heat;h care in america

[LuthienTinuviel]

when a gun victim goes in to the emergency room, they cannot be treated unless they can provide proof that they have health insurance.

many people cannot afford this, and if they do, many people's insurance companies don't/won't/can't cover many things..

example: my mother is paying over $1000.00 USD a month for insurance that doesn't cover prescription medicines, braces (like for knees and ankles, not the tooth kind) or sports physicals... my question is, what exactly are we paying $1000.00 a month for?

example two: on the local news tonight there was a report on how some health insurance companies are "rationing" thier coverage to buyers.


my solutions:
- lower the costs of medical treatments so that maybe some peopke can afford to go to the doctor without having health insurance or...
-make like canada and raise our taxes a bit more to provide insurance for everyone.

i kow i wouldn't mind paying a bit more for that NOFX cd if it meant that i had my insurance to fall back on.

shouldn't health of the people in your country be a top priority?
vaccinations, cancer treatments, broken bones, (and america has more of these than any other counrty combined (not in a time of war) GUN SHOT WOUNDS are all happening to people, AMERICANS, and some of them will have to be left bleeding on the front steps of the hospital.
i think that one of the first steps to trying to make this country more unified is not to pump it full of superficial patriotism, but to actually care for it's inhabitants.



what about you people? <<<<<<<<<<original post<<<<<

>>>>>ADDED>>> AND CANADA AND ANY OTHER COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE "what about you people" SENTENCE.

[Ornelírë Mistë]

Good luck to you when JD finds this thread, but it does sort of seem like another "Let's rat on Americans thread."

I would like to point out that many many Americans do not agree with what Bush is doing, but can't do a thing about it. Go ahead and say, "You elected him" but only about half of us did- and only electorial vote wise, not through popularity. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to believe polls. They are very inaccurate no matter what the subject.

I am actually not sure if you have to have insurance to get emergency room treatment. You shouldn't have to, in my book.
Personally, I would rather spend money on healthcare than on, say, Iraq.

I would appreciate it if a moderator would close the thread. Even with no America/Europe-bashing, there isn't much to discuss.

EDIT: As for how America spends its money, it is not a question of being right or wrong- though some Americans may agree with you. It is a question of how you present your arguments, and how much data you really have to back it up. Tact is very important.

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by OrnelÃ*rë Mistë
I would appreciate it if a moderator would close the thread. Even with no America/Europe-bashing, there isn't much to discuss.

im sorry that you feel this is another "lets rat on americans" thread. thank you for your opinion, your coat is by the door.


anyways, im sure there'll be something when JD gets here.
...there always is...

and besides, i was TRYING to find topics that didn't involve Iraq/Bush/War/ For or against etc.. please don't bring those topics into this.

plus i want to hear what canadians think of thier health care, or what other countries' polocies are. just because we've covered america, doesn't mean the topic is done... not on an international MB.

[LuthienTinuviel]

Tact is very important.

i've never been one to pussy foot around things... character flaw.. we've all got 'em.

[Ornelírë Mistë]

[QUOTE]shouldn't health of the people in your country be a top priority?
vaccinations, cancer treatments, broken bones, (and america has more of these than any other counrty combined (not in a time of war) GUN SHOT WOUNDS are all happening to people, AMERICANS, and some of them will have to be left bleeding on the front steps of the hospital.
i think that one of the first steps to trying to make this country more unified is not to pump it full of superficial patriotism, but to actually care for it's inhabitants. [/QOUTE]

When you refer to one country in particular, and do not make clear your intentions for healthcare in any other countries, it is difficult to believe you are not ratting on us. Also, you put the laughing smiley right after that paragraph.

[Ornelírë Mistë]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
i've never been one to pussy foot around things... character flaw.. we've all got 'em.

Being polite is not a character flaw, what causes impoliteness is (there are many things that may).

Could you please edit your first post then to include Canada and other countries?

[Ornelírë Mistë]

I just realized your thread topic is "Hea;th Care in America". It seems you did not have many intentions of involving other countries.

[LuthienTinuviel]

i swear to whatever god you and i pray to that i typed "health care" in that blank... ok, "hea;th care" to be exact....

if i could change the title i would, but i seriously do NOT remeber putting that there..

anyways...

Being polite is not a character flaw

you are absolutely right, that's why i was referring to me being tactless as my character flaw.

[Lizra]

We pay $343.00 a month for insurance, deducted out of my husbands pay check. This is a big sum for us. Each family member must reach a $500 deductible before it kicks in, but office visits only cost $15. Generic drugs cost $%, name brands...$15. So....we pay $4116 ayear no matter what, and then $500 each after that before it kicks in. :sad:

The thing is though, if you have anything done at a hopital, the price is astounding! I only see health insurance going higher! I really don't think you can walk through the door of a hospital without dropping $1000.

I believe USA health care should focus more on education about healthy diet. So many problems come from bad diets. If preventitive, healthy habits were the focus....a lot of expensive testing, prescriptions and emergency procedures could be eliminated. Diabetes, stroke, heart disease, skin cancer, high blood pressure, lung cancer, osteoporosis...so many medical conditions can be reduced by healthy habits. Right now we are just playing into the medical big business machines hands.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lizra
I believe USA health care should focus more on education about healthy diet. So many problems come from bad diets. If preventitive, healthy habits were the focus....a lot of expensive testing, prescriptions and emergency procedures could be eliminated. Diabetes, stroke, heart disease, skin cancer, high blood pressure, lung cancer, osteoporosis...so many medical conditions can be reduced by healthy habits. Right now we are just playing into the medical big business machines hands.

fat chance of that (excuse the pun). Remember you are talking america here where every citizen believes they have the right to consume 15 times the resources of the average world dweller by birth. america lives for fat as much as it lives for oil. and it will refuse to cut back on either instead it will insist something be DONE about it so that we can continue to live like we are and have no ill effects. the "sue the fast food joint for making fatty foods that i like to eat" mentality. we can be a pathetic bunch.

pharmecutical companies make way too much money off drugs. theres no way they are gonna let that windfall slip away from them. meanwhile insurance for malpractice goes through the roof because we like to sue each other left and right any chance we get. cost of medical equipment and supplies have also increased at something like 40% rates in the past 5 years. businesses can no longer afford to subsidise their employees health care any longer the bills are just too big. we are in for some serious trouble if it continues on this way.

[jerseydevil]

LT and OrnelÃ*rë Mistë. Thank you for having my reputation proceed me.

First - regarding the erroneous statement that peopel are left dying on hospital steps. If a person needs health care - they get it. It may not be the best - but NO ONE is left dying on the streets - let alone in front of a hospital. Just look at the many people who come across the border from Mexico just to have babies in American hospitals in texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona. They don't have health insurance.

As for the 2000 election - I can't believe we're going over this is again. Bush was elected according the Constitution - the supreme law of the United States. It's by electorial college to protect the small states. We have what is known as STATE RIGHTS here. You are lucky you vote for the President at all - because actually that right isn't protected. The State legislatures could just as easily be the ones who vote for the president. It's up to the INDIVIDUAL STATES as to how they vote for the president. The only reason everyone thought they voted directly for the president is becuause that's how the media presents it. Anyone who has read the Constitution would have understood how it works though.

By the way - you know what a lot of your insurance cost goes to? The malpractice lawsuits that so many people like to resort to.

Also - Neither Bush nor any other president has much to do with the Health Care of this country. Write your representative in Congress - that's who is in charge of this stuff.

I don't think we have perfect health care here - but I would have a problem with the government getting completely involved. Your recommendations LT would limit advancement in new technologies. All this week ABC News has been focusing on Health Care in the US. Tonight Nightline had on about US health care compared to the rest of the world - particularly Canada. Canada also has a lot of problems. They're running out of money to fund their programs, their doctors are leaving because they can't even afford their college loans on what they pay there. Nightline had both criticism and praise for the Candadian system as well as criticism and praise for the American system.

No system is perfect - but to say that people are being left to die outside hospitals in America is just outrageous.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
fat chance of that (excuse the pun). Remember you are talking america here where every citizen believes they have the right to consume 15 times the resources of the average world dweller by birth. america lives for fat as much as it lives for oil. and it will refuse to cut back on either instead it will insist something be DONE about it so that we can continue to live like we are and have no ill effects. the "sue the fast food joint for making fatty foods that i like to eat" mentality. we can be a pathetic bunch.

Those lawsuits were thrown out of court - as they should be. And it was the trial lawyers that issued them. They collected people in NY and suggested that they sue MCDonalds.

And I would also like to ask - why shouldn't I be allowed to eat what I want? I agree I should be responsible for what I eat - but neither you nor anyone else should have a say in how many hamburgers I eat or what I eat.

pharmecutical companies make way too much money off drugs. theres no way they are gonna let that windfall slip away from them. meanwhile insurance for malpractice goes through the roof because we like to sue each other left and right any chance we get. cost of medical equipment and supplies have also increased at something like 40% rates in the past 5 years. businesses can no longer afford to subsidise their employees health care any longer the bills are just too big. we are in for some serious trouble if it continues on this way.

I consulted for 2 pharmaceutical companies - Eli Lilly and Merck. The number of US regulations and testing is unbelievable. The number of drugs that never make it to market is incredible. The successful drugs are the ones that need to pay for all the failures. The US ends up paying far higher prices to make up for the low prices in the other countries.

I had a problem with Eli Lilly trying to get the patent extended by making it avaible for just another group or the tactic often used of turning the drug from a once a day ot once a week drug. But to say that Pharmaceutical companies purposely milk the consumer is a lie. You want cancer drugs, and rare disease cures - well who is going to pay for that? and where is the incentive for them to do it?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And I would also like to ask - why shouldn't I be allowed to eat what I want? neither you nor anyone else should have a say in how many hamburgers I eat or what I eat.

excuse me while i go drink a glass of bleach because its MY DAMN RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN! and then when my liver disintegrates I would like you to pay for the $2 million surgey and subsidize my medications thank you. if not directly then at least by having to pay much higher health care costs to subsidize fat ignorant selfish pigs like me who believe i have a god given right to do whatever i like to myself and live any way i like and it wont actually effect my environment or my neighbors or my economy or my world. and if it does well TOO BAD!! ITS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN! Now shut your mouth and find a way to lower my gas bill while yer at it. I have SUVs to drive around pointlessly all day.

The successful drugs are the ones that need to pay for all the failures. The US ends up paying far higher prices to make up for the low prices in the other countries.

...to say that Pharmaceutical companies purposely milk the consumer is a lie. You want cancer drugs, and rare disease cures - well who is going to pay for that? and where is the incentive for them to do it?

Low prices? That’s a fallacy. Should the average pennyless ugandun have to pay $600 a week in pills to keep their baby from dieing from yellow fever? is that fair? the fact of the matter is there is little or no research occurring on better treatments for things like malaria or tuberculosis despite their impact on millions of people. Instead we get 6 pills to fight acid stomach because they make billions. Compound this neglect with the fact that legal controls over certain drugs allow companies to actually block countries from obtaining fairly priced generic medications. If industry invested a fraction of the energy they spend for public relations and legal battles in finding new ways to help people afford treatment they could be part of a win-win situation, be better positioned to negotiate reasonable tiered pricing strategies and have a vastly improved public image. But they don’t even consider it. This is called greed.

The failure to study potentially useful products that have little profit potential is yet another sign of a broken system. Once a drug's patents have expired it is almost never clinically evaluated to see if it has therapeutic value for neglected or commercially unimportant diseases. More greed. They CAN do it. To say oh they cant afford to is laughable. with government subsidies, tax write-offs and the numerous incentives drug companies receive in the form of corporate welfare, the profit from bringing a drug to market dramatically outweighs the cost.

Why doesnt the government allow a parallel import program allowing the state to buy drugs identical to the expensive domestic versions but at much cheaper prices. because the pharm. industry would flip out and they have a very powerful lobby. Why doesnt the state issue a compulsory license permitting local manufacturers of generic drugs to make copies at reasonable prices. Again theres no way the drug companies would allow that kind of hit on their profits. For these companies its not about a duty to serve those in need its about how much can we make.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
excuse me while i go drink a glass of bleach because its MY DAMN RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN! and then when my liver disintegrates I would like you to pay for the $2 million surgey and subsidize my medications thank you. if not directly then at least by having to pay much higher health care costs to subsidize fat ignorant selfish pigs like me who believe i have a god given right to do whatever i like to myself and live any way i like and it wont actually effect my environment or my neighbors or my economy or my world. and if it does well TOO BAD!! ITS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN! Now shut your mouth and find a way to lower my gas bill while yer at it. I have SUVs to drive around pointlessly all day.

Yes -it is your right as an American. I fyou want to drink bleach - go right ahead.

Low prices? That’s a fallacy. Should the average pennyless ugandun have to pay $600 a week in pills to keep their baby from dieing from yellow fever? is that fair?

I was talking about the low prices in Canada and the rest of the developed world. Not Uganda.

the fact of the matter is there is little or no research occurring on better treatments for things like malaria or tuberculosis despite their impact on millions of people. Instead we get 6 pills to fight acid stomach because they make billions. Compound this neglect with the fact that legal controls over certain drugs allow companies to actually block countries from obtaining fairly priced generic medications. If industry invested a fraction of the energy they spend for public relations and legal battles in finding new ways to help people afford treatment they could be part of a win-win situation, be better positioned to negotiate reasonable tiered pricing strategies and have a vastly improved public image. But they don’t even consider it. This is called greed.

Is that what it's called? Yes - they do work on the things that PEOPLE are interested in curing. But how do you think public health care would make it better? It wouldn't because then there wouldn't be any incentive to find cures for a lot of what they work on today. Why should I waste money investing in research that will cost millions and then be restricted in selling it so to make a profit and then have it support the research needed for the other drugs.

The failure to study potentially useful products that have little profit potential is yet another sign of a broken system. Once a drug's patents have expired it is almost never clinically evaluated to see if it has therapeutic value for neglected or commercially unimportant diseases. More greed. They CAN do it.

They do do that. What are youy talking about? I worked on developing a Clinical Trial application. I KNOW how the clinical trial process works and when enough reports come back that the drug may be beneficial in other areas - they test that too.

To say oh they cant afford to is laughable. with government subsidies, tax write-offs and the numerous incentives drug companies receive in the form of corporate welfare, the profit from bringing a drug to market dramatically outweighs the cost.

Is that why a drug company's stock will plummet if they don't have a potential drug in the pipeline to replace a successful drug whose patent is expiring stock? Drug companies suffer a lot when they don't have a successful drug to make up for the lost revenue from a drug that has come off it's patent.

Why doesnt the government allow a parallel import program allowing the state to buy drugs identical to the expensive domestic versions but at much cheaper prices. because the pharm. industry would flip out and they have a very powerful lobby. Why doesnt the state issue a compulsory license permitting local manufacturers of generic drugs to make copies at reasonable prices. Again theres no way the drug companies would allow that kind of hit on their profits. For these companies its not about a duty to serve those in need its about how much can we make.

Of course they wouldn't - they worked and spent the resources to discover the drug. After the patent is over - then the generics can get into the market. I'm not saying that there isn't abuse in the system (Eli Lilly tried getting Prozac's patent extended) - but from personally seeing the process of what it takes to bring a drug to market - you have no idea what you are talking about in this. As I said - I worked on an application that managed and tracked the results of clinical trials. At Merck I worked on an application that managed the manufacturing of drugs, and also an application that tracked the progress in complying with the latest US regulation known as Part 11.

[The Gaffer]

The usual figure quoted is that it costs roughly $500 million to get a completely new drug to market. This includes the costs of the "blind-alley" research that leads nowhere. For sure, a company taking that sort of investment risk has to get a reward. However, it also means that there are lots of "marketing" trials out there looking for new applications of existing drugs, which are selectively reported, and as a result, health systems worldwide spend lots of money on unproven interventions.

The original question seems to be about the issue of insurance. If you want health care, you're going to have to pay for it at some point. Clearly, it's fairest to pay into a collective "pot" so that you don't have to pay the cost at the point of delivery. In theory, the larger the pot, the more efficient, and fairer, the system.

I think one problem with the private insurance systems is the inefficiency of the paper trail which accompanies the plethora of schemes. The US spends something like 16% of GDP on health care, compared with around 7% in the UK, where there's a nationalised system. While health care for most people in the states is probably better than it is here, it seems to come at a very high price.

I have a question, though. If you are diagnosed with a chronic condition, such as diabetes, does your premium go up?

[Cirdan]

If you have diabetes and you let your insurance laspe without getting HIPA you can be denied coverage. A death sentence for a poor diabetic. Fortunately, there are some charity organizations that help but still, sometimes poor diabetics are found arriving at emergency rooms requiring emergency aputations, etc.

[Twista]

Show me the NHS any day... best health system in the world

lol

[The Gaffer]

Yowch, that sucks big time.

The NHS is just about the only thing us Brits have got right. That and the BBC, maybe.

[Radagast]

It's completely off topic but Gaffer, love your sleeping cat avatar.

[The Gaffer]

Thank you, kind sir. Do you recognise the beast?

EDIT: Just noticed Twista's rolleyes on the NHS praise. Mate, you have to realise that the NHS is BY FAR the most efficient and effective health system in the world.

Don't be fooled because the Daily Mail and other so-called journalists (who wouldn't last 5 minutes if they were required to abide by the standards of professionalism and quality of service that health professionals have to live up to 24/7) love to sell a cheap story at the expense of the NHS.

It's especially important to realise this because the Tories will hack it to bits the moment they get in.