Health Care

[meteor]

Do you consider that the UK national heath service is a better option than the US private insurance system.

 

[Cbarton]

As a 'biased' member of the health care profession, I would say no to that. The problem here is the 'entitelement' mindset that people are getting over here that they deserve everything and that someone ELSE should pay for everything, and not pay for it themselves.

Since the mindset now is that top of the line health care is a right and not a priviledge, someone has to pay for it. When all you have to do is lay down a 10-20 dollar co-pay, you don't see how much that trip to the doctor, ER, or hospital stay really costs. American these days are totally clueless to the cost of equipment, drugs, and personnel. They want Waldorf Astoria care at McDonald's prices. Since the insurance companies and the Federal Government (through Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) pays for it all, and were thought to have bottomless pockets of cash, the costs went up with the thought increased availability of more money from the payer.

So many poeple complain about the cost of their prescription medicine. But, they have no idea (1) how much it costs to develop a drug [from the chem lab to the drug store shelf] and (2) how many of those drugs never make it to market.

If the system went back to the days where there was no insurance for health care, they would be amazed at how much it all costs. Plus, the old rules of supply and demand would kick in and costs would go down a bit.

In spite of all those flaws, it still beats the alternate of the gov't running it all. Trust me, I work in the federal health care sector. Most people would not like it...

 

[august spies]

Do you consider that the UK national heath service is a better option than the US private insurance system.

Of course. by why stop there, it should be expanded more.. There is a hybrid bill in the US house, hopefully it will now gain more support that is a huge step forward for the us healthcare system. its called hr 676, look into it.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Honestly, I would like to hear some opinions from the Brits here.

In my own opinion the last thing we want to do is give the health industry in this country more of a blank check. That is the reason why everything is so ridiculously expensive without insurance. I would like to see a total re-accounting of the medical industry before even thinking of moving over to a single-payer system. There is so much price gouging going on its sickening. Have you ever actually looked at itemized bill of just a run of the mill ER visit? With a NHS in the U.S. that would eliminate the paltry system of checks and balances that we have now.

 

[Wade1]

The single most malignant element in U.S. health care is the insurance industry, a corrupt and senseless monster run amok. Whether a UK-style nationalization, a Canadian-style single-payer system, or (probably more likely) a new, more American-friendly hybridization of existing systems would be the best way to correct this problem is something on which reasonable folks can differ, but it is a damaged and broken system that clearly needs attention.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Michael Moore may want people to think that our healthcare sucks, but I agree with every single thing that Hawk says, save for one, which I'll get to in a moment.

Things are expensive. As an uninsured person, I just have to grin and bear it when I get a cold or something. When I sliced my hand open this spring, I had partial coverage, but I still ended up owing $230 to the ER. This isn't the ten grand that people talk about shit costing.

I still feel lucky that if I need to see a doctor, I can call home and tell mom and dad that I need it, and they can get me money. Then I can go see a doctor within usually 24 hours and get the same top care that everybody else does. I don't get put on a government waiting list.

I've heard horror stories of people with life-threatening illnesses get put on 9-month long waiting lists in other countries with fully-socialized healthcare. Now, I'm not saying that everything is perfect here.

There'll be someone who has a horror story in the States. And there's also the countless hundreds of thousands who are served more than adequately by State healthcare.

But I'll live with what we have here.

Now, on to pharmaceuticals. I blame the high price of medicines these days on advertising. It costs millions on top of R&D and testing to come up with marketing campaigns, produce TV spots, and buy airtime. I wish that were BANNED.

The commercials won't help. A doctor has to prescribe a drug. And if it's the right one, you'll get it. I think those commercials also do another bad thing. People see them and hear about "we treat these symptoms" and all that crap. They get two ideas.

1) They can self-diagnose themselves with an illness from a TV spot, leading to hypochondria-like effects.

2) They get it in their mind that medicine is about the convenience of getting rid of symptoms rather than treating an illness.

I'm sure there's other negatives, but I've yet to think of a positive.

Anyway, yes. It costs huge amounts of money to R&D up a new drug. But I've watched the number of annoying drug commercials on TV balloon over the last ten years. I've also listened to people talk over the same period of time how prescription drugs have skyrocketed.

Coincidence? I think not. Though, the inflation of the dollar during Bush's flawed reign hasn't helped either.

Let's all go to the doctor to get our heads examined and get a prescription for some shut the Hell up. Topics like this are just going to stir up malcontent. I know this is a "general topics" section, but it just seems like for the last month it's been nothing but socially-charged topics. Let's give this stuff a rest for a while.

 

[Cbarton]

I blame the high price of medicines these days on advertising. It costs millions on top of R&D and testing to come up with marketing campaigns, produce TV spots, and buy airtime. I wish that were BANNED.

The commercials won't help. A doctor has to prescribe a drug. And if it's the right one, you'll get it. I think those commercials also do another bad thing. People see them and hear about "we treat these symptoms" and all that crap. They get two ideas.

1) They can self-diagnose themselves with an illness from a TV spot, leading to hypochondria-like effects.

2) They get it in their mind that medicine is about the convenience of getting rid of symptoms rather than treating an illness.

I'm sure there's other negatives, but I've yet to think of a positive.

Anyway, yes. It costs huge amounts of money to R&D up a new drug. But I've watched the number of annoying drug commercials on TV balloon over the last ten years. I've also listened to people talk over the same period of time how prescription drugs have skyrocketed.

Coincidence? I think not. Though, the inflation of the dollar during Bush's flawed reign hasn't helped either.

Let's all go to the doctor to get our heads examined and get a prescription for some shut the Hell up. Topics like this are just going to stir up malcontent. I know this is a "general topics" section, but it just seems like for the last month it's been nothing but socially-charged topics. Let's give this stuff a rest for a while.

Actually, JimmyJames, I and my fellow clinical pharmacists at work agree that direct to consumer ads (or DTC as we call it in the trade) are a HUGE problem. We often have to convince the patient (and the docs) that instead of this new, highly expensive drug they saw on TV, we can use this cheaper generic that does the same thing!

When I graduated from pharmacy school 20 years ago, DTC for prescription drugs was illegal. That changed during either Bush 41 or Clinton's term in office (can't remember which off the top of my head at this late hour). I think it should be banned again! Put that money back into R&D or into post-marketing studies to make sure more drugs don't have to be pulled from the market.

And as for Mr. Moore, has he moved out of his parent's basement in Flint, Michigan yet? 😉 How he became the 'expert' on everything known to man is beyond me. I think his next 'documentary' should be the mainstream press and their lack of objectivty, but that's just me...lol...

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Actually, JimmyJames, I and my fellow clinical pharmacists at work agree that direct to consumer ads (or DTC as we call it in the trade) are a HUGE problem. We often have to convince the patient (and the docs) that instead of this new, highly expensive drug they saw on TV, we can use this cheaper generic that does the same thing!

When I graduated from pharmacy school 20 years ago, DTC for prescription drugs was illegal. That changed during either Bush 41 or Clinton's term in office (can't remember which off the top of my head at this late hour). I think it should be banned again! Put that money back into R&D or into post-marketing studies to make sure more drugs don't have to be pulled from the market.

And as for Mr. Moore, has he moved out of his parent's basement in Flint, Michigan yet? 😉 How he became the 'expert' on everything known to man is beyond me. I think his next 'documentary' should be the mainstream press and their lack of objectivty, but that's just me...lol...

Well, I had a feeling that the pros in the biz could smell the BS. Since you're there every day, how does the cost of an average prescription fill compare from 1998 to 2008?

And for Moore, I think he got the title of "expert" thanks to an absurdly left Hollywood that's so bankrupt for ideas that his brand of hackery is allowed to make top billing on the marquee.

 

[Wade1]

Has anyone ever called Michael Moore an expert on anything? He's a documentarian, and (I think) a very talented filmmaker. (He is, however, a terrible writer and a simplistic pundit. Take the camera out of his hands and he's pretty much just a grating and self-aggrandizing pain in the ass.) Also, to his credit, I think his getting his name on movie house marquees has everything to do with the fact that his movies make money. That's pretty much all the film industry cares about, right?

I know ky was being sarcastic, but I agree; I'd be interested to see a film by Moore about the media. I was impressed by his complicated take on gun ownership in Bowling for Columbine--I'd gone in expecting it to be a one-sided screed against gun rights.

All of that said, I haven't seen Sicko.

 

[Bashiku]

I still believe in voodoo doctors... so I don't go to regular doctor 🙂

 

[august spies]

Has anyone ever called Michael Moore an expert on anything? He's a documentarian, and (I think) a very talented filmmaker. (He is, however, a terrible writer and a simplistic pundit. Take the camera out of his hands and he's pretty much just a grating and self-aggrandizing pain in the ass.) Also, to his credit, I think his getting his name on movie house marquees has everything to do with the fact that his movies make money. That's pretty much all the film industry cares about, right?

I know ky was being sarcastic, but I agree; I'd be interested to see a film by Moore about the media. I was impressed by his complicated take on gun ownership in Bowling for Columbine--I'd gone in expecting it to be a one-sided screed against gun rights.

All of that said, I haven't seen Sicko.

sicko is worth a watch. the movie is not about Moore. the issue is not Moore, Moore is rich and can afford health insurance and is probably rich enough to afford things not covered by health insurance. the issue is the rest of us. experts agree, ie doctors and healthcare professionals, as well as the public, that single payer is the way to go. the hybrid is HMOs morphed to a non profit single payer with full coverage for all but docs still private, ie they dont work for the government.

 

[Hungarian21]

sicko is worth a watch. the movie is not about Moore. the issue is not Moore, Moore is rich and can afford health insurance and is probably rich enough to afford things not covered by health insurance. the issue is the rest of us. experts agree, ie doctors and healthcare professionals, as well as the public, that single payer is the way to go. the hybrid is HMOs morphed to a non profit single payer with full coverage for all but docs still private, ie they dont work for the government.

I second that. Like all his documentaries, Sicko points out another fatal flaw with the health care system. I've only seen 2 of his documentaries, I'm sure there are others, but both left me thinking. If anyone has questions as to why the current health cares effectiveness is in question, watch sicko. Its good.

As for the origional question, I can't say as a college student that i know every little detail, aside from what I saw in Sicko and found out from various people. The way I look at it, France has been ranked #1 in health care in the WORLD. They've got Universal. So obviously they're doing something right. Its worth a try.

 

[kopfhorer1]

Do you consider that the UK national heath service is a better option than the US private insurance system.

That's not saying very much. Being set upon by rabid skunks is better than the US private insurance system!

Seriously, I know one person whose 36-year-old daughter died from an otherwise easily treatable form of cancer because her laid-off husband didn't have health insurance, another who couldn't get the medicine she needed because her HMO wouldn't cover it, still another who lost a doctor because that doctor stopped taking his insurance.

The insurance companies have successfully resisted efforts to socialize medicine, as is done in the civilized world, for the last 60 years. Lobbying congress hasn't worked. Is it time to directly confront health insurers (injurers)?

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

the bottom line because the hollywood brother says so is that the hollywood brother do not know. the one big question that the hollywood brother has is why are drug companies allowed to charge so much for each little pill and why are doctors allowed to price gouge the hard working average hollywood brother fan?

 

[august spies]

That's not saying very much. Being set upon by rabid skunks is better than the US private insurance system!

Seriously, I know one person whose 36-year-old daughter died from an otherwise easily treatable form of cancer because her laid-off husband didn't have health insurance, another who couldn't get the medicine she needed because her HMO wouldn't cover it, still another who lost a doctor because that doctor stopped taking his insurance.

The insurance companies have successfully resisted efforts to socialize medicine, as is done in the civilized world, for the last 60 years. Lobbying congress hasn't worked. Is it time to directly confront health insurers (injurers)?

thanks for the excellent post