The horrors of socialized medicine.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm glad to hear good stories of good treatment from countries with socialized medicine. A thing to consider before you try too hard to socialize the US's system:

Probably 70% of the methods of treatment, and probably 95% of the medication used worldwide, was developed in the US. We invent the drug or treatment or device, enjoy our limited patent profits, then the world gets to copy it for cheap.

I'm not really complaining about this setup, I'm just saying, be very careful of what you do to the US healthcare system, or in 50 years you still might be stuck with 2010 - style healthcare.

LM

[Palerider]

I'm glad to hear good stories of good treatment from countries with socialized medicine. A thing to consider before you try too hard to socialize the US's system:

Probably 70% of the methods of treatment, and probably 95% of the medication used worldwide, was developed in the US. We invent the drug or treatment or device, enjoy our limited patent profits, then the world gets to copy it for cheap.

I'm not really complaining about this setup, I'm just saying, be very careful of what you do to the US healthcare system, or in 50 years you still might be stuck with 2010 - style healthcare.

LM

If you get a chance ask those who work in healthcare for their opinion....I have a friend thats a Dr and a daughter who is a Nurse and my wife works in the Lab at a Hospital....some of the stories I hear are not as good. Then again its like Global warming....everyone has a opinion on it.

[joel99]

I'm glad to hear good stories of good treatment from countries with socialized medicine. A thing to consider before you try too hard to socialize the US's system:

Probably 70% of the methods of treatment, and probably 95% of the medication used worldwide, was developed in the US. We invent the drug or treatment or device, enjoy our limited patent profits, then the world gets to copy it for cheap.

I'm not really complaining about this setup, I'm just saying, be very careful of what you do to the US healthcare system, or in 50 years you still might be stuck with 2010 - style healthcare.

LM

Do you have some evidence to back up those numbers? A quick look found this - which shows, in terms of the top pharmaceutical companies' revenue, that the US has less than 50%:

List of pharmaceutical companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moksha]

Loudmouth Mormon, are you saying that science is only motivated by profit?

[NeuroTypical]

Loudmouth Mormon, are you saying that science is only motivated by profit?

Nope. I'm saying that by freeing our vast brainy talent of inventing minds from the strangling tendrils of govt bureaucracy and it's clinging barbs of policies and hoops, you end up with a lot more useful science done. It is true that demanding work be supported by marketable inventions carries it's own set of hoops, but since we're talking about methods of funneling my money to scientists and inventors, I'm favoring the method that lets me not pay for stuff I don't give a flyin' whoop about.

Do you have some evidence to back up those numbers? A quick look found this - which shows, in terms of the top pharmaceutical companies' revenue, that the US has less than 50%

90% is my rule-of-thumb guess - no source, sorry. Looking at revenue won't help us - my claim is about who is actually doing the research on new drugs. After a new drug shows up, it's a common practice to take it and make a minor change to sell it as a "generic". The new drug had to show up first, before folks could make their billions off the generic form.

LM

[boyando]

Loudmouth Mormon, are you saying that science is only motivated by profit?

What he might be saying is, goverments, and more specifically, the US government is not really that interested in outcome, but focus on governing. And they are certainly not concerned with saving money.

The problem starts, when governments decide they can run things better than the private sector. There motivating factor, is power, not compassion, as you have been led to believe.

The un-official montra of the Democratic party and rino's alike, is "We have to do something", which does sound like there is a clear concern for the problem. What they are really saying is "I am going to take money from the rich, then the middle class and any were else I can get it (if the poor had any money, they would get it there too), to work on the problem. But don't ask for the problem to be solved. That would put people out of work". Working for the government, of coarse.

This may sound like a far reaching statement, so I challenge you to show me were I am wrong.

b

[FunkyTown]

What he might be saying is, goverments, and more specifically, the US government is not really that interested in outcome, but focus on governing. And they are certainly not concerned with saving money.

The problem starts, when governments decide they can run things better than the private sector. There motivating factor, is power, not compassion, as you have been led to believe.

The un-official montra of the Democratic party and rino's alike, is "We have to do something", which does sound like there is a clear concern for the problem. What they are really saying is "I am going to take money from the rich, then the middle class and any were else I can get it (if the poor had any money, they would get it there too), to work on the problem. But don't ask for the problem to be solved. That would put people out of work". Working for the government, of coarse.

This may sound like a far reaching statement, so I challenge you to show me were I am wrong.

b

Kennedy-Johnson pushed tax cuts and they were Democrats.

The national debt tripled under Reagan's administration:

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Admittedly, the national debt is increasing at an unheard of point under Obama, but the same thing was said under Reagan).

Now, to head off arguments against this: JFK would be stoned by a lot of Democrats today because of his centrist leaning policies and Reagan was the push that ended the Soviet Union. His actions were necessary for his time.

I would say that the Democrats need to embrace a more centrist philosophy as do the Republicans.

[Elgama]

I'm off to experience the horrors of socialised medicine tomorrow having phoned my GP today. I also had to phone my daughter's epilepsy nurse who is always at the end of the phone and in 10 days time I am off to get me teeth fixed:) oh and have my eyes tested, my daughter has had her 4th pair of glasses provided by the state this year:) and my Mum had her blood pressure etc checked when her GP asked her to come in for a routine check

[Moksha]

Bragging about the good care you get, eh Charley? Well just remember, we Americans invented the artificial process of making Velveeta Cheese.

[Elgama]

Bragging about the good care you get, eh Charley? Well just remember, we Americans invented the artificial process of making Velveeta Cheese.

lol does that truly compare to Bisto Gravy though:)?

Oh did I also add that as I am struggling to get out the house my GP suggested they may be able to arrange a home visit or just deliver my tablets to my house

[Palerider]

Unlike some of the people here.....I like the healthcare I get here in my country. Get rid of the trial lawyers and it might even be better care.

[Palerider]

Kennedy-Johnson pushed tax cuts and they were Democrats.

The national debt tripled under Reagan's administration:

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Admittedly, the national debt is increasing at an unheard of point under Obama, but the same thing was said under Reagan).

Now, to head off arguments against this: JFK would be stoned by a lot of Democrats today because of his centrist leaning policies and Reagan was the push that ended the Soviet Union. His actions were necessary for his time.

I would say that the Democrats need to embrace a more centrist philosophy as do the Republicans.

When President Kennedy talked about the american people needed tax cuts to put more money in their pockets...hard to believe it was a Democrat saying that....

[joel99]

90% is my rule-of-thumb guess - no source, sorry. Looking at revenue won't help us - my claim is about who is actually doing the research on new drugs. After a new drug shows up, it's a common practice to take it and make a minor change to sell it as a "generic". The new drug had to show up first, before folks could make their billions off the generic form.

LM

Okay, so it's a guess and not a fact. Next time perhaps surround your guesses with "USA-USA-USA" so that it's more clear. :)

From that article I linked to I don't think it would be accurate that companies like Bayer (Germany), GlaxoSmithKline (UK), AstraZeneca (UK/Sweden), etc. are simply companies selling generics.

j.

[lost87]

3 days to have tests taken ? I'll keep my group insurance same day testing thank you very much.

I'm not sure you realize this, but being a medical professional I thought I'd let you in on a little secret....there are certain medical tests that take more than 1 day to mature...GASP...and sweetheart I don't care who your insurance is but no amount of buying power is going to make those tests go any faster. If I could pay bacteria cultures and a myriad of other medical tests to go faster I wouldn't be working 16 hour shifts.

[Dravin]

I'm not sure you realize this, but being a medical professional I thought I'd let you in on a little secret....there are certain medical tests that take more than 1 day to mature...

I don't think the attitude is necessary.

Sounds like you two are talking apples and orange. You seem to be talking about results and pyxiwulf seems to be talking about scheduling the actual tests themselves*.

*Yes, I am aware that some tests require preparations, such as fasting, that require later scheduling.

[HEthePrimate]

Last time somebody told me that the American health care system is so much better than the NHS, I rather bluntly told them "No, it isn't." You see, my employer doesn't provide health care coverage, and I can't afford to buy it on my own. And even if I had more money, I have preexisting conditions, and so would likely be turned down. Even if medical care in the U.S. is better, which is open for debate, that's completely irrelevant for the millions of Americans who can't afford it.

HEP

[FunkyTown]

Plus, monkeys never get good health care except for those sell-outs who live in zoos.

Can we come up with a racist term for monkeys that live in zoos? How about slinkie-tappers. It sounds like it could be offensive without actually describing anything.

"Buncha slinkie-tappers! Stealin' our jobs and livin' on welfare. Simultaneously."

Last time somebody told me that the American health care system is so much better than the NHS, I rather bluntly told them "No, it isn't." You see, my employer doesn't provide health care coverage, and I can't afford to buy it on my own. And even if I had more money, I have preexisting conditions, and so would likely be turned down. Even if medical care in the U.S. is better, which is open for debate, that's completely irrelevant for the millions of Americans who can't afford it.

HEP

[bytor2112]

Last time somebody told me that the American health care system is so much better than the NHS, I rather bluntly told them "No, it isn't." You see, my employer doesn't provide health care coverage, and I can't afford to buy it on my own. And even if I had more money, I have preexisting conditions, and so would likely be turned down. Even if medical care in the U.S. is better, which is open for debate, that's completely irrelevant for the millions of Americans who can't afford it.

HEP

Maybe your employer can't afford it either? Have you considered buying a high deductible plan? No frills, but pays for catastrophic illness....that is what I have for my family. I pay $360.00 per month for major medical up to $2,000,000 per person....family of four. We pay for office visits and our deductible is $2500 per person and 80-20 up to $10,000, then 100% thereafter.

I would imagine a single person policy like this would be around $100.00 per month and as far as pre-existing conditions, they may not be covered....but hey might.

[boyando]

Last time somebody told me that the American health care system is so much better than the NHS, I rather bluntly told them "No, it isn't." You see, my employer doesn't provide health care coverage, and I can't afford to buy it on my own. And even if I had more money, I have preexisting conditions, and so would likely be turned down. Even if medical care in the U.S. is better, which is open for debate, that's completely irrelevant for the millions of Americans who can't afford it.

HEP

I think we all lose sight of the big question-will the US government take over of health care improve the health of it's people?

On this I can agree with President Obama (feel free to mark it on your calender, the day the boyando agreed with President Obama), we are a different country than any other country on the earth. We have different lifestyles, different work ethics, different personal goals and different outcomes from the efforts that we put into our everyday lives.

I am not saying that Europeans and Canadians are not happy with their lifestyles. I could argue that they can not afford that lifestyle much longer, but really, that is none of my business.

I am questioning if we would be happier and healthier with their lifestyle, being administered by the US government? I think you know my answer.

So how do we help out people like HEP? We are not without compassion, as a country. Even we evil conservatives don't want to see anyone suffer. The answer will always be grow the economy, not the government.

At 5% unemployment, HEP and people like him (I include myself in this group, being a employee, and not an employer) have options. At 10% unemployment, we do not. At 10%, we tend to do what we can, just to hold onto what we got. At 5% job hopping is away to make more money and/or more benefits, depending on what you ambitions are. At 10%, your only option, with out much exaggeration, is to get a government job.

There will always be people who will be busy pointing out the problems that will exist, until the second coming of Christ. And these same people will look for the government to solve these problems. So once more, I throw down the gauntlet. Show me were the US government has had a long term, positive affect, on these problems?

b

[Mahone]

Last time somebody told me that the American health care system is so much better than the NHS, I rather bluntly told them "No, it isn't." You see, my employer doesn't provide health care coverage, and I can't afford to buy it on my own. And even if I had more money, I have preexisting conditions, and so would likely be turned down. Even if medical care in the U.S. is better, which is open for debate, that's completely irrelevant for the millions of Americans who can't afford it.

HEP

My 14 year old cousin has a very serious, but also very rare heart condition (there were only five others with the condition in the UK at the time of his birth). For the first year of his life, he spent the vast majority of it in hospital. He has had countless open heart surgery operations, and will eventually need a heart transplant when he is about 18. If we lived in America, I seriously believe he would be dead now. With the amount of time he has spent in hospital, and the amount of very serious operations carried out on him, and yet to still be carried out, no insurer would ever have accepted him, that I can think of. I may be wrong, but I believe that having social health care saved my cousins life. We certainly have received far more from the NHS than we have ever paid into it via taxes.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Mahone

[HEthePrimate]

Maybe your employer can't afford it either? Have you considered buying a high deductible plan? No frills, but pays for catastrophic illness....that is what I have for my family. I pay $360.00 per month for major medical up to $2,000,000 per person....family of four. We pay for office visits and our deductible is $2500 per person and 80-20 up to $10,000, then 100% thereafter.

I would imagine a single person policy like this would be around $100.00 per month and as far as pre-existing conditions, they may not be covered....but hey might.

My employer is a small business, and I know they cannot afford it. That is why I support either a public option, or public subsidies for those who can't otherwise afford coverage, whether those subsidies go to the business or to the individual.

Peace,

HE, the "Slinkie-Tapper" Primate

[bytor2112]

My employer is a small business, and I know they cannot afford it. That is why I support either a public option, or public subsidies for those who can't otherwise afford coverage, whether those subsidies go to the business or to the individual.

Peace,

HE, the "Slinkie-Tapper" Primate

Me too.

[Cassiopeia]

When I was staying in the UK in 2007 for six weeks, I came down with pneumonia and the hotel I stayed at called a doctor for me. He phoned me in my hotel room, talked to me, then said, yes...we need to see you, come in an hour. It was within a block walking distance and I mean a short block like the crazy US blocks. I walked in, sat down right at my appointed time and they called me before I could even put my purse down. I was taken immediately to the doctor's office and what do you know...they were sitting right there waiting. I was out in 15 minutes...no charge...my medication cost me $6.00.

[Moksha]

If we lived in America, I seriously believe he would be dead now.

What a powerful and compelling thought.

Jesus does not want people to die from lack of care. He told us about the Samaritan who cared. Let's show we are up to a similar task by supporting a health care system.

[Palerider]

What a powerful and compelling thought.

Jesus does not want people to die from lack of care. He told us about the Samaritan who cared. Let's show we are up to a similar task by supporting a health care system.

He does not want people living in the street.....lets get them all a free home

I do not agree with your comment

Edited February 26, 2010 by Palerider