Why are Presidential candidates expected to have a healthcare plan? (regular, Canada)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The Shocking Collapse of Forest Park Medical Center
After growing rapidly, how did Dallas' go-go luxury physician-owned hospital chain spiral so quickly into chaos?" https://www.dmagazine.com/publicatio...er-bankruptcy/
The cost of advertising directly to consumers is baked into the price of the medication. Just one of the reasons why meds cost more in the US. Another reason is different strengths. 20 mg might be the most common dosage for XYZ in the US shike it’s only 10 mg , elsewhere. And often, 10 mg is effective.
Advertising pays for itself since it raises demand and they sell more pills. Advertising should be banned but not because it raises the price, but rather because it creates demand among people who don't really need the medicine to begin with.
When they say pills are cheaper in Canada vs the US, they are comparing exact strengths. The reason why they are cheaper is complicated - Canada has price control boards which won't allow Big Pharma to charge whatever they want is a big reason, but here in the US our patent laws allow BP to have a monopoly on something that is not discretionary - people need the medicine and have no choice but to pay through the nose for it.
It is expensive to do R&D on drugs and Americans end up subsidizing those costs for countries like Canada since Canada won't pay the prices necessary to cover R&D. If foreign countries want the medicine, then they need to help pay for the R&D like we do. That will raise the cost for them and lower it for us. The US also needs to disallow monopolies on drugs.
Basically, to lower drugs costs will involve intrusive measures which is anathema to Republicans and Democrats alike since both are in the thrall of Big Pharma. It ain't likely to happen, not even with Bernie.
None of the above. Government shouldn't be in the business of providing health care.
Build roads and butt out.
If this is true then government should also butt out of:
Protecting patents on drugs.
Preventing individuals from buying prescriptions from other countries.
Eliminate the requirement of hospital emergency having to see every patient regardless of the ability to pay.
Get out of the licensing business of doctors and pharmacists.
Allow the selling of insurance across state lines.
Disallow healthcare facilities to claim nonprofit to avoid taxes.
I'm sure I could think of a few other things........
10,000 people a day are turning 65. This is projected to continue for decades as Gen X, then Millennials age. Most who enroll in Medicare today have at least one chronic condition. Nearly 2/3 of two or more chronic conditions. High cholesterol, high BP and Diabetes 2 are epidemics, mostly related to diet/ exercise.
To your point, most people do not have long term care insurance., despite that half of them will eventually need long term care. It is one of the single greatest uninsured risks. And this burden is going to fall on State Medicaid systems, subsidized by the Federal Government.
From the article (my italics): "Meanwhile, according to the association's figures for 2008, 44 percent nursing home residents stay less than a year, 30 percent stay between one and three years, and only 24 percent spend more than three years in a facility. Updated numbers would likely indicate even shorter stays as more seniors receive care at home or in assisted living facilities. Those who move to nursing homes do so when they are older and sicker, meaning that they stay for a shorter period of time than in the past. According to one reported statistic, only 40 percent of seniors spend any time in a nursing home." [end quote]
However, in any case, I think it is important when deciding on the need for LTC insurance to weigh the risks and odds for oneself based on one's health and family history.
Also, in my opinion, the main villains for the outrageous cost of healthcare are (1) the greed of the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, (2) adults who pay almost nothing for their healthcare, (3) the acceptance on the part of many people to allow people to have as many children as they want whether they can afford large families or not, and (4) the current trend to try to prolong life, no matter how hopeless the condition of the patient.
Finally someone figured out the Republican plan, have no plan. That will get’r done.
How many plans have the Republican Senate come up with? Republican Congress?
Having the remnants of Obamacare still around crushing American voters finances, is helping Republicans get votes.
Here's all Trump has to say...
"we tried to repeal, and replace, Obamacare, but Nancy Pelosi wouldn't even allow a vote on it, so you have her to blame for your high-cost low-coverage plan. If you want it fixed, you must give us the House so Nancy Pelosi can no longer stop us from fixing it"
Yes, it is shocking that healthcare has gone up so much in just the past few years that is is often the highest expense.
According to the following link (you will need to scroll down quite a bit to see the chart), here are the costs per person per year at the start of each decade starting with 1960:
So, to address the question of this thread, it is Congress who must approve the budget, the POTUS had better have some idea of how to face one of the biggest problems facing MOST people in the U.S. because it is not just the working poor who have problems paying for healthcare!
P.S. Also, regarding "Granny", unless Granny can afford to choose Medicare Plan B AND a comprehensive Supplement plan (for myself, the total cost is about $260 a month total for Plan B and Plan G), Granny might also have a problem paying for her healthcare, too.
Yes, you are correct.
We can do a lot more for people than we could in 1960. That's one reason for increasing costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
10,000 people a day are turning 65. This is projected to continue for decades as Gen X, then Millennials age.
Most who enroll in Medicare today have at least one chronic condition. Nearly 2/3 of two or more chronic conditions.
High cholesterol, high BP and Diabetes 2 are epidemics, mostly related to diet/ exercise.
To your point, most people do not have long term care insurance., despite that half of them will eventually need long term care. It is one of the single greatest uninsured risks.
And this burden is going to fall on State Medicaid systems, subsidized by the Federal Government.
WRT the first two, much as you want to think it's all diet (obesity) and exercise related, there are other risk factors as well.
Cholesterol: https://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/risk_factors.htm "If you have a family history of high cholesterol, you are more likely to have high cholesterol. . . The risk for high cholesterol can increase even more when a family history of high cholesterol combines with unhealthy lifestyle choices, such as eating an unhealthy diet. . . Everyone’s risk for high cholesterol goes up with age. . . At any age, men tend to have lower high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or “good”) cholesterol than women do."
High Blood Pressure: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20373410
Risk factors:
Age, race, family history, being overweight or obese, not being physically active, using tobacco, too much salt in the diet, not enough potassium, drinking too much alcohol, stress, certain chronic conditions.
Not much you can do about the first three.
Type II Diabetes: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...ype-2-diabetes
Overweight/obese, age 45+, family history, certain races, etc including gestational diabetes in pregnancy or delivery of a baby over 9#; polycystic ovary syndrome, and some skin conditions. Nothing you can do about some of those either.
katharsis gave some good stats on nursing home residence.
Even 24 years ago, my father only spent 6 weeks in a nursing home, 20 years ago my mom spent a month. My FIL died in an in-patient hospice in 2006 after the NH kicked him out because he needed too much care. MIL was in a NH two years, until she died at 98 in 2017.
So here I was reading along and actually agreeing with many of your posts, including the one below. Yes, most congresspeople don't know squat about healthcare or health insurance. That's obvious when they open their mouths to talk about it! "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated" sayeth our president. Au contraire, most of us who work/worked in health care/health insurance knew it very well. But our president and the crew in DC, on both sides of the aisle, for the most part don't know squat.
So good one! Then I come upon the post I quoted first. Not this again! I looked up both these claims. Here's one source, about Japan: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-metabo-law/ I read a number of articles, none showed what you said (in bold). See: https://www.pri.org/stories/2009-11-...e-breaking-law "Doctors and health experts have said the waistline limits conflict with the International Diabetes Federation’s recommended guidelines for Japan. Meantime, ordinary residents have been buying fitness equipment, joining gyms and popping herbal pills in an effort to lose weight, even though some doctors warn that they are already too thin to begin with.
The amount of “food calories which the Japanese intake is decreasing from 10 years ago,” said Yoichi Ogushi, professor of medicine at Tokai University and one of the leading critics of the law. “So there is no obesity problem as in the USA. To the contrary, there is a problem of leanness in young females.”
Please provide some evidence that this draconian intrusion on privacy is working.
Re: Wales, this was done as a cost-saving measure by the NHS, much like not offering chickenpox vaccine and going into mental gymnastics about why that's a good thing. Doctors are not happy with this policy and say it's not in the spirit of the NHS. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8006896.html
Interestingly, the Euoropean region of the WHO has the highest drinking rates and the highest morbidity and mortality from drinking IN THE WORLD! WHO/Europe | Data and statistics The UK is high on the list of alcohol consumption per person. Are they denying treatment to drinkers until they quit? They are one of only three countries in the the world who don't have a policy of "no alcohol in pregnancy". WHO/Europe | Data and statistics
Japan calls it the Metabo Law. The waist measuring mandate for those age 40-74 was created to reduce the percentage of the population that is overweight by 25%. Contrary to some online news, it is not illegal to be fat in Japan. Those with measures in excess of the healthy range recieve counseling, guidance and support. Employers however face financial penalties if its employees do not hit a targeted reduction.
New Zealand will not grant work visas to overweight people.
What might be if, with advance notice, the US paid the entire healthcare premium of those with waist sizes in the healthy range?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
