What's wrong with socialised medicine? Absolutely jack shit nothing. and let me explain why.
I live in the UK where, thank fuck we have socialised medicine in the form of the NHS. I'm also a pharmacy student, so I know a fair amount about the inner workings of the healthcare system that we have. And it's not perfect. Far from it, in fact. However it's also FAR better than the alternative, as used in the USA of for profit healthcare.
The reason I am opposed to privatised healthcare is that it puts money over people's lives. Which to me is ass backwards. For profit medical insurance companies will flat out refuse to pay for your treatment if you had a previous underlying medical problem. Whether it relates to your problem or not. And who, pray tell will need the most medical treatment. Someone with an underlying medical condition, or someone without one? Next, you're pretty much forced to work because you simply cannot afford to be sick, which exacerbates the problem. Sick people in the workplace, will (assuming the disease is contageous) make other people sick and that's a BAD thing.
Fuck, I'm going to go a step beyond the medical insurance companies in terms of pointing out the evil bastards in the medical industry. they're NOTHING to the big pharmaceutical companies. The companies whose entire buisness plan is based around 99% of their products being unprofitable, with their billions of dollars of profit coming in the form of overpriced, patented products. Mostly for conditions which don't frankly need another drug, rather than ya know inventing drugs that would stimulate the ecconomy of Sub Saharan Africa (the cost of malaria in those countries is massive because the workforce spends their time sleeping and dying rather than working). But of course there's no profit there. Then there are the shoddy testing procedures which result in the aims of a study being changed if the drug doesn't work as well as they were hoping but they still want to get it to market (because otherwise they're sunk) And the studies that point out how shitty their drugs really are don't get published because there's no funding for them and the scientists don't get anything for it anyway. But that's nothing to what they'll happily do if there's a profit margin. They will with no qualms sell people inferior drugs as long as there's a profit in it.
I cite eclampsia as proof of this. It's a conditon that causes seazures in women who've just given birth. For years it was treated with anti-seazure drugs. Makes sence right? Causes seazures so give 'em the latest drugs to prevent them. There's one problem with that. They don't work as well as simply, unprofitable Magnesium Sulfate. Let me put this in simple english. Drug companies profited by giving inferior medicines to pregnant women, some of whom would die because of it. That's just cartoonish supervillainy.
Now to deal with some of your concerns:
After the reaction from the cigar lounge in the threads to the Alabama and Florida laws, I thought we were seeing a conservative shift in the readers, but alas the topic of socialized medicine comes up and we return to the normal liberal slant.
Or as it refers to medicine: common sence.
So for those in favor of the idea of socialized medicine, explain why I should pay for the lung cancer treatment of a smoker, the diabetes medication for someone obese, the std treatment of the promiscuous (or even abortion)? Why should I pay for the lifestyle choices other people make? (Which attributes to between 70%-80% of our healthcare costs)
Explain why people with treatable conditions should be allowed to die because they can't afford insurance? Explain why insurance companies are allowed to cut patients who are about to undergo expensive procedures because they have "an underlying condition". Explain why the old, the young, the poor, the sick and the broken are allowed to be exploited so that companies can turn a profit.
People in favor of socialized medicine also don't seem to look at what's the problem. They see people who can't afford medical care and ask, why isn't the government helping them when they should be asking, why is it so expensive?
Ok. You're seriously saying that people should care more about the cost of medicines than their health? Not on your life.
Now I bet some of you will say it's because Health Insurance companies are making huge profits. Well, that's not true. They make a skinny 2-3% profit margin. Yes, they make a couple billion in profit (as an industry), but healthcare costs are over 2 Trillion dollars in the U.S. a year. Even if you add executive pay into that profit, it would hardly put a dent in the price. So absorbing all of the profits in the industry will barely make a difference.
Yawn, don't care. The aim of any socialised healthcare system is to break even, with the money raised from taxes paying for the treatment of the people who need it.
Government run healthcare would even exasperate these problems with costs. If the consumer doesn't care how much something costs, then the supplier can get away with charging whatever they want.
and that's why organisations like the
MHRA exist. To set guidelines that decide which drugs can and can't be supplied. Hint: the expensive drugs that don't give much benefit are blacklisted. Also, in countries outside the USA people don't go to their doctors and ask for the latest prescription only drug they was advertised during Scrubs. If you're ill you see a doctor and HE chooses what drug to give you.
Another hint: That drug probably won't be the newest. Drug companies can't send british doctors
on holiday to conferances in holiday destinations. They're limited to being able to give them a clock and maybe a couple of pens. Funilly enough, these things do reduce the cost of healthcare. (generic prescribing makes a BIG difference)
That's why costs go up. To combat this, the government might start implementing price controls, but what happens then?
They don't. The only time that there's been price fixing of medicines in the UK was done by the buisnesses. Not the government. But that was abolished decades ago. The way the NHS works for prescribed medicine is that the pharmacies get rembursed for the exact cost of the drugs, and paid a flat fee of £0.90 for each item they dispense. The onus is on the doctors to prescribe generically (i.e. paracetamol (acetaminophen) not tylenol). There's a website/book that lists the price of each of these drugs. Google "Drug Tariff" to find it. There's also a "prescription charge" but it's kind of complex, and not entirely relavent.
We end up with shortages because not enough suppliers are willing to work at those wages. It is far superior to let the free market determine what the price of certain services are then some government bureaucrat who gets all his information from a healthcare lobbyist.
First of all, that doesn't happen, for the reasons I explained above. and secondly, are you SERIOUSLY applying free market ecconomics to the pharmaceutical industry? You have to be joking. There is no way that you could be trying to do that.
Free market theory doen't work when you apply it to the pharmaceutical industry. You know why? Because it's so heavily regulated that the market simply ISN'T free. Let me put this in a way you can understand.
If you go to a GM dealership and a Ford dealership to look at a two cars of the same class with the same sized engine there are going to be differences between them other tha the badge, right? When it comes to drugs, if you're comparing two tablets with the same drug and strength, they are EXACTLY the same. They may look a little different (by law, they have to), but the ingredients, release profile and effect are identical. And that has to be proven and given marketing authorisation before it can be sold/dispensed to a patient. Taking into account the stringent tests that each batch has to undergo before THAT can be sent out too means that you can be damn sure that the loratadine you get from a branded antihistamine is exactly the same as the generic stuff.
There is no freedom in that industry, so don't attempt to shoehorn free market ecconomics into this discussion.
Also, our healthcare costs are going up because demand is going up. American are notoriously unhealthy. 2 in 5 of us our overweight. Additionally, there is a mass of baby boomers starting to retire and these people are going to live longer lives then ever before. This results in a lot of demand for healthcare which ends up pushing prices up.
Yes. The cost of healthcare is increasing faster than inflation. This is well known.
Grocery stores also discriminate against people based on their ability to pay, should we socialize them? And the idea of performing services for profit isn't contradictory, it's how the world works.
Rearrange this sentence. free market The medical industry is not a .
I love of you're forcing your values on everyone else. I hope you don't mind it then when social conservatives do the same thing with abortion
I'm pro choice
Anyone who isn't pro this is a bigot.
I'm anti-this for anything further than cannabis because of the precident it would set and the legal headaches that would arise from making what were schedule 2 controlled drugs available over the counter while large packs or paracetamol can only be sold in a registered pharmacy under the supervision of a pharmacist.
Your statements are based on subjective morality. Taking care of others is something we as individuals do, not something the government mandates.
My arguement is based off thee following two sentences. The NHS works. People are worth more than money. Now, forgive me if you can't understand the text because of how red and socialised my opinions are so I'll make it simple for you:
Paying the bills and turning a profit are not the most important things in life.
You're right, most Americans don't know what's in the bill. The people who passed the bill don't know what's in the bill! It was made from healthcare lobbyists who have their own agenda to push. Our media would rather spend time digging through thousands upon thousands of pages of Sarah Palin's emails then spend time looking at the actual bill. There's a reason why hundreds of waivers have already been sent out for this new healthcare bill (I think many of which went to Nancy Pelosi's district, the leading democrat in the house), the bill is not a solution, it will only add problems.
Don't care. I KNOW the NHS works. After all, I've only been using it for the last 20 years.
Penn and Teller are strong libertarians who would have nothing to do with socialized medicine. So if you take their word on the tax system (which you should), why don't you take their word on healthcare.
Because I'm of the opinion that libertarians are fucking nutjobs, and I know how well a socialised healthcare system can work?
Oh yes, the familiar analogy to auto insurance. Here's the problem with the comparison:
1) Auto insurance is mandated by state, not federal governments (huge difference)
As opposed to the medicines you take being mandated by the government anyway? Also, if an American NHS is anytihng like the British one, then the states (and indeed more local areas) will be setting their own policies, much like Norwich and Great Yarmouth do because the populations of those cities have different needs (the primary healthcare demands in Norwich are age related. In Great Yarmouth, they're Heroin or Methadone related) much like the PCTs here do. Until they get replaced with GP Consortia by the Tories, but that's something for another thread.
2) Auto insurance is to protect others not yourself
Surely that's the point of a national healthcare service if you're a healthy tax paying person? You're not likely to get sick, but there are people who are, and your tax money pays for their treatment. And if you hit a wall (i.e. get sick)
3) Auto insurance is required for the PRIVILEGE of driving while a mandate for health insurance would be required for what? The privilege to live?
I consider the privelege of using a hospital to be a pretty big one. And to be able to see a doctor for free whenever I need to to be a big privelege too. And hell, I consider not needing to prove that I have insurance if I get picked up by an ambulance to be a privelege too.
A disease can easily spread from one spot to another. That's why it is a public good. The Doctors serve you even if you never get sick. The fact that they exist provides you protection.
See what I did there.
If they didn't exist, you probably would have already been sick many times over.
Try and tell me that having trained doctors haven't made you less likely to get ill and I'll fly to America just to laugh in your face. Not just because of obvious things like giving you antibiotics if you need them, but because of things like: irradicating smallpox, vaccinating you against life threatening diseases (creating herd immunity, meaning that the population as a whole is protected, not just you) and cleanliness (antisceptics were first used by Joseph Lister in a HOSPITAL, it was subsiquently discovered in another hospital that keeping things clean made people less likely to get infected by them)
Doctors, Nurses, The Hospitals, are all things which are meant to preserve life, a major foundation of human rights.
Wasn't "life" one of those things that's mentioned in the Bill of Rights? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, right? Seems like a socialised healthcare system would supercede the foundations of capitalism. The right to a free market isn't ingrained in the constitution. Not that a free market actually exists anywhere within a hospital, unless there's a McDonald's inside.
Just to add a more personal touch to this post. People often lament about how the uninsured must go without.
Isn't that the point of an insurance based system.
But if free market solutions are implemented, then many of them would be able to get insurance.
Good luck making a free market out of the pharmaceutical industry.
And those who fall between can look to charities to help.
Are you serious?
The U.S. is an extremely charitable nation.
Not charitable enough to support the entire population that wouldn't have insurance.
And those for socialized medicine often forget about its victims. People in places like Canada and Britain must wait in long lines to get the care they need. And the quality of that care is often lacking.
Not according to the Department of Health. In England in the latest figures I could find stated that only 0.03% of ALL inpatient procedures had a wating time of 30 weeks or more. Hardly the majority of people waiting years for a simple procedure, is it?
My uncle died of Chromes disease about 7 years ago in a hospital in Canada (a disease which very few people die of) and to this day my aunt feels that it was the hospital's negligence that caused the death.
First of all, people will ALWAYS blame the doctors, socialised or capitalist and the hospital if something goes wrong which could have been prevented. That's why they have malpractice insurance.
And second of all I see your sob story and raise you my own. 10 or so years ago my Dad was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. A year later with Altzheimer's, and then those diagnoses were amended to Louis body disease. Since then, thanks in no small part to the NHS my Mum has been looking after him at home. Without the NHS there's no way she could be able to, or afford to. So please, cut the bullshit that could, and does happen in any hospital in isolated incidents attributed to socialised medicine, grow a braincell and look outside of profit margins and irrelevent free market theory and realise that some things are worth paying taxes for. Hospitals are one of them.
She later moved to Atlanta partly because she "never wanted what happened to him to happen to her children." Now I know that this is just one incident and no case can be made on this alone, but to act as if people don't suffer many difficulties due to the inefficiencies and limitations of socialized medicine is wrong.
Blah, blah second hand anecdote. I can give you a half dozen that vilify or honour the NHS.
Easily the best in the world? You've got to be kidding me?
Not the best in the world. I believe that's one of the Scandinavian countries. Considerably better than America though.
And it's not free, you pay for it in taxes.
That's the point. In fact that's how the fricking NHS was advertised whern it was first developed "free at the point of supply, you still pay for it in taxes". And I'd rather have higher taxes and my dad (has a degenerative neurological disease) and brother (has Type 1 diabetes) both get adiquately looked after, no matter what their cercumstances in life are.
I don't know a thing about Medicare and Medicade, nor do I care about them. I'll skip that part.
This, despite the fact that government healthcare is rampant with fraud:
Far less fraud than the people making the drugs are guilty of. And no shit people make bad claims. That's why doctors are, ya know supposed to kick people doing that out of their office. But since in the USA, they get paid for the procedure whether the patient needs or deserves it or not they'll do it anyway. This is also a problem if you're just paying to see your GP. They feel pressured to give you a prescription, whether you need one or not (one of my lecturers has an anecdote about one of his friends in France being prescribed ergotamine (a drug used to treat migranes that's also a precurser for LSD) to perk her up. Not a good thing, all things considered.
