Nationalized Healthcare? Not In My Back Yard!

[Bamspeedy]

Bam

You say more prescriptions are an indicator of better healthare, I say not true. I half live with someone who works high up for pfizer. She, along with every medico I know, says even the UK is wildly over prescribed. She keeps herself had her kids away from the script-culture.

One of the key drawbacks of the US system is that is over-prescribes which is not only bad for effiency but ultimately bad for outcomes.

I am saying that more prescriptions are going to contribute to the health care being 'expensive'. You pro-Universal Health care people keep repeating "But, your health care is more expensive!, your health care is more expensive! Your health care is more expensive!", with little to no consideration that we are getting more (and also require more because of our lifestyle), so of course that will make the costs higher.

Yes, I agree that some of the medications are unnecessary, but do you think our consumption of medications will go down if people can get them for 'free'?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Canada's average life expectancy is better than America's 'middle class'. Our system is also much a lower financial burden on a per capita basis. Of course, we're serving our citizens much better than the American poor are being served.

Doesn't the average Canadian eat healthier than the average American?

You want to blame it all on the system, I am merely trying to say our cultural lifestyle plays a big role in it.

 

[SonicX]

Forget ideology and look at American reality and maybe that will help. Having been in two meetings this week with attorneys that tried to interpret the actions and politics of the Dept. of Labor, ERISA and SEC along with involved legislators you may not ever understand.

I can guarantee you not only would the rules be vague but often counterintutive. That's the fact of our federal government and the reality is state government's are better suited to make these types of decisions. I can't think of one federal politician that has the kind of charisma or capital to make significant change. The problem is not one concerning the desirability, the efficiency, the economic rationality, or the affordability of a universal health program. The problem is political, ideological, and social.

If you think this started with President Clinton (or his 2 for 1 deal Hillary) you'd be mistaken. Go back about 60 years and see the obstacles.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

If change is happening imo it should come from corporate America and small business. The priorities should be everyone having insurance, simplifying and quantifying what's available and developing a sound prevention system (including Physical Education in our schools and further discussion of nutrition)

I don't really see what that had to do with what I said ? I'm sorry.

 

[GinandTonic]

I am saying that more prescriptions are going to contribute to the health care being 'expensive'. You pro-Universal Health care people keep repeating "But, your health care is more expensive!, your health care is more expensive! Your health care is more expensive!", with little to no consideration that we are getting more (and also require more because of our lifestyle), so of course that will make the costs higher.

Yes, I agree that some of the medications are unnecessary, but do you think our consumption of medications will go down if people can get them for 'free'?

I am saying that when drug-spending is based on a national cost-benefit decision that it is better targeted and generally lower.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And you cannot just get meds for free, you need a doctor person telling you, you need those meds. It's not that I can wonder into any pharmacy and shout, I'll have 3 of those, a couple of red pills and a bottle of that gooey green stuff. And send the check to the gov. Thank you! see you next week.

It works slightly different

 

[El_Machinae]

Doesn't the average Canadian eat healthier than the average American?

You want to blame it all on the system, I am merely trying to say our cultural lifestyle plays a big role in it.

That's why I compared it to the middle class. Like everywhere else, Canada has more poor people than wealthy people. And poor people tend to eat worse-quality food than wealthier people (which the middle class should be).

I don't know if we eat healthier, because the low-quality food is certainly available up here.

It's the rich who pay all the taxes, and I think that they should be motivated to either pay less taxes or pay taxes in a cost-efficient way. Getting the lower and middle classes more healthy would help the economy a whole bunch, especially if it was done efficiently

 

[SonicX]

It's the rich who pay all the taxes, and I think that they should be motivated to either pay less taxes or pay taxes in a cost-efficient way. Getting the lower and middle classes more healthy would help the economy a whole bunch, especially if it was done efficiently

I think it's too dubious to talk about health and economical efficiency at the same time. It's right most rich people would benefit from a healthy workers class who usually are in one way or another his employer (directly, through stocks, etc...)
The main problem is this way of thinking, and at the same time, the main problem for the future of the subsidized social security systems in Europe isn't really the health of those "lower" classes. A lot of these problems have been solved through stricter health regulations for most products and for their employers and because of a changed economical system (more workers in the "healthier" service market and less in the "unhealthier" industry). Personally, I think the importance of healthcare in it's strictest sense (hospitals and doctors) really has had that big of an impact in increasing our health in general over the last couple of decades.
Furthermore, the majority of healthcare expenditures go to the ever increasing "grey population" ... Can anyone now explain to me why we pay for tens of thousands of people in their seventies and eighties, not contributing a single penny to society anymore, but costing us ten of thousands of dollars/euros each year, while many of them only halfly realize they're alive.

It's a tough question, but nationalized healthcare for the main part means keeping people alive at old age, while there aren't a lot of prospects for those people, except surviving with cancer 2 or 3 years longer than they would without extensive scanning, chemo, radiation and dozens of pills per week. Is that efficient ? Is that beneficial for the nation or it's economy ? Je ne sais pas

 

[El_Machinae]

You'd be surprised, I think, by the economics of longevity. As well, as long as there's a financial burden to extreme old age, then it makes sense to look for a cure.

Dr. Jay Olshansky (and others, but I remember his name the best) wrote up a report that for $3 billion there could be a comprehensive strategy formed to delay aging-related diseases by 7 years (i.e., push back that period of high-cost and increase the years of productivity).

 

[SonicX]

I agree, it makes sense to look for a cure or a delay of age-related diseases. But does it make sense to use expensive treatments like chemo, radiation therapies, several weeks of hospitalization per year and a whole bunch of drug cocktails to the elderly who've got a more than 80 % mortality chance in the next 3 years of their lives ?
It's that what threatens the viability of the system, without any real upsides. A longer life, but only a few miserable years added to their life (because in fact, the great majority just keeps deteriorationg after these treatments, only a little bit slower ... perhaps).
Here, economical aspects and ethical aspect collide head on.

Sure, increase medical R&D, but now I'm talking about the current treatments themselves.

 

[Whomp]

I don't really see what that had to do with what I said ? I'm sorry.

I think my point is we will not eliminate insurance companies in this country so either we work with them or they undoubtedly will work against progress on the issue.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think my point is we will not eliminate insurance companies in this country so either we work with them or they undoubtedly will work against progress on the issue.

Nationalize them!

 

[drachasor]

Private Healthcare just doesn't make economic sense.

Take immunizations. In a private system, you have to pay the full cost to immunize yourself. If 90% of the population immunizes themselves from a disease, then the other 10% of the population benefits tremendously. That's because there are so few potential carriers that the disease is effectively curtailed for nearly everyone. Those that have paid then, have automatically paid money to directly benefit others; they bore more of the burden than was necessary.

Now look at how drugs are developed. If there were two possible treatments for aids, one cost 100 billion and cured it instantly, and another cost 10 billion and required that anyone with aids take expensive medication for the rest of their life, which treatment is likely to be developed? The latter, in the private system, because it means the inventing company will make a lot more money. Who cares if the cost so society is cheap with the 100 billion alternative (since aids is gone FOREVER), the company certainly doesn't care; they just want to maximize their profit. (The previous is true even if both cures cost the same amount to develop).

In short, certain members of society will pay more money for treatments, and effective cures for diseases will tend not to be developed in a private system. It just isn't cost effective in the long run. Since a healthier population means a stronger economy and society, it also makes sense for there to be a government-centered solution. It's like roads or other infrastructure; public health care can benefit everyone a great deal, even those who don't use it.

 

[Whomp]

Nationalize them!

Tough one. I think forcing them to cover everyone, consolidate paperwork (like single payer) by determining what's covered and what's supplemental would help a lot though.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I don't know if we eat healthier, because the low-quality food is certainly available up here.

Unhealthy food is also available in France and Japan, but don't you think an average French or Japanese person is more likely to choose to not eat the unhealthy food than an American would?

Canada's obesity rate is lower than America's, Canadians smoke less, and even the Americans who are not obese, may not get the same amount of exercise as a Canadian, thus being more unhealthy and require more health care needs.

And poor people tend to eat worse-quality food than wealthier people (which the middle class should be).

The 'obesity gap' between incomes has closed dramatically since the 70's. It used to be there was a 15-20% difference in obesity between the poorest and richest, but now it is only 5% or less.

I am saying that when drug-spending is based on a national cost-benefit decision that it is better targeted and generally lower.

So a beaurocrat will tell me that a procedure just isn't cost efficient so they won't give me one? No thanks.

Americans choose a different lifestyle which affects their health, thus making them have different needs than an average person in another country. Since the needs are different (requires more) the costs will be different. Knee replacements do not help life expectancy, but it does add to our health care system being 'more expensive' because we do more of these elective procedures.

She, along with every medico I know, says even the UK is wildly over prescribed.

Like the junkfood I talked about with El Machinae, sure the problems are available everywhere, but Americans still use more pills than the British, thus costing us more. Sure, some of it is unnecessary, but some of it is because we require more due to our lifestyle choices.