By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - OBAMA approval PLUMMETS to a dreadful 40%

mrstickball on 03 August 2011
thx1139 said:

Why? Because of a couple of things.  You are not paying for just the aspirin, you are paying for the Dr. who prescribed it, the phamacy tech who filled it, the nurse who delivered it, etc. etc. You are paying for the ER and other patients who wont end up paying their bills because they cant afford it and dont have insurance. We are not going to be a country that throws people out of hospitals because they couldnt prove they could pay for the service before they get started.

As for studies. So we are just supposed to take your word for it. For one I dont even know how much Lasik has reduced in price. The 1st time I checked 4 years ago it would have cost me around $2000 and when I did it 2 years ago it cost me $2000.  Maybe since then it really has dropped. A difference between Lasik, Plastic surgery and a broken leg, and appendectomy, and MRI after a fall, etc. Is that Lasik and Plastic surgery are elective surgeries that in most cases have no need to be done with expedience.  I took a few years before I decide to do Lasik.  I was able to take my time shop around and then have the procedure done.  When my son had an emergency appendectomy, can you imagine the look my wife would have given me if I said honey we should shop around.  When my son fell skate boarding and blacked out and the Dr. said we should do an MRI just in case I didnt say thank Doc I will take it into advisement and shop around for a few days.  If my car gets into an accident I will shop around to see who does the best job for the best price. If myself or a loved one is injured in the accident I dont shop around with their lives possibly at stake.

In regards to the Lasik price - do not forget that even if Lasik is the same price today as it was 4 years ago (a worst-case scenario), health care costs in non-free market systems (e.g. regular hospitals) has risen nearly 50%.

As for your argument that since Lasik is an elective surgery and hospitals are not- do you not think that same rule applies to emergency car towing, plumging or any other service that is totally competitive and still an emergency service? There are many examples out there of emergency services that are not health care that allow you to shop around....Yet health care is exempt from free market affordability.

And having said this, I will bring up the argument I made earlier that no one else has challenged. Do you not believe that veterinary clinics have the same exact problems with rendering emergency services? Yet the fact is, a veterinary clinic will charge you 60% less than the hospital will for the same service, with a similar success rate for a horse as does the surgeon with a human's appendectomy.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Lyrikalstylez on 03 August 2011

Im sorry but your supppose to spell O'BUM'A instead of OBAMA!!



richardhutnik on 03 August 2011
Lyrikalstylez said:
Im sorry but your supppose to spell O'BUM'A instead of OBAMA!!

Just like it was George "Dumbya" Bush, right?



Viper1 on 03 August 2011
thx1139 said:
Viper1 said:

I addressesd the anecdote thing already.  Why bring it back up?   As for links to studies, no thank you.  Every study can be funded by a source that wants a desired outcome making them nothing more than talking points for the financier.  Besides, I prefer to use the less corruptable faculties like logic and reason.  If you let your mind be made up by some paid for study versus your own capacity for reason, then you are willingly being lead just like the study commissioner hoped you would.  You become their unpaid spokesperson.

And does not the majority of the healthcare industry now revolve around high end computers and technology?   Surgery times and recovery are reduced greatly thanks to technological innovations.  This increases patient volume, reduces hospital supply use per patatient, and so and so on yet the fees applied are still insane.

Tell me again why an 11 cent Tylenol is charged $5 on your hospital bill?   I do wish to hear your reasoning.

Why? Because of a couple of things.  You are not paying for just the aspirin, you are paying for the Dr. who prescribed it, the phamacy tech who filled it, the nurse who delivered it, etc. etc. You are paying for the ER and other patients who wont end up paying their bills because they cant afford it and dont have insurance. We are not going to be a country that throws people out of hospitals because they couldnt prove they could pay for the service before they get started.

As for studies. So we are just supposed to take your word for it. For one I dont even know how much Lasik has reduced in price. The 1st time I checked 4 years ago it would have cost me around $2000 and when I did it 2 years ago it cost me $2000.  Maybe since then it really has dropped. A difference between Lasik, Plastic surgery and a broken leg, and appendectomy, and MRI after a fall, etc. Is that Lasik and Plastic surgery are elective surgeries that in most cases have no need to be done with expedience.  I took a few years before I decide to do Lasik.  I was able to take my time shop around and then have the procedure done.  When my son had an emergency appendectomy, can you imagine the look my wife would have given me if I said honey we should shop around.  When my son fell skate boarding and blacked out and the Dr. said we should do an MRI just in case I didnt say thank Doc I will take it into advisement and shop around for a few days.  If my car gets into an accident I will shop around to see who does the best job for the best price. If myself or a loved one is injured in the accident I dont shop around with their lives possibly at stake.

Thx, those things get billed sperately. Have you ever looked at an itemized hospital bill?  I sure have.  Every single supply used it tabulated and every single worker that performs a specialty is tabulated.  The nurse costs, the room costs, etc...all ae charged in more general terms.  The $5 Tylenol is striclty for the Tylenol.

You don't have to take my word for it but notice that most of my debate is more on philosophy than qualittative data.  And Lasik hasn't reduced in price simply because you have time to shop around.  That's just silly.

Let me ask you this.  If free market isn't the answer,  then why is it doing so horribly with the government already sticking its nose deep into the industry?  

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Kasz216 on 03 August 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

How can they? Pretty sure international trade laws on Intellectual Property protect drugs, such that the screwey "one chemical compound, one company's possession," setup works worldwide, unless they're being reproduced illegally


Yeah, ironically, everyone is missing the very obvious point of... all it takes is there being one place where you can sell medicine, or machines or whatever at a better price.

The reason why such comparisons are worthless is EXACTLY because it's an international market.

 

Drug companies can sell a product in the US from 500, and the same one in europe for 250, and the same one in africa for like.... 5 bucks... because the actual cost of production is low.  So profits are still made in Europe and in Africa.

While america shoulders the brunt of the costs to cover R&D.

Ironically both more and less regulation i bet would lower drug prices.  The issue though is, will more regulation lead the US to have medical research funding analgous to Europe.

If so... the whole world's healthcare will drop.  (Or rather increase more slowly.)

In a country like England there is little incentive to upgrade technologies that work "Well enough."    The government isn't going to buy a bunch of new expensive MRI technology just because it detects something .4% better then the previous MRI machines.

In a country like the US, high end hosptials will, and so will other hospitals as the prices get cheaper and they rush to compete vs each other.

After the prices get low enough, then countries like England will buy in.  They may even get rates lowered ahead of time, if the company is confident the US will meet their R&D goals.

Without the US, who is going to take a big risk to imrpove technology that works ok?  There is a reason why the US accounts for over 80% of the world's medical research.  Think how much better EVERYONE'S healthcare would be, if Europe spent an even amount of money on biotechnology research. (The EU being about the same size.)

The advantages of the US healthcare system are hard to see, because they apply to the world as a whole.

So, in short, America is supposed to have a system that increasingly prices more people out of its services, which causes life expectancy to decline for the lack of preventive care, so that somehow the rest of the world gets better medication?  And then, the response to "something must be done" is "but you have emergency rooms!" as if some state law mandating a business can't turn anyone way makes up for a lack of preventive care.

No.  So that EVERBODY gets better healtcare through better technology.

If Europe and other countries had a healthcare system like the US.  EVERBODY's healtcare would be even better then it was today, because medical advancements would happen 3-4X faster then it does now.

Right now it's as if there are two married people in a relationship who both have a job.  One person who makes more money is paying all the bills, while the second person is making less money, but all that money goes to themselves.

The first person taking a lower paying job isn't going to improve their healthcare, it's just going to make it so the other one has to start paying bills, and everyones money is more equal.... but worse.

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 03 August 2011
mrstickball said:
thx1139 said:

And having said this, I will bring up the argument I made earlier that no one else has challenged. Do you not believe that veterinary clinics have the same exact problems with rendering emergency services? Yet the fact is, a veterinary clinic will charge you 60% less than the hospital will for the same service, with a similar success rate for a horse as does the surgeon with a human's appendectomy.


Though i'd say one reason for that is that they have too....

as much as i love my cat, at a certain point i'm just not spending the money on it to keep it alive.

For me though, i'd spend all I can.

Which is another big reason shit can be expensive in a free market situation, when dealing with their lives, people are going to get the best most expensive treatemetns they can to live long enough.

Unlike socialized systems where you get cheaper "good enough" treatments, that may not be the best, but for your age group are as much as they can justify or that probably will work just as well who can tell.



richardhutnik on 03 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

How can they? Pretty sure international trade laws on Intellectual Property protect drugs, such that the screwey "one chemical compound, one company's possession," setup works worldwide, unless they're being reproduced illegally


Yeah, ironically, everyone is missing the very obvious point of... all it takes is there being one place where you can sell medicine, or machines or whatever at a better price.

The reason why such comparisons are worthless is EXACTLY because it's an international market.

 

Drug companies can sell a product in the US from 500, and the same one in europe for 250, and the same one in africa for like.... 5 bucks... because the actual cost of production is low.  So profits are still made in Europe and in Africa.

While america shoulders the brunt of the costs to cover R&D.

Ironically both more and less regulation i bet would lower drug prices.  The issue though is, will more regulation lead the US to have medical research funding analgous to Europe.

If so... the whole world's healthcare will drop.  (Or rather increase more slowly.)

In a country like England there is little incentive to upgrade technologies that work "Well enough."    The government isn't going to buy a bunch of new expensive MRI technology just because it detects something .4% better then the previous MRI machines.

In a country like the US, high end hosptials will, and so will other hospitals as the prices get cheaper and they rush to compete vs each other.

After the prices get low enough, then countries like England will buy in.  They may even get rates lowered ahead of time, if the company is confident the US will meet their R&D goals.

Without the US, who is going to take a big risk to imrpove technology that works ok?  There is a reason why the US accounts for over 80% of the world's medical research.  Think how much better EVERYONE'S healthcare would be, if Europe spent an even amount of money on biotechnology research. (The EU being about the same size.)

The advantages of the US healthcare system are hard to see, because they apply to the world as a whole.

So, in short, America is supposed to have a system that increasingly prices more people out of its services, which causes life expectancy to decline for the lack of preventive care, so that somehow the rest of the world gets better medication?  And then, the response to "something must be done" is "but you have emergency rooms!" as if some state law mandating a business can't turn anyone way makes up for a lack of preventive care.

No.  So that EVERBODY gets better healtcare through better technology.

If Europe and other countries had a healthcare system like the US.  EVERBODY's healtcare would be even better then it was today, because medical advancements would happen 3-4X faster then it does now.

Right now it's as if there are two married people in a relationship who both have a job.  One person who makes more money is paying all the bills, while the second person is making less money, but all that money goes to themselves.

The first person taking a lower paying job isn't going to improve their healthcare, it's just going to make it so the other one has to start paying bills, and everyones money is more equal.... but worse.

 

And if every car dealer with luxury automobile makers, then you would also end up with all these wonderous advances.  Of course, you would face an increased population without any health coverage, but wow, what there is, would be AWESOME.  It would be so advance, you would have the top 5% being able to afford immortality, while everyone else is stuck with crumbs.



Kasz216 on 03 August 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

How can they? Pretty sure international trade laws on Intellectual Property protect drugs, such that the screwey "one chemical compound, one company's possession," setup works worldwide, unless they're being reproduced illegally


Yeah, ironically, everyone is missing the very obvious point of... all it takes is there being one place where you can sell medicine, or machines or whatever at a better price.

The reason why such comparisons are worthless is EXACTLY because it's an international market.

 

Drug companies can sell a product in the US from 500, and the same one in europe for 250, and the same one in africa for like.... 5 bucks... because the actual cost of production is low.  So profits are still made in Europe and in Africa.

While america shoulders the brunt of the costs to cover R&D.

Ironically both more and less regulation i bet would lower drug prices.  The issue though is, will more regulation lead the US to have medical research funding analgous to Europe.

If so... the whole world's healthcare will drop.  (Or rather increase more slowly.)

In a country like England there is little incentive to upgrade technologies that work "Well enough."    The government isn't going to buy a bunch of new expensive MRI technology just because it detects something .4% better then the previous MRI machines.

In a country like the US, high end hosptials will, and so will other hospitals as the prices get cheaper and they rush to compete vs each other.

After the prices get low enough, then countries like England will buy in.  They may even get rates lowered ahead of time, if the company is confident the US will meet their R&D goals.

Without the US, who is going to take a big risk to imrpove technology that works ok?  There is a reason why the US accounts for over 80% of the world's medical research.  Think how much better EVERYONE'S healthcare would be, if Europe spent an even amount of money on biotechnology research. (The EU being about the same size.)

The advantages of the US healthcare system are hard to see, because they apply to the world as a whole.

So, in short, America is supposed to have a system that increasingly prices more people out of its services, which causes life expectancy to decline for the lack of preventive care, so that somehow the rest of the world gets better medication?  And then, the response to "something must be done" is "but you have emergency rooms!" as if some state law mandating a business can't turn anyone way makes up for a lack of preventive care.

No.  So that EVERBODY gets better healtcare through better technology.

If Europe and other countries had a healthcare system like the US.  EVERBODY's healtcare would be even better then it was today, because medical advancements would happen 3-4X faster then it does now.

Right now it's as if there are two married people in a relationship who both have a job.  One person who makes more money is paying all the bills, while the second person is making less money, but all that money goes to themselves.

The first person taking a lower paying job isn't going to improve their healthcare, it's just going to make it so the other one has to start paying bills, and everyones money is more equal.... but worse.

 

And if every car dealer with luxury automobile makers, then you would also end up with all these wonderous advances.  Of course, you would face an increased population without any health coverage, but wow, what there is, would be AWESOME.  It would be so advance, you would have the top 5% being able to afford immortality, while everyone else is stuck with crumbs.

Kinda misses the point that technology goes down in price.

The poor will have better healthcare under the current system, then they will under a socialized system because the level of technology in their care will be greater.

It's the same arguement that's always made...

What's better?

Equality or Quality.

Would you rather have a higher chance of survivial, or AS high a chance of survival as some rich dude.

Me i'd take living till 90 and a rich dude being immortal, vs everyone living till 80.


Not to mention how the projections get more and more drastic in difference in care, as it takes 2-3-4 times as long to come up with the same medical technology.

I'd take unequal uneven quality over equal mediocrity any day.  As long as I get more then i would of got otherwise, i don't care if someone else gets waaaay more, to do so is just outright jealousy.

If you have choices and one benfits everybody more, who cares how much other people benefit vs me, i'm benefiting.

 

Give me a plan with no negatives where I get an apple, and bill gates gets a robotic manservant... i'll do that.  Hey I get an Apple, and there are no negative effects.  Who cares that Bill Gates gets a robotic manservant.  There is no plan that could get me a robotic man servant anyway.



richardhutnik on 03 August 2011
Kasz216 said:

Me i'd take living till 90 and a rich dude being immortal, vs everyone living till 80.

 

How about a system where, you have a few percentage on top end up being immortal, but your life expectancy decreases?  American ranks lower than other nations because it has a lower life expectency rate than them, particularly among the industrialized nations.



Kasz216 on 04 August 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

Me i'd take living till 90 and a rich dude being immortal, vs everyone living till 80.

 

How about a system where, you have a few percentage on top end up being immortal, but your life expectancy decreases?  American ranks lower than other nations because it has a lower life expectency rate than them, particularly among the industrialized nations.

Now your just going in circles.  Already responded to why you were mistaken on this, twice.  By adopting other nations healthcare standards, medical research vastly drops, as does medical discovery, leading to everybody getting worse healthcare, in the world.

By adopting our healthcare standards, medical research greatly increases, as does medical discovery, leading to better healthcare, everywhere and for everyone.