|
Milesnmiles -> RE: Replace Obama care? (2/19/2017 9:54:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JVoV
This is a worthy discussion, but 'Medical costs' is a term that needs to be defined better.
Technology advancements, more health screenings, as well as more advanced treatment options all cost more than the lack of them. Health insurance costs money. Using it to see a doctor costs more, and using it to prevent, treat, or cure an illness costs more still.
Surgery scars are now usually much smaller than ever before. More medicines are available to manage incurable diseases, from diabetes and arthritis to hiv/aids. More treatment options are available for chronic pain and cancer. More people get more health testing and screenings than ever in our history.
If the costs had stayed the same, the outcomes probably would have as well. But most people know their family medical histories, know what diseases are prevalent in their families, and do more to ward them off in the first place, stay vigilant in monitoring their bodies for them, and even if unpreventable, we have more options than our parents and grandparents.
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NHEA-Related-Studies.html
This site has several quite informative pdfs. To better understand the whole picture, I'd recommend reading Catlin and Cowan: History of Health Spending in the United States, 1960-2013 [PDF, 1MB].
In reality, I expect healthcare costs to continue to go up. But that's not the actual problem. Nope. The problem is that real wages for most Americans haven't gone up enough to keep pace.
Thanx for the interesting post. Point well made.
As for defining things, I was just interested in finding out why if there was interest shown in health care legislation 20 years ago and Obama care is so "bad", why the Republicans seem to have waited to last minute and still have nothing to offer.
|
|
|
|
