Since Jan. of 2001 the American public has been under assault... From 1998 to 2005, the number of reported serious adverse drug events increased 2.6-fold from 34,966 in 1998 to 89,842 in 2005. The number of fatal adverse drug events increased 2.7-fold during the same time period, from 5,519 in 1998 to 15,107 in 2005. Funny...but not so funny... my family healthcare costs have risen by 400 % since Bush took office.
The population is aging and there are many more prescriptions written...also there are many new drugs and each one adds a chance to have an ADE. Electronic prescribing would go a long way towards lowering these figures...some politicians and physician/pharmacist groups are pushing for this but not enough. With today's technology it is inexcusible not to have this as a priority. One politician who has started an Electronic Health Records Initiative and appointed a new Health Information Technology Coordinator is (shock!) George W. Bush
ohhhhhh <t>I have so much to add here but sadly, legally, cannot. oh well, this should make for interesting reading at least</t>
I just find it curious to say the least that my healthcare costs seemed to stabilize during the Clinton years with very small or no increases in premiums and they skyrocketed during both George Sr. and especiallyGeorge Jr.'s tenure. Also as of the last 5 years my coverage has slipped badly and there was no perceptible change in coverage during the Clinton years. By the way...I have been employed with the SAME company since 1986. I don't think there is a defensible argument to be made that would logically explain this phenomenon on behalf of Sr. and W and the Republicans. Maybe I am the only one on this board who has experienced this? I really don't think that is the truth.
Bill Clinton was president from 1993 to 2001...so he took over when the figure was low, and left when it was going back up. I wish I had a more up to date version but I don't...however it has bounced around but continued to rise through every administration.
"In sum, neither regulation, voluntary action by the health care industry, nor managed care and market competition have had a lasting impact on our nation's health care costs. Some might argue that we were not serious or comprehensive enough about any one of these approaches for them to have had a lasting impact. On the other hand, it could be argued that the point is academic; we were as serious as public and political support for any one approach would allow. Some believe that we will not get a handle on health care costs as a nation until we are ready to make tough decisions about rationing medical care. An equally plausible scenario is that the apparent failure of all approaches reflects the American people's uncontainable desire for the latest and best health care, and that what we will do in the future is try small things that will work at the margin, complain a lot, but ultimately pay the bill. Whichever view is right, the historical data, while certainly open to different interpretations, show that managed care is not alone in its failure to solve the health care cost problem. Indeed, history suggests that it may be folly to expect that there are any easy or magic answers to this problem. When it comes to controlling health care costs, reformers should not overpromise. Drew Altman is president and chief executive officer of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California. Larry Levitt is vice-president and director, Changing Health Care Marketplace Project, at Kaiser. ©2002 Project HOPE–The People-to-People Health Foundation"
Stu...your graph very clearly demonstrates a sharp increase in the late 80s and a very significant dip in the mid 90s that did rise back a little by 2000 but that was rising rapidly after 2000. I can only imagine what the next 8 years would look like on that graph....probably higher than any similar timeframe in the history of the country.
It peaked in 1988 and then declined till about 1994, and has been rising ever since then. The Slope of the curve from 1995 on hasn't changed MCG. You're just trying to figure some way to imply that Clinton contained healthcare costs..and it's not true. Doubt if he had any impact on it at all.
Three years into the Clinton presidency it was it lowest point since 1980....after which it rose rapidly for most of the decade. Look at that rapidly rising graph line post 2000 and you tell me where you think that would be from 2001 thru present. My own personal experiences say it's off the charts. But....you being a dentist Terry I can see where you have no beefs with what's been going down ( or up I should say).... :roll:
I posted the graph but I don't know that it's all that meaningful other than the reason the author of the article posted it...to show that no matter what of various strategies has been used in managed care over the years, it really hasn't affected much. My eyes must be crooked because it looks to me like the lowest point is at 1992 or so...it starts taking off one year after Clinton first took office... That meteoric rise you are talking about after 2000 is a projection (dotted line) because they didn't have the data for 2001 yet when the graph was drawn...but even if true it's well on it's way back up before Mr. Clinton left office. Republicans have certainly not been our friends in terms of controlling health care costs. You have one party in the pocket of the plaintiff's attorneys and the other in the pocket of the drug companies and insurance companies...we are being lip-serviced only, while at the same time we demand top of the line expensive treatments and want someone else to pay for them. You never did respond to my post that George Bush is on the forefront of what I think is one of the most important solutions to the original social nightmare that you brought up (ADEs) Does it make your life easier or harder to have one individual to blame for every bad thing that happens. :wink:
Nice to see everyone responding here has seen their healthcare costs remain at a slow growing reasonable rate. Man...you guys have some super health coverage and and even better employers who must be absorbing all those increases. "That meteoric rise you are talking about after 2000 is a projection (dotted line)" No Stu...sadly...(to coin a phrase from Corey)...it is from personal experience that allows me to know for certain that were there to be a continuation of your graph past 2000 it would illustrate meteoric increases in healthcare costs since W took over. Personal experience is much more painful than a graph. But again....nice going guys keeping those healthcare cost increases to a comfortable minimum in your own households..... :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol:
How many employees do you provide healthcare for George and how has that affected their own personal health costs?
15. And the way we try to control costs is to bargain shop every year, raise deductibles and raise the employee contribution. When I started this business years ago I looked for employee candidates who were established, with families a mortgage etc. Now I look for singles, who live at home, are young and think they are superman and whose biggest concern is their weekend bar tab.
I wish to he!! I knew where this impression came that Government was the cure to all ills...... :roll: It needs to go away. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves like an out of control top at such a notion....God help us.
Who the hell said that??? Once again you deflect what was said by putting words in folks mouths that were never said nor even implied. Health care costs last year went up 7.7%...on the high end of that graph but by no means lots higher than they have been under previous administrations of both parties.
Let <t>That whacko wife of the First Felon get her way and socialized medicine you will be begging for what you have now. My wife and I have great coverage through United Healthcare for 197.00 a month and have no complaints.</t>
Houston Larry, I think that one of the huge problems that has to be addressed is portability...many folks who have insurance cannot change jobs or fear job loss because of the threat of loss of health insurance. There are way too many part-time workers, folks who want to retire or try a new career before age 65 who cannot, and self-employed individuals who have a terrible time with the narrow insurance pools. And as Dave says, many with insurance do not have a deal as good as yours. Private insurance, by the nature of the beast, wants to insure only young, healthy workers.
I have a family of 5 and the accumulated costs for healthcare in a year's time is outrageous but alas it does not exceed that magical 7% number I need for a tax deduction. I'm screwed and get more screwed every July when the company health policy is renewed. In the last 5-7 years that has been the case in a significant way. I know every July there is bad news coming on the healthcare front.