The Main Reason for the Increases in Health Care Costs

[Christopher]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

The healthcare companies don't want you to eat right and exercise.

Please explain how your response here has anything to do with my reply to your statement about medical technology.

Medical costs have a lot of components besides technology.

Other courntries control costs and have the same technology we do.

These other countries do not spend nearly the same amount on development of technology as America does.

 

[Chris]

Please explain how your response here has anything to do with my reply to your statement about medical technology.

Medical costs have a lot of components besides technology.

Other courntries control costs and have the same technology we do.

These other countries do not spend nearly the same amount on development of technology as America does.

Horseshit.

We spend money on marketing.

Most of the innovation comes from universities.

 

[saveliberty]

Technology doesn't make you healthier.

It just makes the medical supply companies richer.

Okay, that is just stupid. MRIs allow you to know what is going on inside without surgery. The list goes on and on. Your drivel means we should stop using tools whort of a rock? God forbid money changes hands when it involves health care. In your case, no amont of technology is going to cure stupid.

No amount of technology is going to make you healthier.

Health is about lifestyle, and it is the main thing missing from our healthcare equation.

Idiot.

Tread mill. Stents. Antibiotics. A jogger has never had a heart problem. Vegans are in perfect health always. Do I sense the lifestyle police coming?

 

[Christopher]

Medical costs have a lot of components besides technology.

Other courntries control costs and have the same technology we do.

These other countries do not spend nearly the same amount on development of technology as America does.

Horseshit.

We spend money on marketing.

Most of the innovation comes from universities.

Here is the evidence: Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The research and development of medical devices and pharmaceuticals is supported by both public and private sources of funding. In 2003, research and development expenditures were approximately $95 billion with $40 billion coming from public sources and $55 billion coming from private sources.[25][26]. These investments into medical research have made the United States the leader in medical innovation, measured either in terms of revenue or the number of new drugs and devices introduced.[27][28] In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology.[27][28].

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Geico Caveman ate right, exercised and yet was eaten by a woolly mammoth.

 

[KittenKoder]

These other countries do not spend nearly the same amount on development of technology as America does.

Horseshit.

We spend money on marketing.

Most of the innovation comes from universities.

Here is the evidence: Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The research and development of medical devices and pharmaceuticals is supported by both public and private sources of funding. In 2003, research and development expenditures were approximately $95 billion with $40 billion coming from public sources and $55 billion coming from private sources.[25][26]. These investments into medical research have made the United States the leader in medical innovation, measured either in terms of revenue or the number of new drugs and devices introduced.[27][28] In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology.[27][28].

Wicrapedia? Seriously?

 

[Meister]

Medical costs have a lot of components besides technology.

Other courntries control costs and have the same technology we do.

These other countries do not spend nearly the same amount on development of technology as America does.

Horseshit.

We spend money on marketing.

Most of the innovation comes from universities.

Innovations with government grants.
Geeze Chris....what are you smoking?

 

[elvis]

These other countries do not spend nearly the same amount on development of technology as America does.

Horseshit.

We spend money on marketing.

Most of the innovation comes from universities.

Innovations with government grants.
Geeze Chris....what are you smoking?

Rockhead's pipe.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's amazing that people just won't admit that the government is the reason for such high costs ... really ... truly ... amazing.

 

[Chris]

It's amazing that people just won't admit that the government is the reason for such high costs ... really ... truly ... amazing.

It's amazing the people won't admit that corporate lobbyists run our government.

Really.....truly....amazing...

 

[Chris]

These other countries do not spend nearly the same amount on development of technology as America does.

Horseshit.

We spend money on marketing.

Most of the innovation comes from universities.

Innovations with government grants.
Geeze Chris....what are you smoking?

All Nobel Laureates in Medicine

 

[Christopher]

Horseshit.

We spend money on marketing.

Most of the innovation comes from universities.

Here is the evidence: Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The research and development of medical devices and pharmaceuticals is supported by both public and private sources of funding. In 2003, research and development expenditures were approximately $95 billion with $40 billion coming from public sources and $55 billion coming from private sources.[25][26]. These investments into medical research have made the United States the leader in medical innovation, measured either in terms of revenue or the number of new drugs and devices introduced.[27][28] In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology.[27][28].

Wicrapedia? Seriously?

Check the sources cited by Wikipedia before discrediting the info.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here is the evidence: Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wicrapedia? Seriously?

Check the sources cited by Wikipedia before discrediting the info.

Wicrapedia? Seriously?

 

[Christopher]

Wicrapedia? Seriously?

Check the sources cited by Wikipedia before discrediting the info.

Wicrapedia? Seriously?

Here is one of the sources available online: http://www.efpia.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=388

 

[KittenKoder]

Check the sources cited by Wikipedia before discrediting the info.

Wicrapedia? Seriously?

Here is one of the sources available online: http://www.efpia.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=388

Must you make me repeat myself?

 

[Christopher]

Wicrapedia? Seriously?

Here is one of the sources available online: http://www.efpia.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=388

Must you make me repeat myself?

I’m not making you do anything, it is your choice. I provided one of the sources Wiki used so that you could question that source instead of repeating yourself.

I understand that Wikipedia can have crap, which is why you need to check the sources it cites. You seem to be under the impression that everything on Wikipedia is crap. I disagree.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here is one of the sources available online: http://www.efpia.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=388

Must you make me repeat myself?

I’m not making you do anything, it is your choice. I provided one of the sources Wiki used so that you could question that source instead of repeating yourself.

I understand that Wikipedia can have crap, which is why you need to check the sources it cites. You seem to be under the impression that everything on Wikipedia is crap. I disagree.

Ever notice one thing about the net ... something that Wicrapedia has not only embraced but which it emulates? Something King Obama wants to put an end to?

Any nutjob with a keyboard can edit it. It's not any more of a reliable source than say ... Fox news ... or worse, MSNBC.

 

[Meister]

Horseshit.

We spend money on marketing.

Most of the innovation comes from universities.

Innovations with government grants.
Geeze Chris....what are you smoking?

All Nobel Laureates in Medicine

I see you couldn't refute my post. I knew you couldn't.
Also, Government contracts with private industry. You can gnaw on that one awhile too, Chris. That should send you over the top.

 

[Care4all]

if we the tax payer pays 40% of the R&D costs then we should get a 40% discount on the invention or the drug....other countries should be paying more for it, not us paying more than them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Human being will always look for better technologies in Health Care. It would also seem to reason that the expenses of these new technologies would decrease over time. Health care seems to be the one area where this is not true.

Correction. Health care that is paid for by third-party coverage is an area where this is not true. And why should it be? The consumer isn't the person forking over the cash. But when you look at medical procedures where the patient is also the payer, you see that within a year of a new procedure or technology being developed, the price drops like a stone. Look at the difference between laser eye surgery when it first became available and now. Or lap band surgery for weight loss. Or any of a number of other procedures.

You hit on one of the points the CBO made in the link. Here it says that Medicare/Medicaid (third party systems) have also increased health care spending:

Changes in Third-Party Payment. More generous third-party payment—from the creation of Medicare and Medicaid and subsequent changes to these programs, for example—effectively reduced the average out-of-pocket cost of health care over the past several decades, leading to higher health care expenditures. As a share of all per capita spending on personal health care, consumers’ out-of-pocket costs have fallen sharply, from 52 percent in 1965 to 15 percent in 2005 (see Figure 6). Empirical analyses suggest that under an assumption of no change in medical technology, the expansion of insurance coverage can account for 10 percent to 13 percent of the long-term rise in health care spending (see Table 2). That expansion, in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.8

Well, it's not hard to figure out. If you're going to have to lay out $70-80 out of your own pocket every time you walk into the doctor's office - not to mention the cost of having the prescription filled afterward - you're only going to go when you're sick enough that relief of the discomfort is more important to you than the money is. But if it's not going to cost you anything, or just a nominal co-payment fee, you're going to be at the doctor's office every time you get a little congested or one of the kids coughs funny. And doctors have no incentive to lower their prices, because it has no effect either way on the amount of business they receive.