Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
jesus christ..what an idiotic post! when it's about one's money, all of a sudden shameless crap is spewed. how can you not have the most simple and basic understanding of economics? and you go on as if you know what the hell your talking about?
no one gets wealthy on their own, it's a damn pyramid scheme. why should someone work for you to get rich, how about that?
deadbeat? so if someone's not keen on making you rich, all of a sudden they are a deadbeat? dumb idiot.
helios is much more realistic and has a more broad and expansive view of the problem. not your retarded, narrow provincial views.
I don't know what I'm talking about? Sure I'm not an economic major, but I do know that there is no law in this country that prevents an individual from working hard and earning a living. Are you kidding about the pyramid scheme? I never asked Heiwos to work for me, just for himself! A deadbeat is someone who sits around and expect a hand out. That's right. Heiwos is a deadbeat! Heiwos has an expansive view of an idealistic teenager with no true life, work, or political experience.
I think you may have misunderstood my post.
It still doesn't make sense to me to pay half of my income in taxes to fund universal care, to pay another portion on my own private insurance (since I don't believe in rationing) ...
Search for this stat: "The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724." In 2004 we paid more in taxes for health care on average than Canadians do, for nothing in return if we're responsible! For less money, the Canadians got free decent health care. Our system is broken. It serves only the health care industries.
Quote:
I think that those of you that want universal care should be taxed for it and have that care. I see no problem with this. Those of us that like our insurance already, which is included in our salaries, shouldn't have to be put in the position of forfeiting that salary.
Sorry, we live in a democracy. You already have to follow the will of the majority for thousands of other aspects of your life.
Quote:
It's hard to say with meds. There's the very real fact that some pay way more. We susbsidize the lower costs for other nations, and rightly so.
No we don't subsidize them. Americans would pay ~3X more for drugs developed in Canada, or Japan, than Canadians would. The savings to Canadians comes from bulk purchasing and not-for-profit distribution, not anything to do with the country where the drug was developed.
Quote:
It's not cheap to make a drug. It's a 15 year long process that costs a lot of money. Rest assured, it's something the government wouldn't do. And be clear, big pharma would assume close its doors if it didn't make a profit.
Yep, it's not cheap, but even at pennies on the dollar compared to US prices they still make a tidy profit, which is how it is possible for Canadians to pay ~3X less.
There are many countries with longer life expectancies than the US. We may have the most advanced medical equipment and the fanciest medical buildings, but sometimes I have felt that a test was ordered because my doctor had to make his yacht payment. I don't think any country has perfect health care, but there are so many layers of profit here that don't get translated into a longer life span, the medical equipment folk need to get paid, the building contractors, the labs, the docs, the insurance companies, and it seems to me that sometimes patient care comes last.
My wife and I pay 350 dollars per month for health insurance that's great as long as we never get sick.
I'm not convinced that Obama's plan is exactly the one we need. but doing nothing would be making things a lot worse, especially with a lot more people unemployed.
Third world country? You are arguing trickle down healthcare. No third world country has the best and latest medicine, hospital facilities, diagnostic capabilities. I've done charity work in Ghana, India, China. I'll be happy to take you along if you love third world medicine so much.
Nice cherry-picking. I'll take second best and one-third the price in most cases. So will all the elderly American medical tourists getting their health care needs met overseas because they'd starve if they had to pay US prices.
Quote:
Hospitals gouging? Most operate a a loss!
The hospital an ambulance would take me to has an expansive lobby with hardwood floors and chandeliers. I can see why they might operate at a loss.
Quote:
Doctors gouging? Most can't even pay off their student loans in 10 years! Cost of going through medical school is around $200k, plus 10 of the best years in their lives.
How much is med school in Canada? Germany? France? It's expensive here in large part because docs make so much. US schools charge what the market will bear. The market won't bear as much when docs don't make as much. Put med school within the socialized health care system and it could be free for qualified students.
Search for this stat: "The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724." In 2004 we paid more in taxes for health care on average than Canadians do, for nothing in return if we're responsible! For less money, the Canadians got free decent health care. Our system is broken. It serves only the health care industries.
I agree that the US pays way more than Canada. You'll get no argument from me there. The system needs a serious over-haul. And I have no doubt that it's tied to corruption and plain ol stupidity. Please don't think I want things to stay as they are. At the same time, the system in Canada isn't what I want. I've heard too many stories from Canadians online as well as from Brits. It's not working well for them. Again, the French model is more interesting for me and from what I've been reading it's more on par of what we have now. But, the French also complain quite a bit about their taxes, as we all do I guess.
Quote:
Sorry, we live in a democracy. You already have to follow the will of the majority for thousands of other aspects of your life.
Sure, but that doesn't mean I agree with it or that I won't take my own measures to combat making a broken system worse. We have medicaid. That's socialized care. And we're not doing a very good job with the socialized care we do have. My brother is disabled and let me tell you, there is quite a bit of corruption going on. Why do you think that extending medicaid to all people is going to magically change in the US? The system has been implemente for years and it's not ideal but it does highlight how this country deals with socialized care.
Quote:
No we don't subsidize them. Americans would pay ~3X more for drugs developed in Canada, or Japan, than Canadians would. The savings to Canadians comes from bulk purchasing and not-for-profit distribution, not anything to do with the country where the drug was developed.
It's not only a matter of buying in bulk or wholesale. Countries like Canada have set prices for patented drugs. But, once patents expire and the generics reach the market, the US is actually cheaper than Canada, as surprising as that is. And as I'm understanding it, domestics sales do cover basic research costs with profits to spare although this brings up a slew of other concerns I have.
Quote:
Yep, it's not cheap, but even at pennies on the dollar compared to US prices they still make a tidy profit, which is how it is possible for Canadians to pay ~3X less.
Every body wants the generics, and so do I, but my fear is that it would halt many parts of pharma research. Where would the monies come from to investigate rare disease, or conditions only found in underdeveloped nations if we're only interested in covering basic research costs? And not all drug research involves coming up with the compound that is going to cure this or that disease, slam/dunk. It's far more involved that you may realize.
Again, don't think that I don't take issue with too high of profits or corruption in pharma, I certainly do. But, as it stands, the research I do is unrelated to any specific target but rather focuses on pure metabolism/physiology, and chemistry. Is this research necessary for the bare bones of getting a drug out? No, we could go along with what we know but such a methodology doesn't include what science does, which is increase our knowledge that could improve efficiency (at the very least).
Some folk complain that 'oh, this drug is just like that other one that came out 5 years ago' or some such thing. It's not taken into consideration that perhaps this drug's solubility was improved upon ten fold and maybe now the patient doesn't need to take 8 horse pills a day, but only two. Or maybe we could go oral from a former IV. Basic research costs may not cover these types of improvements. But perhaps even if all drugs were at generic costs we could still swing it. I'm really not sure. Being in this industry, I'm watching various companies failing, being bought out due to profit loss. Look at what's going on with Wyeth. Some 20,000 odd American scientists are gong to be joining the unemployed pretty soon.
I suppose it would be good to look at what the big wigs are doing and do some comparisons.
No, I'm not in health care. Just a longtime liberal news junkie.
Quote:
Ok, for example, though? Please.
One of the famous ones is tonsillectomies. Half of American children in the 1930s and 1940s had their tonsils removed despite no good evidence that it was necessary. It was still a popular surgery well into the 1960s before docs moved on to something else.
Hysterectomies is a more current one. Search for "Hysterectomies are a big moneymaker for doctors and hospitals." There are two medical specialties battling each other for the spoils.
Another one is Caesareans aka c-sections. There was a study done that showed that women had significantly more c-sections done when they were in labor just before a doc's scheduled time off.
This kind of stuff won't happen nearly as much when docs, rather than patients, are on the hook for exceeding budgets.
Quote:
That's not good enough for me. If my loved one died because they didn't receive appropriate treatment because 'it happens' in socialized care, than that's not ok.
It’s a matter of what’s “appropriate”. Maybe you’re assuming the bill won’t be $1 million. People do get medical bills for $1 million, then they simply file for bankruptcy and you share the payment of their care anyway. A friend of mine’s wife had cancer that had spread all over. They got to the point where they were paying $30K per month for experimental medication. Highly likely it was useless. (Yes she died.) People will want to do almost anything for the mere hope of staving off a terminal illness; other people shouldn’t have to pay for that.
Quote:
People that cannot afford care should have subsidized care. And it should also be expected that their quality of care will have limitations. The only people that should be denied any test are those that cannot afford it or lack the motivation to work.
Canadians can buy supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for any procedure offered. If they’re working hard/smart enough, they’ll have the money right? Or are you suggesting that if there’s a life-saving procedure that costs $100 million, everyone else should forgo vacations or work 12-hour days their whole lives to save those patients? There’s obviously a limit to how much a life is worth to the public. People are free to value their own lives however they want and hope they have the money to back that up.
Quote:
I'm not saying that there isn't grave injustice going on in the healthcare system, of that I have no doubt. These injustices happen under the mindful watch of our government, which is a super-regulator. I have no doubt that they would continue under a guise of universal care.
Some injustices sure; no system’s perfect. Doesn’t mean universal care couldn’t be far better overall.
I never asked Heiwos to work for me, just for himself! A deadbeat is someone who sits around and expect a hand out. That's right. Heiwos is a deadbeat! Heiwos has an expansive view of an idealistic teenager with no true life, work, or political experience.
The rich are not islands. They got rich in part because the public let them. If the majority deems it necessary to tax the rich at 90%, they can do that. The rich don't own this country; the public does, even though it may not seem that way because the public gives them a lot of leeway.
I'll be paying significantly more under Obama's tax plan--you can believe what you want. Not everyone loves welfare like Republicans do with their continuous borrowing & wasting of $trillions.
Re universal health care, if it went well (a big if) I would expect to pay less than I do under the current system, not because I would get a handout from someone else, but because the system would be more cost effective. Right now I pay insurance to a for-profit corporation that denies benefits as a matter of policy. Even for two stitches the hospital refuses to tell me how much it will be until the bill arrives. They might as well charge $100K--nothing really stops them. For something more complicated, I often won't know whether they're just trying to make a buck. Our current system is a joke and there's obviously a lot of fat in it.
I can understand your frustration if you're in expensive med school and worried about making a decent living under universal health care. Likely it would be phased in so that it's not as bad as you might think.
No, I'm not in health care. Just a longtime liberal news junkie.
Ah, maybe you should have considered it.
Quote:
One of the famous ones is tonsillectomies. Half of American children in the 1930s and 1940s had their tonsils removed despite no good evidence that it was necessary. It was still a popular surgery well into the 1960s before docs moved on to something else.
There are more recent examples I've been reading on the net that involved EKG's. I never experience this stuff myself. I was recommended to do one test by my OBGYN, but I think it's necessary given a past condition I had. Aside from, I'm in and out. My cholesterol test was one of those stick tests I could have done myself, but I asked for it.
Quote:
Hysterectomies is a more current one. Search for "Hysterectomies are a big moneymaker for doctors and hospitals." There are two medical specialties battling each other for the spoils.
I don't understand this kind of stuff. An old friend of mine, who is a surgeon, told me some time ago that after all is said in done with a basic surgery (insurance costs and the like) he pulls in around 4-500 dollars. I don't know if it's so much the doctors, but perhaps the hospitals. It's a call for regulation without a doubt.
After a quick google, the first hit I get is the mayo clinic stating...
"Uterine fibroids are noncancerous growths of the uterus that often appear during your childbearing years. Also called fibromyomas, leiomyomas or myomas, uterine fibroids aren't associated with an increased risk of uterine cancer and almost never develop into cancer.
As many as three out of four women have uterine fibroids, but most are unaware of them because they often cause no symptoms. Your doctor may discover them incidentally during a pelvic exam or prenatal ultrasound.
In general, uterine fibroids cause no problems and seldom require treatment. Medical therapy and surgical procedures can shrink or remove fibroids if you have discomfort or troublesome symptoms. Rarely, fibroids can require emergency treatment if they cause sudden, sharp pelvic pain." Uterine fibroids - MayoClinic.com
If such information is so easily accessible and if it's common knowledge put forth by the medical community, than why is this going on? These hospitals, doctors, etc, should be put out of business.
Quote:
It’s a matter of what’s “appropriate”. Maybe you’re assuming the bill won’t be $1 million. People do get medical bills for $1 million, then they simply file for bankruptcy and you share the payment of their care anyway. A friend of mine’s wife had cancer that had spread all over. They got to the point where they were paying $30K per month for experimental medication. Highly likely it was useless. (Yes she died.) People will want to do almost anything for the mere hope of staving off a terminal illness; other people shouldn’t have to pay for that.
I agree. And I'm not thinking of last minute grabs at life, but prevention and early detection. Breast cancer kills women, for example, but early detection is key. Finding a lump, and then having the biopsy 2-3 months later and subsequent treatment, can really make a difference between life and death. That's the kind of stuff I would worry about.
Quote:
Canadians can buy supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for any procedure offered. If they’re working hard/smart enough, they’ll have the money right?
Not if they're paying for themsevles and you, then they may not.
Quote:
Or are you suggesting that if there’s a life-saving procedure that costs $100 million, everyone else should forgo vacations or work 12-hour days their whole lives to save those patients? There’s obviously a limit to how much a life is worth to the public. People are free to value their own lives however they want and hope they have the money to back that up.
What I'm saying is that I would rather pay for my husbands care, for example, than for yours. I work very hard. I receive excellent benefits from my job that covers my family and these benefits are superior to that of Canada's. The reality is that some of you would like me to forgo the benefits I receive to fully sponser mediocre benefits for all. That's not what I want for my family. I'm willing to sponser mediocre benefits for some, which will cost less and where I could afford to do so while keeping the excellent benefits I have for as long as I can.
Quote:
Some injustices sure; no system’s perfect. Doesn’t mean universal care couldn’t be far better overall.
I don't know. I have lost so much faith in gov. I campaigned hard for Obama and now I'm becoming dismayed. We're in a recession. Job loss is at all time highs. We're borrowing extraordinary amounts of money and we're printing money. Inflation is going to hit us hard as it is and I think it's inappropriate to tackle uni care right now. It's irresponsible and that right there is highlighting a severe lack of reason, reason that would have to be employed to implement such a system.
Heiwos. Maybe we go off track a bit. I don't disagree with you in that we should make healthcare available to more people. I just don't believe that the way you'd suggested is helpful. I don't think class warfare is the solution. I am very much in this field. The Canadian system has been tossed around for years. Not news.
Ira500, life expectancy is not a reflection of the quality of our healthcare system. It's a reflection of our health. We are the most obese nation in the world. The fact that we live as long as we do IS testament to the quality of our healthcare system.
Ira500, life expectancy is not a reflection of the quality of our healthcare system. It's a reflection of our health. We are the most obese nation in the world. The fact that we live as long as we do IS testament to the quality of our healthcare system.
That's a good point. And it also highlights much needed prevention and education.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 2004 we paid more in taxes for health care on average than Canadians do, for nothing in return if we're responsible! For less money, the Canadians got free decent health care. Our system is broken. It serves only the health care industries.
