I have Fibromyalgia and communicate with a community of fellow sufferers from around the world. Finding a doctor in Canada is a nightmare, and frankly if you have anything out of the ordinary, you are screwed. If a doctor doesn't give you good and proper care, too bad. If the government doesn't think that your illness can be cured, no care for you. If you have too many illnesses, you are assumed to be a malingerer and are brushed off. Getting the simplest of tests to diagnose significant problems(a cardiac tilt table test) can take months just to get permission, then you have to find a doctor who can do it. If they nationalize our health care, I'm gonna jump the fence to Mexico.

-Julie

This is how Obama's goig to save Social Security! All the old people will be "too expensive to treat relative to their future contribution to society".

If this abomination passes, I'm just going to move to Canada. If I've got to live in a socialist nation, at least I'll go live in one where the people are mellower.

>>Here's Virginia's Atlantic piece on how she'd be dead (from cancer) if she lived in New Zealand, under their national health care program.

Amy,
Yes, that's indeed how she starts her piece. Before immediately cheerfully owning up to making that statement for effect!

And she concludes her article at your link with the arguably less attention-grabbing comment: If I lived in New Zealand, I wouldn’t be dead, just a lot poorer.

And she concludes her article at your link....

And you cheerfully skip by the middle part where she talks about England and those with money go to Spain to pay for their own drugs; and the poor die. Or the poor possibly get kicked out of the NHS plan if they try to get the drugs the NHS won't pay for.

>>Do they just die? If they live in New Zealand, they do.

To be fair to the author, that's not quite what she writes either, Amy.

(But personally I don't need any reasons to steer clear of NZ!)

As someone who lives in Canada, I can say that our medical system sounds like a good idea, until you actually need to use it.

When I need an M.D., I have to go to a walk-in clinic and wait for an hour for a rushed meeting with an overworked doctor. But, I never have to wait to see my dentist, and when I do see her, I always get top-notch service. Guess which one is paid-for by the state and which one is covered by my employer's insurance?

Is it fair that our dental care is rationed by the market, but our medical care is rationed by bureaucrats? Am I lucky to have gold-plated insurance, or did I earn it through smarts and effort?

Should a rich society be able to provide a basic level of care? Of course. But wouldn't it be better to encourage people to make donations to hospitals run by the Catholics or the Shriners?

What will the Canadians do when our HealthCare system is just like theirs. Currently, our systems serves as an overflow for Canadians who get fed up with their own system. I read a stat somewhere where at any given time during the winter months, upwards of 20% of Canadians can be found in the US. And most routinely schedule visits to doctors while their escaping the cold (and their healthcare system).

I'm hearing a lot of negatives about socialized medicine and I admit there are many problems. There are long waiting lists and bureaucrats deciding not to provide expensive, new drugs.

Just for balance, what are the negatives of the American medical system?

Do the insurance companies ever base treatment on the basis of cost rather than what is best for the patient? Do any Americans (even those with insurance) ever have to mortgage their houses for medical treatment? How do people manage if they have a pre-existing condition as a result of a childhood illness or accident?

And I have to repeat my favorite Canadian Healthcare anecdote. There was a guy who lived in one of the Maritime provinces who got sick of waiting for a procedure he needed so he went to Toronto, committed an armed robbery and then turned himself in. There was no wait for that procedure for prisoners in Toronto.

Jane Goody. She'd be alive, if she had been able to get the screening she needed, but was denied, because she was "too young."

I'd rather have a choice, thanks. It may not be cost effective for me to have started colonoscopies at a younger than normal age. However, it was medically indicated, and a co-pay I willingly spent. I have no desire to poop into a bag for the rest of my life, or die young.

The bureaucrat who denied Jane Goody didn't die of cancer. The bureaucrat won't have a colostomy if I get colon cancer.

Steamer,
You asked: Just for balance, what are the negatives of the American medical system?

"In a 2005 Harvard University study of more than 1,700 bankruptcies across the country, researchers found that medical problems were behind half of them — and three-quarters of those bankrupt people actually had health insurance...."

article, with links, at:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1883149,00.html

Jody

You might be interested to know that the new number is 70% and will probably be revised to 110% by next fall. Though strangely half of the families affected weren't even aware that their health care costs were a significant factor in their bankruptcy.

Elizabeth Warren's studies have been debunked so many times that, any longer, they're only cited by sources such as Time and People Magazine.

Here's a critique and some history on her work - http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/why_warrens_new_bankruptcy_stu.php

I think the word free short circuits peoples brains and gets them salivating.

If any advertiser of any product offers something for free, most people start conjuring up a great fantasy of how they are going to get something for nothing.

Current health care in the U. S. is to expensive, but it is quality. I don't think we want to trade it for what Canada has.

Has Obama proposed a canadian-style single-payer system? Cause if hasn't, lots of straw men are getting roughed up around here.

I just signed up my girls for HUSKY insurance, through the state of Connecticut. And it's a good thing I did,because yesterday I had to bring #2 to the dr's to be treated for pink eye. The same medicine that I had to buy for her last bought (8 months ago) was $35 and that was the co-pay with my insurance from work. This time, the office visit and the medication were both free of charge, no co-pay. So I am grateful for that. When I was working and had employees health insurance, an office visit co-pay was $15. Still pretty damn good. The case worker I spoke with also insisted that I sign myself up for the HUSKY program, apparently they have it for adults as well, with families, that is, because, she said, "what will the kids do if something happens to you?" I don't like the state knowing my business, though, so as soon as I find a job, I'll either be getting insurance through my employer, or getting it on my own, depending on how much it will cost. I've gotta tell ya, though, I couldn't afford the COBRA insurance, even with my former employer picking up 65% - it was still too big a chunk out of my unemployment compensation. I hate being on the dole; I'm hoping it won't last too much longer!

There is exactly one thing you need to know about "government {fill in blank}":

The government worker gets paid for "doing their job". That job is NOT "caring for you".

Your dentist knows that if you hurt and things don't look, feel and taste right, the decision will be made immediately: you are not coming back.

You have no choice in mandated programs. Hillarycare, when proposed years ago, actually had criminal penalties for choosing your own doctor.

I work for a government contractor. The link between pay and performance (when it is present, and it literally is not for some people) is remote. If a form is filled out correctly, then any remaining problems are yours.

Free? There is no such thing. You should be ashamed for thinking that.

They will pretend to pay - We will pretend to Treat
. . easyopinionsoutlink.blogspot.com/2009/01/healthcare-they-will-pretend-to-pay-we.html
Political control of healthcare promises and payments

Excerpt:
In speech after speech Gov. Blagojevich hammered home the “fact” that he had granted insurance coverage to so many in Illinois, through various means. How has this actually been implemented? State payments to medical providers has been dramatically slowed.

Delaying payments has the same effect as reducing payments, since the state doesn’t catch up for a long time. The payment delays ensure that providers need to hold a big “rainy day” fund, since their employees want to be paid cash rather than IOU’s.

Medical providers can do little except complain to their local legislators. They can’t sue the State to speed up payments, and if they did, the state wouldn't care. Unlike insurance, which may be popularly perceived as unfair, there are no avenues of appeal if you feel the state is killing your business.

The US will likely move to a backwards program of medical socialism by increasing coverage and then squeezing providers with reduced and slowed payments. Federal transfers to states will not make up the cost for unfunded mandates.

Medical providers will begin to crumble financially and move away from treating state and federally insured patients, or do it in the most bare-bones and cheap manner possible.

+ + +
Begging for Medical Care
. . easyopinionsoutlink.blogspot.com/2009/03/begging-for-medical-care.html

Natasha Richardson was very unlucky. Montreal does not have fast transportation to a full-service hospital, even near a ski area. Why not? Patients are a cost to the system.

The bureaucracy sees you as a cost, especially if you have already paid. All people and organizations seek income and avoid costs. Socialized or centralized healthcare is paid up-front and delivers services after the fact. How hard will a system work to earn the money that they have already been paid? This is something that everyone can understand in their gut. A customer is lost without competition for his dollar.

+ + +
More on Healthcare

Cheez - what he's proposing is actually WORSE than single payer. First, you'll be forced to buy insurance under penalty of fines, and probably imprisonment. Second, the government will be mandating even more comprehensive coverages in the minimum package, and also requiring insurers to cover anyone who asks. This will drive rates for private insurance skyward.

Which is where the second part comes in - the government will be offering a "low-cost alternative" that anyone making under 500% of the poverty line will qualify for. Because it's government, it will be cheaper than the "private" alternative.

When all the private insurers can no longer compete, they'll simply be taken over by the government.

Et voila. Fascisme!

The corporation pretends to own it, the government runs it, and the public MUST buy it.

Everybody except the government loses. This is not an accident.

For Cheezy-poof and the rest of the folks for Universal Healthcare (aka: Health Fascism).

Government is what makes Healthcare more expensive, not Doctors, not pharmaceutical companies, (well maybe lawyers)...Bureaucracy has landed us in this tar pit, so why on Gods green earth are we to believe they can fix shit.

Check *this* out:

1) AMA's collusion with State Medical Boards in all 50 states - limiting the number of medical and nursing schools, class size, students admitted, teachers...(on and on) through artificial restrictions (e.g. three year waiting period for qualified applicants waiting to attend these schools). There are 10 to 20 *qualified* applicants for every one vacancy. ( Please tell me why we do not have this problem with lawyers???) This needs to go.

2) Ridiculous regulations imposed by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations in coordination with bureaucratic health care organizations and government regulators. Example: Not every patient needs to stay in a tertiary-care hi-tech hospital, with MRI and CT scanners. Some patients just need antibiotics and a nights stay at a small cottage medical facility. Yet JCOAOHCO, holds the smaller cottage facilities to the same standards as the larger hi tech hospital facilities without differing between the two. I.e. computer system/recording needs are not the same for small vs. large hospitals.

3. Required minimum benefits imposed on employers by state and regulators. Everything from hair pieces to marriage counseling is mandated in a basic package to customers/employees. Why do we think basic packages are so expensive? This needs to go.

4. Regulatory barriers *prohibiting* small businesses from forming risk pools. Most of those employed but uninsured workers are either self-employed or work for firms with fewer than 100 employees, and cannot afford individual or small group policies. This needs to go.

5. Prohibiting Healthcare providers to (and this is a big one folks) PROVIDE CHARITABLE HEALTHCARE FOR THE UNINSURED FOR TAX CREDITS. (again, needs to go.)

6. Prohibition of allowing for 100% tax deduction of healthcare expenses for self employment candidates. Out!

7. Legislation allowing the reduction of malpractice premiums, enabling doctors and health care providers to lower their fees. YES!

8. Repeal the Kefauver Amendment of 1962. Prior to 1962, for the FDA to "bless" a new pharmaceutical drug, it had to prove that the drug was safe. The Kefauver Amendment requires that a new drug, must not only be proven safe but *effective* in curing or improving a specific condition. Well hells bells if that aint the dumbest shit. If it's safe, but doesn’t work...stop taking it and try something new (chortle). This makes drugs not only more expensive, but holds up the availability of safe drugs by up to 10 years...and how many people die during that charade? Buh-Bye.

9. Vitamins and Healthcare supplements (i know many of you will balk but there are plenty of natural remedies that cure or stymie common non-life threatening ailments) should be allowed to promote these as legitimate remedies to non threatening illnesses without heavy fines imposed by the FDA. If supported by scientific evidence, these companies should be allowed to promote the basic health benefits associated with taking their products.

10. Removal of Government restriction of buying foreign drugs (just not from China). STOP THE MADNESS.

THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM WITH UNAFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE. This entire healthcare reform is an absolute sham!

"Where will be the evidence for "evidence based medicine" when a green eyeshade guy is determining whether new technology can be used?"

How is it now, with HMOs? My sister needed two or three days' hospitalization after childbirth and the doctor had to fight for a day and a half on the phone to justify it. A doctor has to tell an HMO why his patient needs to be hospitalized and has to get permission!

My father was told he 'didn't need' a vertebra-cementing procedure that a surgeon friend of his in another country recommended when one of his back bones broke from cancer. As the cement hardens, it heats and kills the cancer cells it comes into contact with, and stabilizes the bone. His cancer center said 'No.' That's it, no reason why, no claim that it was a risk for him, just that they were 'not planning to do it'. He didn't even get a brace, he spent the last four months of his life with an untreated broken back, despite our many phone calls to the cancer center. I think he was denied because he was 75 at the time....don't spend money on the old poops who aren't going to live long enough to justify the expense.

I could go on but I don't want to bore everyone, but between friends and family and my own research into the American system I know enough stories of people not getting the care they need to make you wonder what the hell is up with the US system, and can it really get worse?

"what the hell is up with the US system, and can it really get worse?"

Uh, ya. The Govt could be running the show. HMO's (as I've shown above) are given heavy regulations from the government which creates the type of care you speak of, with respects to your family.

Universal Healthcare is not the answer to fix the problem you've described.

THIS is what it looks like:

http://www.facesofgovernmenthealthcare.com/

Because it's government, it will be cheaper than the "private" alternative.

But aren't private companies always better. The government will never be able to successfully compete!

For Cheezy-poof and the rest of the folks for Universal Healthcare (aka: Health Fascism

First, when you make fun of people's names, you decrease the likelihood of people listening to you. But go ahead, it's kind of cute.

Second, I make one little comment, noting that the present Obama plan is not universal or single payer and all of a sudden you think I believe things I never state.

Finally, you approvingly quote Michelle Malkin and expect non-mouth breathers to take you seriously. So LOL.

"The same medicine that I had to buy for her last bought (8 months ago) was $35 and that was the co-pay with my insurance from work. This time, the office visit and the medication were both free of charge"

I know I'm taking this quote out of context, but I think it nonetheless shows a generally unremarked problem with health insurance.

Insurance is supposed to protect you from catastrophic expenses. It is not supposed to reduce trivial costs, and one reason that insurance costs are so high is that many people "abuse" their insurance and go to the doctor for trivial reasons.

Two examples: First, try to get an appointment with your GP at a time when lots of people have colds or the flu - it's almost impossible. Yet both are viral, and unless you have complications there is no treatment the doctor can offer beyond what you can get at the pharmacy. Second, I know of an elderly lady who talks to a doctor at her HMO daily. She always has some complaint, but all the doctors know she's really just lonely. That may be a real problem, but it's not one that her health insurance should be paying for.

A typical insurance policy ought to have substantial co-pay terms: you pay the first $XX towards the treatment of any problem, whether it's wart removal or cancer treatment. And $XX ought to be high enough to be a barrier to trivial visits. That would be a real step towards bringing down the cost of health insurance.

"Finally, you approvingly quote Michelle Malkin and expect non-mouth breathers to take you seriously. So LOL."

LOL is sooooooo 2002!

Heh? Where did I quote Malkin? None of what I quoted was Malkin.

I linked to a poster on another thread at Malkin's site (I actually visit there primarily to read him, not Malkin).

I notice that Cheezburg completely ignores my response where I point out that Obama's plan is essentially indistinguishable from single-payer, and in many significant ways is worse in the short term.

I'll say it another way to see if I can provoke an answer:

There is no example of a government-run healthcare system that is in any way better than what we presently have in the United States. Can you please explain to me how involving the government more heavily than it already is can be anything but bad?

1) AMA's collusion with State Medical Boards in all 50 states - limiting the number of medical and nursing schools, class size, students admitted, teachers...(on and on) through artificial restrictions (e.g. three year waiting period for qualified applicants waiting to attend these schools). There are 10 to 20 *qualified* applicants for every one vacancy. ( Please tell me why we do not have this problem with lawyers???) This needs to go.
-----------------
feebie-Glad to know I am not the only one aware of this. I tell people in my office this and their eyes just glaze over like I'm ranting in swahili. Great points.

"...don't spend money on the old poops who aren't going to live long enough to justify the expense."

Any system must do this. It is triage, because the system only has $X to spend, total, on the entire patient pool.

It was mentioned above that trivial visits consume the bulk of clinic time, and thus expenses. Raising copay amounts is one way to do this. Here's another:

-----

Dear Senator Graham:

I believe I have a model for health care which could revolutionize the industry, improve efficiency and even put you in the White House. Bold claim, no? Well, let's see.

I think you and your staff know the issues with health care today, so I won't bother you with outlining the status quo. I'll get to the point.

We should set up the "Medical VISA Card".

For easy consideration, here are features and points, in no particular order:

1) This card would either be issued by an existing Federal agency or designee to every person attaining majority, and to the guardian of every person for whom one is appointed, or be elective. There would be benefits to this - see below. I call this a VISA card just because that company has all the assets in place to do this already.

2) The card would be usable ONLY for prescription medicine and for visits to licensed doctors and dentists.

3) The card would have a nominal limit. Reaching this limit would trigger agency review of the use of the card. Think, "$20,000", or a value determined by the person's economic status.

4) The balance would be due from the holder to the agency, exactly as bank and other credit cards apply today.

5) An interest rate on outstanding balances would be established to collect two things: direct cost of the program, and an investment fund to be used for catastrophic illness and disability. A minimum payment would be required of the holder monthly.

6) Legislation could require preference for reducing the card's balance, to prevent holders from running up bills on other credit cards, paying them and leaving the Medical VISA Card unpaid.

7) Card holders could be setup with on-line and telephonic instructions for getting medical attention, and encouraged to avoid using emergency rooms for routine care. Emergency rooms can require the medical card to divert patients to other clinics.

8) Unlike with credit cards - which purpose is to make money for the card company - Medical VISA card holders could be encouraged to invest in their own, portable (not job-dependent) medical insurance through building a positive, interest-paying balance in their medical account.

9) Make no mistake about the fundamental nature of this card: up to the spending limit, the holder MUST pay. People simply won't be careful with other people's money.

Senator, people understand credit cards, however woeful the current credit situation might be because of public confusion between ownership and possession. I myself am mystified by my own Blue Cross, Blue Shield statements, which routinely say my treatment cost twice what anyone was paid.

It's time to re-establish the patient-doctor relationship. This will do that.

I recognize that a lot of work would be necessary to turn this into reality; I don't pretend to know this field as well as you and your staff must, just to run your office.

But I suggest that this is a good start.

Very Respectfully,

(me)

-----

Give it some thought.

By the way, you can apparently outsource health care yourself.

...one reason that insurance costs are so high is that many people "abuse" their insurance and go to the doctor for trivial reasons.

Pink eye is highly contagious, so I don't think it was a "trivial" matter in this instance. I had to keep her home from school Thursday and yesterday; she has a note from the dr saying she can go back to school on Monday. Without that note, they won't let her back in school.

That said, the ONLY times my girls and I see our doctors is for our annual physicals, or if there is something seriously wrong with us. I don't bring them to the dr for colds or flus, unless their symptoms are severe. In fact, we see their pediatrician so rarely that she always greets us with "so good to see you! I know you girls have been well!"

Hi Flynne,

Yes, I know your reason was not trivial - I did say I took your statement out of context. It was the "it once cost $35, but now its free" that struck a nerve...

Sorry - to say that she would have died if she were in Canada is foolish. You have no clue what would have been done here in Canada.

I went to the hospital with what I thought was bronchitis. Sure - I waited a long time for a chest x-ray: 3 hours. But what they found was a mass in my chest. I was admitted right away and within 2 weeks I had been biopsied, scanned and had begun treatment for Hodgkins. I am fine now...all these years later (going on 20).

My step mother recently went to the ER with horrible pains in her gut. She was admitted immediately and has been there for the past 2 weeks with an infection in her colon. My sister - a nurse in the US - heard about her treatment and says it is exactly what she would get in the US.

I broke my nose playing hockey and was feeling dizzy. I went to the ER where I waited 15 minutes. A hit to the face and dizziness gets you a free pass.

A friend left a growth on her breast WAAAAY too long. She ended up diagnosed with a terminal melanoma, as it had metasticized into her spine, liver and kidney. She was given a highly experimental treatment to see if it would help. Alas, it did not but she had access to this drug...which is important.

My friend has a chronic pain in her shoulder. She can't play badminton because of it. It's a leisure sport for her. She is waiting for an MRI. She is really not at the top of the list. This is the kind of person that might pay out of pocket for treatment. I know someone who paid $300 for a CT Scan to diagnose...A FREAKING SINUS INFECTION!! What a waste of resources.

It's people who run to the ER with a wart or a cold that screw up our medical system and cause all of these waits.

'Any system must do this. It is triage, because the system only has $X to spend, total, on the entire patient pool.'

Well, three months before diagnosis he was lifting weights, ice skating...diagnosis was too late, he kept contacting primary care for a nagging cough, was told it was nothing over the phone.....you don't get seen, you know. He went to an orthopedic surgeon for severe back pain. No X-ray, he was given a sheet of exercises to do. Did them, got worse. Was told to continue, and *crack* L2 and L3 fractured, and that's when they finally X-rayed him and found that he had esophageal cancer that had spread to his spine. Stage IVb, too late to do anything about.

I think that this is extreme. While I realize that there is only so much money to go around, I don't think the elderly should be shuffled around without being seen, and without proper testing done, and the fact that he never even got a brace for the fractures ('Oh, they'll heal') and lived in agony is beyond my comprehension.

Here's a simple explanation of our system. The government places price caps on procedure costs, which keeps drug costs etc from reaching unaffordable US levels...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89626309

Where our system is lacking is mental health care...it's still a shame in Japan to admit to any kind of mental problem, even depression which gives us an extremely high suicide rate. Another is the limiting of medical licenses that the government did 10 or 15 years ago (I don't remember exactly). It was supposed to make better doctors-spend more time on fewer candidates. The number of people applying was often 14x the number of places, for prestigious universities. I think it as 11x when our son took his exam. Fast forward 10 years and we have the 'grey wave' it's been called,the aging of the boomers, too many patients and too few doctors. Ambulances are being turned away at understaffed facilities.That's our most pressing problem right now. However, for most people most of the time it's an affordable system and even the elderly get what they need.

The fact that there is no limit on prices is one factor in America's problem. If I had no insurance in Japan I could still afford care, although it might take me a couple of months to pay it off...that is not an option in the US. Every system has problems, Japan's system is far from perfect but the average Joe (or Taro :-)) being able to get the care they need should be front and center in the configuration of any system.

The fact that there is no limit on prices is one factor in America's problem

That is precisely wrong.

Limits on prices lead directly to shortages. Every. Single. Time. This is as true in Japan and the US as it was in the USSR. Any government-run system is guaranteed to do this. It's all governments know how to do.

And when they limit prices, you'll see fewer doctors. After all, why endure 10-15 years of school, internship, residency, and loans to be paid like a lowly GS-13?

Unless Obama's planning to FORCE people to become doctors. In which case the care you get will be just wonderful.

Sorry, but when you can charge $1500 for a few Ativan tablets that are available for $40 in other countries, something's screwed up. We were denied more Ativan for my father for his non-stop vomiting because 'they're expensive we can't give them out like candy'. Is the point patient care, or MONEY? That's what I'm trying to get across here.

When drug companies can charge the moon and the stars in the US for the same drugs you get for much less in other countries, the result is patients not getting the treatment they need. What's the point of a health care system then?

I just don't trust big business with medical health!! Insurance companies are not in the business of paying out cash. They want big profits just like any other business. They could care less about your health or treatments. If you're too expensive, you're better off dead in their eyes. Imagine what an Enron fiasco would be like if they were in charge of health insurance?!?!

crella:

When drug companies can charge the moon and the stars in the US for the same drugs you get for much less in other countries, the result is patients not getting the treatment they need. What's the point of a health care system then?

Uh, do you know WHY they charge so much here? Because the government-run health-care systems say "we'll pay you manufacturing cost plus a small profit, and you can eat the R&D costs." Which means WE pay the R&D costs for the entire rest of the fucking world. Guess what happens when our government adopts the same strategy?

That's right, NO MORE ATIVAN, EVER. In fact, no more new drugs, ever. Why put 20 years of research into something if the government(s) (your only customer(s)) won't pay you for the time and energy you put into developing it and all the other drugs that failed along with it?

Oh, and the reason the hospitals have so much markup? They have to treat everyone anyhow, regardless of willingness to pay. And there are plenty of people who feel nothing about skipping out.

Karen:

I just don't trust big business with medical health!! Insurance companies are not in the business of paying out cash. They want big profits just like any other business. They could care less about your health or treatments. If you're too expensive, you're better off dead in their eyes.

But you trust government? The people who, when they need money, set up checkpoints to write tickets for every petty violation of motor vehicle law? The people who keep trying to pass laws telling us what we can't eat, but keep getting beaten on account of not having sufficient reason?

Imagine what an Enron fiasco would be like if they were in charge of health insurance?!?!

Enron was a criminal enterprise from its inception. There was no way to game health insurance in such a way as to get millions of investors to think they were making money while they really weren't. The comparison doesn't work.

The comparison you're looking for is the Department of Homeland Security. despite billions of dollars in equipment and training, they can't find their collective ass with both hands and a map. That's what awaits us when the government takes over.

"Is the point patient care, or MONEY? That's what I'm trying to get across here."

More schizophrenia: the idea that a private company will be about the money, but not government.

You want a wake-up call? Here it is:

Private industry: "You can have this if you can pay for it."

Government: "You can have this if you are on our list."

Now what do you want? There is no such thing as "free". Say it!

>>WE pay the R&D costs for the entire rest of the fucking world.

Your provincialism is peeking through, brian.

Provincialism my ample white ass.

It's the truth, plain and simple. How many new drugs come out of France, England, or Germany lately? Canada?

Compare with the US.

I think you'll find that the bulk of new treatments are being developed here because this is the only place money can be made.

Radawaste, I am not saying anything should be free, not at all. America is supposed to be the most advanced country in the world, but you have 40,000+ people without health insurance, a system run by HMOs (fox guarding the hen house)and patients denied medication and treatment to keep the hospitals and HMOs profitable. That isn't ass backwards? Bonuses for staying under budget, not for excellence of care? Who cares if those in their 70s don't get what they need? They're already pretty useless anyway, eh? The Japanese government puts a price on every med, treatment, and surgery. Otherwise there is no government interference. Doctors are told how much to charge, but never how to treat...HMOs regularly tell doctors what they can and cannot do.

Brian, what good is R&D and new drugs when people are denied the drugs because they'd erase some of your HMOs profit margin?

>>It's the truth, plain and simple. How many new drugs come out of France, England, or Germany lately? Canada?
Compare with the US.
I think you'll find that the bulk of new treatments are being developed here because this is the only place money can be made.

Brian,
You are incorrect.
Five of the top seven of wiki's list of the 50 largest pharmaceutical and biotech companies ranked by healthcare revenue are outside the US.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies]

Roche, Novartis, Aventis and SmithKline all have world class R & D departments by any measure.

(Yours is a very silly argument. Stop!)

Jody - ownership is one thing. Where are the R&D Facilities? I don't remember which, but one of those four you mentioned has their big R&D in Connecticut.

You're going by revenue, which is counted by country of headquarter. Now look at where all the drugs are developed. The bulk of new cancer drugs are coming out of the US. You can't get most of them in the UK because NHS won't pay for them.

Hyundai is a Korean company. Their highest profit margin cars are designed and built in the US. Should Korea get the credit for that?

but you have 40,000+ people without health insurance, a system run by HMOs (fox guarding the hen house)and patients denied medication and treatment to keep the hospitals and HMOs profitable. That isn't ass backwards?

First off, the 40-47 million number is a lie. Please stop repeating it.

Second, who do you think created the HMO system? A little known guy by the name of Edward Kennedy. The same fat fuck they are going to name the nationalization bill after.

If you wanted to design a system that would fail so badly that people would willingly allow the government to take it over, the HMO system is how you'd do it.

The Japanese government puts a price on every med, treatment, and surgery. Otherwise there is no government interference. Doctors are told how much to charge, but never how to treat...HMOs regularly tell doctors what they can and cannot do.

So does Medicare. And that DOES influence treatment options. Because when Medicare sets the price below cost, the doctors either don't offer the treatment to anyone, or they charge their non-Medicare patients double to make up the loss. Go single-payer and which option do they have left? I can tell you that "operate at a loss" isn't on the list.

Brian, what good is R&D and new drugs when people are denied the drugs because they'd erase some of your HMOs profit margin?

Solution - dismantle the HMO system. Replace it with actual insurance. Make people pay for the "health maintenance" that they use directly. Don't impose on others to pay it for them.

Turning to government for this is going to drop the level of care in this country below third-world standards, and it's going to double my tax burden in the process.

Not just no, FUCK NO!

And for the people who are hell-bent to misinterpret the simple sentence at the end of my last post:

"Insurance" means precisely that. You insure against catastrophic illness, against accidental injury.

Insurance doesn't pay for maintenance meds, doctor visits, flu shots.

What we have now is NOT insurance. What we have is an elaborate cost-hiding and competition-removing mechanism. The medical provision industry in this country is moribund for two reasons - guilds and HMOs. The guilds control the number of doctors and nurses produced, keeping them rare and the prices of their services artificially elevated. The HMOs then helpfully hide these costs from the consumers, and eliminate competition by giving the appearance that all doctors cost the same.

End result? No matter what doctor you go to, you pay the same regardless of the quality of care. The doctor is compensated the same regardless of the quality of care. And the undersupply of doctors ensures that even bad doctors have all the patients they can see.

This doesn't happen with, say, mechanics. If a mechanic sucks, he finds himself without customers very quickly.

You try finding an established good doctor that's accepting new patients. Good luck with that.

AMA+HMO=nearly as bad as nationalized healthcare.

Where did I say 40 million anything, anywhere? I had two different things in my head this morning, meant to type '400,000+' as that was the figure of uninsured in some age group, i had just been reading about...hours and hours later, I don't remember what I was trying to write, to correct it now.

'First off, the 40-47 million number is a lie. Please stop repeating it.'

If someone else said it, take it up with them, it wasn't me.

>>Now look at where all the drugs are developed. The bulk of new cancer drugs are coming out of the US.

No, Brian - YOU look at "where all the drugs are developed"!

Typically, all the world's biggest pharma firms have R & D units in countries other than their own because of the international nature of the latest medical research.

Indulge me - where are YOU getting this US centric drugs development dogma from? The Sean Hannity school of Punditry?

I've given the wiki cite which gives a snapshot of the international spread of medical revenue - where is your cite for this "bulk of cancer drugs are devised by the USA" statement?

Medical research stagnates in geographical isolation.

(It's no diss to the US that its top boffins collaborate and compete with "foreigners" - and vice versa. Is that what you think?)

Brian, back out of the room slowly.... Girlfriend has connections