Is health care a right?

[squareman]

One thing is clear. In the USA is where you can find the best medicine available. That is why people from other countries go to Houston, for example, to recieve treatment for cancer.
It is also the country that invests more in research in every field. This proves private investment can obtain excellent results. Unfortunatelly this rarely happens in other countries. Europe is far behind USA in research and Spain even more, where our scientists often have to go to the USA to obatin the support and money for their research.
But for countries in which private investment is very poor (Spain) a Public Health System in needed because no private company is willing to do so. In fact, when you read about the very little progress made in Spain in the HIV field (see the therapeutic vaccine with dendritic cells) it is always sponsored by public money in public hospitals.
You are lucky to have one of the very best private health systems in the world. It would be perfect if the 100% of the population had access to it. I don´t think it is necessary to create a paralel public health system. Making the system you already have accesible to everybody would be better.

I am amazed to read something like this from a fellow european.

Many countries in the EU have big pharmaceutical companies developing new products. In this country (the size of maryland and with only 10 million people) there are over 150 pharmaceutical companies present. This tiny country exports more medical products than the whole of the USA(source: newsweek). The biggest research center in the world for anti HIV drugs (tibotec) is in this country. True there are big differences between member states of the EU (Denmark, Sweden and Belgium being best of the class - spain being among the worst) but blaming that on universal health insurance is wrong.

Health insurance is one thing - how well a certain economic sector is developped in a country is quite another. You make it seem as if a universal health care system is needed because spain would be in somekind of way a poor country?(I thought it was not). Now how do you explain all these other countries making up the list of the worlds richest nations that provide universal health care? Certainly not because they are poor???

[AustinWesley]

I almost said something about the post from the guy from Spain.  Houston is supposed to be some meca of superior physicians and hospitals and cutting edge technology.

My parents live in Houston.   Shortly after my HIV diagnosis last year my dad's doctor claimed he had cancer.   Well, after a merry go round of opinions from various specialists all claiming he had cancer or they couldn't determine this or that.   Anyways, this went on for months. 

Finally, fed up with inaccurate and inconclusive tests my dad ended up going to the Mayo Clinic having several biopsies.   The final result was that he was cancer free.

Anyways, I thought I'd share just how great the private medical system was for my own dad living in Houston.

[Cliff]

To be fair to BB, the point he was making is that a disproportnate share of healthcare investment is done by the US.  The US is resposible for 50% of drug R&D.  He did not say Europe doesn't research or doesn't export medical technology, just that they spend less on development (as a whole or per capita) than the US. 

It's easy to play games with stats.  For example, Ireland exports more drugs than most countries.  That's not because there's some sort of hot bed of drug R&D going on in Ireland, but that the government has favorable tax laws, so drug companies will set up manufacturing sites in Ireland and ship their products from that country to other countries.  But if you just looked at the export stats for Ireland, you would think it was the haven for drug research.  Or Belgium laying claim to Tibotec (not sure about it being the largest HIV research in the world.... that seems like a stretch given that it's just a company with 3 drugs in its pipeline). Plus, it's a bit ironic because Tibotec is a division of an American company (J&J).  It's all games and you can spin the stats to support any argument. 

Yes, the US has a disporpornate share of R&D.  Yes, the US is almost always the market drug companies take their products to first.  But that's probably due to the fact that the US, a) doesn't have price controls so companies can charge more for their products, b) is the largest market in the world so companies can get the most bang for their buck, and c) has the largest capital (stock/corporate debt) markets in the world....so companies can raise more capital for investment/start-ups in the US than elsewhere.  It's not because the US doesn't have universal health care (but I don't think that's what BB was saying anyway...he was just making the point that you need a strong private system to spur investment in addition to a public one to ensure the entire population has adequate cover.  That seems like a reasonable point to me.)

[libvet]

Yes, very true. That's something else that needs to be fixed - the fact that corporate America can buy so much influence in how the country is run.

 

It's known as the politics of the empty chair.  When lawmakers get together to create new legislation or change a current one, there is a seat for everyone to voice their viewpoints on the matter.  One for the lawmaker, one for the corporate lobbyist, one for the White House and one for the people.  Unfortunately, for our voice, we get an empty chair with NO ONE to truly represent the viewpoints of the people.

In theory, our legislators are supposed to be that voice, but all they get is spin from the corporate lobbyists and White House because they have the money to buy a place at the table or the power to demand a place at the table, respectively.   That legislator hears from those two and the voice of the people is relegated never truly heard, or if they are heard, someone dismisses them as being a "special interest group".   

The same people that decry special interest groups in Washington seem to have no problem with special interests groups funded by corporations to represent the corporation's viewpoint.   

And that problem has become that much worse in the 12 years of republican congress which had a revolving door of corporate interests paying lobbyists who were ex-congressmen with access who used their time in congress to make contacts with the corporate lobbies so they would have a nice cushy job when they left congress along with people like Tom Delay putting pressure on lobbyists to fire anyone who didn't support their party on pain of lack of access.

At one point, we could rely more on the journalists to somewhat mitigate that problem, but thanks to the republicans continuing to erode the rules about media consolidation, instead of journalists being independent, they have become another mouthpiece for the megacorporations that own them.

The end result being that instead of the government for, of, and by the people that our founding fathers envisioned, we have a government that is for, of, and by the corporations.  It has gotten to such a point that corporations have more rights than and legal protections than a citizen (and if you don't beleive me, try hiding your income in Barbados and see how fast the government comes down on you or see how they made it easier for corporations to file bankruptcy while making it more difficult for individuals to file bankruptcy, the majority of whom do so due medically expenses sadly).

[squareman]

To be fair to BB, the point he was making is that a disproportnate share of healthcare investment is done by the US.  The US is resposible for 50% of drug R&D.  He did not say Europe doesn't research or doesn't export medical technology, just that they spend less on development (as a whole or per capita) than the US. 

It's easy to play games with stats.  For example, Ireland exports more drugs than most countries.  That's not because there's some sort of hot bed of drug R&D going on in Ireland, but that the government has favorable tax laws, so drug companies will set up manufacturing sites in Ireland and ship their products from that country to other countries.  But if you just looked at the export stats for Ireland, you would think it was the haven for drug research.  Or Belgium laying claim to Tibotec (not sure about it being the largest HIV research in the world.... that seems like a stretch given that it's just a company with 3 drugs in its pipeline). Plus, it's a bit ironic because Tibotec is a division of an American company (J&J).  It's all games and you can spin the stats to support any argument. 

Yes, the US has a disporpornate share of R&D.  Yes, the US is almost always the market drug companies take their products to first.  But that's probably due to the fact that the US, a) doesn't have price controls so companies can charge more for their products, b) is the largest market in the world so companies can get the most bang for their buck, and c) has the largest capital (stock/corporate debt) markets in the world....so companies can raise more capital for investment/start-ups in the US than elsewhere.  It's not because the US doesn't have universal health care (but I don't think that's what BB was saying anyway...he was just making the point that you need a strong private system to spur investment in addition to a public one to ensure the entire population has adequate cover.  That seems like a reasonable point to me.)

I think you are right this is not a question of one or the other but both, to my opinion.
But I too my knowledge do not see at all what r&d has to do with universal health insurance - I was merely stating that it is just that and people should stop blaming public health insurance for anything that can go wrong with a countries economy or total health system, nor should see it as a step up to a complete private system.
Maybe I interpreted the message completely wrong, at least, completely different than you did.

I just try to proove that in this discussion, for as far as I can see it, a lot of untruths are used to defend the position against any kind of public financing of universal health insurance. Being in a region where these systems are widespread I can clearly see how utter lies are told to support one point of view.

As for the bragging about my little country - well I generally get my data from american, hardly described as liberal, media like newsweek and time magazine - or on international ressources like OECD websites.

I do not want to discuss things like an american company that bought tibotec is now the shareholder and so on and so on... it is a proven fact that european and american economies and companies are strongly financially interconnected. The US spends 99 percent of its income, so if it wasnt for europeans saving up money there would be no money in the US to make investments, and if it wasnt for the enormous us consumer spending europeans could not export their goods to the US. Just trying to show that its a global world. I know you are a very proud american and you defend your nation bravely. I am just doing the same thing. Mind you I could write even longer posts about things that could be improved, and I guess you can too.

And to conclude my opinion: The US can have Universal Health Care if its people want to have it.

[libvet]

One more thing I'd like to point out that has not been brought up in this thread except peripherally is on the topic of research.

I've read more than one post that dismisses the notion that medical progress can take place in the presence of government run health care.

But I note that not a single person has mentioned the very first approved antiviral was AZT which was created under a grant from the NIH in the 1960's.

I bet most of us would be extremely surprised at how many medications have been created using private research funded by the government.

In fact, it would probably come as complete shock to many to know that 42 percent of research and development dollars for medications is funded by federal government grants.

Couple that with yet another 11 percent of funding that comes from non-industry sources such as private foundations, state and local grants, and donations and we have less than 50 percent of research and development of medications being funded by industry.

I wonder how that fits into the world view of those who think government has no role to play in development of treatments?

And one also wonders.....those figures above are just for medications.    I would imagine that the role of the government in funding research on new medical techniques and experimental surgeries is somewhat higher.  After all...surgical technique isn't quite the kind of commodity that is able to be bottled and sold.   As an independent contractor, you might make a decent profit until the procedure becomes widespread since your services are exclusive, but do you really think that doctors have to pay royalties to the creator of the appendectomy for removing an appendix?  And without the profit motive, is it really wise to believe that corporations would wasted billions of dollars funding research a new surgical technique?

Just some food for thought.

[gerry]

I think you are right this is not a question of one or the other but both, to my opinion.
But I too my knowledge do not see at all what r&d has to do with universal health insurance - I was merely stating that it is just that and people should stop blaming public health insurance for anything that can go wrong with a countries economy or total health system, nor should see it as a step up to a complete private system.
Maybe I interpreted the message completely wrong, at least, completely different than you did.

I just try to proove that in this discussion, for as far as I can see it, a lot of untruths are used to defend the position against any kind of public financing of universal health insurance. Being in a region where these systems are widespread I can clearly see how utter lies are told to support one point of view.

As for the bragging about my little country - well I generally get my data from american, hardly described as liberal, media like newsweek and time magazine - or on international ressources like OECD websites.

I do not want to discuss things like an american company that bought tibotec is now the shareholder and so on and so on... it is a proven fact that european and american economies and companies are strongly financially interconnected. The US spends 99 percent of its income, so if it wasnt for europeans saving up money there would be no money in the US to make investments, and if it wasnt for the enormous us consumer spending europeans could not export their goods to the US. Just trying to show that its a global world. I know you are a very proud american and you defend your nation bravely. I am just doing the same thing. Mind you I could write even longer posts about things that could be improved, and I guess you can too.

And to conclude my opinion: The US can have Universal Health Care if its people want to have it.

Hi Squareman,

This is some food for thought about how disproportionate share of US R&D is linked to universal health care.  Part of what other countries with universal health care have in common is their government's ability to negotiate prices of patented drugs (including most HIV drugs) with the drug companies.  This happens in the US in a very fragmented way, such that even though there are some deals made by private pharmacy benefit managers with drug companies in behalf of insurance carriers and hospitals, the price tag for branded meds are still way higher than what it is in countries with universal health care.  This generates the profits which finances much of R&D (along with advertising, etc).  How much of the revenues actually trickle into R&D vs advertising? No one really knows but that's worthy of another thread altogether.  But let's assume for a moment that advertising is not part of the issue (which is an erroneous assumption) and most of the revenues are funnelled back to R&D.

So if you look at worldwide drug revenues per capita, the US leads here heftily, and that's partly because branded meds are sold and paid for more expensively.  Now, if in the imaginary world, there was this US universal health cares system in which an agency negotiated prices for all branded drugs with the drug companies and used its bulk purchasing as leverage, that will in fact reduce drug prices here drastically and will in turn reduce US prescription-drug related revenues.  I would think if multinational drug companies become faced with this shrinkage of revenues from the US market, it would try to recoup it elsewhere in the world, if they were to try to maintain the same revenues, which in turn would keep the R&D going.

I admit that's an overly simplistic view.  But it does provide the backdrop of how R&D is linked to the need to keep revenues up, which in turn is linked to why the pharma lobby is very strong at making sure that the US health care system remains fragmented.  And other countries of the world benefits in that model as well.  This is part of the reason why opening up the Canadian market to all US health care consumers will not be good for Canada's own interests (no offense intended, it's just the economics of the whole drug business with its unintended consequences).

Gerry
(who thinks you were part of this discussion in the old aidsmeds forums, but I might be wrong)

P.S.  This is not to say I am not in favor of universal health care because I am.  But part of the issue in this entire discussion is the soaring costs of branded prescription drugs, which is directly linked to the way R&D is financed.

[Dachshund]

h

[Grinch]

Libvet, I'm sorry. Your information is simply incorrect with regards to new procedures and equipment. It's what I do for a living. It's what I've done for a living for a very long time. I watched children die because the government would not allow a physician to use an unproven procedure simply because it used a very simple but ingenious device. I personally built the proto-type and helped obtain funding to test the device and procedure. Until we performed significant studies the government refused us funding.  Can you guess who did fund us?  Private industry.  Can you guess why?  Profit.
  Even then the FDA insisted we do side by side studies.  Some kids got the new procedure, some didn't. A significant number of those that didn't died. Only 1 that got the new procedure died. 
Throw your arguments at me all you like, bottom line is; in a fully government controlled and funded system technological advancement slows. My current project, that offers a huge improvement in breast cancer detection has zero public funding.  Take away the prospect of profit, the project dies. Just as a side note, my company is based in one of those social medicine countries you praise so much, can you guess how much government funding they have from the "home" country?  Zero.  The project continues because the US Market will pay for the research many times over.  Once it's adopted by the US, the rest of the world will then start using it.  Thats how life works regardless of how loudly we scream otherwise.

Yes there are grants. Yes the Government helps fund some programs. The vast majority receive little or no federal/state funding.

Manipulate statistics any way you want. I'm dealing with day to day reality. If you take the profit out of the equation progress will slow.  Please note I didn't say stop. There are certainly procedures, drugs, and devices that come from federally funded research.  My statement is it will slow significantly.

[Dachshund]

Although glacial in its movement toward universal health care I do see the coalescing of the left and the right to come up with health care coverage for all.

This morning AT&T, Wal-Mart, the Service Employees International Union, The Center for American Progress, and a host of other business and non-profit organizations will announce a new campaign to tackle the health care crises.

This UNUSUAL partnership, called " Better Health Care Together, " is motivated around four organizing principles:

1) We believe every person in America must have quality, affordable health insurance coverage;
2) We believe individuals have a responsibility to maintain and protect their health;
3) We believe that businesses, governments and individuals ALL should contribute to managing and financing a new American health care system.

Better Health Care Together plans to recruit business, labor and civic leaders commited to making health care reform a reality; enlist support for the principles from national, state and local elected officials, policy makers, candidates and opinion leaders; and persuade workers and customers that the current health care system needs to be reformed.

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said, "By following this campaigns common sense principles, we believe America can have quality, affordable and accessible health care by 2012." SEIU's Andy Stern added, " We need fundamental change, and it is going to take new thinking, leadership, new partnerships, some risk taking, and compromising to make it happen."

What the hell are those commies over at AT&T and Wal-Mart thinking? 

[Cliff]

Sounds like a plan to hatch up an idea before the government does.  A plan that will probably mean lower cost (hint: taxes) for them, than if they just simply wait for the government to solve the problem.  How can Wal-Mart try to solve the health care crisis, when a lot (most perpahs) of their own employees aren't provided with health insurance?

[AustinWesley]

LOL Dash,

Wow, Walmart will do anything to improve its reputation I guess.

Seriously, this is the first I've heard of any major players attempting something in collaboration with other big businesses.   And I like the 3 primary components.

Do you have a link or can direct me to where you located this information?

[Grinch]

I can't speak for others but I fully agree in an affordable insurance program that everyone can have access to.

My objections are to a fully funded and managed federal program.  Universal care.....absolutely, New laws that insure this happens....OK  A federally managed system...nope.    I've stated that several times,  others have stated that several times. Why do some insist on calling us names and twisting our words?  I'd guess it's the absence of a legitimate argument based on fact not a wonderful utopia we all wish life could be.
 Fix malpractice suits, fix the approval process for new devices and medications, fix the insurance gouging. Leave the government out of day to day care.

Thats not an ultra right wing stance, Thats a realistic approach to the big picture, not just the "I have expensive bills! I demand the government provide me with free health care!" stance

[AustinWesley]

 Fix malpractice suits, fix the approval process for new devices and medications, fix the insurance gouging. Leave the government out of day to day care.

I completely agree with this statement.  Those outrageous lawsuits only drive up the cost for everyone.   Mistakes are made, but I don't think someone should win the lottery as a settlement.   

[Dachshund]

Did anyone bother to read (besides AustinWesley) that this is not Wal-Mart's plan to solve the health care crises? Could we at least wait and see what the entire group is proposing before we start bashing it? This is a group made up of business, labor, private and public entities. We bemoan the fact around here that every view is always one-sided...well here is a group comprised of business and labor...conservative Wal-Mart and liberal Center for American Progress at least willing to sit down and work for solutions. If they are fronting we will soon know it. I am willing to listen and give them the benefit of the doubt before proclaiming every idea D.O.A.

One more time...

"We need fundamental change, and it is going to take new thinking, leadership, new partnerships, some risk taking, and compromising to make it happen."

[Grinch]

Personally I'm all for this concept. It pushes for change that doesn't turn everything over to the government.

[Cliff]

Wal-mart's CEO says, "By following this campaigns common sense principles, we believe America can have quality, affordable and accessible health care by 2012."  Sounds like a solution being proposed to me. 

Wal-mart has 1.4 million employees and only provides health insurance coverage for about 40% of them.  Maybe Wal-mart should focus on its own policies rather than trying to solve a nationwide problem.  Apparently at the press conference, Wal-mart's CEO was asked:

1.  Whether the company will increase its healthcare expenditures to cover its own employees.  The CEO didn't respond directly to the question (...that means no folks).

2.  Whether the company plans to stop funding candidates that are against universal coverage.  Again, the CEO refused to answer the question.  (that means no).

So a company committed to doing its part in providing universal coverage in America, has no plans to provide universal coverage to its own work force (hell, we'll settle for at least 50%), and it plans to fund campaigns of politicians who are against universal coverage. 

Yep, you can expect great things from this coalition!

[Dachshund]

 If so inclined go to Think Progress.com and see their reasons for participating in this project. Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of health care coverage so I will continue to work with the Tennessee Health Care Campaign and try to seek answers to why it can work instead of excuses to why it can't.

[libvet]

Libvet, I'm sorry. Your information is simply incorrect with regards to new procedures and equipment. It's what I do for a living. It's what I've done for a living for a very long time. I watched children die because the government would not allow a physician to use an unproven procedure simply because it used a very simple but ingenious device. I personally built the proto-type and helped obtain funding to test the device and procedure. Until we performed significant studies the government refused us funding.  Can you guess who did fund us?  Private industry.  Can you guess why?  Profit.
  Even then the FDA insisted we do side by side studies.  Some kids got the new procedure, some didn't. A significant number of those that didn't died. Only 1 that got the new procedure died. 

I'm sure people have died because an unproven or unapproved treatment was denied by the government.  Part and parcel of the process of getting new treatments to market is going through the process of getting FDA approval.  That's a no-brainer. 

Yet the fact the remains that less than 50 percent of pharmaceutical r&d is industy funded.

It's all good and well to quote anecdotes, and nothing in my post suggested that NO procedures or medications were funded solely by industries, but those are the figures I quoted are factual, your personal experience not withstanding.

Trying to apply anecdotes doesn't really work.  It would be like me saying I've never been able to get public assistance for my medications, therefore government plays no significant role in providing health care assistance.

I certainly never made the case that all new medications are funded by the government.  What I did do was point out that between private foundations, federal, state, and local governments, more than half of all research on medications is funded by an entity other than an industry.

I thought I was very clear in that. 

If I were to apply my own personal observations to everything, I would have to assume ADAP, Medicare, Medicaid, and Ryan White programs don't exist and are a complete sham since I have never been able to get public assistance when I applied for it.  Obviously, a significant number of people are getting their medications through those programs, so they must in fact exist, my own personal experiences notwithstanding.

But you don't have to believe me.  Look it up for yourself how much tax payer money is funnelled into R&D for medications, devices, and procedures.   I'd suggest you start with how much John Hopkins gets spinal and head injury treatment research from the government.

[Grinch]

  I'm sorry,  when did 20 years experience in a field become anecdotal? I do this for a living. You trying to tell me how my industry works just isn't cutting it. Yet you persist in steering things down a path that you like.
Yup Johns Hopkins gets funding. Drug companies get funding after they've reached a certain point in their research. Occasionaly simply because of an idea.
I've helped bring several devices into public use, not once did we get outside funding until it was very clear the device would work. The initial moneys almost always come from the private sector.  The private sector invests money to make money.
The 510K process takes millions of dollars.  The government does not often subsidize this.   Statistics are easily manipulated please feel free to do so.  Lets ask this question. If developing a new device costs 1 million in R & D and 1 million for the 510K then another million to set up production, train people, etc. Where exactly does the 1.5 million left unfunded by these wonderful federal, and private sources come from? This is assuming it will only take 3 million and assuming these agencies will hand over half.

My information is first hand working knowledge of how an industry works, your information is how you chose to interpret  numbers and statistics developed by people trying to get their point or view across. 
Now tell me who's being anecdotal?

[blondbeauty]

Maybe because English is not my mother tongue I did not explain myself accurately enough. Anyway Cliff understood what I meant. USA is the country that invests more in research.
Maybe the USA does not have a Public Health System like the one they have in France, which is one of the best in the world. I posted an article a few months ago of a new med (developed in the USA) that is being offered in France to people that are running out of options and it is only available in clinical trials in the USA.
But most of the meds I am taking supplied free by the Spanish National health System have been developed in the USA. Can you name a medication for HIV developed in Spain? Health care should be Universal. This does not mean you need two types of hospitals: private and public like we have here in Europe. If the government pays for health care in private hospitals to people with no money and insurance that would be good enough.
Sometimes in Spain, public hospitals send their patients to private hospitals when the waiting list is too long and the national health System pays for the operation (or the tests) to the private hospitals that performed them.
About going to Houston to receive cancer treatment, I can only tell you that my father had cancer in phase III and they recommended him to receive paliative care. But another Dr. decided to try something else...and he is still alive.
Houston might be the best place to go, but as Austin says, they can also make mistakes. We have the very recent case of a spanish artist that returned from houston full of infections that they were unable to cure. In Spain she was cured in a few weeks.
Our Health System might not be one of the best, but we have air conditioning in every room, not like in France in which firemen had to shower the buildings a few years ago due to the intense heat, and many Europeans come to be operated here because the Spanish social security covers things that other "more developed countries" do not cover: like the artificial lenses that are used in catarats operations.
The Spanish Government will start charging these operations to the countries of origin of these citizens. Only last year the region of Valencia spent 800 million euros in operations of citizens of other european countries.
The Hospital in which I am being treated is, together with "la Fé" of Valencia the hospital wich more transplants performs per year and one of the few that make double transplants (heart-lungs). Spain is the european country in wich more transplants are made per year completely free and covered by the national health system.
Another research made in a Public Spanish Hospital is taking place these days: the use of stem cells obtained from grease (in only two hours instead of days) to regenerate a damaged heart. It has not been made ever before in the world. All with public money in public hospitals. Yes they are crowded and waiting lists for no serious opeartions can be of 3 months...but if you need to be oprated quickly you will, if not in a public hospital, in a private one payed by the state.

Squareman: What I meant is that the private sector does not invest in research here in Spain. This is because they are only willing to do it in things that give great benefit in short time, like building companies or other similar things. In Spain there is a popular phrase that says "let the others invent". If you are young and willing to recieve financial support for research, Spain is dissapointing. If you want to buy a piece of land and build 20 blocks of apartments you will receive all the financial support you want. That is what I meant.
This is about my hospital which in 1986 did the second double transplant (liver-heart) in the world:
http://www.noticias.info/Archivo/2004/200409/20040924/20040924_33998.shtm

[Boo Radley]

  I'm sorry,  when did 20 years experience in a field become anecdotal?

Your question seems to answer itself, Grinch.  Experience working in a profession doesn't necessarily make one's views empirical evidence, which is required to validate an argument like this one.  One person's field experience is inherently anecdotal.  1000 people's collected and collated experiences might be closer to evidence or strong arguments pro/con an issue but it's still anecdotal information until certain standards are applied to collecting and compiling the data. 

I'm not saying you don't know what you're stating, I'm simply pointing out that your experience in this (still unnamed) field is only one person's experience.  Would we get the same answers from 100 other people in your profession? 

I have 25 years experience working in libraries but I'm not an expert in the field of librarianship, which encompasses a hell of a lot more than many people think.  It's more than books...

Boo

[jack]

Austin,First,I would like to address the private medical system in Houston tx that was attacked a little earlier. It happens to be the Number 1,2,or 3 medical center in the world,depending on who you talk too. You father did the right thing getting a second opinion but he could have probably got it from one of the many cancer center in houston. People from other countries come here for cancer and health issues everyday of the week.

I just cant believe the hatred of our economic system on this MB. I dont know if you all know it but we are in the midst of one the greatest economic booms in history. Real jobs are being created, not Y2k jobs and other late 90s phony jobs. Anyone telling you different is delusional.

Who cares why WMT and INTC want to do it. They want to do it so they can stay competitive with foreign companies who do not share the same costs. Its a great idea,and the politician who joins them will win, but pols will want all the credit and thats cool.

i own both intc and wmt stock and think its a wonderful idea. Its their responsibility to perform for their shareholder. The unions forced US corps into the health care providing business and its good to see they have finally seen the light. The system will Bankrupt all US business.

[blondbeauty]

One things I forgot to mention: the Public Spanish Health System might be bad and we, as Spanairds always complain about it, as I have done here many times. But a friend of mine who is from Holland with an unpronounceable name, came to live to Madrid with the only purpose of receiving a kidney transplant. He received his transplant 1 and a half years later. In Holland the waiting list was of 4 years. I met him after the transplant and he was still carrying a portable dialisys backpack (provided free, of course) in case the kidney failed to work. Now he is doing great.
We might be one of the last countries in Europe but we are becoming the surgery room of the "developed" Europe. And what is even more unbelieveble: in hospitals built in times of the dictatorship.
In the "Gregorio Marañon Public Hospital" is where stem cells from grease are being used to regenerate a heart for the firt time in the world.
Yo can read it in the news section of this link. It is in Spanish, but if you wish to translate it...
http://www.hggm.es/

[Grinch]

Your question seems to answer itself, Grinch.  Experience working in a profession doesn't necessarily make one's views empirical evidence, which is required to validate an argument like this one.  One person's field experience is inherently anecdotal.  1000 people's collected and collated experiences might be closer to evidence or strong arguments pro/con an issue but it's still anecdotal information until certain standards are applied to collecting and compiling the data. 

I'm not saying you don't know what you're stating, I'm simply pointing out that your experience in this (still unnamed) field is only one person's experience.  Would we get the same answers from 100 other people in your profession? 

I have 25 years experience working in libraries but I'm not an expert in the field of librarianship, which encompasses a hell of a lot more than many people think.  It's more than books...

Boo

My unnamed field as you put it....which I clearly stated is new product development for a medical equipment manufacturer. Prior to that I was a biomedical engineer at a major research and teaching hospital.
As I also stated I am a voting member on multiple committees that represent all of the medical equipment manufacturers world wide and in the US.
I have been and continue to be one of the researchers that bring new equipment to market and make recommendations to both FDA and congress via the committees I am a member of. You see I have more than personal experience.  I have the knowledge of what other manufacturers face. How much more expertise would you require before admitting I have a thorough understanding of the realities here?

Would you tell a lawyer that has been trial defense for 20 years he knows nothing but anecdotal evidence of the judicial system?
Would you tell a fireman that has been putting out fires for 20 years his knowledge is anecdotal?

  I guess libvet and others that take a different view than I have a much better understanding....after all, they want free health care...they MUST be right.

[libvet]

I can't speak for others but I fully agree in an affordable insurance program that everyone can have access to.

My objections are to a fully funded and managed federal program.  Universal care.....absolutely, New laws that insure this happens....OK  A federally managed system...nope.   

Quite honestly, for profit insurance companies are one of the problems in our health care crisis, not the solution.  That is not to say they have could have no role in the solution, but some things have to change and the federal government would have to strictly regulate the health insurance industry in order to make them part of the solution.

As it stands currently, health insurance providers are beholden to profits only....providing you with health care is a secondary goal to them.  They are not going to give up their golden goose without a fight.


As I said in a previous post, things like cherry picking and pre-existing clauses and corralling people into high risk policies that suck will have to be dealt with firmly to make insurance companies part of the solution.

Unless you are willing to go there, the only thing that leaves for us a single payer system managed by the federal government.  When all things are considered, it may go against your philosophy but at least a government run program would be beholden to the people, rather than the whims of CEOs and shareholders and boards of directors demanding a fat profit.

 

[Boo Radley]

Grinch,

I apologize.  I hadn't read the post in which you stated some of what your response to me iterated.   Otherwise I wouldn't have written mine as it was finally composed.

You have a valid view of the current situation but, still, it is based on your individual experience.  Your view is confined to your field of expertise and you must allow that many other people in the "medical provider" industry have equally valid views on basic healthcare rights.   

I am not making innuendo or implying anything about you, and I've read about 2 devices you worked on which were obviously valuable additions to medical science and practice.  I know nothing of the medical equipment manufacturing industry or its scruples but my general knowledge of commerce is the bottom line is making the highest profit you can.  Like I said, I'm not saying you are a money-grubbing capitalist but I don't know for certain that profit-motive has no influence on your views or those of the industry. 

You make the distinction betweeen "universal health care" and a "single payer" system as well as "free healthcare" but I don't think this discussion is that specific -- it's about affording the basic right to medical care to all citizens of, in our situation, the USA.   By the way, did you state you don't live in the USA or did I dream that?

Would you tell a lawyer that has been trial defense for 20 years he knows nothing but anecdotal evidence of the judicial system?
Would you tell a fireman that has been putting out fires for 20 years his knowledge is anecdotal?

I might or might not depending on the topic.  Being a trial lawyer for 20 years doesn't mean one is an expert in estates or divorce or bankruptcy or non-profit law or corporate law or any of the many other fields of law practiced by individual lawyers.

I guess libvet and others that take a different view than I have a much better understanding....after all, they want free health care...they MUST be right.

Grinch, why must you make such simplistic accusations against those who disagree with you?  No one else posts such paranoic asides.   

Boo

[Mike89406]

Well Im in the military and I get Tricare I guess you can say that it is goverment funded but everything is free on active duty but when I retire I will pay a yearly premium when I retire for my spouse and children. I was told that i have to accept Medicare part B to be elgible for Tricare for life

[libvet]

  I guess libvet and others that take a different view than I have a much better understanding....after all, they want free health care...they MUST be right.

ROTFLMAO!  I'd like to you to point out where I suggested I wanted "free health care".   

Universal health care managed by the government in a public private partnership would be funded through tax dollars.  And unlike some people, such as our president, I am not under any misconception that tax dollars grow on money trees.  It's OUR money.  Any need to raise taxes to fund a single payer health care system would be offset by the fact we would no longer be paying for profit insurance companies premiums to manage our health care needs.   And single payer is not socialized health care....it's simply a method of payment and reimbursement for a private sector.   Doctors and hospitals would still private entities but would be reimbursed for the services they deliver through the program by our tax dollars.  Any services not covered by the government (such as that nose job or face lift that Paris Hilton wants) would still need to be out of pocket just like it is today.

I have never suggested free health care.  Even certain people in this thread who are already on public assistance for health care say that they already paid for their health care through their tax dollars when they were able to work.

I'll thank you to not put words in the mouths of what people are suggesting we move toward to get us out of the health care crisis that is deepening every day in the United States.

[Grinch]

Boo,
My original stance was simple. A wholly government run medical system would cause a significant slowing in advancement of technologies, drugs, and procedures. I've spent the rest of the time defending that position from people calling me simplistic and calling my views ludicrous. Thats not paranoid, thats being sick of being attacked by the vocal minority.

Every time someone takes a view that opposes what a small group on this forum deems correct, that person gets belittled and shouted down.

Not this time.  This is my area of expertise. You don't get to shout me down this time. You don't get to quote whatever source you find to support your position. You don't get to take words out of context.  You don't get to belittle or take the moral high ground.
I clearly stated I'm very much in favor of change that provides health care for everyone. I also said from the standpoint of advancement, a fully government funded or controlled system is a mistake.  Do you have the right to want or back a government controlled system?  Of course you do. You may even have a valid argument. Feel free to make it.  You don't however get to tell me  I don't know what I'm talking about for this little piece of the puzzle.
You don't get to bully me, not this time. 
Not once in this thread did I call someones views ludicrous. Not once did I belittle someones point of view. The second I comment in a manner you personally don't like you make sure to call me out on it. Where were you when people called my thoughts and ideas stupid. 

  I may argue in a manner some don't like but I always respect the fact that people may have an opinion I disagree with. What I refuse to accept is the attitude some take that their way is the only way. In this case those people refuse to admit their opinion could be mistaken. Even when I explain that I have a very thorough understanding of how new products are developed you still refuse to admit I might have a valid reason for my argument.  No instead you toss my thoughts aside as anecdotal. When I get mad that you refuse to see the other side you call me paranoid.
Sorry, not backing down, you don't get to bully me into submission.

[Grinch]

I honestly can't understand how a health care system in which the only payer is the government could be considered private sector.
The words Single Payer, imply only one payer, in this case the government. If the government pays all the bills it is government run. It means the doctors and everyone else are government employees. It means the building is owned by the government. You could call it anything you like but if the government pays all the bills, its a government facility. Please feel free to explain to me how a single payer system could be anything else. I honestly don't get it.

[Boo Radley]

Boo,
My original stance was simple. A wholly government run medical system would cause a significant slowing in advancement of technologies, drugs, and procedures. I've spent the rest of the time defending that position from people calling me simplistic and calling my views ludicrous. Thats not paranoid, thats being sick of being attacked by the vocal minority.

Call their views simplistic or ludicrous or whatever adjective you can think of to get your point across civilly.  Neither of those words constitutes an attack on you.   You may not agree with it but that is someone's critical opinion.

Every time someone takes a view that opposes what a small group on this forum deems correct, that person gets belittled and shouted down.

No one is "shouting you down" by disagreeing with you.  You make no attempt at compromise either, probably because on such topics people have deep seated beliefs that are not easily changed.   There isn't a cabal here which demeans other forum members, it's simply the way the cards stack in this discussion.  

You don't however get to tell me  I don't know what I'm talking about for this little piece of the puzzle.

Yes I can and do.   Nothing you've written indicates your view has any more validity than mine or anyone else's.  Just because you've worked in an area of the medical equipment field for 20 odd years doesn't make you an expert on universal medical care.  It doesn't, I'm sorry.  That's not an attack or shouting you down, it's just plain fact.  

You don't get to bully me, not this time. 

I'm not trying to nor have I ever tried to.  

  I may argue in a manner some don't like but I always respect the fact that people may have an opinion I disagree with.

Then how do you get into so many arguments?  It's all our fault because we belittle you, shout you down, quote you out of context, declare your ideas simplistic, bully you, and on and on.   You call the same shots every time.

I'd still like to know what country you're a citizen in or at least tell me I misread one of your statements I interpreted to mean you are not a resident of the USA.  Our topic is not specific to the USA but many of the posts, including yours, refer to the situation in the USA.

Thanks, and I mean it,

Boo

[libvet]

Grinch, who suggested a wholly government run medical system?

What we suggested was a government managed health care system.  Essentially, government acting as our insurance company instead of for profit insurance companies taking a big bite of health care dollar while leaving tens of millions of people without any health care at all and leaving us all living in fear of the day our company goes out of business or we become unable to keep up with the demands of the new management in the companies we already work for, especially in times of economic downturns, or getting fired for having the bad taste to get an illness that requires extensive therapy in a state that has an "at will employment" law.

Who do you think the government will buy medical services from?   ANSWER: The private sector.

Who do you think the government will be buying pharmaceuticals from? ANSWER: The private sector.

Who do you think the government will be buying durable medical equipment from?  Answer: The private sector.

Who do you think the hospitals and doctors offices will buy durable, portable, and disposable medical equipment and diagnostic tools from?  Answer: The private sector.

Pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers are not going to go out of business by having the government act as our insurance company than military equipment manufacturers are going out of business because the government runs acts as the administrator of our defense forces.

The ONLY people that will be cut out of the equation will be the insurance companies that are doing a piss poor job of managing health care in this country.

And the benefits of going to such a system?

A healthier populace.

A private sector free of the burden of trying to be an employer and provider of health care benefits to it's employees and will be better able to compete in a global market against all the countries that DON'T put the burden of providing health insurance on the employers.

Less expenditure per health care dollar on administrative costs and more of that towards actually health care.

Less crowded emergency rooms when people currently without any health care no longer have to use emergency rooms as their primary health care provider.

Less people losing everything they own due to medical bills.


I don't mean to keep hammering home the same points over and over and over again, but EVERYONE seems to acknowledge that our health care system is in crisis....even Wal-Mart seems to have come to the conclusion that they no longer want to be a part of the health insurance-employer-employee symbiosis that is at the heart of the problems in our current system.

But some people are resisting change out of hand because of ideology instead of reason and I for one do not understand the insistence on clinging to a broken model of health care in America.

If you have a better idea on how to deliver health care more equitably and improve the status of health care in this country and cover the rising masses of people that have no health care coverage at all, then I am open to hearing them.

But the status quo can't be maintained indefinitely.   When people who actually work in providing health care are faced with no longer being able to afford health care coverage, something has to change and it has to change soon.

More and more people are coming around to looking at other first world industrialized countries and saying "Hey, how is it that they can manage to provide health care to all citizens, but we can't when we are supposed to be the greatest and richest nation on earth?".

So if you have a better way, by all means, present it.  Your window of opportunity for maintaining the status quo is closing fast and change is already in the wind.

[RapidRod]

Your window of opportunity for maintaining the status quo is closing fast and change is already in the wind.

Just like a fart, the air will clear and then nothing again.

[Grinch]

Libvet,

Thats a beautiful scenario. You still have the issue that healthcare becomes wholly government run. You can call it anything you want but the reality is most hospitals would be 100% reliant on government dollars.
When there is only one customer, there is no competition.  When there is no competition the company that is awarded the contract becomes fat, bloated and inefficient.  Have you ever dealt with a DoD contractor?  Not fun!
I absolutely agree that having our employers pay the majority of our healthcare is plain stupid.

  Would you agree to keep the government out of it if someone could choke the life out of the insurance companies and bring down the costs of healthcare?  I agree whole heartedly that medicare/Medicade should be funded in a manner in which those that qualify should get full and quality care. I agree qualification should be reasonable.

 One reason our health care costs are so high is the whole trickle down effect of malpractice and other law suits.
Physicians are not the only people named in these suits.

  Another reason healthcare is so expensive is education. Not just physicians but every tech, nurse and other medical professional walks in the door hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Couldn't we reign in the universities?

There is a shortage of skilled health care workers. Have you any idea how bad the recruitment wars get with regards to employees?  Two hospitals in my area just reached an unofficial and in my mind illegal agreement to fix the wages of x-ray techs at a certain figure.  Techs were jumping back and forth between the two hospitals as they kept out bidding each other by a dollar an hour.  Did you know some techs make as much or more than some of the hospital CEO's? Of course I'll be accused of being anecdotal, but the two hospitals near me pay senior CT techs more than they pay the CEO after OT and on call.
 Thats not a complaint just a little factoid that many folks don't know.

  Wouldn't it be better to enact change to solve these problems, lower everyones costs, keep some competition alive, and promote the system that resulted in the best healthcare available?  Though I also agree that distinction is fading because things have gotten out of hand.

  Wouldn't it be better to reverse some of the absurd laws in place that the insurance companies fall back on?

You want a government controlled system, I want the government to clamp down on the periphery. Change the insurance system, get our education costs under control, and shut down the absurd law suits.

   That topic I would gladly debate in a civilized manner.
In my mind, my way results in more affordable health care while promoting competition and innovation.

[blondbeauty]

This is the list of Public Hospitals in the city of Madrid. They all compete in research.
You may click on each one of them to see the latest research in each of them.
http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?pestanna=5&pagename=PortalSalud%2FPage%2FPTSA_listaHospitales&language=es&cid=1162209993137
Mine is Puerta de Hierro.
And news about the HIV vaccine from a Public Hospital:
http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?idConsejeria=1109266187266&idListConsj=1109265444710&c=CM_Actualidad_FA&pagename=ComunidadMadrid%2FEstructura&sm=1109266100996&idOrganismo=1109266228174&pid=1109265444699&language=es&cid=1142335628541
An HIV unit of a Public Hospital:
http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?pageid=1152602704494&pagename=HospitalCarlosIII%2FPage%2FHCAR_listado&language=es&rendermode=preview&cid=1153903749781

[northernguy]

Reading skeebo's post here: http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=8793.0

its hard for me to see why some don't think universal health care is a good thing:

[blondbeauty]

Of course. Is like saying if eating is should be a right. Answering no is quite cruel, specially for the people that die of starvation.

[Cliff]

I haven't seen anyone say universal health care is not a right.  What I see are debates over how you accomplish it.  Universal health care (or almost universal) is approached differently by countries and that is reflected in this debate.  I hope people don't confuse a debate over a one-payer (government) system for a debate on the goodness of universal health care.

[jyngfilm]

is health care a right?...NO

[AustinWesley]

I think healthcare is a right and looks like the majority of politicians seem to be advocating some form of a univeral plan so I'm happy that there seems to be some progress in the right direction.

[Jeff64]

I'm curious... why not?

I am curious....why does the earth owe us anything at all?

It is not the world's problem we got sick.

Jeff

[Mike89406]

aupointillimite,

Lets get one thing straight I along with many other americans agree that an overhaul is needed with the medical system. Copying the way Canada or UK etc... does not mean it will work here the same. Part of the problem and reality is goverment bureacratics would get in the way of attaining that goal.

Michael Moore is a money grubbing scrub that only showed one side of the story what he wanted you to hear.

The answer is they need to come up with something better what is going to actually work for our country.

But to answer you're question I think it is a right to those who have worked til they can't work anymore because of health reasons or still do work.

[Matty the Damned]

Mike,

Benji (aupointillimite) hasn't been here for a while and probably won't read your response. This is thread necromancy by Jeff64.

MtD

[Mike89406]

Thanks MTd

[404error]

I think healthcare should be a right afforded to citizens of their respective nations.  I am glad I live in Canada.  I have a doctor I don't pay to see (well, other than through the piddly amount collected from me yearly via taxation.)  When I have to start meds, I will either be receiving them at a heavily subsidized discount or free of charge.  I've never paid for lab work, I've seldom paid to have claim forms filled in by my doctor, and I've only occasionally paid for any prescription medication I've required over the years.  A state should be responsible for looking out for the health and welfare of its citizens with the objective of keeping them; safe, healthy, educated and employed/employable. 

[Miss Philicia]

This is thread necromancy

qft

[LordBerners]

Is health care a 'right'?  That depends on power:  in america health care is a right - for the rich.  Elsewhere slightly different power relationships apply, for the moment.  It takes power to get desirable things like income, health care, the obedience of others.  See Foucault.

[newt]

1945 - Harry Truman sends a message to Congress asking for legislation establishing a national health insurance plan.

You got 20 year's debate and Medicare. And as a necessary piece of AIDS exceptionalism somewhat late in the day, ADAP.

We got (financed with borrowed US dollars) the NHS. People do not wait for ARVs in the UK. 

Sure, things could be better, cos when it's bad, it's bad, and the waiting rooms are crap, and you might wait an extra 30 mins while an urgent case is seen, but when it matters it can & usually is so damn good, there's no treatment-by-insurance in the emergency room.  Private medicine we have too, some paid for by the NHS, but all the difficult cases they, er, refer to the NHS as a rule.

There was a lot right with Medicare when it was introduced and there still is, as far as it goes, there's a lot right with the NHS and other, different European solutions to universal coverage.  No system is perfect. Especially the NHS. But there's a lot wrong with rich countries saying they can't afford healthcare for all, however you divvy up the payments. 

In the end its a moral question, like do we want democracy? ... not a financial one (perhaps like fighting wars).

- matt

[Iggy]

Sure, things could be better, cos when it's bad, it's bad, and the waiting rooms are crap, and you might wait an extra 30 mins while an urgent case is seen...

Actually on the above, I don't think there is any longer a big difference between the U.S. system and anywhere in Europe or Canada. 

I've had top notch insurance and private doctors and still had long waits both for general internal medicine visits and hospitalization.  Ironically most medical professionals will tell you that the longer waits are because of the the private healthcare system in the U.S. which forces them to overbook patients due to HMO and insurance paperwork bureaucracy, and payment restrictions..