Vermont single payer health insurance

#252
#252
milohimself said:
I would argue that obesity ranking could potentially fall within the bubble of health care, as health education is part of it.
Click to expand...

WHO factors it in. Part of the US score is based on the health status of the population (obesity is a factor).

In one of these threads I posted an article that explains the WHO rating system. In effect it has a bit of a double whammy - it looks at what you spend as one indicator then doubles down by refactoring cost back in a second time to get the composite score. Without the double count, the US is at 15. With it, it is at 37.

In short, a fatter population is considered both an indicator of healthiness of the population (fatter = lower score) and since health conditions are connected to obesity the score is also lowered by health outcomes.

Bottomline, a more obese population will score worse in the WHO ratings than a less obese population.

A country like Japan will score better because of the cultural diet which is healthier. It is arguable that health care is better simply because the people tend to eat healthier as a result of the culture.
 
#253
#253
fl0at said:
Ok Gibbs, here ya go. Take note of the slope of the trend line.

As population sizes decrease, so do costs, per capita.

As obesity ranking decreases, costs decrease, per capita.

If you want the spreadsheet, just PM me and I'll send it along.
Click to expand...

It works for other metrics as well. North Dakota scores very well fiscally. Why? Tiny and relatively homogeneous population. California is at the bottom. Why? Large and highly diverse population.
 
#254
#254
I'd like to take a quick second to add a bit to the obesity discussion. While a sedentary lifestyle is often a big part of obesity one need not be obese to be sedentary. I know a number of people who are "eating better" (and there's nothing wrong with that obviously) but they'd still need an ambulance if they had to sprint 100yds or hike a mile up even an easy trail.

One need not be obese to be woefully "out of shape".
 
#255
#255
hndog609 said:
I'd like to take a quick second to add a bit to the obesity discussion. While a sedentary lifestyle is often a big part of obesity one need not be obese to be sedentary. I know a number of people who are "eating better" (and there's nothing wrong with that obviously) but they'd still need an ambulance if they had to sprint 100yds or hike a mile up even an easy trail.

One need not be obese to be woefully "out of shape".
Click to expand...


Agreed and it gets to the real issue here. A single payer, national HC system will not materially change these behaviors. As long as the behaviors remain the associated costs and health outcomes will as well.
 
#256
#256
milohimself said:
I would argue that obesity ranking could potentially fall within the bubble of health care, as health education is part of it.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. For those that want to change. Food can be an addiction. If you eat, and have always eaten, bad foods. Whether you change that habit is first education and second personal choice.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#257
#257
fl0at said:
I absolutely agree. For those that want to change. Food can be an addiction. If you eat, and have always eaten, bad foods. Whether you change that habit is first education and second personal choice.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Decades of Public Health campaigns suggest that behavior modification is highly elusive.
 
#258
#258
volinbham said:
WHO factors it in. Part of the US score is based on the health status of the population (obesity is a factor).

In one of these threads I posted an article that explains the WHO rating system. In effect it has a bit of a double whammy - it looks at what you spend as one indicator then doubles down by refactoring cost back in a second time to get the composite score. Without the double count, the US is at 15. With it, it is at 37.

In short, a fatter population is considered both an indicator of healthiness of the population (fatter = lower score) and since health conditions are connected to obesity the score is also lowered by health outcomes.

Bottomline, a more obese population will score worse in the WHO ratings than a less obese population.

A country like Japan will score better because of the cultural diet which is healthier. It is arguable that health care is better simply because the people tend to eat healthier as a result of the culture.
Click to expand...

Makes it tougher on the us for sure, but i don't feel I can strongly disagree with it. I think we can all agree that diets in this country need to change, and that requires personal accountability as well as environmental changes so people can make those decisions.

The health admin class today was interesting. Brought up some points of pharmecutical (sp?) development and how it's cost gets passes on to the American public. I don't have much time to post before the next class, but when you've got ten companies trying to develop the same drug, some of them are going to lose out without a profit, but the r&d for that failed drug need to be covered somehow. Add to that doctors prescribing more and more name brand drugs when they're not needed due to financial kickbacks, marketing, etc and the cost can really get racked up.

Then our companies develop the drugs who are then sold to socialist health care systems elsewhere who have the ability to purchase large amounts at a cut rate as opposed to a case by case basis here, and what savings are created by competition are passed on elsewhere.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#260
#260
milohimself said:
I don't have much time to post before the next class, but when you've got ten companies trying to develop the same drug, some of them are going to lose out without a profit, but the r&d for that failed drug need to be covered somehow. Add to that doctors prescribing more and more name brand drugs when they're not needed due to financial kickbacks, marketing, etc and the cost can really get racked up.
Click to expand...

Some drugs simply don't have generic equivalents due to patents, so it isn't entirely on the doc. Most I've seen try to take the patient's insurance into consideration and will use Epocrates, Medscape (everyone has it on their phones these days) to look up generics.

There are also issues with prescribing some name brand drugs simply because they have to be given. Some of the higher cost drugs are prescribed because they only have to be taken once daily, whereas a lower cost drug may have to be taken 2 or 3 times. Seems silly, but a lot of patients don't, won't or aren't taking their meds, so limiting it to 1 requirement vs 2-3 requirements per day can help.

As to the different companies developing different drugs, it can be a tricky investment. The worst, and there is a recent example I'll give, is when there are many companies making the same drug, but no FDA approval and no standardization.

Standardization and FDA approval can effectively give one company rights over the drug, and the prices can skyrocket. Which is bogus, but... hey, government control, right?

I found it amusing that so many groups backed sole FDA approval for Makena, and then the company jacked prices.

Luckily, the FDA will allow, in this case, compounding pharmacies to still make their own.

Makena price drop: Drug maker lowers price of Makena pregnancy drug - Los Angeles Times
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top