Open enrollment
11-03-2015 | 05:06 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: 320 FO
11-03-2015 | 05:17 AM
#32
Banned
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,655
Likes: 0
From: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
While those costs do add up, the very high costs are coming from long term illnesses where doctors pretty much have a duty to "throw everything at you".
From the beginning, when lots of unneeded tests are done to cover their negligent lawsuit check box, to the end where you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by several months (at best) in a painful state of existence. Steve Jobs succumbed and how much do you think he spent on his medical care? My guess is in the tens of millions, at that point you have nothing to lose, and you can't take it with you.
Technology has reduced the costs of almost every sector except the healthcare system in the US.
We need more of a "take charge" type mentality to healthcare where people shop around to truly reduce costs, it's just impossible to do, really. It's not like you can call around for a kidney transplant like you do a set of tires.
The overall increases over the past 16 years have been mostly linear (not exponential) and the ACA "Obama Care" act has done little to increase premiums on a % basis. BUT, everyone is quick to blame those of the other party who have actually done something that has helped Americans.
From the beginning, when lots of unneeded tests are done to cover their negligent lawsuit check box, to the end where you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by several months (at best) in a painful state of existence. Steve Jobs succumbed and how much do you think he spent on his medical care? My guess is in the tens of millions, at that point you have nothing to lose, and you can't take it with you.
Technology has reduced the costs of almost every sector except the healthcare system in the US.
We need more of a "take charge" type mentality to healthcare where people shop around to truly reduce costs, it's just impossible to do, really. It's not like you can call around for a kidney transplant like you do a set of tires.
The overall increases over the past 16 years have been mostly linear (not exponential) and the ACA "Obama Care" act has done little to increase premiums on a % basis. BUT, everyone is quick to blame those of the other party who have actually done something that has helped Americans.
11-03-2015 | 05:28 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 292
It was done this way because Obama wanted to compromise. Look where that gets you.
11-03-2015 | 08:28 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
While those costs do add up, the very high costs are coming from long term illnesses where doctors pretty much have a duty to "throw everything at you".
From the beginning, when lots of unneeded tests are done to cover their negligent lawsuit check box, to the end where you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by several months (at best) in a painful state of existence. Steve Jobs succumbed and how much do you think he spent on his medical care? My guess is in the tens of millions, at that point you have nothing to lose, and you can't take it with you.
Technology has reduced the costs of almost every sector except the healthcare system in the US.
We need more of a "take charge" type mentality to healthcare where people shop around to truly reduce costs, it's just impossible to do, really. It's not like you can call around for a kidney transplant like you do a set of tires.
The overall increases over the past 16 years have been mostly linear (not exponential) and the ACA "Obama Care" act has done little to increase premiums on a % basis. BUT, everyone is quick to blame those of the other party who have actually done something that has helped Americans.
From the beginning, when lots of unneeded tests are done to cover their negligent lawsuit check box, to the end where you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by several months (at best) in a painful state of existence. Steve Jobs succumbed and how much do you think he spent on his medical care? My guess is in the tens of millions, at that point you have nothing to lose, and you can't take it with you.
Technology has reduced the costs of almost every sector except the healthcare system in the US.
We need more of a "take charge" type mentality to healthcare where people shop around to truly reduce costs, it's just impossible to do, really. It's not like you can call around for a kidney transplant like you do a set of tires.
The overall increases over the past 16 years have been mostly linear (not exponential) and the ACA "Obama Care" act has done little to increase premiums on a % basis. BUT, everyone is quick to blame those of the other party who have actually done something that has helped Americans.
Nice Chart
11-03-2015 | 10:23 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 292
It's certainly easy to blame the fatties on our healthcare costs. But the reality is, the largest by far increases are in the long term illnesses. Spending on cancer alone is expected to double between 2010-2020, to almost $160 bil annually. You don't see obesity causing an increase anywhere near that, if anything it is linear with the increase in obesity in general.
There was a long term study done in Europe detailing the cost of smokers on their healthcare system. What they found was that up until the mid-50's, smokers greatly outspent their non-smoking counterparts. After that, the smokers quickly succumbed to their illnesses while the non-smokers developed expensive long term illnesses that overall pushed their spending above the smokers in the long term ($326,000 vs $417,000, respectively).
In fact, did you know a study was done here in the US showed for every pack of cigarettes smoked, there was a net savings of $0.32 on lowered costs for Medicare, social security, pensions, etc.
Pointing fingers at a select group of individuals without knowing the whole picture doesn't result in a correct "big picture" view, IMO.
There was a long term study done in Europe detailing the cost of smokers on their healthcare system. What they found was that up until the mid-50's, smokers greatly outspent their non-smoking counterparts. After that, the smokers quickly succumbed to their illnesses while the non-smokers developed expensive long term illnesses that overall pushed their spending above the smokers in the long term ($326,000 vs $417,000, respectively).
In fact, did you know a study was done here in the US showed for every pack of cigarettes smoked, there was a net savings of $0.32 on lowered costs for Medicare, social security, pensions, etc.
Pointing fingers at a select group of individuals without knowing the whole picture doesn't result in a correct "big picture" view, IMO.
11-03-2015 | 12:00 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: 320 FO
That claim was based on a single payer system. Unfortunately, republicans wanted this convoluted system we have now that didn't really do anything different than what we had before. To the dems credit we are covering 20-30 million more people with a lot more coverage in general than we had before (ie preexisting condition clauses), so that is nice.
It was done this way because Obama wanted to compromise. Look where that gets you.
It was done this way because Obama wanted to compromise. Look where that gets you.
11-03-2015 | 06:28 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 292
Directly from the Gov maybe, I'm not sure what that latest figure is. Remember the ACA allowed many people access to even private employer coverage who were previously not able to obtain coverage due to other issues.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
