YAH for Socialized Healthcare!!

[Parkbandit]

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
BY DAVID GRATZER


Posted 6/25/2008

As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.

But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.

Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.

De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.

Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.

A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.

Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.

Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."

As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.

However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=299282509335931

My favorite part:

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

[Stanley Burrell]

Boy howdy.

[Daniel]

This was my favorite part:

Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.

[Stanley Burrell]

This was my favorite part:

Polls show

You can't argue with FACT mang.

And now, a play on words:

http://therionarms.com/armor/polearm2.jpg

[crb]

People need to accept that healthcare is a limited resource, then it becomes obvious that changing who pays for the resource doesn't do anything and if you don't ration it on price you ration it in other ways, lotteries, waiting lists, etc.

They also need to accept that people act more thirfty when it costs them money. If healthcare is free, why bother conserving it? It doesn't cost you anything.

Finally, we need solutions that address the problem, rising costs, and not the symptom, millions of uninsured. If healthcare was as cheap as it was in 1990 or 1980, we wouldn't have millions of uninsured, so we need to go back and figure out where the increases in costs have come from. (hint, doctors salaries adjusted for inflation are down over that period, nurse wages are up, but that isn't huge numbers, what has increased is the amount of administrative, bureacratic, and legal work a hospital must do).

Healthcare needs to be treated like any other industry, with choice, competition, upfront pricing, and public disclosure of success/infection etc rates. Then make healthcare benefits taxable wages, offset by a tax credit, thus making it moot whether your get your insurance from work or by yourself, and thus no longer penalizing those who get it themselves. Then engage in a public education campaign about HSAs, which really are great tools, and let consumers control more of their healthcare dollars and let them compare things based on price etc.

[Drew]

Good post CRB.

I believe the biggest problem with healthcare in the US is regulations, deregulate the system, fix the problem. We've got thousands of chefs ruining our healthcare cake. A free market health care system would care for people much more efficiently than our current one which is anything but free market. The downside to such a system is there is inevitably that single mother with 5 kids who falls through cracks via poverty, lack of outside support systems, and just plain bad luck. All these government contrived systems and regulations are meant to save that lady, but they cost us all so much more. Once we accept that we can't save everyone, we'll get better health care for the vast majority of people.

[Gan]

My favorite part of the article:


We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

[Parkbandit]

You can't have health care reform without addressing frivolous and excessive lawsuits.. as well as the massive awards handed out.

[Warriorbird]

Corporations and doctors never do anything wrong.

[Parkbandit]

Corporations and doctors never do anything wrong.

Guess you missed this part:


(hint, doctors salaries adjusted for inflation are down over that period, nurse wages are up, but that isn't huge numbers, what has increased is the amount of administrative, bureacratic, and legal work a hospital must do).


Thanks for adding your typical bullshit one liner though. What would a political thread be without it!

[Gan]

Corporations and doctors never do anything wrong.
And neither does the government.

I'll take the former over the latter.

[Ashliana]

Anyone who believes that a completely de-regulated healthcare market would magically "fix" all our problems is either fooling themselves or simply delusional. This is a persistant problem that has plagued us through control of both parties; while people like to claim that "socialized healthcare is a nightmare," our current system is broken. Absolutely broken.

Healthcare continues to become exponentially more and more expensive, numbers of uninsured people are preposterously high and satisfaction rates with the healthcare system are lower HERE than in Canada OR the UK, where your so-called "hell of socialized medicine" exists.


http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20041029/us-health-care-satisfaction-trails-others][/url] One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16% of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing approval among the countries surveyed.

Even FOX News reported the same thing: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html

What exactly are you basing the argument against socialized medicine on? Anecdotal evidence of a woman with a tumor?

I'm not especially pro-socialization or pro-private. But our current system is doing nothing except dumping huge amounts of cash into the bloated, doctors-prescribe-pills-for-EVERYTHING healthcare system that we've developed.

You argue that "de-regulation" would be the solution to this? That is bullshit. How exactly do you think doctors have adopted the mindset that every ache and cough needs expensive screenings and prescription medicines? Two factors.

1) Pharmaceutical companies pushing medicines that should be made to treat ailments as a commercial, for-profit product. By giving doctors bonuses for prescribing their drugs (which the insurance companies have to shell out for), you're incentivizing the prescription of unnecessary drugs to patients that should be taking better actions.

2) Doctors have caved in to the "I don't want to exercise or eat right, I want a pill that lowers my blood pressure/cholestoral FOR me" laziness our culture has adopted. A huge part of the current industry's expenses are carrying for obesity-related ailments. Diabetes, high blood pressure/cholestoral, heart disease, etc. There's a difference between taking advantage of new medicines to treat previously untreatable illnesses. But Doctors prescribing antibiotics to mindless patients who demand them, despite their illness being viral[/b[ helps absolutely no one, and has made healthcare more expensive for us all.

Do medical malpractice suits and their associated insurance costs for the doctor drive up healthcare costs? Yes, but some recourse is [b]necessary for negligence. Hard caps would be ideal here, or federally backed medical practice insurance, similar to flood insurance.

De-regulation never has and never will be "the answer" to any industry's woes. We're in the current economic woes we're in now specifically because the conservative party of our government has massively de-regulated the financial industry--especially housing/lending practices.

[Warriorbird]

I understand that you want corporations to have more rights than individuals or the government, Ganalon and Parkbandit. Fortunately the country still sort of resembles America.

Now if the government wanted to wiretap a corporation? You'd be all over that.

[Deathravin]

If healthcare was as cheap as it was in 1990 or 1980, we wouldn't have millions of uninsured, so we need to go back and figure out where the increases in costs have come from.

The uninsured rate in the US hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. It's been a fairly steady 13-16%. So your 'cheap' health insurance of 1990 still had a rather high uninsured rate.

[Parkbandit]

I understand that you want corporations to have more rights than individuals or the government, Ganalon and Parkbandit. Fortunately the country still sort of resembles America.

Now if the government wanted to wiretap a corporation? You'd be all over that.

You are an idiot of epic proportions. That's exactly what we're saying.. that we want corporations to have more rights than individuals. Wow, you really nailed it Brainiac.

[Gan]

Anyone who believes that a completely de-regulated healthcare market would magically "fix" all our problems is either fooling themselves or simply delusional. This is a persistant problem that has plagued us through control of both parties; while people like to claim that "socialized healthcare is a nightmare," our current system is broken. Absolutely broken.

Healthcare continues to become exponentially more and more expensive, numbers of uninsured people are preposterously high and satisfaction rates with the healthcare system are lower HERE than in Canada OR the UK, where your so-called "hell of socialized medicine" exists.



Even FOX News reported the same thing: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html

What exactly are you basing the argument against socialized medicine on? Anecdotal evidence of a woman with a tumor?

I'm not especially pro-socialization or pro-private. But our current system is doing nothing except dumping huge amounts of cash into the bloated, doctors-prescribe-pills-for-EVERYTHING healthcare system that we've developed.

You argue that "de-regulation" would be the solution to this? That is bullshit. How exactly do you think doctors have adopted the mindset that every ache and cough needs expensive screenings and prescription medicines? Two factors.

1) Pharmaceutical companies pushing medicines that should be made to treat ailments as a commercial, for-profit product. By giving doctors bonuses for prescribing their drugs (which the insurance companies have to shell out for), you're incentivizing the prescription of unnecessary drugs to patients that should be taking better actions.

2) Doctors have caved in to the "I don't want to exercise or eat right, I want a pill that lowers my blood pressure/cholestoral FOR me" laziness our culture has adopted. A huge part of the current industry's expenses are carrying for obesity-related ailments. Diabetes, high blood pressure/cholestoral, heart disease, etc. There's a difference between taking advantage of new medicines to treat previously untreatable illnesses. But Doctors prescribing antibiotics to mindless patients who demand them, despite their illness being viral[/b[ helps absolutely no one, and has made healthcare more expensive for us all.

Do medical malpractice suits and their associated insurance costs for the doctor drive up healthcare costs? Yes, but some recourse is [B]necessary for negligence. Hard caps would be ideal here, or federally backed medical practice insurance, similar to flood insurance.

De-regulation never has and never will be "the answer" to any industry's woes. We're in the current economic woes we're in now specifically because the conservative party of our government has massively de-regulated the financial industry--especially housing/lending practices.

I dont think anyone on these boards has decried complete unregulated healthcare or anything of that nature. I believe that there needs to be some regulation for any corporation. What I do belive, and what studies upon studies have concluded - this thread included, is that a nationalized healthcare program is a bad thing.

You could assume that means that the extreme opposite is the ultimate goal for people such as myself. But you would be assuming - which is also a bad thing.

[Warriorbird]

You are an idiot of epic proportions. That's exactly what we're saying.. that we want corporations to have more rights than individuals. Wow, you really nailed it Brainiac.

You're in favor of limiting the individual's right to sue a corporation. I kind of did nail it. Next!

[Fallen]

What do people see as reasonable caps on malpractice? How many millions do you need to ensure you've 24 hour care? Surely less than 10. I am completely in favor of practical limitations on "Pain and suffering" payments.

[Warriorbird]

So. What do you value someone's life at? That's the role you're placing yourself in. Is punishing a company (multi-national or no) or a person for something at a level that will actually effect them reasonable?

[CrystalTears]

Is asking that malpractice suits not allow for someone to ask for 30 million dollars unreasonable? Is that really punishing someone?

[Fallen]

I suppose part of the deal should be all medical care is paid for by the hospital, with all choice of medical care, within reason, in the hands of the plaintive..

Then you have the issue of "Pain and Suffering", not "Punishing the Corperation" fees. Again, how many millions do you need to live comfortably? There has to be some sort of limit, and I dont think it should be hundreds of millions.

[g++]

What do people see as reasonable caps on malpractice? How many millions do you need to ensure you've 24 hour care? Surely less than 10. I am completely in favor of practical limitations on "Pain and suffering" payments.

I remember vaguely hearing that the loss of a productive citizen was valued at 6 million dollars by airlines. Like their risk assessment teams would expect to pay out 6 million per passenger if one of their planes crashed for preventable negligence reasons. That was in like 2002 so I wouldent be shocked if risk assessment people had the cost of life up to 10 by now.

That said the medical field is different. Doctors are human and we need them and if everytime they make a mistake society expects the doctor to pay 6 million dollars, expect to pay 200k to get surgery done. Im not defending incompetant doctors but whats effectively happening is we have a doctor who (possibly) should be reprimanded for bad professional conduct instead getting sued for millions of dollars which gets payed out by insurance who hike their rates up for doctors who hike their fees up for patients. Im not saying there should not be pay outs for malpractice but they should be capped well below what an airline would pay out for dropping you 1000 feet in a plane they know is fucked up.

[Warriorbird]

It's much more up to the jury than it is the person bringing the suit. It typically is not hundreds of millions. 'Tort reformers' have tried to place caps as low as 2 million in malpractice which I find pretty nuts in principle.

I consider insurance companies far worse culprits than doctors, lawyers, or individuals in this.

[g++]

I consider insurance companies far worse culprits than doctors, lawyers, or individuals in this.
Extrapolate please

[Warriorbird]

I feel like they give away certain high limit policies far too easily... which allows people to sue up to and beyond those limits. They force doctors into accepting less and less for certain procedures and types of care. They do what they can to avoid paying out to customers who have been the victims of malpractice or high end claims causing occurrences. Then they want to limit customer's ability to sue doctors so that they don't have to pay out there.

They're just being businesses... but businesses are exceedingly amoral entities. I'm not so hooked on the notion of universal healthcare... but the insurance industry has a lot of culpability in what's wrong with our current system. They love to pawn it off on lawsuits but there's a lot more facets to it than that.

EDIT:

Suggesting that pharmacists should prescribe more medicine or different medicine for a particular client is also a mindbogglingly crazy insurance company stunt. They clearly know more than that patient's doctor!

[g++]

I feel like they give away certain high limit policies far too easily... which allows people to sue up to and beyond those limits. They force doctors into accepting less and less for certain procedures and types of care. They do what they can to avoid paying out to customers who have been the victims of malpractice or high end claims causing occurrences. Then they want to limit customer's ability to sue doctors so that they don't have to pay out there.

They're just being businesses... but businesses are exceedingly amoral entities. I'm not so hooked on the notion of universal healthcare... but the insurance industry has a lot of culpability in what's wrong with our current system. They love to pawn it off on lawsuits but there's a lot more facets to it than that.

EDIT:

Suggesting that pharmacists should prescribe more medicine or different medicine for a particular client is also a mindbogglingly crazy insurance company stunt. They clearly know more than that patient's doctor!

Errm Ok. I was just genuinely curious what you were getting at, I'm not too informed on the health care industries stratagems. I guess im not shocked to find out they try to maximize profits either though.

[Warriorbird]

It is what they need to do for their shareholders. I understand that. I just think all the people complaining about "frivolous lawsuits!" don't quite realize the companies and 'reformers' want to take away the chances for the ones that aren't frivolous or remove their impact.

[Ashliana]

I'm not specifically "anti-corporate" or even "pro-independent," but it seems to me that in the last few decades, medicine has become far less about helping the patient and far more about profit.

An obese patient or a middle-aged man with high blood pressure might not want to hear that exercise and good eating are the real solution to his problems. Telling him that, when any other doctor might just shell out a prescription drug, could drive him to another physician.

Patients want unnecessary "care" because it's easier. Doctors want it because they get paid bonuses by pharmaceutical companies as well as the extra business.. Pharmaceutical companies want it because it makes their company more product.

I'm not implying a "conspiracy." Our entire culture is based around profit. It's not hard to believe it's made its way into healthcare--one of the few areas it doesn't belong.

[Fallen]

If you tell a guy he is overweight, and his health problems should be address by exercise and diet, with no accompanying medicine, he will just go to another doctor who will give him pills. I am quite sure any doctor that hands out said medicine will also tell the person to start exercising and dieting.

Are you suggesting you would refuse medication to people who are obese unless they are willing to diet and exercise?

[crb]

Oh this is the wrong argument to have here lady... I've researched this very very heavily, read probably 1000 pages on healthcare policies here and around the world.



Healthcare continues to become exponentially more and more expensive, numbers of uninsured people are preposterously high and satisfaction rates with the healthcare system are lower HERE than in Canada OR the UK, where your so-called "hell of socialized medicine" exists.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WebMD, One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16% of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing approval among the countries surveyed.


Even FOX News reported the same thing: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html

Opinion polls are about as useful as an asshole on an elbow. Perception doesn't change reality. For instance, the consumer confidence index put out by UofM. In relationship to consumer spending or GDP growth, there is no direct relationship that can be shown over time, in fact they often move in opposite directions. Consumer Confidence is an opinion poll, the others are actual economic measurements.



What exactly are you basing the argument against socialized medicine on? Anecdotal evidence of a woman with a tumor?

I'm not especially pro-socialization or pro-private. But our current system is doing nothing except dumping huge amounts of cash into the bloated, doctors-prescribe-pills-for-EVERYTHING healthcare system that we've developed.

Statistics, facts. You think there has only been one cancer patient in canada who has died because of waiting lists? One elderly gentleman in britain who couldn't get dialysis? Do some research. Visit the websites of newspapers based in Britain or based in Canada or based in New Zealand. This is a great website with tons of links to such articles at foreign newspapers: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

The proponents of socialized healthcare, aka the Michael Moore set, like to use life expectancy to show that us, at like 27th, must have shitty healthcare. Obviously, far more enters into life expectancy than healthcare. Not even counting all the big macs we eat, if you factor out traffic accidents and homicides US citizens have the longest life expectancy.

The better statistics to look at are ease of access to care, treatments, high end stuff, and survival rates for diseases/injuries.

In Canada if you find a lump in your breast you could wait 6 weeks or longer to see an oncologist and 6 weeks or longer to start Chemo. In the US you can do both in under 10 days. Which system do you think gives you a better chance of survival?

There is a reason the US leads the world in things like cancer survival rates, stroke recovery rates, heart attack survival rates, etc.



But our current system is doing nothing except dumping huge amounts of cash into the bloated, doctors-prescribe-pills-for-EVERYTHING healthcare system that we've developed.

You argue that "de-regulation" would be the solution to this? That is bullshit. How exactly do you think doctors have adopted the mindset that every ache and cough needs expensive screenings and prescription medicines? Two factors.

Doctors order expensive screenings to protect their butt in case of a lawsuit. Do you think have of what doctors do is their choice? It isn't, it is all mandated and set down by bureacrats or case law and if you don't follow the accepted "standard of care" for something and something goes wrong it is your ass.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/22/eveningnews/main3394654.shtml

The cost of our legal system is not JUST malpractice premiums.



1) Pharmaceutical companies pushing medicines that should be made to treat ailments as a commercial, for-profit product. By giving doctors bonuses for prescribing their drugs (which the insurance companies have to shell out for), you're incentivizing the prescription of unnecessary drugs to patients that should be taking better actions.

This is just incorrect. You have no idea the volume of ethical rules and laws preventing this.



2) Doctors have caved in to the "I don't want to exercise or eat right, I want a pill that lowers my blood pressure/cholestoral FOR me" laziness our culture has adopted. A huge part of the current industry's expenses are carrying for obesity-related ailments. Diabetes, high blood pressure/cholestoral, heart disease, etc. There's a difference between taking advantage of new medicines to treat previously untreatable illnesses. But Doctors prescribing antibiotics to mindless patients who demand them, despite their illness being [b]viral[/b[ helps absolutely no one, and has made healthcare more expensive for us all.

You're blaming doctors? In many places it is illegal for a doctor to deny a patient a medication they ask for, literally. Here in michigan if a patient presents with pain you have to offer them prescription pain killers and you cannot deny them if they say yes.

Do you think doctors should arrest people for not walking? Put a beat down on them for not switching to whole grains? Drop kick them in the head for not quitting smoking? Car bomb them for eating at McDonalds?

My wife (4th year med student) just on Friday had this story about this woman who needed to go on a statin and she kept going on about how she should walk every day and eat better and the woman just repeatedly kept asking for the pill. Michigan is like the fatest state I remember hearing, and so many of my wife's patients she sees are overweight, smoke, etc. We're both really into fitness and so she is always trying to help them with their diet etc, but they just don't listen.



Do medical malpractice suits and their associated insurance costs for the doctor drive up healthcare costs? Yes, but some recourse is necessary for negligence. Hard caps would be ideal here, or federally backed medical practice insurance, similar to flood insurance.


It isn't Negligence. Lets say you're a doctor and you're in an ER and seeing 40 patients an hour because that is the volume the system has shafted you with and one patient comes in and you forget to carry a decimal and are off by .1 in some prescription that sends someone into cardiac arrest or something. They almost die, but they survive, only their heart has been weakened by the trauma and now they're at risk for further heart attacks and death. Is that Negligence? No, thats doing your best and not being perfect.

How about this? Pretend you've got a minor patient at a rural hospital who is sick and they can't figure out why. He has got hard veins to fine so for the tests the nurses have to keep sticking him and that frustrates his parents. Eventually his parents get annoyed and take him him against the protests of the doctor and nurses. he dies that night. Lawsuit (not making that up).

Or... a repeat offender at the county lockup complains constantly to the guards about a headache, then she passes out. She is taken to, again, a smaller hospital. They cannot figure out what is wrong with her, they need to do a CT scan, so they send her down to the city. She dies enroute. Lawsuit. Turns out she had a one in a million weird form of neck cancer around her spine, it couldn't be located except with a CT scan, and she had no chance of living. Sure, maybe the jail guards could have been more attentive but the lawyers sued the county (was a county jail), the hospital, the doctor, and the ambulance company.

Most such lawsuits never go to trial because they're too expensive to fight, the lawyers know that, so they get a nice settlement for almost no work, which is why they'll sue everyone who touches the patient, even people who never touched the patient at times, but were merely associated with people who touched the patient.

Every single malpractice reform bill has included exceptions for gross negligence. Amputating a leg instead of performing a masectomy is negligence, leaving a scalpal inside your abdomen is negligence, forgetting to rule out appendicitis for lower right quadrant pain is probably negligence. Missing a big tumor on an X-ray is negligence. Atleast 90% of malpractice lawsuits do not involve negligence, and that is the problem.

Also, let me say, the myth of rich doctors is a myth. My wife in 1 year will be a first year resident. Residents are the doctors you're most likely to interface with in a hospital. She will make $42k a year at 90 hours weeks. Including overnight call which sucks. This isn't exactly a cake walk job either, she's had 8 years of schooling, taken out over $100k in loans easy (thank god I make money and pay all the bills), and she'll go deal with stressful life and death situations and unruly patients for about $12 an hour, which is as much as she made as a receptionist way back when.

Sure, after 4 years of residency she'll be able to go have a private practice somewhere and... if we end up with Obama she'll probably have the government telling her how to practice, heck if they emulate Canada too much the government will try to tell us where to live. So ya, eventually, 12 years in, and in debt, and working your ass off, she'll be able to make good money... and then only have to worry about getting sued because she wasn't perfect (how many of us are perfect at our jobs?). Remember.. it doesn't matter if you can win the lawsuit, because even if you could win, you still lose because of the legal costs involved (and then your malpractice premiums get increased).

$250k for pain and suffering unless there was gross misconduct is a good start. Then the damages are actual economic damages. If death occured, you take the person's income, multiplied by the number of years they would have earned it, minus their cost of living. If mere injury, the cost of care for that injury. But moreso what is needed is a system in place where plaintiffs must prove reasonable fault on the doctor's case to a panel or to a judge for the case to go forward.

Or... make it a public fund. All healthcare services are taxed, that tax goes into a fund. If you're injured from malpractice you present your claim to an elected board of overseers, and they decide how much you get, and it is paid out of the fund. They do that for contractors. If a contractor is licensed by the state here and skips out on you, there is a public fund for insurance where you can get reimbursed from. Lawyer fees would be cut down drastically, everyone would see the "malpractice tax" on the bill and know how much they're paying towards it, and the system would be vastly more efficient. You'd have to make sure the people on the tribunal weren't getting kickbacks, but thats all. I believe the airlines did this with 911 too.

OF course it'll never happen, the personal injury lawyer lobby is alive and well with the Democratic party, but one can dream.

The beauty, is, of course, that the fund has a finite amount of money, and you could only get a portion of it. If the fund were to increase in size, the tax would need to go up, and so voters (or their reps) would have to vote for the tax increase (and we know tax increases aren't popular).

There is still of course risk for the doctor, if he messes up he can lose his license and lose his livelihood.



De-regulation never has and never will be "the answer" to any industry's woes. We're in the current economic woes we're in now specifically because the conservative party of our government has massively de-regulated the financial industry--especially housing/lending practices.

We're having housing problems not because of deregulation, but because of our consumer culture + the Clinton administrations policies enacted in the mid90s to open up home ownership to more people. Used to be if you were poor or had bad credit you couldn't get a loan, but the government wanted more people in homes so....

The answer is public education (don't buy things you can't afford), and public education would do a lot for the healthcare industry too.

[Deathravin]

Maybe you should just write a book so I can not read that too.

[Gan]

Good post CRB.

:clap:

I would have jumped in with my soapbox about patient throughput and wait times for hospitals in the US versus Canada (for which I was a consultant for); however, I'm feeling too lazy to search for it from previous threads. Lets suffice to say that availability of healthcare (immediate and appointment) is vastly different here in the US versus a nationalized program like Canada's (as the OP reinforces, and as the thread topic covers). Not to mention the quality of care of the facility between a government run versus a privately funded hospital are also vastly different. I'll let others ponder the increase in odds of infection rates (socomial and nosocomial infections) comparable across the different types of facilities in question. Suffice to say the quality of cleanliness is on average higher at privately (for-profit) funded facilities than government run (nationalized types for instance).

But by all means - those who wish to experience nationalized healthcare at is finest should take a short trip north to America's Hat and see first hand what its like. Just dont make the rest of us who live with the Che Guevarra Red blinders OFF be subjected to such a dismal system and business/healthcare model.

I'll even pitch in for the bus ticket if you dont want to drive (or cant).

[crb]

I'm not specifically "anti-corporate" or even "pro-independent," but it seems to me that in the last few decades, medicine has become far less about helping the patient and far more about profit.

An obese patient or a middle-aged man with high blood pressure might not want to hear that exercise and good eating are the real solution to his problems. Telling him that, when any other doctor might just shell out a prescription drug, could drive him to another physician.

Patients want unnecessary "care" because it's easier. Doctors want it because they get paid bonuses by pharmaceutical companies as well as the extra business.. Pharmaceutical companies want it because it makes their company more product.

I'm not implying a "conspiracy." Our entire culture is based around profit. It's not hard to believe it's made its way into healthcare--one of the few areas it doesn't belong.
What do you think prescription drug profits fund?

You think the CEO takes all the profit from a drug, and buys the world's biggest boat?

Drug companies are research companies, they need new drugs or they die, all of their extra cash is funneled into research, research that may save your life one day.

Sure, new drugs are expensive, for 14 years, then they are cheap. People who get the newest drugs are subsidizing drug research and allowing the drugs to be cheaper for everyone else after 14 years, they're also subsidizing the drugs for poor people as many companies can give you drugs for cheaper or free depending on your economic circumstances (or like donating a bunch of HIV drugs for people in Africa).

I personally would rather have drugs be expensive for 14 years, than to have never been invented at all.

If you can't afford the newest drug, well, that is too bad, you'll just have to make due with the second newest drug, or the third newest drug. If a drug is still on patent that means that 14 or less years ago it didn't even exist, and people were reasonable okay, so use what they used then.

People have this attitude where if drugs were like cars they would all demand a Bentley or walk. Settle for the chevy malibu people.

Now, a doctor is obligated to prescibe the best medicine, but if you ask him for something cheaper or generic, he (or she) will almost always give you that instead, or try to get you free samples (yes... those evil drug companies give doctors free samples to give to their poorer patients).

Decrying profit overall is a bad idea. The profit motive is what drives civilization. I want to make a million bucks making widgets, so I need to make a better widget than the next guy. The consumer gets a better widget, I get my million bucks, hooray.

If a drug company wants to be profitable, they need to make a drug that is better than other name brand drugs, better than generic drugs, or cheaper. So the consumer gets either a better drug, or a cheaper drug, and the drug company gets profits, hooray.

If you're worried a company is going to do unethical things to promote their drug... well that is what laws are for, and the FDA, and everything else.

[Warriorbird]

I think the most revelatory fact is that your wife is a 4th year medical student. You of course have no bias whatsoever.

Your wife's still a student. I know a doctor with a local practice who pulled in $260k. It is not an underpaid field.

Drug companies make profits. My ex's Mom worked at Pfizer. Believe you me... they are not underpaid.


If a drug company wants to be profitable, they need to make a drug that is better than other name brand drugs, better than generic drugs, or cheaper

Or just repackage one of the old ones and advertise and then pimp it on doctors.

And don't tell me that insurance companies don't profit either.

[Deathravin]

It doesn't matter, some micro black hole is going to swallow up the earth in August anyway...

[crb]

So because I have a more intimate knowledge of the medical industry from the side not often seen by the public my opinion is less valuable?

I am biased because I don't want my wife treated like a slave told where to live and what to practice like in Canada. Thats true, certainly.

But everything else is unrelated or is fact. It certainly isn't my opinion that long term survival rates in the US exceed other countries. It certainly isn't my opinion that you tend to have quicker access to life saving procedures in the US.

Quite frankly, my bias is about living. Socialized medicine scares the shit out of me because I don't want to die. I don't want to get cancer and have my choices me a 4 month waiting list here, because private medicine is illegal and I'm stuck with shitty government care, or flying to India on my dime and engaging in some good old fashioned capitalism fueled medical tourism.

Thats the thing, socialized healthcare results in a lower quality of care, and more people dying. It is great at fixing common things, but for severe problems it falls woefully short. The people who end up screwed and dead could be someone you know, someone you love, or even yourself, and that should be enough to convince anyone to be against.

[crb]

... and I will say I support some public funded healthcare... specifically preventative care.

Like a mammogram office, once a year any US citizen with boobs can walk in and get a mammogram done, free. No treatment, just the check.

Health offices where once a year any US citizen can walk in and get their blood checked and get free information (pamphlets, videos) about healthy living.

The government can get bids from private groups to cover such services in each area, with regulators making sure they're ethnical, and expedient.

But again... just preventative testing stuff. Not treatment, because when the government puts hands in treatment they end up controlling your quality of care and what options you have available. Treatment is also more expensive.

Consequently I also think birth control could be made free, because there is nothing more expensive to society than an unwanted pregnancy by someone who cannot support the child. A pregancy is more expensive than birth control, and raising a kid is more expensive still. In those cases tax payers end up footing the bill, I'd rather pay for the cheapest option, free birth control.

[Warriorbird]

No... because of your rather evident bias.

I've had excellent care in several countries with socialized medicine. I don't particularly want it in America (and I doubt it will ever happen) but your "Drug companies never do anything wrong!" "Doctors never do anything wrong!" "Let's cap lawsuit awards at a million bucks for somebody's life!" notions are more indicative of you being a part of Fantasyland.

Implying that your wife "will be treated like a slave" shows you off in an even more ridiculous light. She's being paid while she gets her education. She'll be paid a lot more once she's done. She'll get bribed by pharmaceutical salesman and take part in a lot of the things that make people mad about the system.

She'll also suffer a lot of the stunts that insurance companies pull. She'll take risks. She'll save lives. She knew about it all before she agreed to attend school I'm sure.

[Parkbandit]

I think the most revelatory fact is that your wife is a 4th year medical student. You of course have no bias whatsoever.

Your wife's still a student. I know a doctor with a local practice who pulled in $260k. It is not an underpaid field.

Drug companies make profits. My ex's Mom worked at Pfizer. Believe you me... they are not underpaid.



I think the most revelatory fact is that your ex-mother in law works in the pharmaceutical industry. You of course have no bias whatsoever.

[Warriorbird]

She's more honest than her daughter at least. I've seen the inside of the industry from both her accounts and from my own experiences in insurance.

Drug companies and insurance companies do a lot of good... but their highest interest is profit. By not curtailing people's ability to get legal recourse you give a check to some of the dangerous things those companies do in pursuit of it. Without any checks on those dangerous things you have the equivalent of a Republican Congress and a Republican President or a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President... something largely uncontrolled whose best interests aren't necessarily the public's.

[Stanley Burrell]

Torte Reform works. Thanks Mr. President.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Crb
What do you think prescription drug profits fund?

You think the CEO takes all the profit from a drug, and buys the world's biggest boat?

Drug companies are research companies, they need new drugs or they die, all of their extra cash is funneled into research, research that may save your life one day.

Sure, new drugs are expensive, for 14 years, then they are cheap. People who get the newest drugs are subsidizing drug research and allowing the drugs to be cheaper for everyone else after 14 years, they're also subsidizing the drugs for poor people as many companies can give you drugs for cheaper or free depending on your economic circumstances (or like donating a bunch of HIV drugs for people in Africa).

I personally would rather have drugs be expensive for 14 years, than to have never been invented at all.

If you can't afford the newest drug, well, that is too bad, you'll just have to make due with the second newest drug, or the third newest drug. If a drug is still on patent that means that 14 or less years ago it didn't even exist, and people were reasonable okay, so use what they used then.

People have this attitude where if drugs were like cars they would all demand a Bentley or walk. Settle for the chevy malibu people.

Now, a doctor is obligated to prescibe the best medicine, but if you ask him for something cheaper or generic, he (or she) will almost always give you that instead, or try to get you free samples (yes... those evil drug companies give doctors free samples to give to their poorer patients).

Decrying profit overall is a bad idea. The profit motive is what drives civilization. I want to make a million bucks making widgets, so I need to make a better widget than the next guy. The consumer gets a better widget, I get my million bucks, hooray.

If a drug company wants to be profitable, they need to make a drug that is better than other name brand drugs, better than generic drugs, or cheaper. So the consumer gets either a better drug, or a cheaper drug, and the drug company gets profits, hooray.

If you're worried a company is going to do unethical things to promote their drug... well that is what laws are for, and the FDA, and everything else.

Let them eat cake indeed!

[Daniel]

What do you think prescription drug profits fund?

You think the CEO takes all the profit from a drug, and buys the world's biggest boat?

Drug companies are research companies, they need new drugs or they die, all of their extra cash is funneled into research, research that may save your life one day.

Sure, new drugs are expensive, for 14 years, then they are cheap. People who get the newest drugs are subsidizing drug research and allowing the drugs to be cheaper for everyone else after 14 years, they're also subsidizing the drugs for poor people as many companies can give you drugs for cheaper or free depending on your economic circumstances (or like donating a bunch of HIV drugs for people in Africa).

I personally would rather have drugs be expensive for 14 years, than to have never been invented at all.

If you can't afford the newest drug, well, that is too bad, you'll just have to make due with the second newest drug, or the third newest drug. If a drug is still on patent that means that 14 or less years ago it didn't even exist, and people were reasonable okay, so use what they used then.

People have this attitude where if drugs were like cars they would all demand a Bentley or walk. Settle for the chevy malibu people.

Now, a doctor is obligated to prescibe the best medicine, but if you ask him for something cheaper or generic, he (or she) will almost always give you that instead, or try to get you free samples (yes... those evil drug companies give doctors free samples to give to their poorer patients).

Decrying profit overall is a bad idea. The profit motive is what drives civilization. I want to make a million bucks making widgets, so I need to make a better widget than the next guy. The consumer gets a better widget, I get my million bucks, hooray.

If a drug company wants to be profitable, they need to make a drug that is better than other name brand drugs, better than generic drugs, or cheaper. So the consumer gets either a better drug, or a cheaper drug, and the drug company gets profits, hooray.

If you're worried a company is going to do unethical things to promote their drug... well that is what laws are for, and the FDA, and everything else.

Let's do a test. Wherever you use "People" replace it with "My mother".

Do you still feel the same way? If so, that's pretty sad.

[Parkbandit]

She's more honest than her daughter at least. I've seen the inside of the industry from both her accounts and from my own experiences in insurance.

Drug companies and insurance companies do a lot of good... but their highest interest is profit. By not curtailing people's ability to get legal recourse you give a check to some of the dangerous things those companies do in pursuit of it. Without any checks on those dangerous things you have the equivalent of a Republican Congress and a Republican President or a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President... something largely uncontrolled whose best interests aren't necessarily the public's.


I was pointing out your complete and utter hypocrisy. Your claim that crb is obviously biased because of a relationship.. then in the same post, you infer that anyone in pharmaceuticals is well off like your ex-mother in law.

This :rofl: is for you.

[Parkbandit]

Let's do a test. Wherever you use "People" replace it with "My mother".

Do you still feel the same way? If so, that's pretty sad.

Let's see:

What do you think prescription drug profits fund?

You think the CEO takes all the profit from a drug, and buys the world's biggest boat?

Drug companies are research companies, they need new drugs or they die, all of their extra cash is funneled into research, research that may save your life one day.

Sure, new drugs are expensive, for 14 years, then they are cheap. My Mother who get the newest drugs are subsidizing drug research and allowing the drugs to be cheaper for everyone else after 14 years, they're also subsidizing the drugs for poor my Mother as many companies can give you drugs for cheaper or free depending on your economic circumstances (or like donating a bunch of HIV drugs for my Mother in Africa).

I personally would rather have drugs be expensive for 14 years, than to have never been invented at all.

If you can't afford the newest drug, well, that is too bad, you'll just have to make due with the second newest drug, or the third newest drug. If a drug is still on patent that means that 14 or less years ago it didn't even exist, and my Mother were reasonable okay, so use what they used then.

My Mother have this attitude where if drugs were like cars they would all demand a Bentley or walk. Settle for the chevy malibu my Mother.

Now, a doctor is obligated to prescibe the best medicine, but if you ask him for something cheaper or generic, he (or she) will almost always give you that instead, or try to get you free samples (yes... those evil drug companies give doctors free samples to give to their poorer patients).

Decrying profit overall is a bad idea. The profit motive is what drives civilization. I want to make a million bucks making widgets, so I need to make a better widget than the next guy. The consumer gets a better widget, I get my million bucks, hooray.

If a drug company wants to be profitable, they need to make a drug that is better than other name brand drugs, better than generic drugs, or cheaper. So the consumer gets either a better drug, or a cheaper drug, and the drug company gets profits, hooray.

If you're worried a company is going to do unethical things to promote their drug... well that is what laws are for, and the FDA, and everything else.



Hmm, besides the obvious gramatical issues, I don't have a problem with it.

[Daniel]

Well, I'm glad you have no problem giving your mother outdated and inferior medicine in order to save a few bucks.

It's probably for the best.

[Parkbandit]

I suppose just rationing out healthcare will be a better idea in your mind?

[Daniel]

Nah. I'm more about removing corporate greed from the cost equation and ensuring people have access to the things they need.

To each their own though.

[Parkbandit]

Nah. I'm more about removing corporate greed from the cost equation and ensuring people have access to the things they need.

To each their own though.

Yes comrade.. corporate greed is the root of all evil.

[Daniel]

No, but it has it's place.

[Warriorbird]

Because that's totally what he said.

Of course... from somebody who'd really give outdated medicine to their mother...

[Ashliana]

Opinion polls are about as useful as an asshole on an elbow. Perception doesn't change reality. For instance, the consumer confidence index put out by UofM. In relationship to consumer spending or GDP growth, there is no direct relationship that can be shown over time, in fact they often move in opposite directions. Consumer Confidence is an opinion poll, the others are actual economic measurements.

Well, I'd say it's relevant when in the first post of the topic, we're facing so-called nightmare situations in which "nobody under a system of socialized healthcare gets the medicine they need." Apparently more people are satisfied with it than we are with our system.



Statistics, facts. You think there has only been one cancer patient in canada who has died because of waiting lists? One elderly gentleman in britain who couldn't get dialysis? Do some research. Visit the websites of newspapers based in Britain or based in Canada or based in New Zealand. This is a great website with tons of links to such articles at foreign newspapers: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.htmlThe proponents of socialized healthcare, aka the Michael Moore set, like to use life expectancy to show that us, at like 27th, must have shitty healthcare. Obviously, far more enters into life expectancy than healthcare. Not even counting all the big macs we eat, if you factor out traffic accidents and homicides US citizens have the longest life expectancy.

The better statistics to look at are ease of access to care, treatments, high end stuff, and survival rates for diseases/injuries.

In Canada if you find a lump in your breast you could wait 6 weeks or longer to see an oncologist and 6 weeks or longer to start Chemo. In the US you can do both in under 10 days. Which system do you think gives you a better chance of survival?

There is a reason the US leads the world in things like cancer survival rates, stroke recovery rates, heart attack survival rates, etc.



You are aware you're essentially quoting a blog? You're talking about anecdotal evidence, which is meaningless. The majority of people get the care they need. If you don't want to go by satisfaction rates, what DO you want to go by? Life expectancy? No, apparently that's out, too. 47 million, last year, according to the Census Bureau, were uninsured in the US last year. The goal of the Canadian (I'm just using Canada as an example) is to get care to anyone who needs it. (I'll continue responding to this later).



Doctors order expensive screenings to protect their butt in case of a lawsuit. Do you think have of what doctors do is their choice? It isn't, it is all mandated and set down by bureacrats or case law and if you don't follow the accepted "standard of care" for something and something goes wrong it is your ass.

I don't claim to be an expert in healthcare; you may be right about this, especially about some things. I'll take your word for it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/22/eveningnews/main3394654.shtml


The cost of our legal system is not JUST malpractice premiums.

I wasn't really referring to this; I'm talking about the unnecessary prescription of medicine.



This is just incorrect. You have no idea the volume of ethical rules and laws preventing this.

Might not be literally direct "bonuses," but I'm talking about this. http://www.slate.com/id/2119712/


You're blaming doctors? In many places it is illegal for a doctor to deny a patient a medication they ask for, literally. Here in michigan if a patient presents with pain you have to offer them prescription pain killers and you cannot deny them if they say yes.

How could you possibly think this is what I'm talking about? I might be able to see something like that--about pain--but no, I definitely don't think it's the case that if I walk into my doctor's office and demand Cipro or Oxycodone or Isotretinoin prescriptions, they're obligated to give them to me. What I"m talking about is an ignorant mother who takes her child to the doctor because he has a cold and she doesn't have the common sense to nurse him back to health, so she demands magical "antibiotics" that will somehow cure her son's virus.

Not only is that harmful to to us as a whole, creating more resistant bacteria, it drives up the costs of insurance for us all.


Do you think doctors should arrest people for not walking? Put a beat down on them for not switching to whole grains? Drop kick them in the head for not quitting smoking? Car bomb them for eating at McDonalds?

Again, I don't know where you're coming from this. An overweight man goes to the doctor to ask for help controlling their weight, looking for pills. Rather than tell the patient all they need (If this is the case) is exercise and a proper diet, too often are doctors prescribing medicines. I'm not even overweight and twice, when visiting both a dermatologist and a gastroenterologist, did the doctors offer me unnecessary drugs for purely cosmetic weight loss.


It isn't Negligence. Lets say you're a doctor and you're in an ER and seeing 40 patients an hour because that is the volume the system has shafted you with and one patient comes in and you forget to carry a decimal and are off by .1 in some prescription that sends someone into cardiac arrest or something. They almost die, but they survive, only their heart has been weakened by the trauma and now they're at risk for further heart attacks and death. Is that Negligence? No, thats doing your best and not being perfect.

Maybe not negligence in that case. What's your point? Are you trying to say medical malpractice, as in negligence, doesn't exist? Bullshit. My sister had the wrong tooth removed by an oral surgeon (in Arlington, TX) when she went in for a wisdom tooth extraction and the only thing she was offered was a replacement of the tooth (implants are horribly painful and take 6 months to a year to complete) and the original wisdom tooth extraction free (done by the same fuck-up endodontist, who, for the record, did not have 40 patients a day).

I'm not saying she's entitled to millions of dollars. Should she have sued? Yes, and she did. How much did she get, because of ridiculous medical malpractice caps in Texas? Around $6,000 and the original offer of having the work done--but by a different endodontist. Out of that, the money she had to pay the lawyer, she ended up with virtually nothing except a shitload of pain and a year of recovery. And she permanently lost one of her fully healthy, natural teeth.



How about this? Pretend you've got a minor patient at a rural hospital who is sick and they can't figure out why. He has got hard veins to fine so for the tests the nurses have to keep sticking him and that frustrates his parents. Eventually his parents get annoyed and take him him against the protests of the doctor and nurses. he dies that night. Lawsuit (not making that up).

I never disputed that medical malpractice suits need reform.


Or... a repeat offender at the county lockup complains constantly to the guards about a headache, then she passes out. She is taken to, again, a smaller hospital. They cannot figure out what is wrong with her, they need to do a CT scan, so they send her down to the city. She dies enroute. Lawsuit. Turns out she had a one in a million weird form of neck cancer around her spine, it couldn't be located except with a CT scan, and she had no chance of living. Sure, maybe the jail guards could have been more attentive but the lawyers sued the county (was a county jail), the hospital, the doctor, and the ambulance company.

Again, see above.


Most such lawsuits never go to trial because they're too expensive to fight, the lawyers know that, so they get a nice settlement for almost no work, which is why they'll sue everyone who touches the patient, even people who never touched the patient at times, but were merely associated with people who touched the patient.

Every single malpractice reform bill has included exceptions for gross negligence. Amputating a leg instead of performing a masectomy is negligence, leaving a scalpal inside your abdomen is negligence, forgetting to rule out appendicitis for lower right quadrant pain is probably negligence. Missing a big tumor on an X-ray is negligence. Atleast 90% of malpractice lawsuits do not involve negligence, and that is the problem.

Again.. see above. I don't dispute this.


Also, let me say, the myth of rich doctors is a myth. My wife in 1 year will be a first year resident. Residents are the doctors you're most likely to interface with in a hospital. She will make $42k a year at 90 hours weeks. Including overnight call which sucks. This isn't exactly a cake walk job either, she's had 8 years of schooling, taken out over $100k in loans easy (thank god I make money and pay all the bills), and she'll go deal with stressful life and death situations and unruly patients for about $12 an hour, which is as much as she made as a receptionist way back when.

Sure, after 4 years of residency she'll be able to go have a private practice somewhere and... if we end up with Obama she'll probably have the government telling her how to practice, heck if they emulate Canada too much the government will try to tell us where to live. So ya, eventually, 12 years in, and in debt, and working your ass off, she'll be able to make good money... and then only have to worry about getting sued because she wasn't perfect (how many of us are perfect at our jobs?). Remember.. it doesn't matter if you can win the lawsuit, because even if you could win, you still lose because of the legal costs involved (and then your malpractice premiums get increased).

Doctors, as a profession, make the most money out of virtually any profession except CEO? I really don't know where you're getting this from. Yes, you don't make much money as a resident doctor or an intern. But as a practicing physician? My roommate's father's a psychologist and makes almost half a million a year.



We're having housing problems not because of deregulation, but because of our consumer culture + the Clinton administrations policies enacted in the mid90s to open up home ownership to more people. Used to be if you were poor or had bad credit you couldn't get a loan, but the government wanted more people in homes so....

The answer is public education (don't buy things you can't afford), and public education would do a lot for the healthcare industry too.

Yes, yes, everything is the Democrat's fault. I'm not going to argue this, as there are a million different conflicting theories, with, I believe, most agreeing with my point of view anyway.


What do you think prescription drug profits fund?

You think the CEO takes all the profit from a drug, and buys the world's biggest boat?

Shareholder value? Merck, Hoffman-La-Roche/etc are publically traded companies.


Drug companies are research companies, they need new drugs or they die, all of their extra cash is funneled into research, research that may save your life one day.

Again, I'm not arguing conspiracy theories--I don't believe "cures are being denied," but I definitely think there's more focus on drugs that need to be upkept like Crestor/Lipitor(the most profitable prescription drug in history) than anything else.


If you can't afford the newest drug, well, that is too bad, you'll just have to make due with the second newest drug, or the third newest drug. If a drug is still on patent that means that 14 or less years ago it didn't even exist, and people were reasonable okay, so use what they used then.

People have this attitude where if drugs were like cars they would all demand a Bentley or walk. Settle for the chevy malibu people.

This is a really, really scary and disturbing argument you're making, and it reinforces my entire point earlier: the healthcare industry has become much more about profit than saving lives. If anything in the world was deserving of government subsidy, I believe it's this. What most people can't understand is why, when it takes virtually very little for some drugs to be manufactured, they're placed at an enormous premium during those fourteen years and in the meantime, people suffer and potentially die that could've otherwise been spared.

For what? So the CEO you mentioned earlier, and the shareholders I mentioned, can make more profit? Doesn't seem humane to me, but you're welcome to disagree.


Decrying profit overall is a bad idea. The profit motive is what drives civilization. I want to make a million bucks making widgets, so I need to make a better widget than the next guy. The consumer gets a better widget, I get my million bucks, hooray.

I agree with you, except that I don't believe drugs and life-saving techniques are "widgets to sell."

[Stanley Burrell]

Yes comrade.. corporate greed is the root of all evil.

I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!" ..? Yeah. Do you guys do that?

[Parkbandit]

Holy fuck.. it IS Tsa'ah.

[Parkbandit]

I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah?

Impossible friend. If some of the best psychotherapists can't figure you out, I'm not even going to bother trying.

[Ashliana]

Holy fuck.. it IS Tsa'ah.

Holy fuck! You're a mouthpiece of Rush Limbaugh! When you've stopped slobbering his knob, come back with an intelligent post instead of your random, manufactured controversies like the Obama "presidential symbol" matter.

[Warriorbird]

No Stan. I used to think they all walked around grinning like the Enzyte guy because they "Understood the world!", especially the religious nutjobs. They're scared though.


It must be really scary to be a conservative. To be one, you must live in constant fear of terrorists nuking the United States, of gay people on the verge of convincing you that you really enjoy sodomy, of Spanish becoming the official language of the United States next week, of every African-American voting seven or eight times in the next election, of radical Islam suddenly becoming the latest hip thing among kids across the country, of perpetual lesbian orgies in girls bathrooms in high schools across America, of liberals forcing everyone to become a vegan, of Christians being rounded up into concentration camps, and of Democrats outlawing private property if they were to ever take power again.
-Chris Bowers

[Gan]

I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!" ..? Yeah. Do you guys do that?

:(

[Gan]

I agree with you, except that I don't believe drugs and life-saving techniques are "widgets to sell."

Do you believe that a state supported program would have made the advancements at the same level and frequency that have been made under a free market system?

[crb]

No... because of your rather evident bias.

I've had excellent care in several countries with socialized medicine. I don't particularly want it in America (and I doubt it will ever happen) but your "Drug companies never do anything wrong!" "Doctors never do anything wrong!" "Let's cap lawsuit awards at a million bucks for somebody's life!" notions are more indicative of you being a part of Fantasyland.

Implying that your wife "will be treated like a slave" shows you off in an even more ridiculous light. She's being paid while she gets her education. She'll be paid a lot more once she's done. She'll get bribed by pharmaceutical salesman and take part in a lot of the things that make people mad about the system.

She'll also suffer a lot of the stunts that insurance companies pull. She'll take risks. She'll save lives. She knew about it all before she agreed to attend school I'm sure.
Did you ever get cancer in a country with socialized medicine?

Socialized medicine systems are poor, they cannot afford live saving equipment, specialists, and things like that.

If you sprain your ankle, get the flu, have an infection, etc etc, minor things, they handle alright.

The absolutely suck at diagnosing and treating things you can actually die from. Cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc. Things where waiting lists mean you die. Expensive things. Things that require specialists.

If you don't believe me, follow that link and read what the news media in the countries in question write about their own system.



I've had excellent care in several countries with socialized medicine. I don't particularly want it in America (and I doubt it will ever happen) but your "Drug companies never do anything wrong!" "Doctors never do anything wrong!" "Let's cap lawsuit awards at a million bucks for somebody's life!" notions are more indicative of you being a part of Fantasyland.

You misread me. I said specifically that doctors mess up sometime, I said specifically that people are not perfect. The question is, should we punish non-perfection? Or only gross neglidgence?

Drug companies also do things wrong, and if they lie, cheat, commit fraud, or otherwise misle the public they should be hit with a very big stick. But what about a company that diligently acts in good faith conducting peer reviewed clinical trials, and then goes through the extensive FDA approval process which is more rigorous than in other countries, and get the FDA stamp of safe for prescription use, only to find out years later that thanks to new research their drug is dangerous and, by the way, pay these lawyers a couple billion dollars. Is that fair? Is that right? Ask Merck. They did nothing wrong, the FDA said vioxx was safe, and they got punished for not being omnipotent and not being able to see the future? Come on... you don't think that couple billion doesn't just get passed along to the consumer in the form of higher drug prices (meanwhile, people like John Edwards buy a second house).



Implying that your wife "will be treated like a slave" shows you off in an even more ridiculous light.

What would you call a system where the government tells you what to practice, where to live, how to practice, what to charge, what you will get paid, and if you try to any of that privately you're arrested? Canada is finally reforming their system but doctors there were ordered to live in certain places and or go into certain specialties in order to fit a need a bureacrat decides upon.



She's being paid while she gets her education. actually no, she's paying right now, around $30k a year. Next year she gets to start making those big $12 an hour wages.



She'll be paid a lot more once she's done. She'll get bribed by pharmaceutical salesman and take part in a lot of the things that make people mad about the system

Thanks for insulting her integrity but, despite what you might read on forums, the typical doctor does not let a drug company dictate to him what to prescribe, he does not get kickbacks, and he just tries to do right by his patients. Sure, drug reps come into offices, give doctors crucial information on new drugs, side effects, research, etc, and bring in takeout for the staff, maybe they drop off a free mousepad with the logo on it or something. In the end, they're like lobbyists, it may be unsavory but the function is important. There are tons of drugs out there and new ones and new research all the time and drug reps play a role in making sure doctors stay up to date.

To assume that those free lunches means that the doctor is going to prescribe a drug when it isn't needed, or when it isn't the best choice, is crazy. Ethical doctors do not do that, and most of them are ethical, and the unethical ones...there are rules and laws they must abide by and if they're caught with something like a kickback or prescription fraud or something they can lose their license or go to jail.

[Ashliana]

Do you believe that a state supported program would have made the advancements at the same level and frequency that have been made under a free market system?

I'm sorry, was it a private organization that discovered and developed nuclear technology? No?

Was it a private organization that developed and conceptualized the Internet? No? The latter is arguable, but government research or at least government-supported research is indeed capable of producing results. Not all technology is profitable, but that technology can be revolutionary. Do you think space research is going to be taken up by a private corporation in the short term? No. Because the basic technology has to be developed at the subsidized level.

[Gan]

I've had excellent care in several countries with socialized medicine. I don't particularly want it in America (and I doubt it will ever happen) but your "Drug companies never do anything wrong!" "Doctors never do anything wrong!" "Let's cap lawsuit awards at a million bucks for somebody's life!" notions are more indicative of you being a part of Fantasyland.

I'll bite. Where did you live and when? I did not realize you were so worldly. You should elaborate so you may have credit assessed where credit is due.

[Gan]

I'm sorry, was it a private organization that discovered and developed nuclear technology? No?

Was it a private organization that developed and conceptualized the Internet? No? The latter is arguable, but government research or at least government-supported research is indeed capable of producing results. Not all technology is profitable, but that technology can be revolutionary. Do you think space research is going to be taken up by a private corporation in the short term? No. Because the basic technology has to be developed at the subsidized level.

Stick with medical since thats what we're discussing.

[Ashliana]

Stick with medical since thats what we're discussing.

It's connected to medical technology. Do you know how much technology--including medical technology--was developed in pursuit of the space program? Something NO private organization, or for-profit organization, would ever have invested in?

[Warriorbird]

A very low percentage decline those gifts. Why would they? To say they have no influence is somewhat blind though.

The drug prices would be higher even without the lawsuits. At least some of the people who were effected got some money out of the issue. I'm sure the drug companies would have loved to pay nothing. They're companies. They're profit seeking entities.


Drug companies also do things wrong, and if they lie, cheat, commit fraud, or otherwise misle the public they should be hit with a very big stick.

Tort reform would limit that too.

Merck may've gotten slammed... but what they propose would've stopped A.H. Robins and American Home Products from getting slammed too.

You say socialized medicine systems are poor. Maybe you're basing that off of only Canada?

(not that I advocate them for the US... just am against tort reform)

[Stanley Burrell]

I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!" ..? Yeah. Do you guys do that?

Impossible friend. If some of the best psychotherapists can't figure you out, I'm not even going to bother trying.

Brad Pitt as Detective David Mills (http://new.wavlist.com/movies/255/svn-insane.wav) says there's at least Se7en reasons why you're an utter dumbass, Mikey-boy.

[Gan]

It's connected to medical technology. Do you know how much technology--including medical technology--was developed in pursuit of the space program? Something NO private organization, or for-profit organization, would ever have invested in?

You do realize that the space program is almost completely outsourced to free market corporations - albiet with the budget contraints of GAO RFI/RFB contract constraints.

Keep fishing.

[Ashliana]

You do realize that the space program is almost completely outsourced to free market corporations - albiet with the budget contraints of GAO RFI/RFB contract constraints.

Keep fishing.

Except that it's not fishing? Who pays for those corporations to make a profit? John Q. Taxpayer. It's not an investment by a private research firm, the kind you're suggesting will somehow bring us magical cures, rather than ripping us blind for continual treatments.

Keep fishing.

[Gan]

Except that it's not fishing? Who pays for those corporations to make a profit? John Q. Taxpayer. It's not an investment by a private research firm, the kind you're suggesting will somehow bring us magical cures, rather than ripping us blind for continual treatments.

Keep fishing.

Except that its government contracting out for free market technology and the advancements and benefits thereof. You should have got that point in your diatribe how government enterprise can provide as much if not more advancements than free market corporations - which is what I asked you to begin with.

Keep fishing.

[Warriorbird]

We see how it saves us big money in the Iraq War.

[Ashliana]

Except that its government contracting out for free market technology and the advancements and benefits thereof. You should have got that point in your diatribe how government enterprise can provide as much if not more advancements than free market corporations - which is what I asked you to begin with.

Keep fishing.

You're still fishing. NASA and its subcontractors have created numerous, proprietary technologies with subsidized funds that have gone on to benefit all of mankind--not just America. Your argument is pointless.

[Warriorbird]

I've spent time living in Finland, Hungary, France, and Britain, Gan. I've also gotten medical care in Canada... though it was for a serious asthma/allergic attack.

[Gan]

You're still fishing. NASA and its subcontractors have created numerous, proprietary technologies with subsidized funds that have gone on to benefit all of mankind--not just America. Your argument is pointless.

I cant dumb it down for you any further, so I'll stop here.

NASA has provided many advancements - which you tout as matching or equivalent to free market advancements in science and technology - even with a slant towards medical advancement and technology. So you use this as your example.

I refute your example by stating that NASA subcontracts out almost 100% of its work to private contractors (ie. free market enterprises). Ergo, the benefits derived are done by free market contractors using free market resources (including technology and labor). Ergo - free market resources make up the foundation you're using to argue against the point that government programs can produce as much advancement (medical) as free market.

Its pretty clear - you're talking out of your ass now. At this point you have two options:

1. STFU
2. Go back and delete or edit your posts or continue riding your circular argument pony while shouting "Look at me, I'm an attention whore!".

I'm betting option 2.

[Gan]

I've spent time living in Finland, Hungary, France, and Britain, Gan. I've also gotten medical care in Canada... though it was for a serious asthma/allergic attack.

At what age... since perception goes to your testiment of adequacy. I'm curious as to your level of perception of the care being given.

Thanks for posting locations.

[Warriorbird]

France at around 12. Finland towards late high school. Hungary and Britain around college age. Finland had the best care.

[Ashliana]

I cant dumb it down for you any further, so I'll stop here.

NASA has provided many advancements - which you tout as matching or equivalent to free market advancements in science and technology - even with a slant towards medical advancement and technology. So you use this as your example.

I refute your example by stating that NASA subcontracts out almost 100% of its work to private contractors (ie. free market enterprises). Ergo, the benefits derived are done by free market contractors using free market resources (including technology and labor). Ergo - free market resources make up the foundation you're using to argue against the point that government programs can produce as much advancement (medical) as free market.

Its pretty clear - you're talking out of your ass now. At this point you have two options:

1. STFU
2. Go back and delete or edit your posts or continue riding your circular argument pony while shouting "Look at me, I'm an attention whore!".

I'm betting option 2.

You're still missing the point. I can't dumb this down any more for your troglodyte ass. Who is paying for NASA's work? That's right. John Q. Taxpayer. Does it matter who actually does it? NO, because no private corporation would MAKE THE INVESTMENT to begin with. There isn't a high enough LIKELIHOOD OF A RETURN OF PROFIT.

Even if you don't think subsidized research is ideal, you're brainless for completely denouncing it. Dumbass.

[Back]

Yeah. You... cave dweller.

[crb]

Well, I'd say it's relevant when in the first post of the topic, we're facing so-called nightmare situations in which "nobody under a system of socialized healthcare gets the medicine they need." Apparently more people are satisfied with it than we are with our system.



A person in africa who lives on $1 a day might be happy. Does that mean that we should cut all wages here in the US? No... happiness is relative and meaningless to quality.





You are aware you're essentially quoting a blog? You're talking about anecdotal evidence, which is meaningless. The majority of people get the care they need. If you don't want to go by satisfaction rates, what DO you want to go by? Life expectancy? No, apparently that's out, too. 47 million, last year, according to the Census Bureau, were uninsured in the US last year. The goal of the Canadian (I'm just using Canada as an example) is to get care to anyone who needs it. (I'll continue responding to this later).


No, I was quoting a website which aggregated hundreds of links to mainstream news media websites, university research, government websites, etc on the topic of healthcare. The site itself is not a source, it is merely a place to find links to sources.

Did you know in the US if you present at a hospital emergency room you cannot be turned away? Did you know in canada if you need an MRI but the waiting list is 3 months long the country magically conjurs up one with a magic genie? Oh wait... they don't. We have a safety net here, if you don't have insurance you can still get help. In Canada, the system doesn't have the doctors & equipment you need, and you can't wish those up.

You gotta understand, socialized medicine works through controlling costs, and they control costs by cutting standards of care. So ya, everyone gets coverage, but it just sucks so people head south (to the US) to get it. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFDE113AF935A25752C0A9669C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

(I know, NYT, just a conservative blog right?)






Might not be literally direct "bonuses," but I'm talking about this. http://www.slate.com/id/2119712/


1. Slate is a very liberal source, and obviously that is spun.

2. It assumes that a free pen or a mouse pad is going to make a doctor forgo all his ethical rules. Just because drug companies market to doctors, and they send people to offices to keep doctors aprised on new drugs & research, does not mean those doctors don't prescribe only the medicines appropriate for their patient. You're marketed to every day, you get freebies in the mail, coupons in the newspaper, you hear claims all the time, you don't buy everything that gets advertised to you do you, and there aren't even laws and our licensing rules put down by State Medical Boards that can yank your source of income stopping you.



What I"m talking about is an ignorant mother who takes her child to the doctor because he has a cold and she doesn't have the common sense to nurse him back to health, so she demands magical "antibiotics" that will somehow cure her son's virus.

Not only is that harmful to to us as a whole, creating more resistant bacteria, it drives up the costs of insurance for us all.

Assuming that is true, I would agree that it is bad. I wonder who your source is on that, but you could also call it another symptom of being overworked. When you're behind and have umteen other patients and this bitchy woman is just going on and on it may be easier to write a script for some antibiotic rather than deal with her, it doesn't make it right, certainly, but I could see it happening. Not that antibiotics are hugely expensive either, we're not talking about a chemo drug or something here.



Again, I don't know where you're coming from this. An overweight man goes to the doctor to ask for help controlling their weight, looking for pills. Rather than tell the patient all they need (If this is the case) is exercise and a proper diet, too often are doctors prescribing medicines. I'm not even overweight and twice, when visiting both a dermatologist and a gastroenterologist, did the doctors offer me unnecessary drugs for purely cosmetic weight loss.

I question your characterization of weight loss as cosmetic. Generally our society is too politically correct in regards to body weight and people are too forgiving about being a little fat. But again, my wife tells me about her patients all the time about how she tries to get them to change their ways, but it is like talking to a wall. People don't listen. Its so bad here that almost everyone she sees (depending on rotation of course) has to be assumed to be diabetic or prediabetic, the odd ones are the ones who aren't.

In the end, the point is a doctor cannot force a patient to change their habits, and if the patient cannot or will not change, then medication is the only other alternative, and in the end it isn't the doctor's role to judge and deny options to you out of that judgement.




Maybe not negligence in that case. What's your point? Are you trying to say medical malpractice, as in negligence, doesn't exist? Bullshit. My sister had the wrong tooth removed by an oral surgeon (in Arlington, TX) when she went in for a wisdom tooth extraction and the only thing she was offered was a replacement of the tooth (implants are horribly painful and take 6 months to a year to complete) and the original wisdom tooth extraction free (done by the same fuck-up endodontist, who, for the record, did not have 40 patients a day).

I'm not saying she's entitled to millions of dollars. Should she have sued? Yes, and she did. How much did she get, because of ridiculous medical malpractice caps in Texas? Around $6,000 and the original offer of having the work done--but by a different endodontist. Out of that, the money she had to pay the lawyer, she ended up with virtually nothing except a shitload of pain and a year of recovery. And she permanently lost one of her fully healthy, natural teeth.


Sucks, what should happen is the fuckup should be public knowledge allowing other consumers to then see it and choose to take their business elsewhere, thus hurting the people who have bad performance records and encouraging good performance records.

But that doesn't change the fact that most malpractice lawsuits do not result from gross negligence, but either from simple unintended mistakes, or even no mistake whatsoever. A doctor can do everything right and if the outcome is bad can be sued.

In fact I believe in my post I said people who cut off the wrong leg or something should be held to a higher standard. A leg isn't a tooth, but the oversight is the same. That isn't what happens in our current system though.

And oh, those malpractice limits in Texas... you have those to thank for your more easy access to specialists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/05doctors.html


Doctors, as a profession, make the most money out of virtually any profession except CEO? I really don't know where you're getting this from. Yes, you don't make much money as a resident doctor or an intern. But as a practicing physician? My roommate's father's a psychologist and makes almost half a million a year.


Psychologists are not doctors, not medical doctors. Perhaps you think of a psychiatrist? People get them confused ALL the time (much to my wife's chagrin, she hopes to be a psychiatrist). But if you were thinking psychiatrist I'd think you'd be wrong considering that psychiatrists are one of the lower paid specialties.

Of course if you own your own practice and then higher people to work under you you can make more money, but at that point you're not really a provider as much as a business owner. In any given small town the most likely millionaires, outside of farmers, are the plumbers & electricians who own their own businesses with other plumbers and electricians working under them.

I will not dispute that eventually doctors can make good amounts (though, indexed for inflation, wages have fallen). But shouldn't they? If you cut doctors wages less foreign doctors will come here to work, and we NEED them, without them we'd have a severe shortage. If you cut wages smart people would be less inclined to go into medicine, and shouldn't we try to attract our best and brightest? Already it is a 12 year educational process at the least, a highly stressful job, and one you'll get sued doing (on average all doctors get sued during their career, multiple times).

People always point to doctor wages and say cut those... but cutting wages is the same thing as cutting doctors. People get so annoyed with cutting teachers or teacher pay because of class size issues... don't you think patient load is as important to medical care as class size is to education? We need more doctors for better healthcare and you won't get them without making the job more rewarding. For instance... in medical school doctors have to take some business & legal classes just to be able to handle all the paperwork and other crap that comes along with it.



Again, I'm not arguing conspiracy theories--I don't believe "cures are being denied," but I definitely think there's more focus on drugs that need to be upkept like Crestor/Lipitor(the most profitable prescription drug in history) than anything else.

I don't agree.... and you know things like lipitor (statins) do not NEED to be upkept. Technically, if you eat right, exercise, etc, you could go off those drugs. But that would require the patient eating right and exercising, and they don't do that. So long as you keep shoveling crap into your mouth you'll need a drug to counteract that, it isn't the drug's fault.

We've got vaccines for types of cancer now, cancer cure rates are dramatically up, and HIV is no longer a disease you die from, but live with. I don't begrudge the drug companies a penny, I really don't. I could end up really sick one day and I hope they've managed to find a drug to cure whatever it is I've got by then.

Really... a vaccine is practically a cure, sure with all the Chemo drugs a drug company would make a killing on treating cervical cancer right? And yet, voila Gardasil...


This is a really, really scary and disturbing argument you're making, and it reinforces my entire point earlier: the healthcare industry has become much more about profit than saving lives. If anything in the world was deserving of government subsidy, I believe it's this. What most people can't understand is why, when it takes virtually very little for some drugs to be manufactured, they're placed at an enormous premium during those fourteen years and in the meantime, people suffer and potentially die that could've otherwise been spared.

I hate to break it to you but things cost money. Making a drug may be cheap, researching it isn't. Half the drugs researched don't even make it to market, hundreds of millions, this money needs to be made somehow.

It is better that a drug be expensive for 14 years, than to have it not exist. If you're poor and you can't afford your drug, and it would save your life, there is a good chance the drug company would give it to you for free, or, you could go bankrupt buying it, but you'd be alive.

If the drug didn't exist though, it doesn't matter if you go bankrupt, it doesn't matter if you sold everything you owned, you'd die.

The money for research has to come from somewhere, letting the rich who can afford drugs for the first 14 years (which by the way, starts at the patenting, not at the marketing), subsidize the research for everyone else, for the small benefit of having the newest drugs (as if suddenly the drug that was newest last year is now worthless and unfunctioning...), is a pretty good way to do things I think.

The bottom line is, you cut the profits, you cut the research budgets. Marketing pays for itself, wages are pretty firm, equipment costs are firm. Research is where the money comes from. I want to encourage more drug research, not less.

[crb]

You're still missing the point. I can't dumb this down any more for your troglodyte ass. Who is paying for NASA's work? That's right. John Q. Taxpayer. Does it matter who actually does it? NO, because no private corporation would MAKE THE INVESTMENT to begin with. There isn't a high enough LIKELIHOOD OF A RETURN OF PROFIT.

Even if you don't think subsidized research is ideal, you're brainless for completely denouncing it. Dumbass.
I'm a big fan of government research.

I'm a big fan of private research.

Both have provided mankind with gains in civilization.

I'm not going to shun one in favor of the other, lets do both?

[Warriorbird]

Drug companies profit. Asserting that all their profits go to research is silly. They have research budgets (large ones, mind you).

[crb]

lion's share

[Gan]

You're still missing the point. I can't dumb this down any more for your troglodyte ass. Who is paying for NASA's work? That's right. John Q. Taxpayer. Does it matter who actually does it? NO, because no private corporation would MAKE THE INVESTMENT to begin with. There isn't a high enough LIKELIHOOD OF A RETURN OF PROFIT.

Even if you don't think subsidized research is ideal, you're brainless for completely denouncing it. Dumbass.

I'm only denouncing government subsidization over free market enterprise. You're the one denouncing free market enterprise in healthcare and medical advancement - only you're basing it on the efforts of free market masked as government effort. I'm glad you see the point though - finally. And yes, being called a dumb ass and troglodyte from the likes of you I'll take as a compliment anyday.

:lol:

[Gan]

Yeah. You... cave dweller.

Wait, I though only environmentalists lived in caves (and mud huts).

[Ashliana]

Did you know in the US if you present at a hospital emergency room you cannot be turned away? Did you know in canada if you need an MRI but the waiting list is 3 months long the country magically conjurs up one with a magic genie? Oh wait... they don't. We have a safety net here, if you don't have insurance you can still get help. In Canada, the system doesn't have the doctors & equipment you need, and you can't wish those up.

They're required to stabilize you. Not give you full, life-saving treatment. Yes, we have a safety net, here--Medicaid. Is it perfect? Not a chance. Is it even close to ideal? No. Our low-level emergency care system is essentially jammed by illegal immigrants and other people unable to afford health insurance to actually see a general practicioner.


You gotta understand, socialized medicine works through controlling costs, and they control costs by cutting standards of care. So ya, everyone gets coverage, but it just sucks so people head south (to the US) to get it. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFDE113AF935A25752C0A9669C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

(I know, NYT, just a conservative blog right?)

In an ideal free market system, they're also controlling costs by whatever means necessary to compete and maximize profits. Neither are perfect.


2. It assumes that a free pen or a mouse pad is going to make a doctor forgo all his ethical rules. Just because drug companies market to doctors, and they send people to offices to keep doctors aprised on new drugs & research, does not mean those doctors don't prescribe only the medicines appropriate for their patient. You're marketed to every day, you get freebies in the mail, coupons in the newspaper, you hear claims all the time, you don't buy everything that gets advertised to you do you, and there aren't even laws and our licensing rules put down by State Medical Boards that can yank your source of income stopping you.

I really don't think it stops at a free pen or mousepad.


I question your characterization of weight loss as cosmetic. Generally our society is too politically correct in regards to body weight and people are too forgiving about being a little fat. But again, my wife tells me about her patients all the time about how she tries to get them to change their ways, but it is like talking to a wall. People don't listen. Its so bad here that almost everyone she sees (depending on rotation of course) has to be assumed to be diabetic or prediabetic, the odd ones are the ones who aren't.

I'm talking about my personal experience (yes, anecdotal) here. I'm not overweight--at all--I'm actually in pretty good shape. And I've been offered drugs for cosmetic (cosmetic, because I don't need it) to lose fat, when I don't, at all, need it.


In the end, the point is a doctor cannot force a patient to change their habits, and if the patient cannot or will not change, then medication is the only other alternative, and in the end it isn't the doctor's role to judge and deny options to you out of that judgement.

I agree. This is a symptom of American's greater cultural fault.. wanting things easy, now, and with as little effort as possible. But I think it's a mistake for doctors to cater to it.


Psychologists are not doctors, not medical doctors. Perhaps you think of a psychiatrist? People get them confused ALL the time (much to my wife's chagrin, she hopes to be a psychiatrist). But if you were thinking psychiatrist I'd think you'd be wrong considering that psychiatrists are one of the lower paid specialties.

My mistake. I meant psychiatrist--I am familiar with the difference. Embarassing.



Really... a vaccine is practically a cure, sure with all the Chemo drugs a drug company would make a killing on treating cervical cancer right? And yet, voila Gardasil...

As I said, I'm not trying to imply a conspiracy. Some things have made good progress; I just commented on what I see as a trend.


I hate to break it to you but things cost money. Making a drug may be cheap, researching it isn't. Half the drugs researched don't even make it to market, hundreds of millions, this money needs to be made somehow.

It is better that a drug be expensive for 14 years, than to have it not exist. If you're poor and you can't afford your drug, and it would save your life, there is a good chance the drug company would give it to you for free, or, you could go bankrupt buying it, but you'd be alive.

I'd agree in principle, but it's hard to swallow when you're looking at human suffering and death in order to incentivize the creation of the thing supposed to be improving lives.

[Ashliana]

I'm only denouncing government subsidization over free market enterprise. You're the one denouncing free market enterprise in healthcare and medical advancement - only you're basing it on the efforts of free market masked as government effort. I'm glad you see the point though - finally. And yes, being called a dumb ass and troglodyte from the likes of you I'll take as a compliment anyday.

:lol:

One can get us all the way, albeit perhaps slower. The other simply will not delve into some areas. That "free market masked as government effort" wouldn't exist without the subsidy. I'm glad you'll take the compliment. You should.

[crb]

The Timeline of Socialized Medicine

The problem with medicine is not who pays for it, but how much it costs, and how rapidly those costs have increased. Changing who pays for it does not change the costs, so here is what happens.

You socialize medicine, costs continue to rise, and a bunch of new people now having access to free healthcare puts the spurrs to those increases. You raise taxes.

You can't raise taxes forever though, there is a point where the citizens revolt and don't stand for it. Additionally, tax hikes in the end lead to less tax revenue. Little known fact, after Bush's famous tax cuts, federal tax receipts actually increased. People always complain about balancing the budget and how it'd be balanced if we only undid those cuts and everything else existed in a vacuum, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, taxes affect economic growth, economic growth affects taxes. Obama will realize this if elected. If he doubles the capital gains tax rate he'll be shocked when the year after it goes into effect the government actually takes less revenue from it than when the tax was half as much (people will purposefully realize gains prior to the hike, and then not realize them after the hike).

2. Having raised taxes all you can, costs continue to rise, so you cut reimbursements.

Medicaid is accepted almost nowhere that isn't mandated by law. This is what the government does, they cut reimbursements, and then when no doctor wants to take the insurance because it doesn't pay enough, they make a law forcing them. What good is government insurance that no one wants because nobody will take it?

3. Faced with no providers accepted your shitty government program, you mandate by law that they do, thereby getting rid of private insurance. Yay government monopoly.

This'll go over really well, and here you start getting into Orwellian territory. Cutting costs so drastically forces hospitals to cut staff and equipment, thus impacting standard of care (actually, such cuts would be going on all along).

4. Faced by rising costs and low reimbursements they're forced to accept, many doctors go into cash-only businesses, taking only wealthy patients who can afford to pay enough to cover costs. Thus shrinking the number of doctors available to treat the average joe. So you make private healthcare illegal

Canada did it.

5. Costs continue to rise, you have to ration it someway.

You cut back on new equipment, techniques, and specialists in order to save money. This means waiting lists, which work by hoping some people give up or die before getting treatment, thus reducing the patient load. You can also limit healthcare to those who would most benefit, for instance if someone is older and has lived a longer life, you could deny them dialysis (Britain did it) to save money. You could try a lottery, or an alphabetical system (if your last name starts with A you get care, B has to wait).

Ask someone who remembers the gas rationing of the 70s, ask them if that was a great system.

--------------

I won't claim our system is perfect, but I'd rather live in a country where the worst case scenario is I go bankrupt paying medical bills rather than the worst case scenario is I die. There are lots of things you can do to decrease costs, the main thing is giving consumers more control over their healthcare dollars, then make prices and quality ratings public. People can then shop around, and providers can compete on price and quality.

Monopolies are bad because lack of competition means higher prices... a government monopoly is still a monopoly. They may not be out to make a profit, but that just means they have no incentive to cut costs, save money, or be efficient.

[Ashliana]

Still looking at it too simplistically. Government-run or government subsidized healthcare doesn't mean that a private health industry won't or can't exist.

[crb]

They're required to stabilize you. Not give you full, life-saving treatment. Yes, we have a safety net, here--Medicaid. Is it perfect? Not a chance. Is it even close to ideal? No. Our low-level emergency care system is essentially jammed by illegal immigrants and other people unable to afford health insurance to actually see a general practicioner.



In an ideal free market system, they're also controlling costs by whatever means necessary to compete and maximize profits. Neither are perfect.



I really don't think it stops at a free pen or mousepad.



I'm talking about my personal experience (yes, anecdotal) here. I'm not overweight--at all--I'm actually in pretty good shape. And I've been offered drugs for cosmetic (cosmetic, because I don't need it) to lose fat, when I don't, at all, need it.



I agree. This is a symptom of American's greater cultural fault.. wanting things easy, now, and with as little effort as possible. But I think it's a mistake for doctors to cater to it.



My mistake. I meant psychiatrist--I am familiar with the difference. Embarassing.




As I said, I'm not trying to imply a conspiracy. Some things have made good progress; I just commented on what I see as a trend.



I'd agree in principle, but it's hard to swallow when you're looking at human suffering and death in order to incentivize the creation of the thing supposed to be improving lives.


I'd agree in principle, but it's hard to swallow when you're looking at human suffering and death in order to incentivize the creation of the thing supposed to be improving lives.

Which is why politicians should all be Vulcans. A hard decision is just that, but you've got to try to do the best you can for the most people you can, rather than trying to help everyone and end up barely helping anyone. The best thing for society at large is to get drugs researched, subsidized by 14 years (or less) of high prices, then available to everyone at a low price. If you absolutely need that one drug, and nothing else will work, it sucks, but people who get your same condition in the future will benefit from having the initial high price, which was the enticement for the drug to be researched in the first place.

[crb]

Still looking at it too simplistically. Government-run or government subsidized healthcare doesn't mean that a private health industry won't or can't exist.
Sure, you could have a hybrid, we have one already. The US gov. is the largest medical insurer in the country, they set the standards for reimbursements, paperwork, etc already. (which is a big problem).

But... in most places that do socialized medicine they end up forcing through the power of law a government only system. Massachusetts tried a hybrid (aka Romney-care) and apparently they're in the hole by like a billion or something already.... because again, changing who pays for something does not change the cost, not in any large or meaningful way.

[Daniel]

I cant dumb it down for you any further, so I'll stop here.

NASA has provided many advancements - which you tout as matching or equivalent to free market advancements in science and technology - even with a slant towards medical advancement and technology. So you use this as your example.

I refute your example by stating that NASA subcontracts out almost 100% of its work to private contractors (ie. free market enterprises). Ergo, the benefits derived are done by free market contractors using free market resources (including technology and labor). Ergo - free market resources make up the foundation you're using to argue against the point that government programs can produce as much advancement (medical) as free market.

Its pretty clear - you're talking out of your ass now. At this point you have two options:

1. STFU
2. Go back and delete or edit your posts or continue riding your circular argument pony while shouting "Look at me, I'm an attention whore!".

I'm betting option 2.


Government contracting is a pretty far cry from the "Free Market".

The free market says that there is strict competition, but there isn't. There are massive government regulations, stipulations and probably more important..no competitive source of demand.

[Paradii]

If you tell a guy he is overweight, and his health problems should be address by exercise and diet, with no accompanying medicine, he will just go to another doctor who will give him pills. I am quite sure any doctor that hands out said medicine will also tell the person to start exercising and dieting.

Are you suggesting you would refuse medication to people who are obese unless they are willing to diet and exercise?

I am suggesting that. If their symptoms or illness directly stems from being an obese individual, of course.

[Warriorbird]

I think people would flip... but it would probably save a lot of money.

[Paradii]

Good, flipping burns calories.

[Mabus]

I am suggesting that. If their symptoms or illness directly stems from being an obese individual, of course.
The nanny state will want us to eat right, exercise, look like each other and never disagree with what we are told is "good for us".

Makes good worker bees.

[Daniel]

Yea, being in shape is such a bad thing.

[Paradii]

The nanny state will want us to eat right, exercise, look like each other and never disagree with what we are told is "good for us".

Makes good worker bees.

If you want to be a big fat fuck, go for it. Just don't expect someone to keep your fat ass alive into your 80's.

And stop taking up so much room at the grocery store. Fatty

[Mabus]

Yea, being in shape is such a bad thing.

I am not saying that eating right is a "bad thing". I am not saying that physical activity is a "bad thing". There are many, many things that science and medicine currently believe are good for humans. People that choose to do these things are welcome to do so.

I am saying I do not believe in our government forcing people to eat "right" and exercise as a prerequisite for health care (or for any other damn reason).

I am thinking "slippery slope" here, and falling toward that fallacy, but I will not wear a Maoist uniform and exercise with everyone.

"We must exercise dictatorship over the bourgeoisie!" -Lenin
(just through that in for the hell of it.)
;)

[Mabus]

If you want to be a big fat fuck, go for it. Just don't expect someone to keep your fat ass alive into your 80's.

And stop taking up so much room at the grocery store. Fatty
Because I believe it is not within the government's right to allocate programs based on forced diet or forced exercise patterns I must be fat...
...some mind you have there.

[Daniel]

Uh. I'm pretty sure that in the past physical education had a much larger role in College and public education.

That small point aside, I don't think anyone is saying that you should *have* to exercise, but rather that it should be emphasized and given priority over handing out pills of metaboblast.

[Warriorbird]

So if we got stuck with nationalized healthcare... you wouldn't think this'd be a good limiter for such a system, Mabus?

[Mabus]

So if we got stuck with nationalized healthcare... you wouldn't think this'd be a good limiter for such a system, Mabus?
I am a believer in individual liberty. While I do believe that some system should exist to help the unfortunate (poor children, disabled) with health care I do not support a forced socialized health care system.

I do realize that in the current world this presents our USA businesses at a disadvantage. The cost of health care in most countries is handled through taxation of the individuals, whereas in our country a large portion is paid by business. If the cost is not figured into trade negotiations then our businesses are left with an extra cost that lowers their ability to compete.

I would be more for a nationalized insurance pool, and keeping a privatized system with a renegotiation of trade agreements to account for the added costs.

Any system that mandates "health habits" is an affront to individual liberty. Mandating drinking an amount of water, or mandating a persons BMI, or mandating specific exercise regimes are an affront to personal liberties.

I stand against all "nanny state" proposals. I believe in personal responsibility without government mandates.

[crb]

If we had socialized healthcare I would be royally pissed off that my taxes are used to pay for healthcare for some fat smokers.

I would be totally for a tax credit, a large one, a few grand, for nonsmokers who are in shape. Go to a place and get a physical, get an IRS form filled out, booya.

The life insurance industry already does this. They grade your health and rate you and your premium is based on that. (consequently... I got the highest rating the adjuster had ever seen, booya me). So there are systems that do it, and using them is really, only fair, and maybe it would encourage people to be healthier.

People will complain that their medication/genes/situation etc makes them fat and they can't do anything about it, and that is almost never the case. It may be harder for them to do anything about it, but you can always do something. My MIL lost 100 pounds the last 18 months and she's on all sorts of meds, including ones that make you gain weight. She's got a series of chronic conditions, is in here 50's and was obese all her life until now, and is even a cancer survivor. She lost 100 pounds.

anyways... in addition to the apocalypse I see coming with socialized medicine and my worry that I or my family will be unable to get a good quality of care. It pisses me off to think of my significant tax payments funding such people.

The sad thing is, the majority of healthcare is used by such people, people with preventable conditions, and it should piss everyone off. If you want to peg a cause for the rise in healthcare costs, it more or less mimics the rise in obesity. Stop eating McDonalds.

[Daniel]

You already pay for fat smokers. If you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself.

[CrystalTears]

I am a believer in individual liberty. While I do believe that some system should exist to help the unfortunate (poor children, disabled) with health care I do not support a forced socialized health care system.

I do realize that in the current world this presents our USA businesses at a disadvantage. The cost of health care in most countries is handled through taxation of the individuals, whereas in our country a large portion is paid by business. If the cost is not figured into trade negotiations then our businesses are left with an extra cost that lowers their ability to compete.

I would be more for a nationalized insurance pool, and keeping a privatized system with a renegotiation of trade agreements to account for the added costs.

Any system that mandates "health habits" is an affront to individual liberty. Mandating drinking an amount of water, or mandating a persons BMI, or mandating specific exercise regimes are an affront to personal liberties.

I stand against all "nanny state" proposals. I believe in personal responsibility without government mandates.
Agreed, especially with the bolded part.

[crb]

You already pay for fat smokers. If you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself.
Oh, I know, and it pisses me off.

But... the cigarette tax supposedly covers it, and that is why one tax I'm fine with raising is that one... but we've got no Bigmac tax so....

[Gan]

One can get us all the way, albeit perhaps slower. The other simply will not delve into some areas. That "free market masked as government effort" wouldn't exist without the subsidy. I'm glad you'll take the compliment. You should.
LOL - obviously you're living in the Gene R Roddenberry Star Trek mindset if you think that by taking out the incentiveness of free market profit that people will just magically and selfishlessly seek to improve on existing technology. You might have a leg to stand on in academics (providing they were all state colleges). Face it, people are profit motivated individuals and seek to better themselves, and thus by bettering themselves they benefit society. You might give The Invisible Hand by Adam Smith a read - for a guy a couple of hundred years old his theory about human behavior in the marketplace is pretty spot on.


Government contracting is a pretty far cry from the "Free Market".

The free market says that there is strict competition, but there isn't. There are massive government regulations, stipulations and probably more important..no competitive source of demand.
Have you ever had the pleasure of working up an RFI or RFB for a government contract slot? Do you realize that free market (I'm qualifying this as companies that are not government owned or run) companies bid competetively on this process? The source of demand is the RFI/RFB, the source of supply are the companies who bid on it. Its those companies that make up the source of the product being produced for the government. Its that product that demonstrates the advancement - which is produced by a free market corporation - not a government entity. Its that concept that refutes the theory from our newest member of the PC politics folder that government > free market.

I'm going to have to start charging tuition. :(

[Daniel]

Have you ever had the pleasure of working up an RFI or RFB for a government contract slot?


Yes. I also currently create these RFI and RFB and evaluate them for awardance. It's anything but a free market system.

[Gan]

Yes. I also currently create these RFI and RFB and evaluate them for awardance. It's anything but a free market system.

I'll yield to your expertise with one asterisk. I've been on the other end of filling out those RFI/RFB's and its my impression that the competitiveness is on the supplyside.

[Daniel]

To be a "Free" market, you would have to have competitive processes driving the demand side as well.

You are correct that the demand side uses competitive processes (effectively, and non effectively in some cases). It's a misnomer to say that this system is pure "capitalism", just as it's a misnomer to suggest that "socialism" can not involve competitive processes.

The point is that you need the government to drive the demand, otherwise a lot of these things wouldn't happen. Why would a company invest trillions of dollars into space exploration when there are no known rate of returns for their investments? The short answer is that they wouldn't.

[crb]

The government's business is creating revenue to be taxed, they do this by fostering economic growth. I would say, in the long run, the business and industry and technology created by nasa has made it profitable to run.

[Daniel]

The government's business is creating revenue to be taxed, they do this by fostering economic growth. I would say, in the long run, the business and industry and technology created by nasa has made it profitable to run.

Which doesn't mean that ADM would have picked up the program in the 1960's and ran with it.