Posted By: austin c @ 09/05/2008 8:31:37 PM
Comment: The Medicare only cover seniors above 65 which involves only a part of the total population of U.S. Except for Part D for drug which does not cover all the seniors, I think Medicare is a great thing to be available , the cost of medical service is controlled by the government. For general population, we should look forward for the national health insurance, which is currently praticed by many developed nations with per capita medical expense much less than in U.S. which currently has no national health insurance. the key of its success is to cut down the charges of the medical services, which has been done in Medicare with some success.
That lower cost of medical care in third world countries is because those countries don't have the burden associated with ingenuity. In other words, we have one of the highest health care costs, because this market is paying off all of the innovations.
Other countries benefit from American innovation, yet don't have to expense it. Indonesia didn't invent the X-Ray and therefore does have to pay it's cost.
Look at Japan, their cost of living is skyrocketed compared to ours because their market has to bear the burden of their innovation.
Same thing in medical costs here.
The big issue is poor research and the number of people that use brand-names instead of generics. Medicine companies are forced to provide a generic if one isn't on the market already. This was intended to curtail medical costs. Yet government insurance programs are inforcing this as much as privately owned insurance. My private insurance always forces me to buy generics if they are available and proven to work the same.
The one guy with the disability. If the medicine is the same then you're suffering from a sugar pill effect. There's no way the inactive ingrediants can make the difference. However, if there's a true medical difference in the two, then you are the anomoly, and we should give you the medicine that works.
For most people, however, the generic works just fine.
Is Medicare Healthy?
Trouble looms and there are no simple solutions. What you—and the next president—need to know.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Health-care reform is a key campaign issue, but there's at least one program neither presidential candidate is talking much about: Medicare. It's hugely popular, but rising costs and aging boomers are straining its finances. What would a President McCain or President Obama do about that—and how smart are their plans? NEWSWEEK's Mary Carmichael spoke with Joseph Newhouse, a Medicare expert and professor of health policy at Harvard University:
NEWSWEEK: Why is Medicare taking such a back seat in this election?
NEWHOUSE: Because it's an issue that will only lose you votes. The elderly vote at high rates, and Medicare is a voting issue for them, so it's very heavy political lifting to cut benefits or services.
But it's a pressing problem. According to one report, the trust fund that covers hospital stays will start running out in 2011 and be gone by 2019.
Well, the present trend is not sustainable, but there is a lot of uncertainty about when the trust fund will run out. The key number driving the forecasts is the rate of increase in health-care costs, which can change. Think of what would happen if in three years we had an effective drug for Alzheimer's disease.
It could drive Medicare costs up and the funding could run out even sooner.
On the other hand, maybe medical innovation will slow down in the future, and costs won't rise so steeply.
We do know of one trend for certain—the boomers are getting older.
True, but in terms of when the trust fund runs out, that is less of a problem than the increase in costs per beneficiary. Look at Social Security—it probably won't run out until the 2040s. That's because it's subject only to boomers becoming eligible, whereas Medicare is subject to both that phenomenon and to rising health-care costs.
You're written some provocative things about the rise in health-care costs—specifically, you don't think it's all bad.
A lot of the discussion has been, "Oh my God, the sky is falling, we have to stop the increase in costs." My own view is that we can talk about inefficiencies and how money can be saved—and I agree with a lot of that talk—but the higher costs have come with a lot of benefits: devices like artificial hips and knees, traditional drugs like antidepressants, new biotech drugs, new procedures. A lot of that innovation is what has made medicine more expensive. So any simplistic attempts to control costs may risk jeopardizing future innovation.
But innovation isn't the only culprit. You reported earlier this year that prices for some drugs used by the elderly have gone up almost 25 percent in the past two years.
What happened was that a substantial chunk of the elderly gained drug benefits. Then their demand for brand-name drugs went up, so the drug manufacturers responded by increasing their prices.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss