Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Healthcare Healthcare Forum - For topics and discussions about health care, health policies, and health care systems


Thanks Tree76Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 2nd, 2017, 09:14 AM   #121
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Actually, nearly half of healthcare costs are incurred in the first two weeks of life and the last two weeks of life.

You could save a lot of money there....
Well, that's a little simplistic! The full story is much more nuanced, and shows why healthcare spending MUST remain a shared cost and shared benefit for any sane, healthy society:

Overall
In general, the analysis shows that health care costs increase by age with the exception of the very youngest ages. Costs, on average, are very high in the first year or two of birth and drop significantly by age five. At that point, costs increase modestly through the teen years. Female costs then begin to accelerate more quickly during child-bearing ages and flatten out in the 40s before increasing again. Male costs are relatively flat in the 20s and begin to accelerate after age 30, but remain lower on a per person basis than females in the same age group. The “cross-over age” occurs in the early 60s, when per capita spending for males exceeds that for females. Medicare costs (excluding private and Medicaid-financed long-term care) for beneficiaries age 65 and older continue to increase with age. Males continue to have higher costs than females for whom per person costs start to decline around age 90.

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/f...ve-Study_0.pdf


And how do you propose to save costs? Close hospital maternity wards and mandatory euthanasia for everyone with a terminal illness?
right to left is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2017, 09:43 AM   #122
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
There are many reasons to call into question the optimistic futurist prediction of life spans increasing (it's not! cause of our genetic programming to expire if we manage to live much past 100) and I'll go out on my limb and challenge predictions that life expectancies will also keep increasing; because the factors that have raised average age in modern times have been first-to distort and drive down life expectancy numbers in the past..especially the more distant past, such as during the Bronze Age, by adding in higher infant mortality numbers, death from contagious diseases prior to introduction of antibiotics and higher death tolls from self-inflicted causes like cigarettes.

When it comes to the here and now, as population changes over and younger generations come of age, we are going to see greater effects from lifestyle diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes etc.. That will stop the rise in life expectancy, but even if it plateaus, it means older people are being kept alive through their sicknesses and poor health and have fewer well years after retirement than before.

Note the following rosy future scenario from Oxford Press showing need for long-term care rising 2.5 to 3 times faster than their expected aging population still projects more living beyond 85:


). Between 2000 and 2050, the number of older people is projected to increase by 135%. Moreover, the population aged 85 and over, which is the group most likely to need health and long-term care services, is projected to increase by 350%. Over this time period, the proportion of the population that is over the age of 65 will increase from 12.7% in 2000 to 20.3% in 2050; the proportion of the population that is age 85 and older will increase from 1.6% in 2000 to 4.8% in 2050.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article...tes-of-America

So, that aging population will be much sicker than before, but still continue living longer? Better hope that isn't true!
Until my mother had to move into a nursing home after breaking her hip five years ago, I had never spent much time in nursing homes. What stands out to me when I go there to visit her is how much younger the majority of patients are and the numbers who have some type of dementia-related illnesses.
At some point, longevity as a goal in itself, becomes costly and will create more and more people who have virtually no quality of life...but judging from the constant increases in demand for nursing care, that seems to be the wave of the future!
right to left is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2017, 10:12 AM   #123
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
There are many reasons to call into question the optimistic futurist prediction of life spans increasing (it's not! cause of our genetic programming to expire if we manage to live much past 100) and I'll go out on my limb and challenge predictions that life expectancies will also keep increasing; because the factors that have raised average age in modern times have been first-to distort and drive down life expectancy numbers in the past..especially the more distant past, such as during the Bronze Age, by adding in higher infant mortality numbers, death from contagious diseases prior to introduction of antibiotics and higher death tolls from self-inflicted causes like cigarettes.

When it comes to the here and now, as population changes over and younger generations come of age, we are going to see greater effects from lifestyle diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes etc.. That will stop the rise in life expectancy, but even if it plateaus, it means older people are being kept alive through their sicknesses and poor health and have fewer well years after retirement than before.

Note the following rosy future scenario from Oxford Press showing need for long-term care rising 2.5 to 3 times faster than their expected aging population still projects more living beyond 85:


). Between 2000 and 2050, the number of older people is projected to increase by 135%. Moreover, the population aged 85 and over, which is the group most likely to need health and long-term care services, is projected to increase by 350%. Over this time period, the proportion of the population that is over the age of 65 will increase from 12.7% in 2000 to 20.3% in 2050; the proportion of the population that is age 85 and older will increase from 1.6% in 2000 to 4.8% in 2050.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article...tes-of-America

So, that aging population will be much sicker than before, but still continue living longer? Better hope that isn't true!
Until my mother had to move into a nursing home after breaking her hip five years ago, I had never spent much time in nursing homes. What stands out to me when I go there to visit her is how much younger the majority of patients are and the numbers who have some type of dementia-related illnesses.
At some point, longevity as a goal in itself, becomes costly and will create more and more people who have virtually no quality of life...but judging from the constant increases in demand for nursing care, that seems to be the wave of the future!
The point being made there isn't so much that barring other issues lifespan will greatly increase, it is that with improved knowledge, medical technology and safety standards, fewer people die "before their time". Combining this with a lower birthrate causes the "beehive" shaped age distribution graph.

That is a higher elderly/young ratio. And therefore increasing geriatric healthcare costs being supported by a smaller base of taxpayers.
RNG is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2017, 10:46 AM   #124
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Well, that's a little simplistic! The full story is much more nuanced, and shows why healthcare spending MUST remain a shared cost and shared benefit for any sane, healthy society:

Overall
In general, the analysis shows that health care costs increase by age with the exception of the very youngest ages. Costs, on average, are very high in the first year or two of birth and drop significantly by age five. At that point, costs increase modestly through the teen years. Female costs then begin to accelerate more quickly during child-bearing ages and flatten out in the 40s before increasing again. Male costs are relatively flat in the 20s and begin to accelerate after age 30, but remain lower on a per person basis than females in the same age group. The “cross-over age” occurs in the early 60s, when per capita spending for males exceeds that for females. Medicare costs (excluding private and Medicaid-financed long-term care) for beneficiaries age 65 and older continue to increase with age. Males continue to have higher costs than females for whom per person costs start to decline around age 90.

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/f...ve-Study_0.pdf


And how do you propose to save costs? Close hospital maternity wards and mandatory euthanasia for everyone with a terminal illness?
Why does everyone go for dramatic effect?
We spend a huge amount on premature babies, now a little premature, they need a little extra care.
But there is a point where what we do costs a huge amount and most of them die anyway, and those that survive, have increased medical costs their entire life. I'm just pointing out that there is a place to save money.
In the last few weeks of life, heroic measures can extend vital signs almost indefinitely, at huge expense, yet the patient is mostly completely unaware, they derive no pleasure from that extra couple of weeks, but they do run up a six figure medical bill.
If you have no problem with the cost of health care, then clamor for more heroic measures, if you think we need to spend less or to spend it differently, because at the same time we spend $300,000 to keep a 96 year old man "alive" for an extra two weeks, we have children going untreated.
goober is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2017, 03:23 AM   #125
Senior Member
 
iolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhondda
Posts: 1,869
Face it, goober, what you are paying is the enormous cost of selfishness. Decent, human systems cost far less.
Thanks from Clara007
iolo is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2017, 03:46 AM   #126
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Well, that's a little simplistic! The full story is much more nuanced, and shows why healthcare spending MUST remain a shared cost and shared benefit for any sane, healthy society:

Overall
In general, the analysis shows that health care costs increase by age with the exception of the very youngest ages. Costs, on average, are very high in the first year or two of birth and drop significantly by age five. At that point, costs increase modestly through the teen years. Female costs then begin to accelerate more quickly during child-bearing ages and flatten out in the 40s before increasing again. Male costs are relatively flat in the 20s and begin to accelerate after age 30, but remain lower on a per person basis than females in the same age group. The “cross-over age” occurs in the early 60s, when per capita spending for males exceeds that for females. Medicare costs (excluding private and Medicaid-financed long-term care) for beneficiaries age 65 and older continue to increase with age. Males continue to have higher costs than females for whom per person costs start to decline around age 90.

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/f...ve-Study_0.pdf


And how do you propose to save costs? Close hospital maternity wards and mandatory euthanasia for everyone with a terminal illness?


So in other words fuck off when you are young and have the ability to be productive and expect the next generation to cover your exorbitantly high health care costs when you are no longer productive.


Or stop taxing the people to death when they are young and productive and let them prepair to take care of themselves as they die off.

What does society gain from keeping old people alive longer?
Sabcat is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2017, 04:08 AM   #127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
So in other words fuck off when you are young and have the ability to be productive and expect the next generation to cover your exorbitantly high health care costs when you are no longer productive.


Or stop taxing the people to death when they are young and productive and let them prepair to take care of themselves as they die off.

What does society gain from keeping old people alive longer?
In an inter generational scheme, where the younger generation pays for the older generation, there is a catch. The scheme can continue, until there is no younger generation and the world ends, or when there is a "loser generation", a generation that pays for the older generation when they are young, and then pays for itself when it ages, unburdening the generations after it.

Are you volunteering to be that generation Sab?
Are you saying, "OK, I'll do my bit now, but I don't want anything when I'm older, because of my deeply held principles"

Because it sounds like "Waaah, why should I pay for something I don't want now", to be followed by "Waaaah, pay for me I'm too old to pay for myself"

Or if you don't see the point of old people, make sure you don't burden society, and terminate yourself when you stop being a productive unit.
Thanks from RNG and Clara007
goober is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2017, 05:30 AM   #128
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
In an inter generational scheme, where the younger generation pays for the older generation, there is a catch. The scheme can continue, until there is no younger generation and the world ends, or when there is a "loser generation", a generation that pays for the older generation when they are young, and then pays for itself when it ages, unburdening the generations after it.

Are you volunteering to be that generation Sab?
Are you saying, "OK, I'll do my bit now, but I don't want anything when I'm older, because of my deeply held principles"

Because it sounds like "Waaah, why should I pay for something I don't want now", to be followed by "Waaaah, pay for me I'm too old to pay for myself"

Or if you don't see the point of old people, make sure you don't burden society, and terminate yourself when you stop being a productive unit.


Or, translation. "I'm old, I was to much of a piece of shit to save and prepare for my old age and was such a bastard to my kids they don't want to take me in. Don't take away my government paycheck and healthcare. Cuz I fucked up and my kids hate me"

Your irresponsibility sould not become my burden.


As I thought you cannot make an argument for what society gains by prolonging the human lifespan



Last edited by Sabcat; April 3rd, 2017 at 05:33 AM.
Sabcat is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2017, 09:58 AM   #129
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Why does everyone go for dramatic effect?
You don't expect life and death matters to be dramatic?
Quote:
We spend a huge amount on premature babies, now a little premature, they need a little extra care.
But there is a point where what we do costs a huge amount and most of them die anyway, and those that survive, have increased medical costs their entire life. I'm just pointing out that there is a place to save money.
In the last few weeks of life, heroic measures can extend vital signs almost indefinitely, at huge expense, yet the patient is mostly completely unaware, they derive no pleasure from that extra couple of weeks, but they do run up a six figure medical bill.
If you have no problem with the cost of health care, then clamor for more heroic measures, if you think we need to spend less or to spend it differently, because at the same time we spend $300,000 to keep a 96 year old man "alive" for an extra two weeks, we have children going untreated.
I'm pretty sure we have medical review panels in all the provincial systems here in Canada...what Sarah Palin and likeminded empty-headed Republicans were calling "Death Panels." So, who exactly is saying the sky is the limit on spending, and who's trying to set limits? I wish all the new technologies and new drugs were subject to some kind of cost/benefit analysis when they were being introduced in the first place.
right to left is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2017, 10:13 AM   #130
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
You don't expect life and death matters to be dramatic?


I'm pretty sure we have medical review panels in all the provincial systems here in Canada...what Sarah Palin and likeminded empty-headed Republicans were calling "Death Panels." So, who exactly is saying the sky is the limit on spending, and who's trying to set limits? I wish all the new technologies and new drugs were subject to some kind of cost/benefit analysis when they were being introduced in the first place.
As part of her training as a dietitian, Mrs. RNG had to study outcomes for extremely premature babies. The results are often, aside from high expenses a very compromised quality of life.

If it was my baby, in that emotional state of course I would want everything done to keep it alive. But a more rational view would be, what kind of life would I be enforcing on my child?
Thanks from Sabcat
RNG is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Tags
medicare, work



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are you on medicare? Better see this.... dusty Current Events 2 October 8th, 2015 08:16 AM
Option II: It's STILL Medicare-For-ALL! Medicine Man Current Events 19 May 23rd, 2014 09:30 PM
Medicare $pending!!!!! Medicine Man Current Events 20 April 14th, 2014 06:45 AM
Medicare, For ALL!!!! Medicine Man Current Events 36 December 8th, 2013 03:11 AM
Obamacare, Medicare, Welfare ? ChaimaBe Current Events 17 September 25th, 2013 09:40 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.