I'm going to England for my medical care...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 28 2007, 09:48 AM) [snapback]469349[/snapback]</div>

exactly my point - place the decision making power with the individual and not the employer. by granting them partiy with employers in terms of tax advantages it will allow and encourage the individual to do what is best for them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 28 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]469331[/snapback]</div>

Thanks.

If dbermann really is against a universal system, I'd love to hear his (concise! cogent!) argument to that purpose. Got mah bow, got mah bow, got mah ar-row....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Jun 27 2007, 11:32 PM) [snapback]469219[/snapback]</div>

I for one, don't have an issue with doctors, nurses, nurses aid, etc. To me they are just gears in the heathcare machine. I take issue with pharmaceutical companies that spend more on advertising than research but claim that charging a 1000% markup is required to develop drugs. I take issue with insurance companies who's first reaction to deny a claim until the patient can prove that it is covered.

I have quite a few close family members in the medical field. As I said before, my uncle is an anesthesiologist, my aunt was on the hosptial board of directors, my brother is a nurse and is currently in grad school to be a nurse anesthetists. They are split in their support for universal care. My uncle thinks the current system is wrong and needs to be fixed but thinks that a single payer system would be too expensive. My aunt disagrees because she see the complexity of dealing with hundreds of different insurance plans and the administration required. She thinks that a single payer system would be less expensive then our current system. My brother HATES the idea of a single payer system because he is a neocon and is against government involvement in anything. He truly believes that the poor are lazy and if they want heathcare they should better themselves and get a job like his.

I've also spent on average 60 days a year traveling in Europe and Japan. I've talked to lots of people about their healthcare systems including a very interesting conversation with two Swedish nurses that had worked both in the US and Sweden. In general, Europeans that I have talked to are very happy with their healthcare. They do not have to wait for long periods of time for care. This is especially true for life-threatening conditions. Yes, they do have to wait for some non-life-threatening surgeries such as joint replacements. They claim that media reports that we read are the typical sensational journalism that blow rare occurrences out of proportion. This would be similar to the rash of reports a few months ago in the US of the child that died of a infected tooth. It is not typical but sells lots of papers.

I've also found the European find our system to be barbaric. They cannot fathom a system that allow those unable to pay for heathcare to just go without. To them it shows a society that is moral bankrupt and lacking in empathy.

 

Why is medicine cheaper from canada & not here? are we paying for the FDA approval? you know kinda like paying for the name of a product say like "Harley Davidson" or "Indian"..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Jun 29 2007, 11:08 AM) [snapback]470067[/snapback]</div>

The Canadian government limits the markup that pharmaceuticals companies are allowed to charge for their drugs. I'm not sure what the % is but they aren't allowed to charge whatever the want. The drugs that you buy in Canada are the same drugs you buy in the United States, most likely from the same production plant.

That is why I find Congressional proposal to save Americans money by buying drugs from Canada to be humorous but also sad. We know why Canadian prices are lower but do not have the will to effect change here in the US.

The solution? Sell drugs to Canadians and them buy them back. All for less than they can be purchased here. Crazy! :blink:

 

Is it possible that it would actually be cheaper in the long run for everyone to have health care?

 

What level of coverage?
I'd say yes, BUT not the full bore Medica coverage that many of us are fortunate to have. But a base coverage for all accompanied by a Medica like supplement plan for the non-poor (at half the cost due to the base coverage), should be cheaper in the long run than what we all pay already for insurance and medicare. (The tax increase in Medicare should be less than the reduction in current insurance cost. It won't be due to politics and insurance lobbyists, but it should be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 29 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]470152[/snapback]</div>

You have to go beyond the immediate medical costs to find value.

How much work time and productivity is due to illness? Is it cheaper to keep your workforce healthy? People who don't have healthcare go to work sick. They either make others sick as well and/or their productivity is greatly reduced. My school district support health insurance because it's cheaper to keep teachers as healthy as possible than to pay substitutes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 29 2007, 01:55 PM) [snapback]470182[/snapback]</div>

The company that my wife works for certain thinks so. She had to sign a document when she started that stated that she would not come to work when she was sick. It also stated that disciplinary action will be taken against those that come to work sick. She is a salaried employee so sick time doesn't effect her paycheck. Her company believes that it costs them less to pay her to say home than to have her come to work sick and infect others.

 

our boss sends us home when we're sick, mostly because she doesn't want to catch it. DH goes no matter what, customers need their cars back.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 27 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]468713[/snapback]</div>

Insurance, physician, and pharmaceutical lobbies are too powerful. Free, socialized healthcare will never happen in the U.S. as long as those special interest groups continue to be allowed to hold our health hostage for $billions.

 

One of the most useful reforms that could be made would be to, in this order,


a) gut the big pharma lobby machine (I'm not sure how)

B) fund the FDA's research truly independently, to reduce bias in the studies that are done,

c) include the negative data in drug reviews (which would be easier, given that if there were less bias and, let's face it, corruption within the FDA, there would be less data suppression)


One of the fundamental changes that would make this series of reforms possible would be NOT giving the corporation the rights of the individual, which is currently what happens in the US legal system.

Although the universal system has its inherent flaws, I believe that those flaws are less troublesome than the flaws in our current system... and, a universal system would be cheaper, if someone competent ran it. If it were done up in grand old fashioned government pork-barrel incompetence, yes, it would be more expensive. But done with some rationality and impartiality (yah, right!) it would be cheaper, on the front end and the back end. Inarguably so, IMHO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Jul 1 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]471104[/snapback]</div>

I'm all in favor of this.

I think that any University or company that receives any sort of government subsidy or grant to develop any kind of medicine must supply that medicine at cost. So they can either pay the research cost themselves and then charge their huge profits....or they can take the money up front for the research. I have no problem with a modest profit. But I think a 400% markup is obscene. They cry that it costs so much to develop they need to get their money back. But some of that money wasn't even theirs...it was supplied by the government.

Of course if you're going to reform the Pharmeceutical industry......you're going to have to reform a lot more than that.

When I visited my state Capital in Sacramento the guard showed me a "lobbyist bench". Lobbyists were not only required to be registered but they had to sit on the bench and the lawmakers had to come to them. It was in a hallway for everyone to see. They could only talk while they were sitting on the bench. I like this system. I think we should institute it nationwide at all levels. From the local mayor and city councils office to congress and the Whitehouse. Put benches in all of the hallways. You can only talk while you sit and in full public view.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Jun 27 2007, 11:32 PM) [snapback]469219[/snapback]</div>

There seem to be a lot of myths in American minds about the British NHS. True the system isn't perfect but it is far far better than some of the impressions given on this thread. I am of an age when many of my contemporaries have medical treatment of some sort, major or minor. In my region I have never met anyone who has had a long wait for scans or surgery resulting from serious conditions.

I find that misleading statements are often made by people who have been told they have to wait for cosmetic surgery or surgery for relatively trivial conditions.

Certainly ask UK residents about their personal experience of health care before forming your opinion. But remember there are always a few negative and unreasonable complainers in any field.