Do you want Govt Health Care?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Each year, more dollars are spent on bio-medical research in the US than in the rest of the World.

If we implement a universal healthcare program, we can kiss a good chunk of those profit-driven research dollars good bye.

Yes, it's just GREAT that the 44 million Americans with no health coverage are willing to go along so the drug company profits are maintained. All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs.

This whole business of sidestepping the obvious, main point... and going off on a tangent about an inferred minor point... and then going off on a tangent of that...

Is it intentional?

Or is a matter of just not being able to help yourself?

I really like - "All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs"

WAAAAY off topic.

So who brought up the topic of drug company profits and R&D expenditures? OH, IT WAS YOU.

Classic Kallend. I make a point about medical breakthroughs and how they're funded. You, in turn, try to make it about the uninsured, as well as non-research expenses... and then profits. WOW

Since you seemed to have missed my point, I'll spell it out.

Currently, over 100 billion dollars is spent on MEDICAL RESEARCH in the US. These research dollars contribute dramatically to healthcare advancements. If we go to a universal healthcare system, the level of research dollars will drop dramatically, which will have an obvious impact on advancements.

I'm not making a point about the uninsured or the non-medical expenses of the drug companies. I may. But there's nothing in the above posts indicating I was talking about either of those topics.

DURRR

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

DURRR

I see. It's OK for NCclimber to go off on a tangent, but not for anyone else to follow up.

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. Maybe when you're promoted to greenie you can enforce your own double standards.

Since YOU introduced the topic, drug company profits and R&D expenditures are fair game for discussion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

These research dollars contribute dramatically to healthcare advancements. If we go to a universal healthcare system, the level of research dollars will drop dramatically, which will have an obvious impact on advancements.

If we have all of this great research and advancements, why do US citizens have the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world?

Why do you assume that a universal healthcare plan will automatically result in less research?

Presently, most research is going toward developing the next wonder-pill that markets well. Then the drug companies send out their detail men to provide lunches for Docs and free trips to Vegas so they will push this crap. Then they spam the TV with ads to "ask your doctor". "Side effects include loose stools, flatulence, and fainting......."

There have been very, very few true medical breakthroughs in the last 20 years. It seems we have stopped curing diseases.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

DURRR

I see. It's OK for NCclimber to go off on a tangent, but not for anyone else to follow up.

It's about context, perfesser. Sorry you can't seem to track.

Why don't you tell us more about the New York times being blocked by the NSC.

Quote

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. Maybe when you're promoted to greenie you can enforce your own double standards.

Since YOU introduced the topic, drug company profits and R&D expenditures are fair game for discussion.

Again. Context. The discussion was about medical advances... not how much drug companies spend on advertising or about the uninsured.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I think there is an all or nothing fallacy often invoked during this discussion's continuous iterations. If a national health-care scheme were to be implemented in the US the private sector would not be entirely (or even mostly) crowded out. Countries that have public universal health care such as UK and Canada still have large presences by the pharmaceuticals; they have private companies hawking tools, potions and information. Most, if not all western countries other than US have some sort of public private mixture of services including insurance. Blue Cross sells health insurance for things not covered by our provincial health care.
The United States spends more per capita on health care as a portion of GNP than any other nation. if this spending is to some degree or other socialized it will probably remain that way, but all the money showing up on your tax bill will not be new money. I think the insurance industry will have the most to lose as that portion of your paycheck deduction will shrink.
As to whether you will get better or worse health care, the answer is -it depends. As a professional skydiver I have health care coverage here in Canada I would not be able to afford if I lived in US. If you are a professional or belong to a large union, you probably have better access to health care in US. Most procedures are heavily rationed here and many people do opt to cross the border and pay for things like MRIs. That said no one in Canada sells their house to pay for a loved one's illness.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

DURRR

I see. It's OK for NCclimber to go off on a tangent, but not for anyone else to follow up.

It's about context, perfesser. Sorry you can't seem to track.

Why don't you tell us more about the New York times being blocked by the NSC.

Quote

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. Maybe when you're promoted to greenie you can enforce your own double standards.

Since YOU introduced the topic, drug company profits and R&D expenditures are fair game for discussion.

Again. Context. The discussion was about medical advances... not how much drug companies spend on advertising or about the uninsured.

Context includes ALL aspects of costs, marketing and profits included.

Just because YOU don't want to discuss something doesn't mean that it's irrelevant.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chaoskitty 0]

This is obviously a complicated issue. Short answer, no I do not want Govt Health Care. Many other tax related issues would have to change before I would be comfortable with any MORE of my money going to pay for other's health care. I have no problem paying my Medicare taxes. That takes care of elderly and people who CAN'T take care of themselves. What I am opposed to is paying for people who WON'T take care of themselves.

In addition, I know there are many cases of people being rejected for health care because of insufficient coverage or lack of insurance. 90% of people who do not have insurance, qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid reimbursement (the dollar amount they pay a hospital) is ridiculously low, yet patients are accepted and treated.

I work for a health care corporation that owns a network of seven hospitals. Our annual bad debt write off is in the multi-millions. What that means is, uninsured ARE accepted. Self-pay patients ARE treated. (I know Michael Moore wouldn't listen to that though). We work with patients on payment plans, and we pay a lot of money to collection agencies to get these patients to pay their bills, and most of the time, the money just gets written off and absorbed by the hospital. Thats not a good situation for the patient, who might have already had bad credit, but certainly does now, and its not good for the hospital who now has less of a budget to grow and treat future patients.

I definitely believe there are problems with the health care system the way it is. I just don't believe that govt acquisition is the solution.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

90% of people who do not have insurance, qualify for Medicaid.

I'd be willing to bet that stat is waaaaay off. Do you have a source to back that up?

And as far as the hospital "absorbing" that cost, who do you think is really paying? That's right - you and me.

So why not just pay up front, and maybe pay for some preventative medicine and save in the long run?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Context includes ALL aspects of costs, marketing and profits included.

I'm not sure what all these things have to do with my point - that research dollars will drop dramatically if we go to a universal healthcare system.

Quote

Just because YOU don't want to discuss something doesn't mean that it's irrelevant.

If you want to introduce a given topic, then go right ahead. The issues you've brought up are relevant to the big picture.

It's the quoting my post, then going off about some completely unrelated matters to refute my point that I call bullshit on.

Sorry you seem to have trouble grasping something so basic.

[chaoskitty 0]

Hell yeah I'm paying for it, since it affects the profitability of my hospitals, and therefore my income. Not to mention all of the extra work I have to do in order to not get paid for it.

I spend a lot of time in the business offices of hospitals. I've seen a lot of self pay patients who never bothered to apply for medicaid. You'd be surprised how many people think that medicaid should be knocking down their door to sign them up.

And lets not forget charity hospitals such as the Scottish Rite who don't even charge a co-pay.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Hell yeah I'm paying for it, since it affects the profitability of my hospitals, and therefore my income.

I think you missed my point.

And I'd also say that MAYBE a profit driven model is not ideal when it comes to people's life and death.

Don't worry - you can still make a good living.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[chaoskitty 0]

No I got your point. I just re-directed it to another less obvious point along the same lines.

Right, maybe a *non* profit driven model would work better. As long as the portion of the population who makes money isn't left picking up the tab of the portion who doesn't. Yeah sorry, I'm a capitalist.

edit to say what I meant instead of meaning what I said.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There are many things that government does that have no direct private sector equivalent.

True. That's why it's the government. It has power and practices that make Haliburton and Microsoft look like patsies.

Quote

As a moral person, and a Christian, I think it is our duty to care for those who cannot take care of themselve.

What about those that "will not" take care of themselves. Do we have a duty to them?

---

Governments can, and often do, try to deliver market-quality services at below-market prices. But it doesn't last long. Soon, the government will begin raising the prices to pay for it. Along with raising the price the government will ration it.

See, you cannot have health care that is: 1) high quality; 2) inexpensive; and 3) available on demand. Canada has health care that is inexpensive and high quality - when they get around to treating you!

The viewpoint in Canada and many places is that "predominantly" free-market systems, like that of the US, rations health care by the ability to pay. I find this to be somewhat correct. The services offered are what the market will bear. So, healthcare in a private market system will be like choosing between the high-end luxury models and an old jalopy that merely gets you from place to place.

So what a Canadian-type model will do is offer at its chief policy that everyone gets the same thing. No more, no less, no better, no worse. But it is more expensive for some and less expensive for others.

It comes down, therefore, to subjective values. what do you value? Equality above all? The price of equality is liberty. Do you want liberty above all? The price is equality and order? Do you want order? The price is liberty and probably equality.

So if you want healthcare available to all, it'll either be expensive or low-quality. But nobody wants crummy healthcare - especially when they can get good healthcare at any emergency room.

But Canadian healthcare is rationed - they admit it. They don't have reources to meet all demands or even needs.

America has top notch healthcare. Personally, I don't want that to change into something else.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

I'm a capitalist too, but I'm not a nut about it.

(credit to George H.W. Bush for that one - "I'm a conservative, but I'm not a nut about it.")

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

See, you cannot have health care that is: 1) high quality; 2) inexpensive; and 3) available on demand.

Are you under the impression that in the USA health care (especially major) is 'on demand'? I don't want to bust your bubble, but it is faaaaaar from it.

I think that one way or the other, we end up paying for health care for the poor or less fortunate. Also, because they have no coverage, they clog emergency rooms when they go for high dollar care only when it becomes an emergency. They get treated, and cannot pay, or lose their home trying to pay. If they could see a doc, it would be cheaper, and keep them out of emergency.

Therefore, I think enhanced care for the uninsured is a good investment. I'm not talking free breast enhancement - I'm talking yearly checkups and help paying for life threatening illness treatments. It will promote a healthier, happier society .

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

America has top notch healthcare

Damn, that was funny!
Topnotch untill you have spent every dime and then lose your insurance. After that, you must decide on whether you should eat or give your money to some quack who is going to provide very little.
I, most likely, will cancel my doctors appointment for Sept.. It is a choice between paying an outrageous dr. bill for very little treatment or maybe being able to eat a few days out of the month.
Someone posted that she could make more money if not for those people who cannot pay their bill. That really says alot about how much that person cares about those in need. My salary is far more important than humans.
Sad that the almighty dollar outweighs the needs of the sick and dying.
Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about someone only making $50,000 a year as opposed to making far more if it means that I can get the medication needed. And why should I care about someones salary when the outcome of my illness is death. What is more important? Your salary or my life? Of course the person who is looking to make $100,000 a year will say that their paycheck trumps my healthcare!
Money is nice but, when someone regards money more than they do human life then that person should not be in the healthcare profession as they tend to be cold and uncaring people.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think that one way or the other, we end up paying for health care for the poor or less fortunate. Also, because they have no coverage, they clog emergency rooms when they go for high dollar care only when it becomes an emergency. They get treated, and cannot pay, or lose their home trying to pay. If they could see a doc, it would be cheaper, and keep them out of emergency.

This is BECAUSE health care is already socialist in the US. All the problems with costs, waits, etc., that people complain and gripe about are because of the socialism in it.

Health care ain't free, and yet the policy of the feds make it that way for many. Get the socialism out of it and perhaps we'd be better off. We wouldn't NEED this talk if the feds hadn't taken it over in the mid-60's.

Quote

I'm talking yearly checkups and help paying for life threatening illness treatments.

Those who can't afford it now STILL get it. What's the rub?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[joedirt 0]

I can't wait for nationalized health care, so I can quit my job and let the rest of you working stiffs pay my way. I've decided i'm voting for whatever candidate will promise nationalized food and water too. Shit if health care is a right then certainly food and water is too.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Those who can't afford it now STILL get it. What's the rub?

The IOM says different.
More than 18,000 people die each year due to lack of coverage. The uninsured are most at danger in this country and do get substandard care if they get any care at all. The 18,000+ dead would also say that your statement is lacking credential.

http://www.iom.edu/?ID=4660

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I work for a health care corporation that owns a network of seven hospitals. .

Well, that helps you to be objective.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If we have all of this great research and advancements, why do US citizens have the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world?

First, they don't, without a rather strict use of 'the industrialized world.' Just not the highest, and the reasons for such were already illustrated in this thread. Americans choose to make bad decisions; the health system has evolved to give the best in acute care on the planet. Look at the advances in cardiac surgery - angioplasties and stents and drugs to reduce blockage.

But in terms of chronic care, not very good, and the patients don't help. That's why life expectancy suffers. (might be an immigration effect too) If the US medical system were only average, the years would be lower.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

I work for a health care corporation that owns a network of seven hospitals. .

Well, that helps you to be objective.

right, and you're the epitome of objectivity.

very few people here are objective. i'm not. freethefly is not. you're not. what does that have to do with it? objective or not, the opinion of someone who is on the inside and can see why things aren't working right holds a lot more weight than someone on the outside that can only see the end results.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Those who can't afford it now STILL get it. What's the rub?

The IOM says different.
More than 18,000 people die each year due to lack of coverage. The uninsured are most at danger in this country and do get substandard care if they get any care at all. The 18,000+ dead would also say that your statement is lacking credential.

http://www.iom.edu/?ID=4660

Emergency medical providers are required by federal law to provide service to ANYONE who shows up prior to obtaining financial information or approval from an insurance company. When an emergency exists, they're require dto treat it.

The local hospital had no problem treating my uninsured sister when she fell off her bicycle and stopped forming short-term memories.

The State even picked up most of her tab with their indigent care program.

Safety nets exist; people knowing about and using them is an orthagonal issue.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

I think there is an all or nothing fallacy often invoked during this discussion's continuous iterations. If a national health-care scheme were to be implemented in the US the private sector would not be entirely (or even mostly) crowded out.

Hell no it wouldnt be crowded out. The people who have the govt health would probably be waiting in line for basic care while the person with the money goes straight to the top of the list. I can see the people crying now that the rich get better care than the ones with the govt health care. Wait, that sounds like what is happening now.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Are you under the impression that in the USA health care (especially major) is 'on demand'? I don't want to bust your bubble, but it is faaaaaar from it.

What kind of on demand do you want? Where I am at now last week I went for a physical. Have not had one since 2000. I dont like doc's office. I have severe heart burn and he sent me to a specialist. Took me 3 days to get that appointment. Hell I dont think I can get my car in the shop that quick. How much more on demand do you want? Where I get pissed is at the ER which I have some great experience with. I go in with a broken toe but have to wait 10 hours because everybody on medicare with 5 snot nose kids are there with the sniffles.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!