This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[Rolfe]

No fraud, just bankruptcy.

I think Architect was also referring to an earlier post, where a situation was described of a young woman, apparently healthy, and with no medical insurance, who suddently needed expensive eye medication. In order to get this, someone else with good insurance cover induced his own doctor to write a prescription for the medication, as if it were for himself, the insured party.

This is definitely fraud.

I also dread to think what it's doing to the integrity of people's medical records.

Of course, you might describe taking goods and services which you cannot pay for and have no intention of paying for as fraud too, I'm not sure of the legal definition.

[Jerome]
Oh, but the USA must do things this way because it is too honourable to freeload on the back of all the people who were conquered and enslaved to make the country as prosperous as it is. Britain has no right to spend less money to provide its entire population with good-quality care, because it also did some stuff in the past that wasn't too ethical.
[/Jerome]

And if you understand that, good luck to you.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It is absolutely amazing what the US government can accomplish when it makes it a priority.

And this is in fact true. I have no idea, really, why G'Kar is so pessimistic about the capabilities of his own country.

Um, it's this way because everybody realises they have no right to cheap and effective universal coverage because of slavery, and the treatment of the Native Americans. These past sins mean that morally the country is obliged to spend a ton of money more than it has to, to provide patchy, inconsistent and poor-quality coverage to less than half its population.

You know, thinking like Jerome is giving me a headache.

Rolfe.

 

[balrog666]

And this is in fact true. I have no idea, really, why G'Kar is so pessimistic about the capabilities of his own country.

[snip]

Rolfe.

Because I've seen it up close and personal - bureaucratic inertia is truly the scourge of our society.

And it's the same reason, no one is out rioting for universal health care - aside from a few anecdotal stories, 1) no one lacks health care, crappy as it might be, and 2) why would they expect better care afterwards when they would get their care from the same people and facilities they get it from now?

 

[Blue Mountain]

And it's the same reason, no one is out rioting for universal health care - aside from a few anecdotal stories, 1) no one lacks health care, crappy as it might be, and 2) why would they expect better care afterwards when they would get their care from the same people and facilities they get it from now?

At the risk of being accused of splitting hairs, I'll take exception to your point #1 by saying no one lacks emergency care. Real healthcare--the kind where you have access to the medical system outside of the emergency room--is unobtainable for the uninsured and poorly insured. By most counts that's about 20 million people in the US. (That number is recalled from memory; I'm open to correction if someone provides a more accurate number.)

As for point #2, I think the bureaucratic nightmares are there because of a lack of universality: a lot of effort goes into determining if you are eligible for this program or that program based on your needs, and insurance companies and HMOs actively trying not to pay for your procedures. Replace that with a system where citizenship and residency are about the only two eligibility requirements and that part of the bureaucracy almost disappears, since there are already government departments taking care of that.

And for the most part we're advocating placing the insurance into the public sector. Canada likes to have the hospitals and clinics in the public sector, too, but in my opinion that's not the best way. The USA could have a broad-coverage publicly funded health insurance system and have the actual provision of those services covered by the private sector. And the cost for that, as we've consistently shown here, is only slightly higher than what you're paying in taxes right now.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There was a radio programme item this morning about the inadvisability of omitting travel insurance when going on holiday (apparently people are now going snowboarding and bungee jumping on Saga holidays, and need the appropriate cover).

The biggest scare story was about a woman who went to the USA on a short break, and didn't take out insurance (very very silly move). She had a heart attack. The bill was £250,000, and she had to sell her house to pay it. Presumably she ended up having to be housed and supported by the state, as she was left with no assets after paying the medical bill.

This tells us nothing but that it is very very silly to go to the USA without insurance in place. Oh, and that treating a myocardial infarction is likely to cost £250,000.

Rolfe.

Why did not the NHS cover her?

My insurance pays no matter where I receive care.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So you admit that your point about USA having a better health care system due to Canadians crossing the border for our product is invalid? Thanks.

Please at least attempt thought. If America had price controls on drugs there would be no incentive to create new drugs and as such neither Canadian nor Americans, nor anyone else would have new life saving drugs.

If America had price controls on drugs, what would the world be like?

Do yourself a favor and think on this question.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Of course, you might describe taking goods and services which you cannot pay for and have no intention of paying for as fraud too, I'm not sure of the legal definition.

Is that not the definition of the NHS?

 

[Architect]

Why did not the NHS cover her?

My insurance pays no matter where I receive care.

European citizens are entitled to free treatment in other European countries and, in addition, a significant number of third part states including (for example) Australia and the like on much the same terms.

America, however, is not part of the programme. The odd man out, as it were.

In all cases, UK citizens normally take out travel insurance which for a small sum (typically £20 per person per year) will cover anything likely to happen to you whilst abroad including baggage loss, theft, cancellation, missed connections, and - of course - medical cover over and above the local "free" level.

That the woman was daft enough not to do so in no way means that we should not feel sypathetic about such a bankrupcy-inducing bill. And btw, bankrupcy doesn't go the same way in the UK. House, assets, etc. all go generally.

Now back on point, Jerome, when are you going to "prove" (don't make me laugh) that your expensive, less effective healthcare system is somehow preferrable to our cheaper, result-producing NHS?

 

[Architect]

Is that not the definition of the NHS?

If you're tryingto make a case, then you'd better produce some reasoning and analysis. Mind you, based upon your performance on "defence" and "colonial wealth" I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Architect]

Please at least attempt thought. If America had price controls on drugs there would be no incentive to create new drugs and as such neither Canadian nor Americans, nor anyone else would have new life saving drugs.

If America had price controls on drugs, what would the world be like?

Do yourself a favor and think on this question.

Tch tch tch. Time for you to try the research thing, Jerome.

What countries to these leading pharma companies, who have developed many of our medical drugs, come from:

GlaxoSmithKline
Sanofi-Aventis
AstraZeneca
Roche
Novartis

The pharmaceutical industry has always been one of Europe’s flagship industries for innovation and competitiveness. Some of the biggest names in the sector, as well as a multitude of smaller players, are based and undertake research and development in the EU.

Now, you are going to argue that these European companies have an unfair advantage or somesuch because there are no price controls in the US, hence there is a degree of cross-Atlantic subsidy.

Well that might be true - you'd have to do some work and actually produce a cogent argument, which would be a first - but importantly, there are vast differences between Europe and the US in overall R&D investment in the pharmaceutical field given that the levels of public spending differ greatly across the Atlantic.

The American National Institutes of Health (NIH) invests over $27 billion annually in medical research, an impressive figure for which there is no equivalent in the EU. The funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 212,000 researchers at over 2,800 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions.


That's right. Your government subsidises it's medical R&D sector to the tune of $27b per annum. European companies don't see a penny of that, do they? Yet still, amazingly, we manage to produce a whole range of new medicinal drugs.

At the end of the day, it comes back to the same thing. The US system pays far, far more and gets less.

 

[Architect]

Because I've seen it up close and personal - bureaucratic inertia is truly the scourge of our society.

And it's the same reason, no one is out rioting for universal health care - aside from a few anecdotal stories, 1) no one lacks health care, crappy as it might be, and 2) why would they expect better care afterwards when they would get their care from the same people and facilities they get it from now?

By "our", can we take it to mean that you are referring to your own country? And have you considered that the lack of demand for better health care might be because so few of you know that you pay more, and get less, than comparable developed countries with unversal healthcare?

At the end of the day, however, I suspect your objection to this is philosophical/political. So let me ask you a few questions:

1. Do you believe that a mature society has a duty of care to look after those who are least able to look after themselves, for whatever reason?

2. Do you believe that all people should have access to healthcare for all life-threatening and serious illnesses/conditions, at an adequate level (i.e. full treatment through to good health) level, regardless of ability to pay?

3. Do you believe that the current US system does this, regardless of the apparent disparrity in benchmark indicators with comparable developed nations?

4. Assuming that you do not, how do you think this issue is best addressed?

 

[Corsair 115]

If America had price controls on drugs, what would the world be like?

Price controls are not the only reason why many drugs are cheaper in Canada. Another contributing factor is that when the health plan makes a purchase from a supplier in the U.S., it is making an absolutely huge buy, and as a result the money involved allows for some very good per-unit pricing. In other words, volume discount.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now back on point, Jerome, when are you going to "prove" (don't make me laugh) that your expensive, less effective healthcare system is somehow preferrable to our cheaper, result-producing NHS?

Why do you choose to compare government run systems?

I agree that government run health-care in America is poorly run and expensive.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Price controls are not the only reason why many drugs are cheaper in Canada. Another contributing factor is that when the health plan makes a purchase from a supplier in the U.S., it is making an absolutely huge buy, and as a result the money involved allows for some very good per-unit pricing. In other words, volume discount.

They are price-controlled in Canada and Americans are paying over market value, thus Americans are subsidizing Canada's drug costs.

Thanks would be in order.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Tch tch tch. Time for you to try the research thing, Jerome.

What countries to these leading pharma companies, who have developed many of our medical drugs, come from:

GlaxoSmithKline
Sanofi-Aventis
AstraZeneca
Roche
Novartis

Do these companies sell in the American market sans price controls?

You must start thinking beyond step one.

 

[Architect]

I agree that government run health-care in America is poorly run and expensive.

You're weaseling again. Be specific:

Do you agree that government run universal health care systems operated in (for example) the UK, France, Germany, Canada, and the Antipodes provide at least comparable standards of healthcare and that, on the basis of the figures posted here, do so at significantly lower cost per head than the US?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

At the end of the day, it comes back to the same thing. The US system pays far, far more and gets less.

Where you trying to make my point? It is apparent that the socialists are feeding at the trough of America. What are the socialists going to do when America's economy falls? When are the socialists going to give thanks to America?

 

[Architect]

You're weaseling again. Be specific:

Do you agree that government run universal health care systems operated in (for example) the UK, France, Germany, Canada, and the Antipodes provide at least comparable standards of healthcare and that, on the basis of the figures posted here, do so at significantly lower cost per head than the US?

Answer the question, Jerome.

 

[Architect]

Do these companies sell in the American market sans price controls?

You must start thinking beyond step one.

When you can be bothered doing some research and posting evidence that alleged EU controls on drugs prices lead to a substantive penalty against the US then I might give this some weight.

So, for example, dig out some information on the drugs that are subject to such restrictions, the final implications in view of overall volume, and the returns required by the manufacturers.

I suspect you'll not be willing to put in the work, as usual.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Answer the question, Jerome.

The answer to the question is no.