$40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?
Kreskin, there are so many studies, I cant possibly list them all.
Here are a couple: (and yeah, most research is US based as they have larger population bases and more research money)
1. State Estimate of Neonatal Healthcare Costs associated with Maternal Smoking, 1996- summary: smoking attributed neonatal expenditures of $366 million US in 1996 or $704 per smoking mother.
2. New England Journal of Medicine- Health Care Cost of Smoking. Barendregt et al. Vol. 337: 1052-1057, 1997.
And health care aint the only cost. I get a 10% rebate on my car and house insurance because I am a nonsmoker. Why???? Because insurance companies do a helluva an expensive statistical analysis that says I am a lower cost risk because I am less likely to have a car accident, and I am less likely to have a house fire. And private health insurance companies??? Number one question- Are you a smoker???? Number two question: Have you ever been a smoker????
Kreskin said:
Kreskin, there are so many studies, I cant possibly list them all.
Here are a couple: (and yeah, most research is US based as they have larger population bases and more research money)
1. State Estimate of Neonatal Healthcare Costs associated with Maternal Smoking, 1996- summary: smoking attributed neonatal expenditures of $366 million US in 1996 or $704 per smoking mother.
2. New England Journal of Medicine- Health Care Cost of Smoking. Barendregt et al. Vol. 337: 1052-1057, 1997.
And health care aint the only cost. I get a 10% rebate on my car and house insurance because I am a nonsmoker. Why???? Because insurance companies do a helluva an expensive statistical analysis that says I am a lower cost risk because I am less likely to have a car accident, and I am less likely to have a house fire. And private health insurance companies??? Number one question- Are you a smoker???? Number two question: Have you ever been a smoker????
Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?
Said 1- I honestly am not trying to be snarky to YOU!!!!
The reason for these questions is that this is one of many repeated health analyses that are being constantly conducted to subvert attention from the main issue...hire more workers, and put more money into the system. Health care costs. This report probably cost 100,000 plus to produce and basically has given us = common sense. Yes, there is less health care in the North. DUH.
When a consulting firm is given a pile of money to analyze a situation, they must produce, and that means that they cannot say STATUS QUO, even if the workers tell them that status quo is the most efficient and safest way to do things. As a result, every time one of these reports comes out, the workers are faced with, at great expense, changing the system, and then changing it back with the next report. Yes, I am very cynical. I believe that there is a deliberate erosion and presentation of the public health care system as an inefficient wasteful organization. I believe that slowly the government (Liberal and Conservative) want the public to finally cry out, as they are starting to do..."Give me a private health care system" and then the government can pretend that we the public wanted this.
The government has money to put into the health care system. Use it that way, and not to continually fund consultants to find the flaws in the system.
Said1 said:fuzzylogix said:Said1 said:Here is part of a pretty good report on health care, I can't find t he rest of it though!
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/HCC_Chapter_7.pdf
Can you tell me:
1. How much did this report cost to produce?
2. How will this report help/change/improve the public health care system?
3. How many health care workers were laid off during the production time of this report?
Why? Why not get to the point - which would be what?
Said 1- I honestly am not trying to be snarky to YOU!!!!
The reason for these questions is that this is one of many repeated health analyses that are being constantly conducted to subvert attention from the main issue...hire more workers, and put more money into the system. Health care costs. This report probably cost 100,000 plus to produce and basically has given us = common sense. Yes, there is less health care in the North. DUH.
When a consulting firm is given a pile of money to analyze a situation, they must produce, and that means that they cannot say STATUS QUO, even if the workers tell them that status quo is the most efficient and safest way to do things. As a result, every time one of these reports comes out, the workers are faced with, at great expense, changing the system, and then changing it back with the next report. Yes, I am very cynical. I believe that there is a deliberate erosion and presentation of the public health care system as an inefficient wasteful organization. I believe that slowly the government (Liberal and Conservative) want the public to finally cry out, as they are starting to do..."Give me a private health care system" and then the government can pretend that we the public wanted this.
The government has money to put into the health care system. Use it that way, and not to continually fund consultants to find the flaws in the system.
Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?
The link is one chapter from the Romanow report, which does have some valid suggestions for improvements, that go deeper than the obvious such as hiring more workers and addressing adequette access to health care in rural and northerly areas. Some of Romanow's suggestions have actaully been implemented, such as home care, which would probably benefit the elder and single parents who don't want a long hospital stay, but need help at home.
I don't think there is anything deliberate going on, it's just that the government had made it undesireable for doctors to practice medicine in this country in the very beginning, though price capping - which also led to abuses on behalf of the medial establishment. Making health care universal also had the same effects on doctors, in particular, specialists.
I did find the rest of it after the fact, but was too lazy to post the link.
fuzzylogix said:
The link is one chapter from the Romanow report, which does have some valid suggestions for improvements, that go deeper than the obvious such as hiring more workers and addressing adequette access to health care in rural and northerly areas. Some of Romanow's suggestions have actaully been implemented, such as home care, which would probably benefit the elder and single parents who don't want a long hospital stay, but need help at home.
I don't think there is anything deliberate going on, it's just that the government had made it undesireable for doctors to practice medicine in this country in the very beginning, though price capping - which also led to abuses on behalf of the medial establishment. Making health care universal also had the same effects on doctors, in particular, specialists.
I did find the rest of it after the fact, but was too lazy to post the link.
Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?
I'm not just talking about the healthcare costs or even the individual cost. Lets assume their healthcare costs were more. How much more than the crippled marathon runner living to 92? Smoker's pay more taxes and get less public revenue. What is the actual average lifetime net difference as a public expense? How much does that differ from Mars Bar Benny? I have never seen such an analysis. Someone going for their Masters in economics should make it a thesis.
fuzzylogix said:
I'm not just talking about the healthcare costs or even the individual cost. Lets assume their healthcare costs were more. How much more than the crippled marathon runner living to 92? Smoker's pay more taxes and get less public revenue. What is the actual average lifetime net difference as a public expense? How much does that differ from Mars Bar Benny? I have never seen such an analysis. Someone going for their Masters in economics should make it a thesis.
Many of Romanovs suggestions have been adopted. However, if you look at home care, this was not implemented to benefit the elderly or people who would like to get home faster. It was accelerated to get people out of hospital faster because every day in hospital costs so much money. Sounds good on paper, but it has yet to be assessed whether in fact this will end up saving money. Sending people home early is now increasing return visits to hospital, wound complications, and even deaths from such things as pneumonia and clots to the lungs, because noone is at home forcing patients to get up and move around. Home care unfortunately cannot be at the patients side 24 hours. The costs of home care also may in fact be more than if extra rehabilitation beds in a hospital were funded, because a nurse in a hospital can tend more patients per hour than can a home care nurse travelling between patients.
Romanovs report is of course the big government sponsored report but there are multiple other ongoing assessments.
I am not sure what the abuses on behalf of the medical establishment are. Could you elaborate?
Romanovs report is of course the big government sponsored report but there are multiple other ongoing assessments.
I am not sure what the abuses on behalf of the medical establishment are. Could you elaborate?
Waiting times for what exactly? To be seen? To be triaged? To be admitted to the floor? To be treated?
In that case, I would also like a study seeing how health is impacted by those waits and how many of those people could have just made an appointment with their doctor or gone to a walk in clinic rather than clogging up the emergency room. Consumers aren't always just victims of waiting times, they are often the cause.
Twice in the last year and a half
I have gone to emergency. Once for a heart attack and once for a minor injury. I have a neighbor who had a massive heart attack on a Monday and was walking around after a quintuple by-pass by on friday. After they got everything settled down with my heart, they shipped me off to Victoria where I had a couple of stents put in. While I was in intensive care I talked to most of the people there and nobody waited for fifteen hours, and nor did I. I will be the first to admit that the nurses are over-worked but apparently that is getting better. I'm curious to know why people publish these BS stories that are obviously crap.
I have gone to emergency. Once for a heart attack and once for a minor injury. I have a neighbor who had a massive heart attack on a Monday and was walking around after a quintuple by-pass by on friday. After they got everything settled down with my heart, they shipped me off to Victoria where I had a couple of stents put in. While I was in intensive care I talked to most of the people there and nobody waited for fifteen hours, and nor did I. I will be the first to admit that the nurses are over-worked but apparently that is getting better. I'm curious to know why people publish these BS stories that are obviously crap.
Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?
If I have an emergency I can't run into my Doctors office and expect to be seen....they have appointments with other people and are often late with those as it is. I should go to emergency and get prompt treatment.
The problem comes when my version of prompt meets their version of prompt.
In Ontario there are planning to get ride of walk-in clinics altogether. They are too expensive. (This is according to my Doctor)
tracy said:
If I have an emergency I can't run into my Doctors office and expect to be seen....they have appointments with other people and are often late with those as it is. I should go to emergency and get prompt treatment.
The problem comes when my version of prompt meets their version of prompt.
In Ontario there are planning to get ride of walk-in clinics altogether. They are too expensive. (This is according to my Doctor)
Great answer. :roll:
I had been told to expect to wait by people who read about it. I asked about wait times and was told that in the ER, people were waiting as long as two hours depending on what was wrong with them. People who go to emergency with a sore foot deserve to wait for fifteen hours. When I was waiting in emergency there was a lady who brought her child in with one degree of fever and the sniffles. People who tie up emergency with silly problems should be fined. My minor injury required sixteen stitches.
More lies....
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/01/emergency-050401.html
Like I said, thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/01/emergency-050401.html
Like I said, thanks.
Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?
Kreskin, there definitely are studies ongoing over other healthcare issues such as obesity and links to diabetes. I do not dispute that many of these issues are as important as smoking. I would not use the comparison of a marathon runner though, because on the whole, these people are improving their health with exercise and good diet, and in fact many of them have better joints by good joint and muscle care as they are aware of sports health issues.
A better comparison would be unhealthy food such as McDonalds crap that definitely is creating a real health hazard. It took a long while for governments to be able to fight the big smoking companies to bring in taxes and laws about advertising limits, etc. The same is starting to happen with the food industry that is now being forced to disclose items such as levels of TransFat. I think it would be an excellent idea for places such as McDonalds to have heavy taxes added to their food to be used to treat the health problems that will ensue from eating there!!!!!! And, maybe Mcdonalds shouldnt be allowed to cater ads to young kids and suck them in with the latest toy craze!! I wont be surprised if insurance companies start considering your diet when they give you life insurance. And maybe youll get a rebate for being fast food free!!!
Kreskin said:
Kreskin, there definitely are studies ongoing over other healthcare issues such as obesity and links to diabetes. I do not dispute that many of these issues are as important as smoking. I would not use the comparison of a marathon runner though, because on the whole, these people are improving their health with exercise and good diet, and in fact many of them have better joints by good joint and muscle care as they are aware of sports health issues.
A better comparison would be unhealthy food such as McDonalds crap that definitely is creating a real health hazard. It took a long while for governments to be able to fight the big smoking companies to bring in taxes and laws about advertising limits, etc. The same is starting to happen with the food industry that is now being forced to disclose items such as levels of TransFat. I think it would be an excellent idea for places such as McDonalds to have heavy taxes added to their food to be used to treat the health problems that will ensue from eating there!!!!!! And, maybe Mcdonalds shouldnt be allowed to cater ads to young kids and suck them in with the latest toy craze!! I wont be surprised if insurance companies start considering your diet when they give you life insurance. And maybe youll get a rebate for being fast food free!!!
Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?
I'm aware of it's main purpose, however, it's still helps those who ordinarilly might not seek help for fear of a long hospital stay - like the elderly and single mothers, for example. I didn't say it was cure all. There are also new subsidies for people who are primary caregivers on top of home care aides. Sure, it cuts costs, but in the past, I was faced with a long hospital stay and the stress of my daughter being with my parents and some other things were far more stressful than the actual reason I was in the hospital. In the end, after a lot of begging they agreed to treat me as an out patient after being in the hospital for 5 days.
Funded by whom? What makes their reports more subsantial than Romanow's? What makes their interests different from his? What do you care about other assessements anyway, Ms. Cyncacle? :lol:
Seriously, Romaow's report is pretty good and I'm no right wing nut either.
Doctors bill per visit, some have approached their practice like a mill, getting as many through as possible.
fuzzylogix said:
I'm aware of it's main purpose, however, it's still helps those who ordinarilly might not seek help for fear of a long hospital stay - like the elderly and single mothers, for example. I didn't say it was cure all. There are also new subsidies for people who are primary caregivers on top of home care aides. Sure, it cuts costs, but in the past, I was faced with a long hospital stay and the stress of my daughter being with my parents and some other things were far more stressful than the actual reason I was in the hospital. In the end, after a lot of begging they agreed to treat me as an out patient after being in the hospital for 5 days.
Funded by whom? What makes their reports more subsantial than Romanow's? What makes their interests different from his? What do you care about other assessements anyway, Ms. Cyncacle? :lol:
Seriously, Romaow's report is pretty good and I'm no right wing nut either.
Doctors bill per visit, some have approached their practice like a mill, getting as many through as possible.