HillaryCare- The Dark Side

[Peikko 1,575]

In quantity or quality? And, are all US innovations in all these fields produced in the private sector? And, is it even true?

Personally, I have no idea, but historically, I think it's pretty true to say that the profit motive is a very poor one when talking about innovation. Most truly innovative thinkers don't appear to have money as their primary motive but rather the desire to understand how things work and how to provide solutions to problems.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Are you saying that little medical innovation has come from European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? All those places have a form of universal health care for citizens and residents. I dare say that the U.S. isn't the only country producing new treatments, devices, and meds.

The US does lead the rest of the world at it, though.

True, but we're also the largest industrialized nation, by a long shot. And I don't think the innovation is due to having a patchwork treatment-financing scheme.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Research costs millions of dollars. This isn't "art" where you need a crazy genius who doesn't care about money, you need labs and supplies and you need to pay your PhDs more than the competition will. And you need it for year after year after year, only to come up with a product that doesn't make it. So, you need parallel efforts, many of them, of which maybe 1 makes it to market.

I'm sympathetic to those who clamor for universal healthcare, but let's not underestimate the importance of a profit motive in drug development.

[Peikko 1,575]

let's not underestimate the importance of a profit motive in drug development.

Well, yes and no. Drug companies are only interested in marketable drugs so while they might be responsible for vast swathes of new drugs, how many of these are actually useful (producing a positive effect on the ailment whilst not producing so negative an effect in terms of side effects as to render the positive effect nul and void)?

[Dan J 277]

Research costs millions of dollars. This isn't "art" where you need a crazy genius who doesn't care about money, you need labs and supplies and you need to pay your PhDs more than the competition will. And you need it for year after year after year, only to come up with a product that doesn't make it. So, you need parallel efforts, many of them, of which maybe 1 makes it to market.

I'm sympathetic to those who clamor for universal healthcare, but let's not underestimate the importance of a profit motive in drug development.

The profit motive is also a detractor. What drugs get developed are the ones that will make the most money (ED and Diet Pills) and not ones that will necessarily save lives. Some drug companies have changed a particular drug just a bit, so they can lock up that drug in patents for another 17 years.

In my opinion, If any public money is used to develop a drug, it cannot be patented, or the patent is proportional to the public money used to develop the drug.

[Peikko 1,575]

What would be cool would be a list of the most useful drugs and whether or not they were initially produced as a result of drug companies' munificence or individual persistence.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Research costs millions of dollars. This isn't "art" where you need a crazy genius who doesn't care about money, you need labs and supplies and you need to pay your PhDs more than the competition will. And you need it for year after year after year, only to come up with a product that doesn't make it. So, you need parallel efforts, many of them, of which maybe 1 makes it to market.

I'm sympathetic to those who clamor for universal healthcare, but let's not underestimate the importance of a profit motive in drug development.

I don't think universal health care is at odds w/ research endeavors. Many research teams are funded through public-private partnerships, with plenty of private investment but also significant government funding.

The real pisser is that drug companies jack up their prices for the U.S. market because we don't have price controls.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

With government control there will not be any future cures for cancer, or innovation, or any new life saving drugs. These take innovation and entrepreneurship of the free market and their will be no free market with universal heath care. But you don't get that either. So when somebody 20 years from now that is dying from cancer and does not have the drug to save their life is that not selfish also. Because you didn't take responsibility for yourself and wanted someone else to pay for your health care.

These are myths propogated by the ins/pharm/healthcare companies that currently control our access to healthcare. It's a scare tactic and you really should do more research instead of just parroting why you hear from the opposing side of the argument.

Having a univeral healthcare system does not have to do away with private parties. It just offers everyone the same ability to get healthcare. If I'm not mistaken, there are private clinics in the UK that operate quite lucratively, even though they have the NHS, right?

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Yes, they have private clinics because the people would rather pay then get the quality of care that is offered for free. I thought that they are technically illegal under the system. But are allowed to exist because the quality of the NHS system is so poor that they are allowed to operate out of necessity. Also if you need life saving operations you have a greater chance of death in these countries due to the wait. If I need to get a cancer operation in America it may cost money, But I will be getting it within hours or days not months or years. It may be too late by then.

Why is it someone else responsibility to pay your way! The responsibility is yours and yours alone. Plan properly please.

I've heard that before - but exactly how exactly do you plan for your healthcare needs? I mean... you can't save money for something if you don't know how much it will be... and given how variable the charges are...

We can put money aside for emergencies (and we do) - but the savings we have would be wiped out in the blink of an eye if either of us ended up being excluded with some sort of pre-existing condition thing that denies insurance coverage.

My company offers a health savings account, but the benefit of that only applies for people with long-term or chronic conditions, as I lose the money I pay into it if I don't use it in a calendar year.

How exactly then should I plan...?

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Are you saying that little medical innovation has come from European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? All those places have a form of universal health care for citizens and residents. I dare say that the U.S. isn't the only country producing new treatments, devices, and meds.

The US does lead the rest of the world at it, though.

True, but we're also the largest industrialized nation, by a long shot. And I don't think the innovation is due to having a patchwork treatment-financing scheme.

Do you think we got to be the largest industrialized nation by a long shot by accident? Private companies and free markets brought this not the government. Government will only hamper progress. The only true solution to the health care system lies in the free market not the government. You make it in the best interest of the drug companies, doctors and hospitals to bring us the best possible care at the lowest prices. That only happens with free markets, government control is exactly 180 degrees the wrong direction. This will result in even higher costs, lower quality and more pain and suffering for the masses.

Really compassionate isn't it! That money is better spent on innovation then bureaucracy!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This might be news to you - but the current insurance bureaucracy between consumers, insurers and providers is a far far bigger beast than you may want to admit...

[Dan J 277]

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Are you saying that little medical innovation has come from European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? All those places have a form of universal health care for citizens and residents. I dare say that the U.S. isn't the only country producing new treatments, devices, and meds.

The US does lead the rest of the world at it, though.

True, but we're also the largest industrialized nation, by a long shot. And I don't think the innovation is due to having a patchwork treatment-financing scheme.

Do you think we got to be the largest industrialized nation by a long shot by accident? Private companies and free markets brought this not the government. Government will only hamper progress. The only true solution to the health care system lies in the free market not the government. You make it in the best interest of the drug companies, doctors and hospitals to bring us the best possible care at the lowest prices. That only happens with free markets, government control is exactly 180 degrees the wrong direction. This will result in even higher costs, lower quality and more pain and suffering for the masses.

Really compassionate isn't it! That money is better spent on innovation then bureaucracy!

Ironically, the highest rated (in quality and coverage) health care systems in the world, are all universal health care systems. And most of them, pay a fraction of what we do. So to me, we already spend more money, for what really is a much poorer product.

Competition hardly exists because of the dynamics of the market.

So I'm waiting for this fabled free market health care system to do what you promise that it will do.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

How exactly then should I plan...?

Oh silly! Don't you know? Don't get sick!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How exactly then should I plan...?

Oh silly! Don't you know? Don't get sick!

In the current system its simply impossible to know isn't it. You can save - but the amount of money the average person can put aside may not be enough to pay for the costs of treatment. Even 5 figure savings can be wiped out in a snap if the insurance denies the claim - and its not exactly a myth that people have been made bankrupt simply through medical bills. Oddly enough those are the lucky people - because if the insurer denies you before you have an operation, and the provider thinks that you don't have the money - you won't get the treatment.

Bankruptcy or death - hardly an appealing choice is it.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Do you think we got to be the largest industrialized nation by a long shot by accident? Private companies and free markets brought this not the government. Government will only hamper progress. The only true solution to the health care system lies in the free market not the government. You make it in the best interest of the drug companies, doctors and hospitals to bring us the best possible care at the lowest prices. That only happens with free markets, government control is exactly 180 degrees the wrong direction. This will result in even higher costs, lower quality and more pain and suffering for the masses.

Really compassionate isn't it! That money is better spent on innovation then bureaucracy!

Well, abundant arable land helped.

And the evil federal government enabled much of it to happen by funding major civil works projects (dams, railroads) and building infrastructure. It's not all about the free market. Some necessary projects aren't sexy or--*gasp*--profitable.

I agree with your free-market argument regarding other stuff--cars, shoes, electronics--but not health care.

It would also help if medical education weren't a small fortune. Doctors in other countries don't earn as much as they do in the U.S., but they also don't graduate into $100,000 debt or have to buy yearly malpractice premiums that cost more than a condo.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

With government control there will not be any future cures for cancer, or innovation, or any new life saving drugs. These take innovation and entrepreneurship of the free market and their will be no free market with universal heath care. But you don't get that either. So when somebody 20 years from now that is dying from cancer and does not have the drug to save their life is that not selfish also. Because you didn't take responsibility for yourself and wanted someone else to pay for your health care.

These are myths propogated by the ins/pharm/healthcare companies that currently control our access to healthcare. It's a scare tactic and you really should do more research instead of just parroting why you hear from the opposing side of the argument.

Having a univeral healthcare system does not have to do away with private parties. It just offers everyone the same ability to get healthcare. If I'm not mistaken, there are private clinics in the UK that operate quite lucratively, even though they have the NHS, right?

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Yes, they have private clinics because the people would rather pay then get the quality of care that is offered for free. I thought that they are technically illegal under the system. But are allowed to exist because the quality of the NHS system is so poor that they are allowed to operate out of necessity. Also if you need life saving operations you have a greater chance of death in these countries due to the wait. If I need to get a cancer operation in America it may cost money, But I will be getting it within hours or days not months or years. It may be too late by then.

Why is it someone else responsibility to pay your way! The responsibility is yours and yours alone. Plan properly please.

I've heard that before - but exactly how exactly do you plan for your healthcare needs? I mean... you can't save money for something if you don't know how much it will be... and given how variable the charges are...

We can put money aside for emergencies (and we do) - but the savings we have would be wiped out in the blink of an eye if either of us ended up being excluded with some sort of pre-existing condition thing that denies insurance coverage.

My company offers a health savings account, but the benefit of that only applies for people with long-term or chronic conditions, as I lose the money I pay into it if I don't use it in a calendar year.

How exactly then should I plan...?

Save your money, buy the coverage that you require and push for more free market solutions like medical savings accounts where YOU control the money, not the government, not the insurance companies! then they will serve your needs, not the governments, not the insurance companies.

Not that one the HSA the new one MSA that is being offered to people with small businesses does not expire every year. More like a 401K of health care. Where you save up the money that would go to the insurance company, buy only catastrophic insurance and pay for the rest of your services with the interest accruing account that you control. Right now they are only being offered to small businesses that do not have enough employees to qualify for insurance coverage discount rates. They should be expanded to all people, but they will not be unless we start demanding them from our employers. If I had the money put into an account instead of giving it to a HMO or insurance company and then I was allowed to make all my choices in health care it would be a real wonderful thing. The competition between the medical providers would increase quality while the price would plummet.

If you need an example of what happens to a medical system with competition just look at Lasik eye surgery and plastic surgery. Neither are covered under insurance and the price for each has dropped so precipitously due to competition that you can get your eyes fixed cheap compared to relatively simple operations that cost much more because they are paid for under insurance.

And like any free market you don't have to shop at Wal-Mart but you are not forced to pay for Nordstrom's either.

Does that answer your question Number 6?

Edited January 29, 2008 by Don_Joy's Prince