National heath care has arrived (Political)

[TRP]

I dunno, I have to work about an hour to feed my family for a day. Eating is fairly fundamental to continued life. Should I riot because my gov't assumes I should pay for food? How is the right to medicine superior to the right for food?

Because everyone has to work for food, but only the weak and the sick have to work for medicine; and I think a decent society is one that looks after its weak and its sick.

I work for food, shelter, clothing, medicine, sanitation and clean water. Does that make me weak and/or sick? Weak and strong alike, we all need these things (hopefully we don't have to debate over clothing & sanitation, you wouldn't want to see me naked burying my waste in my backyard )

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I was just reading a thread on another (non-RPG-related) forum and I've come across a lady who takes allegra daily and, lacking insurance, has to pay $3 a pill.

Allegra is a seasonal allergy medicine which is basically the same formulation as Claritin (available over the counter at about 1/10 the price), so 1) It's not like anyone is going to die or go to the hospital if they don't take that medicine and 2) if that woman really finds $3/day a burden, she's got several cheaper alternatives. But my main question is, are we really calling people with seasonal allergies "the weak and the sick" now?

Just for the record, I take Zyrtec daily (also available OTC, also way cheaper than $3/day) for seasonal and indoor allergies and pay for it out of pocket. I wouldn't consider myself either weak or sick and consider it pretty ridiculous that anyone would expect the government to pay for that kind of medication even if we do adopt a universal healthcare plan.

[AxeMental]

"Because everyone has to work for food, but only the weak and the sick have to work for medicine; and I think a decent society is one that looks after its weak and its sick."
_________________


P&P, everyone gets sick, and alot of the well off people I know are in far from good health (usually from living a lethargic lifestyle and over eating, also many drink (an expensive hobby once your addicted).

Here is a question for you P&P, if a new drug is developed by a company that say cures blindness, should that company be compensated for its development expense as well as given a good profit (equal to what they might get for inventing something that was non-medical related?

It seems to me that many people think medicine should be non-profit. Yet they don't seem to understand profit is what drives inovation and production.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Axe, I live near two major pharmaceuticals research laboratories belonging to Glaxo Smithkline. It's not like drugs companies can't make a profit in the UK. In fact, considering the recession they're doing bloody well.

Because a national health service doesn't stop people creating new drugs, just like it doesn't stop self-employed doctors making six-figure salaries in every town in the country.

[T. Foster]

Axe, I live near two major pharmaceuticals research laboratories belonging to Glaxo Smithkline. It's not like drugs companies can't make a profit in the UK. In fact, considering the recession they're doing bloody well.

Because a national health service doesn't stop people creating new drugs, just like it doesn't stop self-employed doctors making six-figure salaries in every town in the country.

Ah, but you're neglecting the "fact" that in the U.S any sort of private healthcare or medical practice will be banned, as part of the Democratic party's Stalinist agenda

[AxeMental]

Axe, I live near two major pharmaceuticals research laboratories belonging to Glaxo Smithkline. It's not like drugs companies can't make a profit in the UK. In fact, considering the recession they're doing bloody well.

Because a national health service doesn't stop people creating new drugs, just like it doesn't stop self-employed doctors making six-figure salaries in every town in the country.

The more profit potential you take from these companies, the less they'll be able to invest and risk loosing in going after new medications. Remember, many of those attempts fail before they hit pay dirt.

If the USA went with Alg's Canadian socialist model (the govt. determing what they'll pay for the American drugs) I wonder how that would cut into Glaxo Smiths profits (I suspect massively America is undoubtedly their biggest single market)? And I wonder if they'd be willing to take the same risks in the future on questionable drugs.

People need to choose, is it better to have new medications that cost alot (developed within the free market system), or fewer new medications (what we can expect in a socialized system)...because thats what were really talking about. As we speak there are new drug resistant strains of things like TB incubating in hospitals around the world. You sure we can't afford to pay these companies to come up with the next class of antibiotic before were hit with the next pandemic and loose millions of people world wide. What will that cost? Trillions I suspect. Sure you want to go down that road?

Alg mentioned the pro-socialist governments of the world are concerned about how to develop new drugs outside of a free market system. He failed to mention what conclusions they have drawn. I suspect the reality is, it can't be done (not at the same level as we've seen in the last few decades at least).

[AxeMental]

Ah, but you're neglecting the "fact" that in the U.S any sort of private healthcare or medical practice will be banned, as part of the Democratic party's Stalinist agenda

Thats the beauty of it, there's no need to ban private healthcare as long as the government can control what decisions your doctor makes in your behalf (what tests will you get, what perscriptions, and how long must you wait). It's a rather brilliant plan actually, no messy public debate like we saw with Clinton, just attach it to the stimulas bill with your supermajority.

Cut from Bloomberg.com:

“Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. "


Seriously Foster, non of this bothers you? You really trust your government that much?

[T. Foster]

No, I don't take that article seriously. In fact, it's been pretty thoroughly discredited as at best an alarmist misreading that jumps to completely incorrect conclusions, and at worst a deliberate attempt to distort the facts and mislead the public. See here, among other places.

[Ska]

I know and come into contact with Canadians who travel here to Florida.
Almost all of them have told me that health care is rationed and waiting times are quite long to see specialist.

The general consensus seemed to be if it is general maintenance healthcare then Canada is good, but if potentially serious conditions emerge (cancer, heart trouble, etc.) you had better get yourself to the U.S. where you can get great care quickly.

One of the leftist politicos in Canada, a screaming socialized medicine is the best banshee, recently discovered she had breast cancer. And where, oh where, did she go for complete diagnosis and treatment? To her wonderful, "I'm a doctor because I care" Canadian doctors? No the screaming socialist got on a plane and flew straight to the money hungry capatalistic docotrs in the evil land of well paid professionals ---the land of America.


Typical liberal "do as I say but not as I do." You know, just like how taxes are for the masses not the liberal elites.

[Dwayanu]

Money men do not discover treatments for illness.

The people actually doing the research are not in it for the profits that do not go into their pockets anyway.

They need equipment to do their research. They need the things other people need to live, and want a similar assortment of things to live comfortably.

A venture capitalist will fund the work in order to get more money out of it.

Other people will fund the work in order to get the product.

[Stonegiant]

Thats right the GOP payes its taxes, it just doesn't report all of its kick backs.

So far this has been a pretty civil discussion lets try and keep the fighting rhetoric out of it.

[Algolei]

I know and come into contact with Canadians who travel here to Florida.
Almost all of them have told me that health care is rationed and waiting times are quite long to see specialist.

The general consensus seemed to be if it is general maintenance healthcare then Canada is good, but if potentially serious conditions emerge (cancer, heart trouble, etc.) you had better get yourself to the U.S. where you can get great care quickly.

If the only people you meet are the ones who are unhappy with the system, we shouldn't consider their opinions to be definitive of the system.

Canadian health care does provide great care quickly for cancer, heart trouble, etc. Not everyone needs it "quickly" though. Not every illness can be best treated immediately because of the nature of the illness itself, not because of the source of the treatment. When prognosis is the same or better when you wait, but the patient doesn't believe that because they're panicking, what do you expect?

There are times when so-called "rationing" is a problem, but there is provision for patients to be sent outside of Canada for treatment. The problem with some patients seeking it themselves is, Medicare still has to pay even when the treatment is unnecessarily applied urgently and expensively.

One of the leftist politicos in Canada, a screaming socialized medicine is the best banshee, recently discovered she had breast cancer. And where, oh where, did she go for complete diagnosis and treatment? To her wonderful, "I'm a doctor because I care" Canadian doctors? No the screaming socialist got on a plane and flew straight to the money hungry capatalistic docotrs in the evil land of well paid professionals ---the land of America.

Got a name? I know one of our moderate "centralist" politicians did that a while ago, but he was a guy, so you must be talking about someone else.

Typical liberal "do as I say but not as I do." You know, just like how taxes are for the masses not the liberal elites.

It's the liberals who prefer taxes to be commensurately higher for the rich, and the conservatives who think taxes should be mostly for the masses.

[Algolei]

So far this has been a pretty civil discussion lets try and keep the fighting rhetoric out of it.

Awww, okay.

[Dwayanu]

There's a fellow whose purpose in life is to create inefficiency; the more he creates, the "fitter" he is. It is his only product.

He's a friction man, a waste-heat man, a garbage man; he has a budget of inefficiency just for making noise.

Yet we're supposed to believe him indispensable because ... things would go too inefficiently without him. Never mind all the evidence to the contrary!

[Algolei]

He's my internet provider, isn't he?