• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

single-payer system ... singled out

That's pretty much conceding that the objections are irrational and based on ignorance of the actual facts!

Calling them "irrational" is a bit unfair. The facts in the U.S. are known.

Imagine hiring someone to paint a room in your house. They do a horrible job. Would it then be irrational to turn them down when they offer to paint the rest of your house too?

I'd say it's certainly pessimistic, but not irrational. Like anything, if the government wants to run healthcare, they need to convince everyone they can do it well. I believe that they can (though I favor a non-single-payer UHC), but it's not irrational for people to be skeptical of it.
 
Imagine hiring someone to paint a room in your house. They do a horrible job. Would it then be irrational to turn them down when they offer to paint the rest of your house too?

No, but it would be wholly irrational not to instead hire the guy who did evey other house in the street and made a good job of it whilst you proclaimloudly "no-one can decorate my house properly".
 
Calling them "irrational" is a bit unfair. The facts in the U.S. are known.

Not according to what TragicMonkey says: most developed countries provide a universal health care system or call it a "socialised system" that provides at least as good (and in many cases better outcomes) for less than the USA spends per capita. That's the fact.

Imagine hiring someone to paint a room in your house. They do a horrible job. Would it then be irrational to turn them down when they offer to paint the rest of your house too?

But that is not what is being suggested; what is being suggested is, instead of keep using the person that keeps doing a horrible job, you hire your neighbours' decorator, that you can see not only did a better job but also charged less! It's irrational to keep using the crap decorator when there are plenty of better ones around, simply because the better ones are all called "Jack's Socialised Decorating Company".

I'd say it's certainly pessimistic, but not irrational. Like anything, if the government wants to run healthcare, they need to convince everyone they can do it well. I believe that they can (though I favor a non-single-payer UHC), but it's not irrational for people to be skeptical of it.

When the skepticism is actually either cynicism or just ignorance it is irrational.
 
Last edited:
So we should hire the UK to run our health system? Canada? Germany?

:boggled:

Ahem....

And I am sure that the Brits in this thread will agree that our "UHC" system is not the best in the world and that none of us are arguing that the USA should copy the NHS model. However since so many countries manage to deliver as least as good universal health care as the NHS it is inconceivable that the USA can't. You could even do what you did in the 1770's and again rely on the French for your model! :)
 
So we should hire the UK to run our health system? Canada? Germany?

:boggled:

No, and fine you know it; you should look at how their health systems work and see how they can be used to improve your own.

But that's not what those objectors to UHC are really doing. Although Ziggy claims he'd accept UHC if Medi-systems could be improved, he can't tell us how. He hasn't looked at comparable systems. Instead we get other posters trying to claim that (say) the UK has a small population (60m) and hence isn't comparable. We get glib comments about pharma research which overlook the fact that the USG funds much of it, not private helthcare. And so on.
 
When the skepticism is actually either cynicism or just ignorance it is irrational.

Urr... well that goes without saying, doesn't it? ;)

I'm just saying in many cases in the U.S., the skepticism is well-founded based on the current government-run programs.

But sure -- when it goes to outright cynicism (the government can never do a good job in any way/shape/form!) or ignorance (it's socialism I tell ya, socialism!) then yes, it is irrational. And there is plenty of that out there too.
 
Sorry, no. I have no knowledge of other countries' healthcare systems, as I only work in the US one. I should have been clearer that I was referring to the US. The US government programs (Medicare and Medicaid) get drugs at a discount (at least, they simply refuse to pay more), which is compensated by the distributors charging private companies more.

One of the problems with these discussions is that the US doesn't have a purely capitalist private system. A very large percentage of it all is already socialized in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and VA. Complicating matters further is that the patients themselves participate in both forms--almost everybody over 65 has Medicare as their primary insurance, but can and do have secondary insurance which is generally private. Which, given the demographics of the typical oncology practice (skewed to the elderly), means that for any given patient we'll be filing claims with both a commerical insurer and the government program.

We already have a partially socialized medical system, and we have problems with it. Ditto the commercial side. That's why Americans tend not to believe in the amazing benefits of socialized medicine. It goes against our current experience. And telling us that if we just converted all the way it'd be good...well, you can see where we'd need more than trust and some internet arguments for something that big.

eta: Oh, and I forgot the horrors of "managed Medicare". It's commercial insurance that pretends to be Medicare, or Medicare programs run by commerical insurers. It manages to combine the worst aspects of both worlds, pays little, and late, and is immensely popular because the companies market it well. They're making a mint from it, but nobody else is.


I might add that Universal Healthcare isn't just a matter of money but also a matter of social responsibillity for a healthy/-ier society. I'm actually sad to hear that someone cannot afford healthcare or doesn't get supported by the Government in case of not being able to afford it. So I'm actually happy that Health does have such a high value in our European Societies and I feel good to help people who innocently became ill or were involved in accidents, and I feel as good about the fact that others help me if I face huge health costs if something happens to me. So it's a moral issue as well concerning a shared ideology about health, and I do not claim that Europe doesn't struggle with their healthcare approaches.

And I also don't think that copying the best Ideas from foreign countries and putting them into a cost-effective, working and a productive national system with everyone covered is a bad idea. Yet, the talks rather seem to try to appeal to the commercial health sector than the need for the people.

Also: If people with money want a commercial alternative, they should be free to buy private insurance - or for that matter, work in the private health sector if ones priority is more about money. There is no reason to think that the commercial sector would be abolished, but their fear is that someone in Washington could come up with a cheap alternative to their lucrative business, so it seems to be an issue of real concurrence for the insurers, Doctors etc.

And of course, there is a strong sentiment, mostly from Republicans, that "I don't give a X about my fellow citizens health - which strikes me as the opposite of a democracy that works towards the best for all people rather than to appeal to the view ones that lobby with huge amounts to keep their money flowing.

So I also don't see what Ziggurat's underlying issue is other than: "I give a X about others when it comes to health-care as long I can afford it when I am in trouble". :con2:
 
But that's not what those objectors to UHC are really doing. Although Ziggy claims he'd accept UHC if Medi-systems could be improved, he can't tell us how.

And neither can you. Which is part of why your proposed solution just isn't credible to me: I don't think you actually know what's wrong with the current system (let alone how it operates), and so I have no reason to trust your opinions about how to fix it. You know, I've been repeatedly painted as a true believer in this thread, while UHC backers are rationalists, but the reality is closer to the reverse. I'm a skeptic on the topic, I don't believe in easy fixes, but others do, despite not having a firm grasp of what the problems really are.
 
Last edited:
And of course, there is a strong sentiment, mostly from Republicans, that "I don't give a X about my fellow citizens health

Nothing like a good well poisoning to start the day. But let's see if we can't do even better. Let's try to make it personal.

So I also don't see what Ziggurat's underlying issue is other than: "I give a X about others

And we have a winner!
 
Did anyone say that adopting another system would be simple?

Fine. Drop the word simple. Yet you still assume that we would get the same results if we adopted the same system. And I have no reason to believe that to be true, and every reason to be skeptical of it. Yet for some reason, my skepticism is painted as ideology, and the opinions of those who have almost no idea about how our system currently works are considered rationalists when they opine on the topic.
 
Fine. Drop the word simple. Yet you still assume that we would get the same results if we adopted the same system. And I have no reason to believe that to be true, and every reason to be skeptical of it. Yet for some reason, my skepticism is painted as ideology, and the opinions of those who have almost no idea about how our system currently works are considered rationalists when they opine on the topic.

Again, no one is talking about adopting a system 1:1. UK UHC is different from the German UHC, which is different from the Netherlands', which is different from the French and so on.

What's stopping Americans from taking a good look at the different systems, weighing the pros and cons and come up with their own workable solution?
 
What's stopping Americans from taking a good look at the different systems, weighing the pros and cons and come up with their own workable solution?


Ifluentual lobbies and narrow minded conservatives.
 
Nothing like a good well poisoning to start the day. But let's see if we can't do even better. Let's try to make it personal.

And we have a winner!


Well, so I was right after all with my question? :confused:
 
Fine. Drop the word simple. Yet you still assume that we would get the same results if we adopted the same system. And I have no reason to believe that to be true, and every reason to be skeptical of it. Yet for some reason, my skepticism is painted as ideology, and the opinions of those who have almost no idea about how our system currently works are considered rationalists when they opine on the topic.

No you don't since the systems actually exist and they work, to deny evidence and facts is not skepticism.
 
Out of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies in the world 2 are USA, 3 are "European".

The two largest (both US) are combined larger than the next 3 (combined).

Out of the 10 largest, 5 are American, 5 are European.

Out of the 20 largest, 10 are American, 6 are European, 3 are Japanese, 1 is Israeli.

Now interestingly enough, the largest European company, GlaxoSmithKline, hasn't always been GlaxoSmithKline. It's evolved to that name over a 100 year timeframe through various acquisitions and mergers ... many of them involving American companies and American research facilities. GlaxoSmithKline, in fact, only came into existence in 2000 through a merger. Read the Wikipedia article on the company and you will repeatedly find that when mention is made of research, US facilities are more often mentioned than not. In fact,

The research and development division has major headquarters in South East England, Philadelphia and Research Triangle Park (RTP) in North Carolina.

Two out of three. Now why do you think they retain those US facilities if things are so wonderful in Europe? ;)

I'll stand by my claim. International markets pay lower costs for drugs because Americans pay the full cost (including the development cost of those drugs that failed in development). If the US becomes socialized, don't be surprised when your drug costs go up and the availability of new drugs goes down. With that in mind, I leave you with this to think about.

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/may2009/pi2009051_087752.htm

May 4, 2009

Pharma: The 10 Most Promising New Drugs

... snip ...

DENOSUMAB (OSTEOPOROSIS)
Amgen (BAC - USA)

... snip ...

BRILINTA (AZD6140; ARTERIAL THROMBOSIS)
AstraZeneca (BAC - UK/Sweden)

... snip ...

ONGLYZA (SAXAGLIPTIN; DIABETES)
AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BAC - UK/Sweden/USA)

... snip ...

BELATACEPT (ORGAN TRANSPLANTS)
Bristol-Myers Squibb (BAC - USA)

... snip ...

EFFIENT (PRASUGREL, PLATELET INHIBITOR)
Eli Lilly (BAC - USA)

... snip ...

EMBEDA/REMOXY (MORPHINE/OXYCODONE, FOR PAIN)
King Pharmaceuticals (BAC - USA)

... snip ...

CORDAPTIVE (ATHEROSCLEROSIS)
Merck (BAC - USA)

... snip ...

AFINITOR (EVEROLIMUS; ONCOLOGY)
Novartis (BAC - Switzerland)

... snip ...

LIRAGLUTIDE (DIABETES, OBESITY)
Novo Nordisk (BAC - Denmark)

... snip ...

MULTAQ (DRONEDARONE; ATRIAL FIBRILLATION)
Sanofi-Aventis (BAC - French)

Now ask yourself why 5 of the 10 most promising new drugs were developed exclusively by US companies? And why another involved a clear collaboration with a US company? And why the firms involved in the other drugs retain R&D facilities in the US? And finally, do you think that those non-US companies will be selling their products in the US at the same price they do in their socialized medicine utopias? If not, why not, Darat? :D
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom