Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?

1181921232428

Replies

  • kimny72kimny72 Posts: 14,107Member Member Posts: 14,107Member Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    It is my understanding that a significant number of the 'emergencies' seen in US hospitals wouldn't have been emergencies had they been treated earlier. But the health insurance model makes people, especially on low incomes, reluctant to seek said early medical treatment.

    Maybe, instead of forcing hospitals to absorb the costs of emergency care, the costs are owed by those getting the care. Since patients can ignore the bill for emergency care, you may lower costs by changing the system so the patient is on the hook for the costs, period, making it a better choice for them to get care early, when the costs to them are lower.

    When costs are shifted to others, there is no incentive to change behavior.

    When costs are borne by those who incur them, they tend to seek lower cost solutions.

    Except that people are already trying to avoid incurring costs - by avoiding getting healthcare in the hope that the problem will go away / wait until they can get to a physician that will cost them less.

    In other words, people trying to avoid incurring costs is actually the problem. You're not going to fix that by making it worse.

    I see this argument brought up when attempting to pitch for socialized structures, but there isn't much truth to this.

    By doing this you aren't addressing the root cause of unlimited demand and decreasing supply. In fact you are making the problem considerably worse.

    If you actually want to help the healthcare problem you can either address the demand problem by reducing the need for care...or increase the number of practitioners.

    So are you saying the reason health care is so expensive in the US is a supply/demand issue? Honest question, I know my opinions in this area involve a lot of emotion, so I try to keep my yapper shut and soak up info :lol:

    Aren't the insurance companies a primary driver of the costs right now?

    I agree and find that emotional response usually ends up badly. There are several issues at play and what is needed is a balanced approach.

    The US system took on the worst points of both worlds. Heavily regulated on price (via insurance and government) and supply (regulations and education). The only thing keeping the system going is innovation, which is on the decline.

    Insurance is a primary driver because it has too much control over the process. To address this you simply remove the influence on the system. ...but change brings fear and few people have the stomach to change even if it means things will likely be better.

    Compare the cost of medical treatments outside of insurance coverage - eye correction and cosmetics/aesthetics medicine. These industries must evolve and adapt as they have no insurance or government safety net. The cost of goods is continually driven down via innovation and follows consumer price index. Medicine covered by insurance however exceeds this index by a monumental margin.

    Thank you :smile: This gives me more to think about. I do think generally everyone would get a better outcome if at least for "basic" care, people were dealing directly with doctors. This becomes more confusing when you are talking about a hospital stay where several different doctors and specialists are "checking in" but I suppose it could be up to the hospital to coordinate that.

    ceiswyn wrote: »
    So what happens to people who actually can't afford to pay?

    Make the case to their family, neighbors, friends, community, church or other worship group they are affiliated with.

    If those closest to them see they've been spending what would have been an insurance premium on toys as I've described above, they may not be so willing to fund their bill.

    If their story is one that is truly one that is bad luck, such as they did have insurance until the plant closed, they were doing the right things, not being the grasshopper by living for today without regard to tomorrow, I can't imagine people would be so callous as to not help.

    Having observed how people generously respond to natural disasters it's hard for me to buy the idea that people are not compassionate towards those who are really in need.

    I'm not sure it's any more realistic to assume that most people have a pipeline of folks with money available to them, than it is to assume the government would do a good job with universal healthcare. And I don't see how a society where people are desperately putting on a show to try to go viral so they can pay for their cancer treatment is a great idea either.
  • almostsuperpoweredalmostsuperpowered Posts: 133Member Member Posts: 133Member Member
    public policies regulating what food can be served in school cafeterias, and available in vending machines, plus a milk program can provide a good start out of the gate. I appreciate my school discouraging packing junk for the kiddos (I know some parents find this annoying but hey man if it gets my kid eating raw vegetables on purpose I am in).
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,246Member Member Posts: 9,246Member Member
    There's a law that says there must be a traffic jam on IT between Everett and Marysville at all times. And I pass through there on my way to a lot of hikes. Repealing that law would turn 2 hours of driving time into 2 more hours of hiking.
  • mmapagsmmapags Posts: 8,177Member Member Posts: 8,177Member Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    Nor do you fix it by paying for them.

    You just pass the costs on to those who choose to take a more proactive approach.

    Stop passing along costs to others and the costs for those no longer having the costs of others passed to them will go down.

    If people wish to voluntarily take on those costs, I'm all for it.

    I'm not in favor of someone, especially those who buy votes with other people's money, choosing to pass costs on to me and my family.

    That is not equal to not wishing to help. I simply think using government fiat is the worst way to make any real, lasting, and meaningful change.
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    It is my understanding that a significant number of the 'emergencies' seen in US hospitals wouldn't have been emergencies had they been treated earlier. But the health insurance model makes people, especially on low incomes, reluctant to seek said early medical treatment.

    Maybe, instead of forcing hospitals to absorb the costs of emergency care, the costs are owed by those getting the care. Since patients can ignore the bill for emergency care, you may lower costs by changing the system so the patient is on the hook for the costs, period, making it a better choice for them to get care early, when the costs to them are lower.

    When costs are shifted to others, there is no incentive to change behavior.

    When costs are borne by those who incur them, they tend to seek lower cost solutions.

    Except that people are already trying to avoid incurring costs - by avoiding getting healthcare in the hope that the problem will go away / wait until they can get to a physician that will cost them less.

    In other words, people trying to avoid incurring costs is actually the problem. You're not going to fix that by making it worse.

    Given that medical costs are much, much higher in the US than they are in countries with socialised healthcare systems, are you sure that you don't fix the problem by paying for people to get preventative healthcare...?
    http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/?fbclid=IwAR0Ar_moC2NR1sbjrt6-AkA2CGJSJjJUK9m9ystJtSdpRNrVJLQaZtbShTo

    To your point, medical costs in the U.S. are the highest by a factor of 1.8 and the worst quality of care in the developed world. I think there is something broken in a society that does not make the health of its people an affordable priority. Not every one of the other countries has socialized medicine either. But the fact remains they deliver higher quality of care at a substantially lower cost. Why can't the U.S. figure this out? We also have the highest rate of medical expense related bankruptcy. What is wrong with this picture?

    The substantially lower cost originates from subsidies provided by the US.

    We don't figure it out because there is no incentive for those in power to do so. They are making profit off of the existing system and will make more under single payer. All they have to do is promise to do something, do nothing, but hold the pretense of compassion. Verba non facta rules the day, but the same personalities and families remain in office.


    Anyone else finding the irony of a debate advocating for collective control of health on a site where success is solely achieved through personal responsibility and accountability?
    I'm unclear exactly what you mean by the bolded. Are you saying the U.S. is subsidizing the healthcare of the other top industrialized nations? And if so, please substantiate this claim.
  • mmapagsmmapags Posts: 8,177Member Member Posts: 8,177Member Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Anyone else finding the irony of a debate advocating for collective control of health on a site where success is solely achieved through personal responsibility and accountability?

    I have read too much history to be shocked by the contradiction. Too many believe they can be trusted to make the 'right' choice, but others cannot, so they better take charge and decide for them.

    All in the name of the greater good, of course.

    It's clear from your comment that you didn't read the article.
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 6,109Member Member Posts: 6,109Member Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    Nor do you fix it by paying for them.

    You just pass the costs on to those who choose to take a more proactive approach.

    Stop passing along costs to others and the costs for those no longer having the costs of others passed to them will go down.

    If people wish to voluntarily take on those costs, I'm all for it.

    I'm not in favor of someone, especially those who buy votes with other people's money, choosing to pass costs on to me and my family.

    That is not equal to not wishing to help. I simply think using government fiat is the worst way to make any real, lasting, and meaningful change.
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    It is my understanding that a significant number of the 'emergencies' seen in US hospitals wouldn't have been emergencies had they been treated earlier. But the health insurance model makes people, especially on low incomes, reluctant to seek said early medical treatment.

    Maybe, instead of forcing hospitals to absorb the costs of emergency care, the costs are owed by those getting the care. Since patients can ignore the bill for emergency care, you may lower costs by changing the system so the patient is on the hook for the costs, period, making it a better choice for them to get care early, when the costs to them are lower.

    When costs are shifted to others, there is no incentive to change behavior.

    When costs are borne by those who incur them, they tend to seek lower cost solutions.

    Except that people are already trying to avoid incurring costs - by avoiding getting healthcare in the hope that the problem will go away / wait until they can get to a physician that will cost them less.

    In other words, people trying to avoid incurring costs is actually the problem. You're not going to fix that by making it worse.

    Given that medical costs are much, much higher in the US than they are in countries with socialised healthcare systems, are you sure that you don't fix the problem by paying for people to get preventative healthcare...?
    http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/?fbclid=IwAR0Ar_moC2NR1sbjrt6-AkA2CGJSJjJUK9m9ystJtSdpRNrVJLQaZtbShTo

    To your point, medical costs in the U.S. are the highest by a factor of 1.8 and the worst quality of care in the developed world. I think there is something broken in a society that does not make the health of its people an affordable priority. Not every one of the other countries has socialized medicine either. But the fact remains they deliver higher quality of care at a substantially lower cost. Why can't the U.S. figure this out? We also have the highest rate of medical expense related bankruptcy. What is wrong with this picture?

    The substantially lower cost originates from subsidies provided by the US.

    We don't figure it out because there is no incentive for those in power to do so. They are making profit off of the existing system and will make more under single payer. All they have to do is promise to do something, do nothing, but hold the pretense of compassion. Verba non facta rules the day, but the same personalities and families remain in office.


    Anyone else finding the irony of a debate advocating for collective control of health on a site where success is solely achieved through personal responsibility and accountability?
    I'm unclear exactly what you mean by the bolded. Are you saying the U.S. is subsidizing the healthcare of the other top industrialized nations? And if so, please substantiate this claim.

    Governments other than the US set drug prices. The US does not. Through congressional action the US bargains with innovators in establishing price, so the ~2.6 B investment to bring a drug to market can be recomped, typically at a 5% industry margin.

Sign In or Register to comment.