• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Cutting Health Care Costs

health economics

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Alvin

  • Guest
  • 104 posts
  • 17
  • Location:New York City

Posted 21 September 2014 - 04:25 PM


 

 

 

What do you think of the information listed here to be used part of a campaign to persuade people that much more Federal support for medical research is necessary?

 

There are major economic consequences of not doing enough medical research. Advocates of medical research and humanitarians should understand this information.

 

The Federal Government spends fifty billion dollars more for space and military Research then they spend for medical research. I am not saying that they should spend less for space and military research. I am saying that the government should spend at least as much for medical research as they spend for military and space research.

 

 

 

1.     The United States spends two trillion seven hundred billion dollars yearly for health care. In addition, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars yearly for Social Security Disability, Welfare, Food Stamps, Home Care, Special Transportation, etc. brought about by because of illnesses.

 

2. The Federal Agency for Health Care Research and Quality claims that the medical utilization of the top 1% of patients is 21% of medical expenditures. Five percent of the people spend 50% of the health care costs.

 

3. That means that the top 1% of the people, which numbers about 3 million people, spends 560 billion dollars yearly for medical care. The top 5% of the American population uses 50% of the health care expenditures.  That adds up to one trillion three hundred billion dollars for the care. The bottom 50% of the population uses only 75 billion dollars. That is for more than 150 million people. It is hard to believe but true.

 

4. If all people could become part of the top 50% of healthiness the United States Health care medical expenditure would go from two trillion seven hundred billion dollars all the way down to one hundred and fifty  

         billion dollars. That would be a savings of two trillion five      

         hundred five hundred billion dollars yearly. In addition 

         hundreds of billions of dollars would be saved yearly on                                                   

         Welfare, Special transportation, etc   

 

          We cannot put everybody in the 50% category  

           Immediately. It is something to aim for.      

 

    5. The National Institutes of Health is the major medical                         research-funding agency of the Federal Government.                 

       Its budget was cut 25% over the last few years. The 

       Government under funded medical research even before

       the budget cuts. That makes the cuts so disastrous.

     

 

6. 9,332 Americans die of the top 8 illnesses every two days. Many others die of other illnesses, daily.

 

By comparison, 5,269 Americans died during the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars over 11 years. Our service members deserve the highest honors for giving their lives in combat.

 

7. There are economic advantages to biomedical research besides health improvement. Explaining that to people will help interest them in advocating for medical research.

 

Because of the R&D necessary for going to the moon, we eventually developed the microcircuit, the MRI, improved dialysis machines and a lot of additional products. The medical technology coming out of additional medical research will help our economy.



#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 September 2014 - 03:27 AM

The Federal Government spends fifty billion dollars more for space and military Research then they spend for medical research. I am not saying that they should spend less for space and military research. I am saying that the government should spend at least as much for medical research as they spend for military and space research.

 

We can't spend more in one area without spending less in another, or going into debt.  We have enough debt.  Instead we need to change funding priorities.  I'd love to see more spending on medical research, and less on the military, which has almost nothing to do with "keeping us safe" or keeping us "free", and everything to do with imposing upon the world the will of a small number of people who do not have at heart the interests of the average American.  I'm not sure how to accomplish this in a country where so many people believe things that aren't true, and vote on that basis.  A good first step might be addressing the looming pixel shortage-  Use smaller fonts.


  • like x 2

#3 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 September 2014 - 11:04 AM

Actually the military is one area that has been contributing to biomedical research in a wide range from DARPA developing BCI complex device C&C (cybernetics) and prosthetic tech to a variety of recovery treatments for injuries. The military is funding a lot of STEM cell research into nerve damage repair for example.   

 

Look at who the Pres is sending to Africa to fight the Ebola outbreak.  A large part of the 3000 man force is a combined medical response and biowarfare unit originally designed to respond to a biowarfare attack.  That is one reason they have the training and equipment to begin with.  They are treating this as a "live-fire" exercise and it will be interesting to see how well they play in the field with MSF, who have been kind of the lone warrior in this effort till now.

 

While I agree that Federal Funding is a kind of Zero-Sum game Niner, it is one that is not played by simple rules.



sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Alvin

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 104 posts
  • 17
  • Location:New York City

Posted 23 September 2014 - 04:03 PM

The reason that I said the difference between military and space research and Federal support for medical research is 50 billion dollars is because I figured in the expenditures for military medical research. I know about medical expenditures for medical research.



#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 September 2014 - 06:15 PM

Actually the military is one area that has been contributing to biomedical research in a wide range from DARPA developing BCI complex device C&C (cybernetics) and prosthetic tech to a variety of recovery treatments for injuries. The military is funding a lot of STEM cell research into nerve damage repair for example.   

 

Look at who the Pres is sending to Africa to fight the Ebola outbreak.  A large part of the 3000 man force is a combined medical response and biowarfare unit originally designed to respond to a biowarfare attack.  That is one reason they have the training and equipment to begin with.  They are treating this as a "live-fire" exercise and it will be interesting to see how well they play in the field with MSF, who have been kind of the lone warrior in this effort till now.

 

While I agree that Federal Funding is a kind of Zero-Sum game Niner, it is one that is not played by simple rules.

 

This comes up a lot, where a massive waste of money is justified because something good came out of it.  Considering the hundreds of billions we spend on defense, including the large sums that are cast as something other than military, or are simply hidden in a black budget or are otherwise off budget, it would be hard for something good not to happen.   The real question should be: "How much good could we do if we spent less on military expeditures and ill-conceived wars, and more on good things?   While DARPA is doing some cool things, thousands of good grant proposals are turned down by the NIH because the money isn't there.  This has a chilling effect on all science, because people aren't willing to go out on a limb with a high risk / high reward proposal, choosing instead to do more boring science because it's more likely to be funded.

 

Federal Funding certainly isn't played by simple rules.  Not when part of a weapons system is manufactured in each of fifty states in order to build Congressional support for something that the generals don't even want.



#6 Alvin

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 104 posts
  • 17
  • Location:New York City

Posted 23 September 2014 - 06:32 PM

Whether you believe that that the miitary budget is justified or not that isn't necessarily the question. We could save hundreds of billions of dollars yearly if we funded medical research adequately. We could also save a large amounts of lives. The National Institutes of Health Budget was cut 25% over the last few years, when you consider inflation. It should have been increased.

 

                                                                                                                                             Alvin



#7 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 September 2014 - 06:55 PM

Whether you believe that that the miitary budget is justified or not that isn't necessarily the question. We could save hundreds of billions of dollars yearly if we funded medical research adequately. We could also save a large amounts of lives. The National Institutes of Health Budget was cut 25% over the last few years, when you consider inflation. It should have been increased.

 

I don't think this has been demonstrated.  It's hypothetical, and it's hard to get Congress to spend a large amount of money on a hypothetical.  Unless they are hypothetical WMD...






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users