150!


Depending on the country it is a right. In the USA it is not but our current health care system and the way it takes care of those with lesser means is a poor reflection on our society.

Then again when you have this kind of nonsense going on do you really expect the pigs in Washington to come up with a health care system that doesn't bankrupt those who for whatever reason are less fortunate financially.

That was a hot topic on talk radio up here in Toronto last week and I fully support term limits. Politicians get way too comfortable on their throne of power and get nothing done.

The fact that being a Lobbyist is a career as much as being a politician shows what a shambles the system is in.

A lot of people in the UK think that 12 to 18 months from now property value will be back up and everything will be OK. 12 to 18 months from now people will wish they had sold today rather than waited.

Consumers not spending is not the problem. It's the solution. The problem is too much debt. Bad debt with be defaulted eventually and the more governments try to fix the problem by putting more money in the system the longer it will take for the bad debt to pass. Until that happens things will not get better. Government officials can talk in circles all day, but it comes down to simple mathematics.

Bookmark this thread and come back in 12 months. I have no problem eating my words if I end up wrong on this. I am very confident I will not be though.

If only they got nothing done in America. It would be better :disgust

You really cant compare the American health care 'system' to what most of the world has. Virtually all developed countries, and dare I say it many 3rd world countries have free health care. You walk into a hospital with your half cut off thumb and get it fixed .. no bills and no hassles.

If medical insurance for even a 2 week trip to the US was anything to go by I can see why the US system of health care is broken. Yes we pay for it in taxes here but as far as I am concerned non selective health care is a right for citizens of any developed society regardless of how much money they have. Worth and rights of people shouldn't be purely based on how much money they make... then again I have never understood the "I am fine so fuck everyone else" attitude that many Americans have. It doesn't take much for your circumstances to drastically change, and one day you might be one of the less fortunate who can't get the care you need.

Don't forget that Insurance isn't a guarantee of care. Your insurance companies have made an artform of screwing with legitimate claims.

Sure thing. I won't argue that. If every other country in the world sells a medicine for $90 and that same medicine is $315 in the US, one of the reasons it costs so much here in the US is because they are trying to make up for the lesser profit they make in other countries. So if we cap the price here in the US it could/probably would, cause them to raise the price elsewhere or it would cut down on their overall profit. To me that is not a terrible thing.

In my eyes it is not terrible if everyone in the world pays $150 for the drug instead of most people paying $90 or less and a small number of people subsidizing it and paying $315 or more.

When Obama wants to tax the rich and give the money to the poor and middle class people call it socialism. When the pharmaceutical companies want to vastly overcharge a small group of people for a drug to help make up for the lower price everyone else pays we somehow call that capitalism.

Michael Moore's documentary Sicko is about just that. Part of it is about how the health care system in the US is screwed up, but most of it is simply about average everyday people who followed the rules and worked hard and have health insurance then when they need it, their claims are denied and they have file lawsuits or fight tooth and nail with the insurance company to get their care covered.

We should just take the 250,000 troops out of Europe. We should stop sending our money all over the world and spend it here. We would have a lot of money to do a lot of things. :2 cents:

:2 cents:

Wrong.

They sell it for as much because they can sell it for as much. Not because they have to recoup development costs some way and this is the only possibility, but because they want to maximize profits and this works.

It's also lead to drug companies moving out of Europe and into the US in high numbers. This has hurt Europe's economy.

There are problems with the US health system. That is without question. Price controls is not the answer. It will hurt more people in the long run.

Is the European solution the answer? No. Children growing up in Europe now will not have the same system their parents have now when they reach their age. It will drive most of the countries in the EU into bankruptcy or possibly into a Soviet style government (the framework is in place already). Government promises will be broken. How can they not be? They can't raise taxes any more and with a declining birth rate, a huge percentage of the population retiring over the next 10 years and an ever increasing life expectancy how can it work? A lot of elderly people will have to go back into the work force just to make ends meet.

Sounds crazy. Sure.... but I bet I am right.

Maybe you are correct. I am just annoyed that I am expected to pay $315 for the same drug they sell to the rest of the world for $90.

It is a tough question with no easy answers that is for sure.

Basically that is what I said. They are forced to sell something for a certain price to the rest of the world. They are still making a profit, just not as big of a profit as they would like to be making. So in the US where they have no controls they sell it for the max that they can get people to pay. This helps them subsidize their smaller profits from other countries.

Much of the research cost of the drugs they sell is already paid for by the tax payers. Sure, the drug companies to put up some of the cost, but most of the big expensive breakthroughs are done at private labs that get government funding then are given/sold to the pharmaceutical companies. The pharm companies themselves mostly just rework and improve existing drugs.

Well when that drug that sells for $90 probably cost a total of $5 to make, you are still talking a huge profit margin. Sure R&D costs are high, and they want to recoup their investment, but some of the cost increases on even basic medicine over the past 10 years has been nothing short of astonishing.

Also in many countries that same drug wont sell at high prices. To make any money from that country they have to price it so that people will actually buy it. You take a $100us medicine for someone in the states and thats probably 1 days pay, you pay $100us for it in say Papua New Guinea and thats probably 6 months wages possibly more.

I don't think its fair to resent the rest of the world for getting more reasonable pricing just because the major drug companies have learnt how to farm US citizens for all their cash and get away with it.

The flaw in your reasoning is to assume that if their profits in other countries were higher, they'd lower prices in the US. They wouldn't. Their goal is to maximize profits, not to deliver medicine at reasonable prices.

Just seen this post and have to reply.

Health care in Europe is not free. You're stupid if you think it is. We pay taxes and it's as free as roads in the US are free.

Is the EU model of health care better than the US one is a good point. And we can have a good discussion on this. In the last two years I've had first hand experience with both systems. A family member in the US was diagnosed with cancer that can be treated fairly easy and without a lot of costs. His medical cover decided it was not what they covered because it was still being developed. Which was bullshit, they did not want to pay and him dying is a better option for them. So he flew to the UK and got is for free. His was free as he does not pay UK taxes.

Another family member had to fly home as the constant medical care she needs would financially cripple us paying the bills. Someone had to drive to Mexico every other month to get the drugs she needs, because getting them in the US was too expensive. He was breaking the Patriot Act by doing so, or so we were told.

Recently Eva had a terrible accident and was rushed to hospital and looked after by the best we have here. And it was more than good enough. They did not bother to check her insurance and whether she could pay. Maybe if the accident had happened in the US she would of got the same treatment, maybe not. It's a lottery.

So is health care as good in the US as in the EU?

The answer depends on how much you can afford to pay, who and where you are. If you're a pensioner and paid US taxes and life insurance all your life you had best make sure you keep up your cover.

Is health care in the EU cheaper for the consumer than in the US for those that pay?

Without a doubt. The cost of US health care is inflated by the need for corporations to make profits. Look at what you pay, add what your boss pays, look at what you are covered for and compare it with the EU and get a shock.

The one thing the US is not is an US society. It's a ME society and fuck you if you are not me.

I've just found proof you're not operating with a full deck of cards.

Do you seriously believe that private medical care would solve the problem? If you do
I have a bridge to sell you.

No much better to let companies look after you, maybe even the companies responsible for the toxin dumping.

The Government pays for nothing, you do. Can you please get that and stop thinking someone else pays or it's free.

Now you have to wonder what the priorities of the Government are when they spend your money. They think fighting an illegal, non winnable war and fucking up part of the globe is far more important than looking after their own citizens. :Oh crap

Now about that bridge. :1orglaugh

Nothing is free. Everything involved money behind it.

Pity B is not available in the US.

Freedom is relative and in the US you have no more or less freedom than I do in Czech. I have the freedom to know if I get sick I do not have to worry about whether my insurance covers me. In the US I do not have this freedom.

Vibrant Economy, on this I feel you're joking so will pass on it. But it was funny.

Low taxes and high insurance. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Nothing is free.

Individual rights. The right to retire and know you're not going to have to worry about getting sick is a right I want. You have the individual right to pay your insurance until you die, or throw your lot into the lottery of the US free Medicaid. Trust me I know it and it's not that good.

Small Government has nothing to do with looking after people when they are old, infirm or just unable to look after themselves. It's about having an "us" society rather than a me society.

Here is the truth about a lot of what you say. Today the US spends a fortune every day in a country far far away. It would of not been in that situation if it had better Government. The small taxes you want would be easily achieved if the US stopped spending billions in other countries fighting wars it can never win.

Spending that money on hospitals and welfare for all US citizens would keep more of Americans money in the US, provide more jobs, give a better standard of living for all. Because if the trickle down process works, so does the trickle up process. Give a millionaire $1000 and the odds he spends it on something imported or abroad are higher than giving 100 people $10. They will spend it in his shop. Get the analogy?

At the moment a lot of your taxes are spent in a shop in Baghdad, or in an arms factory owned by who?

Would you rather it not spent in a hospital owned by the country and it's people?

As for poverty. I have never seen people standing by the freeway here selling oranges or waiting for someone in a truck to pull up and give them a job.

Corruption, again I think you're joking and it did make me laugh.

I guess my thought was that if they were forced to lower prices here they may end up raising them elsewhere.

In the end you are correct, they will charge as much as they can wherever they can. They want to make as much money as possible, not deliver a product that helps people for a reasonable price.

It's amazing that one of the reasons given for not having a National Health scheme in the US, like we have in the EU is the feeling that big corporations with share holders and the need to make profits are better and cheaper at looking after people than the Government.

Also they can be trusted more than the Government. The same Government people are happy to trust with a nuclear bomb. OK trust and GWB are not two things I link, but think about it for a few minutes. You would rather trust a corporation than your Government?????

Please that is so screwed up logic it's crazy.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

I'm not bothering to read all the political bullshit that's bound to be in this thread, but healthcare is a basic need that should be filled for all people. No child should have to go hungry or be deprived of shelter or health services in a world where there is ample resources and wealth. You've been privileged by birth and have opportunities and education available to you to accumulate some wealth. Not everyone has. It won't hurt you to give a little back for the global community so that others at the very minimum don't have to go without the very basic needs.

It's called having morals.

As human beings, organized into a society, we have the choice to define our collective morals. Some societies choose free* public heathcare as being part of their collective morality, some societies don't.

(*by 'free' i mean freely accessible.. but it is certainly not free - it is paid for with taxes)

Personally, I believe that just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to care for the sick. No one should ever die because they can't afford care. If a society has the means to save a life, it should. This is in the hippocratic oath that every doctor takes, every doctor who is forced to let a patient die because the patient can't afford the life-saving procedure is in conflict with the oath that they took:

"...I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone..."

Knowingly allowing someone to die causes harm to that person and to their family. I don't blame the doctors, I blame the insurance companies who have hijacked the very essence of life for profit. I think it's wrong that insurance companies extort people under threat of death. I think it's criminal.

But as I said, this is my personal belief and I happen to live in a society that also belives this. It's not "right" or "wrong" - we all know that morality is relative and defined by each individual and by society as a whole.

So while we can debate relative moraility and free-market economics until we're blue in the face, no one can deny the fact that in the United States, while I've been writing this post, people have needlesly died because they didn't have insurance and I think that is wrong.

The thing with healthcare in the U.S. is this....it's not that poor people don't get healthcare, because they do, it's called Medicaid.
It's not that old people don't get healthcare, they do, it's called Medicare.

The problem is the people in the middle....people like me....whose taxes pay for medicare and medicaid but because I don't work for a large corporation, can't get healthcare.

People on the right who value the entrepreneurial spirit so highly and worship at the altar of small business should know that someone with a great idea and seed capital can't start his own business if he has a child with asthma, because he won't be able to get health insurance. You can't go work for that tech start up in exchange for part ownership if your wife has a heart condition, because you can't afford to lose your insurance that your current dead end job provides.

Those of us who favor universal coverage only favor it because the uninsured people in this country aren't the poor, they're the middle class people who are paying for poor people to get healtcare, but can't get care for themselves because of unfair way the system is set up.

It should be just like public education or police protection. Everyone pays for it whether they use it or not, because it IS there for you in case you need it....but people who have to use it more (because they have a special ed child or they live in a high crime neighborhood etc) don't get charged more for it, or get denied service altogether.

You can get healthcare. No one in the US is denied needed healthcare. Is someone else going to pay for it if you have the abilities? Probably not. That is why there is insurance.

Unless you've let your insurance lapse and have a pre-existing condition, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to find inexpensive health care with a high deductible (also called catastrophic insurance). Most if not all states have programs for kids where it's VERY inexpensive to have preventative health insurance (many include dental) even if you make "middle class" income.

I wish I had a dime for every person I've talked to who "can't afford" health insurance but they can afford a wide screen TV, Wii, cable, high speed internet, new car every 3 years, eat out several times a week, blah, blah, blah. It's all about priorities. :thumbsup

Now, if you went and let your insurance lapse - I've had people offer to put me on their group policy but with my current medical situation, it would be crazy to do that and then try to get back to an independent policy - then yeah, you might have an issue. IOW, don't sit back waiting to get sick - get it now.

This thread could have stopped here

You're projecting your own situation out to everyone else in the country and thinking that it applies.
Not everyone's situation is the same as yours. There are at least 100 scenarios where a person "played by the rules" but now "can't get insurance"....especially in today's economy when big companies aren't hiring.
COBRA is only good for so long, so someone who lost their job and has a pre-existing condition could fall off the health rolls and not be able to get an individual policy.

I have a friend who was covered under his parent's policy when he was 21, hurt his back seriously, and then later reached the age where he couldn't be covered under his parent's policy and now no new insurer would take him. IF he could find a job with a big company that had a group plan he could maybe get coverage....but that's a big IF.

I'd like to see a system where everyone can get coverage for the same price no matter where you work or what your current health conditions are. The whole purpose of insurance is to pool risk anyways....but we allow insurance companies to cherry pick who they will cover and leave the rest to do without.

Don't waste your time trying to defend the current system because it's indefensible. It's built around profit for big corporations and that's all. If you've found a way to make it work for you then that's great, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be drastically changed. :2 cents:

No new insurance will take him or they'll take him and won't cover conditions that are attributed to the back injury? Did he try to move over to an individual policy with the same company that he was covered with under his parents? IF he gets a job with a company with a group policy (it doesn't have to be a big corporation) then the law says he's covered - there are possible limits for pre-existing:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html I'm too lazy to read it all :thumbsup If he can't get a job, then he's probably eligible for Medicaid.

Yes, there's a small percentage of the population that's not able to get insurance - I have a 69 year old aunt who's had arthritis since she was in her 20's. SHE SCREWED UP and didn't send in the required information to stay on her ex-husband's policy and she's been w/o insurance now for at least 20 years and couldn't get it forever - until Medicare kicked in. Did she bellyache and mope and whine because she screwed up? No - she paid the bills out of her pocket. It hasn't been easy but at no time has she expected the taxpayers to bail her out.

I would LOVE for health insurance to be required in the US. Everyone has to have it, like home and auto insurance. The premiums for everyone will go down. However, then you're going to have some bleeding heart bitching because the illegals aren't getting treated since they don't have insurance........There's so much free care given out that those of us who pay for insurance pay out the ass. Make everyone have it in order to get treatment and you'll see a great reduction in costs. :2 cents:

Watch the documentary Frontline: Sick Around The World (it's on Netflix) and you'll get a wide scope of health care in the world compared to the U.S.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have health care and then ask yourself if you think everyone should have access to health care.

The laws are different in every state.

<sarcasm>
Gee how great that your aunt didn't complain, we should use her experience to shape health care policy for the entire country.</sarcasm>

Do you really think those of us who want universal coverage are just a bunch of whiners who don't want to pay their own way?

Your last point just makes the point for those of us who want universal coverage.
Emergency rooms aren't allowed to turn people away, including illegal immigrants.
Emergency rooms are also the most expensive form of health care, by far.

All of us would pay less for health care than we currently do if we got everyone in the system so that people would stop using the emergency room as their family physician.

It's a simple matter of dollars and cents. Not only would it improve people's quality of life to get preventative care (and have this care be required) but it would save us a ton of money if instead of paying for a stroke we paid for blood pressure medication.

Can you explain to me how you're going to require illegal immigrants to get health insurance? I already said that I think everyone should have to get health insurance - then I brought up how there are still going to be people using the ER for free medical care. If we can solve that problem, then don't you think we should work on that FIRST since that alone will help tremendously? Instead we're going to put up a false sense of security by saying we're offering "Universal health care" when in fact, it's just going to cost the legal taxpayers more and more.....already Medicare is scheduled to run out of money next year or the next (can't remember which - but it's soon).

There are SO many things that can be fixed long before we get around to Universal health care (there's billions of dollars of abuse against both private insurance companies and Medicare/caid, stop treating illegals, understand that it might not be cost effective to pay for an expensive experimental procedure on a 90 year old in bad overall health, etc), but it's just so much easier to act like there's going to be a magic wand spread across the land.

So let's use me as an example.

I have asthma. I cannot buy health insurance that will cover asthma related stuff since it is a pre-existing condition ( I have had it since I was 7 years old). I can buy a policy that will cover other things (like if I break my arm or something like that). So that policy will cost me anywhere between $100-$200 a month depending on what I want covered. So let's just go with the middle and say I get an average policy for $150 a month. Now on top of that I still have to pay for my asthma medicine. If I buy it from the local pharmacy it costs me around $225-$250 a month. I can order it online for about $100 a month. So I go with the later. My health care costs are now around $250 a month. I can afford it because I have made it a priority in my life. There are many who could not. Also, lets hope if something happens and I end up in the hospital the insurance company doesn't try to say that it was caused by my pre-existing condition or the medicine I take for it and then refuse to pay.

There are a lot of people who do not put their health care as a priority and spend money on things they don't need that could go for health insurance. I won't argue that, but there are a lot of people who just fall through the cracks. These are people like the 520,000 that lost their jobs last month. Right now many of them may still be covered or can buy COBRA. If they can't get a job for 5-7 months they may lose that coverage. They own a home and made a decent wage last year so they don't qualify for medicaid and are too young for medicare. Some states have state policies that may or may not cover them. If they are lucky they will only be without coverage for a short time then get a job and get insurance through that job and all is well. If they are unlucky something bad happens during that time and now they are in deeper trouble.

I would love to just see a nationwide group plan. Something I could buy a policy from that would cover my pre-existing condition. This group plan could be done in a way that allowed you to pay what you could afford. If you can afford the full price of the policy, you pay that. If you can't you don't. If you are unemployed you can get it for free then you start paying once you get a job . Something like that.

Illegal immigrants aren't the only people abusing the emergency room system, they're a small percentage of the problem. The idea that we can't fix healthcare until we fix immigration is preposterous.

You keep saying we should do certain things FIRST....why can't we do it all at once?

I'm fairly certain that when Obama introduces his health care plan to congress that there's going to be alot more in it than just a way to insure the currently unisured....there are going to be provisions for waste, fraud, malpractice lawsuits, emergency room abuse, etc. We can fix more than one thing at a time and all of these things being fixed will save us money.

Here's something to consider.

Of the 7 industrialized nations in the world....the wealthy and "civilized" nations, the United States is the only one that doesn't have universal health care.

Which is more likely, that the U.S. is smarter and better than the other 6, or that we're just the last of the 7 to realize that universal care is the best way to go?

I find it unlikely that a majority of the people in Canada, Italy, Germany, Britain, Japan, and France (and all of the other non G7 countries that have universal care) are closet communists or freeloaders who want something for nothing or idiots who just don't understand the supposed superiority of the free market.

I think it's more likely that alot of powerful people stand to lose a shitload of money if the U.S. adopts a Canadian-like healthcare system and those people/groups are the reason we are the last industrialized nation to not have universal health care.

The other 6 are not funding an empire that has 100s of thousands of troops all throughout the world. (which Obama and Bush support) The other 6 are not funding countless wars (which Obama and Bush support) It is costing us TRILLIONS a year.

The USA is BROKE. We can not pay for UH. Just print money? :disgust

We already have 50 trillion in debt. How much more do you want? Do you realize the inflation that is about to happen?

As long as I can opt out and keep the health insurance I want (the government's current programs are so screwed up my doctor doesn't even accept Medicare/caid patients), then those of you who want government coverage can go for it :)

This is a very true statement. We are spending 10 billion a month on Iraq alone and there is no end to the spending anywhere in sight.

This is the problem, the real one.

The US went down the road of private health care many years ago and now it's a huge industry paying millions to lobbyists and more millions into funding political campaigns. They are spending this money to keep the status quo, if you think it's because they care about the health of the nation above corporate greed read the last paragraph.

If you believe like me it's because they want to keep the profits involved then consider how much they truly care about you and the real costs of providing them with their profits. They don't want to change to a system where they can't rake in billions every year, they don't want to lose their comfy well paid jobs, they spend all that money effecting the way the US is run because they don't want Democracy to take away their cushy life.

Now for those who believe they care about your health above their greed. I have this swell bridge linking Manhattan .........................

Seriously this argument has nthing to do with what's the best system, if private medical care was the best system the private health care in the US would not need to spend millions to keep it. People would want it to stay as it is. It's about corporate greed and if you think in 2009 corporate greed is good, you need to buy my bridge.