The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

Post by yholio » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 2:21 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #295

lostlogin wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not an unreasonable charge for an MRI and I’d argue that you got off quite lightly. You can’t diagnose many of the potential problems shoulders have from an x-ray but a good clinical examination will catch many of them, with an MRI for confirmation. Labral tears would be an example of this.

No it's not an unreasonable charge. The amount I had to go through and the necessity of it was the question. I got charged with two things - XRay and MRI. One was enough, apparently... And I wasn't in any critical condition to an XRay immediately.

Post by snarf21 » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #414

ThePhysicist wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t come across a single doctor in Germany who didn’t have at least one office assistant to handle incoming patients, schedule appointments and do the bookkeeping. Most doctors seem to have more though these days as the administrative burden has increased. There’s also a trend for doctors to share office space and have a joint office and reception (also to reduce cost).

That makes sense. But many U.S. medical offices have people devoted entirely to billing insurance companies and fighting with them over what will be covered.

Post by tobylane » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #240

pravda wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "freeloading" meme is the creation of public relations groups employed by the pharma industry. Drugs in the US are priced at the profit-maximizing price. That profit-maximizing price has nothing to do with how much pharma earns in other countries. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of R&D. R&D is a sunk cost, has no effect on drug pricing.

As someone who works in the industry, you are somewhat correct. Once a drug is approved, it is priced independently of the R&D cost. However, the decision to bring a drug through clinical trials (the "D" in "R&D") is gated. The potential price of the drug is estimated and the financial costs and potential return are calculated. If the return isn't that great because you can't get the volume or price, the R&D investme…

Post by RHSeeger » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #321

RHSeeger wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> universal needs Not everyone agrees Person A's needs should be paid for by other people. The system described (that pays for everyone, but treats people that can afford it better) may be a reasonable compromise to those people.

Yet everyone uses the roads, schools, and safety paid for by everyone to ultimately get to their advantaged economic position. Healthcare is a public effort just like any of the above, and no one should suffer unequally due to class favoritism being built into public efforts. We shouldn't compromise with people who lack the humanity to see this.

Post by arethuza » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #413

arethuza wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that Bevan isn't saying that UK society is socialist (although he was probably in favour of it) - rather than the spirit of the NHS is socialist. Note that I would agree that it seems "common sense" for us in the UK and I'm definitely not keen on basing arguments on ideologies but it clearly doesn't seem "common sense" for people in the US.

And yet, in the U.S. we have a system like the NHS for veterans, plus a system like Canada's for everybody over 65.