Health Costs inflated by old, fat and stupid people.

[mindlight]

The three main drivers inflating health costs in Europe right now are an ageing, increasingly obese and culturally blinkered population.

1) OLD:-Old people are less of problem in themselves of course than the fact that they form an increasingly large % of the population. This is a problem cause they are no longer producing wealth but are among the largest consumers of health care. A more balanced population with more babies and immigrants would address part of this imbalance.

2) FAT:-Fat people will claim it is all in their genes which is of course 99% of the time complete baloney. If you eat the wrong foods in a higher abundance than you burn energy with exercise , work and general living you will get fat regardless of your genes. Most people in Europe and especially in the UK and USA are overweight. Fat people are statistically more likely to get ill , get cancer etc and are therefore a disproportionate drain on health care resources. We could probably deal with this by improving exercise options in schools, dietary understanding, taxes on sugar and other unhealthy things, or by making people whose illnesses are due to being overweight pay an extra amount for their health care as incentive to sort that out.

3) STUPID: Stupid people come in many forms. Sometimes a person is stupid simply cause they do not really care that aspirin are 10 times more expensive in Germany than in the UK and twice as expensive as in the USA for the simple reason that they have a headache! But paying doctors bonuses to perform unnecessary surgeries rather than penalising them for them for these also ranks as stupid. Allowing car fumes to poison generations of Germans because the car industry is simply too important a job and income provider is also stupid as the long term costs of a poisoned population with brain, lung damage etc has not been factored in. Not allowing a sugar tax or regulations to reduce the amount of sugar in soft drinks is also stupid as this is a major cause of obesity. But sometimes stupidity can seem to be the nicest part of a culture. I have often wondered why for instance there are 5 or more Apotheke (Pharmacies) on the high streets of even minor towns here in Germany. All this extra staffing and infrastructure obviously adds massively to costs. In the UK there are far fewer pharmacies , you can buy many of their products in supermarkets and costs are much lower. Also there is a certain amount of stupidity or weakness in the way that death is handled here in Germany and in much of the West. If you are Christian death is less scary than if you are an atheist for obvious reasons. When there is a 90% chance that all surgeries and drugs you could be given to save your life are not going to save you I wonder if it is plain stupid to allow a person to incur the costs on the health care system and on the families they leave behind anyway. An atheist friend of mine died last year for example of cancer having had just about every chemo and drug available. She could have died with more dignity and with her hair intact had death not been such a problem for her.

1) So what in your opinion can be done to reduce health care costs in Europe?

2)Does the principle of comprehensive health care mean that any drug or treatment regardless of expense should be potentially available for people who get ill?

3)If you think that comprehensive care needs to be moderated with some kind of guidelines then how should this be regulated , who makes the decisions about that and who enforces those decisions?

4)What are the biggest obstacles to effective health care today?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Get rid of socialism and the associated taxes, and let everyone pay his own money to obtain his own treatments?

 

[mindlight]

Get rid of socialism and the associated taxes, and let everyone pay his own money to obtain his own treatments?

As America demonstrates that is not very efficient. American health costs are twice Germanies overall without providing comprehensive care. Life expectancies are lower than Europes and outcomes massively unequal. Americas middle classes are especially threatened by the insecurity and uncertainty of poor health.

Fat people are also a major driver of costs in the USA.

Americans can be a different kind of stupid when it comes to health. Costs there are inflated by Big Pharma, political paralysis and ideological stupidity and an out of control legal culture for instance.

America does better regarding its growing population however although that is now threatened by immigration restrictions. So the burden of an older population may be a greater problem in the future.

I do not mind including American references in this thread as the focus is on what can be done to address the main drivers inflating health costs and the principle of comprehensive care which Americans resolve by arguing for preferential treatment for rich people. Basically you get what you can afford is the principle there.

 

[ananda]

Basically you get what you can afford is the principle there.

I'd amend that to say instead: "we get what we want/prefer, and what we can afford".

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

As America demonstrates that is not very efficient. American health costs are twice Germanies overall without providing comprehensive care. Life expectancies are lower than Europes and outcomes massively unequal. Americas middle classes are especially threatened by the insecurity and uncertainty of poor health.

I'd hardly use America today as an example of the free market (opposite of socialism), when its medical system and products are so tightly regulated. America is now in the early to mid stages of where socialism leads (hence the rising health costs). America 100 years ago would be a fairer example of what the free market can produce.

 

[mindlight]

I'd amend that to say instead: "we get what we want/prefer, and what we can afford".

If you cannot afford the payments for treatments or insurance it does not matter what you want. Since the individual pays it comes down to what he can afford. So there is no comprehensive care and your ability to pay is the key factor.

 

[mindlight]

I'd hardly use America today as an example of the free market (opposite of socialism), when its medical system and products are so tightly regulated. America is now in the early to mid stages of where socialism leads (hence the rising health costs). America 100 years ago would be a fairer example of what the free market can produce.

There have to be regulations to avoid mal practice, killer drugs and treatments, to ensure standards. 100 years ago the poor died young and the rich died soon after having spent more. The free market does not work here. The profit motive of insurance companies, big pharma, inflated doctor salaries, greedy lawyers, hospitals run as companies just inflates costs

 

[mmksparbud]

One day--you will be at the top of your own list.

 

[mama2one]

One day--you will be at the top of your own list.

old, fat, and stupid

my guess is the OP is very frustrated with health care costs and I wish there was a solution

recently visited my parents and while I was in another room, heard them discussing that very thing and how a lot of their medical costs are not covered
my mom has told my dad not to get his meds because they can't afford it (they can but think she's frustrated with costs, also)

yes, he is older but he's so skinny now and has Parkinsons and something with his heart so my guess is he does need his meds

sadly many older people (not my parents) must choose between food and their meds.....very sad situation and somehow needs solved

 

[mindlight]

One day--you will be at the top of your own list.

I cannot control old but maybe fat and stupid are within the realm of choice.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

There have to be regulations to avoid mal practice, killer drugs and treatments, to ensure standards. 100 years ago the poor died young and the rich died soon after having spent more. The free market does not work here. The profit motive of insurance companies, big pharma, inflated doctor salaries, greedy lawyers, hospitals run as companies just inflates costs

At least if people die from mal-practice, killer drugs and treatments, this is by the people's own choice and/or lack of research, and the legal process exists to provide justice if due to greed or malice. At present, people are dying due to an inability to afford health care (due to regulatory created shortages), unaffordable medication and treatments. This is a far worse situation, as the people have no control over it (the opposite of freedom).

The free market always works better than tyranny - it just relies on people using the brains and resources God gave them, rather than relying on government to do this for them.

 

[mindlight]

old, fat, and stupid

my guess is the OP is very frustrated with health care costs and I wish there was a solution

Actually the cost of care here in Germany is quite manageable. My family have been quite heavy consumers of the service but we have been impressed by the standards of care. But what bothers me is that the trends are for ever higher health costs and taxes to support these. It is not a sustainable pattern in the long run and it needs to be resolved.

recently visited my parents and while I was in another room, heard them discussing that very thing and how a lot of their medical costs are not covered
my mom has told my dad not to get his meds because they can't afford it (they can but think she's frustrated with costs, also)

Exactly that is the issue with the American system. If you cannot afford it you end up with these kinds of impossible choices. It is why I cannot take the pure free market option seriously. Health and sickness are part manageable e.g. weight, clever choices and part a lottery. Noone knows who will end up drawing the short straw so everyone needs to cover each other.

yes, he is older but he's so skinny now and has Parkinsons and something with his heart so my guess is he does need his meds

sadly many older people (not my parents) must choose between food and their meds.....very sad situation and somehow needs solved

Completely agree with this.

 

[mindlight]

At least if people die from mal-practice, killer drugs and treatments, this is by the people's own choice and/or lack of research, and the legal process exists to provide justice if due to greed or malice. At present, people are dying due to an inability to afford health care (due to regulatory created shortages), unaffordable medication and treatments. This is a far worse situation, as the people have no control over it (the opposite of freedom).

The free market always works better than tyranny - it just relies on people using the brains and resources God gave them, rather than relying on government to do this for them.

I think your posts must be ideologically motivated cause a number of key things you said have no relationship with reality.

1) Untested drugs like Thalidomide in the 60s / 70s for instance can cripple people for life but the people who took that drug believed that it would turn their kids into geniuses which seemed like a reasonable choice at the time. Regulation means that drugs like that are simply not available now.

2) When we had the state of affairs you advocate for now standards were a lottery, people died decades earlier than today and only rich people could afford the good doctors.

3) In Europe we have proper health care for all with a mix of public and private provision at half the cost of in the American system. But you are trying to suggest that state provision is the problem in the USA. In fact as I said in my first response to your posts there are multiple issues with Big Pharma companies, insurance companies, a failure to reform cost structures, a massive growth in demand due to age and obesity, over inflated doctors salaries accompanied by restrictions on who can become a doctor, a legal culture that requires insurance costs be even higher than they already are to name but a few. You are trying to make an ideological point about the supremacy of the free market here but the real problem is the kind of cooperation between public and private that works in Europe is failing miserably in the USA. So costs are double and life expectancy is lower and there are massive inequalities in outcomes and provision which depend on income.

4) In practice monopolies, unregulated abuse and restrictive professional arrangements and standards have been a feature of all "free markets". In practice a combination of market and state is required to produce ideal results. This is the case in the 4 best examples of health care in major economies in the world : Japan, France, Germany and the UK

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I think your posts must be ideologically motivated cause a number of key things you said have no relationship with reality.

1) Untested drugs like Thalidomide in the 60s / 70s for instance can cripple people for life but the people who took that drug believed that it would turn their kids into geniuses which seemed like a reasonable choice at the time. Regulation means that drugs like that are simply not available now.

Drugs today are still doing similar damage. Vaccines? Regulation does nothing for drug safety. Don't do drugs, is the safest drug advice. When people don't or won't heed this advice, the result is not unexpected.

2) When we had the state of affairs you advocate for now standards were a lottery, people died decades earlier than today and only rich people could afford the good doctors.

I don't believe it. You can fudge the figures to get the result you want.

3) In Europe we have proper health care for all with a mix of public and private provision at half the cost of in the American system. But you are trying to suggest that state provision is the problem in the USA. In fact as I said in my first response to your posts there are multiple issues with Big Pharma companies, insurance companies, a failure to reform cost structures, a massive growth in demand due to age and obesity, over inflated doctors salaries accompanied by restrictions on who can become a doctor, a legal culture that requires insurance costs be even higher than they already are to name but a few. You are trying to make an ideological point about the supremacy of the free market here but the real problem is the kind of cooperation between public and private that works in Europe is failing miserably in the USA. So costs are double and life expectancy is lower and there are massive inequalities in outcomes and provision which depend on income.

The costs in Europe are still too high. The state cannot care for the individual.

4) In practice monopolies, unregulated abuse and restrictive professional arrangements and standards have been a feature of all "free markets". In practice a combination of market and state is required to produce ideal results. This is the case in the 4 best examples of health care in major economies in the world : Japan, France, Germany and the UK

State health care will always ultimately fail, as people are greedy, and the state is unconcerned with the individual. This is irrespective of whether the hard work of a large number of honest and dedicated people has made any particular state successful for a short period (i.e. a decade or two).

 

[mmksparbud]

Several years ago I was at a doctors office. This woman was there for her sick baby---the office visit was $75 which would leave her with no food or medicine money---nothing anybody could do---I paid the doctor bill, tried to do it without her knowing who did it, but the she demanded to know who paid it and the office girl told. She thanked me profusely I said, thank God, for He insisted I do so. She went off with tears of joy for she could now feed her baby and give it medicine. She was not fat, old, or stupid.

 

[mmksparbud]

I cannot control old but maybe fat and stupid are within the realm of choice.

Stupid?---what Adam and Eve did was not smart. Fat---

Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.
Psa 22:29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

Psa 92:13 Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God.
Psa_92:14 They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing;

Pro_28:25 He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the LORD shall be made fat.

Not that I am endorsing it---just having a little fun. You sound a little judgmental.

 

[ananda]

If you cannot afford the payments for treatments or insurance it does not matter what you want. Since the individual pays it comes down to what he can afford. So there is no comprehensive care and your ability to pay is the key factor.

Yes, and the so-called "health care" system itself - supporting an army of intermediaries, administrators, regulators - along with the way it separates supply from demand - has clearly driven up costs.

 

[mindlight]

Drugs today are still doing similar damage. Vaccines? Regulation does nothing for drug safety. Don't do drugs, is the safest drug advice. When people don't or won't heed this advice, the result is not unexpected.

Personally I agree that taking drugs should be a last resort for the sake of your own long term immune system. So recently for instance I had a cough that lasted 5 weeks which I could of gotten rid of with antibiotics in a couple of days. But the longer period means it was genuinely my body that beat the thing.

The introduction of penicillin etc clearly saved millions of lives as did the small pox vaccine. whether or not the latest new drugs which are more specialised have been as effective despite their great expense is a more open discussion. But see here:

Frank R. Lichtenberg - Yes, New Drugs Save Lives

I don't believe it. You can fudge the figures to get the result you want.

Historical statistics show a massive increase in life expectancy with state supported health care. regional statistics e.g. comparing Hawaii and Mississippi show that the provision of health care is a factor in life expectancy. Can you show me one example of a free market system that cares for poor people?

The costs in Europe are still too high. The state cannot care for the individual.

The costs in Europe are HALF those in America. The public private partnership here does need improvement , hence the OP, but America is not in Europes league when it comes to health care. Unless that is you are rich in which case there is no difference.

State health care will always ultimately fail, as people are greedy, and the state is unconcerned with the individual. This is irrespective of whether the hard work of a large number of honest and dedicated people has made any particular state successful for a short period (i.e. a decade or two).

State health care is a moderating factor on peoples greed and selfishness. Maybe some countries have a better tradition of public service though. The British health service is 70+ years old and the European ones only slightly younger and as I said have better outcomes, provide comprehensive care and for half the cost of the American system. You have come on to this thread to preach an alternative that does not work but which most Americans cling to anyway as all they have. There is a better alternative out there. Improving that better alternative was the real objective of this thread. America has not really yet joined the civilised world when it comes to health care.

 

[mindlight]

Stupid?---what Adam and Eve did was not smart. Fat---

Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.
Psa 22:29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

Psa 92:13 Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God.
Psa_92:14 They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing;

Pro_28:25 He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the LORD shall be made fat.

Not that I am endorsing it---just having a little fun. You sound a little judgmental.

The title is meant to be a little provocative. In practice as with everything there are things that can be controlled and things that can not. The European health care system suffers because of demographic imbalances, the obesity crisis and because of some stupid hangups. But the principle that sickness is a lottery and that we should all chip in to care to each other is a sound one and is an advantage of the European systems over the American one for instance.

Think it comes down to what you mean by fat regarding the verses. The levels of fatness were lower in those times so nicely covered might be a better description. See below for instance:


Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Cor 6:19-20

Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.
Prov 23:20-21

 

[mindlight]

Yes, and the so-called "health care" system itself - supporting an army of intermediaries, administrators, regulators - along with the way it separates supply from demand - has clearly driven up costs.

A loss of standards would result in different less acceptable costs. So you need a bureaucracy and administration to organise a system of health care. There are also economies of scale in such a model and with standardisation. But there are continual questions to be made about administrative decisions and system plans and what can be done to improve them. Clearly the clearer structures and organisation of the European health care systems compare very favourably with the chaos in the American system which duplicates programmes in the name of choice and free market competition and whose base inefficiency costs twice as much.