What Percentage of Health Care Costs Are Preventable?

Hello,

With all the news about Health Care Reform and Health Care costs. I was wondering a couple things. In this day and age we have the resources to get the necessary information to make informed decisions.

When it comes to our diets and health and general wellness, there are some tried tested and true practices. For instance, drink lots of water, get regular exercise, avoid fatty foods. EAt fruit and veggies. Smoking and drinking are bad for your health etc.

I was reading about the soda pop issues with pancreatic cancer and diabetes etc. and how the big companies are not accountable. Is this fair or should they be made to make improvements or perhaps labels with warnings that say "You have 87% more chance of developing pancreatic cancer if you consume me regularly" Trans fats, acrylamide in french fries and all other fried foods, the list goes on. Perhaps this is NWO population control.

So I guess what I am wondering is how much of the burden of health care is self inflicted. Despite the science and education available why are we and the companies responsible, enabled to continually make poor choices and not be accountable in any way? What are the biggest most costly conditions that the medical industry has to respond to? And how could they be lessened or mitigated through common sense or regulations?

How much money could be saved if some common sense accountability was applied when it came to general wellness?

thanks



[edit on 10-3-2010 by sparrowstail]

[edit on 10-3-2010 by sparrowstail]

[edit on 10-3-2010 by sparrowstail]

You and I both know that it is not about saving money or having a fit population. Its exactly the opposite. The FDA has been allowing all of these poisons in our food supply since their inception. But its not about population control because we are all living longer.

Living longer, but with diseases, which the same companies who gave it to us will offer us a medicine to "cure" it.

Its all about making more profits.

You cant blame somebody for making a buck off of crap. It's not like we arent thinking beings who cant make decisions.

And even those among us who arent thinking will just sit down to a bag of sugar with a spoon.

You can only pass the blame so far. We're not dogs who will eat any lump of feces we see in the park. And those of us who are certainly dont deserve all the excuses made for them.

Originally posted by chrisrand
You and I both know that it is not about saving money or having a fit population. Its exactly the opposite. The FDA has been allowing all of these poisons in our food supply since their inception. But its not about population control because we are all living longer.

Living longer, but with diseases, which the same companies who gave it to us will offer us a medicine to "cure" it.

Its all about making more profits.

That doesn't prevent the wise knowing minority from responding in some clever way does it? Society responded to the smoking issue and made vast improvements and in many cases the companies had to cough up (pardon the pun) over it. I'm sure with the proper lobbying the same could be done in the field of wellness education. Let TPTB have all their bull $hit products and meds. The wise healthy minority will have no need for them.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You cant blame somebody for making a buck off of crap. It's not like we arent thinking beings who cant make decisions.

And even those among us who arent thinking will just sit down to a bag of sugar with a spoon.

You can only pass the blame so far. We're not dogs who will eat any lump of feces we see in the park. And those of us who are certainly dont deserve all the excuses made for them.

Sure I can,
Every new product before entering the market place must undergo strict testing to meet FDA and other consumer product testing. How do you expect an average consumer to pronounce, let alone understand the ingredients list and potential dangers that goes into the truck loads of crap as you call that are in most ever day questionable food stuffs. Preservatives, nitrates, etc. the list goes on. I guess we should all have advanced degrees in organic chemistry. The point is the sheeple trust the govt. on the safety of food that bears the stamp of approval. If at a later date we discover dangers involved with ingredients I would hope affirmative action would be taken or at least advised and lobbied.

Originally posted by sparrowstail
Despite the science and education available why are we and the companies responsible, enabled to continually make poor choices and not be accountable in any way?

Because we are all human beings with the ability to make choices for ourselves and I would argue that we are all held accountable for those choices in one way or another.

If I want to drink coke until my body can't take it anymore, that's my choice. I'm held accountable when I develop diabetes.

If I want to smoke two packs a day for 20 years, that's my choice. I'm held accountable when I develop cancer or emphysema.

If I want to drink alcohol all the time, that's my choice. I'm held accountable when my liver ceases to function.

With any of the three choices above, I'm slowly killing myself but it's my choice. If I'm ok with that, why should someone else step in and try to prevent me from making those choices? Placing even more regulations on what people can choose to do to themselves isn't the way to go. Which is why prohibition didn't work and why the war on drugs isn't working.

Reply to post by sparrowstail

Easy. If you don't know what something is don't eat it. The only igrediant in broccoli is broccoli. You want bread? Flour, salt, water, eggs and you got bread.

It takes an awful lot less effort to eat what you should than people claim. There is far more work involved with the waste and packaging and consuming of pre-made garbage.

If illiterate people living in mud huts and caves can eat vegetables and good grains and produce their own breads, cakes and crackers and beer and wine then so can we.

It's not Krafts fault the US is full of morons. The guy selling the snake oil didn't make the buyers stupid. He just noticed how stupid they all were.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

You'd liberals would understand. Obama talks on and on about how much money is wasted on 'useless tests' etc. When the truth is, by his twisted-logic, a 'wasted test' is simply any test that comes up negative.

What's especially disgusting and arrogant about his attitude is that any solution to this 'problem' would neccessarilly mean loss of life. Meanwhile, it would take a god-like level of omnipresence and intelligence to reduce testing without a coinciding loss in life.

Think back to the breast cancer controversy of a few months ago. When a government panel suggested that women sit out breast cancer screening into their fifties instead of the previous recomendation of their forties. The reasoning was that money was being "wasted" because very few who were tested were being diagnosed.

But those who were diagnosed HAD THEIR LIVES SAVED. In the end, all of these calls for efficiency by our so called 'liberal and caring' president represent one thing:

A PRICING OF HUMAN LIFE by government regulators.

I believe that negative and liberal testing are actually a good thing for the overall healthcare system and represent in and of themselves a secondary tier of insurance. Restriction of a doctor or patient's ability to engage in this type of insurance, in my opinion is immoral.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by sparrowstail
Despite the science and education available why are we and the companies responsible, enabled to continually make poor choices and not be accountable in any way?

Because we are all human beings with the ability to make choices for ourselves and I would argue that we are all held accountable for those choices in one way or another.

With any of the three choices above, I'm slowly killing myself but it's my choice. If I'm ok with that, why should someone else step in and try to prevent me from making those choices? Placing even more regulations on what people can choose to do to themselves isn't the way to go. Which is why prohibition didn't work and why the war on drugs isn't working.

First off I am not proposing regulations for consumers but rather for producers. Sure you can have all the choices you want. Do you not think though some mothers or fathers will think twice now before buying that 24 of Pepsi knowing how much more dangerous for the pancreas or your blood sugar regular consumption is for their children. I am talking about bring information to the forefront not policing the products.

Second, I guess if I smoke 2 packs a day I should be entitled to be as employable as a non smoker, but I'm not. Companies can now avoid hiring a smoker because they have proved in court a smoker is not good for their business.

I think the point is being missed. I am talking about bringing balance to the market place not regulating it or preventing consumers from buying what they will. In the end you will buy what you want anyway.

With the responses I am getting, it's funny you all have agreed to go to schools or are even part of a town or society in general. How did you chose to buy one of only so many available models of car in the US? Are you sure your Toyotas are safe?

Feel free to take a look at a couple examples of what I am talking about.



and one at a more grass roots level



Man tough crowd


[edit on 10-3-2010 by sparrowstail]

reply to post by sparrowstail


What Percentage of Health Care Costs Are Preventable is indeed a good question if it's your job to cut health care costs. Since it is not, your remark implies that a fat person will cost more to take care of than a thin person. I ask you, where does this type of madness stop? It wont, it will only get worse when you begin to think that you know so much about something you really don't.

To apply your logic ignores the fact that many of our food sources and drinks are all contaminated with toxins, poisons and things allowed by the FDA that cause cancer, liver failures, diabetes, colon issues, and a laundry list of ailments that will need to be paid for when it gets so bad you don't have a choice.

Wouldn't it be better to begin with safer standards for food and liquids that will not contribute to these self induced cancers and costly medical conditions? I feel this issue with our foods and consumables is more a cause of high medical costs than any fat person who drinks what is available and while I personally am not a fat person, I use to be and I know what fat implies when someone says, "you're fat cause you wont stop eating, so it's all your fault", well that's a sorry excuse for a solution to high costs.

We could improve overall health and longevity with just addressing public water but then again I'm sure you would say that since we drank the water willingly that somehow it's our fault that we end up getting cancer.

Well, I for one don't see your logic as being complete or even broad enough to encompass the many causes of high medical costs.

How about addressing the medical corruption? Now there's a multi-billion dollar fraud system that if anyone would address could begin to save the billions in corruption and medical fraud that permeates our medical system.

I will tell you that the moment you used fat people as an example, I knew exactly what type of person you are and the sooner you apologize to fat people for your insensitivity and callous disregard for actual facts the sooner the better.

Reply to post by sparrowstail

I didn't agree to be part of society but I did choose where I live and what I do. It makes things slightly more bearable.

I chose my car by balancing my budget, my needs, and sources like Consumer Reports.

I chose my school by balancing cost, location, courses offered.

Try living your own life (as much as government will permit you too). It isn't as hard as they'd like you to think it is.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by sparrowstail

 

Easy. If you don't know what something is don't eat it. The only igrediant in broccoli is broccoli. You want bread? Flour, salt, water, eggs and you got bread.

It takes an awful lot less effort to eat what you should than people claim. There is far more work involved with the waste and packaging and consuming of pre-made garbage.

If illiterate people living in mud huts and caves can eat vegetables and good grains and produce their own breads, cakes and crackers and beer and wine then so can we.

It's not Krafts fault the US is full of morons. The guy selling the snake oil didn't make the buyers stupid. He just noticed how stupid they all were.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I can not argue with your logic there, In fact it mirrors much of my own, however, If North America all thought this way the majority of treated illness would be of the genetic kind and not self induced. Many doctors refuse treating patients who continually ignore their recommendations to make improvements to their wellness.

And about the snake oil salesman, when his secret did get out he was tarred and feather or worse.


It's not necessary for the snake oilists to run the show.

reply to post by sparrowstail



It has become politically correct to say health problems are self-created - and blame the victims. True, some are - but life is complicated. We live in a hugely contaminated, polluted world - there is no doubt that much of our air, water and food make us sick.

Our Western medical system won't treat most disease in its early stages - insurance terms are written, and doctors are trained, NOT to acknowledge common, chronic, modern diseases until they have progressed to acute and sometimes life threatening stages.

Preventive medicine, instead of late stage interventions, would go a long way to cutting health care costs.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of really crappy research "proving" that preventive medicine is far more expensive than standard Western medicine. ...But really, it's all about who profits (Big Pharma, device industries, etc.) and who picks up the tab (medical insurance OR disability insurance OR unemployment insurance OR government OR the victims....).

Originally posted by sparrowstail
First off I am not proposing regulations for consumers but rather for producers. Sure you can have all the choices you want. Do you not think though some mothers or fathers will think twice now before buying that 24 of Pepsi knowing how much more dangerous for the pancreas or your blood sugar regular consumption is for their children. I am talking about bring information to the forefront not policing the products.

You're proposing regulations for producers, but you're talking about bringing information to the forefront not policing products? Regulation by definition is policing products.

Regulating producers does regulate consumers. If producers can no longer make Pepsi or Coke because of regulations saying the product is too dangerous to consumers, how will consumers buy that case of Pepsi? I dread the day I have to go to a speakeasy to get a can of Coke.

Making information about the dangers of children drinking too many sugary drinks available is a far sight different from regulating those sugary drinks or their producers.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by sparrowstail

 

It has become politically correct to say health problems are self-created - and blame the victims. True, some are - but life is complicated. We live in a hugely contaminated, polluted world - there is no doubt that much of our air, water and food make us sick.

Our Western medical system won't treat most disease in its early stages - insurance terms are written, and doctors are trained, NOT to acknowledge common, chronic, modern diseases until they have progressed to acute and sometimes life threatening stages.

Preventive medicine, instead of late stage interventions, would go a long way to cutting health care costs.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of really crappy research "proving" that preventive medicine is far more expensive than standard Western medicine. ...But really, it's all about who profits (Big Pharma, device industries, etc.) and who picks up the tab (medical insurance OR disability insurance OR unemployment insurance OR government OR the victims....).

I just asked a question of what percentage are, I didn't say all were.
I think preventative medicine starts in the home and in schools. As well through public service announcements and other educational fronts. Any research that shows preventative as being more expensive is really crappy.

reply to post by MaxBlack


Apologies, I edited the post.

sparrow

Originally posted by Jenna

Regulating producers does regulate consumers. If producers can no longer make Pepsi or Coke because of regulations saying the product is too dangerous to consumers, how will consumers buy that case of Pepsi? I dread the day I have to go to a speakeasy to get a can of Coke.
Making information about the dangers of children drinking too many sugary drinks available is a far sight different from regulating those sugary drinks or their producers.

By your logic, your can of Coke would still have...well coke in it that is coc aine. All I'm saying is "Look Coke, your sugary drink is dramatically raising the risks of cancer to the pancreas, why not look into it and try to bring that 87% down to say 45% " or we're going to have to put a warning label on the can"

reply to post by sparrowstail


It would appear that we are talking about two very different things and that perhaps regulation was not the word you intended you use. 9 times out of 10 when people start talking about regulations, what they mean is making something more difficult or impossible to obtain and/or do legally. That is completely different from putting a label on a can that says "Lots of Sugar + Kids = Diabetes".