US Healthcare reform

Post Reply New Topic

I get my medical care from a fully-socializes scheme (the Veteran's Administration). It's excellent, I am very well cared for, and am very happy with the system.



The Republicans' worst nightmare is that Obama will succeed. They are doing everything in their power to make sure he doesn't.

Explain how? Please... I oh so wanna know. France has a single payer system, and they have the best healthcare in the world. If you are going to use wait times as a means of saying that private is better then public, guess again. The US has wait times for procedures like Canada does.



Most of the drugs the Canadians take are made in America and other countries, the government makes them more affordable through taxes. The NDP party are now trying to get a national drug plan in place that allows any drug that our doctor prescribes to be free. The NDP got us MediCare, I sure hope the drug plan goes through.

Could you elaborate on this, as the real world points to the opposite.

Which isn't much. The democrats can pretty much pass it on their own so it isn't the republicans who are responsible if this bill dies.

IIRC, wait times are somewhat longer in Canada, but that wouldn't be the biggest issue. The US has the best cancer survival rates in the world (and the UK has among the worst in the developed world). HERE is an article from Mankiw dispelling a few random myths. Interesting to note is that, in regards to infant mortality, the US actually does better than Canada once you correct for Simpson's Paradox. AG already posted it a few pages back, but after controlling for a few factors that have nothing to do with medical care (homicide and car crashes) Americans actually have the highest life expectancy in the world- and this is dealing with a nation of fat, lazy slobs. Take obesity out of the picture and the US starts to look even better (and our medical care can't do much about people's lifestyle choices).

I'm not sure how you can claim that a system that produces such excellent results is actually crap. Most of the statistics being cited against the US healthcare system fail to meet ceteris paribus conditions and so are essentially worthless.


The Canadians purchase generics, meaning the people who invested huge amounts of money on drug development are unable to sell their drugs at a profit outside the US. So they have to make up all their research costs by gouging Americans. Higher drug costs in the US are a result of America basically subsidizing the rest of the world's medical systems. The main solution to the problem of generics is to have government fund research (and it already funds a lot) but still the US is picking up most of the slack here.

EDIT: And just to clarify, I am in favor of healthcare reform. It is obvious that there are places where the US system needs to improve, and maybe some of that does involve more government intervention in specific areas. But I don't think the answer is to copy the British or Canadian systems, and I don't agree with idolizing socialized medical systems as many liberals in the US do.

Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world, not America



Because the system DOES produce excellent results. It's all about management, not where the money comes from. Seeing that American healthcare is based on greed, it's easy to see how people die in the red tape of insurace companies. France is number one for a reason. America is somewere in the 30's on the WHO's list of best performing system in the world in terms of availability and organization of health care providers.

Chibi Neko, I question your reading comprehension. Check back over my post and see if your comments make any sense whatsoever. (Hint: It helps to read an entire sentence, rather than clipping fragments out of context)

In a Utopian world we would get our health care for free, right......but since it is a Utopian world why the hell are people getting sick in the first place?

obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

I have read your post, and still stand by what I said.

Life expectancy has more to do with diet and hygiene than with medical care. I suspect the long l.e. has more to do with diet (the Japanese have a diet much lower in fat and sugars than the American diet). Also the Japanese people are less prone to be overweight. Food costs more in Japan (relative to income level), so people don't nosh and snack in Japan as much as they do in the U.S.).

In the United States the biggest increase in life expectancy happened in the first decade of the 20-th century when better water systems were put online. The treatment of the drinking water decreased the incidence of typhoid fever and cholera.

Americans could probably add seven to ten years to their l.e. by cutting down on the fats and sugars and exercising more to keep the weight down. A healthier mode of living means one does not have to go to the doctor or to hospitals for acute health care and treatment as often.

ruveyn

It would also be great if, in the case where punitive damages are appropriate, that 50-75% of punitive be donated back to a trust fund specifically set up for malpractice survivors. The caveat being that the fund would have to be very well structured as to be profit-indifferent. That way hopefully the cost of malpractice insurance would continue to go down for doctors, gross negligence would bear the burden, and the individual would have less of a get-rich-quick incentive.

Then you really need to learn to read. I wrote "AG already posted it a few pages back, but after controlling for a few factors that have nothing to do with medical care (homicide and car crashes) Americans actually have the highest life expectancy in the world- and this is dealing with a nation of fat, lazy slobs." Yes, this includes Japan. After controlling for homicide and car accidents, Americans live longer than Japanese on average. Your quote snipped part of that sentence off in such a way that it almost had to be deliberately misleading.

Your other comment just doesn't make sense. I see a reference to the WHO rankings, but those have been quite thoroughly debunked as biased.

The way they're trying to rush this through makes me nervous. The American public does not want a government takeover of health care. Our dear leader has a prime time TV press conference almost every week now trying to charm us back(he's not actually saying anything of substance) in place for this trojan horse.

I'm sure you're aware that this bill has absolutely nothing to do with "...a government takeover of health care." This bill is about health insurance. It sets regulations about denying pre-existing conditions. It requires everybody to get health insurance, and it sets up an alternative source of insurance so they can do it.

The only objection you have to this bill is that it attempts to rein-in the price gouging of the insurance industry. It is anti-greed, so you don't like it.

If you conservatives would argue the merits of your case, instead of scaring people and sidetracking the issue, you would lose big-time.

Anyone seen the new Wyden-Bennett proposal? Lots of bipartisan support but it looks like it has just as many problems, good news is that its getting enough press to actually make people wonder how this whole thing could be done more effectively.

Ever wonder why American drug companies are so successful both in new drug development and in profitability? How do you suppose their testing gets done? They completely exploit the poor and uneducated both here in the US and in other countries as well. They come up with a new drug and then they need to test it on people before the FDA gives the OK. They offer free medical care for participants which sounds like a winning lottery ticket to a poor or uninsured individual. Thay make sure that all of the liability waivers are signed before testing, of course. I don't recall the statistics, but a lot of people died over one of the latest cholesterol drug testings (about 10% of participants or so), and the company just kept on testing in hopes that perhaps it was just a fluke. They decided to generate a larger test pool, fully aware but with no regards for the enhanced risk. Lucky for their bottom line that their gamble worked out and this drug is now on the market. I think it might have been Lipitor.

They use human guinea pigs and give them no means of recourse if devestating or deadly side effects occur. We treat our animals better than humans in this country. We've also used Africa's "disposable" population of sick people for drug testing and development without their knowledge. I recommend the film "The Constant Gardener". Yes it is a dramatization, but these events that took place are quite real and factual.

As for Obama trying to rush the bill through, I believe it is a political move 100%. The 2010 elections are right around the corner and there is a small window of opportunity left for congress men and women to be able to vote without major concern of it damaging them on the campaign trail. Between campaign seasons and lame duck sessions, it's amazing that anything productive ever gets done, or does it?