PDA

View Full Version : Price of Fat


Denis
December 1st 04, 08:57 PM
I'm just thinking and would like to make sure I understand this.

Would you agree with the following 2 statements:

1) The unhealthier the population is in general - the higher is the
price that the healthy part of it (as well as unhealthy, but that is
not the point) has to pay for their medical costs.

2) The increase in medical costs a person has to pay will be even
higher in countries with the more socialized medicine. So for example,
healthier Canadians are paying more (e.g. in terms of the money that
is taking out of their pay check to support their medical system) than
Americans, who only see their insurance prices go up.

Or there is no big difference in this respect between the two
systems?

Thanks.
Denis

John Hanson
December 2nd 04, 05:37 AM
On 1 Dec 2004 12:57:10 -0800, (Denis) wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>I'm just thinking and would like to make sure I understand this.
>
>Would you agree with the following 2 statements:
>
>1) The unhealthier the population is in general - the higher is the
>price that the healthy part of it (as well as unhealthy, but that is
>not the point) has to pay for their medical costs.

I think that's a no brainer.
>
>2) The increase in medical costs a person has to pay will be even
>higher in countries with the more socialized medicine. So for example,
>healthier Canadians are paying more (e.g. in terms of the money that
>is taking out of their pay check to support their medical system) than
>Americans, who only see their insurance prices go up.

I would think the more socialized would suffer the most as there isn't
a check on the demand for medical service. The American system would
see their premiums increase but more importantly, their deductibles
would go up and those get paid at the time of service. People are
less likely to go see a doctor, thus decreasing the demand for the
service, for less trivial medical problems.
>
>Or there is no big difference in this respect between the two
>systems?
>
Even with the differences cited above, I don't see it being much of a
difference as the Canadians can still refuse service or ration health
care. So, the cost factor isn't much different but the quality of
health care would probably suffer more in Canada.

Denis
December 2nd 04, 04:24 PM
John Hanson > wrote in message

> >Or there is no big difference in this respect between the two
> >systems?
> >
> Even with the differences cited above, I don't see it being much of a
> difference as the Canadians can still refuse service or ration health
> care. So, the cost factor isn't much different but the quality of
> health care would probably suffer more in Canada.

Thanks for responding. How does it work - "refuse service or ration
health care"? Does it mean for example that a person has an option in
Canada not to pay that part of the taxes that goes into medical
system, but instead buys an insurance like in the US?

Thanks.
Denis

John Hanson
December 2nd 04, 11:46 PM
On 2 Dec 2004 08:24:26 -0800, (Denis) wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote in message
>
>> >Or there is no big difference in this respect between the two
>> >systems?
>> >
>> Even with the differences cited above, I don't see it being much of a
>> difference as the Canadians can still refuse service or ration health
>> care. So, the cost factor isn't much different but the quality of
>> health care would probably suffer more in Canada.
>
>Thanks for responding. How does it work - "refuse service or ration
>health care"? Does it mean for example that a person has an option in
>Canada not to pay that part of the taxes that goes into medical
>system, but instead buys an insurance like in the US?
>
No, it means that the government can decide to not offer medical
services to people that are too costly. Say a 75 year old man
develops prostrate cancer that may kill him in 4-5 years if left
untreated. They may say that he is near the end of his life and it
doesn't warrant spending money on him when it may not prolong his life
anyway. I don't know if that is happening now (although I've heard
tale of it) but it is a very real possibility if costs escalate.

Proton Soup
December 3rd 04, 02:58 AM
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:46:43 -0600, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On 2 Dec 2004 08:24:26 -0800, (Denis) wrote in
>misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>John Hanson > wrote in message
>>
>>> >Or there is no big difference in this respect between the two
>>> >systems?
>>> >
>>> Even with the differences cited above, I don't see it being much of a
>>> difference as the Canadians can still refuse service or ration health
>>> care. So, the cost factor isn't much different but the quality of
>>> health care would probably suffer more in Canada.
>>
>>Thanks for responding. How does it work - "refuse service or ration
>>health care"? Does it mean for example that a person has an option in
>>Canada not to pay that part of the taxes that goes into medical
>>system, but instead buys an insurance like in the US?
>>
>No, it means that the government can decide to not offer medical
>services to people that are too costly. Say a 75 year old man
>develops prostrate cancer that may kill him in 4-5 years if left
>untreated. They may say that he is near the end of his life and it
>doesn't warrant spending money on him when it may not prolong his life
>anyway. I don't know if that is happening now (although I've heard
>tale of it) but it is a very real possibility if costs escalate.

Plus, the sooner you can get him dead, the sooner you get him off
Social Security. Double the benefit to Society.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Denis
December 3rd 04, 03:09 AM
> No, it means that the government can decide to not offer medical
> services to people that are too costly. Say a 75 year old man
> develops prostrate cancer that may kill him in 4-5 years if left
> untreated. They may say that he is near the end of his life and it
> doesn't warrant spending money on him when it may not prolong his life
> anyway. I don't know if that is happening now (although I've heard
> tale of it) but it is a very real possibility if costs escalate.

That's kind of ruthless. I'd rather pay more, but know that my country will
not abandon a dying old man.
However, I would like to not pay for the costs that driven by people who are
just stupid and keep hurting themselves.

Brandon Berg
December 5th 04, 12:17 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>>2) The increase in medical costs a person has to pay will be even
>>higher in countries with the more socialized medicine. So for example,
>>healthier Canadians are paying more (e.g. in terms of the money that
>>is taking out of their pay check to support their medical system) than
>>Americans, who only see their insurance prices go up.
>
> I would think the more socialized would suffer the most as there isn't
> a check on the demand for medical service. The American system would
> see their premiums increase but more importantly, their deductibles
> would go up and those get paid at the time of service. People are
> less likely to go see a doctor, thus decreasing the demand for the
> service, for less trivial medical problems.

This has never made much sense to me.Why would premiums increase at all for
healthy people? Insurance companies have no incentive to take on customers
on whom they expect to lose money, and consumers have no incentive to buy
insurance at rates which they expect will lead to subsidization of others.

Part of the problem, I think, is the fact that most people obtain insurance
through employers. I got my current insurance without a health examination
of any kind. As far as I know, the only thing the insurer knew about me was
my age. This makes it difficult or impossible to adjust rates based on risk
factors. If we went to a system where people bought their own insurance,
we'd see less of this kind of subsidy.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Jimmy
December 5th 04, 12:21 AM
"Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
...
> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>2) The increase in medical costs a person has to pay will be even
>>>higher in countries with the more socialized medicine. So for example,
>>>healthier Canadians are paying more (e.g. in terms of the money that
>>>is taking out of their pay check to support their medical system) than
>>>Americans, who only see their insurance prices go up.
>>
>> I would think the more socialized would suffer the most as there isn't
>> a check on the demand for medical service. The American system would
>> see their premiums increase but more importantly, their deductibles
>> would go up and those get paid at the time of service. People are
>> less likely to go see a doctor, thus decreasing the demand for the
>> service, for less trivial medical problems.
>
> This has never made much sense to me.Why would premiums increase at all
> for healthy people? Insurance companies have no incentive to take on
> customers on whom they expect to lose money, and consumers have no
> incentive to buy insurance at rates which they expect will lead to
> subsidization of others.
>
> Part of the problem, I think, is the fact that most people obtain
> insurance through employers. I got my current insurance without a health
> examination of any kind. As far as I know, the only thing the insurer knew
> about me was my age. This makes it difficult or impossible to adjust rates
> based on risk factors. If we went to a system where people bought their
> own insurance, we'd see less of this kind of subsidy.
>

Of course..I agree..I had Blue Cross about 10 years ago.
I got into a motorcycle accident and my doc kept me in the hospital for
about 8 days. I knew I wasnt hurt that bad but he thought I might have a
concussion and should be watched. My mother brought me Burger King and this
sexy nurse gave me backrubs. I'm serious..this hot babe nurse gave me
backrubs and stuff. I had a good time...but the system is ****ed up.

Jim

geek_girl
December 5th 04, 12:29 AM
In > Jimmy wrote:
>
>
> Of course..I agree..I had Blue Cross about 10 years ago.
> I got into a motorcycle accident and my doc kept me in the hospital
> for about 8 days. I knew I wasnt hurt that bad but he thought I might
> have a concussion and should be watched.

Well if he didn't know you before the accident, I can understand why he
might think you had a concussion.

Jimmy
December 5th 04, 12:35 AM
"geek_girl" > wrote in message
...
> In > Jimmy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course..I agree..I had Blue Cross about 10 years ago.
>> I got into a motorcycle accident and my doc kept me in the hospital
>> for about 8 days. I knew I wasnt hurt that bad but he thought I might
>> have a concussion and should be watched.
>
> Well if he didn't know you before the accident, I can understand why he
> might think you had a concussion.

Good one lady. Actually,he was my pediatrician and was giving my mom a
break. Blue cross paid babysitter!

Jimmy

Brandon Berg
December 5th 04, 12:44 AM
"Denis" > wrote in message
...
>> No, it means that the government can decide to not offer medical
>> services to people that are too costly. Say a 75 year old man
>> develops prostrate cancer that may kill him in 4-5 years if left
>> untreated. They may say that he is near the end of his life and it
>> doesn't warrant spending money on him when it may not prolong his life
>> anyway. I don't know if that is happening now (although I've heard
>> tale of it) but it is a very real possibility if costs escalate.
>
> That's kind of ruthless. I'd rather pay more, but know that my country
> will not abandon a dying old man.

Cold as it may sound, abandoning a dying old man may be the right thing to
do. Treating cancer costs a lot of money, and that's money that might be
better spent elsewhere (research towards better treatments, for example),
especially when there's a good chance that he might die of something else
(say, a heart attack) before the cancer does any damage. All else being
equal, it would be great if no one ever died, but you have weigh the costs
against the benefits.

Consider the following (made-up) fact(oids):

-It costs $500,000 to treat prostate cancer.
-Without treatment, cancer will kill him in five years, if he lives that
long.
-With or without treatment, there's a 50% chance that he'll die from
something else in the next five years.
-There's a 50% chance that the treatment will do no good, and he'll die in
five years.
-If he survives beyond five years, his remaining life expectancy is another
four years.

So with treatment, there's a 25% chance that he'll survive for another four
years. On average, then, the treatment will buy one year. That's an expected
cost of $500,000 per year of life saved, which I would argue is a bad use of
taxpayers' money (but then, so are most other uses of taxpayers' money, so
maybe you're right).

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Jimmy
December 5th 04, 12:48 AM
"geek_girl" > wrote in message
...
> In > Jimmy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course..I agree..I had Blue Cross about 10 years ago.
>> I got into a motorcycle accident and my doc kept me in the hospital
>> for about 8 days. I knew I wasnt hurt that bad but he thought I might
>> have a concussion and should be watched.
>
> Well if he didn't know you before the accident, I can understand why he
> might think you had a concussion.

I'm gonna need a pic for you...

Jimmy

Jimmy
December 5th 04, 01:04 AM
We need to put the money towards the worst cancers..Childhood
cancers..breast cancer..pancreatic cancer. Well...all kinds of cancer...I'm
not concerned with statistics or the percentage of this life span or that.
If you had a child dying from cancer you would think it is the most
important thing in the world.
I truly wish one of George W's daughters had to die for our country.

Jimmy

December 5th 04, 02:57 AM
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:44:12 -0800, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:

>
>"Denis" > wrote in message
...
>>> No, it means that the government can decide to not offer medical
>>> services to people that are too costly. Say a 75 year old man
>>> develops prostrate cancer that may kill him in 4-5 years if left
>>> untreated. They may say that he is near the end of his life and it
>>> doesn't warrant spending money on him when it may not prolong his life
>>> anyway. I don't know if that is happening now (although I've heard
>>> tale of it) but it is a very real possibility if costs escalate.
>>
>> That's kind of ruthless. I'd rather pay more, but know that my country
>> will not abandon a dying old man.
>
>Cold as it may sound, abandoning a dying old man may be the right thing to
>do. Treating cancer costs a lot of money, and that's money that might be
>better spent elsewhere (research towards better treatments, for example),
>especially when there's a good chance that he might die of something else
>(say, a heart attack) before the cancer does any damage. All else being
>equal, it would be great if no one ever died, but you have weigh the costs
>against the benefits.
>
This is why smoking is not a net drain on the health care system.

Everyone has to die of something. If they die early of lung cancer
they have no time to experience all of the other end of life diseases.

The same argument might be made for obesity, which also causes people
to die early.

These are not drains on the system, they are its salvation.

By causing people to die young, money is saved.

>Consider the following (made-up) fact(oids):
>
>-It costs $500,000 to treat prostate cancer.
>-Without treatment, cancer will kill him in five years, if he lives that
>long.
>-With or without treatment, there's a 50% chance that he'll die from
>something else in the next five years.
>-There's a 50% chance that the treatment will do no good, and he'll die in
>five years.
>-If he survives beyond five years, his remaining life expectancy is another
>four years.
>
>So with treatment, there's a 25% chance that he'll survive for another four
>years. On average, then, the treatment will buy one year. That's an expected
>cost of $500,000 per year of life saved, which I would argue is a bad use of
>taxpayers' money (but then, so are most other uses of taxpayers' money, so
>maybe you're right).
>
>--
>Brandon Berg
>Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.
>
>

Jimmy
December 5th 04, 03:03 AM
Survival of the fittest..thats what Ted Nugent says..if you want to kill
yourself..I'll pull the trigger.
I agree with that to a certain extent but I also know Ted lost a wife to
alcoholism and might be masking some insecurities.Rush said all drug abusers
belong in jail. Where is he?

Jim

Axel of the North!
December 5th 04, 10:01 PM
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:21:44 -0500, "Jimmy" >
wrote:

>Of course..I agree..I had Blue Cross about 10 years ago.
>I got into a motorcycle accident and my doc kept me in the hospital for
>about 8 days. I knew I wasnt hurt that bad but he thought I might have a
>concussion and should be watched. My mother brought me Burger King and this
>sexy nurse gave me backrubs. I'm serious..this hot babe nurse gave me
>backrubs and stuff. I had a good time...but the system is ****ed up.
>
>Jim
>

i envy you.

Blair P. Houghton
December 6th 04, 03:58 AM
> wrote:
>This is why smoking is not a net drain on the health care system.
>
>Everyone has to die of something. If they die early of lung cancer
>they have no time to experience all of the other end of life diseases.
>
>The same argument might be made for obesity, which also causes people
>to die early.
>
>These are not drains on the system, they are its salvation.
>
>By causing people to die young, money is saved.

Reductio ad absurdum aside, if the "health care system" is in the
business of maintaining health, then no illness is "too expensive".

--Blair
"Though you're right if you think
that not enough people are dying
of something fast enough in certain
circles..."

Blair P. Houghton
December 6th 04, 03:59 AM
Axel of the North! > wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:21:44 -0500, "Jimmy" >
>wrote:
>
>>Of course..I agree..I had Blue Cross about 10 years ago.
>>I got into a motorcycle accident and my doc kept me in the hospital for
>>about 8 days. I knew I wasnt hurt that bad but he thought I might have a
>>concussion and should be watched. My mother brought me Burger King and this
>>sexy nurse gave me backrubs. I'm serious..this hot babe nurse gave me
>>backrubs and stuff. I had a good time...but the system is ****ed up.
>
>i envy you.

It's Blue Cross's fault for not having on-site claims
adjusters.

The flip-side is off-site claims adjusters who cut the
benefit without having any personal experience with
the case.

The real problem is, we're letting the whole industry
"regulate" itself.

--Blair
"I'm going to have to check my policy
to see what I have to bruise to get
a hot-nurse backrub..."