National heath care has arrived (Political)

[T. Foster]

The drug manufacturer sets the price. If the government healthcare service finds the price they set too high they offer to pay a lower price, the two sides bargain back and forth until either they agree to a middle ground or the government healthcare service decides not to buy that drug (in which case the drug manufacturer will have to make due selling their drug to private healthcare providers, and those people who want the drug will have to go to those providers (and pay extra) to obtain it). This is much more of a free market system than the current set-up in which the government (o/b/o Medicare and Medicaid) isn't allowed to bargain and has to accept whatever prices the drug manufacturers set -- an institutionalized scam to make money for drug manufacturers at the expense of everybody else that your guys (the Republican party) set up.

[Algolei]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... 4/20070914



Check out comments by Canadians on second link, such as Flanagan and Joe.

Socialized healthcare leads to rationing of care and government deciding who will make what financially.

Canadians come to America every year when important health issues must be addressed or are serious in nature.

Belinda Stronach is one of our right-wing loons who switched affiliation to the Liberal party to get a better job. She's certainly not a socialist in any way, shape or form.

People like Flanagan and Joe exist in every country. They bitch with anonymity on the internet about things they know little about.

"...the decision was made because the U.S. hospital was the best place to have it done due to the type of surgery required."

Exactly. She was referred there by her Canadian doctors. If it the surgery was better done in England, she would have been referred there. And if was better done in Canada, it would have been done in Canada. In this case, she paid for it herself rather than handing the bill to Medicare. That's surely an effect of her right-wing beliefs, since a referral from her doctor means it would have been covered.

All I know is that socialized medicine will kill innovation, drive competent people out of medicine, lead to rationing to the non-elites (who can afford to fly to India for medical care) and provide all of the goodies and fun off a government run organization.

Innovation still happens in every country that isn't the US. Competent people still practice in every country. Micromanagement still wastes plenty of money and causes plenty of problems. You can hardly tell there isn't a CEO making huge cash out of it!

I think you're just speaking out of fear rather than knowledge.

I fear that soon I too will feel what it might be like to be a Canadian citizen with a major health problem.

Cared for?

[PapersAndPaychecks]

P&P: "The NHS buys drugs at a rational price. " And there's your profit cap, each government entity (not private like Walmart or the supermarket) that does this is defeating the free market system (as they have unfair advantage to the private sector). A free market system would have the individual private insurance companies or individual wholesalers, retailers, hospitals, Walmarts etc. buying at the best rate they can muster (who in turn sell to another entity or directly to the patient at a profit).

Imagine if every country went to this sort of system (or even blocks like the EU, the NA block the SA block, the Africa block, the Asia block (so you only have a dozen say, or perhaps those blocks combined in to 2 or 3 buyers) this would hardly be a free market. We don't do this with Dell computers, nor do we do it with food (we all have to eat, its not fare that rich countries get better food then poor), IPODS (outrageously expensive!) or French Wine or English tea. What makes medication any different then any other product made by a company, are they not produced in a similar manner as any other (going threw each stage of development, and then marketing? If you take away the emotional, moral element, don't these companies have a right to be rewarded for the risk they take with their time and money (not to mention their inovation)?

Of course I understand that you can't take away the moral element. If a company invents a pill that slows the advance of cancer (after spending 6 billion doing so) everyone on the planet with cancer will want access to that pill. What the "government as buyer" system does is reduce the amount that company can collect. The company will in effect make less then it otherwise would, and if its not enough to warrant the risk then it won't continue developing new medications (who knows, their next might actually reverse cancer). So, what is "enough"? A govt. can't figure that out, only the free market can (as investors determine this on their own).

And yet somehow, BAE Systems and Rolls Royce seem to make a profit selling attack helicopters and main battle tanks. Do you think they might be selling them to insurance companies and wholesailers and retailers and hospitals?

I'm familiar with what the right-wing ideology tells you, mate, but I'm afraid that out here in the real world, it's perfectly possible for a wide range of corporations to make a rational profit selling products to governments.

Believe it or not, this is fairly basic economics.

Socialism P&P has many forms (our own economy has socialistic elements mixed in it as others have pointed out). It can be extreme (like communism) or less extreme (what the NHS is doing I consider extreme). The goal of the Free Market champion is to establish a system of economics that minimizes govt. control of the market. The limit of this would be the prevention of the monopoly (or anything like it) to ensure competition.

Fascism has many faces. It can be the sound of jack-boots in the hall outside, and the sharp rap at the door with the guy demanding to see your papers. It can be the sign that says "Jews are not allowed to use the elevator" (well, except in 21st century Amerika it would be Muslims, not Jews). And it can be depriving people of their basic, fundamental human rights by putting them in concentration camps (such as Guantanamo Bay), subjecting them to torture (such as waterboarding) or seizing their assets in return for protection (such as bankrupting them for access to essential medical care).

It's the duty of every citizen to be vigilant against creeping fascism and to fight it tooth and nail, to the death if necessary. The Amerikan hawks should be dragged out of their offices and executed by guillotine after a drumhead court martial, and the state should seize the assets they've gained through their exploitative practices and use the money to fund a new era of Liberal Atheism when we'll burn the churches and everyone will release a dove on a monthly basis...

... I did tell you what I'd do if you persisted in this "socialism" rhetoric. Why don't you and Ska drop that and return to rational discussion?

[AxeMental]

P&P your correct, Fascism is something that has to be watched and stopped when it rears its ugly head (such as the persecution of muslims (mostly Indians and Pakastanis) in your own nation, for doing nothing more then becoming successful doctors, lawyers etc.).
I think we don't disagree about fascism at all, it is one of the greatest threats to mankind.

But what exactly does fascism "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
have to do with socialism "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership or administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
(both definitions from websters)

The fact that England has a private health system that has to compete with a public (subsidized threw taxes) health system doesn't make the public system less socialist (per the definition above). You might argue that it isn't socialist because it doesn't directly own or dictate production or distribution (and that is a fare arguement). However, I'd argue that by removing competition within a society it does just that. Pretend for a moment that England is the only market for a company A's product. Company A sells to about 100 wholesalers and works out the best deals it can with all of them (a price of equalibrium is reached based on supply of that product (he does have competitors) and demand (how much is it really needed). Now imagine the government stepping in and saying, you can no longer sell to these 100 wholesalers, you can only sell to us, we are now (in essence) representing all of those entities. Suddenly the equalibrium price isn't based on competition, but rather dictation from a monopoly (the government (in this model the only "buyer"). This is anti-competitive, and in the "real world" as you like to put it there are laws on the books to prevent this in the private sector (for instance, if all the grocery stores formed a block and would only by say Coke at x amount, that would be illegal).

The fact that England allows for a private system is better than not allowing it at all. But that private system can never hope to compete with the muscle of the govt. representing (I would imagine) well over 60% of the health care industry.

[The Icemaiden]

How is what you describe different then say the government saying if you want to sell IPODs in England we'll work a price out for it and then you sell them to us (say $50 per unit). The government then passes that savings along to the people of England who buy them for $55 a piece, while Americans pay on average $150.

Are you seriously comparing Ipods with healthcare? honestly..... .....

You can live without an IPOD... you can even live quite comfortabley without an IPOD.... Medication or surgery is another matter

(on a side note...I take it you mean UK when you refer to England... if so thats like me calling the US Mexico )

I don't agree that water bording is extreme torture, certainly not too bad to use against terrorist (sorry they are criminals out to destroy the world, they actually say that in their training videos so..)? .

Bit of a side note... but anyhoo... waterboarding is torture ... It has already been used on some people who have been released without any charge...ie have been found to have committed no crime!

That from the country that boasts to be the upholder of freedom, law and order is not acceptable.

From what I can gather you have a very good justice/law system...therefore why havent trials been held and the proper system of law followed? I do not believe for one minute that there are not guilty men being held, far from it. But they must be seen to be tried and convicted following the very core values that the US/Europe upholds otherwise we are no better than them.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

P&P you think America is Facist?

No, of course not. I think it's a fairly extremist right-wing country that's lost its way under one bad president. And I think that with respect, you're missing the point of my post.

What I was saying is that it's as fair to call the US "fascist" as it is to call national health care "socialist", and that if you and Ska are going to persist in using emotive language like "socialist", then I think I'll just respond in kind.

I do think Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp, and I do think waterboarding is torture. And I think extraordinary rendition is kidnapping without charge or trial. And I think the US has an atrocious human rights record for a supposedly democratic country.

But I think that's a long way from fascism, just as I think a national health service is a long way from socialism.

I live a few hundred miles from some really socialist countries and I assure you they aren't the same thing at all.

Your correct that the NHS is partisipating in a free market activity, however its shielding the actual market from having to partisipate. How is what you describe different then say the government saying if you want to sell IPODs in England we'll work a price out for it and then you sell them to us (say $50 per unit). The government then passes that savings along to the people of England who buy them for $55 a piece, while Americans pay on average $150.

I responded to that in my previous post. Shall I cite examples of companies that sell mainly to governments and yet remain highly profitable? The whole defence industry is based on this.

[Dwayanu]

November 29th 1943

In the last month or two I have learnt for the first time in my life how much comfort and help I get from others. ... We often want to do everything ourselves, but that is a mark of false pride. Even what we owe to others belongs to ourselves, and is a part of our own lives. And when we want to calculate just how much we have learnt ourselves and how much we owe to others, it is not only un-Christian, but useless. What we are in ourselves and what we owe to others makes us a complete whole. I wanted to tell you this because I've only just found it out, though not really for the first time, for we have realized it implicitly all through the years of our vita communis.

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison

[AxeMental]

Crap, I just changed my last post but you guys responded to it already. My apologies.

OK UK. And "Nationalized" (which btw means the same thing as socialized, but I'll use it to make you happy).

Yes, an IPOD is a product, just like the latest pill to lower blood preasure. The fact that it helps you doesn't mean you have to buy it or have a right to it (you can purchase that 2007 medication that worked pretty well (or an older generic) thats much cheaper just less effective). If you want the newest product just released you buy it and pay a premium for it (just like those who get the leanest healthiest meat and veggies do at the supermarket giving them better general health). That sounds harsh, but thats the reality of it. Even a millionaire can't afford the same health care as say Bill Gates, thats just how life is. Our Govt. buys these drugs to help the poor who can't. Insurance brokers deals to keep costs down. The ones that get screwed are those that work with no insurance (and have to buy at a higher cost). Many of those choose not to buy insurance (but can afford it) many are like Sean just stuck in a shit position (pre-existing or can't afford it). Presently the system is profitable enough to cover those people, but it can't last. We can either nationalize (resulting in rationing and hurting the free market system making it less profitable thus less worth entering) or we can simply remove all the govt. and private sector expenses on the health care system as possible (tort reform etc) to drive costs down (see my previous 10 zillion posts). I'd prefer the second choice (while I guess guys like Joe B and Dw prefer the first option without cost cutting reform attempted first).

[Dwayanu]

If Apple's bosses know they can't make a profit selling iPods, then the firm simply won't sell them.

If Apple is nationalized, then the iPods are produced anyway -- because having them rather than not having them is the measure of "profit."

Tough turnips for someone who wanted to make a lot of money by charging a lot more than the cost ... but how is ensuring his luxury a moral imperative for the rest of us?

That's not just a rhetorical question, unless they all are. If there's anything here but "faith-based" policy, then real answers are significant.

[AxeMental]

Dw, you capitalist free marketer you!!!

[Stonegiant]

Axe you do know that all state employees are covered by a health insurance plan owned by the State of Florida? The insurance plan is administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield but is owned by the govt.

[Werral]

What about prisoners in US jails?

[Ska]

Algolei----did you get a chance to read the concerns of the doctor in the other link concerning the problems with Canada's medical system?

[Flambeaux]

I think it's a fairly extremist right-wing country

Off-topic, but I can only say I wish this were true. Sadly, it is nowhere near extremist or right-wing.

[AxeMental]

P&P I think England is so far left from us (in so many ways) it makes us look extremely right, just as France is so much farther left it makes England look extremely right to the average Frenchman. In truth our country is far left to where it could be.

Basically the question isn't ethical (we all agree on the need for basic healthcare), the question is rather economics (what system best gets us there) and thats were we differ in opinion. I doubt we will ever come to an agreement, because I think nationalist (or socialist) policies limit freedom of citizens (if I invent something, produce it, market it (all costing money and very risky), I damn well should be able to get what I can for that product in an open market, be it a new medication or a new type of toilet plunger). I also see that as the best way to get new products developed, keep costs down, and offer the best services (while all at the same time offering the best profit to those in the health care profession). You guys just don't see that as a reality (you think the government can do it better). All I can say is study basic free market economics and see how it really works. Are there new medicines that are so expensive no one but the extremely rich can afford them...yes. Does everyone have an ethical right to that medicine...yes (including those humans living in the poorest conditions in Africa). But reality plays its part, and we can only do so much for "free" because "free" is actually money taken from tax payers, and you can only pay so much in taxes before you become poor yourself.

P&P your comparison for govt. contracts for military weapons is flawed. The govt. can only buy from one company for the next fighter jet because it needs consistancy and reliability. It can buy from 1000 different drug makers if it chooses.