Socialised Medicine the myths and the facts

Usually if a moderator removes or modifies a post there's an entry to that effect.

Talaxander:
You are so right about research and development as the etiology for false claims that it alone causes high pricing for pharmaceuticals. The real reason that pharmaceutical companies have astronomical pricing, is the highly paid
representatives they send out to tell doctors what to order for their patients - with samples of those medicines. The reps also invite doctors to high priced restaurants for "education" along with company paid alcoholic drinks. That overhead isn't necessary if doctors attend bonafide conferences presenting a balanced approach to prescribing medications. There are the exhibits there, with reps giving out expensive goodies to doctors who spend a moment there, along with samples in high priced packaging.

As far as cost for research is concerned, grants for that have been awarded pharmaceutical companies from private industry as well as government sources and charitable organizations. They claim that they pay for the research, but that is untrue! They pay for the researchers who make false claims and tilt statistics to favor their products, which is being exposed now.

Money really is the "root of all evil" where medical care is concerned, in the USA. There is no way of counting the surgeries that have been done unnecessarily here, as well as those refused by money sparing insurance companies using the excuse that certain procedures that have been accepted
elsewhere as "state of the art, are "experimental". A good friend of mine had an ankle fusion instead of a replacement, and complications ensued that severely limited her ability to walk. So she had to travel quite a distance for another ankle fusion at a university hospital.

I asked if the first surgeon appealed the insurance company's decision for her, and she said she "thought" he had. Well, we all know how much office personnel love extra paper work........ There is a great need for counseling patients to assert themselves with physicians who shrug when an adverse decision is made by insurance companies who, after all, are not interested in what's best for patients. The employees of those companies get rewarded and praised for saving money. However they haven't been known for their ability to negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals, as countries with universal health plans do.
Some will allow mail order pharmacies that provide 3 months of a medication for less money, but stipulations that a patient must see their doctor yearly for that service, keep that alliance going.

Many Americans applaud such practises as examples of capitalism, while negating a government sponsored health system as "communism". I'm a fan of private enterprise, but the current runaway "what the traffic will bear" type of spending has written its own ending. New tax rules that uncurl extremely wealthy person's fingers from their inflated incomes, which have unbelievable tax shelters, will allow all people to have the health care they need, without having it linked to their employers. I applaud that!!!

Has anyone else had their posts to this thread monitored for approval, before they're added?

Then the notice that says you'll be returned to the place where the post was made, but it doesn't.....

This is different from other threads. I';d like to know the reason for that happening.

Thanks for your input!! You couldn't have given a better example of my point. It's not sharing when it's forced!! Competition IS the answer to a better health care system. That is an unarguable fact! And by the way it's not our country's wealth. It's individual's citizens who earned their wealth through initiative and desire to better themselves. Being successful is very simple and the funny thing is that ANYONE can achieve it. GET OFF YOUR BUT, GO TO COLLEGE, DON'T DO DRUGS AND ALCOHOL, DON'T HAVE SEX BEFORE YOUR MARRIED, DON'T HAVE CHILDREN BEFORE YOU CAN AFFORD THEM, GO TO WORK EVERYDAY AND WORK YOUR BUTT OFF, ENJOY THE FRUITS OF YOUR LABOR. No one is saying not do help the vulnerable and defenseless!! But if you want me to help you defend irresponsible behavior your just as insane as your comment!! My advice for you is to pick up a history book, think for yourself, and shut off that stupid boob tube!!!!

What you describe is a meritocracy - your standing in the world is based on the effort you put in, independent of other factors. Regardless of where you come from, if you put in the hard yards and apply yourself you can rise as far as you want.

We like to believe we live in a meritocratic society, and this belief is particularly prevalent in the US. There are some really interesting discussions about the validity of the concept of a meritocracy, particularly by philosopher Alasin de Botton. You might also be interested in Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell, which also looks at the myth that success is achieved purely through application and effort.

This belief is undoubtably a significant part of why so many Americans are opposed to universal health care. It's unfortunate, therefore, that it's not true. While we certainly have some input into how our lives go, it is simply not the case that success is "simple" and achievable by "anyone."

I have to respectfully disagree!! The American public has been listening to crap like this for so long we've been lulled into a "please take care of me" attitude. Shameful!!

So many nurses on this website spout off like they're experts just because they hear something on the television or read a biased commentary from people who either knowingly or unknowingly want nothing more than to incorporate socialism. PLEASE do some REAL historical research and you'll find in the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate as they now, and they ALL received good care. Before these programs came into existence every physician, nurse, and health care worker understood that they had a duty to help the vulnerable and defenseless and giving free medical care was a normal practice. But today, people with an agenda CHOOSE not to remember this because it doesn't fit their biased beliefs that big government needs to save all of us from America's predatory private sector.

I appreciate that you have a different perspective than I. I tend to give people with differing outlooks the benfit of the doubt, granting that they have arrived at that position after reflection, and bearing in mind that they feel as strongly about that position as I do about mine. I also accept that in discussion where the sides are generally polarised, changing the mind of someone who already has a firm position is highly unlikely.

I'd like to point out a couple of things. The first is that I'm not American, so my perspective, and the things I've been exposed to, are different from yours and those you refer to.

I certainly don't have an in depth knowledge of the history of the American medical system, and have no interest in doing "some REAL historical research" in to it. I suspect that having more historical information would, in any case, be of limited assistance given the huge differences in the way medicine is practice now.

In the days you refer to, before (US) Medicare and Medicaid medicine wasn't the giant money-generating enterprise it is now. I'm sure that, if it were up to individual doctors and nurses the poor and elderly would recieve at least some care. I'm equally sure that the majority of institutes that actually run the US system do not believe they "have a duty to help the vulnerable and defenceless."

Most of my opinions about the way the world ought to work are based on Rawlsian justice-theory, the social contract doctrine and the concept of the original position. Though they cohere with my starting position, I have not adopted these positions as a result of "listening to crap," "being lulled into" an attitude by anyone with an agenda, or concern about being saved from your predatory private sector. They come from contemplation, experience and education. I don't know where your opinions come from but, as I said at the top of this post, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. I ask you similarly do me the courtesy of not attributing my stance to whim, herd mentality or other equally disrespectful influences.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.--.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.

YOU HAVE TWISTED MY WORDS TO ADAPT THEM TO YOUR VIEWPOINT!! I've taken the liberty of changing your misspelled words to their correct form..... they seem very angry. As I'm sure you're aware, if everyone could achieve financial success, and it really was simple, we'd all be wealthy. Who wants poverty, consciously? Things do get in most people's way (remember the story of Pinnocchio?) on the way to school or wealth. If it's not noses, it's donkeys (pun intended).

The dictionary doesn't agree with your viewpoint of "sharing", rather it says "sharing is: receiving or giving a portion; participating". That was the context I used in my comment.

When competition in health care reared its ugly head in the '70s, doctors who formerly cared more for good outcomes (not just saving their you-know-what) and the well being of their patients, they became moguls. The cost of a normal birth in hospital (I delivered my son in 1973, was $250., having already paid the physicians' group $400. up front). That was before insurance companies would cover that. My OB became my neighbor a few years later, and when they divorced, his wife told me he'd cleared $800,000 that year(after the $100,000. malpractise premium he'd moaned and groaned about during my prenatal office visits - never mind my worries)! When insurance covered normal deliveries, you can imagine what it became (certainly not less).....

I left the hospital the same day my son was born, had no anaesthesia or other medications (I was the most surprised person about that, as I went in saying, "just because I teach prepared childbirth doesn't mean I'm not having analgesia if I ask for it"), and we eschued the champagne dinner that was offered in those days (in an effort to get "milk to come down" - the first day!) My (ex-) husband was as proud of the money saved by the aforementioned as he was of his new son.....

The pediatrician warned me, a former neonatal nurse, that jaundice might occur, if we went home earlier than was usual, and I replied, "Do you think I wouldn't recognize that?" I did wonder what there was at home, that might cause that...... By the way, in the late '50s, when I worked OB during my hospital nursing education, women stayed in the hospital 7-10 days for an uncomplicated birth, and 2 weeks if they had a C/S. I recall no baby other than the Rh+ born to Rh- moms or ABO incompatibilities, who became jaundiced those days! Something causes that, that wasn't around then.

So you can see that my personality is not to take things "lying down". I know universal/single payer health care programs work!! (Despite those made-up Republican paid commercials on TV now.) The only difference between Canadian and American people, and I don't say this lightly, is that Canadians have more concern for others (possibly because many have come from Europe lately, where universal health care is seen as essential), and there is respect for their government, whichever of 4 parties wins their elections. I pessimistically suspect the latter is due in part to the "mothers' allowance" that is a small amount of money (like the stimulus $) that has been sent to families monthly for each child born to them, until that child reaches 16 or 18 years of age, since the '30s or earlier. That was an example of their government caring about them! Money buys support.

What competition has done to health care here, is to make each hospital (and this is true even when a community in a small geographical area has 5-6 competing hospitals, as there are in the South Bay of Los Angeles); and they buy identical (or better) pieces of equipment, so they remain in the race for healthcare dollars. That is waste! Their lobbies and accommodations resemble that of 5 star resorts, which only the visitors appreciate, since patients are acutely ill, then discharged and have little awareness of their surroundings.....

Totally unethical, and expensive gifts are given physicians and the prople who work for them (I refuse to call an MA a nurse, but that's another topic) by pharmaceutical and equipment companies. I ask you, why would a person who makes way over 1-2 million dollars yearly after expenses and taxes (the average net income of big city physicians these days) need a free pen (that has the names of drugs on it, so friends and patients know who bought it)? - even if he wouldn't treat himself to such an expensive one ordinarily, or sticky paper pads and clipboards with the names of drugs on them? We all love to get gifts. That practise is duly and exaggeratedly done in China, a communist country. If you've been there, you know the trinkets I'm writing about, which tourists prize (for a few days after the trip).

Are drug companies forced to give gifts and treat physicians to expensive, wine laden dinners; and host lavish lunches for all hospital professionals there? According to you, they're forced to share their wealth (which is a partially tax deductable business expense). That drives drug costs up, while insurance companies have turned their heads until the last few decades, when it became apparent that it hasn't helped their profit to pay such high prices. (That proves your point that any idiot can make lots of money). Why, I ask you, should treatment cost so much? Wouldn't specific drugs be appropriate anyway, without that ballyhoo? There are many identical ones (but birth control, HTN, and anticholesterol, the most commonly used ones, so why is all that necessary? Well, Americans do love a party, just look at all the election foolishness/madness! That's another topic!

Generic (? less expensive) forms of patented medicines are mandated (forced sharing) to be available within 7 years of the original ones being on the market. Yet some I have taken for 20 years, aren't available in generic form, yet - and they work best for me. The funny thing is, the generic form of Effexor (in the same 225 mgm dose I need, is only available in 2 capsules of 150 mgm and 75 mgm each, both in the patented and a new so-called generic same colored capsules (twice as expensive, you'd think). The real generic of it, in 225 mgm dose only, which I suspect is the effective one, is in a white coated tablet and works better to ease my depression and anxiety (familial). It is also just as expensive....... and requires a different prescription, due to the dose (and possibly adherence to the correct chemical formula?).

So I was dependent on the samples I could get until they stopped being given to physicians for more than a year before the generics became available. That created a $250. monthly expense for me, along with the same occurrence now with Prevacid (the only proton pump inhibitor that works for me, and yes, I've gone on the others without relief), another $250./month expense. Along with other meds I take (almost all generic, and somewhat less expensive depending on where I get it - the price fluctuates daily, I'm told by pharmacists), that meant about $650./month just to keep relatively healthy........ Good-bye savings! Hello (I hope), government regulation!

Of course the above woudn't be a problem or even a cautionary thought for someone making over $250,000 a month, but I wanted to be a nurse, and thought (in the early '60s) I'd marry someone who made more than I would (did he ever! but he had this need for expensive cars, homes, other women....and wouldn't choose to share household or our children's expenses). Where's a law saying that married men need to/must support their children and wife??? So I kept working (not that I didn't want to, I love being a nurse!!). Now he's forced to share his income with me by our divorce decree! However, he's a lawyer and moved out of state, hid most of his money, lives off his South Carolina wife, and is in contempt of the California court since he pays me a fraction of what I'm due. For some reason other male (mostly divorced) divorce/family law lawyers don't want my case, and female ones want $25,000 up front! Now there's a group making much more than $250,000 yearly.

So this universal healthcare thing involves caring, sharing (whichever way you want to look at it), and of course doing the RIGHT THING!!!

Yes, I am well aware of the "poo poo" of John Rawls through my studies of John Locke. Redistribution, free handouts, and bringing the poor up on the backs of others who've earned it through their sweat and hard work. Yes, I'm well aware of his NONSENSE and the ultimately unsustainable concepts that he wrote about. But at least you know where your MARXISTS AND SOCIALISTS beliefs come from. You're the exception and not the rule like so many others on this website who take marching from the ANA and other intellectual midgets who spew this "poo poo".

i just wanted to thank madwife, sharrie, talaxandra and the other international nurses for posting information about the UHC programs.... your perspectives were very helpful, and have helped to cement my belief that the US needs to move towards a universal health care program.