Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

Its common known that every day buss loads of us people goes to canada and buy their medicine from there, it was a program in tv here about it not so long time ago.

---

That was a seniors tour from the US getting generic brand drugs in Canada that were way more in the US because Canada has lower cost drugs through a legal requirement in Canada that all drug patents are only good for 5 years on certain drugs, and then the copycat or generics can make the market. US patents on drugs last a lot longer, so it means certain drugs are a lot cheaper in Canada.

It's impossible to compare really. The amounts you are paying for insurance in the USA seem mind bendingly huge, but if you compare it to the tax burden in the UK, I wonder if they really are.

Plus we don't actually know how much of our national insurance contribution actually goes towards the NHS but we do stop paying national insurance when women reach 60 and men 65 (although this will change) in the UK. Assuming you live long enough, you will be the biggest burden on the NHS when your not actually paying anything towards it. I dont think I'd still like to be paying for and worrying about health insurance when I'm 90 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

It's impossible to compare really. The amounts you are paying for insurance in the USA seem mind bendingly huge, but if you compare it to the tax burden in the UK, I wonder if they really are.

---

Yes, and already stated as such in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The NHS costs £94bn to run as opposed to the US$2.26 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2007*, it means that on a per capita basis the NHS is 2.898 times more efficient than the health care system in the US.

---

Unless you could prove that the level of healthcare provided in the US was 2.898 times better, then the people of America are being taken for a ride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

Plus we don't actually know how much of our national insurance contribution actually goes towards the NHS but we do stop paying national insurance when women reach 60 and men 65 (although this will change) in the UK. Assuming you live long enough, you will be the biggest burden on the NHS when your not actually paying anything towards it. I dont think I'd still like to be paying for and worrying about health insurance when I'm 90 years old.

---

Well notionally national insurance is mostly for your pension, with a bit for the NHS, but of course it just goes into the giant goverment black hole never to be seen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Well notionally national insurance is mostly for your pension, with a bit for the NHS, but of course it just goes into the giant goverment black hole never to be seen again.

---

It's that sort of statement that makes Americans nervous. They had a revolution to stop paying what they thought was unfair taxes. The gov't black hole is a large gaping hole right now too.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The problem is some generics just aren't as good. My wife takes losec for her acid reflux. The generic that the doctors keep trying to make her accept doesn't seem to work as well as the original Losec. The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest profitteering crooks in the whole medical system, and their manipulation of formulas for various drugs and the generic market is riddled with issues....

For the most part generics do the job, but there are issues....

---

On this point Antonyvop is actually correct, there is nothing wrong with generics unless you have an obsessional need to spend unnecessary money. If the generic your wife takes is not as effective then it is probably worth raising it with your doctor, there are feedback mechanisms present in any country to ensure problems with drugs get fed back to the regulatory board. If there are enough complaints, that generic drug you have a problem with ought to be looked into.

Generics have to be identical to the drug they are a copy of. Even the inactive parts of the drug such as the solution its dissolved in or the tablet or capsule its provided in has to be 100% identical to the original. If its not, its not licenced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Example? Having them tell you that you cant have a life saving operation because you are too old. Or having the healthcare system deny your application for a new hip because you are 70 and in theory you will be dead in 4 years.

---

The problem with these worries is that they are false, as false as the idea that an uninsured American hit by a car will be left to bleed on the road when the ambulance crew fail to find his insurance card.

In the NHS decisions such as those you brought up are made not on cost grounds but on humanitarian ones. Is it better to have a risky life saving op and potentially live for a few more years in pain, crippled if it goes wrong or is it better to stay lucid for just a few more hours, not have the operation and die? Those are not easy questions to ask but in my experience the patient makes the choice with advice from the medical/surgical team. The cost does not enter into the equation at all.

There is also this odd notion that socialising healthcare will result in rationing. I'm afraid that the US system does indeed ration already, in fact it rations more than most other systems by limiting healthcare to the uninsured. The various grades of insurance on offer also limit healthcare, with the companies demanding that you only see approved doctors or healthcare centres that are not necessarily the best capable of treating the problem you have.

The problem is that people seem to identify with particular healthcare systems more than they do with any other branch of government, except perhaps the military. You would not get arguments as passionate over social security or even education but healthcare is totally different, and this IMO is also why the US reforms are doomed to failure. Because its such an emotive topic and its in the public arena, there will be no rational debate and decision making, merely kneejerk reactions to scaremongering on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

The problem with these worries is that they are false, as false as the idea that an uninsured American hit by a car will be left to bleed on the road when the ambulance crew fail to find his insurance card.

In the NHS decisions such as those you brought up are made not on cost grounds but on humanitarian ones. Is it better to have a risky life saving op and potentially live for a few more years in pain, crippled if it goes wrong or is it better to stay lucid for just a few more hours, not have the operation and die? Those are not easy questions to ask but in my experience the patient makes the choice with advice from the medical/surgical team. The cost does not enter into the equation at all.

There is also this odd notion that socialising healthcare will result in rationing. I'm afraid that the US system does indeed ration already, in fact it rations more than most other systems by limiting healthcare to the uninsured. The various grades of insurance on offer also limit healthcare, with the companies demanding that you only see approved doctors or healthcare centres that are not necessarily the best capable of treating the problem you have.

The problem is that people seem to identify with particular healthcare systems more than they do with any other branch of government, except perhaps the military. You would not get arguments as passionate over social security or even education but healthcare is totally different, and this IMO is also why the US reforms are doomed to failure. Because its such an emotive topic and its in the public arena, there will be no rational debate and decision making, merely kneejerk reactions to scaremongering on both sides.

---

Dylan, there is not much I can really disagree with in your statements except Americans with good insurance are NOT rationed and have options. THey do not want the Canadian experience where your only option for quicker or more "appropriate" treatment is to leave the country and PAY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Socialized healthcare (where practised) is pretty much available to everyone. And everyone who is gainfully employed pays for it through taxes. They pay for everybody who receives any benefits. In some places this means that people who have never contributed to the system at all receive all the care they need.

---

And I for one don't care about that, because the effect on the healthcare system, and indeed the amounts I pay in tax (I'm not a high earner, by the way), is tiny in the grander scheme of things.