DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It is most definitely not about putting ideology before peoples' lives, as your position does. We all know where we end up once we start down the slippery slope of ideology trumping human life.
Um,no. You see, life is much better when you get to make your own choices. You get to reap the benefits of succeeding and experience the negatives for motivation the next time. Take away the negative consequences, and you'll ruin it all. How many people have to die due to border battles, gang-related illegal aliens, etc. before your ideology is no longer trumping that cost?
quote:
BTW aren't the healthcare corporations currently charging the "exorbitant rates" you complain about the very same corporations who will dominate the market place even more in an exclusively private healthcare system? As tazzygirl has explained, the very same people who are responsible for the expensive inefficient inadequate system the US currently enjoys? The very same corporations whose track record demonstrates repeated price gouging, of charging as much as they can get away with? Your approach advocates giving these parasites even more power over US health care consumers.
Actually, no, it won't. I support separating the insurance companies from the care providers. Does Obamacare do that? Didn't think so.
If you were serious about lowering rates, you'd support a universal health scheme which has been repeatedly demonstrated to produce far better results for a lot less cost in a variety of environments. However, for you, it seems ideology is far more important than either saving lives or lowering costs.
Other than, "it's worked for everyone else even though they weren't in the same situation as the US, so there's no doubt it will work here" argument, what else ya got to support your assertions?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/cbo-health-law-estimate-shows-much-higher-spending-beyond-first-10-years/
quote:
In a largely overlooked segment of the CBO's update to the budget outlook released Tuesday, the independent arm of Congress found that the bill will cost $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.
That only counts the cost of coverage, not implementation costs and other changes.
Seems like quite a bit more than the $900B it was supposed to cost, doesn't it?
http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/story.jsp?storyId=533330705
quote:
The cost increases, according to Mercer, are also driven by advances in medical research and technology, which result in more effective -- and more expensive -- diagnostic tools and medical procedures.
Another factor is the growth of a global middle class -- leading to the spread of Westernized lifestyles, where people have the luxury to eat fatty, processed foods and live sedentary lives.
"People are doing less physical activity and eating higher caloric content," says Dr. Lorna Friedman, a partner in Mercer's global health-management consulting business.
That's led to diabetes-prevalence rates higher than 10 percent in Western Europe, she says. Even more staggering, China has 90 million people with diabetes and India has 55 million.
Huh. Imagine that. "Luxury = eating fatty, processed foods" + "sedentary lives" = increased "diabetes-prevalence rates." But, what do I know, right?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/
Now, this one is very interesting. The basic concept is that while smokers, drinkers and the obese have higher end-of-life costs compared to the end of life for the relatively healthy, but the relatively healthy live longer, making their overall cost of care higher.
quote:
Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and to discuss the implications for prevention.
Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.
The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:
The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000
It's not the typical argument, and I'd love to see more studies on this to verify. It's actually counter to what we'd actually stump for, too.
http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/hrm/UNH-Health-Care-Costs.pdf
quote:
“‘If you want to keep costs under control, it’s not about managing health care premiums…it’s
about managing the underlying health care costs.’”
- Sandy Praeger, Kansas Insurance Commissioner
"Health insurers have been squarely in the crosshairs and blamed for the high cost of private
insurance, while the role of growing hospital and physician market power has escaped
scrutiny." - Robert Berenson, M.D., Senior Researcher, Urban Institute
Researchers from The Center for Studying Health System
Change cite “a definite shift in negotiating strength
toward providers, resulting in higher payment rates and
premiums.”
“Evidence from two decades of hospital mergers and acquisitions nationally demonstrates that
consolidating hospital markets drives up prices, with disagreement only over the magnitude of the
increases.”
“Hospital and physician payment rates are nearly 30 percent and 20 percent higher, respectively,
than Medicare rates…In some cases, payment rates to hospitals and powerful physicians groups
approach and exceed 200 percent of what Medicare pays.”
“As one medical group executive said, ‘We are making out hand over fist.’”
Lots of neat stuff to read out there. Costs are going to go down, right (you know, even though the CBO is raising it's scoring of the cost of Obamacare)?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without heal... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread