http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/05/2734004.htm

there is a baby in australia with some rare disea..it just got cured with some thing that was just dicovered in an NHS country.
dicoveries are allways only made in the US though...;)

(there's a good chance if you are uninsured that you will go to a bad hospital though)

That's illegal, as the First Lady would have found out if she wasn't elevated to the White House.  You can't transfer a patient because of their ability to pay.

As we've seen the notion that the Dutch and British and Canadians give a damn about HEALTH first is bogus

> EmperorHez wrote:
> Yell - the US has the wrong priority about healthcare. it should not be about PROFIT.
it should be about HEALTH.

in these times that might be quite a philosophical debate; maybe it s better to look at what works out best in real life, and what people/governments are willing to accept

from that view i d say usa's system has still loads to gain in the field of effiency

Thank you for your academic's blog post link, Fokker. I think you misread my point. Because your link supports it. In its ridiculously overly verbose, overly obvious way. My point is that the free market skips ALL of that bullshit because everyone is motivated by what produces profit, and people who purchase their own care and providers who sell it to those people all want the best care. People want the best care because it's their health and safety. Providers want the best care because people pay more for it and come to them, not their competitors. There's not retarded academic discussion of the psychological and sociological conceptualizations that lead to people accepting or rejecting change. People are motivated to give the best possible care, and those that do not fail to pay the bills and go out of business. Simple. No trillions of government waste required to give this optimal care. Though of course you always have the option of spending trillions on government involvement which inevitably reduces the quality of care.

This stuff isn't rocket science. Like the idiots on the news today actually explaining why government spending is great for economies: they just don't get it. They're 100% wrong. And no matter how many idiots have an interest in buying into a retarded and dead-wrong ideology, it's still absolutely 100% wrong.

---

Thank you for telling us that you have no idea what you are talking about, EmperorHez.

"Doctors do NOT run the US healthcare system- the INSURANCE companies do."

What do you base your statements on? I know people who've had more than $1,000,000 of medical care and payed $0 for it. In a free market you can choose not to purchase insurance from thugs. In a single payer system, you cannot choose not to purchase insurance from thugs. If doctors not running a healthcare system (and the patient/comsumer, presumably, should have a say in their own care, right? Are you an invalid? Do you think you shouldn't have the most say in your care? Don't you pay for it? I pay for mine. What's your problem? Why didn't you mention the patient/comsumer? Are you too stupid to make decisions regarding your own health and life? Please respond.) is your primary concern, then you're making the best case against a single-payer government-run healthcare system: They take the doctor and the patient out of the decision making process AND remove the choice of an alternative.

"they actually have teams of people looking for discrepancies/ errors in customers forms and KEEP THEM ON FILE. so they'll still take your payments but as soon as you want to CLAIM for anything they'll look at what they've got on you and refuse- even for the smallest thing."

You're making a great case for laws against thievery. Or good decision making in purchasing insurance. I'm not sure what you think it has to do with a massive government takeover of healthcare.

---

Where is the line of how life-threatening something has to be for immediate care, neophous666? Who decides it? Do I, the consumer, get to decide? I think I should. I pay for what I get; shouldn't I get to decide when I have to wait 6 months to be treated for something that causes me pain and trouble in my life? When you say, "The job gets done, people are helped by it." don't you think that the people would be helped more if they were not forced to wait in pain while their condition often worsens? Is the job actually done if they're in pain for months or years before being treated? Is the job actually done if their condition worsens and they suffer permanent damage before they receive care? Additionally, your claim that "Just to clarify, the NHS wouldn't delay if it was life threatening." is contradicted by the facts in evidence; ie, people having to wait for such care as cancer treatment. That is, the cancer treatment that NHS actually pays for, which is not the best treatment available for every patient. That wouldn't be cost-effective. The NHS gives your life a price. How much is yours worth? Because I happen to know that mine is worth more. Literally. Vastly more dollars are available for me to purchase the best possible treatment for me. Under NHS, you cannot make this claim. Everyone who does is lying. If the government hasn't approved that care for you based upon your value and chances, you don't get it. How humanitarian is that, again?

"Britain was the only country where the majority of doctors felt the quality of health care is improving and..."

Obviously. It's easier to improve substantially upon something that is of poor quality to start with.

"in contrast to the United States, the NHS rated highly for fast, inexpensive and readily-available care for all."

And here we have the biggest basis for lies available for those who wish to misrepresent the actual facts on healthcare when comparing quality of care across countries. This is a claim about "care for all." Obviously a nation which promises sub-par care for all can claim to cover 100% of its nations' citizens and thus score highly on this figure. Never mind that the quality of care suffers and it comes months later (it's still "fast" if it otherwise wouldn't exist. Months later is faster than never!). In the US the federal government does not have a national welfare healthcare program to cover all citizens. The states have their own programs (aided by federal dollars). But in comparing availability of care, one can just ignore these state programs and federal funding and score the USA lower than other nations because there is no federal program covering 100% of citizens.

The claim that other nations have "better" healthcare systems than the USA is based upon this misrepresentation of facts on availability of care.

You can keep your linguistic acrobatics. I'll keep my unrivaled quality of care. Thank you for your concern. Please stop lying because you're jealous that I have more money available for more care that you just can't get.

Ps. "Nigel Edwards, of the NHS Confederation, which represents managers, said the NHS had been making great strides but there were still areas, such as cancer treatment, where there was "still some way to go"."

...Just don't get cancer? Cause nobody dies from that anyway?

---

Yes, Nemeara, you were correct when you stated that "different systems work better for different settings/cultures/countries." People who don't mind dying prefer less funding available for less types of treatments which are not available for months or years.

---

Dear Schniepel,

I would like to draw your attention to another point brought up by the article you linked:
""Chief legal officer of Southern Health said to me 'Alex, we need to know if the Australian public agrees that this experimental approach is in the genuine interest of this baby and the only person who can tell us that is the court, so we need to have a court order'," Dr Veldman said."

Do you have information on how many children die because they don't have court orders allowing them to receivev life-saving treatment? I promise you it's a lot more than one.

---

EmperorHez said:
"If your insurance company wont pay and you need expensive treatment then you are SCREWED."

Similar to if a government won't pay for the care someone needs, except that in that situation they have no alternative?

And you keep arguing that it's important not to purchase insurance from hobos and how important it is that laws against fraud be enforced... I think you're posting in the wrong thread, because everything you sound like you're arguing against is worse with government healthcare.

"the US has the wrong priority about healthcare. it should not be about PROFIT.
it should be about HEALTH."

You don't seem to understand how capitalism works to provide me better care than you. I'm willing to pay for better care, so I buy care from the people capable of giving me the best care. Everyone is motivated to improve their care (and even invent new care!) in order to get my business. Those who provide the BEST POSSIBLE CARE IN THE UNIVERSE are rewarded by my purchasing their care, rewarding them with PROFIT. Can you read? Because, in case nobody told you until now, I want to make sure you got that: PROFIT motivates THE BEST POSSIBLE CARE IN THE UNIVERSE. It should be about health? It is. Those who don't put my health first get no profit. They don't get to feed their families or buy cool stuff. They go out of business. I'm sure plenty of your doctors are really great people and care about their patients and provide great care. But their caring doesn't purchase the newest and best diagnostic tools or treatments that SAVE LIVES.

"Given" to patients? Oh, that's right, you have to rely on what your government agrees to pay for you to take. You have no say in aquiring what is best for you. It must do serious harm to the intellect and psyche of a person to be treated like a baby by their federal government. People with terminal conditions who will soon perish are not threatened by the dangers posed by unproven drugs. And most people with terminal conditions, though I accept that there are obvious exceptions such as yourself, are more capable of determining what is best for them when their life is on the line than a government bureaucracy rationing care.

Blind Guardian, you are a moron. I know for fact that my healthcare system is fantastic, I get the best treatment for free. You might think yours is fantastic aswell. Thats all that matters, i'm happy, you're happy, stop being so pretentious in the way you're talking to people and get a grip. I've said my piece and i'm done with this thread now.

> Schniepel wrote:

> Thank you for not at all answering my question.
Do medications have to be approved by any instance in the US or are they free to be sold when the developer says so?

Medications in the US definitely have to be approved by the FDA before being sold.  That's why we don't import drugs from other countries.

the reason drugs are cheaper in Canada is that Canada told the drug companies to give them a discount or they'd void the patents in Canada.
now Democrats want to import drugs from Canada to save money

"Medications in the US definitely have to be approved by the FDA before being sold.  That's why we don't import drugs from other countries."

Ok, then my next question would be what would happen to someone who sells unapproved medications...

"Your statement is technically true. The court could have, in fact, not approved the medication and let the child die. Interesting to learn that you find this outcome to be equally acceptable."
You got me wrong there then. They could have given the medcine to the kid without asking any court. If the child dies, and some person feels like suing them for givign untested medication to a kid they would be in trouble. It is self protection of the developers, and yes, i can understand that.

"Point taken. Your children do require courts to protect them from you. This, however, gives you no right to interfere with other functional and not-incompetent-like-you human beings acquiring the best possible care for themselves and their loved-ones."
Point not taken. The kid does not need a court for protection. the medcine developers need protection.

>.Medications must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally purchased, a fact that kills countless people every year.<<

THATS A LIE

we keep a tight count on our dead

seriously I doubt folks toured your country selling flavored water off a wagon as medicine, they did that here for decades.  americans also die because the gubmint banned a "cure" that they smuggle in and guess what? It doesnt work, which is why the FDA banned it.

> Blind Guardian wrote:

> Thank you for your academic's blog post link, Fokker. I think you misread my point. Because your link supports it. In its ridiculously overly verbose, overly obvious way. <

I didn't misread your point. I misunderesimated your inelligents.
I know the link appears to support you, but it is backhanded, it still contains proof that what you said is wrong:

http://entrepreneurship.sbsblogs.co.uk/medical-innovation/why-is-innovation-in-the-nhs-often-hard-to-achieve/

Now, I say again, why does this article ask why innovation is difficult under the NHS if, as you say, innovation is impossible under any kind of NHS system?

> My point is that the free market skips ALL of that bullshit because everyone is motivated by what produces profit, and people who purchase their own care and providers who sell it to those people all want the best care. <

Keyword: profit.
I know what you're thinking, "They have to innovate," right? "In order to survive. They have to cure illnesses, not treat symptoms. People won't buy a shitty product. A shitty health company would die." Right?
Small problem with that line of thinking, something EVERYONE forgets:

Consumers are thick.

How many times have you bought shit, knowing it was shit, simply because you couldn't be arsed to find, or didn't know how to find, better? Hell, how many times have you done this without realising?

Africa's inability to produce it's own anti-retroviral drugs = America's profit
Stupid = Profit

> [...] Though of course you always have the option of spending trillions on government involvement which inevitably reduces the quality of care. <

  Would now be a bad time to mention that the NHS is in the so-called mess it's in because of years of lack of government interest?

"Education, education, education!"
"But Mr Blair, what about healthcare? Mr Blair? Did he hear me?"

> This stuff isn't rocket science. Like the idiots on the news today actually explaining why government spending is great for economies: they just don't get it. They're 100% wrong. And no matter how many idiots have an interest in buying into a retarded and dead-wrong ideology, it's still absolutely 100% wrong. <

  I was thinking the exact same thing, but my pun involves brain surgery.