USA Health Care Bill

[chrissa1]

Why is there such hatred and vitriol against this bill in the US? Is it led by the Insurance companies?

[Clanad]

Let's see... where to begin... I don't think there was any attempt to advertise the integrity of any company in my post. The full facts of the J & J/Omnicare case are yet to be determined. Strange that, according to allegations, it began in 1998 and wasn't discovered by the government service overseeing drug companies intil 2004...even then it only came to light via whistleblowers. No allegations have been made re: efficacy of the drugs though.
Generic drugs... when has a "generic" drug ever been forth coming from any company as the first product of its kind? Never... the R & D costs are enormous as well as the risks for lawsuits years after the drug's introduction. It takes a period of time to recoup those costs. Although over seen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that government body, nor any other has ever developed and marketed a new drug...

U.S. docs overpaid... strange your comparison is to countries who all have government controlled health care... or is that just not applicable. Fact is, the U.S. doctors that serve Medicare patients receive at least 1/3 less than the average for fee patient. Which is amajor factor in the cost Additionally, one of the proposals made by Republicans in the recent debates was restriction of "nuisance" lawsuits against doctors for which they pay outreageous insurance premiums.

...

[Clanad]

(Contd.)

One of our sons-in-law is a surgeon who has been in general practice for about 10 years. Never been sued,never been accused of malpractice, yet he pays somewhere north of $100,000 per year for malpractice insurance. Guess who was and is one of the biggest contributors to the Democrats (especially Obama)... the Trial Lawyers organizations. The Democrat majority wouldn't even consider restraints on that constituency.

I said, early on, if you're happy with your health care system, more power to you. There are a number of things that we in the U.S. do quite differently than the U.K. or Europe. One of those is to highly value very little interference from the various governmental bodies in our lives. Strange, I've been a participant in this site for a few years and am always struck by how easily the citizens of the "fair and green island" seemingly so easily have let the government dominate nearly aspect of your daily life. Such as housing councils, (what ever that is) and other such groups named in complaints in various threads on this site. Again, if your happy with it, that's your business.
(Contd.)

[Clanad]

Contd.)
The U.S. had its beginning fighting against England for personal freedom... live or fall by your own hand. We are also the undisputed leader in contributing to the social welfare in other countries in the world as well as our own citizenry.
Polls taken in the weeks leading up to the congressional vote on this Bill showed conclusively that 75% to 85% of U.S. citizens were happy with our present system.. Can there be improvements? Sure... we all agree on that. But complete government take-over isn't the answer in the America I grew up in.
It's estimated that 75,000 new Internal Revenue agents (they collect the taxes) will be required just for this Bill alone.... But, thanks ffor your views

(You don't see the dark humor in the PM of a Canadian Province electing to come to the U.S. for care? Strange... I would have thought he'd prefer the system his constituents live (and die) by)...Nice that he could afford it though, no?

[jake-the-peg]

Why do you suppose Clanad that Cuba has lower infant mortality than the US?

[Davethedog]

Clannad my facts come from published facts yours are unsubstatiated annecdotal eveidence.

What J&J do or do not achive isn't the point I am making - You say R&D costs millions? As much as they are bribing drug companies to take them? How much cheaper would they be with out the bribes.

As fron the Canadian he does what every rich man does he gos to the best avaialble thats doctor.

If you mean the government dominate my life by giving me and mine t5he facility to walk into nearly every medical facility to be treated for as long as it takes with no impending financial disaster long may it reign.

[Quinlad]

And that's precisely the point, Clanad.

Whether a highly paid minister chooses to use one form of private healthcare over another isn't really the test. The test is whether the most vulnerable members of Canadian society have adequate provision.

I know that's not really the concern of the American right - and fair play to you if that's how you want to live your life. Prizing individual freedom is fine if you're f It also feeds into the point you make about government inteference.

My view (and I'm a left of centre Brit) is that government isn't really FOR the well-to-do. I'm going to be alright whatever my government does - just as you are. I might be asked to pay more into government schemes that target the poor, but I'm really comfortable with that. If the Tories get it, I'll be better off. Either way, I'm not worried.

The overriding concern of many who oppose greater government interference is that they personally will have to fork out a bit for it. For that reason, they'll do all they can to oppose it, even seeing their fellow citizens suffer horrendously. I find that quite sad. But I guess one of the freedoms that the US political model enshrines is the freedom to not give a sh*t. Fair do's though.

[chrissa1]

I completely agree with you both quinlad and dave the dog. I was going to start on about corruption in government, but that's another ball game. We have it over here (MP's expenses etc), but it appears that in the US it is rife and "to hell" with the poor who can't afford humongous insurance policies. Give me the NHS with all its flaws any day.

[Clanad]

Ok... Last comment... Is this true? "...The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) decides whether new drugs represent value for money for the NHS in England and Wales. It replied: "This is a gross misrepresentation of how Nice applies health economics to try and address the central issue: how to allocate healthcare rationally within the context of limited healthcare resources. Nice assesses the cost of a treatment in terms of a cost-utility analysis which takes account of the quality adjusted life year – the amount and quality of extended life it is hoped the patient will gain. The current ceiling is £30,000 but exceptions are made"
(Source: http://www.guardian.c...ick-healthcare-reform )

(Contd.)

[Clanad]

Or this? "...Nice has recently reformed its procedures after a series of controversies over the unavailability of certain cancer treatments. "The vast majority of new cancer drugs are made available to patients with notable exceptions, such as the likely rejection of several new kidney cancer drugs," said Allirajah of Macmillan Cancer Support. "However, the Nice process does need reforming to ensure decisions are made more quickly and patients' quality of life is taken more into account." (Same Source).
Sounds like ya'll are comfortable letting a committee determine your outcome, no?
And... jake, all you have to do is read a follow up on Micheal Moore's claims to understand the Cuban doctors abort babies at the drop of a scalpel. Not so here in the U.S., at least for now... (also read here... http://www.skepticism.net/?p=75 ...very enlightning and a source that's quotable, no?

[chrissa1]

Clanad, I do not say that our NHS is perfect because it is not, but, and it's a big but, our Health Service is free to all, rich or poor, nobody if they find themselves in hospital following an accident or hitherto undiagnosed cancer requiring long treatment has to be fearful of a massive bankrupting bill being delivered upon their recovery.
It has nothing to do with enjoying or putting up with being ruled by government, it is the Welfare State looking after it's citizens "from the cradle to the grave", as laid out by a Labour Government in 1948. I do not vote Labour, never have and never will, but I applaud our NHS.