government official making my decisions for me.. "for the greater good"..