Cost of medicine

[All4MyDaughter]

why's that?

I don't know. Maybe because I did so much talking and arguing about politics during college that I got my fill? I do like to read what other people think though...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ZpackSux]

I don't know. Maybe because I did so much talking and arguing about politics during college that I got my fill? I do like to read what other people think though...

Or perhaps you realized that no matter how sound your reasoning is, it's almost impossible to convince anyone.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Or perhaps you realized that no matter how sound your reasoning is, it's almost impossible to convince anyone.

Yeah, that's right. When I was younger, I enjoyed trying to convince others of the superiority of my viewpoint! Now, I don't care if people agree with me or not... and I know that I'm not always right!

 

[aubieRx]

Or perhaps you realized that no matter how sound your reasoning is, it's almost impossible to convince anyone.

Not if you use the bright-light interrogation/brainwashing technique

works every time

 

[ZpackSux]

Not if you use the bright-light interrogation/brainwashing technique

works every time

I'll try that next time..

 

[Oneday_9]

Whew, took me an hour to catch up on this discussion, it has progressed in really intriguing ways. I dug the arguments on trade, the dollar, where the safety net should be, etc. I think we do need to re-evaluate how our businesses work and definitely spend time asking ourselves should the bottom line become the ends justifying the means....in other words, should making money justify exploitation?

I just read an article discussing how research is scruitinized and evaluated today in science (http://pub.ucsf.edu/today/cache/news/200507213.html). Basically, recent legislation (1998 or so) made it where federally funded research must be made public and other laws more stringent on academic research but no such guidelines for industry research. This is a huge problem right now, where studies unfavorable for pharma aren't published and the integrity of scientific research in the states is in jeopardy. This is relevant because it takes a look at how businesses like Tobacco companies work around laws and exploit the system to increase profits. This then ties in with the discussion on how America may indirectly play in a feudal system and the like. So freakin what if they are going to be destitute anyways, it's wrong to exploit people. Could any of us, as health professionals truly exploit people? If we take an Oath to help others, could we justify this behavior ourselves? I don't think so, so let's not all be so naive and callous about what is going on here; even if its business, how we can we justify it? Damn, just as a human being how could I justify using people by paying such low, low wages and make crazy percent profits?

We need to have a safety net, everyone should have the opportunity to have healthcare, to benefit from our healthcare system. Because this system is not like friggin food or public schools or anything else, it saves lives, it heals, and it can also kill when people can't afford it. When people avoid therapy bc of cost, it's just overwhelming. But I already made these arguments and after all the thoughtful discussions, we will not agree on this issue.

I just find it troubling that we can so easily justify social darwinism. Isn't it time we evolved a bit and used our financial success in altruistic ways?

I think I have said all I had to say on this issue. I truly enjoyed and appreciated the arguments posted here. I always took your points of view and see that I need to re-evaluate how I view healthcare. I never thought in terms of privelage, but maybe I should?

Back to work.

 

[aubieRx]

I'll try that next time..

k ill help you kidnap one day 9

 

[Oneday_9]

k ill help you kidnap one day 9

Oh and put me in some chair Clockwork Orange style and forced to listen to Republican Propaganda...NOOOOO!!!


Hey if yall come out to San Fran for the APhA conference, we definitely gotta go for a drink or something and hash all this out...haha

 

[ZpackSux]

Apparently, the Brits will let you live in England indefinitely and collect government money for sitting around for years when you aren't even a citizen.

The terrorists of earlier this month did just that for years...they came over as immigrants...never worked...collect $ from the government then killed 50 Londoners on their way to work.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[ZpackSux]

Oh and put me in some chair Clockwork Orange style and forced to listen to Republican Propaganda...NOOOOO!!!


Hey if yall come out to San Fran for the APhA conference, we definitely gotta go for a drink or something and hash all this out...haha

I'm going to be at ASHP in Vegas in December. We can armwrestle over it.

 

[ZpackSux]

k ill help you kidnap one day 9

I only kidnap beautiful women during my off hours. OneDay 9 may be beautiful, but he aint a woman.

 

[Oneday_9]

I only kidnap beautiful women during my off hours. OneDay 9 may be beautiful, but he aint a woman.

haha

Well we can definitely arm wrestle in December! So now I have a mental disorder too? What helping people is a disorder? Come on now, it's striving to be more human than our nature would allow us. Cut throat republican policies seem very similar to primitive nature, the most base natural instincts. I see liberals (and this term is just played out and overutilized ad nauseum) or democrats or independents as striving to overcome such oversimplification of the rules of our world.

I guess even that explanation above is a rambling liberal tirade.
So I apologize profusely.

 

[ZpackSux]

haha

Well we can definitely arm wrestle in December! So now I have a mental disorder too? What helping people is a disorder? Come on now, it's striving to be more human than our nature would allow us. Cut throat republican policies seem very similar to primitive nature, the most base natural instincts. I see liberals (and this term is just played out and overutilized ad nauseum) or democrats or independents as striving to overcome such oversimplification of the rules of our world.

I guess even that explanation above is a rambling liberal tirade.
So I apologize profusely.

Zyprexa 5mg po Qhs.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Liberalism is a mental disorde

As is conservativism. Anyone whose entire personal ideology can be described by a word obviously can't think for themselves.

 

[ZpackSux]

As is conservativism. Anyone whose entire personal ideology can be described by a word obviously can't think for themselves.

That's excellent.. cuz that's not the only word I use to describe it. It was just a word of choice at the fleeting moment.

And I don't see how this has anything to do with ability to think for oneself. do you?

Just like you thought the best solution to my comment of tax bracket was a marxist wealth distribution, (ability to think for oneself which obviously you didn't, rather copy and paste) Why don't we wealth distribute grades...

Johnny gets an A+ but Freddy gets a D-... so we'll take some points from Johnny and Give it to Freddy... now Johnny has a B and Freddy has a C.. and it's all good.

 

[aubieRx]

As is conservativism. Anyone whose entire personal ideology can be described by a word obviously can't think for themselves.

The one words are generally huge, general terms that can encompass many variations. They are used because if you are going to have a point of view, the chances are more than likely it will be (more or less) shared by many people since there are billions of people on the planet.

Unless you are way in the outfield wacko.

Zpack and i are both conservative but I am sure there are minor issues upon which we would disagree.

 

[ZpackSux]

The one words are generally huge, general terms that can encompass many variations. They are used because if you are going to have a point of view, the chances are more than likely it will be shared by many people since there are billions of people on the planet.

Unless you are way in the outfield wacko.

Zpack and i are both conservative but I am sure there are minor issues upon which we would disagree.

You and I have different religious beliefs.. I believe.. I mean I don't believe..

But I don't feel like debating over it.. You win.

 

[aubieRx]

someday zpack, you will be standing a field, and the glory of the lord will hit you and you will scream "praise the lord I've seen the light"

or not.

 

[ZpackSux]

someday zpack, you will be standing a field, and the glory of the lord will hit you and you will scream "praise the lord I've seen the light"

or not.

I already did done that. I holed a 2nd shot, 200 yards on a par 5 for double eagle.. more rare than a hole in one. That moment, I've seen the light.

 

[aubieRx]

*Sigh* silly zpacks.

once i got hole in one in miniature golf at myrtle beach.

 

[medstu2006]

I started this topic and I only have 2 posts in here.

But I have good news.
While u guys were typing in here, I did have a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Just like you thought the best solution to my comment of tax bracket was a marxist wealth distribution, (ability to think for oneself which obviously you didn't, rather copy and paste) Why don't we wealth distribute grades...

I don't share his opinion, I used it for the sake of conversation. And his tax scheme wasn't my point, my point was his theory behind wealth distribution. Geez, read what I type.

Johnny gets an A+ but Freddy gets a D-... so we'll take some points from Johnny and Give it to Freddy... now Johnny has a B and Freddy has a C.. and it's all good.

All well and good, but too bad it's not how the country and world works. How did George W. Bush become president? It certaily wasn't hard work, it's because he just happened to be born who he was. Yet I can think of many, many Republicans who should have been nominated before him.

How about this:

Johnny gets an A+ and Freddy gets a D-...because Freddy's dad is wealthy, he buys Freddy an A+..because they both have the same grade, Freddy gets into Harvard over Johnny because Freddy's dad went there and he gets legacy points in the admissions process...it's all good.

 

[ZpackSux]

I don't share his opinion, I used it for the sake of conversation. And his tax scheme wasn't my point, my point was his theory behind wealth distribution. Geez, read what I type.

Hmm..I read what you wrote.. you said:

I didn't write this, but it's the perfect response to the above. It's by Geoff Price, the smartest man you've never heard of.

You thought it was the perfect resonse. You said it, not me.. and I am reading what you typed.

All well and good, but too bad it's not how the country and world works. How did George W. Bush become president? It certaily wasn't hard work, it's because he just happened to be born who he was. Yet I can think of many, many Republicans who should have been nominated before him.

What's W got to do with my sarcasm of wealth distribution analogy using grades? Did I say anything about W?

Johnny gets an A+ and Freddy gets a D-...because Freddy's dad is wealthy, he buys Freddy an A+..because they both have the same grade, Freddy gets into Harvard over Johnny because Freddy's dad went there and he gets legacy points in the admissions process...it's all good.

Though my analogy has nothing to do with what you just typed.. you're making my point for me. That's right..it's not fair to wealth distribute grades..just like it's not fair to use legacy points. Thank you..

 

[aubieRx]

ply nice boys. but we must at the same time realize zpack's rhetorical superiority.

All well and good, but too bad it's not how the country and world works. How did George W. Bush become president? It certaily wasn't hard work, it's because he just happened to be born who he was. Yet I can think of many, many Republicans who should have been nominated before him.

I disagree. I think that if becoming president wasn't hard work any really wealthy, silver spoon guy could do it. Ross Perot could have become president if all it took was a load of cash and a silver spoon. For that matter Kerry was rolling in greens due to his wife.


no one is born president.

edit: also Al Bore had the biggest advantage a guy could have (connection to that popular wolf in sheep's clothing clinton) and he still bungled the election

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Hmm..I read what you wrote.. you said:



You thought it was the perfect resonse. You said it, not me.. and I am reading what you typed.

He is the smartest man you've never heard of. I think rightwingers can be brilliant, too. Like Friedman, Strauss, or back to antiquity with Plato. And IMO, a far leftist opinion is the perfect response to a far rightist opinion - i.e. your opinion. The truth, I feel, lies in the middle. If you say something rightist, I'll say something equally as true from the leftist view.

What's W got to do with my sarcasm of wealth distribution analogy using grades? Did I say anything about W?

To illustrate that the poor, persecuted rich man has unfair advantages from birth and that a little wealth distribution is considered just to many. Bush is just the first rich guy that got what he got by doing nothing that came to mind. Others include Paris Hilton, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, etc. If you think poor people get something for nothing, you need to concede that it's a two way street.

Though my analogy has nothing to do with what you just typed.. you're making my point for me. That's right..it's not fair to wealth distribute grades..just like it's not fair to use legacy points. Thank you..

Just like a Marxist utopia is in the wonderful fantasy world, as is the world of laissez faire. If the world really worked like you think it should, I'd be fine with it, but unfortunately it doesn't because unchecked capitalism always ends with great stratification of power. The key is BALANCE between the two extremes. Enough capitalism to keep people wanting to to work and enough socialism to prevent exploitation. That is my bloody point.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I disagree. I think that if becoming president wasn't hard work any really wealthy, silver spoon guy could do it. Ross Perot could have become president if all it took was a load of cash and a silver spoon. For that matter Kerry was rolling in greens due to his wife.

Who was the last kid from a disadvantaged family to become president?

edit: also Al Bore had the biggest advantage a guy could have (connection to that popular wolf in sheep's clothing clinton) and he still bungled the election

It was the Washington establishment vs. the Washingon establishment. We were screwed either way.

 

[aubieRx]

Who was the last kid from a disadvantaged family to become president?




.

clinton abe lincoln too.

clintoon was practically redneck growing up don't you know? oh wait hes still a redneck of sorts. a clever one though.

Anyway, having some connections and money is typically part of becoming a world leader. Its not Bush's fault. Hes not bucking any trends but hes not creating them either.

so why single him out as some sort of horrible oddity since most of the other presidents ahve been wealthy

 

[WVUPharm2007]

out as some sort of horrible oddity since most of the other presidents ahve been wealthy

He's the current president. Sure I could have mentioned a great deal of people, but whoopity do, I chose Bush. I mentioned the Kennedy family, too. Does mentioning a Democrat appease you? I can't stand either party, anyway.

 

[aubieRx]

He's the current president. Sure I could have mentioned a great deal of people, but whoopity do, I chose Bush. I mentioned the Kennedy family, too. Does mentioning a Democrat appease you? I can't stand either party, anyway.

well you said bush becoming president was no work involved and I really disagree with that.

Even JFK's dad had to work really hard to slant the election.

Theres always work.

If I seem quick to defend bush its because many people act as if he is some sort of sinfully rich guy who bought his way into the whouse, when in fact kerry was worth far more than he was.

*puts on google glasses and gets out geek charts*

Here we see money cannot always buy an election cause kerry smokes bush and cheney both yet he lost.

I'm not absolutely thrilled with some of the republican ways but i find them better than the democrats. Given a choice of two sucky things always pick the least sucky choice according to how you see fit.

 

[aubieRx]

He is the smartest man you've never heard of. I think rightwingers can be brilliant, too. Like Friedman, Strauss, or back to antiquity with Plato.


.

Why would you say Plato is a right winger?

I've read the republic and he was going on about alot of things that don't strike me as being particularly modern right wing.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Why would you say Plato is a right winger?

I've read the republic and he was going on about alot of things that don't strike me as being particularly modern right wing.

Rethink the parts about the bronze, silver, and golden citizenry, it is the basic neoconservative philosophy.

More:

http://www.straussian.org/reviews.html

 

[WVUPharm2007]

well you said bush becoming president was no work involved and I really disagree with that.

Even JFK's dad had to work really hard to slant the election.

Theres always work.

If I seem quick to defend bush its because many people act as if he is some sort of sinfully rich guy who bought his way into the whouse, when in fact kerry was worth far more than he was.

*puts on google glasses and gets out geek charts*

Point taken, but it should be noted that most of that is his wife's, right? Either way, both of them were certainly born with an unfair advantage over other. When I say what I say I mean the studies that show how the son of a wealthy man is several times more likely to succeed that the son of a coal miner (w00t.)

Here we see money cannot always buy an election cause kerry smokes bush and cheney both yet he lost.

I thought Bush had more campaign funds...?

I'm not absolutely thrilled with some of the republican ways but i find them better than the democrats. Given a choice of two sucky things always pick the least sucky choice according to how you see fit.

Well, we can agree on that. I think the Greens and the Libertarians should bury their only major difference, economic thoery, and run together. Bednarik-Nader '08. (Yeah, right...)

 

[aubieRx]

Point taken, but it should be noted that most of that is his wife's, right? Either way, both of them were certainly born with an unfair advantage over other. When I say what I say I mean the studies that show how the son of a wealthy man is several times more likely to succeed that the son of a coal miner (w00t.)



I ...)

Communism would change that by reducing almost everyone to the level of a coal miner and barring them from ever ascending upwards.

life is full of unfair advantages that others have. its just part of the game

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Communism would change that by reducing almost everyone to the level of a coal miner and barring them from ever ascending upwards.

I'm not disagreeing with you. (Of course with a Marxist state there would be no economic classes anyway, so the comparison would be hard to make...) But it needs to be conceded that lassiez-faire capitalism would cause great injustice as well.

 

[al_rx]

Hello,

I've been reading these postings for a while, and wondered if anyone could enlighten me as to what is so horrible with the concept of socialized medicine. I've lived under both systems, and to be honest, haven't seen much of a difference between healthcare in the UK and healthcare over here in the States.

I'd just like to know why people in the US hate the idea of universal healthcare so much.

The reason this interests me is because I'm a pharmacy student here in the States, and during one class, my professor asked us who believed that healthcare should be available for all. I recall there were maybe 3 or 4 students raised there hands out of approx 120 students. If that question had been posed to a class in the UK however, the situation would have been reversed.

I'm curious as to where this difference in opinion comes from. Both countries are capitalist, and culturally very similiar. Yet, when the issue of healthcare crops up, opinions could not be more polarized.

 

[aubieRx]

are you british are were you just visiting? have you actually used their healthcare system for an extended time period?

 

[al_rx]

I'm actually British (Scottish to be more exact). Moved here about 6 yrs ago, not long after I finished my undergrad. degree. I had two operations when I was a student - once for a tonsilectomy, and not long afterwards, for an appendectomy. On both occasions, the only thing I had to pay for was the taxi home from the hospital afterwards. For my tonsils, I'll grant you there was a bit of a waiting list (about two months if I recall correctly) as it wasn't seen as particularly urgent, but my appendix was whipped out in the space of an hour after I called the ambulance.

Being a full time student right now, I have no health coverage at all. If anything happened to me I'd be up **** Creek without a paddle - not to mention, out of school.

 

[Caverject]

Hello,

I've been reading these postings for a while, and wondered if anyone could enlighten me as to what is so horrible with the concept of socialized medicine. I've lived under both systems, and to be honest, haven't seen much of a difference between healthcare in the UK and healthcare over here in the States.

I'd just like to know why people in the US hate the idea of universal healthcare so much.

The reason this interests me is because I'm a pharmacy student here in the States, and during one class, my professor asked us who believed that healthcare should be available for all. I recall there were maybe 3 or 4 students raised there hands out of approx 120 students. If that question had been posed to a class in the UK however, the situation would have been reversed.

I'm curious as to where this difference in opinion comes from. Both countries are capitalist, and culturally very similiar. Yet, when the issue of healthcare crops up, opinions could not be more polarized.

Reason A) It costs a hell of a lot of money, which means more taxes and more being spent on healthcare instead of other areas that are lacking like education.

Reason B) Americans want everything NOW, not 6 months from now. In Canada, it can take you months before you see a specialist. Imagine seeing an oncologist.

Reason C) We like everything privatized.

Reason D) Some countries tie gasoline taxes into their healthcare. For example, all money made on gas tax in Italy pays for the nation's healthcare system. Due to this, gas is about 4 to 6 dollars a LITER (not gallon) which can get quite expensive in a hurry.

 

[ZpackSux]

Reason A) It costs a hell of a lot of money, which means more taxes and more being spent on healthcare instead of other areas that are lacking like education.

Reason B) Americans want everything NOW, not 6 months from now. In Canada, it can take you months before you see a specialist. Imagine seeing an oncologist.

Reason C) We like everything privatized.

Reason D) Some countries tie gasoline taxes into their healthcare. For example, all money made on gas tax in Italy pays for the nation's healthcare system. Due to this, gas is about 4 to 6 dollars a LITER (not gallon) which can get quite expensive in a hurry.

I thought u is a socialist..

 

[al_rx]

That's scary about the oncologist. I've heard a few horror stories about people having to wait (although, not for anything as serious or life threatening as cancer). Although, I think long waiting lists are pretty rare (in my experience anyway). You've got to remember too, that people have the option of buying private medical insurance. So if they don't want to use the free healthcare, they don't have to.

 

[Caverject]

I thought u is a socialist..

no, im a left leaning libertarian

 

[aubieRx]

I'm actually British (Scottish to be more exact). Moved here about 6 yrs ago, not long after I finished my undergrad. degree. I had two operations when I was a student - once for a tonsilectomy, and not long afterwards, for an appendectomy. On both occasions, the only thing I had to pay for was the taxi home from the hospital afterwards. For my tonsils, I'll grant you there was a bit of a waiting list (about two months if I recall correctly) as it wasn't seen as particularly urgent, but my appendix was whipped out in the space of an hour after I called the ambulance.

Being a full time student right now, I have no health coverage at all. If anything happened to me I'd be up **** Creek without a paddle - not to mention, out of school.

In medical ethics class we learned that socialist medical systems are fairly efficient at routine procedures like appendectomies or delivering babies/post natal care.

But many people who promote socialist medicine look at (for example) the sicknesses of the elderly and think "tough luck you are old and the young must be served with the common pool of money first" . I'm not saying this is the attitude in the UK but people who promote socialist medicine do reach these sorts of lows in their essays.

as caverject suggested, what if it was something complicated/dangerous like cancer and you really wanted it checked out by someone ASAP? I know i would feel simply awful knowing i might have something terribly wrong wtih me and having to wait and wait to get an appointment.

Its such a feeling of security to know that if things get bad enough you will be able to see a doctor right away. If people can splurge for movie tickets and nice cars etc then medicine is another thing to splurge on.

I think that the reason attitudes are different in the UK is repeated messages by the government/politicians/school teachers that socialized medicine is the best sort to have. OVer here we don't hear that nearly as often as we are a more conservative country *although UK is still fairly conservative when compared with some countries in europe*. But keep in mind that not everyone in your country shares those views. There are alot of conservative people in britain because I see their posts on free republic.

also I have talked to british people in various forums and have learned that you can buy private insurace ...they have some kind of tier system and you can pay to be on a better level. CAnada is simply awful because they will not allow such a tier system and I believe they also try and prvent people from leaving the country to get medical work done in the US! talk about nosy.

 

[aubieRx]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281822/posts

Here is a link to an article about a boy in the UK who almost died because of a repeated inability to find a dentist to take his tooth out.

Peter Owen, 19, was in agony for a week as he tried SIX times to have a tooth out.

He was eventually rushed to hospital after an abcess on the tooth swelled so much that it blocked his windpipe.

Peter had an emergency tracheotomy — where a breathing tube is inserted through a hole in the throat — and was on life support for two days.

Mum Wynn, 47, said last night: “Peter nearly died because there is a shortage of dentists.

ITs these sorts of stories that make private medicine look good, although not perfect. Neither system is perfect.

 

[al_rx]

That's an intersting point you make about the fact that we are constantly told how great socialized medicine is. Perhaps that's the reason why so many people in the UK believe in it. I don't know how many times I've heard the mantra, "Healthcare is a right, not a privelidge". I don't quite believe that, but you'd have to do a lot to convince me that it's all bad. Perhaps I just view the the system through slightly rosier spectacles than someone who grew up in a heavily urban area (London, for example). I grew up in a relatively small town and there were always plenty of resources. Whenever I needed to see the Doc. I could always get an appointment the next day.

That sucks for the guy who couldn't get to the dentist. But, would his situation have been any different over here? It says he was on "JObseekers Allowance" which basically tranlates as unemployment benefit. He must have been really broke if he couldn't afford the 121pounds to go privately.

You are right about being able to buy private healthcare in the UK. Actually, most large employers now provide health insurance for the their employees outwith the NHS these days. So, just because there is a socialized aspect to healthcare, there's still choice available. I had no idea about the Canadian healthcare system. That's ridiculous that they can't buy their own healthcare if they want. I can't imagine an argument in support of that. Surely, by giving people that option, it takes some burden off the "free" part of the healthcare system. Why wouldn't they want that? I always thought that in most countries where there was a socialized system in place, there was still the option to go private if you wanted.

I just think there's got to be a happy medium, where consumers have the right to chose, but where those less fortunate can get some sort of help. I'm not a whinging lefty, but it just makes sense to let some guy have his blood pressure medicine when he comes in the pharmacy, rather than sit back and watch him become seriously ill further down the road.

I've never heard of that freerepublic website. Sounds interesing. I'll have to check it out.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281822/posts

Here is a link to an article about a boy in the UK who almost died because of a repeated inability to find a dentist to take his tooth out.

Peter Owen, 19, was in agony for a week as he tried SIX times to have a tooth out.

He was eventually rushed to hospital after an abcess on the tooth swelled so much that it blocked his windpipe.

Peter had an emergency tracheotomy — where a breathing tube is inserted through a hole in the throat — and was on life support for two days.

Mum Wynn, 47, said last night: “Peter nearly died because there is a shortage of dentists.

ITs these sorts of stories that make private medicine look good, although not perfect. Neither system is perfect.

Next day Peter went to a dental centre in his home town who told him the tooth must come out.

But he was quoted a total of £121 which he could not afford on his Jobseeker’s Allowance.

The next day he went to Colwyn Bay Community Hospital — but was told they were not taking any more dental patients.

The day after that Peter’s pain was becoming unbearable as his mouth began to swell.

Looks like the free market failed him, too. But, hey, if he has the money, he could pay for it - just like in America. I'm not quite sure what the problem is then. This is very similar to something that could happen in the US - the only difference is the kid at least had an option for care outside of out-of-pocket care he would have gotten right away.

The article also doesn't quite tell us if this was due to human error or error in the system. Was he originally evaluated wrong? If they knew his case was emergent at the time rather than just urgent, would they have seen him right away then?

Then again, considering the source, I shouldn't be surprised at the fact that they used a huge emotional appeal. (There are two web sites any human being should stay away from - freerepublic.com and democraticunderground.com - those people are such right and left winged extremists they bloody scare me.)

 

[aubieRx]

if there had been no nhs system perhaps his parents or he would have had private medical insuance via a job to pay the bill and find a dentist before he almost died.

the vast majority of people in the us have some kind of insurance


edit: oh i see he was jobless. well maybe he coulda taken out a loan cause 100 pounds isnt that much of a sum to make up. or sold something. selling something is better than dying.

and the truly destitute have their healthcare paid by state perhaps this guy would have qualified in the united states.

 

[aubieRx]

L (There are two web sites any human being should stay away from - freerepublic.com and democraticunderground.com - those people are such right and left winged extremists they bloody scare me.)

nah they just know what they want. A lot of people have realized the US is going to go one of two ways and they pull for the way they think is best.

there are some fringe elements that are kind of weird of course but every forum has a few of those.

 

[aubieRx]

That's an intersting point you make about the fact that we are constantly told how great socialized medicine is. Perhaps that's the reason why so many people in the UK believe in it. I don't know how many times I've heard the mantra, "Healthcare is a right, not a privelidge". I don't quite believe that, but you'd have to do a lot to convince me that it's all bad. Perhaps I just view the the system through slightly rosier spectacles than someone who grew up in a heavily urban area (London, for example). I grew up in a relatively small town and there were always plenty of resources. Whenever I needed to see the Doc. I could always get an appointment the next day.

Its the only explanation i can come up with because even a few of the more conservative british people i have talked to are unwilling to totally dismiss NHS. I also think that public education is responsible for training alot of british *and americans in the north east etc* that liberalism is good.

I went to a NE school and they drummed liberal ideas around a lot but i never heard the healthcare is a right mantra till I took medical ethics from a liberal professor (but at least she specified it was just her opinion).

. That's ridiculous that they can't buy their own healthcare if they want. I can't imagine an argument in support of that. Surely, by giving people that option, it takes some burden off the "free" part of the healthcare system. Why wouldn't they want that? I always thought that in most countries where there was a socialized system in place, there was still the option to go private if you wanted.

.

The canadian attitude is kind of disturbing and despotic. They are basically saying "you are forced to have athe same level of healthcare no matter how hard you work because everyone should be equal no matter what even if they end up dying from it".

I don't like it when a government gets that bossy. its just not nice!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

if there had been no nhs system perhaps his parents or he would have had private medical insuance via a job to pay the bill and find a dentist before he almost died.

the vast majority of people in the us have some kind of insurance


edit: oh i see he was jobless. well maybe he coulda taken out a loan cause 100 pounds isnt that much of a sum to make up. or sold something. selling something is better than dying.

and the truly destitute have their healthcare paid by state perhaps this guy would have qualified in the united states.

This still doesn't make any sense.

If a health system is overrun it's due to one of two reasons:

Decreased supply
Increased demand

An increase in demand means there are more people sick. If everyone who has private insurance (and just those on private insurance) were switched over to public insurance, how would that change the volume in the system? There would still be the same strain on the system no matter who the payer is. Further, if the vast majority of people have health insurance, then how would switching who the payer is change the volume? (Only 15 % of the population doesn't have any insurance - do you really think that few people could throw the system into the turmoil the wackos over at Freerepublic have dreamt up? Please.)

A single-payer system with a set of copays and formularies like the private system is set up now would work fine and save a ton of money.

 

[al_rx]

I think the article about the guy who didn't go to the dentist is probably an illustration of him being a bit of a ***** (in him taking so long to find a physician or not being able to cough up 121pounds) rather than a slur against the NHS. Lets face it, if you had a bit of minor toothache you might wait around for a dental appointment, but the second it became more serious you'd be off to the Doctor, wouldn't you? Plus, if he couldn't (or wouldn't) pay the 100pounds over there (whether by getting a loan, or selling something) how could he pay for it over here in the States? Like WVUPharm2007 said, at least in the end he was taken care of.

I also thought more about why there's such polarized opinions between the Americans and Brits when it comes to healthcare. Perhaps, as was mentioned earlier, part of it is because we grow up hearing how its the socially responsible thing to do, but I think its probably more to do with the fact that we've all used it and its worked out fine. I've personally never had any problems using the NHS, and everyone I know uses it and they've never had any problems either. Maybe there's a difference of opinion because American's have no experience of it, yet read articles like the one about the dentist and think that's the norm.

By the way, I had a little read of that freerepublic website. Scary stuff!