Cost of medicine

[WVUPharm2007]

Actually, it's a pretty split issue. The sample you got in the pharmacy class may be a bit scewed because pharmacy tends to attract conservatives (that's the case at my school, anyway.)

Is you look at the polls, most people in the US actually support a universal healthcare system. Here is a sample - many more polls listed on this site back it up as well.

http://pollingreport.com/health1.htm#Delivery

"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?" Options rotated


(date - coverage for all - keep taxes down - unsure)
% % %
10/03 79 17 4
12/99 71 26 3

That's about 4-to-1 for socialized medicine.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[aubieRx]

Actually, it's a pretty split issue. The sample you got in the pharmacy class may be a bit scewed because pharmacy tends to attract conservatives (that's the case at my school, anyway.)

Is you look at the polls, most people in the US actually support a universal healthcare system. Here is a sample - many more polls listed on this site back it up as well.

http://pollingreport.com/health1.htm#Delivery

"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?" Options rotated


(date - coverage for all - keep taxes down - unsure)
% % %
10/03 79 17 4
12/99 71 26 3

That's about 4-to-1 for socialized medicine.

polls can be ******ed and inaccurate (due to the fact they are so easy to bias using survey methods) but you forgot this blurb:

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

 

[aubieRx]

could throw the system into the turmoil the wackos over at Freerepublic have dreamt up? Please.)

.

yah people who don't want the goverment crawling all over them like a swarm of cockroaches are pretty wacko eh. you probably think thomas jefferson and george washington were a bunch of wacked out jingoistic pigs. but to each his own. They think people like you are wacko ..its all relative

One of those wackos managed to get dan rather fired for a very unwacko fraudy liberal news headline because he knew info about typewriter fonts. and thats why my family contributes money to the site.

 

[aubieRx]

I 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.

ancedotal evidence does not a case make.

 

[aubieRx]

Ok lets see what happened to a country that uses pure socialized medicine:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0828/p01s04-wogi.html

When Bill Clinton attempted to reform US healthcare in 1994, his administration often touted Canada's publicly funded, universal access system as a model to be emulated. As it turns out, the Canadian system may be crumbling under its own weight.

Despite spending nearly C$100 billion (US$64 billion) per year on healthcare – the most per capita among countries that run a similar system – a study released last week by the Fraser Institute, a public-policy think tank in Vancouver, shows that Canada ranks only slightly higher than Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in the quality of service its citizens receive.

Canada fields 1.8 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants, which places it 17th on a list of 20 countries with universal access (the list does not include the US). To leap into first place, Canada would need to add 48,000 doctors to its current roster of 57,000.

Canada lags even further behind in access to high-tech equipment, including machines used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axial tomography (CAT) scans. This shortage affects wait time for diagnostic assessments, which in provinces such as Saskatchewan can run well over three months.

Their system is expensive and it doesn't do much. To add insult to injury they are going to start adding user fees to people who "can afford them" which I am assuming is anyone who is not dirt poor. Doubly robbed for poor service.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

We've had this discussion before. It's not because of the system, it's because people who are sick are not being treated here while people in Canada are ALL being treated. You are just giving some people great care while some people get no care. In this country only 15% are not covered and to give 15% more people regular checkups wouldn't put that much of a cog in the system. Would it hurt a person to wait 15% longer to see the dentist? If you took away 50% of those covered in Canada, those 4 weeks you'd have to wait are still 2 weeks - longer than in the US where 85% of the people have access. The reason the wait is so long isn't due to an increased DEMAND over the US, it's due to a shortage of SUPPLY in respect to the US.

And, yes, the people at Freerepublic are nuts. They are nuts because they perpetuate the B.S. "us vs. them" dichotomy that exists as two meta-brains (liberals vs. conservatives) in this country that does not in any way facilitate free thought. You can support unlimited gun use, but not unlimited prostitution and unlimited drug use and unlimited personal freedoms (see: Patriot Act). I compare our political climate to the climate of WWI. Two groups binding together - of which its members are just there because they are either allies of one guy or allies of the other to fight some idiotic war.
An example - how the heck does the libertarian movement align itself with the fundamentalist christian movement? If you read the Christian manual on life, that Jesus guy was a flat out Marxist - yet today's Christians are "conservatives" and, thus, support a more right winged economic system because, well, they are conservatives.

But what if I'm a true libertarian leftist? No gun control, few limits on personal freedoms (gambling, soft drugs, prostitution - all legal), and a string supporter of a capitalist system with a large social safety net. I hate affirmative action and feminists annoy me. People call me a 'moderate.' But that's not true either because I'm quite a radical about the things I truely believe in. Where do I belong?
Either way, I can't respect a group of people who hold a certain perspective because they are either a conservative or a liberal not because of the actual issue. And THAT is what is so wacko about freerepublic and democraticunderground. It's all groupthink.

 

[aubieRx]

wvu, it sounds to me like you're not exactly sure what your stance is on certain issues and the people who really know what they believe and are adamant about it strike you as "wacko"

perhaps "zealous" is a better adj. but they are not crazy. Too much zeal is a bad thing but if you do not have any zeal you basically have no opinion. Either you believe in something or you don't in most cases. Either you are for higher income taxes or you are against them for example.

Either way, I can't respect a group of people who hold a certain perspective because they are either a conservative or a liberal not because of the actual issue. And THAT is what is so wacko about freerepublic and democraticunderground. It's all groupthink.

So people who share similar viewpoints and like to discuss them with each other are wacko??? Most people who are conservative or liberal identify themselves this way because of how they feel about the actual issues (although there are many people who pick and choose from both sides but still identify with one group more closely and thus call themselves by that name)


ill tell you whats wacko. its johnny depp in "charlie and the chocolate factory" *watching ad now*

 

[aubieRx]

while people in Canada are ALL being treated.
.

tell that to the guy who died of cancer while waiting for an appt to get tested for cancer

 

[ultracet]

for those of you interested in checking out different healthcare systems you should really look into TennCare. It was a large experement that was pseudosocialized (i think). it just bankrupted but i believe it offered evidence in what the US does NOT need to do.

Oh and incase you can't figure it out.... it was done in tennessee

 

[aubieRx]

Oh and incase you can't figure it out.... it was done in tennessee

i smell al gore

edit: no gore is excused as it was started in 1994 when he would have been VP.

TennCare began in January 1994 as an innovative experiment to expand Tennessee’s Medicaid program by using managed care principles to deliver health care to a larger number of people for the same amount of money. But from its inception, the program was beset by problems and cost overruns. Consequently, the promise of managed care never was met. Over the course of a decade, TennCare’s costs grew at an unexpected and exponential rate. The program now consumes roughly one in three dollars in the state budget.

To put the fiscal challenge in perspective: The total cost of TennCare’s pharmacy benefit in the wake of Grier ($2.11 billion) is greater than the cost of Tennessee’s higher education system ($1.89 billion).

(grier was plan that didnt put limits on use of prescription drugs)
http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2547515&nav=4QcHSyOy

 

[Caverject]

i smell al gore

edit: no gore is excused as it was started in 1994 when he would have been VP.

So then it must be Tennessee's other political power boy, Bill Frist

BTW- I would never want to smell Al Snore. Do you see how sweaty he gets when he starts getting into screetch mode in his speeches? yuck!

 

[aubieRx]

say what you will about bush's poor speech giving skills I think america was spared a great deal...

roaaaaaaaar!

I think gore kinda lost his mind after the election which is sad cause he doesn't seem like an awful person. HE shoulda just gone back to tennessee and sat on the porch like a gentleman farmer for a few years.

 

[ZpackSux]

It's not because of the system, it's because people who are sick are not being treated here while people in Canada are ALL being treated.

15% may lack insurance. Does this mean they are not being treated?

What % of the 15% are not being treated? Do you know? If not, you can't really generalize that people who are sick are not being treated. Can you.

the US where 85% of the people have access

Again, you make a slippery slope assumption that because people lack insurance, they have no access to healthcare. Our ER doesn't deny anyone due to insurance coverage or not. We all have access. It's a matter of cost.

Thinking is a smart thing.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Of course emergent care is always accessable. The problem we are talking about is with specialists and preventative medicine. I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you. Hence, I'm going on about seeing the dentist or being put on a waitlist to see a specialist. Where did I mention people with gunshot wounds aren't being seen?

The situation where the typical conservative scare tactic is that it would take you 4 weeks to see a specialist for something if everyone had that type of access. THAT is what I'm refering to. But, if all but 15% in the country already have that type of access, and there doesn't seem to be that sort of problem NOW, giving the rest access (which would be an incease in 17.6% or something) wouldn't throw a cog into the system to the extent people seem to think.

Now from this, you could argue that if everyone had it for free, it would be used too much. This is why it should be based on a copay basis like private insurance is now. It could be based similar to Bush's education voucher system (which I actually think was a good idea, but executed poorly.). You are given a healthcare voucher and YOU get to chose what insurance agent you use. The docs can then negotiate with the insurance companies. That'll keep the good 'ol free market competition the rightists like and nobody will go without optimal healthcare. Plus the ultra rich could still get out-of-pocket care if they don't want to wait at all. In addition to this, the amount saved BY SOCIETY with preventitive care rather than treating disease would be astronomical.

So then you ask, how do you pay for this? Simple. I would decrease military spending by about 25%. And move the tax brackets back to what they were around the time Kennedy regressed it a little bit. Now not to the extreme that we had post WWII where the upper 1% was given a rate of 90%, but maybe up to 50%, then progressivel lower like it is today.

Also, Zpak, your rhetorical style is annoying. You come off as, well, a dick. It's like if you pretend you are talking down to me, you somehow can convince people you are right. Get over your ego. My IQ is 160, I am not cognitively inferior to you.

 

[ZpackSux]

I would decrease military spending by about 25%.

Funny..

Also, Zpak, your rhetorical style is annoying. You come off as, well, a dick. It's like if you pretend you are talking down to me, you somehow can convince people you are right. Get over your ego. My IQ is 160, I am not cognitively inferior to you.

IQ of 160... I'm really impressed. Perhaps you should use some of it..then I won't have to annoyingly nitpick your thoughtless posts..

Well...I was in Rho Chi..

 

[ultracet]

My IQ is 160

Well...I was in Rho Chi..

you are both dorks in my book



but seriously WVUPharm...... no need to start that stuff

what's next a ruler in the little boy's room?

 

[ZpackSux]

you are both dorks in my book



but seriously WVUPharm...... no need to start that stuff

what's next a ruler in the little boy's room?

LOL...!!

 

[Oneday_9]

15% may lack insurance. Does this mean they are not being treated?

What % of the 15% are not being treated? Do you know? If not, you can't really generalize that people who are sick are not being treated. Can you.



Again, you make a slippery slope assumption that because people lack insurance, they have no access to healthcare. Our ER doesn't deny anyone due to insurance coverage or not. We all have access. It's a matter of cost.

Thinking is a smart thing.

They do have access, but hell the Ferrari dealership is down the way, maybe I should go check it out....let me check my bank account, zilch...or wait I can charge it on my AMX Black, go in debt for a few millenia....or I can sell everything to pay for it.

So just because I can access the automobile, does not mean I can buy it. It'd be great to have a Ferrari!

But in all seriousness, we are talking about the cost of medicine and healthcare. We know we have access bc it is on every corner, it surrounds us, and if you don't have insurance, you can pay cash. However, this does not mean all individuals have the income to handle the expenses from medical to medical procedures to prescription cost. I live in San Francisco, and this is a HUGE issue, we have people going untreated bc they can't afford to see their doctor, let alone afford any treatments. We have an entire family living in a school bus on the beach right outside, who knows how they deal with medical problems.

So on average how many seniors or other demographics come in and pay like $300 for their meds at the pharmacy? We have at least 2-3 a day and I am at a slow pharmacy. No one is in disgreement here for the bazillionth time on how great healthcare is in America and it being a privelage and all the other truculunt arguments arranged to discount our argument which has been skewed, that the cost of medicine and healthcare is on a serious trend upward. Whoever it affects, it's on the way up, and how can we bring that down to make it more affordable for everyone who does not have insurance, hell even for insurance companies and all parties involved.

Let's stop trivializing the expenses and lumping people into categories like "15% who don't really matter" or "this is just the way it is, so let's do nothing." We can do something like making our medicare/medicaid systems more stringent on what they pay for, trying to make things truly fair even to those disadvantaged.

It'd be nice not to have arguments here laced with ad hominem lumping me into some political faction. Thanks.

 

[ZpackSux]

They do have access, but hell the Ferrari dealership is down the way< i can access the automobile, but I can't buy it. It'd be great to have a Ferrari!

It's cheaper to be seen in ER than to buy and own a Ferrari.

Not the best of an analogy... but good try.

But I would much rather be able to walk in and buy the Ferrari..than to have to wait 3 months before I can sit in it..

 

[Oneday_9]

It's cheaper to be seen in ER than to buy and own a Ferrari.

Not the best of an analogy... but good try.

But I would much rather be able to walk in and buy the Ferrari..than to have to wait 3 months before I can sit in it..

ok, ER visit with all the necessary tests to prevent litigation against the physician, what's the cost? Not everyone can afford that along with the meds and everything else, man. Am I going crazy here? Is healthcare really that cheap?

And also, listen to me, ZpackSUX, when will you two hear me out (aubieRX too)....i do not feel socialized healthcare is the answer. Okay? Understand. Remember next time. Your memory may be fading.

 

[aubieRx]

when will you two hear me out (aubieRX too .

heh dont even bother talking to me about it anymore and I've decided I don't want to be lumped together with zpack.

I've had enough of this conversation cause its gotten kinda i sincerely regret any role i may have had in bringing it to this point


peace


(edit: its such a hot topic but either you believe in something or you don't )

 

[Oneday_9]

heh dont even bother talking to me about it anymore and I've decided I don't want to be lumped together with zpack.

I've had enough of this conversation cause its gotten kinda i sincerely regret any role i may have had in bringing it to this point


peace

Hey I have no problem with you, I was just getting frustrated bc everytime I try to make a point, I always get labeled some crazy liberal who wants to change to some socialized system, which is totally not the case. But I am sorry if you took my tone the wrong way, it wasn't meant to be menacing. But everytime I say something it gets skewed and words are attributed to me that I did not say. THAT has kept me away, I just thought it was pretty unfair and totally maligned what I thought was going to be a thought provoking exercise that turned into some political tug of war.

Anyways, I apologize profusely, Aubie, sincerely....

 

[aubieRx]

Anyways, I apologize profusely, Aubie, sincerely....

nah i wasnt upset in the slightest by your remarks

basically i am just tired of the banter and cannot even remember why i started posting in this thread in the first place

and when that happens its time to just quit

 

[Oneday_9]

nah i wasnt upset in the slightest by your remarks

basically i am just tired of the banter and cannot even remember why i started posting in this thread in the first place

and when that happens its time to just quit

haha

ya know, that's why I stopped! We're not getting anywhere.
Okay, thanks, Aubie, I respect you after reading all the posts here, glad to have you as a colleague. It's good we spend time thinking and bantering about these things nonetheless, I learned alot from both sides.

Have a great day!

 

[aubieRx]

I'm just thankful nobody got hurt....much

 

[WVUPharm2007]

IQ of 160... I'm really impressed. Perhaps you should use some of it..then I won't have to annoyingly nitpick your thoughtless posts..

Nitpick all you want, I encourage it, just don't tell me I'm not thinking. That pisses me off. (As you can see.)

 

[aubieRx]

oh and id like to apologize to zpacksux for a barb i threw at him (which i did not mean).... i only shoot my allies in the back when i have severe pms and get a little emotionally loopy.

which is why im not in any wars.