>> ^xxovercastxx:
That's not actually legal in the US. If you need treatment, a procedure, surgery or whatever, then the hospital cannot turn you away whether you can pay or not. Don't believe everything you hear on CSPAN.


Sure, they'll give you the surgery, if you survive the delays in getting around to it. And you're responsible for a bill that you have absolutely no way to pay. Then guess what, you get to declare bankruptcy.

And that's not even beginning to ask -why- we want the hospital to be supplying medical care that -could- have been handled for a tenth the cost by a GP at his office. But the GP won't see anyone who doesn't have either insurance or cash...and if he does, the pharmacy sure as hell isn't going to give you your meds unless you can pay.

So we get tens of thousands of people dying each year because they don't have insurance and can't afford care. But that's okay, because hospitals are required to treat them.

Every other industrialized country in the world can do it...but the richest one is too stupid or too incompetent to provide even minimal health care to all its citizens. It blows my mind that people can be so pessimistic about our country.

@bmacs27 just, for the record, I'm not claiming that the Scandinavian Model is the end-all solution, but it's certainly far better than what you have now. I would like to see the free market work on this, but the incentives of the "free market" isn't in the best interest of the patients, but rather of a lot of other interests (doctors, pharmacies, drug companies). It makes me feel poorly when patient's health is prioritized lower than money interests.

>> ^Doc_M:
>> ^rougy:
>> ^Doc_M:
>> ^manfromx:
Why then do drug companies get a monopoly on their product for so long. Especially since after R&D these things are pretty cheap to make.

I can answer that one. First, patent law. Second, a single cancer drug, from the ground to the pharmacy, can cost as much as $500,000,000. ... and many of the drugs fail in trials.

I think that most of the costs for research are done in government labs and then the successes are just flat-out given to the drug companies.
Pharma is screwing America rotten.

I should say however that some drugs DO come out of academia. In those cases, the scientists involved get the patent (along with the university); they get some cash out of that at least.


I'm pretty sure that MOST drugs are developed with government programs or with government funding to begin with, and then literally handed over to the pharma companies.

Forgive me for not posting a source, but that was a big issue from as far back as 2000 when Nader was running, and that was basically one of his platforms: to lower drug costs because most of the R&D was already being done, or paid for, by the government to begin with.

Here's a snip:

There's a new drug called Taxol to fight ovarian cancer. That drug was produced by a grant of $31 million of taxpayer money through the National Institutes of Health, right through the clinical testing process. The formula was then given away to the Bristol-Myers Squibb company. No royalties were paid to the taxpayer. There was no restraint on the price. Charges now run $10,000 to $15,000 per patient for a series of treatments. If the patients can't pay, they go on Medicaid, and the taxpayer pays at the other end of the cycle, too.
(source)

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Doc_M:
>> ^manfromx:
Why then do drug companies get a monopoly on their product for so long. Especially since after R&D these things are pretty cheap to make.

I can answer that one. First, patent law. Second, a single cancer drug, from the ground to the pharmacy, can cost as much as $500,000,000. ... and many of the drugs fail in trials.

I think that most of the costs for research are done in government labs and then the successes are just flat-out given to the drug companies.
Pharma is screwing America rotten.


You're partially right. The foundational science behind the drugs is often done at the university level, but the expense I quoted is that which is spent by pharm or biotech companies. Money spent before that level isn't really estimable. It does irk basic scientists that they don't always benefit monetarily from research that leads to these drugs, but without the company itself, the drug wouldn't be made... Try getting a 500 million dollar grant in an academic lab... Venture capitalists are far more willing to make enormous investments in risky drug development endeavors.

I should say however that some drugs DO come out of academia. In those cases, the scientists involved get the patent (along with the university); they get some cash out of that at least.

>> ^Doc_M:
>> ^manfromx:
Why then do drug companies get a monopoly on their product for so long. Especially since after R&D these things are pretty cheap to make.

I can answer that one. First, patent law. Second, a single cancer drug, from the ground to the pharmacy, can cost as much as $500,000,000. ... and many of the drugs fail in trials.


I think that most of the costs for research are done in government labs and then the successes are just flat-out given to the drug companies.

Pharma is screwing America rotten.

>> ^manfromx:
Why then do drug companies get a monopoly on their product for so long. Especially since after R&D these things are pretty cheap to make.


I can answer that one. First, patent law. Second, a single cancer drug, from the ground to the pharmacy, can cost as much as $500,000,000. ... and many of the drugs fail in trials.

>> ^alizarin:
Why is this produced as if it was giving tips on running a meth lab?

Because you can only get some of the chemicals in limited quantities without a permit depending on where you live. In other places you can just walk down to your local pharmacy and order them.

^ It's a good thing here in Ontario I don't pay a damn thing for any vaccinations I choose to get.

Operative word there: "Choose".

I'm a diabetic with a compromised immune system, and if medical science has developed a vaccine that can help minimize any risk of me catching any sort of flu, or ailment, sign me up. Right now I'm knee-deep in a cold that just hit me like a ton of bricks today at work (happens like that, and I hate it) and I'm a little worried because I can't really afford to be sick right now, and most of the cold/flu remedies at the local pharmacy are rather bad for diabetics to take.

Why so worried? I start a new, very high-profile job at the company I work for on Monday. Week one is Quality Assurance and Food Safety Supervisor Training. Showing up with a cold for that... Not a good idea.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Emotionally exploitive agenda? Not really...it's about as accurate an explanation of why we -must- fix this ripoff we call health insurance as you could find. It's not the commercial or the agenda that's exploitative, it's the health insurance industry itself that is exploiting all of us.


Storm - I am wary of any collages which involve music and one side of the issue, but nonetheless with the unfocused and uninformed vitriol that has been expressed at town halls, I can hardly chastise MoveOn for its representation of actual facts, even if it seems bent on just bringing tears to my eyes. So emotionally exploitive? Yes. Wrong? I couldn't think so.

QM - Clearly there needs to be reform that goes into altering fee for service - the reason the industry is so messed up is because it, like lots of "rights" we have in this country, all come down to a profit margin. A plan that would focus on better quality service and preventative care will in the long run decrease costs.

I worked at a company where one of the things I ended up having to do a lot was to mediate between health care insurance companies and their customers, and it always boiled down to money. When you are telling an old lady who devoted decades of her life to a company, calling from a phone at the Walgreen's pharmacy, that she can't get her heart medication because her bank messed up her direct deposit and her insurance isn't willing to talk to her until they see money, then the system is flawed.

I'd be surprised if you can even get such a policy here, nanrod. Every policy I've ever seen has all of those conditions.

Just to toss out an example, I have what I consider to be a pretty good insurance package for my wife and myself. Small copays at the doctor's office and decent pharmacy copays. Now, this was not an individual policy, but rather a policy I got from my last employer that I carried over on my own when I was laid off (thanks to a federal provision called COBRA, we do have that right). The cost for our coverage was approximately $700 per MONTH, although the stimulus package picked up some part of insurance coverage via COBRA for a while, which brings it down to $460.

When I was working, my employer paid for this, so getting laid off was a double-whammy...not only did I lose my income, but my cost of living skyrocketed. Which may have something to do with my exceedingly sour attitude of late. Watching any hope I had of ever retiring melt away isn't making me happy with the jackasses who try to tell me just how great our health care is, nor the assholes who destroyed our economy for their own profit.

>> ^brycewi19:
As far as Im concerned you shouldnt make peoples health into a business though, and lucky for me it isnt where I live


We shouldn't pay doctors? Nurses? Residential care and medical office administrators? X-Ray technicians? Database managers and data entry personnel? EMT? Diagnostic technicians? Occupational/physical therapists? Medical assistants? Personal and home care aides? Health services managers? Dispensing opticians? Mental health counselors? Respiratory therapists? Human service assistants? Clinical laboratory technologists? Diagnostic medical sonographers? Pharmacy technicians? Medical records technicians? Building cleaning workers? Bookkeeping and accountants? Receptionists and information clerks? Clinical researchers? Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

Surely, it's still a business where you live; it's just a business paid for by the coerced taxes of the people as opposed to being a voluntary business.

>> ^lucky760:
Here's my entry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO4bZ7O1cqc
It's not funny so it doesn't go in comedy.
He's not doing anything unusual, just shopping at a Walgreen's pharmacy so it's not wtf.
It doesn't make you happy.
It's not dark.
There are no kids or cats and dogs or anything cute.
It's not geeky and no engineering is happening.
There's no music.
He's not in Asia or Britain or Canada or Down Under and there's no animation.
It's not packed with action.
It's not about the brain.
No comics, commercials, cooking, nor cult.
He tells the truth so it can't go in lies...
So yeah. Without a fatguys or beards channel, I think this could be a wiener.

it's viral

Here's my entry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO4bZ7O1cqc

It's not funny so it doesn't go in comedy.
He's not doing anything unusual, just shopping at a Walgreen's pharmacy so it's not wtf.
It doesn't make you happy.
It's not dark.
There are no kids or cats and dogs or anything cute.
It's not geeky and no engineering is happening.
There's no music.
He's not in Asia or Britain or Canada or Down Under and there's no animation.
It's not packed with action.
It's not about the brain.
No comics, commercials, cooking, nor cult.
He tells the truth so it can't go in lies...

So yeah. Without a *fatguys or *beards channel, I think this could be a wiener.

>> ^charliem:
lol @ "institutionalize the black market"
By definition, its no longer a black market if its legal. Bag of religious douche.

It remains in the black market as long as the average public doesn't have easy access to it by walking down to the local pharmacy, or coffee shop and buying it which it what is implied. So what you're getting is that fine grey area where it's partially legal for some, in the majority of illegal for most, and everyone is still going LALALA ... who gives a crap, and continues to go on about their business.

>> ^gtjwkq:
That's a good point: If 100% socialized healthcare were ever implemented in the US, it would be better (less worse) if it existed at the state level as opposed to federal. That would institute a faint glimmer of competition between the separate systems, and people would be able to "vote with their feet", which is terribly ineffective, but better than being completely helpless.

This is something I have discussed before in other places, and on other forums. Both with Americans and Canadians. If you look at Canada's federal health act, it comes down to a whopping 24 sections or so. That's it. When I started reading the American one, and hit section 100, I thought that the guys in Washington were insane.

The whole point of the Cdn. federal health act is to say: Hey, we don't know how the provinces operate, we don't know what the people need, and we sure don't know where you need the resources or where. You deal with it, and if there's budget shortfalls come let us know and we'll pick up the cost, by taking it out of the general revenue fund(or equalization payments). We'll make sure it's spent properly(oversight), and make sure that it's running smoothly, and if the system needs help, we'll do what needs to be done. But if people are dying because you can't provide care, you and I are going to have a big talk. Fed to province.

End of story.

Now, sounds pretty good. There's other issues in Canada on this. But the reality is, Canada and the US in forms of government aren't that different at a state/provincial level. Both are highly independent, and both want the federal government to piss the hell off. So if you want this to happen, that's what I'd suggest and people should be telling their congressmen the same as well. To make it work, it may require one of two things. Either nationwide tax(icky), or each state will be required to pay a 'health coverage' surcharge or levy(akin to a tax) excess funds are then dumped to a general health revenue fund for all states(offlimits to anything else), and states which come up short can with oversight get money from it to cover deficits. We have something similar up here for it as well. Again long drawn out thing that I don't want to yammer on about right now.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no evidence that a socialized medical system improves health care. There is also no evidence that it supplies more people with more care than a private system. When you boil away the rhetoric and start actually drilling down into the facts, socialized systems accomplish very little in terms of medical care output.


Generally the more that people get healthcare, the longer they live. The longer they live, the longer and more productive members of society they are. Generally when someone goes to the hospital when they don't have healthcare, it's because it's do or die. That is, they're about to die. They're not ready, so better off to live. Unfortunately, that's a rather huge burden to place on the system, compared to say treating the underlying cause the first time a round.

An example: A man goes to his doctor, finds out that he's got an ulcer. Get medication. Ulcer goes away.
Flip it around: A man doesn't go to his doctor, ulcer keeps going, becomes peptic, nearly kills him. Spends 3-8 weeks in the hospital in recovery, may have lost their job that they couldn't afford to lose in the first place.

Now depending on the province, not all medications are covered. However, a lot of doctors do swing things on the by-and-by to get you what you need for next to nothing. They're generally pretty good folks, and walk in clinics will help you out the same with pharmacies. Now if you look at the NHS in the UK where it's more-fully socialized including medication. It's a non-issue unless you're dealing with idiots who believe that treatment will kill you(luckily for them stupidity isn't considered a psychiatric disorder, because you can get treatment for that too).