Can Americans explain to me why ...

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I think this was mentioned earlier, but anyway...
The % of GDP includes medical research, private insurances, doctor costs, etc... The US does more medical research than probably the rest of the world combined (I'm guessing).

yes you are a bit guessing

the US is leading for the moment but Europe for exampling is catching up and there is not that big a gap between the two to explain the big difference in spending for healthcare (% GDP)

For most of the past decade, Europe has led in pharmaceutical innovation. In 1997, however, the US overtook Europe for the first time, both in terms of research and development (R&D) investment and output (new drug candidates). In 1990, EU pharmaceutical industry spent 73% of its R&D budget in Europe, but this figure dropped to only 59% in 1999 and the US is now spending 24 billion euros compared to 17 billion euros in the EU. Spurred by more open market regulations, the world market share of US pharmaceutical products jumped in the same period from 31% to 43%, while in price-controlled EU the figure dropped from 32% to 22%.

The competitiveness of US industry has also benefited from a more vigorous exploration of new technological opportunities. Increased professional technology transfer from the public research sector and the establishment of a vibrant biotechnology industry is providing innovative products based on new biotechnological developments to the pharmaceutical industry.

On the rise again

The EU is nevertheless catching up. A large number of Member States, including France and Germany, have recently put in place new regulations for the exploitation of publicly funded research, or implemented tax laws favoring research investments similar to the UK. Some Member States are also actively supporting the establishment of professional technology transfer structures. The number of biotech companies in Europe increased dramatically in recent years. In 2001 there were more companies in the EU (1879) than in the US (1457). Although turnover and employment figures in the US industry are double those of the EU, the EU growth rates have consistently outperformed those of the US in recent years, thus starting to close the gap. Interestingly enough, the EU industry was able to reduce its net loss by 16% to US$1.5 billion in 2001, while losses in the US industry, mostly public companies, increased 15% to US$6.9billion.

Europe was always a powerhouse in the sector of the pharmaceutical and biotech industry


link

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub

Originally posted by: Ferocious
There is definately something wrong when a lot of working people or/and people who have worked all their lives....can not afford medical insurance.

I knew someone who worked hard all his life....could not afford medical insurance and therefore avoided doctor visits as much as possible....and then ended up with terminal prostate cancer unnecessarily.

It really bothers me that there are working Americans without healthcare.....while our government gives BILLIONS in food and medical aid to other countries.

Something needs to change....and it will eventually.....but corporations have a stranglehold on government right now.

On US corporate TV they do not tell you this truth that everyone on Earth knows: your country does not aid the World. Your country rampages the World. Your country steals the World. Your country pollutes the World. Your country imposes copyrights on vital medicines. Your country has killed millions of people. Your country is a criminal country. Because US corporations, the Pentagon, the CIA, are criminal racketeering organizations.

If I give you 1 dollar from the left hand but steal 1000 dollars from you with the right hand, and I then tell you that I give you too much in aid, how will you react?

stay on topic or leave

like I said no threadcrapping - no USA against Europe flaming


edit: you are more then welcome to explain the French system, its qualities, etc .... but there is no need to turn this into a flamefest

Your expectations are way too high

 

[freegeeks]

for those who are interested

healthcare cost % GDP (2001)

EU-15 ----> 7,06 link
USA -----> 14,1% link

if we take in account how big the USA gdp is -- we are talking about a difference numbering in the billions and billions..... and billions

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Amused

In my opinion, healthcare MUST remain private. To make healthcare a "right" would make one set of people entitled to the fruit of other people's labor. In other words, it creates slavery.

That's not a valid argument. You can easily say "Making public education a 'right' creates slavery". IMO there is nothing wrong with the goverment providing basic necessities (no, healthcare is not a luxury) like education, heathcare, roads etc.

IMO the best system would have a public, properly (but not overly) funded healthcare system that meets most of the needs of most of the people. Then if people want to spend extra money on private hospitals/clinics, they should be free to do so. A good analogy would be the education system, where both public and private schools exist.

 

[JellyBaby]

It's pretty safe to say you're in economic servitude (slavery) when you work nearly half the year to pay your thief (Uncle Sam). The more social programs taxpayers are saddled with the greater the severity of the slavery. There really is no arguing this fact. You can be a willing slave or an unwilling one. At least you have that choice.

IMO there is nothing wrong with the goverment providing basic necessities (no, healthcare is not a luxury) like education, heathcare, roads etc.

How about shelter, food, recreation? Should government provide these to everyone?

IMO the best system would have a public, properly (but not overly) funded healthcare system that meets most of the needs of most of the people. Then if people want to spend extra money on private hospitals/clinics, they should be free to do so. A good analogy would be the education system, where both public and private schools exist.

The trouble here is that the taxpayer is hit twice (once in taxes by being forced to fund one system, another time to go outside the system). Also I'd note our public education system isn't exactly the shining bright star of learning on this planet. But it once was. Before the Federal Department of Education. Before "education" became nothing more than a political issue.

I don't know what the perfect solution to the health care crisis is but given how the feds have managed social security and medicare to the point of bankruptcy, I seriously wonder if charging them to "fix" this problem will hurt more than it helps.

 

[digitalsm]

The real problem with healthcare in the US, is simply the cost of health care.

Medical costs go up each year, because hospitals/doctors have to offset the losses from lawsuits and malpractice insurance, as well as the huge amount of no pays, in some states illegal aliens cause huge amounts of debt for hospitals. Just look at south Texas, hospitals there go through bankruptcy all the time.

When you have Drs up and quiting in the North East, and in Texas, because they cant afford to be a Dr anymore theres problems. The Dallas-Fort Worth area lost its last remaining Emergancy Neuro Surgeon a couple of months ago, and no Dr is willing to replace him.

There needs to be tort reform before theres health insurance/health care reform.

Some medical procedures ARE luxury items. Namely transplants.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
It's pretty safe to say you're in economic servitude (slavery) when you work nearly half the year to pay your thief (Uncle Sam). The more social programs taxpayers are saddled with the greater the severity of the slavery. There really is no arguing this fact. You can be a willing slave or an unwilling one. At least you have that choice.

IMO there is nothing wrong with the goverment providing basic necessities (no, healthcare is not a luxury) like education, heathcare, roads etc.

How about shelter, food, recreation? Should government provide these to everyone?

IMO the best system would have a public, properly (but not overly) funded healthcare system that meets most of the needs of most of the people. Then if people want to spend extra money on private hospitals/clinics, they should be free to do so. A good analogy would be the education system, where both public and private schools exist.

The trouble here is that the taxpayer is hit twice (once in taxes by being forced to fund one system, another time to go outside the system). Also I'd note our public education system isn't exactly the shining bright star of learning on this planet. But it once was. Before the Federal Department of Education. Before "education" became nothing more than a political issue.

I don't know what the perfect solution to the health care crisis is but given how the feds have managed social security and medicare to the point of bankruptcy, I seriously wonder if charging them to "fix" this problem will hurt more than it helps.

You cant just fix the healthcare problem by throwing money at it. There needs to be reform of the entire healthcare system, not just giving everyone healthcare. If the US did what Canada does, taxes would have to be raised a huge amount to subsidise Drs, Nurses, Hospitals, etc. Its gotten to the point were nurses need malpractice insurance these days.

 

[JellyBaby]

And there's also a fundamental problem with health insurance being the basis for the pay system. Insurance by definition protects against emergencies. Yet health insurance pays for the routine, the rudamentary and the expected. That's another reason why costs have exploded. If this isn't addressed I don't see how any reform can work over the long haul. Socialized health care will make the problem worse because insurance companies will be quite eager to reap the rewards of the "government" money paying them for care.

 

[zephyrprime]

Isn't the goal of private healthcare supposed to be more efficient (ecq cheaper). That is one of the things I don't understand about it. A lot of bureaucracy is something that you would associate with socialized healthcare (and to a certain extend is true) but you are saying that bureaucracy is one of the reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the US. Or am I wrong with that assumption

Yes, private healthcare is supposed to promote efficiency. But it just doesn't happen. Most people don't choose doctors based upon costs at all. They just have their insurance pay for it. The insurance has a high overhead. In minnesota, the maxumum legal overhead os 28% and that's the overhead on my policy. When you think about it, 28% is really high. The thing is, all sorts of insurance are a form of socialism. People forget that socialism can exists in the private sector also. But even when people pay out of pocket, they don't pay attention to the costs of a particular medical care provider vs. another. Doctors don't advertise their prices upfront in anyway. (there was an attempt at a law to force this but it failed) Plus in the US, we have one more form of overhead. The payments and record keeping between doctors and insurance companies are not standardized so there's a lot of inefficient paperwork. So socializing medicine in the US on the government level wouldn't really increase costs for us since we are already socialized at the private level.

And some people say we shouldn't cover routine expenses in insurance. Do this would probably have a slight positive effect of health care costs but not a big one because it's really chronic problems that are the primary costs in the system.

The other reason the US spends so much is because we are just so unhealthy.

Here's an example: we spent $13 billion dollars on statin drugs in the US in 2002. Statins reduce cholestorol levels. $13B is truly large amount of money. $13B is more than we spent on going out ot the movies or all video games last year (individually). And statins are just one class of drugs!

But on the other hand, when you have government socialize medicine, there always seems to be some rationing of services that occurs. And limiting drug prices do have the effect of reducing the number of new drugs developed and hence increases the number of people who suffer or die.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
It's pretty safe to say you're in economic servitude (slavery) when you work nearly half the year to pay your thief (Uncle Sam). The more social programs taxpayers are saddled with the greater the severity of the slavery. There really is no arguing this fact. You can be a willing slave or an unwilling one. At least you have that choice.

IMO there is nothing wrong with the goverment providing basic necessities (no, healthcare is not a luxury) like education, heathcare, roads etc.

How about shelter, food, recreation? Should government provide these to everyone?

IMO the best system would have a public, properly (but not overly) funded healthcare system that meets most of the needs of most of the people. Then if people want to spend extra money on private hospitals/clinics, they should be free to do so. A good analogy would be the education system, where both public and private schools exist.

The trouble here is that the taxpayer is hit twice (once in taxes by being forced to fund one system, another time to go outside the system). Also I'd note our public education system isn't exactly the shining bright star of learning on this planet. But it once was. Before the Federal Department of Education. Before "education" became nothing more than a political issue.

I don't know what the perfect solution to the health care crisis is but given how the feds have managed social security and medicare to the point of bankruptcy, I seriously wonder if charging them to "fix" this problem will hurt more than it helps.

You cant just fix the healthcare problem by throwing money at it. There needs to be reform of the entire healthcare system, not just giving everyone healthcare. If the US did what Canada does, taxes would have to be raised a huge amount to subsidise Drs, Nurses, Hospitals, etc. Its gotten to the point were nurses need malpractice insurance these days.

Canada's health system also protects medical personnel from expensive malpractice suits, it was designed that way as malpractice suits were becoming an issue back in the '60's here.

 

[sandorski]

zeph: A lot of the drugs being "designed" in the US and sold as "new" simply are not. Many "new" drugs are of the same efficacy as "old" drugs. There ae a large number of "new" drugs that are the same as the "old" drugs, however, the composition of the drugs have been changed enough to qualify as "new". This is a growing issue, for the "old" drugs were coming down in price, when they are reformulated into "new" drugs, their price goes back up.

 

[heartsurgeon]

we spend the most of health care because we can..and chose to

we have the best medical care, everyone EXPECTS the best care, immediately, close to home...

while 40 million may (?) be without insurance, I assure you this does not mean they go without medical care.

if a unemployed drunk tips over backwards on his bar stool, and cracks his head open...he will be immediately picked up by
a lavishly equipted ambulance, whisked to a state-of the art medical facility, promptly be seen by a physician, get numerous
xrays including a CT scan of the head, and get his concussion and head laceration appropriately cared for....all without insurance, and he will probably pay nothing for this.

how do i know this? because I took care of this person.

different "groups" have evolved payment methods to contribute to the cost of their health care.
"unemployed group" - the best health insurance of all, no payments! (see above)
"employed group" - the job market place has evolved to include health insurance as a fairly standard benefit. Some people make a point of chosing one job over another, or accepting a certain level of pay, depending inpart upon their benefit package, which typically will include health insurance.
"over 65 years old group" - health insurance purchased from the goverment..excellent deal for the patient. doesn't actually cover the cost of providing care in many instances.

since the unemployed, and the over 65 group, typically do not contribute enough money into the health care system to cover the costs of providing them care..this is reflected in the employed insured group typically paying MORE than their actual share of health care expenses to cover the difference.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
we spend the most of health care because we can..and chose to

we have the best medical care, everyone EXPECTS the best care, immediately, close to home...

while 40 million may (?) be without insurance, I assure you this does not mean they go without medical care.

if a unemployed drunk tips over backwards on his bar stool, and cracks his head open...he will be immediately picked up by
a lavishly equipted ambulance, whisked to a state-of the art medical facility, promptly be seen by a physician, get numerous
xrays including a CT scan of the head, and get his concussion and head laceration appropriately cared for....all without insurance, and he will probably pay nothing for this.

how do i know this? because I took care of this person.

different "groups" have evolved payment methods to contribute to the cost of their health care.
"unemployed group" - the best health insurance of all, no payments! (see above)
"employed group" - the job market place has evolved to include health insurance as a fairly standard benefit. Some people make a point of chosing one job over another, or accepting a certain level of pay, depending inpart upon their benefit package, which typically will include health insurance.
"over 65 years old group" - health insurance purchased from the goverment..excellent deal for the patient. doesn't actually cover the cost of providing care in many instances.

since the unemployed, and the over 65 group, typically do not contribute enough money into the health care system to cover the costs of providing them care..this is reflected in the employed insured group typically paying MORE than their actual share of health care expenses to cover the difference.

while this is probably true this still doesn't explain IMO why the difference is so HUGE. Wae are talking about billions and billions here. Roughly, healthcare is more then twice as expensive in the USA then in Europe. We are not talking about pocket change We are talking about 7 and 14 % of the gdp of the biggest economies in the world. The money has to go somewhere.

 

[Sternfan]

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub
The more unhealthy food people eat...the richer the unhealthy food industry gets.
People did not decide to produce unhealthy food. People did not decide to advertise unhealthy food as healthy. People did not decide to produce unhealthy foods that have attractive tastes thanks to all kinds of tasty additives. People did not bribe politicians to vote laws to allow all kinds of unhealthy foods to be produced. People did not ask to be lied about the quality of unhealthy food. Children did not ask to be manipulated by the unhealthy food industry into bad eating habits.
The cigarette producers have become unhealthy food producers. They know how to manipulate people into ingesting products that kill them.
Advertising should be forced by law to contain only the picture of the product and the list of what it is made of, quantity and quality wise.
And selling unhealthy food should be prohibited. Giving it, yes. Making a profit out of it, no.
It is like the cigarette multinationals: they sould not be authorized to make a profit. All their profits should be taken by the government and spent on health care.
You just can not let the market and its big players get rich with all their crimes against humanity. Laws are needed in the interest of the citizens. Well, right now laws are dictated by the big players who get rich with their crimes against humanity, against nature,...

Where do you live? If you don't want to get fat don't eat it, buy a salad and work out. If youdon't like it turn the channel. You must be one of those stooges that sued the fast food chains.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub
The more unhealthy food people eat...the richer the unhealthy food industry gets.
People did not decide to produce unhealthy food. People did not decide to advertise unhealthy food as healthy. People did not decide to produce unhealthy foods that have attractive tastes thanks to all kinds of tasty additives. People did not bribe politicians to vote laws to allow all kinds of unhealthy foods to be produced. People did not ask to be lied about the quality of unhealthy food. Children did not ask to be manipulated by the unhealthy food industry into bad eating habits.
The cigarette producers have become unhealthy food producers. They know how to manipulate people into ingesting products that kill them.
Advertising should be forced by law to contain only the picture of the product and the list of what it is made of, quantity and quality wise.
And selling unhealthy food should be prohibited. Giving it, yes. Making a profit out of it, no.
It is like the cigarette multinationals: they sould not be authorized to make a profit. All their profits should be taken by the government and spent on health care.
You just can not let the market and its big players get rich with all their crimes against humanity. Laws are needed in the interest of the citizens. Well, right now laws are dictated by the big players who get rich with their crimes against humanity, against nature,...

Where do you live? If you don't want to get fat don't eat it, buy a salad and work out. If youdon't like it turn the channel. You must be one of those stooges that sued the fast food chains.

You are slow on the uptake Sternfan. Haven't you guessed he's french? He knows everything!

 

[BarneyFife]

I've been to Europe and the people over there are generally healthier. They do a lot more walking and exercise. They really don't eat at Mcdonalds or burger king or whatever fast food place. The one thing they do that is very unhealthy is smoke. I felt like an outsider because I don't smoke. They light cigarattes like their is no tomorrow.

 

[zephyrprime]

zeph: A lot of the drugs being "designed" in the US and sold as "new" simply are not. Many "new" drugs are of the same efficacy as "old" drugs. There ae a large number of "new" drugs that are the same as the "old" drugs, however, the composition of the drugs have been changed enough to qualify as "new". This is a growing issue, for the "old" drugs were coming down in price, when they are reformulated into "new" drugs, their price goes back up.

Yeah, I've heard about some of the screwy things that they do. I don't mean to imply that the drug companies are saints. I know they spend more on management than on r&d.

Apparently, you can also get a patent extension if you find a new use for an existing drug. So by that line of thinking, the inventor of the wheel deserved a patent extention when they invented the wheel mouse.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: AmusedIn my opinion, healthcare MUST remain private. To make healthcare a "right" would make one set of people entitled to the fruit of other people's labor. In other words, it creates slavery.

I believe you are partially right. I would not want to pay for health care for some stupid drunk or smoker or 500-pound bozo who can't take care of himself.

But there are tones of hard working, low-income people out there, namely most immigrants I know, who contribute to society, or have children who will contribute to society, whom they themselves are incapable of getting health care. I believe a baseline should be set for these people somehow - something basic at least.

I would not go as far as to say that government instituted health care would equate to slavery. Honestly, as a libertarian if I recall, you can well argue that taxes of any sort is slavery.

I just personally believe in the general good of a collective, but the selfishness of the individual, lends to the most ideal of human societies to be one that is somewhere in the middle between communism and anarchy. I think more harm than good can come out of the anarchy position.

We're not in the stone ages anymore. You don't throw your sick grandmother out into the street, saying "Go fend for yourself." This society is too well of for you to have to say, "every man for himself" or "survival of the fittest."

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
1)the US has the highest % of its GDP spend on healthcare and has 40 million americans without insurance

bascially because we pay somuch to doctors, it apperas that we speend alof o money on health care.


2)can someone explain to me how the health care system works in the USA. How do you get medical insurance???



note: this is not a thread intented to start a flamewar between socialized healthcare and private healthcare. If you want
to threadcrap take it somewhere else!!!!!!!

bascially because we pay somuch to doctors, it apperas that we speend alof o money on health care.


as for question 2, as other people said you buy medical insurance. If you are to poor to buy it you have 2 choices. You can go to free clinic(anyone can go there) where mainly medical student volunteer with doctor supervision or if you qualifie you can get medical, goverment insurance for which u don't pay anything

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
for those who are interested

healthcare cost % GDP (2001)

EU-15 ----> 7,06 link
USA -----> 14,1% link

if we take in account how big the USA gdp is -- we are talking about a difference numbering in the billions and billions..... and billions

Signifigantly lower percentage AND the well off in Europe are still purchasing suplemental coverage similar to our PPO's and don't see these catastrophic scenarios the Unviveral Heath Care detractors regurgitate over and over.


We don't have UHC because way to much power in the insurance lobby who makes billions off premiums by underpaying the doctors and dening care. What purpose do they serve? None as far as heath care they mearly leach off every facet and every dollar. In fact they are an counter-productive to HC it's in thier intrest to dole out as little care as possible and yours and you doctors is to get you well. They run smear campain ads and sue whenever this issue comes up for obvious reasons, he main one being if one enitity besides them does thier job they will go out of business. Then we have the clincs and hospitals themselves, which want things private so no one enitity (US governement) can control the price, or even open non-profit facilities to compete with them putting them out of business because they have CEO and sharholders to pay off. Again another group of people who do nothing to provide care. Honestly with the money involved and the state of this selfish country I can' see UHC for a very long time.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Amused

In my opinion, healthcare MUST remain private. To make healthcare a "right" would make one set of people entitled to the fruit of other people's labor. In other words, it creates slavery.

It's not slavery when the slaves drive Lexuses and the master drives a broken down Ford Festiva.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub
USians spend twice what we spend.
Capitalism is humanly inefficient and absurd.
The drugs industry spends as much on marketing as for research.
99% of the drugs they put on the market bring nothing more than a higher price. They manage to get the authorization to sell them because corrupt doctors falsify the studies in hospitals. Anyway everyone at the federal agency is corrupt too.
Insurance companies make more money if they do not pay for your cancer.
Who wants to be an USian?
Not me.
Good luck!

I think all drugs made by Americans should be for Americans....take every American-found drug off the shelves in France. I can't wait for history to repeat itself and looking forward to the next country goose-stepping under the Arc de Defeat...If I take the helm of this country, it'll be the U.S.A. annexing that cesspool.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
1)the US has the highest % of its GDP spend on healthcare and has 40 million americans without insurance

2)can someone explain to me how the health care system works in the USA. How do you get medical insurance???

note: this is not a thread intented to start a flamewar between socialized healthcare and private healthcare. If you want
to threadcrap take it somewhere else!!!!!!!

I can't completely explain #1 but maybe this little tidbit will give a clue to part of the reason. The prices charged by drug companies for their drugs for some reason are as much as 5 times the prices they charge for the identical drugs in for instance Canada. Makes me ask why. It appears that either we are being gouged at an incredible rate here in the US for prescription drugs or we are paying a much higher price to in effect subsidize the drugs used by Canadas nationalized healthcare system. As far a #2 in a nutshell most health insurance in the US is provided by a persons employer as a benefit of employment. That is not a requirement of the employer so there are some who do not provide this for their employees or only provide a very limited benefit and in many cases require the employees to share the cost of the insurance.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub
USians spend twice what we spend.
Capitalism is humanly inefficient and absurd.

Yeah, communism was real efficient...

 

[freegeeks]

yip,

It's official - my thread is going down the crapper