# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Dying for lack of health insurance... CNN Story

## Fat Guy

Universal Health Care for All and this is 1 of the many reasons why 

Story Highlights 
Cancer society: Uninsured 60 percent more likely to die within 5 years of diagnosis
Uninsured Atlanta man has had cancer for 25 of his 52 years
He eventually got insurance, but treatment came too late

By John Bonifield
CNN

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Mark Windsor looks exhausted. For a week he's been undergoing radiation treatment on a cancerous tumor in his neck. A metal rod fused to his spine keeps his head stable. His muscles there are gone, the result of multiple failed surgeries to rid him of his disease. He can't turn his head sideways or look up or down. So his look stays fixed, despite his fatigue.

"If I probably had gotten some good treatment several years ago I probably would have been cured," Windsor said from his home in Atlanta, Georgia.
The reason he didn't get care sooner -- he couldn't afford it, because he didn't have insurance. Windsor, a self-employed photographer, has had bone cancer -- a rare chondrosarcoma -- for more than 25 years. At 52, that's almost half his life. While he's found help from a few generous doctors, his efforts to survive have often been desperate. And now he's learned, largely in vain.

"I've been given anywhere from 18 months to three years," Windsor said. "And of course that's if I continue to go through these brutal treatments that I don't know that my body is capable of doing anymore. I'm tired. I've had a lot of operations in my life. And this radiation treatment wasn't much better on it. It's now taken my ability for taste away. My smell is horrible. I feel nauseated every day. And I just don't think this ever had to get to this."

Windsor first asked for the radiation therapy 13 years ago, long before his cancer had advanced into the brutal disease that's now assailing him. If he had been treated anytime sooner, the therapy might have worked to eradicate his tumors, when they were still small. But without insurance, Windsor couldn't afford the proper surgeries and follow-up care needed for the radiation to be effective.

*The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis. Without insurance, the diagnosis is twice as likely to come in the later stages of cancer.*Just when Windsor's lack of insurance started killing him is difficult to say. His timeline is long. But Windsor points to a period in the fall of 2006.
His cancer had returned. But this time, the surgeon who had donated his services was no longer on staff at the hospital where Windsor was on a charity plan. His lifesaving operation wouldn't be possible.

"All of a sudden I'm out here in this world with no hospital and no doctor. And everybody I faxed -- I got on my computer and sent out e-mails and faxes to at least 20 neurosurgeons in Atlanta and not a single one responded," Windsor said.

*If Windsor were poor, he could've found insurance through Medicaid, but his $30,000 income was too much to qualify.* So instead, he walked into an Atlanta emergency room.

"All they did for me ... was check my blood pressure and my temperature," Windsor recalls. "I said, 'This is not the answer.' "

Thirteen hours later, feeling frustrated, he left. A few months later, he found his answer: He got health insurance when he married his good friend, Val Chamberoam, who put him on her health policy.

By the time Windsor got to the operating room, in the summer of 2007, his tumor was so large that it covered his entire neck. It had been growing for 10 months.

"It's just never recovered," Windsor said. "It's gone from grade one to grade three, and also now has spread to my lungs."

Today, there's nothing more doctors can do. The radiation Windsor is receiving will only prolong his life, not save it.
And what about his wife, Val?

"We're going through a divorce," he said. "Because I have so many hospital bills now, insurance companies have denied to pay them...so I've done what I think is proper, filed for divorce, so that my wife is not stuck with my hospital bills."

For now, Windsor finds pleasure in the smiles of the people he photographs. As for his own, you never see it. His face is grim and angry.
"I'm angry at the greed of the insurance companies," Windsor said. *"Everybody has the right to make profits. Every corporation has the right to be strong, make the right decisions. But I don't think that it is proper to deny people with chronic disease the opportunity to get well."
Windsor's sentiment is probably shared by many of the nearly 50 million Americans who have no health insurance.*
Karen Ignani, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, says the organization would like to see all Americans covered. *"Anytime anyone falls through the cracks, this is a major societal, national problem. What we've done recently is our members have recognized that individuals who are not being sponsored by employers, don't have employer coverage or aren't eligible for public programs need additional help,"* Ignani said.
"We proposed a strategy that involves setting up risk pools at the state level and our members agreeing to backstop those risk pools by taking everyone who may not be able to be eligible."

In May, Windsor will begin government-sponsored disability insurance. He'll be covered for the remainder of his life, however short it may be
John Bonifield is an associate producer with CNN Medical News.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/04/25...sor/index.html

I really look forward to the responses to this thread  :Welcome:

----------


## Kratos

So, what you're asking me to do is pay for their health insurance as well as mine.

----------


## buttercup

the answer to the worlds problems is to let somebody else take care of you. the guy made 30gs a year i could have sold him a health policy at $80 a month.

----------


## LawMan018

> So, what you're asking me to do is pay for their health insurance as well as mine.


Is that too much to ask selfish sally... You see a man dying on the street and just walk by, "Not my problem," would probably be your answer. It's not like their going to take a ridiculous sum out of your paycheck, they'll take a little out of everyones to cover this amazing plan. Oh, and what's that other response, it's socialism? Well who cares, socialism wasn't "entirely" bad or no one would have wanted it as a government. Universal Healthcare would be a blessing, life is too great to throw away like this poor man had to do...

----------


## SMCengineer

Fat Guy, what do you think causes high health insurance premiums?

----------


## Kratos

> Fat Guy, what do you think causes high health insurance premiums?


oh, oh I know this one, pick me, pick me!

Total abuse of our healthcare system and unhealthy lifestyle of Americans.

----------


## kfrost06

> Is that too much to ask selfish sally... You see a man dying on the street and just walk by, "Not my problem," would probably be your answer. It's not like their going to take a ridiculous sum out of your paycheck, they'll take a little out of everyones to cover this amazing plan. Oh, and what's that other response, it's socialism? Well who cares, socialism wasn't "entirely" bad or no one would have wanted it as a government. Universal Healthcare would be a blessing, life is too great to throw away like this poor man had to do...


evidently he didn't care to much about his health, why didn't he have a little bit taken out of his pay check? what is that called? pathetic or darwinism? evidently he felt it is "not my problem" well it was his problem not mine and not Kratos. Talk about selfish, he doesn't want to pay for his own health insurance but wants us to.

----------


## LawMan018

> oh, oh I know this one, pick me, pick me!
> 
> Total abuse of our healthcare system and unhealthy lifestyle of Americans.


And do you think it's going to get any better doing nothing? People need to be educated a lot more, for the most part, we're pretty stupid sometimes...

----------


## SMCengineer

> oh, oh I know this one, pick me, pick me!
> 
> *Total abuse of our healthcare system and unhealthy lifestyle of Americans*.


Close, but that's a symptom not the cause.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Oh, and what's that other response, it's socialism? Well who cares, socialism wasn't "entirely" bad or no one would have wanted it as a government. Universal Healthcare would be a blessing, life is too great to throw away like this poor man had to do...


I sincerely hope this is a joke, otherwise you need a detailed lesson in history.

----------


## Kratos

> Is that too much to ask selfish sally... You see a man dying on the street and just walk by, "Not my problem," would probably be your answer. It's not like their going to take a ridiculous sum out of your paycheck, they'll take a little out of everyones to cover this amazing plan. Oh, and what's that other response, it's socialism? Well who cares, socialism wasn't "entirely" bad or no one would have wanted it as a government. Universal Healthcare would be a blessing, life is too great to throw away like this poor man had to do...


Well you're probably still in college and don't have much experience paying taxes. I live in a duplex, with tenants living above me collecting welfare and they live better than I do. I have a high stress job and I haven't been able to put a kitchen in my apartment or put away anything away for the future in years. This goverment can't afford the obligations it already has, hence the value of the dollar is going to shit in a handbasket.

What do I see in my job everyday, needless spine fusions for back pain. 50% of the people even ever feel better after. They are being done because people are demanding it..."my back hurts." "I need pain medicine." "I need to be disabled." These operations were almost never done 15 years ago.

"I'm too fat, I ruined my knees, put new ones in." "I clogged my artieries, fix them." The list goes on and on. We have the highest heathcare cost of any nation because we put a lot of demands on our healthcare system.

----------


## Kratos

Lawsuits arn't helping the system either. People arn't afraid to sue a doctor or hospital I can tell you that. The neuro surgeons I know pay 200k in malpractice insurance. People try to hit the lottery on them all the time. Usually the surgeons attitude is, if I made a mystake I should pay for it but if you take me to court and loose at least pay me for my time. Their office overhead can be 200-500 $ per hr and they're stuck in court. Nobody wants to work.

----------


## Kratos

How about the people who are 50, want to retire, but don't want to be without health insurance? They won't be eligiable for medicare for years. There is a group of people right there you are keeping in the workforce, paying taxes, making money, and producing for the economy.

----------


## Kratos

Think about the total economic cost, you disincentives working even further, in a country where the American dream is becoming sitting on your ass. What kind of country will this become?

----------


## Kratos

I'm getting sick of it all, drop out of highschool or go to grad school and get a good job...work/don't work it's all the same, you are entitled to the same standard of living. Well I say you arn't entitled to shit. I worked hard to get where I am, I'm sick of the whole thing, people who won't help themselves can rot.

----------


## SMCengineer

> *Lawsuits arn't helping the system either.* People arn't afraid to sue a doctor or hospital I can tell you that. The neuro surgeons I know pay 200k in malpractice insurance. People try to hit the lottery on them all the time. Usually the surgeons attitude is, if I made a mystake I should pay for it but if you take me to court and loose at least pay me for my time. Their office overhead can be 200-500 $ per hr and they're stuck in court. Nobody wants to work.


Yep, lawsuits are certainly a huge contributer, but there is a bigger reason for high healthcare costs. The same reason that prevented Mark Windsor (the guy in the article) from getting the health insurance that he needed.

----------


## Kratos

> Yep, lawsuits are certainly a huge contributer, but there is a bigger reason for high healthcare costs. The same reason that prevented Mark Windsor (the guy in the article) from getting the health insurance that he needed.


lets hear it blome

----------


## SMCengineer

> lets hear it blome


I want to hear from Fat Guy first. You, most likely, already know it or could figure it out.

----------


## Kratos

I watched a story on 20/20 or dateline or something like that. This guy need a tooth pulled and it would have cost a couple hundred bucks to have it done. He didn't have insurance, the whole story was about how the system had failed him. There was a free clinic where doctors voulenteered their time at different locations around the country at different times. The guy drove 300 miles and spent 18 hours in his truck to be seen and have his tooth pulled.

The whole time they are trying to convice me we need universal healthcare for the guys like this I'm thinking..."WTF, he just drove 300 miles in his truck both ways and wasted 18 hours in a parking lot to save a few hundred bucks." First of all that's like 35 gallons of gas if he gets 17 miles to the gallon. 35*3.25= like $120, he wasted 18 hours and could have worked some kind of job with the whole day and a half he wasted. His truck looked almost new, maybe he could get a cheaper car and use the car payment to buy some f-ing insurance.

The media has this country brainwashed, everything is pro goverment heath coverage. Well, they're selling and I'm not buying. People don't go without coverage in this country unless they decide to wing it. That guy made 30 grand a year as a photographer, that's a fun job with plenty of free time he could work doing something else on the side, not to mention I'm sure that 30k was after he expensed all his camara and fun equipment he loves having. He had a wife that also brought home some money I'm sure, he could have bought a policy and deducted it as a business expense as I'm sure he is his own employee.

Fat guy isn't going to convince me the goverment will do a better job or that I'm responsible for anyone but myself. The goverment is way too deep in healthcare already.

----------


## SMCengineer

One more question Fat Guy, who do you think is calling for sociliazed medicine more than anyone else? The american people or the healthcare industry itself?

----------


## Fat Guy

> Fat Guy, what do you think causes high health insurance premiums?





> Yep, lawsuits are certainly a huge contributer, but there is a bigger reason for high healthcare costs. The same reason that prevented Mark Windsor (the guy in the article) from getting the health insurance that he needed.


O.K. it sounds as if you are fishing for an answer but why don’t you cut to the chase and explain why you think health care cost are so expensive for average Americans. 





> I sincerely hope this is a joke, otherwise you need a detailed lesson in history.


 This is a naïve statement because there are many socialized countries that exist today and have a fine system of economics and human services. The U.S. already has many socialized aspects to its society (education, police/ fire/ emergency services, social security, roads and infrastructures, military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, prison systems, etc.). 

So the idea here is to say that the government should not provide or give equal access to all its services because the government is inept, there is much evidence to show that the government can effectively produce services or otherwise it would be police for hire or fire departments for hire, marines for hire, etc. 

If this is the standard pure capitalist argument that the free market will take care of itself then there is much evidence to refute that outdated idea. All you have to do is look at countries like India and Mexico where there are no social service what so ever and it is a pure capitalist idea when you have to pay for everything (emergency services, education, roads, etc) and decide which countries live a better standard of living. 

You see by everyone contributing just a little the greater good or a better standard of living can be achieved. There is always more strength in number than just the individual. Countries like France, Canada, England, Germany, Denmark, are not perfect because they tend to be more socialized but in many cases just have a better standard of living for it’s citizens unlike the U.S. As a matter of fact it was reported last month that Denmark reported being the happiest country on earth by the associated press which is an extremely socialized country. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3833797.shtml

So let’s not be so egocentric and lambaste other countries that differ from our own economical political structure… because to do so would be just naïve  :Welcome:

----------


## Fat Guy

> One more question Fat Guy, who do you think is calling for sociliazed medicine more than anyone else? The american people or the healthcare industry itself?


To me it is irrelevant as to who is calling for universal health care. A health care system that people can go to when they are sick and do not have the ability to pay (at that time) is worth it from my humanist perspective.

----------


## Kratos

Wow, that response I was waiting for was much less insiteful than I was hoping for.

----------


## Fat Guy

> Wow, that response I was waiting for was much less insiteful than I was hoping for.


Some days are better than others...

Maybe you can inspire me….

----------


## Kratos

As for Denmark... Denmark's with very few valuable natural resources needs to be highly productive, or efficient, and ********** to compete with other countries for a market share in the global economy. However, according to OECD, the distortions imposed by a combined marginal tax wedge of 70% (60% income tax plus 25% VAT, not counting elevated excise duties on certain goods) are hurting productivity and in turn the country's competitiveness

----------


## Kratos

> You see by everyone contributing just a little the greater good or a better standard of living can be achieved. :


hmmm, sounds like communism just a little bit doesn't it?

----------


## buttercup

the govmt cannot even handle medicare which only covers a small percentage of our population, what makes us think that they can efficiantly take care of everyones health care. the govmt let private companies get involved in medicare for the sole reason of handling paper work and paying claims on time.

----------


## Kratos

Health insurance companies beat the doctors and hospitals up pretty bad on pricing. I don't see how it can be done better.

One place the doctors get back at them is by not accepting that insurance in rural areas. Eventually those people with that insurance coverage end up in the emergency room or that doctor's office, and guess what they aren't paying the negotiated rate. They stick it to them right up the ass. What's to keep doctors from doing the same to the national insurance carrier. If I'm a small hospital and there is no competition around why take the universal health insurance that pays me less than the cash price? F-em those patients are gonna end up in my emergency room eventually. These are just some of the problems you are gonna have to solve. Doctors are smart, I could tell you a million ways they beat the insurance system to put more money in their pocket. When they find a loophole they tell all their friends, it gets around.

----------


## Fat Guy

> hmmm, sounds like communism just a little bit doesn't it?


Call it what you will but I tend to support the idea of All for one and one for all maybe when I was a kid I watched too many 3 musketeer movies but I dont have a problem paying a little bit more for my fellow man who is sick and cant afford it. 

 :2offtopic: Here is an interesting fact out of all the so called communist countries not one of them called themselves communist in their countries name (Maybe someone could prove this fact wrong I would be curious to see) The logical conclusion to this is that there has never been a communist government just only a doctrine

----------


## buttercup

> Health insurance companies beat the doctors and hospitals up pretty bad on pricing. I don't see how it can be done better.
> 
> One place the doctors get back at them is by not accepting that insurance in rural areas. Eventually those people with that insurance coverage end up in the emergency room or that doctor's office, and guess what they aren't paying the negotiated rate. They stick it to them right up the ass. What's to keep doctors from doing the same to the national insurance carrier. If I'm a small hospital and there is no competition around why take the universal health insurance that pays me less than the cash price? F-em those patients are gonna end up in my emergency room eventually. These are just some of the problems you are gonna have to solve. Doctors are smart, I could tell you a million ways they beat the insurance system to put more money in their pocket. When they find a loophole they tell all their friends, it gets around.


the battle b/w doctors and insurance companies is never ending. they both work off of the policy "if you cheat me right, ill cheat you right." the doctors over charge and charge for services not rendered, insurance companies dispute every claim and hold off paying until the last minute. as bad as what this sounds it still is more efficient and cheaper than the govmt handling the claims, and that is scary when you talk about them controlling everyones health care.

----------


## Fat Guy

> Health insurance companies beat the doctors and hospitals up pretty bad on pricing. I don't see how it can be done better.
> 
> One place the doctors get back at them is by not accepting that insurance in rural areas. Eventually those people with that insurance coverage end up in the emergency room or that doctor's office, and guess what they aren't paying the negotiated rate. *They stick it to them right up the ass.*ouch!  What's to keep doctors from doing the same to the national insurance carrier. If I'm a small hospital and there is no competition around why take the universal health insurance that pays me less than the cash price? F-em those patients are gonna end up in my emergency room eventually. These are just some of the problems you are gonna have to solve. Doctors are smart, I could tell you a million ways they beat the insurance system to put more money in their pocket. When they find a loophole they tell all their friends, it gets around.


Under the Hippocratic Oath doctors have to help people anyway and if they stick it to the people eventually the people will just not pay and the doctor looses out. A universal system will make the playing field level for both parties involved. I think the problem with our healthcare system is the idea healthcare for profit without the human cost being involved… You have to admit there are many greedy ceo’s and share holders that are more interested in $$$$ than people… However, this system will eventually fail and I think you are starting to see this

----------


## SMCengineer

> O.K. it sounds as if you are fishing for an answer but why dont you cut to the chase and explain why you think health care cost are so expensive for average Americans.


I'm not fishing for an answer; I clearly want to hear your opinion on these subjects.





> This is a naïve statement because there are many socialized countries that exist today and have a fine system of economics and human services. The U.S. already has many socialized aspects to its society (education, police/ fire/ emergency services, social security, roads and infrastructures, military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, prison systems, etc.).


First, if youre going to point out things that are socialized in our society you shouldnt pick the services that the government is meant to take care of. These include protection of its people and building/maintaining infrastructure. Second, if youre going to choose to pick certain social aspects of our economy why not go after social security or our already quasi-socialized healthcare industry? I would guess because theyre two highly flawed services that do a great injustice to the American economy. Not to mention the complete un-sustainability of the social security system that has a large potential to bankrupt us in the not too distant future. 




> So the idea here is to say that the government should not provide or give equal access to all its services because the government is inept, there is much evidence to show that the government can effectively produce services or otherwise it would be police for hire or fire departments for hire, marines for hire, etc.


Again, no it wouldnt because our governments main objective is to keep us safe, build infrastructure, ensure human rights and ensure property rights and not much else. Therefore, the marines, the army, and the air force all fall under that list of government obligations. Police work, on the other hand, is handled at lower levels of government depending on the needs of specific counties, but again that falls under the obligations of government albeit state and local government. 

The government is not an entity that is supposed to provide services other than the limited services of protection and upholding personal liberties.




> If this is the standard pure capitalist argument that the free market will take care of itself then there is much evidence to refute that outdated idea. All you have to do is look at countries like India and Mexico where there are no social service what so ever and it is a pure capitalist idea when you have to pay for everything (emergency services, education, roads, etc) and decide which countries live a better standard of living.


If youre going to cite examples, please dont cite them in my favor. In a sense, youre correct. Mexico does have a free market and yes it does have a lower standard of living when compared to us. However, you leave out the fact that its a newly industrialized nation. If you care to research it, Mexicos economy is growing at extremely fast rates and its soon to be on of the fastest growing economies in the world. Currently, you may not want to live there, but when its economy climbs the ladder from 13th place to a top tier economy you can thank the free markets.

Regarding India, it has the second fastest growing economy in the world! Its estimated that itll be the second largest economy in the very near future. As for why the economy is currently classified as a low-income country, you could look back about 20 years and youd discover that it had a socialized economy. It wasnt until after the government deregulated the market that real growth occurred. Coincidence? No, its not. The thing thats really astonishing is that Indias medical tourism industry is thriving! That should tell you something. 

Heres further proof of Indias economic status after deregulation: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa554/pa55400001.html.

Further, of 133 countries with a population over a million only 25 countries reach the status of high income. Of those 25 countries all are capitalist and never has a socialist country reached the high-income status. India is on the list of low-income status, but thats rapidly changing due to its fast economic growth. 




> You see by everyone contributing just a little the greater good or a better standard of living can be achieved. There is always more strength in number than just the individual.


"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone."
-Benito Mussolini 

The higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual."
-Adolph Hitler 




> Countries like France, Canada, England, Germany, Denmark, are not perfect because they tend to be more socialized but in many cases just have a better standard of living for its citizens unlike the U.S. As a matter of fact it was reported last month that Denmark was reported the happiest country on earth by the associated press which is an extremely socialized country. 
> 
> So lets not be so egocentric and lambaste other countries that differ from our own economical political structure because to do so would be just naïve :hello


Actually, with the facts of socialism compared to capitalism I dont need to lambaste it. Capitalism is far superior to any other social system and its track record proves it. Socialism has been thoroughly debunked.

----------


## SMCengineer

> To me it is irrelevant as to who is calling for universal health care. A health care system that people can go to when they are sick and do not have the ability to pay (at that time) is worth it from my humanist perspective.


Actually, it's extremely relevant. The people who are pushing for this the most are the healthcare lobbyists who spend billions of dollars influencing the politicians that you vote for. The healthcare industry stands to make the most money out of socialized medicine because far more people will have to be insured and far more people will be using the services for even the slightest cold when they otherwise wouldn't. So, while politicians seem to be concerned about the "general welfare" of the country don't be fooled by their true motives, which is always money.

----------


## SMCengineer

> I watched a story on 20/20 or dateline or something like that. This guy need a tooth pulled and it would have cost a couple hundred bucks to have it done. He didn't have insurance, the whole story was about how the system had failed him. There was a free clinic where doctors voulenteered their time at different locations around the country at different times. The guy drove 300 miles and spent 18 hours in his truck to be seen and have his tooth pulled.
> 
> The whole time they are trying to convice me we need universal healthcare for the guys like this I'm thinking..."WTF, he just drove 300 miles in his truck both ways and wasted 18 hours in a parking lot to save a few hundred bucks." First of all that's like 35 gallons of gas if he gets 17 miles to the gallon. 35*3.25= like $120, he wasted 18 hours and could have worked some kind of job with the whole day and a half he wasted. His truck looked almost new, maybe he could get a cheaper car and use the car payment to buy some f-ing insurance.
> 
> The media has this country brainwashed, everything is pro goverment heath coverage. Well, they're selling and I'm not buying. People don't go without coverage in this country unless they decide to wing it. That guy made 30 grand a year as a photographer, that's a fun job with plenty of free time he could work doing something else on the side, not to mention I'm sure that 30k was after he expensed all his camara and fun equipment he loves having. He had a wife that also brought home some money I'm sure, he could have bought a policy and deducted it as a business expense as I'm sure he is his own employee.
> 
> Fat guy isn't going to convince me the goverment will do a better job or that I'm responsible for anyone but myself. The goverment is way too deep in healthcare already.


Weird, i just saw a 20/20 with John Stossel that completely bashes socialized healthcare.

Check it out:
Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kf3MtjMBWx4&feature=related
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7W37NkjplWQ&feature=related
Part 3: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7XsRzfckneg&feature=related
Part 4: http://youtube.com/watch?v=YGj4Ei9l0iI&feature=related
Part 5: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0&feature=related
Part 6: http://youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&feature=related

----------


## SMCengineer

> Under the Hippocratic Oath doctors have to help people anyway and if they stick it to the people eventually the people will just not pay and the doctor looses out. A universal system will make the playing field level for both parties involved. I think the problem with our healthcare system is the idea healthcare for profit without the human cost being involved


Profit motivates innovation! There's nothing wrong with someone who makes a profit off a new way to do surgery or a highly advanced piece of medical equipment. They worked hard to invent it and they deserve every penny that they get. Otherwise, you and I would not benefit from them and their minds. Atlas Shrugged anyone?

Furthermore, why should someone who struggled and payed dearly to get through medical school to help others by providing a service that benefits society more than any other field not be rewarded for his/her efforts? 




> You have to admit there are many greedy ceos and share holders that are more interested in $$$$ than people However, this system will eventually fail and I think you are starting to see this


The greed of the CEO and share holder's are not products of the free market system. High insurance premiums are directly related to government collusion in healthcare. Without, government internvention, HMO's would be completely eradicated because the free market would not support it (HMO's are not a product of the free market). You would end up having direct patient-to-doctor relationships where there would be negotiations of what the best course and most affordable healthcare would be. For routine doctor visits you would pay in cash and for major health crisis's you could have cheap, but reliable insurance, which would be a by product of the deregulated market. The best way to do this is with medical savings account, which are tax exempt accounts that allow the individual to spend the money how and where they choose. This would've certainly allowed people like Mark Windsor the chance and the affordability to purchase the healthcare they desperately need.

Instead, we have a third party payer environment that promotes dependency and rewards chronic abuse of our healthcare system. People who have insurance often lead unhealthy lifestyles because when they get sick they don't see the immediate costs, yet overall costs do increase for every policyholder. The majority of doctors charge high premiums for routine visits because the patient isn't normally paying in cash. Therefore, they squeeze every penny out of the insurance companies and incentive to provide cheap visits are lost because competition is non-existent. Let's not also forget the malpractice suits that arise when a third party is paying the bills. All these lead to the high premiums we face today and all these are direct result of government meddling in the 1960's and culminating in the 1970's with the ERISA law and HMO's. Now that we see the unintended effects of governement internvention the last thing we should do is introduce more of it. 

On a side note, for an example of socialized medicine here in the US just look at our veterans hospitals and how poorly they're run. Than ask yourself if you want our government running our healthcare industry.

----------


## Hoggage_54

> Profit motivates innovation! There's nothing wrong with someone who makes a profit off a new way to do surgery or a highly advanced piece of medical equipment. They worked hard to invent it and they deserve every penny that they get. Otherwise, you and I would not benefit from them and their minds. Atlas Shrugged anyone?


That's very true. I work in a purchasing department in a hospital and companies like Phillips, Baxter, and hundreds of others are always trying very hard to get the contracts from us, and the price and quality of the products are the main reasons for who gets the contracts and individual purchases.

----------


## thegodfather

I almost dont know where to begin. Perhaps I will start with this. FatGuy, I had asked you earlier to bring your credentials to the table when trying to discuss universal healthcare and policies which will effect 350,000,000 US Citizens. You seem to be fine to committing them all to a 60% income tax rate. This however, was never the intention of our founding fathers, for the government rob us of the money we earned off our labor, and it was certainly never their intention for government to *take care of us from cradle to grave.*  It is a recent development say the passed 50 years, that our population has been indoctrinated with this *"government knows best"* attitude. The majority of our history, supported by facts, statistics, and other evidence actually shows to the contrary, the government does not know best, and government often knows worst. Our government is notorious for fouling up things.

I am getting off track. Please, when we speak of credentials. I hold no bias towards a union laborer who wants to talk politics, economics, &public health policy; so long as you can support your positions with research, facts, statistics, or at least some type of evidence which shows you have researched this area in any great detail, and that you are even the least bit educated in the area of politics and particularly public health policy. 


Regarding "COMMUNIST" countries. The reason you have not seen the name communist included in the names of the countries we've labeled as communists is rather simple. Karl Marx's true communist society was always preceded by Socialism. He believed that it was a natural progression, and actually believed that a Capitalist society had to precede Socialism/Communism in order to work. I will not dive too deep into his political philosophy for the sake of time, and that it gets a little wierd at some points. But basically, the Socialist state always had to precede the true communist state. Marx also believed that this Communist state would arise Democratically, that the worlds working class would unite and all decide to institute a Communist government. Anyway, just a little background on that issue for you.




> You see by everyone contributing just a little the greater good or a better standard of living can be achieved. There is always more strength in number than just the individual. Countries like France, Canada, England, Germany, Denmark, are not perfect because they tend to be more socialized but in many cases just have a better standard of living for its citizens unlike the U.S. As a matter of fact it was reported last month that Denmark reported being the happiest country on earth by the associated press which is an extremely socialized country.


And when people from those countries need the latest and most advanced surgeries and treatments, where do they go? The United States. Our country has the most technologically advanced healthcare system for a reason. You can only have such innovation and advancements in a capitalist setting. The innovation that the free market encourages, drives, pushes, and fuels is unmatched in any socialist country. 

Additionally, in socialized healthcare systems such as those, people can be put on 6+ month waiting lists for surgeries that they require. See your belief is that with universal healthcare everyone will have access to healthcare. A universal healthcare system will give everyone access to the system, but *when?* The answer being, you will have access to the system *WHEN* the *GOVERNMENT* see's fit for you to access it. Where in our current system you need a hip replacement, you schedule it for a month in advance. Under universal healthcare, a government employee (AND NOT A DOCTOR) will decide when&where you can have your surgery. 

In addition to this problem, it also reduces the overall QUALITY of our healthcare system. As mentioned previously, without the innovation of the free market, and with the added problems of under funding and increased beauraucracy, our quality of healthcare starts to decline rapidly. 

Next, is the issue of freedom. Giving big brother control of yet another aspect of our lives makes the entire population less free. It acquieces another responsibility to big brother, and inches us ever more down the slippery slope to a totalitarian police state. As I said earlier, government does not know best. *The best thing that you can do for a person, is to HELP a person HELP THEMSELVES!*  That is what a true self proclaimed humanitarian would do. 

I would have to show you montains of data that just do not support universal healthcare as being effacious. I'd urge you to research the topic further on your own and save me the leg work since I have finals coming up. The bottom line, is that you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and have not researched this topic in any significant depth that would give you the slightest incling as to what the reality of the situation is. To point to others "naiveity" on the subject is actually laughable. 

Your contempt for educated people making a profit for the invaluable service that they provide to people is unfortunate. You would presume to rely on the service that they provide for you, and yet question the means by which they provide it and the reward that they get for providing it. I'm not sure what job/speciality you perform in the union, but would you think it fair to build houses for people everyday, and get paid a pittance for it, and told that you should work for this pittance to be a "humanitarian." I'm really getting close to economics with that one, but you get the picture, that would be foolish. Health care professionals are paid what they are worth, in fact I think they are even underpaid. There is no price I could put on the life saving work that they do, we should all be grateful to these people. I guess I cannot fault you too much, as this is a pervasive mentality that union workers/laborers have, somewhat of an "us" and "them" mentality. Truth be told, it is the mentality that shows lack of education as clearly evident. 

Like I said, do some research on this topic, and you will come to find that our current system is much preferrable to any universal socialized healthcare system that could be implemented.

----------


## Fat Guy

Blome & TheGodFather I certainly appreciate your comments and enjoy reading your insights… However there are many points that I look forward to countering but as of tonight and tomorrow I will be busy. However, never fret because I promise I will enlighten you further to the many benefits of universal health care later on. Talk to you gentlemen and anyone else who cares to join in on Sunday… 
Peace 
FG

----------


## spywizard

> Is that too much to ask selfish sally... You see a man dying on the street and just walk by, "Not my problem," would probably be your answer. It's not like their going to take a ridiculous sum out of your paycheck, they'll take a little out of everyones to cover this amazing plan. Oh, and what's that other response, it's socialism? Well who cares, socialism wasn't "entirely" bad or no one would have wanted it as a government. Universal Healthcare would be a blessing, life is too great to throw away like this poor man had to do...


so if you get up every morning at 6am and work til 6pm and i choose to sit on my but and watch tv all day you are ok with us both living at the same level of lifestyle right?? that's socialism..

----------


## SMCengineer

Patient stacking sounds wonderful in the UK(waiting in ambulances for up to 5 hours then being admitted into the A&E for another wait time of 4 hours max): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nhealth218.xml



Private health care in Canada is thriving (even though it's illegal): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/in...gewanted=print

----------


## SMCengineer

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.”
-Barry Goldwater

----------


## SMCengineer

Debunking Micheal Moores claim that Cuban Health care is better than the US: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9pqv5ABQP5U&feature=related

----------


## SMCengineer

Can anybody name something that the government does more efficient than the private sector?

----------


## Act of God

> Can anybody name something that the government does more efficient than the private sector?


Uh....I got nothin'

----------


## SMCengineer

One last thing, is socialized medicine constitutional and if not, why?

----------


## SMCengineer

> Patient stacking sounds wonderful in the UK(waiting in ambulances for up to 5 hours then being admitted into the A&E for another wait time of 4 hours max): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nhealth218.xml


Just in case you didn't understand this. Patient stacking is done to meet government quotas, which they wouldn't be able to meet if they just admitted patients into the waiting rooms of the A&E.





> Private health care in Canada is thriving (even though it's illegal): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/in...gewanted=print


Again, in case you didn't understand, private for-profit health care is thriving in Canada because there is a huge demand for efficient and quality health care. People _want_ to pay for their health services because they know the'll get better service _when_ they need it.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Can anybody name something that the government does more efficient than the private sector?


Well there are of course the things that simply are to large for the private sector to touch or that doesnt give a imiediet profit. CERN, NASA, the manhattan project, the national labs, the hubble telescope, the laying of the major railroads.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> And when people from those countries need the latest and most advanced surgeries and treatments, where do they go? The United States. Our country has the most technologically advanced healthcare system for a reason. You can only have such innovation and advancements in a capitalist setting. The innovation that the free market encourages, drives, pushes, and fuels is unmatched in any socialist country.


Not sure I would agree 100% . Many (most?) inovations start at the universities and thats not a capitalist setting thank god. A capitalist setting is important to develop the inovations further and bring it out into the real world, but the acctual birth of the innovation is usually not motivated by monetary gains.

I dont se it as a nessecity that something funded by taxes must be worse off than a free market solution. A middle ground could exist where taxes do pay for hospitals and healthcare is free, but the hospitals are privately run. No pork because the hospitals want to keep a lean buisness and they also need to keep service good since the money they recieve depends on how many patients they treat. Thats how many schools are handled in sweden and they are excellent.

----------


## gixxerboy1

I'm sorry i feel bad this guy is dying but he is a dumbass. He works for himself and makes 30k and has no insurance. That was his choice. Its really not that hard to find a job that offers insurance. At its like he owned a company and was making 100k and couldnt afford to work for someone else. A 30k job with benefits isnt that hard to find. Yet he chose to work for himself and have none. Its his fault. I have health issues and i know i need insurance. I make sure what ever job i take offers them. I thought of opening my own business or donig other things. But dont because of insurance. I'm responsible for myself. This guy should have used his head its his own fault.

----------


## BgMc31

> Can anybody name something that the government does more efficient than the private sector?


Prisons! Privatized prisons pay lower wages, provide less training and equipment for their guards. Having work in both, government run prison facilities are much better to work for than privatized prisons.

Never deal in absolutes...

----------


## SMCengineer

> *Prisons! Privatized prisons pay lower wages, provide less training and equipment for their guards. Having work in both, government run prison facilities are much better to work for than privatized prisons.*
> 
> Never deal in absolutes...


You may want to check your premises. If we had any truly privatized prisons do you think people would be willing to pay to incarcerate offenders for crimes that don't infringe on other individual's rights (ie drug users, gamblers, prostitution)? I would have to guess no because we would see how that money is being used. We would realize that it has no direct effect on our individual lives and, infact, only hurts us economically to do so. Our current legal system artificially props up demand for prisons by creating criminals where there otherwise wouldn't be. Indeed, "private" prisons are no more subject to the principles of the free market than are public prisons.

----------


## thegodfather

> You may want to check your premises. If we had any truly privatized prisons do you think people would be willing to pay to incarcerate offenders for crimes that don't infringe on other individual's rights (ie drug users, gamblers, prostitution)? I would have to guess no because we would see how that money is being used. We would realize that it has no direct effect on our individual lives and, infact, only hurts us economically to do so. Our current legal system artificially props up demand for prisons by creating criminals where there otherwise wouldn't be. Indeed, "private" prisons are no more subject to the principles of the free market than are public prisons.


Man Blome...you literally took the words right out of my mouth...I'm glad theres someone else to carry the torch in my absence...I can't always be the "crazy libertarian" around here, people get tired of hearing me rant.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Well there are of course the things that simply are to large for the private sector to touch or that doesnt give a imiediet profit. CERN, NASA, the manhattan project, the national labs, the hubble telescope, the laying of the major railroads.


The operative word here is efficiency. Do you really think the private sector wouldn't handle all of these better? NASA is horribly inefficient. The only time it was efficient was during the cold war and the ensuing space race. What was the motivating factor? Competition. Same for the manhattan project. All these things would be handled better in the private market, but entry into such a market is nearly impossible with a government owned monopoly that can't go bankrupt and with the majority of money going into malinvestments.

This is a pretty good article about how private enterprise would be beneficial for space exploration: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=229. 
This is one about NASA's inefficiency: http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=362...e,+State+Truth

As for CERN, I don't know enough about it to be able to refute or discuss it with you. However, if I'm correct, America is not very involved with it. As for railroads, in America, I believe, the rail industry was always handled by the private sector except during WWI when it was temporarily nationalized.

----------


## SMCengineer

> I dont se it as a nessecity that something funded by taxes must be worse off than a free market solution. *A middle ground could exist where taxes do pay for hospitals and healthcare is free, but the hospitals are privately run.* No pork because the hospitals want to keep a lean buisness and they also need to keep service good since the money they recieve depends on how many patients they treat. Thats how many schools are handled in sweden and they are excellent.


How could hospitals be privately run if they're funded by taxes?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> The operative word here is efficiency. Do you really think the private sector wouldn't handle all of these better? NASA is horribly inefficient. The only time it was efficient was during the cold war and the ensuing space race. What was the motivating factor? Competition. Same for the manhattan project. All these things would be handled better in the private market, but entry into such a market is nearly impossible with a government owned monopoly that can't go bankrupt and with the majority of money going into malinvestments..


Well it was mostly apollo era NASA I was talking about, today NASA is semi crap I agree with that. But my main point is those things would NOT be handled better by the private market simply because there exist no market for those things. Any profit that can be made is so far into the future and speculative that no sane economist would recomend the project. 

The manhattan project is probably the ultimate example of how efficient and sucessfull a goverment runt project can be. The things acomplished during those 5 years are unmatched by any project before or after.




> This is a pretty good article about how private enterprise would be beneficial for space exploration: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=229.


Hmm I have to say I find that article a bit naive. Everything can not be valued in money and private investors wont put billions into pure science projects no matter how intellectualy intersting you make them look. Hubble is the ultimate example of this, it cost 4-6 billion dollars and has not produced anything of monetary value. But it has revolutionised our view of the universe more than any other piece of instrument ever. What is the value of fidning out the origin and faith of the universe? 

Lets take another example, a manned mission to mars ro a unmanned mission to jupiters moons. Lets say it cost 100 billion, but life is found during the mission and thus answering the question if we are alone in the universe. Would that not be worth every penny? 

This article presents imo a better view on the funding for mega huge projects
http://www.jetpress.org/volume4/space.htm




> As for CERN, I don't know enough about it to be able to refute or discuss it with you. However, if I'm correct, America is not very involved with it. As for railroads, in America, I believe, the rail industry was always handled by the private sector except during WWI when it was temporarily nationalized.


Yepp CERN is a mostly european project funded by the european countries. But its yet another example of a pure science project with a early budget of one billion dollars. It would never have been built if it was not for tax payer money. Not to mention that most of the instruments etc for the acctual experiments are custom made by research groups at universities all over europe and the world. 

Everything is motivated by pure curiosity alone and thats the way fundamental science should be done. Fundamental science can not be about trying to portray your idea as the most fun to investors that doesnt understand science. That would be a nightmare for science beyond belife. Who could have know that Heisenberg and Schrödingers theories in the 1920's would lead to semi conducturs and computers or that Einsteins theories would make GPS possible. The discoveries at CERN today might lead to technological leaps in 50-100 years, we simply do not know. Thats why those projects need to be keept alive, they advance the fundamental knoweledge of humanity and without the foundation there can be no applied science. Leave it up to the free market and only applied science will be funded.

Il take the nuclear industry as a prime example since thats my field. In sweden because of all the anti nukes the goverment stopped funding any research into nuclear technology. The few nuclear engineering departments left at swedish universities had to survive only on funds by the swedish nuclear industry. That meant all research they do is extremely applied, basicly just on optimising the existing swedish reactors that was built in the 70's.

The problem with this is that the new reactor technology thats is perhaps 15-20 years into the future is so superior to todays technology that its silly. We are talking 100 fold decrease in resource consumption and waste production, inherent safety depending on physics and not man made systems, the promise of much lower capital costs etc. But the nuclear industry wont fund research into those technologies with more than a penny here and there because they deem it to be to far into the future. If they where to decide we would be stuck with current techn forever. 

The situation is basiclly the same in the US, the goverment has taken its hands off nuclear tech. Sure the national labs still do alot of research but nothing new or exciting. In Japan, Russia, France, China and India however the technology of tomorrow is beeing developed and in big part funded by the goverment or goverment owned companies.

When we start to speak of time spans longer than 10 years the private industry is usualy not interested. Thats where the goverments have to step in.

About the railroads, I know the transcontinental railroad was heavy suported by the federal goverment. But you probably know better than me who built it.




> How could hospitals be privately run if they're funded by taxes?


The hospital in that scenario would be privatly owned but they are not allowed to charge patients anything, instead they get money for each patient treated. The most successfull schools in sweden are like that, the school get money based on how many kids they have. But they cant charge anything, everything else is up to the owners of the school. Those schools are run like clockwork, both kids and teachers love them and they beat all other schools on the national tests.

----------


## 39+1

we already have socialized medicine it called medicaid and the insurance companies along with the pharm compainies lobbiest will NEVER allow true socialized med they would looose toooooooooooooooooooooo much money

----------


## 39+1

> Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.
> -Barry Goldwater


Nice quote. Very nice

----------


## Hoggage_54

> The hospital in that scenario would be privatly owned but they are not allowed to charge patients anything, instead they get money for each patient treated.


Thats sort of how it works in Canada. We have our base funding, and then if we don't meet our benchmarks for the number of patients we should be treating, we lose funding. People seem to think that the government runs everything in regards to Healthcare, but that couldn't be further from the truth. In a political science textbook it will say that the government runs everything, but we don't live in a poli-sci textbook. I love reading these threads, they always give me a chuckle  :Smilie:  I'll tell you how it is in Ontario and you guys can take whatever you want from it. I will only say how it is and not give my opinion, so take what you want from it.

All of the purchases we make at our hospital (like I said earlier, I work in Purchasing) are from the PRIVATE SECTOR. In fact, we have more options because of generic drugs, which have lead to MORE COMPETITION. There is a reason drug companies in the USA are trying hard to prevent generic drugs coming in from Canada and why Americans are demanding them so much. They are cheaper and provide the same result, and this is just one reason why Canadians are paying about 55% of what Americans do for health care. Yes thats right, Canadians pay LESS for health care. "But Hoggage, your taxes are so high, it MUST be health care!" Nope sorry. I posted the numbers in another thread a while back about health care and everyone ignored them. A couple reasons our taxes are higher are 1) We cover 1/9 of the Earth's land mass. Infrastructure is not cheap, especially when a) we don't have toll highways and b) the ground in the north is frozen for a third of the year so construction is not cheap and c) trying to find people who will work out in the middle of nowhere is not easy, so we have to pay them more to encourage workers to do the job.. we don't have the (economical) advantage of cheap Mexican labour.. 2) Our schools are more subsidized (I paid $2800/year in tuition for college, university is around $6000/year).

As for wait times. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I can speak for the province of Ontario. I work two part time jobs in the hospital I work at, and the other is inputing wait time date (it's boring as ****, but eye opening). We had an elected Conservative premier named Mike Harris who brought his "Common Sense" revolution to the province. The common sense part was less taxes=more money for people=more tax revenue for the government (sound familiar?). In order to pay for these tax cuts, they took money from the health care system. When your hospital has less money, its harder to provide services. After 8 horribly wasted years under the Harris government, most of which was during the internet boom, our province was left with billions of dollars in deficits. We are mainly a manufacturing economy in Ontario, so we should have benefited greatly from this. Nope. "But Hoggage, the common sense revolution should have lead to more government money! I read it in a political science textbook!" Nope sorry, it didn't happen. That CAN happen, but not always. We are now paying the price (literally) for these provincial tax cuts (not the federal ones). We now have to pay a healthcare "Premium" which goes from $30 if you make $20,000 or more a year up to $900 if you make more than $250,000. Only now are we seeing wait times go down because we finally have the money again to cover the costs of these health services. The previous two provincial elections has seen the former Conservative government CRUSHED by the Liberal party who are finally producing budget surpluses with higher taxes. "But Hoggage, higher taxes lead to less money for the government! I read it in a political science textbook!" Nope sorry, thats not happening here. Sure you could provide examples to the contrary, as I am providing examples now, but there are so many variables that it's not as simple as higher taxes=less government money and lower taxes=more government money. A friend of mine will be graduating from Harvard's business school this June and his degree is in economics. He can't help but laugh when he hears those simple economic theories as the solution to all of the world's problems.

As for doctors being controlled by the government... FALSE. 

All practices are PRIVATE. If I were a doctor, I could open my own practice today anywhere I wanted and run it however I see fit. My funding, however, would be from the government, which prevents doctors from charging as much as they want. As a doctor, the more patients I see, the more money I make. A doctor gets paid for how much he or she works. There was a cap on how much a specialist could make in a year, which resulted in higher wait times since some doctors were leaving to the USA for more money. The cap was lifted a while ago and a specialist is free to see as many patients as they want. You could easily make a seven figure salary being a Opthamologist. Thats right, I could be making hundreds of thousands, if not in the seven figure range being a doctor here. I've heard how Canadian doctors make teacher salaries because of our "socialist" health care system  :Bs: 

Insurance premiums... 

Insurance costs less in Canada since many of the costs are covered by the government. Did you know that Ontario is the largest manufacturer of automobiles in the world? It's no longer Michigan. Why is this? The big three, as well as Japanese companies are setting up shop here because of the lower insurance costs. I read a number that said by moving here, the Big Three automobile companies are saving about $5/hour directly because of our health care system and the savings in insurance. Do the math and you will see that this results in millions of dollars in savings, which helps them become MORE COMPETITIVE. These are not shit jobs either. These are $26/hour jobs that are great for the economy. There have been layoffs lately, but thats due to the state of the global economy which is an entirely different topic.

As for people dying waiting for procedures in Canada...  :Bs: 

The government will actually pay for you to get treatment outside of Canada if you can't get it in time here. It doesn't happen often, but the government will pay.

Canadians are flocking to the USA and other countries for treatment...

Of course some are going to USA for treatments. Like mentioned above, some are being payed for by the government, others are having their insurance pay for it, and others are just rich people who have the means to pay for it. We also have Americans come to Canada for treatment. No where near as often as Canadians going south, but it does happen. I had a temp job in my hospital where I processed insurance information and we had a few Americans come to our hospital for treatment.

The Canadian government determines when you get your treatment... FALSE.

In that video that Blome posted, a woman said that the government said her condition was elective and didn't need treatment and she went to the USA for treatment and that she was near death. The government, in fact, does not say if your procedure is elective and they don't need to treat you any time soon. This is entirely up to the doctor. The doctor places a priority level on your condition and this determines when you get your procedure. In Ontario, it goes from 1-4. 1 being emergency, and 4 being elective. If the story was in fact true and the doctor said her condition was elective when it was really something that needed to be treated right away, thats the doctor being incompetent. The government has no say in who gets what treatment. It is entirely up to the doctors.

Take what you want from all of this, and ask any questions if you want to learn more about how the Canadian health system actually works (and not the theories you read in textbooks). If you ask a good question, you might hear me talk shit about our system. I am just telling you guys how things really are here, so I don't want to hear "you're wrong you evil socialist you and your ideas will be the downfall of society blah blah blah." I'm not giving ideas, I'm just saying how it is here.



EDIT: I took out the story about my dad and his messed up back and our insurance claim because I don't want to use one horror story to represent the whole of American insurance companies.

----------


## Kratos

Where do these generic medicines come from? Who is paying for the clinical studies and development? Oh yeah, Americans are...you're welcome.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Where do these generic medicines come from? Who is paying for the clinical studies and development? Oh yeah, Americans are...you're welcome.


Out of the 10 largest pharmacutical companies 6 are not american. There is a region in the world called europe belive it or not and there is acctualy research going on there aswell  :Big Grin:

----------


## Kratos

> Out of the 10 largest pharmacutical companies 6 are not american. There is a region in the world called europe belive it or not and there is acctualy research going on there aswell


I know Karn, what I mean is if everybody in the world only uses generic drugs no develpment happens. Generic drug companies do nothing but copy a molecule and sell it at a mark-up related to their production costs. We use a lot of name brand drugs in America...a lot, people exclusivly demand the latest drug and manufacurers market directly to the public. Turn on the T.V. in America and it won't be long until you see a drug add. In turn we overpay for the cure, even though it could be done cheaper, pharma gets the money and uses a % for new drug development. Inefficent as it may be it's how new drugs come about.

I worked in pharmacy's durring college...Brand name Prozac may cost $300 per hundred pills, generic fluoxitine (same as prozac) cost about $3 per hundred pills. Still some people demand brand name, and insurance pays if their doctor says it's nessicary.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I know Karn, what I mean is if everybody in the world only uses generic drugs no develpment happens. We use a lot of name brand drugs in America...a lot, people exclusivly demand the latest drug and manufacurers market directly to the public. Turn on the T.V. in America and it won't be long until you see a drug add. In turn we overpay for the cure, even though it could be done cheaper, pharma gets the money and uses a % for new drug development. Inefficent as it may be it's how new drugs come about.



The developes do have the patent for the drug for a number of years though(not sure how many?) to ensure they will be able to make profit from the r&d. Seems like its a pretty good system, I dont se why everyone else should be keept away forever from producing the particular medication? Time restricted patents seems like the best middle ground. Big Pharm makes profit and after a few years generics makes sure everyone can afford it.

----------


## Kratos

Yup, agree...Canadians pay a lot less for the same name brand prescriptions (more than 50% less than Americans) because the pressure to use generics is getting high and pharma companies want a peice. Generic use went up like 14 percent in 07, and name brand script use declined by 0.2%.

----------


## kfrost06

> Out of the 10 largest pharmacutical companies 6 are not american. There is a region in the world called europe belive it or not and there is acctualy research going on there aswell


very true however not nearly as much research as the US pharmas. Out of the top 3 pharmas, 1 and 2 are in the USA J & J, and Pfizer. They spend 7.1 and 7.6 billion/year on R&D where the #3 Bayer in Deutshland spends only 1.8 billion/yr. <<<thats less then 1/4 of what the #9 largest Merck spends. That is Bayer in Germany with twice the revenue of Merck in the USA spends less then 1/4 what Merck does on R&D.

Future medicines come from R&D today, if revenue is taken away from R&D then the future generations suffer and thats likely why Armerica is leading the entire world combined in drug discovery.

----------


## Kratos

btw generic drugs aren't coming to America from Canada, you guys pay more than 2x what we do for generics. It's name brand, we pay a lot more to the companies doing the research.

----------


## Kratos

I blame the unions for driving american auto makes elsewhere. Jap auto makers refuse to meet with the unions and pay much less than $26 per hour in the US.

----------


## Kratos

I see people fall down the stairs, fall off roofs, ATV accidents, car accidents, slip and fall, everything you could imagine on the OR table to have their spine fixed. Not sure the insurance companies ever use fault to determine medical necessity in this country.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> very true however not nearly as much research as the US pharmas. Out of the top 3 pharmas, 1 and 2 are in the USA J & J, and Pfizer. They spend 7.1 and 7.6 billion/year on R&D where the #3 Bayer in Deutshland spends only 1.8 billion/yr. <<<thats less then 1/4 of what the #9 largest Merck spends. That is Bayer in Germany with twice the revenue of Merck in the USA spends less then 1/4 what Merck does on R&D.
> 
> Future medicines come from R&D today, if revenue is taken away from R&D then the future generations suffer and thats likely why Armerica is leading the entire world combined in drug discovery.


but GlaxoSmithKline spend 6 billion, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Hoffmann–La Roche spend 5 billion each, AstraZeneca 4 billions. So the combined r&d spending of the non america top ten pharm companies are a bit larger than the american ones. Seems like european and american companies are more or less equal in other words. List from wikipedia gives this for r&d spending and size. Bayer seems like a odd exception.

1 Johnson & Johnson USA 7,125 
2 Pfizer USA 7,599 
3 Bayer Germany 1,791
4 GlaxoSmithKline United Kingdom 6,373
5 Novartis Switzerland 5,349 
6 Sanofi-Aventis France 5,565
7 Hoffmann–La Roche Switzerland 5,258
8 AstraZeneca United Kingdom 3,902
9 Merck & Co. USA 4,783
10 Abbott Laboratories USA 2,255

----------


## kfrost06

> I see people fall down the stairs, fall off roofs, ATV accidents, car accidents, slip and fall, everything you could imagine on the OR table to have their spine fixed. Not sure the insurance companies ever use fault to determine medical necessity in this country.


what is your job? if you don't mind saying on the board.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I blame the unions for driving american auto makes elsewhere. Jap auto makers refuse to meet with the unions and pay much less than $26 per hour in the US.


I think a very large blame is also because the american auto makers simply arent making cars that anyone wants anymore, especialy when it comes to fuel efficiency.

----------


## Kratos

> what is your job? if you don't mind saying on the board.


I work for a very large ortho implant company, I spend a lot of time in surgery meeting with surgeons and engineers, finding solutions to problems and bringing them to the attention of engineers, education of sales reps and surgeons on new products. Surgeons love me cause they get paid a consult fee every time I come into surgery along with their normal rep. I work exclusively in spine implants.

----------


## Kratos

> I think a very large blame is also because the american auto makers simply arent making cars that anyone wants anymore, especialy when it comes to fuel efficiency.


That may be why they aren't selling well but UAW workers make like 2x what Toyota-America workers make, add in health care costs and pensions and it translates to thousands per car. Health care costs are about 1800 per American car and Toyota is like 200. Toyota-America workers retire without defined benefit pensions and totally dependent on Medicare, who foots the bill? Unions are defiantly hurting the competitiveness of American cars built in America.  :2offtopic:

----------


## Hoggage_54

> *We use a lot of name brand drugs in America...a lot, people exclusivly demand the latest drug and manufacurers market directly to the public. Turn on the T.V. in America and it won't be long until you see a drug add.*


This is an excellent point and I am glad you brought it up. There is a huge legal battle going on now in Canada between drug companies and the courts about advertising of prescription drugs. It's illegal in most of the world to advertise prescription drugs in any form. I think it was in the early 90s when drug advertising was allowed in the USA and when this happened, the costs of health care in the USA sky rocketed because people were demanding all the latest drugs because if you see any sort of advertisement, the way they market it makes it seem that anyone could have those symptoms that they advertise.

I remember in another thread a while back about anti-depressants and Godfather said something about doctors giving them out way to frequently because people were demanding them so much. This is directly caused by the advertising of prescription drugs. People see the commercial, apply any sort of symptom that they hear, and run to the doctor and demand it and get insurance to pay for it, and since they are so damn expensive, its caused insurance companies to raise the price of premiums dramatically and lead to the problems you are seeing today.

----------


## Hoggage_54

> I work for a very large ortho implant company, I spend a lot of time in surgery meeting with surgeons and engineers, finding solutions to problems and bringing them to the attention of engineers, education of sales reps and surgeons on new products. Surgeons love me cause they get paid a consult fee every time I come into surgery along with their normal rep. I work exclusively in spine implants.


Stryker? You don't have to say if you don't want to

----------


## Hoggage_54

> That may be why they aren't selling well but UAW workers make like 2x what Toyota-America workers make, add in health care costs and pensions and it translates to thousands per car. Health care costs are about 1800 per American car and Toyota is like 200. Toyota-America workers retire without defined benefit pensions and totally dependent on Medicare, who foots the bill? Unions are defiantly hurting the competitiveness of American cars built in America.


Just today the CAW at Ford agreed to take a pay cut and some other cuts as well to their new contract.

http://www.wheels.ca/article/229616

"Ford and the Canadian Auto Workers have bargained a surprise three-year deal which would freeze wages for current workers but reduce pay temporarily for new employees in a deal that could pave the way for early contract settlements at General Motors and Chrysler this year."

----------


## SMCengineer

> Thats sort of how it works in Canada. We have our base funding, and then if we don't meet our benchmarks for the number of patients we should be treating, we lose funding. People seem to think that the government runs everything in regards to Healthcare, but that couldn't be further from the truth.


You say the hospital's will loose their funding if they don't meet their quotas, but than in the next sentence you say it's not government controlled. That's a complete contradiction. If it truly wasn't government controlled it would be controlled by the market or the people. There wouldn't be any quota's to meet. There would just be the law of supply and demand to contend with. 




> In a political science textbook it will say that the government runs everything, but we don't live in a poli-sci textbook.


Just for the record, I would call it economic theory not political science.  :Smilie: 




> All of the purchases we make at our hospital (like I said earlier, I work in Purchasing) are from the PRIVATE SECTOR. In fact, we have more options because of generic drugs, which have lead to MORE COMPETITION. There is a reason drug companies in the USA are trying hard to prevent generic drugs coming in from Canada and why Americans are demanding them so much. They are cheaper and provide the same result, ).


So you agree that US federal regulations are increasing the costs of prescription drugs not making them cheaper as some people who support government intervention would have you believe? Prescription drug lobbyists' and health insurance lobbyists' in washington are the biggest advocates for the nationalization of our healthcare industry. They have the most to gain out of this, therefore the also have the most to loose so you can bet they're persuading those politicians with everything they have.




> and this is just one reason why Canadians are paying about 55% of what Americans do for health care. Yes thats right, Canadians pay LESS for health care. "But Hoggage, your taxes are so high, it MUST be health care!" Nope sorry. I posted the numbers in another thread a while back about health care and everyone ignored them.


Of course you pay less for healthcare and it's for the exact reason you posted above. Not because your health care system is efficient, but because our's is horrible inefficient.





> As for wait times. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I can speak for the province of Ontario. I work two part time jobs in the hospital I work at, and the other is inputing wait time date (it's boring as ****, but eye opening). We had an elected Conservative premier named Mike Harris who brought his "Common Sense" revolution to the province. The common sense part was less taxes=more money for people=more tax revenue for the government (sound familiar?). In order to pay for these tax cuts, they took money from the health care system. When your hospital has less money, its harder to provide services. After 8 horribly wasted years under the Harris government, most of which was during the internet boom, our province was left with billions of dollars in deficits. We are mainly a manufacturing economy in Ontario, so we should have benefited greatly from this. Nope. "But Hoggage, the common sense revolution should have lead to more government money! I read it in a political science textbook!" Nope sorry, it didn't happen. That CAN happen, but not always. We are now paying the price (literally) for these provincial tax cuts (not the federal ones). We now have to pay a healthcare "Premium" which goes from $30 if you make $20,000 or more a year up to $900 if you make more than $250,000. Only now are we seeing wait times go down because we finally have the money again to cover the costs of these health services. The previous two provincial elections has seen the former Conservative government CRUSHED by the Liberal party who are finally producing budget surpluses with higher taxes. "But Hoggage, higher taxes lead to less money for the government! I read it in a political science textbook!" Nope sorry, thats not happening here. Sure you could provide examples to the contrary, as I am providing examples now, but there are so many variables that it's not as simple as higher taxes=less government money and lower taxes=more government money. A friend of mine will be graduating from Harvard's business school this June and his degree is in economics. He can't help but laugh when he hears those simple economic theories as the solution to all of the world's problems.


It seems to me like that past administration was similar to what we've had here for the past 8 years. Lowering taxes does work, but there's a caveat. *The government must decrease federal spending!* Obviously, if you lower taxes, but increase spending you're only pushing off the inevitable tax increase for a later date (or in our situation a later generation). It's an absolutely ridiculous policy. I'm willing to bet your friend agrees with that.




> As for doctors being controlled by the government... FALSE. 
> 
> All practices are PRIVATE. If I were a doctor, I could open my own practice today anywhere I wanted and run it however I see fit. My funding, however, would be from the government, which prevents doctors from charging as much as they want. As a doctor, the more patients I see, the more money I make. A doctor gets paid for how much he or she works. There was a cap on how much a specialist could make in a year, which resulted in higher wait times since some doctors were leaving to the USA for more money. The cap was lifted a while ago and a specialist is free to see as many patients as they want. You could easily make a seven figure salary being a Opthamologist. Thats right, I could be making hundreds of thousands, if not in the seven figure range being a doctor here. I've heard how Canadian doctors make teacher salaries because of our "socialist" health care system .


So, the government went overboard on the regulations and realized its mistake than slighty deregulated it and it proved to be more efficient and profitable? That's _very_ interesting.




> Insurance premiums... 
> 
> Insurance costs less in Canada since many of the costs are covered by the government. Did you know that Ontario is the largest manufacturer of automobiles in the world? It's no longer Michigan. Why is this? The big three, as well as Japanese companies are setting up shop here because of the lower insurance costs. I read a number that said by moving here, the Big Three automobile companies are saving about $5/hour directly because of our health care system and the savings in insurance. Do the math and you will see that this results in millions of dollars in savings, which helps them become MORE COMPETITIVE. These are not shit jobs either. These are $26/hour jobs that are great for the economy. There have been layoffs lately, but thats due to the state of the global economy which is an entirely different topic.


You won't hear an arguemnet from me on this because the very reason we have such high premiums is because of our quasi-socialized health care system. So, in a sense I agree, our system is royal messed up, but that's not due to free market forces. 




> Take what you want from all of this, and ask any questions if you want to learn more about how the Canadian health system actually works (and not the theories you read in textbooks). If you ask a good question, you might hear me talk shit about our system. I am just telling you guys how things really are here, so I don't want to hear "you're wrong you evil socialist you and your ideas will be the downfall of society blah blah blah." I'm not giving ideas, I'm just saying how it is here.



By no means am I saying that you have an evil socialized health care industry or economy. I'm saying that a health care industry that's handled entirely in the private sector would be better than our quasi-socialized system and most likely better than any other fully socialized system.

I'm also not defending the current health care system that we have in place today as it's terrible, but it can still be fixed without nationalizing it. In fact, I'm saying the only way to truly fix it would be to deregulate it almost entirely.

----------


## Hoggage_54

> You say the hospital's will loose their funding if they don't meet their quotas, but than in the next sentence you say it's not government controlled. That's a complete contradiction. If it truly wasn't government controlled it would be controlled by the market or the people. There wouldn't be any quota's to meet. There would just be the law of supply and demand to contend with.
> 
> If we don't need the money, the government wont give it to us and spend it where it really needs it (other hospitals that have high demand). In regards to the quota thing, those are based on statistics we gather in regards to the demand in the "market" if you want to put it that way. If doctors are sending us lots of patients, the quota goes up, if not, the quota goes down. Your right my sentence is a contradiction, I just woke up when I wrote this whole thing. 
> 
> 
> Just for the record, I would call it economic theory not political science. 
> 
> I always say poli-sci out of habit because I talk to a friend of mine who's in political science at a near by university and talks about this a lot  
> 
> ...


PS can you take out the story about my old man? He doesn't like it being talked about and I changed my mind about posting it because I didn't want to use one story to represent a whole system because many Americans do get high quality health care through insurance.

----------


## Hoggage_54

The only thing I want is to prevent rich people from being able to skip ahead in the line and pay for their own health care and have less non-emergency procedures be dealt with in hospitals, which should be for emergencies, and have them done in smaller clinics.

----------


## SMCengineer

> I agree whole heartedly that the regulations you have in place in regards to lobbyists' are killing you guys (literally). *We don't have any lobbyists' trying to get our government to do what they want them to do.* Our federal government sets certain guidelines that we follow but we have choices in how we follow the guidelines. For example, Health Canada recently said that we have to switch to a needleless system in regards to IV's. Based on statistics, it would prevent needle sticks in nurses for their own safety. We (hospitals) were free to switch over to the new system however way we wanted to. Since our hospital has a contract with Baxter, we had some of their sales reps come in and show us the best way to have it done. Public and private sectors at work


It wouldn't be necessary for big pharma companies to spend money lobbying for something that's already in place and works in their favor.




> So, the government went overboard on the regulations and realized its mistake than slighty deregulated it and it proved to be more efficient and profitable? That's very interesting.
> 
> It was never regulated in the first place (as far as I know) so it always worked that way.


A cap on the number of patients is a regulation and quotas are also regulations.




> I would say a mix of private and public, taking the best practices from both would be the best but I don't want to argue opinions. I just came on here to explain how our system works because many people don't really know how it works exactly and I wanted to share as much as I knew about our system so people would have a better idea of how things work here.


That's just about exactly what we have here, hence quasi-socilized healthcare and it's extremely inefficient.




> I think the biggest problem is so much is left to insurance companies and since they are their to make a profit, the costs go waaaay up.


So much is left up to the insurance companies because of the the HMO act and the ERISA law that forced employers to give insurance to their employees, which had an adverse effect on the market of sending _all_ healthcare costs sky rocketting. Thus, individuals could no longer afford to supply their own insurance nor could they afford the simpliest of procedures such as routine check-ups.

----------


## SMCengineer

> PS can you take out the story about my old man? He doesn't like it being talked about and I changed my mind about posting it because I didn't want to use one story to represent a whole system because many Americans do get high quality health care through insurance.


Done homie.  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## SMCengineer

> The only thing I want is to prevent rich people from being able to skip ahead in the line and pay for their own health care and have less non-emergency procedures be dealt with in hospitals, which should be for emergencies, and have them done in smaller clinics.


Does Canada's health care system prevent those things from happen?

----------


## Kratos

> so much is left to the insurance companies.


If that were true, wall street would be all over health insurance stocks. The truth is health insurance company profit magins has hovered around 5% for years now. HMO profit margins around 3.x%. Sure there is greed and CEO's overpaying themselves, a drop in the bucket compared to total $ in and out.

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## SMCengineer

> *No one can change my attitude to the US health "administration"! Its shit! its a disgrace.*  
> 
> Insurance etc what a pile of BS! yeah coem pay me some money and we will take care of you if you fall ill, yeah ok man! all you INsurance sales people are in is premiums! and the more you can get and less you pay out to the better!


I fully agree with this. Our system is horrible. 



> Health serivces shoud not be run like a business and has to make as much money as possible!!


I fully disagree with this. Health care is a business and should be treated as such. They're in it to make money. However, insurance companies, in our third party payer system, allow health care costs to soar by covering up the true costs of the service. Doctors feel that they can charge a premium because the insurance company pays the bills and patients aren't worried worry because their costs will be absorbed by everone that has a plan with that insurance company. Of course, with a third party involved there's also a lot more money available for potential cases of malpractice, which creates incentive to sue and, as a result, premiums increase again. If employers weren't artificially forced by the government to supply an HMO to emplyees then insurance companies wouldn't have the control they have over the healthcare industry.

----------


## thegodfather

Healthcare is not a right.

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## SMCengineer

> Nah Blome, i am calling BS on tht one (not trying to offend) but i work for a funded serivce just like the NHS... its totally fvcking destroying a decent public serivce trying to run things like a business, bringing in targets and managment speak and shit like that. Let us do our fvcking job i say! Who gives a shit if there are so many incidents in certain areas, it is why im here, to go sort that shit out!
> 
> The NHS are in a similar state, with shit pay, shit benefits, shit hours British born people dont want to do the job like they use to in years gone by... the NHS loves this because they can employ cheap labour from abroad (keep the governmnet happy). What a pile of shite!
> 
> Running a public service like a business is the first way to crush its quality! An emergency service should not have financial contraints and should be payed for by the tax payer!
> 
> Your system has to be run like a business becuse in the eyes of everyone ever involved in it that is what it is, and that is why its a shit system!


Again, the reason why our system is shit is not because it's run like a business. A true business is subject to the forces of the free market. In our system, government essetially gives the entire market over to HMO's and shelter's it from the forces of the free market. Government collusion in health care is what makes it shit.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Healthcare is not a right.


But that is quite a abritrary statement, what decides what is or isnt a basic human right? Most europeans for instance consider healthcare and education as human rights just as important as freedom of speech and other basic human rights. IMO education and healthcare is just as important to uphold individual freedom as defense and law enforcment is.

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## SMCengineer

> So you are suggesting that the Health care services first priority is to not make as much money as possible?


Your not understanding my position. If competion existed in the healthcare industry (in the US, which it doesn't) than doctors would have incentive to lower their prices. If they didn't, a cheaper more efficient practice will spring up and take the patients away. However, most people are *forced* to carry insurance because of government internvention so doctors have no real incentive to be competitive.




> The reason the Health services are sheltered by the government is becaue the vast majority of them are in the health care serivces pocket.


It sounds like you're starting to understand. When government gets involved lobbying ensues and the health care industry than has leverage to influence legislation.

----------


## Kratos

> If competion existed in the healthcare industry (in the US, which it doesn't) than doctors would have incentive to lower their prices. If they didn't, a cheaper more efficient practice will spring up and take the patients away. However, most people are *forced* to carry insurance because of government internvention so doctors have no real incentive to be competitive.
> .


IDK what you mean? Lower prices and a cash system with no insurance? Insurance companies force the doctors to be competitive. I've seen it to the point doctors are losing money to take care of patients with a certain insurance, they won't accept that insurance. I think competition is alive and well, I see hospitals cut costs to the point the infection rate goes through the roof, then they loose money on treating the infections. I like competition, where do you want to make changes?

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## SMCengineer

> IDK what you mean? Lower prices and a cash system with no insurance? Insurance companies force the doctors to be competitive. I've seen it to the point doctors are losing money to take care of patients with a certain insurance, they won't accept that insurance. I think competition is alive and well, I see hospitals cut costs to the point the infection rate goes through the roof, then they loose money on treating the infections. I like competition, where do you want to make changes?


A direct patient to doctor relationship on a cash basis without the use of insurance for regular check-ups and minor procedures would create more competition than an insurance based system. It would also give patients more freedom in choosing their doctors. You would still have insurance, but only for major procedures and catastrophic events. Of course, this would require tax exempt Health Savings Accounts for employers to be able to give employees the money they take out from wages without being taxed, as it is now. 

Why shouldn't employees have the choice of spending the money they earned the way they want instead being forced to choose from the doctors that are on the employers plan? 

This should explain it a lot better than I can (it's kind of old, but the principles are the same): www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-27.pdf

----------


## SMCengineer

> Blome i aint gonna insult you or anything but i think you are wrong on your ideas of ur health services. 
> Why should Vets and Pensioners be denied health care and medical services because they cannot afford it?


First, I'm not insulted at all, I just think you're misinterpreting my position. It's absolutely fine if you disagree with me. Second, in America we have universal health care for our Vets and the system is horrible. It's also the system that most dems point to as an example of what National Health care would be like. Here's some info on it for you: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8138. That was actually an example I gave earlier. Third, for seniors we have medicare, which is also a horrible system. An article from yesterday's paper: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080429/ts_nm/medicare_dc_2




> E.G.
> I go to Aston Martin and ask for a new DB9 they say "yes sir certainly! First we have to go through the paper work." It then turns out i cant afford it the car, you think they will give it to me? i mean why not? i can drive.
> 
> Ill tell you why, because they are a business, and businesses first priority is not to provide a service, its to make money and as much as that of it as possible.
> 
> Tell me the difference in your health care system and the analogy above.


I have to say that analogy is horrible. If you walk into a Aston Martin dealership and you know you can't afford to buy it than you deserve to be turned down, but you still have the choice to go somewhere else that you can afford. That's called freedom to choose and here in the US in the health care industry it's being severly limited.

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## Kratos

As much as I like the cash system you present it has flaws.
disincentivises going to the doctor for prevention care, cause you are paying out of basically a tax free savings account. Old people and baby boomer's haven't been putting away all these years, so there would need to be a very long transition phase. Doesn't do away with insurance, cash price will always be higher than insurance. Poor people aren't gonna put in so they are still gonna be insurance covered by welfare. Same people who have no insurance now and can't afford health insurance can't afford to with-hold money from their pay checks for their medical future.

I'm around medicine too much to believe this would ever work. The individual doesn't have the same power to negotiate price as big insurance.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Its not a horrible analogy its a very good one actually how people get turned down who cant afford to buy something.
> Its a great example how a business conducts itself.
> 
> Now like a hopsital, if im sick and go to one i dont want to fill out forms n present my insurance details and all that other BS. If you are sick you are sick. Its all a part of the golden hour when for a human time is at its most critical. From the time of being in an accident to the time you are in proffessional medical care.
> 
> I think alot of your medical practicioners in the US have a very narrow mind when it comes to providing a service and should be ashamed of them selfs.
> Why do people become Nurses doctors firefighters police officers? money? more often than not its to help people... the only people these wankers are helping is them selfs. 
> 
> They are no different from a law firm selling representation, the first thing they go through is "how much?" the thing that is different is they (Doctors) are selling you your chance to survive and if you cant afford it "here sir maybe this number for Dr. Nick will be a help to you"
> ...


You seem to think I'm defending our current health care system. _I'm not!_ However, your arguement does have one major flaw. People without insurance are not turned away from treatment. By law, hospitals have to treat uninsured patients. So, again, your analogy fails.




> How many people die in the US because they cant get medical care? How many vets die because of lack of medical attention or affordable medicine? anyone using this as an example for not having free public health care is a pratt. Look here, look at France and Canada and even look at Cuba!
> Nuff said i think


Micheal Moores films are not reliable sources of information. None of those (especially Cuba) health care systems are better than US even with all of our downfalls. Most of time he downright omits information or lies. 

Here's some truth about his film: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8336

----------


## SMCengineer

> As much as I like the cash system you present it has flaws.
> disincentivises going to the doctor for prevention care, cause you are paying out of basically a tax free savings account. Old people and baby boomer's haven't been putting away all these years, so there would need to be a very long transition phase. Doesn't do away with insurance, cash price will always be higher than insurance. Poor people aren't gonna put in so they are still gonna be insurance covered by welfare. Same people who have no insurance now and can't afford health insurance can't afford to with-hold money from their pay checks for their medical future.
> 
> I'm around medicine too much to believe this would ever work. *The individual doesn't have the same power to negotiate price as big insurance*.



That's the problem. You're right that a cash system would not work along side of the system that we currently have. There are too many regulations favoring HMO's, which is why we need to reform the whole system. Reform, however, shouldn't mean nationalization, but the status quo obviously doesn't cut it.

----------


## Odpierdol_sie!

....

----------


## Kratos

Here's another though blome, why as a younger guy would I ever opt out of the insurance system, in favor of saving for the future. In your 20's insurance is cheep. If you've only been saving a few years what happens if you break your leg skiing or get cancer or something. I'd rather be covered now as well as later.

How much is a dollar now that I put in the lock-box for the future gonna be worth when I need it? I'm assuming the intrest earned in the lock-box isn't very high. Inflation and devaluation of the dollar.

How can anybody save for a real medical catastrophe? When the shit hits the fan, bills can really pile up.

I need an emergency room, better go shop the best price...no, you go to the closest one. We'll get raped on emergent care in a cash system.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Im not going off what Michael Moore was saying. Im going off because i know first hand. I will say i was not meaning Cuba, i meant Columbia.
> Either way you are wrong in what you say here as France for starters has been up in the top 5 for a good number of years and last year was ranked in first place with the UK at 17th and Canada at 30th


If you're going off the World Health Organizations report than you should know that it's not a very accurate source either. In fact, it's _very_ politically biased towards government controlled health care. 

Here's a decent article explaining what I mean: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259

----------


## SMCengineer

> Here's another though blome, why as a younger guy would I ever opt out of the insurance system, in favor of saving for the future. In your 20's insurance is cheep. If you've only been saving a few years what happens if you break your leg skiing or get cancer or something. I'd rather be covered now as well as later.
> 
> *How much is a dollar now that I put in the lock-box for the future gonna be worth when I need it? I'm assuming the intrest earned in the lock-box isn't very high. Inflation and devaluation of the dollar*.


Well, yeah, monetary policy is a huge problem, but it's entirely different subject altogether. 




> *How can anybody save for a real medical catastrophe? When the shit hits the fan, bills can really pile up.*
> 
> I need an emergency room, better go shop the best price...no, you go to the closest one. We'll get raped on emergent care in a cash system.


Again, you *would* have insurance for major procedures, but not minor check-ups such as we use now.

----------

