chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Some interesting stats on healthcare here |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Why wasn't the cost of an MRI compared? The patent on Lipitor just expired last year. Pfizer, an American pharmaceutical company invented lipitor. Has Pfizer been selling Lipitor to other countries for a bargain price? Or, do the government's of other countries subsidize the cost? In which case, the US isn't paying more for Lipitor than anyone else. If countries are paying less for brand name pharmaceuticals, why is this the case? Is it because you can't afford to pay the actual cost of medication (which has steep R&D costs)? Where is the majority of pharmaceutical research conducted? How do other countries report infant mortality? Meaning, does every single country on earth document and report infant mortality in the same way that the United States does? Anyone who knows anything about other cultures knows the answer to this question. Which makes the infant mortality statistic meaningless. If you go to the CIA factbook, which is undoubtably where this stat came from, you will see a notation about this. Those are just the first things that came to mind when glancing at the link posted above. |
||
|
tat I can tell you that the price of Lipitor is comparable with the US here in Australia since the patent expired. Previously it was part of government controlled pricing. R & D in the medical and pharmaceutical field is not exclusively American. "...What kind of CT scanners are used in the countries mentioned in the chart comparing cost of medical procedures across various nations? How old are they, and who made them?..." Is this relevant, American equipment is not listed either! "...Why wasn't the cost of an MRI compared?..." Costs of MRI's are dependent on what is being imaged (I would imagine it is the same in the US). On average between A$750 - A$2,500 for an MRI here is Australia. In France they are 'up to' US$750. The medical costs related to a having a heart attack are far higher in the US than here. Is there any particular reason why? |
||
|
Costs in the aggregate are largely driven up by end of life care in this country. Most of this is cultural in nature - we don't stop when we should, and treat too many condition for too long, like fourth and fifth line chemotherapies for cancers. Life expectancies in this country were also lower as most of our diseases are really lifestyle related and we've been rich enough that even the poor are fat. Hell, we might be the only country in the world where our poor are fat. Obesity used to be a phenomenon of the wealthy because most people couldn't afford that much food, but over the last many decades Americans, even poor Americans, have been able to afford to eat to they were full on three meals a day, increasing caloric needs beyond what was needed, and thereby leading to obesity. From there, the problems "steam-roll" --> dyslipdemia, diabetes, metabolic syndromes, hypertension, strokes, and heart attacks - all occurring under the physical de-conditioning that happens when you put on weight and can't move as well. To top this off, we are being poisoned by our environment and the garbage they put in the food - the insecticides, the herbicides, the antibiotics and hormones to the food animals, the preservatives, the high fructose corn syrup, the GMO corn and soy beans, the artificial sweeteners, the fluoride (and other contaminants) in the water system . . . I could go on . . . put all this together with the fact that the REAL nutrition in our food has gone to the point where food is really "food-like" - looks like food, tastes like food, smells like food, but lacks any redeeming nutritional content to be actual food - and we've lost our natural evolved (or God given) abilities to repair our bodies, fend of diseases, recycle and or remove the occasional toxin - we're starving despite the fact that we're putting calories into our bodies, calories that lead to obesity, but a paucity of nutrients that lead the body to continue to go in search of food . . . it's really a perfect storm . . . our predecessors really didn't eat that much "better" when it comes to macro-nutrient categories like fats, proteins, and sugars . . . so what, then, is the difference? Well, I've outlined them above. We have a system that is set up to make us sick and keep us sick, but not sick enough that we die, but sick enough that we need their expensive synthetic drugs to stay alive and manage our illness. It makes me sick. And before anyone misunderstands, I'm not against allopathic (MD) medicine - there is a time and place for life saving surgery, antibiotics, critical treatments for the deathly ill, etc., but most of our problems are lifestyle and nutritional in nature exacerbated by the toxic environment, and we could be doing much to "treat" ourselves by avoiding toxins (as much as is possible), staying active, and consuming a real nutrition food or supplementation. |
||
|
JDH |
||
|
Okay healthland.time.com |
||
|
dmaestro 03-Mar-13, 23:00 |
|
||
|
That people have been made chronically ill through an environment of toxins and have bought into the idea that they have to remain sick and on pharmaceutical? Of course that is a is big cost driver. Though the bottom line is that other socialist countries can keep their systems cheaper because we spend more money on drug company drugs than anywhere else. As far as charging too much for tests, medical bills, etc. - yes it's generally quite crazy and I have no good idea how to fix that *effectively*. I just work there. You could probably save the entire system money by "socializing" the system, but would also as a necessity have to start requiring a certain "allocation of resources" aka "rationing care" that American probably wouldn't tolerate at baseline at the best and could further be used as a political tool into the future - no play, no care. That's the deal with the socialized medicine devil. And the rich will still buy the best care anywhere at any time - probably in China, Brazil, or India . . . maybe Mayo Clinic will move to Rio? Also, I think changing the medical-legal liability to be more protective and supportive of physician decisions would also do a lot to drive down costs, especially lab and imaging costs - in that we simply wouldn't get as many, and people wouldn't be billed as much. For any given sign or symptom there are probably a couple of diagnoses that are the MOST likely, but a few that are more uncommon, or even seriously rare, and because most of us don't like getting our asses sued off for "missing" something, we have to check it all. I'd advise, just like the justice system, try not to get tangled up with the medical system if possible, by staying HEALTHY. The entire system is incentivized by people being chronically ill. Eat right with proper nutrition, get plenty of sleep, avoid the toxin in the environment, exercise, and keep a healthy weight. Don't ever come and see me. Starve the beast!! |
||
|
|
||
|
Consider what we're asking for. |
||
|
That might be reasonable for some of the countries listed, but public health care systems have huge budgets and can afford new working models. All the one's I have seen here when I was calibrating them in hospitals were less than two years old and made by Siemans or GE. The difference is that the hospital recoups the cost by charging and making a profit, the government by taxing and making no profit (in theory anyway, I accept it's a little more complicated than that!). <<Why wasn't the cost of an MRI compared?>> I don't see why this is relevant but MRI systems are commonplace here too, and the start up costs are comparable to that of CT (although the running costs are higher IIRC, because occasionally the supercooled helium is replaced if there is a fault or emergency, which is expensive stuff!) <<Has Pfizer been selling Lipitor to other countries for a bargain price? Or, do the government's of other countries subsidize the cost?>> Depends what exactly has been measured, but in general our healthcare system negotiates a price as a whole. So cheaper might simply be a result of economies of scale. <<If countries are paying less for brand name pharmaceuticals, why is this the case? Is it because you can't afford to pay the actual cost of medication (which has steep R&D costs)?>> For developed countries that's not true. There are several countries that are wealthier per capita than the US, and in any case why would any company sell drugs for less money than they cost to make? <<How do other countries report infant mortality? Meaning, does every single country on earth document and report infant mortality in the same way that the United States does?>> This is reasonable for some of the countries higher in the list. I struggle to believe that a baby is better off born in Croatia than the US. However, most of the countries that outperform the US in this statistic are developed democracies with a high degree of accountability. I'm not sure you can dismiss all of those as ''well we obviously keep better stats''. Why would the US necessarily do so better than say, France or Germany? |
||
|
... who must play the role to decide what is "minimum care" for those who may not have enough assets to pay for necessary procedures that are not provided within whatever system is in place? |
Log in 
