its true that there is more treatment available, but heres the thing. its NOT that expensive. an average 10k dollar surgery actually costs, in terms of materials and salarya and other overhead, maybe 1500. there is a MASSIVE price increase, because, well, pay or die. and as medical care as we know it has a monopoly on modern healthcare, thats not about to change. (same thing with medical malpractice insurance. the rise in rates charged to doctors matches the rise in salary, benefits, and stock dividends. they charge more, simply becuase they can)
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:50:12 -0500, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It may be that malpractice insurance and unnecessary tests are inflating > medical costs, but the largest cause of skyrocketing costs is quite clear: > medicine is much more effective than it used to be. Countless diseases and > conditions that could not be treated in the past can now be cured or > ameliorated. When President Kennedy's newborn son died on August 9, 1963, > the hospital bill was only a few hundred dollars because there was nothing > the doctors could do. Nowadays, the disease can be treated but the cost is > tens of thousands of dollars. All of my grandparents and great-grandparents > died at home in the care of their relatives at little or no expense from > diseases that could not be treated, such as diabetes. Nowadays they would > all be treated in a hospital and the cost would run to hundreds of > thousands of dollars. > > Most medical expenses are incurred in the last few years of life. I myself > think it is unwise to spend huge amounts of money extending the life of old > people who will die in a few years anyway. Perhaps I will feel differently > when I am old! On the other hand, my parents and grandparents steadfastly > refused heroic treatments, and they made it abundantly clear they would > never countenance being hooked up to machines. Despite that, my parents > care in the 1990s cost a great deal of money -- much more than it would > have in the 1960s or 20s. > > Incidentally, there is a recent popular movie that portrays a scene in a > hospital in which the doctors refuse to turn off a machine and let a > patient die. This is complete nonsense. If the patient is conscious and > demands that treatment be withdrawn, the doctors must comply, by law. I > have seen it happen, and the doctors made no objection whatever. I have > also seen them agree to do nothing more for comatose patients who were > dying at home. There were no objections and no pressure whenever -- at > least not in Maryland or Georgia. The county did send around a sympathetic > nurse who checked the dying patient and wrote down the particulars, such as > date of birth, treating physician, disease et cetera, and made some helpful > suggestions. It was low-key, sensible, sad but not frightening. Some people > demand extraordinary treatment for terminal patients, which I think drives > up costs and causes unnecessary suffering. In my opinion these people > should come to grips with their own fear of death, and grow up. > > - Jed > > -- "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
