Socialized medicine has its own problems.

[Adex_Xeda]

Kyo,

You're last post was wrong on so many levels. But I suspect that you really don't care to be correct. You don't know me. I do support charitable efforts in my community. I like to pay with sweat equity when I can. It means more that way.

And in all honestity if Truant needed help with medical bills and asked me. I would help him. The difference being I had a choice.

I use emotionally charged examples to burn away the dross of a position. Judging my personal life from these limited things is silly and incorrect.

[kyoukan]

Yes there is the lip service I was referring to.

[Adex_Xeda]

Hey Kyo, just once offer something constructive about the topic rather than fantisizing about how evil I am?

Hell you're a Canadian you should be all over this.

Legenae,

I offer the example of Canada as a counterpoint to the flaws in the American system. Perhaps something between these two extemes might be feasible?

I don't know, let's discuss?

[kyoukan]

Unlike some people on this forum, who for some reason still try and debate with intolerant and greedy bigots, I have long since given up and can offer you only my disdain for you and anyone like you.

[Wulfran]

Actually Adex, you are unqualified to discuss much about the Canadian health care system:

- you are not Canadian
- you have not lived with been exposed to it
- you have no indepth knowledge of it

As a Canadian I can tell you that in my province (and this does vary) I pay $44 per month for my health care premiums (single male). This is in addition to funding it gets via income tax allotments as well. My province is the lowest taxxed in the country, yet a couple years ago our "total" or "real" average tax rate was around 52% when you add income tax, sales taxes and various other government fees (such as my health care premiums). Now to me that is excessive and I supported my various levels of government in getting their finances in orders (i.e. eliminate deficits and debtloads, primarily through spending cuts).

However I do believe, like the vast majority of Canadians (and apparently a vast majority of non-American posters here) that everyone has a right health care. I don't think that the Canadian system is near perfect, in fact I think it needs a lot of work and reform, but I support the underlying goal: that every man, woman and child has the right to see a physician when they need to. This appears to be a value difference between our countries on the same lines as we don't believe we need nuclear weapons, your government believes you do. Its the will of the people... and as per your example I would be a lot more forgiving to some one who robbed me to pay for medicine than someone who robbed me to buy a bigger gun.

[Forthe]

Kyo,

You're last post was wrong on so many levels. But I suspect that you really don't care to be correct. You don't know me. I do support charitable efforts in my community. I like to pay with sweat equity when I can. It means more that way.

And in all honestity if Truant needed help with medical bills and asked me. I would help him. The difference being I had a choice.

I use emotionally charged examples to burn away the dross of a position. Judging my personal life from these limited things is silly and incorrect.

In your opinion it is better that cancer pantient John Doe with no health insurance dies rather than you participating in a collective effort to ensure all people have health care, something that also benefits you. You only care if you personally know John Doe.

In my opinion that choice reveals a substantial character flaw that conflicts with your faith and more importantly to me contradicts simple humane morals. To protest people judging you based on the things you say is illogical.

[Cartalas]

Unlike some people on this forum, who for some reason still try and debate with intolerant and greedy bigots, I have long since given up and can offer you only my disdain for you and anyone like you.

This message haas been brought to you by the letters S.T.F. & U.

[Adex_Xeda]

Unlike some people on this forum, who for some reason still try and debate with intolerant and greedy bigots, I have long since given up and can offer you only my disdain for you and anyone like you.

Heh, I guess the only thing you choose to do is hate people. Sure it stirs the blood and gives you a charge of energy, but in the end it is such an empty motivation. It's addictive as well. It's easy to return hate with hate. But where does that get you? Hurt feelings and scarred lives.

No thanks,


You're right Forthe, I'm not the best qualified to detail the effect of Canadian heath care. In my stead I call upon the article I linked to set the stage for discussion.

[Legenae]

Did you read the article that I linked Adex?

[Krimson Klaw]

I don't think it's fair to point out the shortcomings of such a system, when they have the civil clarity to provide the meekest of their society with modern care. In a civilized society, people have a right to get medical care. What kind of message do we send when we can pass laws to protect an eagle or a whale, but we let humans that cannot afford health coverage die when they need our help?

[Forthe]

As a Canadian I can tell you that in my province (and this does vary) I pay $44 per month for my health care premiums (single male). This is in addition to funding it gets via income tax allotments as well.

Just curious is this $44 for dental,optical,life and disability insurance through your employer?

$44 per month seems a bit high to me assuming the above is the case. I'd expect that amount to cover a family plan.

[Wulfran]

That is $44 per month through Alberta Health Care. If I want optical/disability/dental/etc its on my own (self-employed). Again it is subsidized for lower income Albertans (based on previous year's T1).

[Truant]

Truant,

Your perspective is very interesting.

Following your reasoning it is ok for you rob your neighbor at gunpoint taking their money with the justification that you'll use it on your medical bills.

The government is financed out or your and my pocket. Any demand you place on the government is a demand you place on your neighbors. Be justified in your demands.

I work like crazy for what I earn. What right do you claim for forcibly taking the pay I earn?

I worked my ass off forsaking an early start at life so I could pay and struggle through a college degree. This has given me a chance to earn more than minimum wages. I worked the opportunity America provides so that I can take care of myself. I am responsible for me. I am responsible for my medical bills.


If you want to fight reckless charges and over the top insurance problems then I'm your ally.

If you want to use the government as a gun to my head to take my money for something that is your responsiblity then I can't stand with you.

Where in the hell do you see in my post that I advocate robbing people? I may not worship your Jesus, but I am not without morals. In fact, nowhere in my post did I even advocate socialized health care...I just pointed out that due to your situation in life, your argument is very largely flawed.

You're so extreme in one direction or the other. Using the exact same train of thought you used with my advocation of robbing and stealing. You are advocating gathering up every sick person and tossing them into the bottom of the ocean to save yourselves from getting sick, or from having to help anyone.

Now read that, and tell me it isn't fucking retarded. Now read your statement, and tell me it isn't fucking retarded.

I completely understand how our government tax system works. I don't have any right to "forcibly take the pay you earn" NOR DID I EVER FUCKING SAY THAT. Chill out a second and stop thinking I'm trying to come up with an elaborate tax system in which I pirate away everything you own. I'm surprised you aren't screaming "FUCK THE OLD PEOPLE, GIVE ME BACK MY SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TAXES!"

I too work like crazy for what I earn. And despite the fact that your post is coming off extremely holier than thou...I too am working my ass off to pay for a chance at a college degree, as well as supporting someone else while they finish theirs. I too am responsible for me, AND someone else. That makes me better than you on your judgement scale I guess. (sarcasm, before you invade my residence in the war on terror)

I'm all for penalizing and regulating insurance corporations, yes...in fact, let me ask you what George W and his successor did for insurance companies as governors of Texas, can you tell me?

You need to take a fucking breath man...I'm not demanding anything...i'm presenting the other side of your situation, which judging by your radical, defensive response, you have no interest in understanding.

[Chmee]

who else is going to handle universal health care for an entire country? are you mentally retarded? you would do a lot better keeping your libertarian whining away from me.

Once again, supporting universal health care is not synonymous with someone being charitable. Just because someone doesn't agree with your solution to a problem doesn't mean that they have evil motives.

[Chmee]

try going to the emergency room in the states with a burst appendix and no medical insurance and let me know how superior the medical system is down there. also: die.

If you went to an emergency room with a burst appendix in the states, you would almost certainly be treated, even if you have no insurance (in fact, I am pretty sure regulation prohibits them from rejecting care).

[Chmee]

In your opinion it is better that cancer pantient John Doe with no health insurance dies rather than you participating in a collective effort to ensure all people have health care, something that also benefits you. You only care if you personally know John Doe.

A couple things here. First just because someone in the U.S. doesn't have insurance doesn't mean that there is no options they have in pursuing care. In most cases there are options.

http://www.reason.com/ml/ml032802.shtml

But not having health insurance does not necessarily equal not having access to health care. Uninsured individuals consume, on average, half the dollar amount of health services that individuals with insurance purchase. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the self-employed consume roughly the same amount of health care services as do the traditionally employed, even though they are less likely to have health insurance. The annual out-of-pocket expenses for health care are similar for the insured and the uninsured, with the former spending $211 each year and the latter shelling out $242, according to recent work by Yale’s Bradley Herring. (For comparison, the average U.S. household spent $448 in 1999 on cereal and bakery products.)

The U.S. social safety net -- which includes community health centers, public and non-profit hospitals, any emergency room, and charity care by physicians -- absorbs two-thirds of the cost of the health care consumed by the uninsured. This safety net, while not a single, unified, easy-to-manage system, essentially functions as a catastrophic health insurance policy. The more health care the uninsured need, the less they pay. Uninsured individuals pay a mere 9 percent of the hospital inpatient costs they incur.

Secondly, a national health care system doesn't remove decisions about patients receiving care or not, it moves them to a governmental level. No health care system has unlimited money to work with. And since this is the case, they ration care. In some cases delaying care (via waiting lists) and in others by not approving of various procedures/treatments. This means some people will not get treated (or at least not in a timely enough manner). The criteria will be different, but neither system will provide unlimited health care to everyone.

[Rekaar.]

Most fundies like Adex only pay lip service to their faith and morality. When it comes to any actual charity or anything that would really benefit society that might come out of their pocket, they scoff and say that other people don't deserve it. It's no different than any other argument he's ever made on this forum. He's an intolerant bigot with almost no understanding on how the world works outside his upper middle class texas community. You are surprised?

I didn't see that anywhere. I did see him say that he thinks the government is by it's nature inefficient in everything it does, and due to that there must be a better way to provide health care to those in need. I don't know how that can be contested honestly. Any system that has no competition is inherently going to corrupt itself.

Personally my goal is to have everyone who works for a living receive health care. The able-bodied bums and beggars can change or die. That's probably the harshest thing you'll hear me say, but I believe if you refuse the opportunity to work then you should be cut off from any and all aid. Entitling freeloaders is where the US social programs have failed for the most part.

[Lynks]

Personally my goal is to have everyone who works for a living receive health care. The able-bodied bums and beggars can change or die. That's probably the harshest thing you'll hear me say, but I believe if you refuse the opportunity to work then you should be cut off from any and all aid. Entitling freeloaders is where the US social programs have failed for the most part.

While I do agree with a prt of what you said, the problem would be that those people would have to be rejected on a case by case basis. And sometimes, an innocent person would fall through the cracks (and vice versa). I could just see the hoopla when a person who happens to be disabled dies from some disease because someone government employee made a mistake.

[Adex_Xeda]

Hey Truant,

That's the problem with text, you dont' know when someone is angry or not.

My response to you was all smiles. I chose strong wording to cut to the meat of the issue.

I use the idea of robbery to illustrate how the implementation of taxed government services removes your freedom to choose an alternative.

[Truant]

Well then I apologize for the explosive re-reaction.

I most definately don't think the entire system should be government controlled. However, I think insurance companies have run unchecked for too long.

There most definately has to be some mixed medium though. Maybe the most basic health care (physicals and annual flu victims) socialized...i dunno.

All or none for either side is not beneficial in the long term.

[Fizzlewhip]

and at the same time also enjoyed watching over 40 percent of my pay being taken out for NHS.. hmm national health service.

I call bullshit, where do you get this 40% figure from?

If you mean 4% you might well be on track for an average amount taken for the "National Insurance" contribution.

And if you don't think you're getting robbed in the US for health insurance, look at what you pay in Australia for family coverage.. http://www.hcf.com.au/Products/health_p ... s_code=B#1

Less than your company subsidised rate, no co-pay, no gap.. gee..

edit: BTW Adex, yes.. that means you can have both systems at the same time..

From my paystub every two weeks. I made 20k pounds a year. Over 4k a year was paid directly to NHS.
you do the math.

[Lynks]

Im doing the math right now, thats not 40%.

[Fizzlewhip]

You are right, and I am wrong. it is 20% of my pay.

Even that is not complete. that figured in other "taxes" including my NI. I think it is more like 10% of my pay went to my NHS contribution.

[vn_Tanc]

National Insurance (NHS tax) contributions are capped at 9% of income.
Can't remember whether it's a flat rate across the board or not. /shrug.
I think, due to more righty whinging some years back, that the total contribution per year is capped too. To save the ultra-rich a few much needed pounds.

[Deward]

Health insurance should not be socialized. I am not a "fundie" but I am a Libertarian. I would like to see everyone have the same access to healthcare but the government would just screw it up by turning it into a big subsidy. There are other options for bringing health care costs down.

1. Put caps on malpractice suits and require arbitration first. It is well documented and proven that arbitration is much cheaper than going to trial.
2. Lower the number of years that a drug company can hold a patent. Some will say that this will prevent a drug company from spending the money to research new drugs. I don't think it will because they can still earn money...just for a shorter time before generics come out.
3. Lower the FDA standards for approving new drugs. I can only speculate that a large part of drug research is involved in the too stringent demands set forth by the FDA. Plus getting the drugs out quicker will make up for the lesser patent periods.

I do think that all children under the age of 18 should have full coverage insurance regardless of income level. It isn't their fault if they are poor. I also agree with other's views on health insurance for anyone currently working but I also think that should include people who lost their job because of injury (expand workman's comp). People who are just too freaking lazy to get a job can die.

As said previously, hospitals are required to give aid in the case of life threatening injuries and illnesses. This has occurred and the hospitals were sued and the patients won.

[Truant]

As said previously, hospitals are required to give aid in the case of life threatening injuries and illnesses. This has occurred and the hospitals were sued and the patients won.

Yes but if you have no insurance, you are pretty much bankrupt for life if you do get treatment.

What are your options, die, or die miserable?

[Wulfran]

I guess this does puzzle me from a nation supposedly founded on the principles that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess the life part isn't as significant as the other two?

I can understand a certain level of aversion to the government involvement but if you take a n perspective like Deward's, how exactly do you put the cost of healthcare solely on malpractice, the length of patents and lessening the restrictions on new drugs? In the end there is still a cost of doing business for the doctor and his staff, and while the drug reforms may save a lot of money on prescriptions, malpractice insurance makes up pennies of your $75 to $200 bill when you visit a doctor. Not to mention additional costs should require an ambulance or hospitalization.

Also how do you administer a plan to ensure minors, severely injured (and what about disabled people from childhood, non-workplace accidents, etc?) get full access without some type of government involvement? I'm not even going to bother to ask Chmee comes by the assertion that government involvement is a "subsidy". Yes there are issues, a lot of them but if the goal is to provide for the needy, you guys fall at least as short with a privatized system as Canada does with an ailing government supported one.

[Voronwë]

malpractice insurance is actually extremely high in some instances. Some obstitricians pay like $300,000 a year in insurance alone. its a tough situation, because there are very real cases where negligence happens and children die. and i think big ass court settlements are very warrented in those situations. there are also lots of situations in the grayer areas, and it is really tough to know what is right in those situations.

i'm certainly glad i haven't been in the situation to file for wrongful death or injury to a family member.

[Aslanna]

2. Lower the number of years that a drug company can hold a patent. Some will say that this will prevent a drug company from spending the money to research new drugs. I don't think it will because they can still earn money...just for a shorter time before generics come out.

Sure they can earn money.. But is it enough for them to take the risk on developing a drug that has a slim chance of making it to market? What's the incentive if they know others can just steal their work after a few years? Especially with the time to market getting longer.

http://www.gsk.com/about/responsibility ... ual/ip.htm

http://www.pfizer.com/are/news_releases ... _0713.html

3. Lower the FDA standards for approving new drugs. I can only speculate that a large part of drug research is involved in the too stringent demands set forth by the FDA. Plus getting the drugs out quicker will make up for the lesser patent periods.

Depends on which standards you're talking about. Getting them through quicker, yes.. But not at the sake of reduced safety or unproven efficacy. There's a lot of red tape that can be streamlined or eliminated altogether.


It's funny how everyone wants safe effective drugs yet nobody wants to pay for them. To produce first in class and best in class drugs takes a lot of money. Money that has to be earned back somewhere.

Now, having said that, do I feel the pharmaceutical industry doesn't have powerful lobbies and questionable political shenanigans that can potentially accompany that? No question that they do. But they are a business and businesses exist to make money. However, due to the nature of their business, they're more apt to be in the spotlight than other companies with higher profit margins.

I do think they have a social responsibilty to provide low cost drugs to those those who need them, including developing countries.

http://www.pfizer.com/subsites/philanth ... h.hiv.html

http://www.lilly.com/about/responsible/ ... rf_02.html


(And yes, I realize all my links are from the evil propaganda machines of the drug companies)

[Deward]

This is how healthcare costs are affected by malpractice suits. Every doctor (and in some states nurses) are required to have a certain level of malpractice insurance. A doctor's insurance is usually separate from a Hospital's insurance coverage and in many cases the hospital does not cover the insurance for the doctor. So a doctor that has to pay $50,000 a year just for insurance means he must have a job that pays more than that. It isn't worth being a doctor for $100,000 a year if half is going towards malpractice insurance. Also, like car insurance, if one doctor gets hit for a $1,000,000 settlement then it not only jacks up his insurance but it also jacks up every other doctor at that insurance company. So now the hospitals have to pay their doctors a hell of a lot more just to get them to work for them. They don't absorb that expense from the goodness of their hearts, they charge it to the customer.

The above isn't the only reason for high health costs but putting limits on Malpractice settlements would at least help bring some costs down.

Depends on which standards you're talking about. Getting them through quicker, yes.. But not at the sake of reduced safety or unproven efficacy. There's a lot of red tape that can be streamlined or eliminated altogether.

I don't know all the standards that are involved in drug production but I do know that it can take years longer than any other country in the world to bring a drug to market. I agree that drugs need to be safe but there are drugs being used in europe with very few and minimal side effects that FDA refuses to allow here. If one person has a serious side effect out of 1000 people then isn't that a risk worth taking to save a lot of other people? I would take that chance if my life depended on it.

I do think they have a social responsibilty to provide low cost drugs to those those who need them, including developing countries.

If they were doing it out of social responsibility then I would applaud them but they are giving drugs away and then charging Americans to make up for it. We shouldn't be expected to heal the whole world's woes. I sympathize for them but we have a lot of people in our own country that are suffering. My wife is a home care nurse. Every day she has to deal with elderly folks who can't afford half the drugs prescribed to them. If they want to be socially responsible then start by doing it at home.

[Zaelath]

Hrmm.. I still think a lot of the drug company propaganda about generics has the same sort of falacious reasoning that software and record companies use regarding piracy. eg, claiming 5 billion in lost sales for software pirated by people in poor countries that would never in a million years bought it full price.

Where I draw the comparison is in two areas; do people that have money buy Nurofen, or the cheaper generic brand? It's quite literally the same shit in a better box..

Secondly, people who simply cannot afford insurance/drugs at full price could be means tested and supplied the drugs at a lesser rate via some government body (this has some flaws.. on-selling of the drugs for example, but you could fix that by adding tracers to the cut-price meds, fail a test for the tracer, no more drugs for j00!)

[Aslanna]

Hrmm.. I still think a lot of the drug company propaganda about generics has the same sort of falacious reasoning that software and record companies use regarding piracy. eg, claiming 5 billion in lost sales for software pirated by people in poor countries that would never in a million years bought it full price.

Where I draw the comparison is in two areas; do people that have money buy Nurofen, or the cheaper generic brand? It's quite literally the same shit in a better box..

Which generic propaganda? Generics are the same formula so you're correct, there is really no difference. Generics only come about after the patent protection on the name brand drug has been removed so other companies can make it without having to bother when that pesky R&D expense. Perhaps you're thinking about the propaganda regarding the reimportation / counterfeiting issue? I haven't really seen drug companies trying to make generic brands look inferior. If it's neither please expound upon your argument.

Secondly, people who simply cannot afford insurance/drugs at full price could be means tested and supplied the drugs at a lesser rate via some government body (this has some flaws.. on-selling of the drugs for example, but you could fix that by adding tracers to the cut-price meds, fail a test for the tracer, no more drugs for j00!)

Numerous drug companies already have discount programs in place for low income people.