Talk-Polywell.org

I can see this logic being applied to all health care in the near future.
Based on you potential income/ worth.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015120 ... extra-year
At the moment, drugs for terminal illnesses tend to be judged on two things – by how much they extend the lifespan, and the quality of life of the patient, using a scale known as the Quality Adjusted Life Year-saved (QALY). A drug that helps you live for an extra year, at half your general quality of life, would score about 0.5 years on this scale, for instance. “Alternatively, a drug that improved your quality of life for a year from a level of half normal, to full health would also score 0.5,” explains Wilkinson.
The UK recommends paying about £20,000 to £30,000 for each additional year of good health
From these calculations, a health service can then start to set a price on whether a drug is worth the cost. The UK’s recommendations, for example, are about £20,000 to £30,000 ($30,000 to $45,000) for each additional year of good health, once it has been adjusted to take into account the quality of life. So a drug that achieved 0.5 on the QALY measure would only merit £10,000-15,000 ($15,000 to $22,500).

The best 20th century medicine Gubberment and its protected crony corporate medical industry can offer. And that explains why 50% of Americans have at least one chronic disease and 25% have 2 or more chronic diseases.

The Microbiome was discovered in the 21st century, but has as yet to find its way into the understanding of chronic disease. Why is that?

Here is the tip of the iceberg, 5, not 1, but 5 different fungi found associated with Alzheimers disease, research performed in Europe. By the way, amyloid beta is an antimicrobial peptide. Blaming the lesions on an AMP is like blaming police because they are always found at the scene of a crime.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/this- ... expensive/

I'd like to examine the data for that chart. I went to the BLS for the first time and poked around a bit, but it wasn't easy to find historical data prior to 2012 in my five minutes of searching.

So, I was a little curious about who came up with the chart...and googled Himmelstein and Woolhandler since they are attributed at the bottom. It seems that this pair of MDs may be strong activists/advocates of single payer, government run healthcare as a way to trim costs.

Thus, I suspect that chart was constructed to support the point that Obamacare was the way to save the healthcare industry.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2012/06/01/himmels ... gle-payer/

Now, I'm not against all the ideas in that cited article, but there is clearly a political agenda. And anything with a strong political agenda makes me suspicious and want to examine the backing data in any chart.

That said, I do not doubt that bureaucratic waste is a huge problem. It is just ironic that these researchers are using that point as a way to steer towards a solution that essentially takes the insurance companies and gives their role to the motor vehicle department on a massive scale. Yeah, that's the answer of course!

I wonder how a similar chart would compare to England's NHS?

Problem is that the administrative rocket up the Bhind is due to Obama Care disease and treatment coding. Another Gubberment 'you can keep your doctor' bald faced lie.

Look, medicine is stuck in the 20th century. And chronic disease which consumes 80% of costs is treated with palliative strategies where the symptoms are treated but the disease is never treated curatively. So, chronic disease is epidemic. Furthermore, mental health troubles are not viewed as a medical disease. Often times couch sessions along with drugs are the treatment.

Here are some statistics:
http://www.partnershipforsolutions.org/ ... ok2004.pdf