Quantcast

Health Care

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Health Care in America as it Stands

Right now, we have a health care crisis in the United States. We have about 47 million uninsured people, and being uninsured means that you can be paying debt for years to come. About half of the bankruptcies in the United States are due in at least part to medical emergencies. Unless you are rich, if you lose your job and get hurt, then your finances can quickly go into ruin.

Comparisons to Other Countries



Solutions

The Beveridge Model

Named after William Beveridge, the daring social reformer who designed Britain's National Health Service. In this system, health care is provided and financed by the government through tax payments, just like the police force or the public library.

Many, but not all, hospitals and clinics are owned by the government; some doctors are government employees, but there are also private doctors who collect their fees from the government. In Britain, you never get a doctor bill. These systems tend to have low costs per capita, because the government, as the sole payer, controls what doctors can do and what they can charge.

Countries using the Beveridge plan or variations on it include its birthplace Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia and New Zealand. Hong Kong still has its own Beveridge-style health care, because the populace simply refused to give it up when the Chinese took over that former British colony in 1997. Cuba represents the extreme application of the Beveridge approach; it is probably the world's purest example of total government control.

The Bismarck Model

Named for the Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who invented the welfare state as part of the unification of Germany in the 19th century. Despite its European heritage, this system of providing health care would look fairly familiar to Americans. It uses an insurance system -- the insurers are called "sickness funds" -- usually financed jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction.

Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they don't make a profit. Doctors and hospitals tend to be private in Bismarck countries; Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S. Although this is a multi-payer model -- Germany has about 240 different funds -- tight regulation gives government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides.

The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.

The National Health Insurance Model

This system has elements of both Beveridge and Bismarck. It uses private-sector providers, but payment comes from a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. Since there's no need for marketing, no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, these universal insurance programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style for-profit insurance.

The single payer tends to have considerable market power to negotiate for lower prices; Canada's system, for example, has negotiated such low prices from pharmaceutical companies that Americans have spurned their own drug stores to buy pills north of the border. National Health Insurance plans also control costs by limiting the medical services they will pay for, or by making patients wait to be treated.

The classic NHI system is found in Canada, but some newly industrialized countries -- Taiwan and South Korea, for example -- have also adopted the NHI model.

The Out-of-Pocket Model

Only the developed, industrialized countries -- perhaps 40 of the world's 200 countries -- have established health care systems. Most of the nations on the planet are too poor and too disorganized to provide any kind of mass medical care. The basic rule in such countries is that the rich get medical care; the poor stay sick or die.

In rural regions of Africa, India, China and South America, hundreds of millions of people go their whole lives without ever seeing a doctor. They may have access, though, to a village healer using home-brewed remedies that may or not be effective against disease.

In the poor world, patients can sometimes scratch together enough money to pay a doctor bill; otherwise, they pay in potatoes or goat's milk or child care or whatever else they may have to give. If they have nothing, they don't get medical care.

These four models should be fairly easy for Americans to understand because we have elements of all of them in our fragmented national health care apparatus. When it comes to treating veterans, we're Britain or Cuba. For Americans over the age of 65 on Medicare, we're Canada. For working Americans who get insurance on the job, we're Germany.

For the 15 percent of the population who have no health insurance, the United States is Cambodia or Burkina Faso or rural India, with access to a doctor available if you can pay the bill out-of-pocket at the time of treatment or if you're sick enough to be admitted to the emergency ward at the public hospital.

The United States is unlike every other country because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people. All the other countries have settled on one model for everybody. This is much simpler than the U.S. system; it's fairer and cheaper, too.

Terminology

Universal Health Care - All citizens have health care provided, not necessarily socialized.

Socialized Health Care - Entirely or nearly entirely public-based health care.

The Presidential Candidates

Barack Obama - Health care plan offered by the government for those that want it, also help make it cheaper for the poor and the middle class. (more information here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/)

John McCain - $2500 to help offset the costs (more info here http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm)



For me, as a Social Democrat, the overriding factor when considering the health care system is making sure that nobody is forced to choose between eating and getting treated, but the concerns of many Americans have to be taken into account. Countries with universal health care overwhelmingly support their systems. The insurance companies in Germany are non-profit, regulated, and efficient. Efficient CEOs and managers are paid more, and there is healthy competition within the market as companies work to cut costs to deliver the lowest rates.
 
Last edited:

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,598
0
This is an interesting post and I plan on reading it (beer in hand) later. I can tell you that the fact that my health insurance premiums have been going up about 25% per year is a load of crap. Having a for-profit industry working as a middleman between citizens and health care organizations is just plain dumb.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
43,543
15,761
Portland, OR
This is an interesting post and I plan on reading it (beer in hand) later. I can tell you that the fact that my health insurance premiums have been going up about 25% per year is a load of crap. Having a for-profit industry working as a middleman between citizens and health care organizations is just plain dumb.
In the 6 months I have had my new insurance, I have paid more out of pocket than I have in the previous 7 years combined. Not to mention the hoops I had to jump though to get a "pre-existing clause" lifted because I had a 32 day laps in coverage.

Not like I've been to the doctor a whole lot this year or anything. But I have between $500 and $1000 per person deductible (primary care is different than chiropractic, so the deductible is separate for each) per doctor. So far I have spent about $3400 in uncovered and/or deductibles.

What a scam.
 

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
We Americans are too stupid and greedy to change our system. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.

I keep my evil corporate job mostly for the healthcare. I could live on less money in a funner environment, but I hate knowing my kids wouldn't have good coverage. It's all about enslaving americans for profit, but we kind of do it to ourselves through voting, lack of unions and buying stuff made by people with a lower standard of living.

There is a major point in your article that makes it a tough fight- apparently taking profits out of medicine is better for the people, but not for wealthy dividend holders. It will be tough to pry their greedy little hands off our system.

Great post. Thanks for the data, solution proposals and personal opinion (I'm getting tired of fishing posts w/no search for truth/answers).
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Excellent post.

My only concerns with socialized healthcare are, #1.) that Im afraid Americans will cease to be seen as customers any longer by providers, and that general care could decrease as an effect of that. I think about the general productivity/initiative/work ethic (or lack thereof actually) of most government run agencies or programs and it's a bit unnerving to think my health would be in the hands of such people.
#2.) Is that I'm afraid of stifling research by large medical/pharm companies; that they won't be so inclined to invest huge money intp research anymore because the windfall profits they used to be able to count on after a breakthrough will be no longer.

Ultimately though, I think the idea that a culture as socially advanced as ours in the US is, which will simply let people die every year by the thousands because they can't afford health care is ridiculous... especially considering every other advanced nation on the planet has found a way around the problem. And anyone who thinks that isn't a problem isn't someone I'd really care to know. How selfish can you be?
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,598
0
My girlfriend and a lot of my friends are in health care. The number one complaint in that industry is HMO's. Its so bad, that almost unanimously they are all sorry they got into health care at all. So much for windfall profits improving the system.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
#1.) that Im afraid Americans will cease to be seen as customers any longer by providers, and that general care could decrease as an effect of that. I think about the general productivity/initiative/work ethic (or lack thereof actually) of most government run agencies or programs and it's a bit unnerving to think my health would be in the hands of such people.
This isn't the case in other countries, if you look at the chart.

#2.) Is that I'm afraid of stifling research by large medical/pharm companies; that they won't be so inclined to invest huge money intp research anymore because the windfall profits they used to be able to count on after a breakthrough will be no longer.
What, you'd be sad if there weren't more anti-depressants and strains of Botox out on the market? It seems like the vast majority of R&D development from pharma companies is on designer drugs that are easily marketed to the unwashed horde, instead of life-saving breakthroughs and cures. Removing vast profit sums (and marketing) from the equation may do quite the opposite of what you're saying.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
This isn't the case in other countries, if you look at the chart.
Exactly what does that chart tell us about the US government's abilities to manage large programs effectively? Wouldn't a more accurate projection of what they'd be able to accomplish be gained from knowledge of how other US gov't programs are managed? How's that VA healthcare been working out for the vets?

What, you'd be sad if there weren't more anti-depressants and strains of Botox out on the market? It seems like the vast majority of R&D development from pharma companies is on designer drugs that are easily marketed to the unwashed horde, instead of life-saving breakthroughs and cures. Removing vast profit sums (and marketing) from the equation may do quite the opposite of what you're saying.

It seems like that because you watch too much TV and are constantly inundated with such "breakthroughs," but in reality alot of the advances in healthcare worldwide come from the research of American companies, whether you want to admit it or not. Save the hyperbole next time.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,253
9,126
blue makes good points
no, he makes a shallow point. Botox has many non-cosmetic uses, for the record, and there are many lower profile workhorse drugs and procedures out there that genuinely save a ton of lives: aspirin for one, beta blockers, statins, ACE inhibitors, ANTIBIOTICS, etc.

when's the last time you saw an advertisement for heparin? :twitch: yet it may well be what keeps you from having a pulmonary embolism after surgery.
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,598
0
no, he makes a shallow point. Botox has many non-cosmetic uses, for the record, and there are many lower profile workhorse drugs and procedures out there that genuinely save a ton of lives: aspirin for one, beta blockers, statins, ACE inhibitors, ANTIBIOTICS, etc.

when's the last time you saw an advertisement for heparin? :twitch: yet it may well be what keeps you from having a pulmonary embolism after surgery.
Blue's points still aren't valid? Were hundreds of millions spent on the development of Aspirin? Have there been breakthroughs in Antibiotics related to the research budgets at big pharma?

Would not a better solution be for government to sponsor preventative medicine and education into healthy living? Do you really think the drug arms race is needed to keep up with our ridiculous life choices?
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,253
9,126
Blue's points still aren't valid? Were hundreds of millions spent on the development of Aspirin? Have there been breakthroughs in Antibiotics related to the research budgets at big pharma?

Would not a better solution be for government to sponsor preventative medicine and education into healthy living? Do you really think the drug arms race is really needed to keep up with our ridiculous life choices?
my point is that condensing the pharmaceutical industry into botox and antidepressants is dense.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
no, he makes a shallow point. Botox has many non-cosmetic uses, for the record, and there are many lower profile workhorse drugs and procedures out there that genuinely save a ton of lives: aspirin for one, beta blockers, statins, ACE inhibitors, ANTIBIOTICS, etc.

when's the last time you saw an advertisement for heparin? :twitch: yet it may well be what keeps you from having a pulmonary embolism after surgery.
Aspirin was discovered by a French scientist in the mid-1800s
Beta blockers were discovered by a Scottish doctor
Statins were discovered by Japanese doctors
Heparin was discovered by a university student

None of the specific drugs you listed came from U.S drug companies, beta blockers and statins were discovered under a universal health care system. Drug companies still profit under a Bismarckian health care system, insurance companies don't.
 
Last edited:

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
It seems like that because you watch too much TV and are constantly inundated with such "breakthroughs," but in reality alot of the advances in healthcare worldwide come from the research of American companies, whether you want to admit it or not. Save the hyperbole next time.
There are just as many european and japanese advances. Just look at the annual report of any pharmaceutical company and you'll see they spend 2 to 3 times as much on marketing as they do on research. Americans' pay for that marketing.

Many companies just buy-up smaller companies that have already done the work, or they put a smaller company out of business by having a stronger legal fund.So the super rich stock holders that own the mega corporations just keep their revenue streams and still rip off americans. You are kidding yourself if you think just b/c you own 200K to 2 million$$ of stock your a major share holder. My point is the super rich will always fund any research or buy any company that will make money.

Toshi, you know pharmaceutical companies make more money off treating a disease than curing it. You are probably also aware that these companies don't fund projects that CAN cure disease if it doesn't make enough money b/c then they have to continue to make that product.

Genital warts (HPV) and herpes (valtrex), the biggest blockbuster drugs in the recent years. Those drugs make the money.

SO yeah, our system allows big pharma to spend millions to market drugs many don't need and manufacture drugs that only make more money even though other diseases could be cured. They make the stuff in Puerto Rico or Ireland and sell it to us for more than any other country.

Please prove me wrong b/c I'm getting depressed justing thinking about it.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,253
9,126
spinteck, interesting you bring up the whole cure vs. treat deal. do your tinfoil hat sources have any actual examples of a potential curative mechanism that's been suppressed thanks to the big bad wolf, er, pharma? the pathophysiology of disease is not simple.
 

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
spinteck, interesting you bring up the whole cure vs. treat deal. do your tinfoil hat sources have any actual examples of a potential curative mechanism that's been suppressed thanks to the big bad wolf, er, pharma? the pathophysiology of disease is not simple.
Yeah, you're right- no projects that could help a small percent of the population have ever been taken off the budget. We should just work for medicine and doctors and be happy that we're still breathing in this country. I admire your MD, but I see the barbi sales reps have already stroked your ego with the promise of lots of ssssssssssssssss.................................samples.

So for the record, you advocate our current healthcare system Toshi?
 

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
41,366
10,292
spinteck, interesting you bring up the whole cure vs. treat deal. do your tinfoil hat sources have any actual examples of a potential curative mechanism that's been suppressed thanks to the big bad wolf, er, pharma? the pathophysiology of disease is not simple.


Yeah, you're right- no projects that could help a small percent of the population have ever been taken off the budget. We should just work for medicine and doctors and be happy that we're still breathing in this country. I admire your MD, but I see the barbi sales reps have already stroked your ego with the promise of lots of ssssssssssssssss.................................samples.

So for the record, you advocate our current healthcare system Toshi?
So I guess your answer was no, I do not have any proof.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
Would not a better solution be for government to sponsor preventative medicine and education into healthy living? Do you really think the drug arms race is really needed to keep up with our ridiculous life choices?
Damn skippy on that. It's like not ever changing the oil in your car, and then putting in a new engine at 50,000 miles when the old one finally seized. It just doesn't make any sense.

my point is that condensing the pharmaceutical industry into botox and antidepressants is dense.
I could just condense it into "pharmaceutical companies=evil" :brows:

But really, the marketing budgets of these companies ALONE speak volumes about where their priorities lie.
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
so is there any evidence that the American system facilitates the development of life saving drugs better than the systems of other industrialized nations?

or is the discussion mostly based on principle instead of evidence at this point?
 
Last edited:

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,598
0
I think this is the first discussion I have seen where Toshi wasn't out front with some insightful statements. You better become an advocate for change in health care Toshi, or your new job is going to ****ing suck :D
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
Japan figures are interesting. Take all the other things out of the equation and it comes down to a very simple fact. If the food you are eating is mostly healthy then you're going to live longer and have to worry about health care less. I taught 3 classes of high school kids today (80 kids) and although they're bastards they're not fat little bastards. There were maybe half a dozen kids who you might classify as a bit over-weight, there are no porkers. Compare that to a high school in the US, UK or Australia.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,253
9,126
I think this is the first discussion I have seen where Toshi wasn't out front with some insightful statements. You better become an advocate for change in health care Toshi, or your new job is going to ****ing suck :D
please note that i'm not going into primary care. i'm going to be doing radiology... y'all can eat yourselves to death, but as long as you fit within the MRI scanner then i'm ok.

:pirate2:
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
That first post looks like an astroturf job to me...
I took the solution explanation from frontline, PBS's investigatory journalism program, because it explains the four options incredibly well. The rest I wrote up.

You can find their program here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/main.html), it does an excellent job of explaining the pros and cons of each system.

Edit: I would have included the video in the OP, but asking people to watch a documentary before posting is a lost cause
 
Last edited:

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Need to clear up some facts:

- Pharma companies spend about the SAME on marketing as R&D, and about half as much as on R&D if you subtract free samples (at fair market value) from the equation. The vast majority of this spend is on getting the knowledge to doctors. Doctors can't use treatments they don't know about. It is unfortunate that they seem to find out more about it when it's sold to them by The Girls Next Door, but hey, it's called retention. The rare commercial you see on TV is a small proportion of the marketing. You are not being indoctrinated.


- Big companies buying up small companies is a GOOD thing. It's the whole raison d'etre for a small pharma startup. If big ones don't buy up small ones, you won't have small ones.

- It is not the pharma companies' interest to unprofitably cure diseases, but that's not a problem because cures are profitable. HPV vaccine anyone? Do you know what a cure for AIDS would be worth? You aren't seeing cures because they are really hard to find. Diseases mutate. Even treatments are hard to find, but they CAN be found and they work. You're right however that pharma companies have no interest in prevention...

- ...that isn't an issue because prevention IS in insurance companies' and governments' interest. The system isn't doing much prevention because it is ****ed, not because of a conspiracy. Competition is fierce and providers are doing everything they can to lower costs despite the ****itude of our system, and that includes a tremendous surge recently in wellness programs and alternative sources of care and advice.

- Doctors prescribe known pharmaceutical treatments because A) we know they work and B) we'll sue their ****ing shirts off their backs if they don't. I'm sure they agree with you that a healthy lifestyle is great, but faced with a sick patient, do you really think it's even possible for them to prescribe yoga and char? Doctors aren't broken, our legal system is.

I'll think of more later, but yes we need a new HC system; no, the evil corporations are not purposefully trying to keep you sick.
 

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
I can't really answer this stuff from work because I'm part of the pharm machine and I need my job right now. We do more good than bad, but companies need to be kept honest.

I enjoy making vaccines because most are noble and cure a disease instead of just treat it. With that said, there are politics and profits at hand and a constant struggle to balance due to the high profits.

I'm not going to air all our dirty laundry, just read a paper. Look at the Heprin label issue with Quad's kids or the Viox studies. Profits and greed can kill people through poorly run systems. For the last five years the corporate motto has been "it's a business". Well, after some issues we have a new motto, "focus on compliance". So these companies do a lot of good, but still need to be kept honest. Some of the other country inspections actually get companies into better shape through different inspection styles than our FDA.

As far as marketing vs. research, here is the standard pfizer annual report. go to consolidated statements of income (page 40 of 84) and see for yourself.
http://www.pfizer.com/investors/financial_reports/financial_report_2007.jsp

costs of sales 11, 239
selling information and administrative expenses 15 626
research and development expenses 8 089

So I guess all that prime time/super bowl advertising really adds up. Where does that money come from?? I don't know what company Ohio is thinking of. This is pretty standard in the industry so you can compare to jnj and such. I really don't think big corporations buying the technology or a smaller company is good unless they can keep the brain power and ethics that found the technology.

My general practitioner says the system is flawed b/c it's driven by profit. My kids pediatrician, older than dirt, thinks the consumer advertising is out of hand. So when I hear experienced doctors I respect say this in combination to our corporations politics, I can't help but admire other countries like Britian. On my honeymoon in italy and france we met so many people, one couple from Britian, that loved their healthcare system.

So I'm for a system like Britians, even if I make less and have to pay more in taxes. I'd like to see any doctor that doesn't work for a pharm company or the gov't defend our current system.
 

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
Japan figures are interesting. Take all the other things out of the equation and it comes down to a very simple fact. If the food you are eating is mostly healthy then you're going to live longer and have to worry about health care less. I taught 3 classes of high school kids today (80 kids) and although they're bastards they're not fat little bastards. There were maybe half a dozen kids who you might classify as a bit over-weight, there are no porkers. Compare that to a high school in the US, UK or Australia.

funny you say that b/c your company gets fined if you're too fat. please tell me this is not true and just stupid american journalism

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/06/23/kyung.fat.busters.cnn
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
I took the solution explanation from frontline, PBS's investigatory journalism program, because it explains the four options incredibly well. The rest I wrote up.

You can find their program here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/main.html), it does an excellent job of explaining the pros and cons of each system.

Edit: I would have included the video in the OP, but asking people to watch a documentary before posting is a lost cause
I need to apologize to you.

You have a low post count, and you threw out a fairly comprehensive post. I've seen that before, and that usually means it's a cut and paste job.

Those don't stick around to answer follow ups though...:)
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
My general practitioner says the system is flawed b/c it's driven by profit. My kids pediatrician, older than dirt, thinks the consumer advertising is out of hand. So when I hear experienced doctors I respect say this in combination to our corporations politics, I can't help but admire other countries like Britian. On my honeymoon in italy and france we met so many people, one couple from Britian, that loved their healthcare system.

So I'm for a system like Britians, even if I make less and have to pay more in taxes. I'd like to see any doctor that doesn't work for a pharm company or the gov't defend our current system.
MY GP is about 35 years old, I think, and she knows that I'm from Canada. The last couple times I've been in to the doctor, she turns it into a bitch session about the American healthcare system and how stupidly it's being run.

The thing about paying more in taxes that most people don't remind you about is this: Sure, you're paying more in taxes. However, you also get to subtract that chunk a month that you're paying to United Healthcare so that Willaim McGuire could afford the new Gulfstream and not get stuck with the slightly older model.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
SPINTECK, my numbers are from the industry as a whole, so the big pharm (higher marketing expenses) and the small startups (almost 100% R&D) average out. Realizing that at this stage, you NEED a distribution network (small pharm is somewhat subsidized by big pharm in that they don't need that huge network) I still don't find the spend reprehensible. Less than ideal, yes, but not outrageous.

We're in agreement that the system is very broken. I just take issue with the idea that it's "evil." Thinking about it in moral terms won't get you to a solution.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Need to clear up some facts:

- Pharma companies spend about the SAME on marketing as R&D, and about half as much as on R&D if you subtract free samples (at fair market value) from the equation. The vast majority of this spend is on getting the knowledge to doctors. Doctors can't use treatments they don't know about. It is unfortunate that they seem to find out more about it when it's sold to them by The Girls Next Door, but hey, it's called retention. The rare commercial you see on TV is a small proportion of the marketing. You are not being indoctrinated.


- Big companies buying up small companies is a GOOD thing. It's the whole raison d'etre for a small pharma startup. If big ones don't buy up small ones, you won't have small ones.

- It is not the pharma companies' interest to unprofitably cure diseases, but that's not a problem because cures are profitable. HPV vaccine anyone? Do you know what a cure for AIDS would be worth? You aren't seeing cures because they are really hard to find. Diseases mutate. Even treatments are hard to find, but they CAN be found and they work. You're right however that pharma companies have no interest in prevention...

- ...that isn't an issue because prevention IS in insurance companies' and governments' interest. The system isn't doing much prevention because it is ****ed, not because of a conspiracy. Competition is fierce and providers are doing everything they can to lower costs despite the ****itude of our system, and that includes a tremendous surge recently in wellness programs and alternative sources of care and advice.

- Doctors prescribe known pharmaceutical treatments because A) we know they work and B) we'll sue their ****ing shirts off their backs if they don't. I'm sure they agree with you that a healthy lifestyle is great, but faced with a sick patient, do you really think it's even possible for them to prescribe yoga and char? Doctors aren't broken, our legal system is.

I'll think of more later, but yes we need a new HC system; no, the evil corporations are not purposefully trying to keep you sick.

I feel so much differently now about these noble organizations.

The fabrication of such legitimate ailments as 'acid reflux DISEASE' are just their ways of showing us they care.*







*side effects of treatment may include complete shutdown of the central nervous system. Consult with your doctor if you currently have a fully functional nervous system and don't shlt your brains out at regular 5 minute intervals
 
Last edited:

splat

Nam I am
Reading this article, Makes one think , I would like to know how true is it all.

HOW 'LIBERAL' CARE WOULD KILL TED
By ROBERT M. GOLDBERG
Kennedy: Getting care denied by 'liberal' health regimes.
Kennedy: Getting care denied by 'liberal' health regimes.

June 5, 2008 -- IRONICALLY enough, the dangers of the lib eral health-care agenda are being made clear by the care that a liberal icon, Sen. Ted Kennedy, has received since his brain seizure last month.

One day after an MRI detected a tumor, Kennedy was quickly diagnosed with a malignant glioma - a rare and often-fatal form of brain cancer. Less than two weeks later, his tumor was being removed by one of the world's experts in brain cancer at Duke Univeristy Medical Center. He'll follow up with chemo and radiation therapy tailored to the genetic makeup of his cancer to keep the cancer from spreading.

He'll likely take Avastin, a drug that in experiments with brain cancer has extended survival by months. A new cancer vaccine being developed in partnership with Pfizer could extend his life by six years.

Of course, with his wealth and power, Kennedy would get good treatment anywhere. But the same care is available to every American.

Not so - if we make the health "reforms" called for by Kennedy and other liberals.

Filmmaker Michael Moore gives their standard line when he says: "There are problems in all health-care systems, but at least Europeans and Canadians have a health-care system that covers everyone."

Problem is, governments that promise to "cover everyone" always wind up cutting corners simply to save money. People with Kennedy's condition are dying or dead as a result.

Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.

Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.

Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.

Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.

Barack Obama - and other Democrats - have been pushing a Senate bill to set up a similar US "review board" for Medicare and any future government health-care plan.

After denying this treatment completely for seven years, the NICE (did whoever named it intend the irony?) relented - partly. Even today, only a handful of Brits with brain tumors can get Temodar.

And if you want to pay for Temodar out of your own pocket, the British system forces you to pay for all of your cancer care - about $30,000 a month.

Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.

And HealthCanada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.

Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.

His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But HealthCanada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.

Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21.

In pushing for government-run health care, liberals are pushing for a system where only the Ted Kennedys of the world can get cutting-edge - and life-saving - care.
 

Inclag

Turbo Monkey
Sep 9, 2001
2,780
465
MA
Excellent post.

My only concerns with socialized healthcare are, #1.) that Im afraid Americans will cease to be seen as customers any longer by providers, and that general care could decrease as an effect of that. I think about the general productivity/initiative/work ethic (or lack thereof actually) of most government run agencies or programs and it's a bit unnerving to think my health would be in the hands of such people.
#2.) Is that I'm afraid of stifling research by large medical/pharm companies; that they won't be so inclined to invest huge money intp research anymore because the windfall profits they used to be able to count on after a breakthrough will be no longer.

Ultimately though, I think the idea that a culture as socially advanced as ours in the US is, which will simply let people die every year by the thousands because they can't afford health care is ridiculous... especially considering every other advanced nation on the planet has found a way around the problem. And anyone who thinks that isn't a problem isn't someone I'd really care to know. How selfish can you be?
The amount of true drug breakthroughs in the last in 20 years that have come from big pharma has been steadily dropping as most of the research and such has been handed over to academia and other research institutes. I don't think that we would see any stifle in Big Pharma's initiative.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
The amount of true drug breakthroughs in the last in 20 years that have come from big pharma has been steadily dropping as most of the research and such has been handed over to academia and other research institutes. I don't think that we would see any stifle in Big Pharma's initiative.
Do grants given to academia come solely from the government, or from these private pharmaceutical companies as well?

My point in this thread isn't to lash out against socialized healthcare...overall I am in favor of it, but I think my points/concerns are still valid, whether or not people want to recognize them.
We've seen what happens to other American industries when their profits are cut for one reason or another. Look at the motor vehicle industry in the US...nothing exactly groundbreaking lately. Production is moving overseas, etc.
It seems pretty obvious that pharm. companies would indeed take a hit if socialized healthcare were adopted here. Why should we assume that everything else would remain would remain the same?
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
"Of course, with his wealth and power, Kennedy would get good treatment anywhere. But the same care is available to every American."

Only the super rich Americans.

"He'll likely take Avastin, a drug that in experiments with brain cancer has extended survival by months. A new cancer vaccine being developed in partnership with Pfizer could extend his life by six years."

Insurance does not cover things considered "experimental", like liver transplants.

"Things are no different in Canada..."

Except that things are hugely different in Canada since they are different systems, the article highlights the worst situations possible in a universal system, but shows that the super rich can get amazing care in our system. It doesn't highlight how 50% of the bankruptcies in the U.S are due partly to medical costs. It doesn't highlight how insurance companies in the United States are allowed to effectively kill someone by claiming liver transplants as experimental.

Do grants given to academia come solely from the government, or from these private pharmaceutical companies as well?

My point in this thread isn't to lash out against socialized healthcare...overall I am in favor of it, but I think my points/concerns are still valid, whether or not people want to recognize them.
We've seen what happens to other American industries when their profits are cut for one reason or another. Look at the motor vehicle industry in the US...nothing exactly groundbreaking lately. Production is moving overseas, etc.
It seems pretty obvious that pharm. companies would indeed take a hit if socialized healthcare were adopted here. Why should we assume that everything else would remain would remain the same?
As it stands, research in new drugs may take a hit, but the trade-off is that lives are saved and people aren't going bankrupt and losing their homes because they got cancer.
 
Last edited:

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
I feel so much differently now about these noble organizations.
Look I'm no cheerleader of these guys, but they are no worse or more evil than any large, for-profit organization. Sony wants us all to purchase TVs we don't need. Are they evil because of that?

Fix the system, but don't expect that large, for-profit pharmas (which we need, whether we want them or not) to suddenly become charitable organizations or to stop selling designer drugs to people that can afford them (e.g. viagra).
 

Inclag

Turbo Monkey
Sep 9, 2001
2,780
465
MA
Do grants given to academia come solely from the government, or from these private pharmaceutical companies as well?

My point in this thread isn't to lash out against socialized healthcare...overall I am in favor of it, but I think my points/concerns are still valid, whether or not people want to recognize them.
We've seen what happens to other American industries when their profits are cut for one reason or another. Look at the motor vehicle industry in the US...nothing exactly groundbreaking lately. Production is moving overseas, etc.
It seems pretty obvious that pharm. companies would indeed take a hit if socialized healthcare were adopted here. Why should we assume that everything else would remain would remain the same?
Not sure about your above question, would be interesting to know however. It is probably like most research done though academia that I saw as an engineering student. Government awards contracts/money to corporation. Corporation uses students (and I maybe this isn't coming out with the right tonality) as what is effectively cheap labor and after a breakthrough is made, the corporation and school profit from it.

I don't know what your trying to analogous with, with respect to the automotive industry. Could you be more elaborate? I thought that the overseas manufacturers were moving production stateside? There have been a number of Japanese manufactures opening plants in the South where union laws differ from their Detroit counterparts. The US automotive industry is more or less a fiasco however.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Look I'm no cheerleader of these guys, but they are no worse or more evil than any large, for-profit organization. Sony wants us all to purchase TVs we don't need. Are they evil because of that?
No they're just cocksuckers for using their resources to produce and market complete bullshlt under the guise of health and well being. Given they're allowed to do so because of the market environment we've given them......they just suck for choosing to proceed in an area as serious as health :)

What it's done for me (and I'm damn sure not alone on this) is when I see the words 'new' and 'recently approved by the FDA' I want to run for my life. Sure it could be another jesus holy son of god (my little nickname for advil), or it could be the next viox. There have been some wonderful things to come out of merck phizer etc........it would be great if that's ALL that came from them. Yes they're just like every other profit based, board directed, publicly traded company. And that's EXACTLY the problem.

Fix the system, but don't expect that large, for-profit pharmas (which we need, whether we want them or not) to suddenly become charitable organizations or to stop selling designer drugs to people that can afford them (e.g. viagra).
You mean like quit making pills for things that don't exist and live off the government teat just like northrop grumman, lockheed etc.........?

Government just needs to grow that extra titty. That's right. I said it.