The Main Reason for the Increases in Health Care Costs

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Are we even counting pharmaceutical advancements as technology, or is that completely separate? Because if it is, that's a whole 'nother avenue of increasing expenditures brought on by medical advancements. And I believe I read somewhere that medication makes up all by itself an enormous proportion of the money spent on health care in this country.

 

[Care4all]

well, companies are choosing these NEW insurance plans, CSA's i think they are called, but i would have to double check, where there are no longer minimal copays and minimal out of pocket expense, but it pays 80% of the cost and you have to pay 20% of the cost until you pay an additional (to the premium costs), $2500 or $5000 out of pocket...before the plan comes in for 100% payment.

This is supposedly to make the customer feel the pain....basically as you described, so to curb visits to the doctor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

So we need the government to force us to live a healthy lifestyle? Just like Bawney Fwanks?

It's crap, anyway. Health is NOT just about lifestyle, unless you think people who eat granola and jog all the time never have accidents, never contract diseases, never have body parts wear out, and never have genetically-related illnesses. Hell, my mother-in-law lived on steamed fish, rice, and vegetables. Never ate anything else. She still had diabetes and murderously high cholesterol that was barely contained with her diet and a slew of medications.

 

[johnrocks]

I would say government mandates/intervention and third parties paying for everything from a runny nose to brain surgery is what has caused the bulk of the increase, if anything, technology should reduce the costs long term I would think.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I know a girl who's been a vegetarian since she was born. Damn near vegan, but not quite. Her stomach doesn't even have the enzymes needed to digest meat products, and it would send her to the hospital if she did. I, on the other hand, am a proud and happy omnivore. (And by the way, I'm 16 years older than she is.) This year, I've been sick once. I had a cold for a week. She's been sick four or five times, at least once that required a trip to Urgent Care. So much for lifestyle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Most innovations do NOT come from universities, and even those that do are not wholly, or even mostly, funded by the government. University does not automatically equal government. In fact, the people at universities doing medical research are getting funding from a myriad of private interests. I once worked as an admin assistant for a PhD in the biology department of the U of A who was trying to develop a pill that would give you a tan without having to be out in the sun. The government was not interested in this line of inquiry, and all of his research funding was coming from cosmetic companies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would say government mandates/intervention and third parties paying for everything from a runny nose to brain surgery is what has caused the bulk of the increase, if anything, technology should reduce the costs long term I would think.

Depends on the technology. I mean, improvements in technology and mechanically-assisted surgery have dropped the price in laser eye surgery, for example, but on the other hand, improvements in diagnostic technologies means you can spend a whole shitload of money just finding out what's wrong with you before the doctors ever do anything.

 

[Christopher]

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.

I completely understand what you are saying and like I said, I know there can be crap on Wikipedia. I still find it a useful tool for getting a summary about a particular topic. If the topic I am reading does not have reliable sources cited, then yes I would not trust it either. However, there are many topics provided on Wikipedia that have good, credible sources which back up the information given.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

I completely understand what you are saying and like I said, I know there can be crap on Wikipedia. I still find it a useful tool for getting a summary about a particular topic. If the topic I am reading does not have reliable sources cited, then yes I would not trust it either. However, there are many topics provided on Wikipedia that have good, credible sources which back up the information given.

Notice I included the whole internet ... for a good reason. Wicrapedia is just a hub ... sources are still opinion based anyway ... so you will only trust sources that agree with your opinion no matter how "reliable" they are.

 

[mdn2000]

Universal health care has worked everywhere? Yes, everywhere that imports medical technology and drugs invented in the USA. Not one country has implimented universal health care without being dependent on the technology and research developed by the the USA's capitalist medical system. We have given and sold our advancements, we have educated their doctors. The fact of history is the whole world has benifited from the medical profession, the hospitals, our universities, and our drugs. All developed under the USA's capitalist medical system.

 

[Chris]

Universal health care has worked everywhere? Yes, everywhere that imports medical technology and drugs invented in the USA. Not one country has implimented universal health care without being dependent on the technology and research developed by the the USA's capitalist medical system. We have given and sold our advancements, we have educated their doctors. The fact of history is the whole world has benifited from the medical profession, the hospitals, our universities, and our drugs. All developed under the USA's capitalist medical system.

Horseshit.

Most of the innovations have come from universities.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would say government mandates/intervention and third parties paying for everything from a runny nose to brain surgery is what has caused the bulk of the increase, if anything, technology should reduce the costs long term I would think.

And it combines with the fact that our population is aging. Seniors are the biggest consumers of health care, and 95% of them are on Medicare, with a goodly portion also getting Medicaid.

 

[mdn2000]

Universal health care has worked everywhere? Yes, everywhere that imports medical technology and drugs invented in the USA. Not one country has implimented universal health care without being dependent on the technology and research developed by the the USA's capitalist medical system. We have given and sold our advancements, we have educated their doctors. The fact of history is the whole world has benifited from the medical profession, the hospitals, our universities, and our drugs. All developed under the USA's capitalist medical system.

Horseshit.

Most of the innovations have come from universities.

All Nobel Laureates in Medicine

thats in my post dumb ass, universities started by capitalist like John D. Rockefeller, the capitalist Rockefeller exported tons of drugs and got rid of disease on a scale never before seen or attempted. Literally Rockefeller cured blindness for millions. Rockfeller started one of the greatest medical universities in the world.

Your right Chris, most of the innovations have come from universties given billions of dollars by capitalists in a republic, the good Old USA.

 

[KittenKoder]

Universal health care has worked everywhere? Yes, everywhere that imports medical technology and drugs invented in the USA. Not one country has implimented universal health care without being dependent on the technology and research developed by the the USA's capitalist medical system. We have given and sold our advancements, we have educated their doctors. The fact of history is the whole world has benifited from the medical profession, the hospitals, our universities, and our drugs. All developed under the USA's capitalist medical system.

Sorry MDN, but I have to call bullshit on that to. Not because I like Chris' stance (I oppose government run shit) but simply because ... India. They have made many strides in medical science and, as I understand it, have "universal healthcare" ... as for how successful they are with that healthcare, I have no idea now.

 

[mdn2000]

Universal health care has worked everywhere? Yes, everywhere that imports medical technology and drugs invented in the USA. Not one country has implimented universal health care without being dependent on the technology and research developed by the the USA's capitalist medical system. We have given and sold our advancements, we have educated their doctors. The fact of history is the whole world has benifited from the medical profession, the hospitals, our universities, and our drugs. All developed under the USA's capitalist medical system.

Sorry MDN, but I have to call bullshit on that to. Not because I like Chris' stance (I oppose government run shit) but simply because ... India. They have made many strides in medical science and, as I understand it, have "universal healthcare" ... as for how successful they are with that healthcare, I have no idea now.

India, we have many doctors from India that get their education at our universities.

My idea of providing healthcare for everyone would be to bring heavy industry back to the USA, create a 100 million new jobs, tort reform, malpractice insurance reform, look at why medical equipment costs 10x's the cost of non-medical equipment, I sat with a young doctor at the New Jersey airport and asked him what he thought the problem with healthcare was and his response is they pay 11,000 dollars for a monitor that is the same as a television except the medical monitor had a couple of extra connectors. This young doctor was sincere, very impressive man, I overheard him on the phone detailing the symptons and conditions of three patients to another doctor that was filling in for him. This man cited 20 minutes of details off the top of his head, I complimented the young doctor on his memory and he stated this was nothing, it was only three patients, usually he has 6 patients or more and must remember every detail.

we have great medical care in the USA, it needs fixing, anytime people can make money some will get greedy. Greed is fed by money, greed is also fed by power, be a politician for life disconnects politicians from reality, not all but way too many, the government is screwing up healthcare with thousands of rules and regulations the medical profession must follow.

its the governments interference that is the problem, both parties, democrats and republicans are taking control and have been taking control of healthcare for decades now.

I have to deal with the government all the time, in work and in my personal life, the government has personally screwed me over. Again and again, I hate the government bueracrats, they are costing me personally thousands of dollars.

if we dont take the power away from the career politicians this country is dead and all that live here will suffer, suffer the physical pain of hunger, famine, disease, we must stop congress, both political parties. I think its moronic to beleive the republicans will now save the day, we need to end their political careers, one term in congress, one term as president or vice president, no retirement, no control over taxes, no million dollar marketing campaigns to get elected, no control over increasing spending, no, no, no, no,

A word the politicians do not understand.

 

[KittenKoder]

Universal health care has worked everywhere? Yes, everywhere that imports medical technology and drugs invented in the USA. Not one country has implimented universal health care without being dependent on the technology and research developed by the the USA's capitalist medical system. We have given and sold our advancements, we have educated their doctors. The fact of history is the whole world has benifited from the medical profession, the hospitals, our universities, and our drugs. All developed under the USA's capitalist medical system.

Sorry MDN, but I have to call bullshit on that to. Not because I like Chris' stance (I oppose government run shit) but simply because ... India. They have made many strides in medical science and, as I understand it, have "universal healthcare" ... as for how successful they are with that healthcare, I have no idea now.

You dont have to apologize, damn, you called bullshit, oh well, I guess no one can argue with that. I was hoping to call bullshit first but I guess I was a bit slow.

There you have it folks, KittenKodder called bullshit, India provides the best health care in the world and they did it with zero help, your savvy in debate kittenkoder is uncanny.

If they debate based on your delusion of what you believe I posted ... it won't be much of a debate, since I said I have no idea about how good their health care is, only that they are innovating and responsible for a lot of advances in medical science ... go back and actually read what I posted next time, doing otherwise makes you look like ... well a kid.

 

[Christopher]

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.

I completely understand what you are saying and like I said, I know there can be crap on Wikipedia. I still find it a useful tool for getting a summary about a particular topic. If the topic I am reading does not have reliable sources cited, then yes I would not trust it either. However, there are many topics provided on Wikipedia that have good, credible sources which back up the information given.

Notice I included the whole internet ... for a good reason. Wicrapedia is just a hub ... sources are still opinion based anyway ... so you will only trust sources that agree with your opinion no matter how "reliable" they are.

Here is Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources:

Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

I always check the sources from Wiki, and look at other reliable sources which base their information on facts to confirm the information.

 

[KittenKoder]

I completely understand what you are saying and like I said, I know there can be crap on Wikipedia. I still find it a useful tool for getting a summary about a particular topic. If the topic I am reading does not have reliable sources cited, then yes I would not trust it either. However, there are many topics provided on Wikipedia that have good, credible sources which back up the information given.

Notice I included the whole internet ... for a good reason. Wicrapedia is just a hub ... sources are still opinion based anyway ... so you will only trust sources that agree with your opinion no matter how "reliable" they are.

Here is Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources:

Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

I always check the sources from Wiki, and look at other reliable sources which base their information on facts to confirm the information.

Gut ... splitting ... open!



Using the source as proof of the source's reliability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh damn! This shit is too funny ... I need some serious valium ... can't ... stop ... laughing!

Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it ... especially online. That's like Fox saying they're "honest" or CBS saying they're "fair and balanced" ... seriously, it's not smart by any measure or spin. But ... at least now I know what level of intellectual absence I am dealing with ... complete and total.

 

[Contumacious]

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.

That is a bullshit report. The author knows or should have known what caused the costs of healthcare to go up dramatically:


MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

.

 

[KittenKoder]

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.

That is a bullshit report. The author knows or should have known what caused the costs of healthcare to go up dramatically:


MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

.

Calling bullshit, then posting bullshit ... not boding well for you yet.