Egor:

I think you answered your own question at the end.  Firefighting and police are simply not profitable.  Therefore, without goverment, they would not exist in an effective form.  Health care, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable industries in human history.

And that's where it went all wrong. Health care shouldn't be an industry, it should not be about making money. It is a public service, just like firefighters and police.

In modern times - even more so, because there is a need for expensive research and development.

Which, by itself has nothing to do with health care. 

 Let's not forget what countries have contributed most in this field.  And lets not forget why. 

Oh, let me guess - Nazi Germany with it's cutting edge research and experiments on people in concentration camps ?
It's not something that's being talked about, by results from those horrible experiments is widely used today and advanced knowledge of human body etc way more than anything else so far.
Then, let's see - Spain/Germany lead in genetics and stem cell research ....
US, with it's so call free market health care industry hasn't contributed that much . Behind most of it's research are people who were educated and started somewhere else.

Reason Canada's system is even close to adequate is what was given to them by scientists in countries that still STUDY AND INVENT.

You mean Europe and India ?

 

  Once patents expire - Canada is all over it.

Oh, patents..... one more thing that kills more people than bombs.

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

I'm NOT Egor.   Hi, Egor! I'd say my "life motto" would rather be: "Я это принимаю на эмоциональном уровне, но не могу понять на рациональном" . That's why I'll never speak aloud on any topic in POLITICS... exept for quotations.

 

 

To put my own two cents on the health care discussion I want to mention something that will provide the common base to the discussion.

Long time ago all people used to pay doctors and buy medicines with their own money.  Today, very often the cost is paid by the third parties:  government and/or insurance companies.  The current health care related political debate centers on what role should government play in paying for and regulating health care. 

Whatever your opinion may be, it is important to realize that there is no Santa Claus.  No new drugs or reductions in cost of maintaining or improving health will magically appear just because money is routed through government vs. health insurance companies vs. paid directly.  All these methods will have different effects on efficiency, and it is OK to consider that, but it is incorrect to say that they will lead directly to some net value increase.

For instance, many conservatives claim that US outpaces other developed nations in medical research. Partially it is true. According to the innovation.org data as of December 2007 there were 2742 potential drugs or “compounds in development” (CiDs) in the US, 1415 in Europe, 540 in Japan, and 1704 CiDs in all other nations. Major reason – lack of tight government regulations and price controls that exist in other countries.

However, a lot of research in the US pharma industry is marketing driven. New drugs sometimes are just slightly modified versions of old ones and much research goes into development of “hot” drugs like boner pills or hair-loss remedies instead of much more important antibiotics.

Governments should hence be smart and on one hand don't strangle research by price controls and on the other hand see that important but less marketable areas don't get neglected.  This is in contrast to just piling up legislation and hoping that some benefits will materialize out of thin air.

---

Sasha

-------------------
Work is a matter of taste. If you don't work you don't taste.

gtSasha:

To put my own two cents on the health care discussion I want to mention something that will provide the common base to the discussion.

Long time ago all people used to pay doctors and buy medicines with their own money. 

 

 how different is it from the fact that "long time ago all people, when their house was burning, used to put out fires on their own"?

why firefighting is sponsored by the government/our taxes, but health care (mostly) is not?  

 

gtSasha:

Today, very often the cost is paid by the third parties:  government and/or insurance companies. 

 :-) no.

in both cases, the cost is paid by those of us who - at this point in their lives - do not have any pressing health problems. Insurance companies don't pay anything from their own pockets.

gtSasha:

 

No new drugs or reductions in cost of maintaining or improving health will magically appear just because money is routed through government vs. health insurance companies vs. paid directly. 

 

yes, there will be reduction in cost if the money is routed through the government. At present, insurance makes their money (literally) by denying payments to/canceling coverages of people who have pretty serious health conditions/require complicated operations/etc. When the government steps in, the money, instead of ending up in CEO's and share holders' pockets, will be spent on actually treating those patients.

it's as simple.

the real problem is that people/masses/humans are dumb. they vote for scum, and they suffer because of that..

---

That's good to know. I hope you are not of his relatives either ;)

Thanks anyway!  

---

 

Pom,

You are right in your criticism, but I am not arguing for a total “free market”/lasser fair libertarianism. I am arguing for smart government policies. Government intervention makes sense sometimes and does not make sense sometimes. Law enforcement and firefighters are good examples of when government may do a superior job. I would also add military and common infrastructure maintenance.

However, if I said: “In order to deal with rising food prices let's let government take over Wal-Mart, Kroger, and Publix, and all other stores that sell food so that 'the money, instead of ending up in CEO's and share holders' pockets' be passed on as savings to consumers!” you'd say I am crazy.

I am not convinced that government taking over health insurance will reduce costs. Health insurance companies are providing a service and that's why they are getting paid. If you replace them with government the need for their service and the costs of providing it will not go away.

As far as people being dumb, I agree. One way for us here not to be “dumb” is to not believe in Santa Claus. Most of use involved in this discussion are old enough to have kids who don't believe in Santa. Why should we?

I also agree with your about the “scum” thing. The elections this November are very important. With mounting national debt, health care troubles, not to mention the ongoing wars we cannot afford to elect scum.

---

Sasha

-------------------
Work is a matter of taste. If you don't work you don't taste.

---

gtsasha, I agree with you 100%, on what you said...  But some thigns you didn't say, and one argument that seems to elude everyone, is control of costs.  Regardless of methodology, and payment structure, the total cost of health care is a negative force on the economy, and proportionally to its size has a limit for what the nation can afford.  Whether people pay by themselves, whether it is insurance, whether it is taxes - money is pulled from the economic cycle.

I recently had a mild case of gastritis, went to the ER (in washington DC of all places).  At first they thought it was food poisoning, but when they realized it wasn't, they ran a bunch of tests - ultrasound, catscan, and x-ray.   Total bill, covered by my employer's insurance minus co-pay, was over $8k.  That is unacceptable.  In relation to average income, comparigh to cost of goods (like a car), for an upset stomach.  This economy cannot afford this regardless of method of funding it.

So there are 2 obvious choices to reduce and cap costs.  One is 100% free market, which leaves a percentage of population unable to obtain care, and is therefore unacceptable.  Insurance or government coverage, on the other hand is what incresed these costs to astronomical levels to begin with, and will continue to do so. 

Therefore, we need to look at less obvious choices to cap costs, some of which I suggested in a previous post, but there are many other approaches as well.  Ideally, you still can't get away from some sort of governemnt assistance to the very poor, but with costs as high as they are (see above), that includes the whole middle class already. What if i had to have a simple surgery? No one can afford this stuff.  The system is a frankenstein-type beurocracy, the money I paid for these tests does not make sense in terms of the technology and time (parts and labor, if you will) of what was done to me. It went to administrative overhead, and simply vanished. Because it was not set by a free-market system, NOR by government regulation.  It's just a completely arbitrary amount!  The only reason its not even greater, is because they are careful not to piss the country off too fast, allowing us to focus on crap like energy costs instead . Just wait, they'll go up incrementally - and with any kind of universal coverage, I don;t see why the couldn't go x10. How about $80,000 for upset stomach?

F*cking "change we can believe in".

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

gtSasha:

For instance, many conservatives claim that US outpaces other developed nations in medical research. Partially it is true. According to the innovation.org data as of December 2007 there were 2742 potential drugs or “compounds in development” (CiDs) in the US, 1415 in Europe, 540 in Japan, and 1704 CiDs in all other nations.

Which means that Japan has the best health care system and research support on the planet. We should just copy their system.

 

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

Egor:

gtsasha, I agree with you 100%, on what you said...  But some thigns you didn't say, and one argument that seems to elude everyone, is control of costs.  Regardless of methodology, and payment structure, the total cost of health care is a negative force on the economy, and proportionally to its size has a limit for what the nation can afford.  Whether people pay by themselves, whether it is insurance, whether it is taxes - money is pulled from the economic cycle.

I recently had a mild case of gastritis, went to the ER (in washington DC of all places).  At first they thought it was food poisoning, but when they realized it wasn't, they ran a bunch of tests - ultrasound, catscan, and x-ray.   Total bill, covered by my employer's insurance minus co-pay, was over $8k.  That is unacceptable.  In relation to average income, comparigh to cost of goods (like a car), for an upset stomach.  This economy cannot afford this regardless of method of funding it.

So there are 2 obvious choices to reduce and cap costs.  One is 100% free market, which leaves a percentage of population unable to obtain care, and is therefore unacceptable.  Insurance or government coverage, on the other hand is what incresed these costs to astronomical levels to begin with, and will continue to do so. 

Therefore, we need to look at less obvious choices to cap costs, some of which I suggested in a previous post, but there are many other approaches as well.  Ideally, you still can't get away from some sort of governemnt assistance to the very poor, but with costs as high as they are (see above), that includes the whole middle class already. What if i had to have a simple surgery? No one can afford this stuff.  The system is a frankenstein-type beurocracy, the money I paid for these tests does not make sense in terms of the technology and time (parts and labor, if you will) of what was done to me. It went to administrative overhead, and simply vanished. Because it was not set by a free-market system, NOR by government regulation.  It's just a completely arbitrary amount!  The only reason its not even greater, is because they are careful not to piss the country off too fast, allowing us to focus on crap like energy costs instead . Just wait, they'll go up incrementally - and with any kind of universal coverage, I don;t see why the couldn't go x10. How about $80,000 for upset stomach?

F*cking "change we can believe in".

That's a very good post, Egor (no sarcasm). But why are Finland, Germany, Sweden and other european countries doing so much better than us in that area? I am just curious that's all... What this country has to change to do better? It has to change something,; wouldn't you agree?

---

Evgeny:

 That's a very good post, Egor (no sarcasm).

Thanks, rare praise from Evgeny :)

  

Evgeny:

 What this country has to change to do better? It has to change something,; wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree, that's what I am arguing for  :)  And I listed some very specific things.  Its not like there are no answers, there are plenty of economists, and health care professionals, industry analysts, ,etc - who have many, many very smart ideas.  It only looks like there are no answers - because the health care industry has bought our government.  In fact that's where a good percentage of my $8k bill went.  To lobby both parties to prevent unprofitable changes.  And all the ideas we hear are from politicians and candidates who are already bought.  So it looks like the situation is unfixable.  This happens in other problems where the "defendant" has bought the government.  Oil industry for example.  The easiest of problems to solve become quagmires, and look that way even to people who understand the issues.

The first thing I would do (something McCain tried repeatedly to pass, but could not garner enough support) is fighting the lobby legislatively.  Start there.  The rest is a piece of cake.  These problems are easy.  Really.  We have plenty of brains.

 

Evgeny:

But why are Finland, Germany, Sweden and other european countries doing so much better than us in that area? I am just curious that's all...

I think there are several reasons, one being their size.  Socialism just works really well in very small countries, there are many theories why. Another is the overall health of the population, these are very healthy people to begin with.  Something US ignores completely in its population.  Also (and I am mentioning this last, hoping that KGBman will miss it ), they piggyback off US invented/developed pharmaceuticals, treatments, and medical technology.  Their Health care does not make money that could be used for such development, nor can their governments afford billion dollar research programs.  We pay for it here, they subsidize it. Look at the revenue sources (globally) of US big pharma and medical technology.  Look at US biotech industries.  These countries health care can olny exist and thrive while others do that work. 

(This is like people ask how come canada doesn;t fight wars or has a big military, but still thrives :)  Because they are behind a bullet--proof door - the United States.  USSR, Hitler, Iran - nothing is ever a problem for Canada  Must be nice.  This is a similar situation.  Then these countries lecture us, in between using us.)

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

P.S.  I just calculated that if every american got an upset stomach, it would cost our economy.. get ready: $24 BILLION.  And that's if everyone is perfectly healthy otherwise - no medical procedures at all.  Just some test - catscans, x-rays.

We are focused on all the wrong things.  We focus on what bribed politicians and cadidates tell us on TV.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Off topic: Egor, smoking can be a cause of gastritis. Tobacco and Health care must be working together to squeeze extra buck from you.

---

Actually if you look at all the causes of gastritis, I have them all.  As with gas prices, i don't know what took it so long

here are some from the writeup they gave me:

-smoking

-alcohol

-coffee

-psychological stress

-physical stress

-not enough sleep

-bad eating habits (no breakfast, and big meals before bed)

etc

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Egor:

Evgeny:

 That's a very good post, Egor (no sarcasm).

Thanks, rare praise from Evgeny :)

  

Evgeny:

 What this country has to change to do better? It has to change something,; wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree, that's what I am arguing for  :)  And I listed some very specific things.  Its not like there are no answers, there are plenty of economists, and health care professionals, industry analysts, ,etc - who have many, many very smart ideas.  It only looks like there are no answers - because the health care industry has bought our government.  In fact that's where a good percentage of my $8k bill went.  To lobby both parties to prevent unprofitable changes.

There, you said it !!

Profit ! that's the main reason and that's why it will never change here.

Like one of the classics said - there isn't a crime capitalist won;t commit for 300% profit ! 

 

Evgeny:

But why are Finland, Germany, Sweden and other european countries doing so much better than us in that area? I am just curious that's all...

I think there are several reasons, one being their size.  Socialism just works really well in very small countries, there are many theories why. Another is the overall health of the population, these are very healthy people to begin with.  Something US ignores completely in its population.  Also (and I am mentioning this last, hoping that KGBman will miss it ), they piggyback off US invented/developed pharmaceuticals, treatments, and medical technology.

but I will find it

If there will be no profit, same people who do this research will do it for less money. That's it.
In USSR doctors made  one of the lowest salaries in the country, yet there were still a lot of people going into that profession.
Not everyone want's to be a salesman or marketing manager.

(This is like people ask how come canada doesn;t fight wars or has a big military, but still thrives :)  Because they are behind a bullet--proof door - the United States.  USSR, Hitler, Iran - nothing is ever a problem for Canada  Must be nice.

Actualy, same is for US. None of those were any a problem for US, until US decided to make it their problem. Same behavior as Canada's would have brought  the same results.

 

This is a similar situation.  Then these countries lecture us, in between using us.)

US is the biggest user there is. I really thing that if there was no US, or US would be isolationist, the whole world would have been a better place. 

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....