I am officially distubed by the truth of U.S healthcare.

Post Reply New Topic

even if our medical system is 'the best' though I think people just say that because they want everything american to be 'the best' but anyways it does us know good if half the population cannot afford access to adequete medical treatment.

Can you prove the U.S should get all the credit for innovations in the medical industry?

it shouldn't get all the credit, and I cannot prove a subjective view. I suspect that the innovative achievements in the medical industry - such as the development of new drugs, research into the human genome, new medical procedures and devices are created in the United States primarily. I think this because the incentives benefit progress more in the United States than in other areas of the world.

The point I am trying to make is to say don't overlook things like innovation. It's hard to quantify as its subjective, but we all realize how important it is. I think socialism undermines this progress.

I disagree. I believe there are many smart people in this world who's definition of success does not include obscene financial gain. I believe there are intelligent, educated people who have a pure passion for helping others and would be more than satisfied, probably overjoyed, just to know they helped out a fellow human being.

I'm not exactly sure how it works elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure other nations make an investment into medical progress for all to share in the gains. The mighty dollar doesn't rule their thinking the way it does ours. In a socialized system, the people directly invest into progress and are directly rewarded for it. Here, we directly invest into it progress via medical expenses and the drug companies reap the rewards. It's not necessarily even the researchers and developers who are getting rich. It's the business departments, and the legal departments and the financial departments. All this money is being poured into advertising and pharm reps. I don't know exact percentages here, but it seems unlikely that the majority of pharm revenues go directly into further development.

Then, you've got the issue of conflict of interest. The more drugs a pharm company sells, the higher their profits. It's not necessarily in the best interest of the people to be continually medicated. Some argue that it's in a pharm company's best interest to focus on the treatments and not the cures. Keep them sick and keep them buying. Once they're cured, you lose their business. I don't know if there's actually any evidence of this, but there is evidence of some really shady business practices - like lying about trial outcomes or delaying recalls. It's basically all about the numbers - not the people.

To add to all of that, in order to come up with the best new developments, you need some really smart people. This is an area where the U.S. is clearly falling behind. When you look at who's doing a better job at educating their students, it's often the socialized countries who rise to the top. Finland is often credited with having the best education system in the world. They are not exactly socialist, but their public sector is very large and public employees are revered - teachers especially. In the U.S., we look down on teachers and we pay them peanuts.

Even if the U.S. had been the primary innovators, I think those days are coming to an end, if they haven't already.

So you are just assuming most of the innovation takes place in the U.S and that our economic system in general is superior to the rest of the world so our healthcare system must also be superior. The point really is our current healthcare system does not work and thus far Universal Healthcare seems to be the best alternative. As it stands now I really have no access to any kind of healthcare should i need it not because I am 'lazy' or a bad person but because I don't have the money to pay for it.........but I guess health is a privlege for the upper middle class and wealthy.

Good points indeed.

Medical Research costs money, a lot of money, why shouldn't we get reimbersed for it?

Why should I not have access to healthcare?

Last I checked hospitals in the United States provide emergency care to people, even if they don't have health insurance. If people were really serious about cost savings, there would be tort reform and the ability to buy insurance across state lines.

What "we?" If you mean the patients who fund their profits, then no, "we" don't get reimbursed for sh*t. The CEO of Johnson & Johnson had a total compensation package of $28.7 million - just for 2010. That's where our investments go. There is no reimbursement.

Yeah and how do you propose I pay the bill they send me for the emergency care? I mean I almost feel like if I felt suicidal I would be better off killing myself then going to an emergency room...just thinking of how high that bill would be. And I think Health Insurance is a scam.....there is really no valid reason for it especially when these companies are all about profit but don't really give a damn about your health and would prefer to deny you if you have a condition that might make insurance nessisary.

Luckily I have been able to fight my suicidal thoughts and have not attempted since that time when I was 15, but it still freaks me out that should I lose control there is no real help.

If the insurance company wasn't making a profit, they would go out of business. A lot of insurance companies do care about their customers, just things tend to break down when you see crony capitalism.

Emergency care does not = routine/preventative care, which ultimately reduces the need for emergency care.

And tort reform? There is no supporting data to say that would have any significant positive effect on our current system.
http://www.usaction.org/site/pp.asp.179.html#sub <- references provided below article.

MYTH: Debate over malpractice compensation is just about frivolous lawsuits.
FACT: The proposed limits on damages would apply to ALL CASES, no matter how serious the injury or how egregious the malpractice by the doctor, hospital, nursing home or drug manufacturer.

MYTH: Medical malpractice claims are driving up the cost of health care for everyone.
FACT: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that all costs related to medical malpractice account for less than 2% of total health care costs. (1)

MYTH: We need caps on damages to reduce doctors' malpractice insurance premiums.
FACT: Premiums in states with caps are an average of 12.4% higher than in states without caps (2) – and insurers admit caps won't reduce insurance rates. (3)

MYTH: Fear of being sued forces doctors to practice defensive medicine.
FACT: The General Accounting Office (GAO) says the evidence that defensive medicine occurs is "weak and inconclusive." (4) And the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says "savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small." (5)

MYTH: Insurance costs are forcing doctors out of business and reducing access to care.
FACT: In 2004, the number of physicians practicing in the United Sates increased by 13,439, to a record total of 884,974. Today, there are more than twice as many physicians as there were 30 years ago. (6) And the GAO says the evidence of reduced access to care is unsubstantiated and anecdotal at best. (7)

Malpractice costs amounted to "less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small." [Congressional Budget Office, "Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice," 1/08/04]

Also, why is the view always skewed to believe that malpractice suits are fraudulent. Doctor's can and do screw up sometimes. Sometimes, it's not an accident. Sometimes there's a clear pattern of gross negligence. Is it always right to limit the jury's award in these cases? What if a baby becomes injured during labor due to the gross negligence of the doctor and that family now has to pay for a lifetime of care for a physically/mentally handicapped child? Under tort reform in some states the max payout is around $500K. Is that sufficient to care for a special needs child for their entire life? No way, it doesn't even scratch the surface.

Good. Let them go out of business. What service do they provide to patients?

I'd also like to see some evidence of your second sentence.

Yes they care so much about their customers they will find any way to get out of covering medical expenditures when something does come up......and people who work for these companies are paid more the more people they deny. I mean with this system there are so many issues:
1. All the people who cannot afford health insurance and are not on medicaid
2. people who make too much money to be on medicaid but have a pre-existing condition and thus are denied.
3. people who have insurance and are dropped from it.
4. All the places that do not accept medicaid
I do not see the purpose of insurance companies.....why should someone have to go through a greedy big buisness to get medical treatment?

And I guess I feel my life is a little bit more important than the money in someones wallet.....but my very existance probably hurts things like insurance companies and we all know profit, competition and buisness are the most important things even more important than peoples lives.

And they wouldn't be pulling those stunts if we didn't have the crony capitalism that allows only Insurance company X and Y to provide insurance in a state, while there are over a hundred insurance companies that would be more than willing to enter the market.