sv3n 0
Recommended Posts
Quote
Here's a good article on the overinflated price of medication in the US.
That's a good example of how could you manipulate facts to prove your theory.
Quote
"While drug costs in the United States continue to spiral out of control, other countries have adopted policies to keep prices in check. One nation leading the way in price regulation is Canada, which had the second-highest average price for pharmaceuticals until 1987.
Just to make sure you understand the article - it talks about brandname drugs, not generics. I'm not sure you understand the difference, so I explain. The drugs, as you probably know, are created by scientists, who work hard, and sometime effortless - just see how long it is taking to create a drug which would kick HIV out of T4 cells. Years and billions of dollars are spent on most brandname drugs, and someone has to pay for that. There is research and testing, which costs a lot. Someone has to pay for that, and that's those who buy brandname drugs.
However when you make generics, you do not bear all the costs above. They only spend money on manufacturing, and those costs are a tiny fraction in overall drug cost. Then it might be reasonable to regulate the prices for generics - after all, the people who make it did not spend any money on research and testing. However most generics are cheap anyway, and it doesn't seem to be an issue.
So could you tell me, how many new brandname drugs were invented in Canada since 1987, so we could get a clue what they control prices for?
Quote
The PMPRB ensures that the prices of patented drugs are not excessive by controlling introductory drug prices.
So what happens if the company does not agree to "regulated" price, and therefore decides NOT to sell their drug in Canada (and they have all the rights to do it)?
Quote
Wow! Somebody has done the impossible and it turns out to be Canada. Everybody bow down come on.........
It's not impossible. A lot of countries, like Russia and China, already "regulate" the prices for movies, music and software in very similar way. After all, it costs only 15 cents to make a copy of Windows, so it doesn't sound right to pay $150 for it. It is easy to regulate costs on something you did not develop.
Quote
Sounds like you're letting me have it..........are you gonna start soon?
Sure, when you become a doctor, and provide quality service for a half of price - I'll be your first patient.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
If they're getting treated, then they're covered............
And they still die at the end. So basically the result is the same, no matter are they covered or not. Sure, the person could live in agony, pain or coma several more weeks, but the result is the same - the person dies.
Quote
and your point is that people who can afford insurance can get treated and the people that can't afford it are just sol?
Not exactly. The point in the original message was that the people who want such a useless and expensive treatment (i.e. artifically maintaining their "life", and be kept in agony, pain or coma) should be able to pay for that. And it looks reasonable for me if the goal is to cut the costs.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
I believe it would be naive and irresponsible to simply say "it's not possible" without trying.
I'd sooner die a couple years early than force the whole economy through 1000% inflation. And I'd wish the same on anyone.
I'm starting to suspect there's a numeracy issue here...
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
QuoteYou give bullshit theories, ask bullshit questions.....then you're gonna get bullshit answers.
Are you talking to the mirror? Seems to be the case.
Quote
If you're going to come up with a better mousetrap so to speak and come up with a new healthcare system then you're going to start with the best model out there and go from there. France being ranked numero uno would seem a good choice then.
You have been already explained that this "numero uno" has no real value, and by changing the criterias or weights you could get any country on the top of that list; for example Zimbabwe most likely will be ranked number one if you put the per-person spending as most important.
You have been explained that you cannot just take part of any system, and expect it to work in a different system. It is like taking the engine from Boeing, and putting it in your car in hope to get both the benefits of the Boeing and the benefits of the car. It does not work.
Quote
While some african companies might have ok healthcare, which I for some odd reason doubt and therefore would not choose them as a model basis.
So could you tell us how much experience you have with French healthcare system? Just to make sure you do understand what you are talking about.
Quote
Man you gotta read more...........the salaries are part of my point........if they're overinflated then that would be a good way to reduce healthcare costs.
This way we could regulate everything. Just tell me what you do, and I'll tell you that the prices you charge (directly or indirectly) are overinflated, and that's the good way to reduce costs if you are just paid $2 per hour.
Quote
If the obesity in the US is part of the problem then, there's something that needs to be done about that.........change of national attitude towards fitness, who know...that's another debate.
Oops. I could understand when such ideas are produced by my 10-year daughter, but it is really strange to hear them from a mature adult. How exactly are you going to "change the national attitude"? Is it something like "being fat is cool" right now? Doesn't anyone already know what makes you fat, and what does not?
And I repeat: that's nice that you always comment only the easiest part of the post, and completely ignore everything else, especially the ones which ask tough questions. You should definitely try politics.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
sv3n 0
George, George, George of the Jungle watch out for that...
Sorry...anyways, I never said the article said it was about brandname or generic drugs. But it's a great example of price regulation and thanks for a lesson on the difference between Generic and Brandname Drugs......it was riveting and informative, it might also prove useful in my future years as a pointless fact to blurt out spontaneously as a factoid. Back to topic, if price regulation was done everywhere.....then companies would be forced to sell the drugs everywhere at a reasonable price..........keeping them honest rather than holding people's lives hostage for more money.
PS - no facts were manipulated in the quoting of this article, but thanks for playing and have a nice day.
PSS - I will enroll in school next week to become a sex change surgeon and will gladly perform your surgery for half-price. 
QuoteQuote
Here's a good article on the overinflated price of medication in the US.
That's a good example of how could you manipulate facts to prove your theory.Quote
"While drug costs in the United States continue to spiral out of control, other countries have adopted policies to keep prices in check. One nation leading the way in price regulation is Canada, which had the second-highest average price for pharmaceuticals until 1987.
Just to make sure you understand the article - it talks about brandname drugs, not generics. I'm not sure you understand the difference, so I explain. The drugs, as you probably know, are created by scientists, who work hard, and sometime effortless - just see how long it is taking to create a drug which would kick HIV out of T4 cells. Years and billions of dollars are spent on most brandname drugs, and someone has to pay for that. There is research and testing, which costs a lot. Someone has to pay for that, and that's those who buy brandname drugs.
However when you make generics, you do not bear all the costs above. They only spend money on manufacturing, and those costs are a tiny fraction in overall drug cost. Then it might be reasonable to regulate the prices for generics - after all, the people who make it did not spend any money on research and testing. However most generics are cheap anyway, and it doesn't seem to be an issue.
So could you tell me, how many new brandname drugs were invented in Canada since 1987, so we could get a clue what they control prices for?Quote
The PMPRB ensures that the prices of patented drugs are not excessive by controlling introductory drug prices.
So what happens if the company does not agree to "regulated" price, and therefore decides NOT to sell their drug in Canada (and they have all the rights to do it)?Quote
Wow! Somebody has done the impossible and it turns out to be Canada. Everybody bow down come on.........
It's not impossible. A lot of countries, like Russia and China, already "regulate" the prices for movies, music and software in very similar way. After all, it costs only 15 cents to make a copy of Windows, so it doesn't sound right to pay $150 for it. It is easy to regulate costs on something you did not develop.Quote
Sounds like you're letting me have it..........are you gonna start soon?
Sure, when you become a doctor, and provide quality service for a half of price - I'll be your first patient.
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
That's like saying "Well you could die next week, no healthcare for you"
QuoteQuote
If they're getting treated, then they're covered............
And they still die at the end. So basically the result is the same, no matter are they covered or not. Sure, the person could live in agony, pain or coma several more weeks, but the result is the same - the person dies.Quote
and your point is that people who can afford insurance can get treated and the people that can't afford it are just sol?
Not exactly. The point in the original message was that the people who want such a useless and expensive treatment (i.e. artifically maintaining their "life", and be kept in agony, pain or coma) should be able to pay for that. And it looks reasonable for me if the goal is to cut the costs.
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
Could we see some facts on this 1000% inflation?
QuoteQuote
I believe it would be naive and irresponsible to simply say "it's not possible" without trying.
I'd sooner die a couple years early than force the whole economy through 1000% inflation. And I'd wish the same on anyone.
I'm starting to suspect there's a numeracy issue here...
...and you're in violation of your face!
1969912 0
QuoteSorry, you miss understood me............I wasn't implying that other countries put caps on pay for doctors....I was simply trying to state that if healthcare costs are lower in other countries like france which has a very well ranked system then it's possible here too.
QuoteQuoteI'd leave that up to better men than myself. Obviously it's possible if it's happening elsewhere. One would have to take an indepth look at what prices were higher and why.......then work out a systematic way of getting our prices down.
What you are talking about is NOT happening elsewhere. I don't know if France has salary controls on doctor's or not, but if they do, it has been in place for years and years. What you are talking about is slapping salary controls on people who have been working without them for years. You will be requiring them to take a potentially large cut in pay, which is nothing like what's happening in France.
Not too far off topic:
If you have time, please read this book: Atlas Shrugged, by AYN Rand
Sorry, I was still fuming over your price-control ideas
In reality, though, salaries are controlled. Sure, any doctor can set up a practice in France, but with nearly all the patients paying through what is essentially one insurance company, the doctor will have to accept whatever payment the provider wishes to pay. Where else will the doctor get customers? It's not quite that simple because there is union representation, negotiations with the government, etc.
Read about their system here:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
Quote
Back to topic, if price regulation was done everywhere.....then companies would be forced to sell the drugs everywhere at a reasonable price.
No. The would be no drugs to sell.
P.S. I supposed you have to be 18 to register on dz.com, but it looks like it is not true.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
sv3n 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou give bullshit theories, ask bullshit questions.....then you're gonna get bullshit answers.
Are you talking to the mirror? Seems to be the case.
I know you are, but what am I..............great comeback Tim.QuoteQuote
If you're going to come up with a better mousetrap so to speak and come up with a new healthcare system then you're going to start with the best model out there and go from there. France being ranked numero uno would seem a good choice then.
You have been already explained that this "numero uno" has no real value, and by changing the criterias or weights you could get any country on the top of that list; for example Zimbabwe most likely will be ranked number one if you put the per-person spending as most important.
You have been explained that you cannot just take part of any system, and expect it to work in a different system. It is like taking the engine from Boeing, and putting it in your car in hope to get both the benefits of the Boeing and the benefits of the car. It does not work.
1. what I said was you could take any of the pieces in that study out at your convenience and make whomever you wanted come out on top.......leave the study as a whole and it still remains that the report states the France is number 1.
2. i'm not talking about using parts of a system.......I'm talking about replacing the system. The problem we have right now is that we have a patched together healthcare system rather than one system. when designing anything you don't look at the worst thing possible and design it off of that, you look at the best and move on from there.QuoteQuote
While some african companies might have ok healthcare, which I for some odd reason doubt and therefore would not choose them as a model basis.
So could you tell us how much experience you have with French healthcare system? Just to make sure you do understand what you are talking about.
the same as you I suspect.QuoteQuote
Man you gotta read more...........the salaries are part of my point........if they're overinflated then that would be a good way to reduce healthcare costs.
This way we could regulate everything. Just tell me what you do, and I'll tell you that the prices you charge (directly or indirectly) are overinflated, and that's the good way to reduce costs if you are just paid $2 per hour.
If it's a national epidemic then the government needs to intervene. Exaggeration, gotta love it......that's exactly what I said........."let's pay everybody $2 per hour".QuoteQuote
If the obesity in the US is part of the problem then, there's something that needs to be done about that.........change of national attitude towards fitness, who know...that's another debate.
Oops. I could understand when such ideas are produced by my 10-year daughter, but it is really strange to hear them from a mature adult. How exactly are you going to "change the national attitude"? Is it something like "being fat is cool" right now? Doesn't anyone already know what makes you fat, and what does not?
Yes, they're such strange and silly ideas that the president has panels that suggest such things to him and people write articles about it........oh forgive me. Here's the article just in case you're interested in this silly idea...
US Government Not Promoting Healthy Living Says Cancer Panel
Featured Article
Main Category: Public Health News
Article Date: 17 Aug 2007 - 3:00 PDT
The US government should be doing more to promote healthy living says a new report from the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) out this week.
Cancer kills more than half a million Americans every year, and nearly three times that number are diagnosed annually with the disease.
Two thirds of cancer deaths and thosands of new cases could be avoided by changing the lifestyle of Americans: tobacco use and passive smoking account for nearly one third, and unhealthy diets account for another third of all cancer deaths in America today says the PCP.
The President's Cancer Panel (PCP) has three members: Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and campaigner and cycling champion, Dr Margaret L. Kripke, chief academic officer at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Dr LaSalle D. Leffall Jr, professor of surgery at Howard University in Washington, who chairs the panel.
The PCP was set up in 1971 and meets four times a year to review progress across the nation in the fight to eradicate cancer.
Previous reports from the PCP have looked at one particular theme on cancer, this time the panel has taken a deep look at the "macroenvironment" of people's daily lives and the opportunity that government has to make changes that would have a significant impact on the nation's cancer burden.
The report says that most federal funding for cancer research is for projects targeted at genetic and biological intervention, looking for ways to interrupt the progress of the disease at the cellular level. However, while acknowledging the importance of this work and saying that it should be supported, the report criticizes the fact that:
"It ignores the macroenvironment and the physical, social, and cultural contexts within which food choices, opportunities for physical activity, and tobacco use and smoke exposure occur."
Also, the benefits of the currently sponsored research will not be felt by the population at large for decades, while the opportunity to effect social, behavioural and environmental change through policy intervention is here and now. This would make a considerable impact, sooner, in reducing the nation's burden of lung and many other cancers, says the report, especially by focusing more on preventing disease as well as treating it.
As an example of how the health system is geared more toward treatment than prevention, the report points out that doctors are trained to treat illness and not prevent it. The health care system is a sick care system and not a well care system. Doctors don't spend enough time with patients helping them to make changes in their lifestyle that would stop them having to visit the doctor so frequently, they only have time to treat the symptoms, resulting in a vicious cycle. The system needs to change to place more emphasis on prevention.
The medical insurance system suffers from a similar malaise, says the report. While it covers treatment for acute conditions, other services that offer interventions that promote "wellness or prevent disease, such as counseling, education, outreach, and behavioral or psychosocial interventions" are not covered.
The PCP acknowledges and praises the efforts of many government and employer schemes to promote a culture of wellness, but says this is not reaching many millions of Americans who are "living in neighborhoods in which it is unsafe to exercise outdoors and where fresh food access is limited", or who are in part time jobs with no insurance cover, and have fewer opportunities such as access to computers to take advantage of the many IT tools now available, and in many cases their English is poor and the services are not designed for them.
Nearly two thirds of Americans are overweight, half of whom are obese. By 2010, this figure is set to be three quarters of the population overweight and one half obese. Obesity is the second leading cause of premature death in the US, tobacco is the first, says the report.
Research shows that overall cancer death rates are 50 per cent higher among obese men compared to normal weight men, and more than 60 per cent higher among obese women.
In a way these statistics are not surprising, because government policies at all levels have helped to create an environment that makes it hard for Americans to make the right choices, be it in food (healthy food is expensive), exercise (physical education in schools is at an all time low), and as already discussed, the health care system.
Poor and ineffective policies, together with insufficient regulation in the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages have "spawned a culture that struggles to make healthy choices" says the report.
Targetting obesity and tobacco are the two main action points the report makes. It suggests a number of opportunities to make changes that would promote a culture of wellness. For instance, changing the way that food is marketed to children, where currently too much junk food is promoted and not enough healthy foods. Another avenue of opportunity is school meals, where breakfasts and lunches are not geared toward healthy eating.
Another area where government intervention could make a big difference is to coordinate public health policy with agricultural policy. An example of how this is not currently working to promote healthy living is the heavy subsidizing of food such as corn and soy that are then processed into high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated corn and soybean oils, and other foods known to contribute to obesity and related chronic diseases such as cancer. Where are the subsidies for the healthy food products?
An opportunity to "strongly increase support for fruit and vegetable farmers, improve the national food supply, and enhance the health of participants in the national school lunch, food stamp, and Women, Infant, and Children food assistance programs" is about to present itself to the government in the form of the upcoming reauthorization of the Farm Bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002).
The report makes a number of other recommendations, including one that may be at odds with President Bush's own views: to increase the tax on tobacco.
One of the panel members is reported to have said in a telephone interview with Reuters news agency that perhaps America does not have the political will to protect the health of its citizens.
In delivering the report, the panel has urged the President to use the power of his office to empower Americans to make healthy choices and seize this moral obligation to protect the health of the nation....and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
QuoteQuoteSorry, you miss understood me............I wasn't implying that other countries put caps on pay for doctors....I was simply trying to state that if healthcare costs are lower in other countries like france which has a very well ranked system then it's possible here too.
QuoteQuoteI'd leave that up to better men than myself. Obviously it's possible if it's happening elsewhere. One would have to take an indepth look at what prices were higher and why.......then work out a systematic way of getting our prices down.
What you are talking about is NOT happening elsewhere. I don't know if France has salary controls on doctor's or not, but if they do, it has been in place for years and years. What you are talking about is slapping salary controls on people who have been working without them for years. You will be requiring them to take a potentially large cut in pay, which is nothing like what's happening in France.
Not too far off topic:
If you have time, please read this book: Atlas Shrugged, by AYN Rand
Sorry, I was still fuming over your price-control ideas
In reality, though, salaries are controlled. Sure, any doctor can set up a practice in France, but with nearly all the patients paying through what is essentially one insurance company, the doctor will have to accept whatever payment the provider wishes to pay. Where else will the doctor get customers? It's not quite that simple because there is union representation, negotiations with the government, etc.
Read about their system here:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html
Thanks, that's good info. So it's not just some wild and insane fantasy.
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
Of course.....the companies would just start making M&M's instead. It's not like the government gives any grants or funding for medical research.
Obviously it is in place in Canada right now and while I have no evidence I believe other countries do this as well....................so it's pretty safe to assume that if it works there it would work here too.
Obviously it is in place in Canada right now and while I have no evidence I believe other countries do this as well....................so it's pretty safe to assume that if it works there it would work here too.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Back to topic, if price regulation was done everywhere.....then companies would be forced to sell the drugs everywhere at a reasonable price.
No. The would be no drugs to sell.
P.S. I supposed you have to be 18 to register on dz.com, but it looks like it is not true.
...and you're in violation of your face!
mnealtx 0
Ouch...this is gonna leave a mark. Ties right back in to the fact that care gets rationed in SHC countries, I believe.
From the Beeb
And -
From the Beeb
Quote
UK 'lagging' on cancer survival
Cancer survival in the UK is still below the European average, despite recent improvements, a report says.
Five-year survival rates in lung, breast, prostate and colorectal cancer were lower in the UK compared with everywhere except eastern Europe.
The Eurocare studies of 23 countries looked at the outcome of 2.7m new cases diagnosed between 1995 and 1999.
Government cancer "tsar" Mike Richards said poor results in the UK had been due to delays spotting the disease.
And -
QuoteHe added: "The poor results from the UK were attributable mainly to patients having more advanced disease at diagnosis than patients in other European countries."
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Examples of other governmental insolvencies
Zimbabwe, 2007
Chile, 1973
GAO Comptroller General indicates continuing current benefits leads to insolvency:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml
specifically on page 3,
Zimbabwe, 2007
Chile, 1973
GAO Comptroller General indicates continuing current benefits leads to insolvency:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml
specifically on page 3,
Quote
It's the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it's the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it's the number one competitive challenge for American business. We're gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years," Walker tells Kroft.
And if we don't?
"And if we don't, it could bankrupt America," Walker argues.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
sv3n 0
So in cases from 1995 to 1999 the UK was behind most of Europe in spotting cancer sooner...........what's your point? It doesn't prove that a government healthcare system doesn't work........it just says that from '95 to '99 the UK, not all government run healthcare systems just the UK, was behind most of europe in diagnosing cancer at an early stage.
It says absolutely nothing about government run healthcare.........as a matter of fact sweden, which had the best survival rate in the article, is a country with government run healthcare.
It says absolutely nothing about government run healthcare.........as a matter of fact sweden, which had the best survival rate in the article, is a country with government run healthcare.
QuoteOuch...this is gonna leave a mark. Ties right back in to the fact that care gets rationed in SHC countries, I believe.
From the BeebQuote
UK 'lagging' on cancer survival
Cancer survival in the UK is still below the European average, despite recent improvements, a report says.
Five-year survival rates in lung, breast, prostate and colorectal cancer were lower in the UK compared with everywhere except eastern Europe.
The Eurocare studies of 23 countries looked at the outcome of 2.7m new cases diagnosed between 1995 and 1999.
Government cancer "tsar" Mike Richards said poor results in the UK had been due to delays spotting the disease.
And -QuoteHe added: "The poor results from the UK were attributable mainly to patients having more advanced disease at diagnosis than patients in other European countries."
...and you're in violation of your face!
1969912 0
QuoteI suppose the question would be how they came about with the ranking criteria, was it completed through surveys of what was important to the population or where did it come from?
What other tweaks did you make to get that list? One could leave out whatever they wanted and make their chosen country move to the top of the list.
No, they didn't do surveys, WHO developed the criteria based on their idea of a viable healthcare system. I'd paste in a quote, but all I have are pdf's. I'll post something later.
The reason I posted that was a response to the "France is #1, US is #37" BS that I keep hearing from people that have no idea how the ranking was done (I don't mean you).
Re: Other tweaks. I'm still fiddling with it. It takes a while because tou have to recalculate a shitload of data so you don't leave a country out. Yes, I could tweak things and give you any result you want. A guy I know used to say this about statistics: "Figures never lie, but liars sure can figure". When I post tweaked rankings, I will always show exactly what the tweaks are. Also, no tweaks will involve tweaking data, just criteria and/or their weightings.
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
1969912 0
QuoteQuote
Back to topic, if price regulation was done everywhere.....then companies would be forced to sell the drugs everywhere at a reasonable price.
No. The would be no drugs to sell.
P.S. I supposed you have to be 18 to register on dz.com, but it looks like it is not true.
Have you no compassion?
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
sv3n 0
The guy isn't saying to cut off Medicare or Medicaid and just let old people die.........he's saying we need to re-evaluate our system and make some changes or replace it because our current system is going to bankrupt us. And he also doesn't say that there are no options but to cut people off.
Here's some stuff from the article.....
Here's some stuff from the article.....
QuoteHe is not suggesting that the nation do away with Medicare or prescription drug benefits. He does believe the current health care system is way too expensive, and overrated.
"On cost we're number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth," he says.
"We have the largest uninsured population of any major industrialized nation. We have above average infant mortality, below average life expectancy, and much higher than average medical error rates for an industrialized nation," Walker points out.
"Why doesn't somebody do something about it?" Kroft asks.
"Because it's always easier not to. 'Cause it's always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices. You know, you get in trouble in politics when you make choices," Sen. Conrad says.
Asked if he thinks taxes should be raised, the senator says, "I believe first of all, we need more revenue. We need to be tough on spending. And we need to reform the entitlement programs … we need to do all of it."
"Any politician who tells you that we can solve our problem without reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not telling you the truth," Walker told an audience at the University of Denver.
Asked if he knows any politicians willing to raise taxes or cut back benefits, Walker says, "I don't know politicians that like to raise taxes. I don't know politicians that like to cut spending, but I think what we have to recognize is this is not just about numbers. We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it's an issue of immorality."
QuoteExamples of other governmental insolvencies
Zimbabwe, 2007
Chile, 1973
GAO Comptroller General indicates continuing current benefits leads to insolvency:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml
specifically on page 3,Quote
It's the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it's the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it's the number one competitive challenge for American business. We're gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years," Walker tells Kroft.
And if we don't?
"And if we don't, it could bankrupt America," Walker argues.
...and you're in violation of your face!
mnealtx 0
QuoteSo in cases from 1995 to 1999 the UK was behind most of Europe in spotting cancer sooner...........what's your point? It doesn't prove that a government healthcare system doesn't work........it just says that from '95 to '99 the UK, not all government run healthcare systems just the UK, was behind most of europe in diagnosing cancer at an early stage.
It says absolutely nothing about government run healthcare.........as a matter of fact sweden, which had the best survival rate in the article, is a country with government run healthcare.
You accuse everyone else of not reading your info and having a closed mind - you've been given PLENTY of proof to show that SHC countries ration care and you're refusing to look at it or even admit it exists.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
1969912 0
QuoteOuch...this is gonna leave a mark. Ties right back in to the fact that care gets rationed in SHC countries, I believe.
From the BeebQuote
UK 'lagging' on cancer survival
Cancer survival in the UK is still below the European average, despite recent improvements, a report says.
Five-year survival rates in lung, breast, prostate and colorectal cancer were lower in the UK compared with everywhere except eastern Europe.
The Eurocare studies of 23 countries looked at the outcome of 2.7m new cases diagnosed between 1995 and 1999.
Government cancer "tsar" Mike Richards said poor results in the UK had been due to delays spotting the disease.
And -QuoteHe added: "The poor results from the UK were attributable mainly to patients having more advanced disease at diagnosis than patients in other European countries."
What does "SHC" mean?
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
sv3n 0
I wonder what their idea of a viable healthcare system is, is that stated anywhere like in a mission statement?
I bet it's a ton of data, I'm sure they didn't just call the government health office and say "on a scale of 1 to 10 how do you rate your healthcare system"....."well it's 10 because they said so". At least I would hope not.
I appreciate you reading that and letting all of us know..........what a pain in the ass. I wish someone would just come out with a report that no one could argue about and then that way we could see where we're really at. I don't think their choice to put Fairness in Pricing in there is a bad thing......while 25% may be a little high, I could see why they would do it. It's a good way to see if everybody is paying equally and that it's fair for everybody so that everybody can afford healthcare.
I bet it's a ton of data, I'm sure they didn't just call the government health office and say "on a scale of 1 to 10 how do you rate your healthcare system"....."well it's 10 because they said so". At least I would hope not.
I appreciate you reading that and letting all of us know..........what a pain in the ass. I wish someone would just come out with a report that no one could argue about and then that way we could see where we're really at. I don't think their choice to put Fairness in Pricing in there is a bad thing......while 25% may be a little high, I could see why they would do it. It's a good way to see if everybody is paying equally and that it's fair for everybody so that everybody can afford healthcare.
QuoteQuoteI suppose the question would be how they came about with the ranking criteria, was it completed through surveys of what was important to the population or where did it come from?
What other tweaks did you make to get that list? One could leave out whatever they wanted and make their chosen country move to the top of the list.
No, they didn't do surveys, WHO developed the criteria based on their idea of a viable healthcare system. I'd paste in a quote, but all I have are pdf's. I'll post something later.
The reason I posted that was a response to the "France is #1, US is #37" BS that I keep hearing from people that have no idea how the ranking was done (I don't mean you).
Re: Other tweaks. I'm still fiddling with it. It takes a while because tou have to recalculate a shitload of data so you don't leave a country out. Yes, I could tweak things and give you any result you want. A guy I know used to say this about statistics: "Figures never lie, but liars sure can figure". When I post tweaked rankings, I will always show exactly what the tweaks are. Also, no tweaks will involve tweaking data, just criteria and/or their weightings.
...and you're in violation of your face!
sv3n 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
Back to topic, if price regulation was done everywhere.....then companies would be forced to sell the drugs everywhere at a reasonable price.
No. The would be no drugs to sell.
P.S. I supposed you have to be 18 to register on dz.com, but it looks like it is not true.
Have you no compassion?
...and you're in violation of your face!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites