Why does everyone hate "socialist" healthcare here?

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by hkmb Indeed. That one word terrifies people like you, MG and The Unabomber. You like playing with words, why should this bother you?

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[MG]

He's given up being a rational and factual contributor to this or any other discussion around this subject. That's probably my fault.

No need to respond to his jibes or make things worse with jibes of your own.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by MG

No need to respond to his jibes or make things worse with jibes of your own.

I don't recall there ever being "factual" contributions.

I relish the entertainment of responding with jibes.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by hkmb

MTI said "mediocre results". Not "mediocre care".

So you're saying that you get mediocre results from good care?

[MB_Fahrer]

Originally Posted by revstriker

So you agree that doctors in the US give "mediocre" care?

How do I explain?... My personal opinion of the US health system is as follows:

Its much better than most if not all of the Socialized healthcare systems in other countries, yet even our system has loads of problems. Such as drug companies merely in the business to make profit rather than actually help people. Just look at "high cholesterol." An 80 something year old neighbor of mine was complaining one day because the doctor keeps putting her on a higher dose of Staatin (spellcheck?) because she has high cholesterol. She eats like a little bird. She eats three very very small meals a day, all of which are very healthy and low fat, etc. There is no reason this lady should be on cholesterol meds. So I did a bit of research and found out that the point at which you're diagnosed as being "high cholesterol" has been lowered significantly since the 1960's/1970's. Why is this? So the drug companies can make more money and put people like Mrs Twig here on their pills. That's my rant for today I'll be back later with more I'm sure.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by MB_Fahrer

How do I explain?... My personal opinion of the US health system is as follows:

Its much better than most if not all of the Socialized healthcare systems in other countries, yet even our system has loads of problems. Such as drug companies merely in the business to make profit rather than actually help people. Just look at "high cholesterol." An 80 something year old neighbor of mine was complaining one day because the doctor keeps putting her on a higher dose of Staatin (spellcheck?) because she has high cholesterol. She eats like a little bird. She eats three very very small meals a day, all of which are very healthy and low fat, etc. There is no reason this lady should be on cholesterol meds. So I did a bit of research and found out that the point at which you're diagnosed as being "high cholesterol" has been lowered significantly since the 1960's/1970's. Why is this? So the drug companies can make more money and put people like Mrs Twig here on their pills. That's my rant for today I'll be back later with more I'm sure.

I have a few friends that work in Pharma, in the labs, not marketing and sales.

I've often asked them why drugs are so expensive. According to them it is for 1 reason R&D cost and time. Most drugs take between 8-10 years to develop, in the process the company spends BILLIONS on the development. Then there's testing, FDA approval (typically another 5 or so years)etc. By the time a drug hits the market the company has spent billions on it's development. So the "answer" is the "protect" it for a period of time (ie No generics), this keeps the cost up so that the company can recoup it's expenses. Of course there is profit, but that is the incentive to drive more development.

I don't have specific numbers, and yes they do make profit, but their "window" of high cost is limited before generics can be introduced and then they don't sell anymore of the original "brand" drug. So in basic terms it's the long R&D time and short exclusivity window that keeps drugs so expensive.

As for the reasons why drugs are prescribed earlier, that's simple. Doctors take NO risks. If they see a problem, no matter how small, they attempt to correct it for fear of being sued. Studies show that sometimes the treatment causes more damage than the disease. They're saying now that early polyps thought to possibly be colon cancer can remain in the human body for years without ever being cancerous, but that doctors order procedures like colonoscopy, CT scans, etc mainly to cover their asses.

[Mister Brenton]

Which circles us back to the need for Tort reform...from a legislative body comprised of around 98% lawyers.

D'oh!

[MG]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Which circles us back to the need for Tort reform...from a legislative body comprised of around 98% lawyers.

D'oh!

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/busin...ngs_firms.html

[mleskovar]

Originally Posted by MB_Fahrer

... Such as drug companies merely in the business to make profit rather than actually help people....

This is a problem because.....? Have you been told yet that there is no Santa Claus or Easter bunny?

[mleskovar]

Spoke with my Canadian cousin last night about an upcoming family trip to Las Vegas. The whole clan from Scotland will be coming. He had to cancel out because his health insurance, which would normally cover emergencies in another country, won't be valid because he has a pre existing condition. They've been trying to figure out why he gets very painful stomach aches. This has been going on now for 3 years (a circle jerk at its' finest). He's trapped in Canada until they figure it out.

[vraa]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

This is a problem because.....? Have you been told yet that there is no Santa Claus or Easter bunny?

It's like the bull**** about businesses creating jobs
Businesses exist to make money, those that can't DON'T and they cede their market to businesses which DO make money: jobs will be created and MORE jobs will be created by the one who runs a more efficient operation

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by revstriker

So you're saying that you get mediocre results from good care?

I hope you're being deliberately obtuse here, and that you're not genuinely dumb enough not to understand. But let me spell it out.

Your country spends more than any other on healthcare. For all that money, it does not provide adequate healthcare to the entire population. If I were being generous - as I believe MTI was - I'd call that a mediocre result.

[mleskovar]

Originally Posted by hkmb

...For all that money, it does not provide adequate healthcare to the entire population.....

Is that better or worse than inadequate health care to an entire population?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by hkmb

I hope you're being deliberately obtuse here, and that you're not genuinely dumb enough not to understand. But let me spell it out.

Your country spends more than any other on healthcare. For all that money, it does not provide adequate healthcare to the entire population. If I were being generous - as I believe MTI was - I'd call that a mediocre result.

LOL! So anything less than full socialized healthcare means that our healthcare is mediocre. Forget the fact that there is more care available to more people than just about any other country. Forget that people from other countries come here for healthcare. Forget that emergency rooms are open 25/7 to anyone in need.

So unless you're too dumb to understand, our health care is hardly mediocre.

[dmatre]

Originally Posted by LRM1

I have a few friends that work in Pharma, in the labs, not marketing and sales.

I've often asked them why drugs are so expensive. According to them it is for 1 reason R&D cost and time. Most drugs take between 8-10 years to develop, in the process the company spends BILLIONS on the development. Then there's testing, FDA approval (typically another 5 or so years)etc. By the time a drug hits the market the company has spent billions on it's development. So the "answer" is the "protect" it for a period of time (ie No generics), this keeps the cost up so that the company can recoup it's expenses. Of course there is profit, but that is the incentive to drive more development.

I don't have specific numbers, and yes they do make profit, but their "window" of high cost is limited before generics can be introduced and then they don't sell anymore of the original "brand" drug. So in basic terms it's the long R&D time and short exclusivity window that keeps drugs so expensive.

OK. Those are all legitimate points.

But then why is the same drug in the USA twice the price that it is in Mexico, Canada, etc? Is there a legitimate reason for the discrepency, given that the drugs distributed in all three countries are manufactured in the same facility? If the true reason for high drug costs is R&D, then why is this cost not passed along to the rest of the world? Just asking.

[MG]

It is, its called "Government Subsidy" You are referencing the OTC price.

[SteveHI]

I think the most logical, workable solution is opening up Medicare to all ages. Raise taxes to cover the additional cost, but negotiate better drug pricing and eliminate the huge middleman costs of insurance companies, brokers, consultants, etc. Let the private insurers compete to provide supplemental policies to fill in the gaps so individuals can tailor their coverage to meet their wants. I don't think a government bureaucrat will be any worse at processing claims than a profit-driven insurance company, either.

Americans also need to start taking some real responsibility for their own health. A previous post indicated that 56% of Americans are on statins - this is not a stat to be proud of. I don't see any practical method of legislating this change in behavior, though, so I guess we'll continue to be a nation of fat, lazy couch potatoes, eating crap and hooked on prescription drugs.

[Kaz]

the information against infant mortality is out, here is a detailed one that is a bit on the bombastic side lol:





A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare!

by Ann Coulter
09/30/2009



Liberal Lie: America's low ranking on international comparisons of infant mortality proves other countries' socialist health care systems are better than ours.


America has had a comparatively high infant mortality rate since we've been measuring these things, going back to at least the '20s. This was the case long before European countries adopted their cradle-to-grave welfare schemes and all while the U.S. was the wealthiest country on Earth.

One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.

Even with a higher-risk population, the alleged differences in infant mortality are negligible. We're talking about 7 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in the U.S. compared to 5 deaths per 1,000 for Britain and Canada. This is a rounding error -- perhaps literally when you consider that the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.

But the international comparisons in "infant mortality" rates aren't comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.

By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks' gestation are not considered "live births." Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

And of course, in Milan it's not considered living if the baby isn't born within driving distance of the Côte d'Azur.

By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call "infant deaths" in America as "miscarriages."

Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan -- the infant mortality champion -- don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day.

Also contributing to the higher mortality rate of U.S. newborns: Peter Singer lives here.

But members of Congress, such as Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Jim Moran and John Olver, have all cited the U.S.'s relatively poor ranking in infant mortality among developed nations as proof that our medical care sucks. This is despite the fact that in many countries a baby born the size of Dennis Kucinich would not be considered a live birth.

Apart from the fact that we count -- and try to save -- all our babies, infant mortality is among the worst measures of a nation's medical care because so much of it is tied to lifestyle choices, such as the choice to have children out of wedlock, as teenagers or while addicted to crack.

The main causes of infant mortality -- aside from major birth defects -- are prematurity and low birth-weight. And the main causes of low birth-weight are: smoking, illegitimacy and teenage births. Americans lead most of the developed world in all three categories. Oh, and thank you for that, Britney Spears.

Although we have a lot more low birth-weight and premature babies for both demographic and lifestyle reasons, at-risk newborns are more likely to survive in America than anywhere else in the world. Japan, Norway and the other countries with better infant mortality rates would see them go through the roof if they had to deal with the same pregnancies that American doctors do.

As Nicholas Eberstadt demonstrates in his book "The Tyranny of Numbers: Mismeasurement and Misrule," American hospitals do so well with low birth-weight babies that if Japan had our medical care with their low birth-weight babies, another third of their babies would survive, making it even harder for an American kid to get into MIT.

But I think it's terrific that liberals are finally willing to start looking at outcomes to judge a system. I say we start right away with the public schools!

In international comparisons, American 12th-graders rank in the 14th percentile in math and the 29th percentile in science. The U.S. outperformed only Cyprus and South Africa in general math and science knowledge. Worse, Asian countries didn't participate in the last 12th-grade assessment tests.

Imagine how much worse our public schools would look -- assuming that were possible -- if we allowed other countries to exclude one-half of their worst performers!

That's exactly what liberals are doing when they tout America's rotten infant mortality rate compared to other countries. They look for any category that makes our medical care look worse than the rest of the world -- and then neglect to tell us that the rest of the world counts our premature and low birth-weight babies as "miscarriages."

As long as American liberals are going to keep announcing that they're embarrassed for their country, how about being embarrassed by our public schools or by our ridiculous trial lawyer culture that other countries find laughable?

Don't be discouraged, liberals -- when it comes to utterly frivolous lawsuits against obstetricians presented to illiterate jurors so that John and Elizabeth Edwards can live in an 80-room house, we're still No. 1!

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by MB_Fahrer

How do I explain?... My personal opinion of the US health system is as follows:

Its much better than most if not all of the Socialized healthcare systems in other countries, yet even our system has loads of problems. Such as drug companies merely in the business to make profit rather than actually help people.

This of course is BS. Sounds like you've been listening to kooks like Micheal Moore for too long. Let me put it this way, of course the drug companies are in business to make a profit. But the way they make money is by helping people. When drugs are released which treat an illness, the company makes money.

By the way, how many actual doctors are out there practicing their profession to not make money? So it's not just the drug companies, but I guess they are an easier target as they invest and earn money with lots of zeros.

Just look at "high cholesterol." An 80 something year old neighbor of mine was complaining one day because the doctor keeps putting her on a higher dose of Staatin (spellcheck?) because she has high cholesterol. She eats like a little bird. She eats three very very small meals a day, all of which are very healthy and low fat, etc. There is no reason this lady should be on cholesterol meds. So I did a bit of research and found out that the point at which you're diagnosed as being "high cholesterol" has been lowered significantly since the 1960's/1970's. Why is this? So the drug companies can make more money and put people like Mrs Twig here on their pills. That's my rant for today I'll be back later with more I'm sure.

Your "rant" is very lacking in details. So you assume that because the ideal level of cholesterol has been lowered over time, then it MUST be an attempt to sell more drugs, right? Forget about the studies, and links to things like coronary heart disease and stoke. I guess you think groups like the American Heart Association are just in the pockets of the evil drug companies, right?

As for your 80 year old neighbor, did you know that high cholesterol can be hereditary and not necessarily caused by the food you eat? Lets just hope she continues to get medical advice from her doctor rather than you.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

I think the most logical, workable solution is opening up Medicare to all ages. Raise taxes to cover the additional cost, but negotiate better drug pricing and eliminate the huge middleman costs of insurance companies, brokers, consultants, etc. Let the private insurers compete to provide supplemental policies to fill in the gaps so individuals can tailor their coverage to meet their wants. I don't think a government bureaucrat will be any worse at processing claims than a profit-driven insurance company, either.

couldn't disagree more. And you really think the government would be "better"? I can't think of much that the government could do better than the private sector. Certainly not anything with healthcare.

Americans also need to start taking some real responsibility for their own health. A previous post indicated that 56% of Americans are on statins - this is not a stat to be proud of. I don't see any practical method of legislating this change in behavior, though, so I guess we'll continue to be a nation of fat, lazy couch potatoes, eating crap and hooked on prescription drugs.

The problem is, many on the left will want to legislate this change in behavior. Don't like the statins stat? Well if the government were in control, they could make it harder for doctors to prescribe. Do you really think this is unlikely in a government controlled program?

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

Is that better or worse than inadequate health care to an entire population?

A point that escapes our communist friend. Better that everyone be poor, than 85% be happy and 15% need help. At least we can all be poor together

[vraa]

Originally Posted by revstriker

couldn't disagree more. And you really think the government would be "better"? I can't think of much that the government could do better than the private sector. Certainly not anything with healthcare.

The problem is, many on the left will want to legislate this change in behavior. Don't like the statins stat? Well if the government were in control, they could make it harder for doctors to prescribe. Do you really think this is unlikely in a government controlled program?

Imagine the same service you get at the DPS office for your drivers license, but for something medical related...

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by dmatre

OK. Those are all legitimate points.

But then why is the same drug in the USA twice the price that it is in Mexico, Canada, etc? Is there a legitimate reason for the discrepency, given that the drugs distributed in all three countries are manufactured in the same facility? If the true reason for high drug costs is R&D, then why is this cost not passed along to the rest of the world? Just asking.

That's actually very simple and I'm glad you asked because we discussed that too.

It is really quite simple. In those other countries there is no FDA which forces MASSIVE amounts of testing. Then even after that MASSIVE amount of [read expensive] testing, you are still MASSIVELY liable for any problems.

In those countries if the drug doesn't work, "oh well, it tried to help, but didn't". Here, if it doesn't work, the patient can sue every single company down the line until....a $45 million settlement later to a class action suit is settled. There isn't the FEAR of litigation, and tort that we have here.

Does that clarify it for you? I've travelled most of the world. My wife, who suffers from migranes can't get a strong enough drug here (too much hold ups) but we've bought her drugs in France that work, but aren't "FDA" so we can't get them. Cheap, available, and why? Because here, everything is someone else's fault. Even if they try to help. In another country, a person who helps you in an accident, is trying to help you. If he pulls you out of a burning car and paralyzes you, he pulled you out of a burning car and you lived. Here? You sue the guy who saved your life.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

I think the most logical, workable solution is opening up Medicare to all ages. Raise taxes to cover the additional cost, but negotiate better drug pricing and eliminate the huge middleman costs of insurance companies, brokers, consultants, etc. Let the private insurers compete to provide supplemental policies to fill in the gaps so individuals can tailor their coverage to meet their wants. I don't think a government bureaucrat will be any worse at processing claims than a profit-driven insurance company, either.

Americans also need to start taking some real responsibility for their own health. A previous post indicated that 56% of Americans are on statins - this is not a stat to be proud of. I don't see any practical method of legislating this change in behavior, though, so I guess we'll continue to be a nation of fat, lazy couch potatoes, eating crap and hooked on prescription drugs.

And have tort reform. Just about every cost you pay, even in my business is based on paying either for insurance or lawyers, becasue you WILL be sued.

All the MRI's, CT scans, drugs, are more because the doctor wants to cover his ass than for any "fat" reasons.

This is the only country in the world where being stupid pays.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

I think the most logical, workable solution is opening up Medicare to all ages. Raise taxes to cover the additional cost, .

Who is going to pay these taxes?

You agree to a flat tax on every dollar of income earned regardless of total income levels (and by income I mean to include Cap Gains, Dividends, Muni bonds, and other NON Retirement investment disbursements with regular salary and specifically exclude intra family transfers such as bequests, education assistance, insurance payouts and property transfers) and I will agree to put every socialist concept you can imagine to a vote.

Right now 49% of the country pays no Federal Income Tax. None. Its easy to vote "YES" to more benefits when you get all the gain and pay none of the taxes.