Profit Based Health?

[Minor Axis]

How would you all feel about a for profit Fire Dept or Police Dept? How do those feelings jive with a for profit Health system? In the recent health debate in the U.S. there were some strong opinions expressed about turning into a bunch of socialists and do we really want to be like Canada, you know having to wait over six months for procedures and the such. At least that was the kind of accusation.

I just read an article No Refills that describes the situation with huge pharmaceutical companies. The article describes the rules placed on drug companies by the FDA. And it implies that if a drug is not going to be profitable, it most likely will not be made, even if it is the best little drug that would help a group of people. It says that both the government (FDA) and drug companies will have to reinvent themselves.

So is Capitalism and profit based health care best suited to providing health care to average citizens? Would socialism based health care system be better? If not, why not?

How about for the research of new drugs? Does anyone here see a problem with only pushing forward new drugs that promise the biggest profits? Is there a viable alternative? I really don't know the answer but my feelings are that the profit motive somehow subverts the notion of the best health care.

From the article:

Making drug trials more expensive can have a big effect on development. Once they’re developed, most drugs are nearly pure profit (a topic of much complaint among consumer activists). The cost is all in the R&D—somewhere between hundreds of millions and nearly $2 billion per drug, depending on which estimate you use. And the single biggest portion of that cost is the very, very expensive clinical trials, in which pharmaceutical companies try to show the FDA that their compound is safe and effective.
This means that clinical trials have unwanted side effects. Because of their astronomical expense, one drug with a huge market is more commercially desirable than 25 drugs that each treat a less common disease, because only one set of trials is necessary. If you’re targeting a disease that affects relatively few people, one of two things will happen: the drug will be very expensive, or the drug will be shelved because it’s unlikely to earn back its R&D investment.

 

[edgray]

healthcare is useless unless it's available to all. universal healthcare systems are cheaper to run, keep more of the population healthy and stop medical bankruptcies.

if you're loaded you can still go private.

 

[Accountable]

healthcare is useless unless it's available to all.

:humm::unsure::confused

 

[Minor Axis]

:humm::unsure::confused

Where are you coming up with these emoticons? Tell me!

 

[edgray]

:humm::unsure::confused

why should the fruits of human knowledge and skill be reserved for those who can afford it?

 

[Accountable]

Where are you coming up with these emoticons? Tell me!

The big one I stole from a post in another forum. Most of mine I get from

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/

http://smilies.our-local.co.uk/Sa-e.htm

http://forums.mg-rover.org/misc.php?do=showsmilies

http://www.nyjetschat.com/forum/index.php?act=legends&CODE=emoticons&s=

why should the fruits of human knowledge and skill be reserved for those who can afford it?

The fruits of human knowledge and skill should be reserved for whomever the human with the knowledge and/or skill wishes.

Healthcare is useless??

 

[edgray]

The fruits of human knowledge and skill should be reserved for whomever the human with the knowledge and/or skill wishes.

Healthcare is useless??

No. Their knowledge is dependent on all the previous knowledge that they inherited, for free. They have no right to reserve it whatsoever.

 

[Accountable]

No. Their knowledge is dependent on all the previous knowledge that they inherited, for free. They have no right to reserve it whatsoever.

They have every right. You know how I know that? I'm not going to tell you, because I have that right.

 

[edgray]

They have every right. You know how I know that? I'm not going to tell you, because I have that right.

No, they really don't.

 

[Minor Axis]

The big one I stole from a post in another forum. Most of mine I get from

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/

http://smilies.our-local.co.uk/Sa-e.htm

http://forums.mg-rover.org/misc.php?do=showsmilies

http://www.nyjetschat.com/forum/index.php?act=legends&CODE=emoticons&s=

Thanks!

The fruits of human knowledge and skill should be reserved for whomever the human with the knowledge and/or skill wishes.

The debate seems to hinge on benefits to the individual vs benefits to general society.

 

[edgray]

Thanks!

The debate seems to hinge on benefits to the individual vs benefits to general society.

It seems highly unfair of someone to benefit from the knowledge of the human race that they've inherited only to select who can benefit from it. Thank God people like Jonas Salk, curer of polio, didn't think so selfishly.

 

[Peter Parka]

I'd have more confidence in a doctor whose main motivation is healing me over one whose main motivation is making money off of me.

 

[Accountable]

It seems highly unfair of someone to benefit from the knowledge of the human race that they've inherited only to select who can benefit from it. Thank God people like Jonas Salk, curer of polio, didn't think so selfishly.

So do you help absolutely everyone that asks you, regardless of your own wishes? <= not rhetorical, btw.

Why should someone who tries harder or accomplishes more responsible to those who didn't necessarily try as hard or accomplish as much?

 

[Accountable]

I'd have more confidence in a doctor whose main motivation is healing me over one whose main motivation is making money off of me.

Me, too. Wouldn't you likewise have more confidence in a doctor who you are certain is doing his job of his own free will, rather than under legal duress?

 

[Minor Axis]

Me, too. Wouldn't you likewise have more confidence in a doctor who you are certain is doing his job of his own free will, rather than under legal duress?

Legal duress, is that where the argument is going? Legal duress, I suppose that trumps motivation to heal in your opinion or just how do they comparatively rate?

 

[Francis]

Me, too. Wouldn't you likewise have more confidence in a doctor who you are certain is doing his job of his own free will, rather than under legal duress?

I certainly do..

I remember seeing a family doctor a while back who could not wait to leave the Canadian Health care system because it was Universal and move to the US his dream land..

Most people do not understand the concept and I will not get into deep details about it, but suffice to say that he made well in excess of 7 digits ( a certain amount of their doctors pays are pubic here ). What the Health Care portion pays is fully shown and what ever else they get from Insurance is not and can account for 50% more of what they make..

Short story simple, Doctors require minimum liability insurance and nothing like you see in the US. The doctor in question moved to Phoenix where he had dreamed to move and had set up his clinic.

About two years later I saw him again practising in the same Canadian clinic as I had another doctor in that very same place. He told me sheepishly he had returned due to excruciating malpractice insurance costs and constant frivolous lawsuits..

I would much rather a doctor concentrate on my heath then wonder if he sees me as a potential law suit.. I have to wonder how much of your medical system really disburses in "court fees" yearly and has doctors in court rooms when they should be at operating tables.

We in Canada had a problem of waiting times for a while ( mostly resolved now ) not because of the Universality of the system, but due to the lack of doctors, nurses and other such qualified staff. Hell for a time we were short on Anaesthesiologist and Radiologists due to the lack of proper University Teachers that had retired and not enough to teach new and upcomers in the programs..

 

[Peter Parka]

Me, too. Wouldn't you likewise have more confidence in a doctor who you are certain is doing his job of his own free will, rather than under legal duress?

We have a national health service and all the doctors working for it do so of their own free will. I dont really get your point. I can get treated by a doctor who is doing his job of his own free will and whose motivation is to heal me, not make money off of me.

 

[edgray]

So do you help absolutely everyone that asks you, regardless of your own wishes? <= not rhetorical, btw.

Why should someone who tries harder or accomplishes more responsible to those who didn't necessarily try as hard or accomplish as much?

Speak to any NHS doctor in Britain, or any in Spain, Germany or any with a universal health service and they will tell you that they would rather work in a system where they can treat people irrelevant of their income or whether they can afford it than a system that allows people not to be treated.

So yes, any doctor with a pulse would want to help anyone. That's why they became doctors. Not to deny treatment, but to give it. Unless I suppose they've been trained in a greed-driven selfish society....

As for the last bit, firstly, because they get paid considerably more than most people. Doctors make great money, even in universal systems. Secondly, how do you know that just because they make less money they haven't tried as hard? A policeman, for example, can never earn as much as doctor, but damn they can work and train hard. An engineer too. Or a teacher... I could go on, you should get the point by now.

 

[Accountable]

So do you help absolutely everyone that asks you, regardless of your own wishes? <= not rhetorical, btw.

Why should someone who tries harder or accomplishes more responsible to those who didn't necessarily try as hard or accomplish as much?

Speak to any NHS doctor in Britain, or any in Spain, Germany or any with a universal health service and they will tell you that they would rather work in a system where they can treat people irrelevant of their income or whether they can afford it than a system that allows people not to be treated.

So yes, any doctor with a pulse would want to help anyone. That's why they became doctors. Not to deny treatment, but to give it. Unless I suppose they've been trained in a greed-driven selfish society....

As for the last bit, firstly, because they get paid considerably more than most people. Doctors make great money, even in universal systems. Secondly, how do you know that just because they make less money they haven't tried as hard? A policeman, for example, can never earn as much as doctor, but damn they can work and train hard. An engineer too. Or a teacher... I could go on, you should get the point by now.

You avoided both of my questions, probably because you think you know where I'm going and are trying to get ahead of me.

Speak to any NHS doctor in Britain, or any in Spain, Germany or any with a universal health service and they will tell you that they would rather work in a system where they can treat people irrelevant of their income than a system that allows people not to be treated.

You of course realize that allowing people not to be treated doesn't require people not to be treated, don't you?

If I spoke to any NHS doctor in Britain, or any in Spain, Germany or any with a universal health service, would they confess that if given the freedom to refuse service to someone who really needed it that they just wouldn't be able to resist slamming the door in the poor sot's face?
How about if I asked them if they would like to be able to refuse service to people who, in their professional medical opinion, don't need the service? Would they hate to be allowed to not treat these people, reserving the time, money, and supplies for those that need it?

ALL doctors can treat people irrelevant of their income or whether they can afford it, and most do, even if not required by law... even if they are allowed not to treat them.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who start the education & training to be doctors motivated only by money are shaken loose and dropped within the first couple of years. The ones that stay with the program stay with it because they truly believe in it. They see it as a calling. I can't believe that med school, internship and all the rest is so easy that monetary greed alone can motivate anyone to make it all the way through.

If we can agree on that, then let's also agree that the current health system is not the doctors' fault. Doctors charge rich people exorbitant amounts of money (yup, that's making eeeeevil profits) so that they can afford to do charitable work. It happens all the time.

If ya'll want a scapegoat (in the US), blame the insurance companies that just got an even stronger stranglehold in Washington. That means *gasp* blame Obama just as much as Bush, and realize the same congressmen were in those chairs through both administrations.

 

[Minor Axis]

We in Canada had a problem of waiting times for a while ( mostly resolved now ) not because of the Universality of the system, but due to the lack of doctors, nurses and other such qualified staff. Hell for a time we were short on Anaesthesiologist and Radiologists due to the lack of proper University Teachers that had retired and not enough to teach new and upcomers in the programs..

My understanding is that in the U.S. there is a shortage of general practitioners because all the big money is in doing procedures. Hence most new Mds are going for specialty medicine. I had a doctor tell me that was a problem with the current system.

If ya'll want a scapegoat (in the US), blame the insurance companies that just got an even stronger stranglehold in Washington. That means *gasp* blame Obama just as much as Bush, and realize the same congressmen were in those chairs through both administrations.

How did you arrive at this conclusion regarding Obama? (JC) Insurance companies are an entrenched entity. Short of totally getting rid of them, what needs to be done? I believe the health bill that was recently passed made some changes with the effect of reigning them in (a little). I'm feel more could be done. Can you place any blame on a for-profit system or is capitalism too near and dear to your heart?