A Fresh Approach to Healthcare threads...

My goal for this thread is first to illustrate that civil and sophisticated discussions on healthcare can actually exist without the sophomoric antics found elsewhere. This is D&T. Take the boorishness somewhere else.

Second, I'd like to establish a baseline conversation about the fundamental tenets of our nation's healthcare system. So, to begin, do you believe that we as individuals have a right to have healthcare provided for us or do you believe we have a right only to have access?

I do not believe I have the right to free, unlimited healthcare. Further, I believe I should have to pay for it and that I have the right to expect better doctors and better facilities the more I'm willing to pay. In other words, I believe healthcare and capitalism are mutually dependent.

What say ye?

I notice no-one seems to want to reply to you so I'll be brave and make a comment - I really do like the idea of people having free health care from the state. Actually I also really favor ways of giving back that are not fiscally oriented - perhaps barter systems for services?

Just because someone gets free health care doesn't mean that one shouldn't pay one's way when it comes to health care because let's face it, there's no free lunch and you always pay one way or another - or more.

So of course if there were more available free health care and you could afford to pay for better you would do it.

Everyone could also take significantly greater care of themselves, and then there wouldn't be the huge unnecessary health system that I feel exists.

We are human, we are animals, there are certain rules to this incarnate life as a human; eat well, exercise at the very least. If most people did just those things this huge unnecessary health care habit would dissolve.

Yes I very personally know that to eat well tends to be very expensive, but I hope you get my point/s.

Chloe Kensington xxx

... I really do like the idea of people having free health care from the state. ...

Just because someone gets free health care doesn't mean that one shouldn't pay one's way when it comes to health care ...

... Originally Posted by Chloe Kensington

So do you believe it is your right to have healthcare provided for you?

So do you believe it is your right to have healthcare provided for you? Originally Posted by JDNorthface

I very much believe in being responsible for my own health and to that end have always paid for alternative, preventative health care - and taken care of my health (exercise, food etc).

That said, if I had a problem that I thought conventional medicine could help with then I don't see why not. But I don't tend to have those kind of problems.

I believe in paying for my own health care. I believe if something is given to you, you do not appreciate it as much. You learn value. I keep myself in good health so it does not cost me a lot later.

Insurance was generally provided by employers as a way to get around price controls dictated by the government during one of its Socialist spasms. Companies had to have a way to entice needed employees and retain critical employees and the govt. took away the normal way of doing that.
Shortly after, the price of medicine started going up!! The spiral continued and steepened the more govt became involved so what was originally a fairly affordable service became a break the bank service because of the availability of insurance and govt support.
I believe we'd all be better off if the govt were completely out of healthcare except for necessary regulation and inspection such as FDA. There would be pain and the charities would have to reorder their priorities but you would see the cost come down, I think, a lot.

I do not believe I have the right to free, unlimited healthcare. Further, I believe I should have to pay for it and that I have the right to expect better doctors and better facilities the more I'm willing to pay. In other words, I believe healthcare and capitalism are mutually dependent.

What say ye? Originally Posted by JDNorthface

I'd say you should move to Mexico. Probably the biggest lie going on in the U.S. is that malpractice/the legal system only involves a tiny fraction of health care costs, "In 2004, the CBO calculated malpractice costs amounted to “less than 2 percent of overall health care spending."

Health care budget is $2.5 trillion, so that mere 2% is "only" $50 billion or more than the GDP of Panama.

But even that is a lie. Take a look at this ruling: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ceuticals.html

If you look in the left corner, you will see that Pfizer had $479 billion in sales for Q1. Multiply that by 4, and you get around $2 billion. Pfizer's patent extension lasts eight years, so the American consumer is going to pay around $15 billion to support Pfizer's monopoly.

Oh, and what did Pfizer do to get this extension? They filed a new patent for Viagra for erectile dysfunction. The original patent for Viagra was for hypertension. Gotta love that patent system that supports innovation! Who would have thought Viagra could be used for ED?

The ruling was “a surprise,” Bloomberg Industries analyst Asthika Goonewardene said in an interview.

It shouldn't have been. When a female judge makes a $15 billion decision like this, she was bribed in one way or another. It is ridiculous for one person to be making a decision like this.

So if you think paying $20 a pill means you get a better Viagra pill, have at it. But the $2 Mexican generic Viagra works just as well.

And it is not just Viagra. If you want an albuterol inhaler, you better be willing to fork out $40 in the U.S. thanks to the FDA. They banned CFC albuterol inhalers in 2009. Now most CFCs were banned before then, and 2006 studies showed the ozone layer was improving. So even though the small amount of CFCs used in albuterol inhalers had zero effect on the ozone layer, the FDA banned the $3 inhalers and gave us the $40 ones.

But you can buy the $3 CFC inhalers in Mexico, and the CFC inhalers in the opinion of many asthmatics work better. I guess Mexican CFCs don't affect the ozone layer.

The same happened with Meridia, a diet pill. It was pulled from the shelves once a study linked it with stroke. The whole thing sounded bogus to me. Drug companies don't conduct studies on drugs going off patent. Then I saw this news: http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/2...new-diet-pill/

"The drug works by controlling appetite — specifically by activating brain receptors for serotonin, a neurotransmitter that triggers feelings of satiety and satisfaction.

There was also some concern that Belviq caused tumors in animals and heart-valve defects in people. A similar serotonin-based drug that had been approved for weight loss — fenfluramine — was removed from the market in 1997 because of the same heart concerns."

And how did Meridia work? It raised serotonin.

Fenfluramine was $30 a month. Redux was $60. Meridia was $120. And I will bet that this new and improved pill, that works the exact same way as the last three, will cost $150 a month or higher.

Oh, and generic Meridia is available in Mexico for $30 a month.

So sure, your money may get you better care in Mexico,but it sure is hell isn't here. The government and insurers have done all they can to inflate the price of healthcare so you are forced to buy it. If you don't have health care insurance in the U.S. and get sick, you had better be a millionaire or you are going to have to file bankruptcy. It has gotten so stupid that people think health care = health insurance.

When you go to Mexico, the entire pricing system is out there for the world to see. Talk to someone with experience in both the American and Mexican systems and ask them which is better. Most people who have lived in Mexico say the health care they got there was better than here, and that even their medications work better than ours.

Health care costs in Mexico are transparent, and here they are opaque. The only reason people like the American insurer model is that some think that it is free. And there is nothing more expensive than something the public thinks is free.

...
Health care costs in Mexico are transparent, and here they are opaque. The only reason people like the American insurer model is that some think that it is free. And there is nothing more expensive than something the public thinks is free. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

Good dialogue. And I agree with most, particularly that our cost structure is opague (the same as a brick wall is opague).

Particularly telling is your remark that we now equate healthcare with health insurance.

Good post.