- Dec 30, 2004
- 12,553
- 2
- 76
just posted this in my thread in Off Topic about things America does better, but then figured it might make for a good thread on its own in P&N.
The short of the matter is it doesn't encourage/reward research. If the US's healthcare system functioned like GB's NHS, then much less money would be spent on research. The money goes to treating known problems, and nothing more.
I was talking to a guy on Britrail the other day who was telling me how about now they're beginning to see a compromise in treatment, where EVERYONE is getting what is cheapest and best for the PEOPLE as a whole for the problem at hand; but people are not getting the individual treatment that they specifically need, because there are not enough of those people to justify paying research in that area to treat them in the special way they need care.
For example, a cure for AIDS might never be developed under the GB heathcare system, because not enough people have it to justify the government spending money on a cure. America's system, however, would basically pay for the treatment if it were available, no matter the cost. So with a cure on the horizon, SOMEONE would pony up the venture capital for the cure to be developed, because our privatized healthcare could and would pay for that AIDS cure, almost no matter what the cost; this entices the venture capitalist because he know if the cure can be developed, then he will get his money back for sure. So GB's populace's health in general, as far as advancement goes, is at the mercy and ability of our own industry. In the long run, theirs, and ours, will suffer stagnation in development of new cures if we move to a nationalized healthcare system.
So basically if it weren't for our healthcare system, where money can be made hand over fist for cures for even a small portion of the population (like AIDS), GB wouldn't have any technology to buy to help treat their citizens, because they wouldn't have developed it in the first place. That fate awaits us, too, if we move to a NHS under Obama; and we would have to resign to trusting medical developments to some other nation. Rest assured that other nation would not have the resources we have to throw at the problem.
Thoughts?
The short of the matter is it doesn't encourage/reward research. If the US's healthcare system functioned like GB's NHS, then much less money would be spent on research. The money goes to treating known problems, and nothing more.
I was talking to a guy on Britrail the other day who was telling me how about now they're beginning to see a compromise in treatment, where EVERYONE is getting what is cheapest and best for the PEOPLE as a whole for the problem at hand; but people are not getting the individual treatment that they specifically need, because there are not enough of those people to justify paying research in that area to treat them in the special way they need care.
For example, a cure for AIDS might never be developed under the GB heathcare system, because not enough people have it to justify the government spending money on a cure. America's system, however, would basically pay for the treatment if it were available, no matter the cost. So with a cure on the horizon, SOMEONE would pony up the venture capital for the cure to be developed, because our privatized healthcare could and would pay for that AIDS cure, almost no matter what the cost; this entices the venture capitalist because he know if the cure can be developed, then he will get his money back for sure. So GB's populace's health in general, as far as advancement goes, is at the mercy and ability of our own industry. In the long run, theirs, and ours, will suffer stagnation in development of new cures if we move to a nationalized healthcare system.
So basically if it weren't for our healthcare system, where money can be made hand over fist for cures for even a small portion of the population (like AIDS), GB wouldn't have any technology to buy to help treat their citizens, because they wouldn't have developed it in the first place. That fate awaits us, too, if we move to a NHS under Obama; and we would have to resign to trusting medical developments to some other nation. Rest assured that other nation would not have the resources we have to throw at the problem.
Thoughts?