3 ms·

The illustration is misleading because it forces things into three buckets, two of which are colored to indicate "not good". But still, that bottom right corne

The illustration is misleading because it forces things into three buckets, two of which are colored to indicate "not good". But still, that bottom right corner of the graph is telling. Also pretty disgusting to me that healthcare is "growing faster than normal" across the board. You'd think it'd be "growing the normal rate" at least somewhere. It's not like population is growing faster than normal across the board. Isn't 20% of the GDP enough for an industry that's fundamentally a cost center of society? Wars have been fought over less.

bell-cot 11mo ago
Healthcare is a non-negotiable way to extract money from people. And the industry is swimming in opaque complexities, IP, monopolies, monopsonies, and sweetheart regulation. Why the h*ll should they limit themselves to a mere 20%?
bluGill 11mo ago
The large baby boomer generation is getting old, and thus their costs will go up just by nature of old people needing more. They are also realizing that health is the largest factor in how long they will live (not to mention that they likely started smoking before people realized how harmful it was - most have long quit but with unknown damage done. There are other choices that they often made that are now questionable) Which is to say I expect spending to go up just for demographic reasons of large numbers of people starting to care. Don't confuse this for thinking all is well with health care costs.
doctorpangloss 11mo ago
What’s the maximum price you’d pay for a cure to a rare, fatal pediatric disease? Answer this question, and you’re on the journey to the solution to the problem you are talking about. Tell me some BS why the question doesn’t matter or is wrong or whatever, and discover why “Dunning Kruger” is at least part of the answer.
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  >Answer this question, and you’re on the journey to the solution to the problem you are talking about. Tell me some BS why the question doesn’t matter or is wrong or whatever, and discover why “Dunning Kruger” is at least part of the answer. I posit that the people who hold an ideology, moral compass, world view, or whatever else you want to call it, that permits the question to even be framed in this way are a root problem exacerbating many other problems in society, healthcare likely being one. I don't know what the "solution" is but the fact that ~1:5 dollars in this country is spent on maintenance of the human body is just wild and likely unsustainable or indicative of some gross error in how we measure such things.
- Spivak 11mo ago
  From experience from my peers getting pregnant it's the cost of a "selective reduction" (which can be 1 to 0). Newly pregnant friends are spending $$$ on tests in utero to weed out children with such things. You're free to downvote, it won't make it less true. Genetic testing is all the rage in my social circle. No parent want's "dies basically immediately after birth" disease which is a surprising about of genetic conditions and way more people than I expected were silent carriers of at least one.
  - doctorpangloss 11mo ago
    well, you didn't answer the question, but it sounds like you are saying $40,000? how much do you think Orchid costs? do you think it even works? $40,000 cap would exclude all the therapeutics targeting rare disease being developed today. not just pediatric. all. it would exclude tirzepatide, which costs $250,000 to $400,000 for most people. if you want to cure obesity. and by the way, congress expressly banned paying for all weight loss treatments from medicare. > Newly pregnant friends are spending $$$ on tests in utero to weed out children with such things. do you think pregnancies at age 40 compared to pregnancies at age 20 are more expensive, or less expensive? define expensive, yes? and what price should the government pay? should it pay 40 year old mothers different than 20 year old mothers? it's too bad that i'm being downvoted, since you're engaging with the question and hopefully it is really illuminating why there are no easy answers to capping healthcare costs. it starts with people, especially people who think of themselves as being very smart, being unable to specify a max price they are willing to pay, which is conceding that a market-based solution can exist but be very deeply flawed.
trollbridge 11mo ago
An aging population combined with people generally being a lot less healthy (eg look at obesity or diabetes rates) means we either let people die off, or else spend more and more on healthcare.
jerlam 11mo ago
The elderly are on Medicare, and health care providers know they can treat much more aggressively when the government is picking up the tab. Despite the fact that in a purely economic sense, it is more important that children and young adults get health care. When I went to the doctor about fatigue, the advice given to me was to stop exercising and take a break. When my father went to the doctor about fatigue, they gave him a full blood panel and scheduled a cardiologist and respiratory therapist visit.
- newsoftheday 11mo ago
  >The elderly are on Medicare, and health care providers know they can treat much more aggressively when the government is picking up the tab. People should not make the unqualified statement that Medicare is free, which is what "the government is picking up the tab" sounds like. Medicare isn't free. Some people, not all, can qualify for free Part A but Parts B, C and D have premiums no matter what.

bell-cot 11mo ago

Healthcare is a non-negotiable way to extract money from people. And the industry is swimming in opaque complexities, IP, monopolies, monopsonies, and sweetheart regulation. Why the h*ll should they limit themselves to a mere 20%?

bluGill 11mo ago

The large baby boomer generation is getting old, and thus their costs will go up just by nature of old people needing more. They are also realizing that health is the largest factor in how long they will live (not to mention that they likely started smoking before people realized how harmful it was - most have long quit but with unknown damage done. There are other choices that they often made that are now questionable) Which is to say I expect spending to go up just for demographic reasons of large numbers of people starting to care. Don't confuse this for thinking all is well with health care costs.

doctorpangloss 11mo ago

What’s the maximum price you’d pay for a cure to a rare, fatal pediatric disease? Answer this question, and you’re on the journey to the solution to the problem you are talking about. Tell me some BS why the question doesn’t matter or is wrong or whatever, and discover why “Dunning Kruger” is at least part of the answer.

potato3732842 11mo ago
>Answer this question, and you’re on the journey to the solution to the problem you are talking about. Tell me some BS why the question doesn’t matter or is wrong or whatever, and discover why “Dunning Kruger” is at least part of the answer. I posit that the people who hold an ideology, moral compass, world view, or whatever else you want to call it, that permits the question to even be framed in this way are a root problem exacerbating many other problems in society, healthcare likely being one. I don't know what the "solution" is but the fact that ~1:5 dollars in this country is spent on maintenance of the human body is just wild and likely unsustainable or indicative of some gross error in how we measure such things.
Spivak 11mo ago
From experience from my peers getting pregnant it's the cost of a "selective reduction" (which can be 1 to 0). Newly pregnant friends are spending $$$ on tests in utero to weed out children with such things. You're free to downvote, it won't make it less true. Genetic testing is all the rage in my social circle. No parent want's "dies basically immediately after birth" disease which is a surprising about of genetic conditions and way more people than I expected were silent carriers of at least one.
- doctorpangloss 11mo ago
  well, you didn't answer the question, but it sounds like you are saying $40,000? how much do you think Orchid costs? do you think it even works? $40,000 cap would exclude all the therapeutics targeting rare disease being developed today. not just pediatric. all. it would exclude tirzepatide, which costs $250,000 to $400,000 for most people. if you want to cure obesity. and by the way, congress expressly banned paying for all weight loss treatments from medicare. > Newly pregnant friends are spending $$$ on tests in utero to weed out children with such things. do you think pregnancies at age 40 compared to pregnancies at age 20 are more expensive, or less expensive? define expensive, yes? and what price should the government pay? should it pay 40 year old mothers different than 20 year old mothers? it's too bad that i'm being downvoted, since you're engaging with the question and hopefully it is really illuminating why there are no easy answers to capping healthcare costs. it starts with people, especially people who think of themselves as being very smart, being unable to specify a max price they are willing to pay, which is conceding that a market-based solution can exist but be very deeply flawed.

trollbridge 11mo ago

An aging population combined with people generally being a lot less healthy (eg look at obesity or diabetes rates) means we either let people die off, or else spend more and more on healthcare.

jerlam 11mo ago

The elderly are on Medicare, and health care providers know they can treat much more aggressively when the government is picking up the tab. Despite the fact that in a purely economic sense, it is more important that children and young adults get health care. When I went to the doctor about fatigue, the advice given to me was to stop exercising and take a break. When my father went to the doctor about fatigue, they gave him a full blood panel and scheduled a cardiologist and respiratory therapist visit.

newsoftheday 11mo ago
>The elderly are on Medicare, and health care providers know they can treat much more aggressively when the government is picking up the tab. People should not make the unqualified statement that Medicare is free, which is what "the government is picking up the tab" sounds like. Medicare isn't free. Some people, not all, can qualify for free Part A but Parts B, C and D have premiums no matter what.