Why is US only "1st World" country w/o health care

Post Reply New Topic

I was brought up to be compassionate and idealistic by my parents of blessed memory. Experience has taught me otherwise. I have lived through interesting times. But it was 9/11 that thoroughly fried my brain. Since then any compassion I might have had for strangers vanished. Now I feel only for my family and friends and the warriors who protect me. To harmless strangers I am mostly indifferent, but unfailingly polite. Good manners comes before God's Law.

ruveyn

Note the correct phrase is 'product development/marketing' not research. Large pharm companies do little initial ground breaking research, it is too risky for them, and very little of the money trickles down instead they prefer to pocket the money. The majority of research is done by individuals, small companies, and universities. The whole concept of intellectual property laws is basically a farce. It is corporate protectionism pretending to be capitalism. These companies are too inefficient and uninnovative to exist if it wasn't for such protectionism. They are the only ones that can afford to evergreen patents. I would advocate the banning ever greening of patents, the idea of never ending protectionism doesn't make sense. In case you are wondering where the large pharms made their money, it started out of the 'great binge'. That was a period when heroin and cocaine and their derivatives were sold to the mass market unregulated. In fact 'Heroin' is a brand name of Bayer. They are still selling such products.

Also agencies like FDA pander to the pharms. If a drug which could be effective is not easy to patent, then that drug is less likely to get FDA approval because the hoops that he drug need to go through cost the developers money that they don't have and without the patent they won't get security or venture. This is despite the fact that the so called double blind test can actually be pretty subjective.

Also where drug have shown to be unprofitable in one sector it is highly likely they will try and market it to another sector whether it is useful that area or not.

So if you are think of innovative drug then they might not be as innovative as you think, besides being a synthesised compound that is patentable, and marketed for a particular use.

As for you comment on conducting most of the research, it depends. Next time check the nationality of the researcher. What you in effect did is pay him/her, and gvar him/her a permit to work or study.

Right. And the death of over 4000 US soldiers and at least a million Iraqis, most of them "collateral damage" in a war begun under obviously and proven false pretenses strikes you as "good manners"?

No. It strikes me as extremely bad judgment. We sent in men to do what machines could do much better and more thoroughly. As to the Iraqis who died, screw them and the camel they rode into town on. They are nothing to us.

Keep in mind that Paul Tibbits and three B-29s ended the war in the Pacific. Machines rule! Tibbits had not the least compunction or compassion for the women and children vaporized below his plane.

I opposed the war in Iraq from day 1. I figured we should have gone after Iran or N. Korea. We secured the Saudi Oil Fields so there was no reason to invade Iraq with Gulf War II. Iraq was no nuclear threat, thanks to the Israeli raid of 1981.

When we did go in, I thought we should have done it with 500,000 pair of boots on the ground not the lightweight 140,000 pair that Dumb Don Rumsfeld perscribed. We should have stomped the insurgency flat and without mercy when it started. But even so, it was unwise for us to invade a Muslim country.

ruveyn

As was demonstrated very clearly in Viet Nam merciless air bombing as a conquering technique failed utterly. Japan surrendered after Hiroshima because she was totally defeated at that point anyway. There seems to be some doubt about the validity of Eisenhower's comment that the Hiroshima bombing was superfluous. I take him at his word.

Eisenhower was wrong. Truman was right. We scared Hirohito straight.

Eisenhower was a paper pusher. Truman was an artillery man. Who was the better warrior?

ruveyn

Since the Allied Forces under Eisenhower conquered the Nazis that's a hell of a lot of paper to push.

The American Healthcare System is lousy and it is failing. Doctors are just as fed up with it as patients are and the only people really benefitting are the HMO executives. I sure wouldnt wanna spend MY money on Healthcare from WALMART!.......
How do you think they keep their prices so low, eh??

I would go for Walmart rather quickly, actually. I would bet that the low prices are partially by better matching credentials with needs, as most things people need do not happen to need a doctor at all. Another part could also be their skill in supply chain management.

In any case, another intriguing option is healthcare tourism, which takes advantage of cheaper costs in other countries, but still attempts to provide healthcare of a quality that works for Americans.

For some reason, this is the part that gives me the shivers. I do not see our country moving in the direction of a socialized medical system. I see it moving in the direction of a government monopoly on health insurance.

Have you been to the Walmart Optical department lately? Their doctors are top-notch professionals who gave me the best eyeglass prescription I've ever had, with real Nikon lenses and high-tech titanium alloy 'memory metal' frames for under $150, less than most optical places charge for those frames alone...

I would love to see Walmart expand this into general practicioner service, since they have shown they are capable of providing top level care at rock bottom prices... *cue walmart ad*

I wonder how they do that...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI[/youtube]

US-law has in this respect a speciality: Advertisement is allowed for prescription drugs. In the most countries this is not the case: They argue that a lay-person is not able to understand the benefits and shortcomings of a particular medicine - especially in a context in which a prescription is mandatory.

This advertisement costs money (significant amounts) and also prevents generic products up to a certain amount. In the UK it is common to get generic drugs via the NHS, if no patent is still in force.



They do, but mostly in areas which safe commercial ground - e.g. HIV, Hep C, heard diseases, etc. From my experience (I worksed a while in this area) the research is mixed: The commercial companies do rely on non-commercial basic research, which done either by the the government, universities or foundations (most prominent in the UK: The Welcome Trust).



Neither individuals nor small companies have today the means of doing research.



Research is today international - there is no real "German", UK" or "USA" research.

To answer the question in the title, and not the post which was more of a spam thing:

You do not have healthcare because you US people are too afraid to pay taxes.
Whenever someone suggest change and healthcare for all, you scream "Communism!" which you have been indoctrinated to do by your rightwing parents for decades, mostly because you are afraid of change and that is why the rest of the world with universal, free healthcare will never look up to you.

Feel free to start shouting nationalist slogans pat yourself on the back like people do in other forums, because sooner or later, all you will have left is your nationalism after your Japanese, Chinese and Arabic creditors take everything away from you.

It is time to wake up and smell reality: a stable society rest on the shoulders of a healthy dose of capitalism and socialism - and making sure that one or the other is not going to get the upper hand.

This is most likely reason: However you may define the benefits a public health care system and however you organize it, it costs money and this money had to raised via taxes (contribution or whatever name). If the majority is not willing to pay, there will be none.

Well, a lot of it is supply chain management, but yes, taking advantage of the boon we know as free trade is also a great thing about Wal-mart too, so thanks for showing us that.