Thread: U.S. Scrambling to Ease Shortage of Vital Medicine

Originally Posted by C-B-M

That question doesn't even make sense, given that the idiots on the left have prevented any private healthcare models. Right now, all we're comparing is "more socialized versus slightly less socialized."

Fair enough, let me clarify, Can some one point it out to me a proper size first world country where the more private money has been spent and the healthcare costs less...

So CBM your right can some point out where a more socialized system is cheaper then less socialized system...

By the way there is one.. But your not going to like the answer.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Get real the US has some very import and successful social programs (and thus is a socialist country just as much ast the rest of us) or did you get work today going cross country or did you use a road

The road was built by private contractors working for the highway authority.

the police, the firemen....

Private contractors in many places.

Ask about Trash Removal... Everyone in my town hauls their own trash to the dump (recycling center) themselves or hires a private contractor to do it.

ask a about water... about half wells, the rest comes from direct water usage bills.

ask about sewage... we have septic tanks.

So when you say the government is bad and can't run anything while using a road to get to work, praising the soldiers, police or firemen... I see a hypocrite.

So where is everyone praising the quality of roads, the waste in the military, misconduct of police and the high cost of fire service?

Go to the DMV and tell me how efficient it is, try a trip to the social security office. Picture that attached to the front of your regular medical care. Still want the government to run it?

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

The road was built by private contractors working for the highway authority.



Private contractors in many places.

Ask about Trash Removal... Everyone in my town hauls their own trash to the dump (recycling center) themselves or hires a private contractor to do it.

ask a about water... about half wells, the rest comes from direct water usage bills.

ask about sewage... we have septic tanks.




So where is everyone praising the quality of roads, the waste in the military, misconduct of police and the high cost of fire service?

Go to the DMV and tell me how efficient it is, try a trip to the social security office. Picture that attached to the front of your regular medical care. Still want the government to run it?

Who oversees the building of the roads. I have never said delivery of care should be totally public and these socialised systems have a heavy mix of public and private workers...

The government finds alot of services they provide easier to deliver by sub contracting it to a private companies... Not work with that.. But the buck stops with the government...

Esentially everything ends up with a private company or individual supplying the service. The police and army are private individuals hired to provide a service.

So this is one message that has not answered the question:
Can some one point it out to me a proper size first world country where where a more socialized healthcare system is cheaper then less socialized healthcare system...

Originally Posted by Ricardo...

this is an strategic industry. I believe the commerce dept was asleep at the wheel. not to delegitimize Israel but they
now own aprox. 65% of the generic world wide market. no ' anti trust laws' to prevent monopolies kicked in.
this subject is vital to our sovereign nations well being. I repeat...strategic industry(pharmaceuticals)

I disagree.

I think an argument can be made that some of the products produced by the industry have a strategic importance (primarially vaccines) but for the most part there's no strategic necessity in a 70-year-old woman receiving her thyroid medication or a 6-year-old child receiving chemotherapy.

If the government wanted to mandate that pharma be required to produce and make available for sale, even at minimal profit, medications that ensure the greatest good for the greates number I don't think I'd be opposed to it.

But there's no strategic imperative that every swinging dick have access to everything that he or she might want or need at any time.

Originally Posted by soot

I disagree.

I think an argument can be made that some of the products produced by the industry have a strategic importance (primarially vaccines) but for the most part there's no strategic necessity in a 70-year-old woman receiving her thyroid medication or a 6-year-old child receiving chemotherapy.

If the government wanted to mandate that pharma be required to produce and make available for sale, even at minimal profit, medications that ensure the greatest good for the greates number I don't think I'd be opposed to it.

But there's no strategic imperative that every swinging dick have access to everything that he or she might want or need at any time.

A stable and productive workforce is an imperative to any functioning society.

At the moment the the number one reason to bankrupt in US is Healthcare costs (62.1% of bankruptcies).

Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.

They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.

"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance." Health.com: Where the money goes -- A breast cancer donation guide

Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN

So the number is 0.9 million people a year in 2007 go from been productive members of society to bankrupt. This is 9 million people over 10 years...

The US has a labour force of 154,900,000 people. they are will to loose 0.5% a year to bankrupcy or 5% over 10 years to bankrupcy due to just healthcare.

These are only the number that file not the number that are severly weakened by healthcare costs.

This shows that US as a society preys on its people at there most vunerable. It show a lack of compassion and lack of humanity in your fellow man. The funny thing is the US as a country prides itself on it's patriotism but when it actually involves sticking the hand in there pocket to help not only there fellow country men but alos themselves they shy away. Fortunally this is not true of all Americains.
Some people think it is acceptable to loose the odd old person or kid cause they were deemed not valuable to society and thus did not have the resources to pay for medical treatment. This is wrong morally. It also contradicts the statements on which your nation was founded on 'All men are created equal..'. If they are truely equal this would have never been a disgustion.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Post

So you're arguing that there's tunrover in the workforce due to health issues.

Note that no jobs are being created or destoryed in your scenario, simply that different people are filling a job.

So what?

At +/- 10% unemployment a 0.5% loss of labor due to health issues isn't a major issue.

It's a HUGE deal to the individual going through the health crisis/bankruptcy/unemployment.

It's also a HUGE deal to the individual who gains a job and an opportunity through the other guy's loss.

To society at large it's just quantum foam on the overall economic landscape.

Some people think it is acceptable to loose the odd old person or kid cause they were deemed not valuable to society and thus did not have the resources to pay for medical treatment. This is wrong morally.

There are also people who tell me that homosexuality is morally wrong.

I don't share either of your morality.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by soot

So you're arguing that there's tunrover in the workforce due to health issues.

Note that no jobs are being created or destoryed in your scenario, simply that different people are filling a job.

So what?

At +/- 10% unemployment a 0.5% loss of labor due to health issues isn't a major issue.

It's a HUGE deal to the individual going through the health crisis/bankruptcy/unemployment.

It's also a HUGE deal to the individual who gains a job and an opportunity through the other guy's loss.

To society at large it's just quantum foam on the overall economic landscape.



There are also people who tell me that homosexuality is morally wrong.

I don't share either of your morality.

Sorry.

So you don't value a nation's workforce, your belief that everyone is interchangable. You don't see the cost to a comapny of loosing a valued employee. The cost of changing personnal can be very expensive, not everyone works in walmart. Companies spend thousands training eemployees and building teams to which build or offer services to the economy.
Your view is that this 0.5 is surplus to requirements and these employees can be interchanged. It is an accountants view of the world but not the view of people who work in these teams.


On your second point your nation does not share your view omn morality because if they did they would let sick people die and not offer Emergency care.



By the way:
Still asking out there. US is running a total healthcare costs about 5% of GDP above the every other country in the world.
Can some one point it out to me a proper size first world country where where a more socialized healthcare system is cheaper then less socialized healthcare system...

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

So you don't value a nation's workforce, your belief that everyone is interchangable. You don't see the cost to a comapny of loosing a valued employee. The cost of changing personnal can be very expensive, not everyone works in walmart. Companies spend thousands training eemployees and building teams to which build or offer services to the economy.

We've agreed that evey year 0.5% of the total American workforce is lost do to healthcare-related bankruptcy.

What percentage of those do you think actually fall into the catergory of highly-trained, fully-integrated, highly-valued team members?

Maybe 25%?

I think that's being generous but I'll still work with it.

So every year 0.125% of the integral, not easily replaced workforce is lost due to healthcare related bankruptcy.

As I've already said, my metric in this discussion is "the greatest good for the greatest number".

You can drag all the hyper-emotional bullshit into it that you want but from the perspective of "the greatest good for the greatest number" you do not nationalize a private industry because one tenth of one percent of the whole is being effected by a tough time.

Your view is that this 0.5 is surplus to requirements and these employees can be interchanged. It is an accountants view of the world but not the view of people who work in these teams.

Serious question:

Will you help me?

I need $100 to enroll my little boy in our municipal soccer league. He really wants to play and it would mean the world to him. But I just can't afford the $100.

I'd like you to send that $100 to me.

You personally.

Let's got to PM and I'll give you my mailing address and you send me that $100 check.

Will you do that for me? For him? For a little boy who just wants to play soccer with the other kids?

He's a human being we're talking about here. A little boy with hopes and dreams.

Do the right thing and put YOUR money where your mouth is.

I know it's easy for you to tell the pharmaceutical industry what to do with their money but are you willing to take this hit for a fellow human being?

Or do you need to do some accounting first?

Again - I am DEAD serious about this. PM me and we'll work out the details.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Quite simply, goes to pattern, as they would say in a court of law:

Regulation and the Obama administration: Red tape rising | The Economist

You need to read your own article as it says nothing about the topic of the OP and doesn't support your position.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Fair enough, let me clarify, Can some one point it out to me a proper size first world country where the more private money has been spent and the healthcare costs less...

So CBM your right can some point out where a more socialized system is cheaper then less socialized system...

By the way there is one.. But your not going to like the answer.

I actually looked this up and it's pretty funny because the World Health Organization has several categories that they explored -- and keep in mind, the WHO states quite prominently that it believes that the more public funds are spent on health care, the better. That's their view for you right up front. They broke it down into who spends more or less, but also who has the "fairest" health care. And they defined that as: if someone is poor, paying less money proportionately is "fair." So an unfair system -- again, according to the WHO -- is one where people would have to pay for their own health care. The fairest system is one where, for example, the poor pay nothing.

Both of those categories had interesting leaders -- by the way, you wouldn't, I bet, be able to predict who had the "fairest" health care systems. But it also raises another point. Clearly you and the WHO are trying to look at this issue quite superficially. For example, let's say a socialized system costs less and a less socialized system costs more. Don't you have any curiosity towards, for example, why that is? And do you wonder how money is being saved? Those are just a few questions I'd ask (and the WHO doesn't address it, unfortunately). So I'm not sure what you're getting at or what country you're thinking of that is supposed to be a trump card in your argument, but I'm also certain that your current question isn't very relevant.