65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 04:35 pm
Most of the funding for research at my university comes from commercial and industrial benafactors. Government grants are also significant.

My university does some biolmedical research, but I imagine this is mostly the same for the Univesity of Missouri - Columbia (Mizzou) which has a large medical program with lots of research.

I know when proposition A2 came up here in MO back in 2006 (a bill to allow for embryonic stem cell research) there were a great number of contributors to it's success. Most of the research is conducted on university campuses.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 04:45 pm
Our country already spends the most for health care per capita. It seems logical that it needs to be improved in the area of efficiency and management, and the cost will take care of itself (maybe even a reduction).

On the other hand, the people of Denmark pays 63 percent in taxes; that's a government mandate no different than any other country.

If all of us paid 63 percent in taxes, we'll not only have universal health care, but people will be "happier." That's a small price to pay for "happiness" for all of our citizens.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 04:48 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
What we "want" is universal health care. It has to do with compassion.


Unfortunately compassion doesn't pay the bills. Hospitals can't run on compassion. New medications can't be researched on compassion. Like it or not, the world we live in is a capitalistic one.


This isn't at all true. A vast amount of the research that goes into new drugs is funded in a socialistic fashion by the US gov't.

Cycloptichorn


"at all" is a qualifier that shows completeness but a "vast amount" is a measure less than "all". how much is your vast amount? data?

i think it more likely that the majority of drug research is funded by private corporations, capital venturists and investors. now i don't have exact numbers, so i won't make any claims like yours, but i suspect my statements are true.

does the government run on compassion? is that what they take from my paychecks? no.


It's the basic, University-level research which leads to major drug breakthroughs. We can make small improvements using applied research, but it Theoretical research is where its' at when it comes to brand new drugs. The pharma industry would never be able to stay profitable if they had to pay for this.

Cycloptichorn


is this your opinion or do you have data to cite?


Oh, Data.

Quote:

Federal Research Funding Supports Advances in Medical Research

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of the world's foremost medical research centers, and the federal focal point for medical research in the U.S. It provides grants and contracts to support research in over 2,000 research institutions in the U.S. and abroad, and conducts more than 2,000 research projects in its own laboratories. NIH grants have also trained a host of scientists in its intramural programs and supported the training of hundreds of thousands of scientists at universities and medical schools around the country through research grants. The list of those scientists who have received NIH support over the years includes 106 Nobel Laureates, five of whom made their prize-winning discoveries in NIH laboratories. NIH reports a number of scientific advances supported by its research dollars, including:

* Improved understanding of heart disease. In 1948, NIH inaugurated the Framingham Heart Study, a project to identify the common factors or characteristics that contribute to cardiovascular disease (CVD). At the time, little was known about the general causes of heart disease and stroke, but the death rates for CVD had been increasing steadily since the beginning of the century and had become an American epidemic. Over the years, careful monitoring of the Framingham Study population has led to the identification of the major CVD risk factors - high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and physical inactivity. Since its inception, the study has produced approximately 1,200 articles, making the concept of CVD risk factors integral to the medical curriculum. This has led to the development of effective treatment and preventive strategies in clinical practice.

* Chemotherapy as a standard treatment for cancer. Work done during the 1950's and 1960's by NIH researchers led to the development of the first successful cures for a leukemia. This played a major role in establishing chemotherapy as a standard cancer treatment.

* Cigarette - lung cancer link. In the late 1990's, researchers supported by NIH found the first direct biological link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Scientists had long associated cigarette smoking with lung cancer, but this discovery uncovered the molecular basis for how smoking leads to lung cancer.

* Breast cancer treatment validation. In the mid-1990's, researchers supported by NIH showed that women at high risk of developing breast cancer who took tamoxifen had 49 percent fewer cases of breast cancer than those who did not. Tamoxifen has been hailed as the first drug to prevent breast cancer in women at high-risk for the disease.

* Anti-cancer drug. In 2001, NIH funded the lion's share of the basic research that eventually led to the discovery and development by the drug company Novartis of a new drug known as Gleevec. It is the first anti-cancer drug specifically developed to target a molecular problem that causes a particular type of cancer, in this case, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

* Searching for a diabetes treatment. In 2002, scientists at NIH and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center successfully used the hormone leptin to treat patients suffering from lipodystrophy, a rare and difficult to treat disorder that shares some of the characteristics of typical type 2 diabetes. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S. and is responsible for $92 billion in direct medical costs per year.

* Epilepsy treatment. In the early 1990's, NIH scientists helped to develop a major new drug for epilepsy, felbamate, that is safe at high doses and does not have side effects commonly associated with other antiepileptic drugs.

* Decrease in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Between 1992 and 1996, the rate of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) dropped by 38 percent. Much of that drop was likely due to a 66 percent decrease during the same period in the number of U.S. infants being placed to sleep on their stomachs. The Back to Sleep Campaign, a national campaign that encourages infants to be placed to sleep on their backs, was launched by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in partnership with several other organizations in 1994.

* Advances in rubella detection and prevention. In the 1960's, NIH researchers developed the first licensed rubella vaccine and the first test for rubella antibodies that was practical for large scale testing (rubella hemagglutination inhibition test). Deaths from rubella have decreased 99 percent since the vaccine became available.

* Juvenile typhoid vaccine. In 2001, NIH researchers and others supported by NIH developed and tested the first vaccine capable of protecting children ages 2 to 5 against typhoid fever. Seemingly the most effective typhoid vaccine ever developed, it is also virtually free of side effects. About 16 million people worldwide develop typhoid each year, and 600,000 die from the disease.

* Mother-infant HIV transmission treatment. In the late 1990's, researchers supported by NIH demonstrated an affordable and practical strategy for preventing transmission of the HIV virus from mother to infant. A single oral dose of the antiretroviral drug nevirapine given to an HIV-infected woman in labor and another to her baby within three days of birth reduced the transmission of virus by half compared with a similar short course of AZT.

* Smallpox vaccine dilution trial. In 2002, an NIH-supported clinical trial demonstrated that the existing U.S. supply of smallpox vaccine - 15.4 million doses - could successfully be diluted up to five times and retain its potency, greatly expanding the number of people it could protect from the contagious disease.

* Staph bacteria vaccine. In 2002, NIH scientists and the company Nabi developed the first successful vaccine against Staphylococcus aureus, a major cause of infection and death among hospital patients. Recently, researchers have discovered strains of the bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotics used to treat them, making a preventive vaccine critical.

* Urinary incontinence treatment. In 2002, researchers supported by NIH showed that rural older women with urinary incontinence (UI) could use behavioral changes, such as bladder training, and pelvic muscle exercises with biofeedback, to reduce their UI severity by 61 percent. UI is a leading reason for people in rural areas to move to a nursing home, and controlling it leads to a better quality of life and allows people to remain in their homes longer.

The National Institutes of Health is not the only source of federally-funded advances in medical technology. A number of other federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), have supported research that has improved public health in the United States and around the world.

* Advances in medical laser technology. Laser technology that originated in NASA's satellite-based atmospheric studies in the mid-1980s has been applied to a variety of medical fields. NASA-developed switching technology, for instance, was used to produce a uniform controllable laser beam maintained at a low working temperature. Lasers of this type are being used to correct myopia (nearsightedness) and to perform laser angioplasty, which vaporizes blockages in coronary arteries.

Laser angioplasty is helping to prevent cardiac arrest with a success rate of 85 percent at opening blocked arteries. At the same time, this procedure positively impacts patients' recovery time, costs and productivity. The same type of technology allows medical facilities, in a one-minute procedure, to correct myopia. According to NASA there are an estimated 60 million nearsighted Americans who will not need glasses if they undergo this procedure.

* Breast biopsy system. Technology developed at NASA's Goddard Space Center for the Hubble Space Telescope in 1997 has found a new application in breast biopsies. A high technology silicon chip converts light directly into electronic or digital images that can be manipulated and enhanced by computers. Known as stereotactic core needle biopsy, the procedure is performed under local anesthesia with a needle instead of a scalpel, leaving a small puncture wound rather than a large scar.

Recent statistics from the American Cancer Society show that approximately one in nine women in the United States will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives. This new technique, which is replacing surgical biopsy as the method of choice in many cases, is saving women pain, scarring, time, and money. Compared to traditional surgery, the new procedure is just as effective and can be performed in a physician's office for about one-quarter the cost. NASA estimated in 1997 that this procedure would reduce national health care costs by about $1 billion a year.

* Advanced pacemaker. In 1969, NASA and the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University began working with private industry to apply NASA-developed aerospace technology into pacemakers. Through this collaboration, technology originally designed for two-way communication with satellites has been used since 1997 as a means of communicating with and reprogramming pacemakers without the need for further surgery. Additionally, space microminiaturization technology and spacecraft electrical power system technology have been applied to produce the first single-chip pacemakers with rechargeable, long-life batteries.

Pacemakers help people with heart rhythm disorders live longer, more productive lives. According to NASA, by the late 1990's, the U.S. pacemaker market totaled over $1 billion annually and was on a trajectory to continue growing at a rate of 8 percent annually.

* New DNA biochip technology. While working on a project to develop advanced biosensors in 1994, scientists at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed a DNA diagnostic biochip. The hand-sized device, which uses less blood than current procedures, may eventually be used to diagnose diseases such as AIDS, cancer and tuberculosis in the doctor's office without the need for a separate testing facility.

According to NASA, many drugs work on less than 50 percent of all patients and there are approximately 100,000 deaths each year in the US resulting from the adverse effects of medication. Biochip technology will support more specific diagnostics, prediction of response to drugs, and safer, individualized medication.

* Infrared Thermometer. NASA's Technology Affiliates Program seeks to improve the competitiveness of American industries by facilitating the transfer of government-developed technology to the private sector. Through this program, technology initially used to view and measure the emitted infrared radiation from planets and stars was refined in the late-1980's and early-1990's to develop the infrared thermometer. This almost instantaneous method of taking body temperatures, introduced to the commercial market in 1990, is easier and much faster (1 second as compared to 30 seconds) than previous oral or rectal methods.

According to NASA, the economic potential for the thermometer worldwide for acute care hospitals is approximately $126 million a year. A roughly similar value is predicted for sales to alternate care facilities, such as clinics, physician's offices, and nursing homes as well as to individuals. Furthermore, infrared thermometers save considerable valuable time for hospital personnel and are less intrusive to the patient.

* Advances in dental technology. In the late 1920's, laboratories at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began what continues to be a collaboration with the American Dental Association to develop, refine, and generally improve medical practice through the invention of new dental materials, tools and methods. One of the more significant advances to come out of this collaboration was the introduction in the late 1950s of new polymeric and mineral-based materials for aesthetic tooth restoration and the development of metallic alloys for amalgams.

Over the past four decades, American dentists have made hundreds of millions of restorations with these dental polymers. It was estimated in 1987 that the increased durability of composite restorations, and thereby the reduction of replacement costs of previously used materials, saved Americans more than the combined appropriated budgets of NIST, the ADA, and the National Institute of Dental Research. The U.S. market for these products is now $163 million per year (American Dental Association, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Strategic Dental Marketing Corp.).


Basic, fundamental research - research which is not designed to create new products, but to learn new information - is rarely if ever performed by Pharma companies. Most of the revolutionary drugs we see today would have been 100% impossible to develop without the aid of gov't funded research. You would have to be pretty ignorant of how the scientific process works to claim otherwise.

In other news, the Pharma industry spends twice as much of advertising as they do on research. That's what is important to them: the almighty dollar. The bottom line. The investor's buck. Capitalists. If they were actually more interested in saving lives then making money, you would see these numbers reversed - heavily. The switch to consumer-advertising for drugs is a pox on our entire society.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 04:53 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Most of the funding for research at my university comes from commercial and industrial benafactors. Government grants are also significant.

My university does some biolmedical research, but I imagine this is mostly the same for the Univesity of Missouri - Columbia (Mizzou) which has a large medical program with lots of research.

I know when proposition A2 came up here in MO back in 2006 (a bill to allow for embryonic stem cell research) there were a great number of contributors to it's success. Most of the research is conducted on university campuses.

T
K
O


Didn't realize you were in the MO. Hiya neighbor.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 04:57 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Our country already spends the most for health care per capita. It seems logical that it needs to be improved in the area of efficiency and management, and the cost will take care of itself (maybe even a reduction).

On the other hand, the people of Denmark pays 63 percent in taxes; that's a government mandate no different than any other country.

If all of us paid 63 percent in taxes, we'll not only have universal health care, but people will be "happier." That's a small price to pay for "happiness" for all of our citizens.


Honestly, I'm not worried about making everyone else in the country "happy." Why is it my responsibility to ensure that all of the illegal immigrants and lazy folk of this country are "happy."
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:02 pm
Quote:


Basic, fundamental research - research which is not designed to create new products, but to learn new information - is rarely if ever performed by Pharma companies. Most of the revolutionary drugs we see today would have been 100% impossible to develop without the aid of gov't funded research. You would have to be pretty ignorant of how the scientific process works to claim otherwise.

In other news, the Pharma industry spends twice as much of advertising as they do on research. That's what is important to them: the almighty dollar. The bottom line. The investor's buck. Capitalists. If they were actually more interested in saving lives then making money, you would see these numbers reversed - heavily. The switch to consumer-advertising for drugs is a pox on our entire society.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

Cycloptichorn


everyone is so mad at drug companies for spending money on advertising... and they should be saving the world... blah blah blah. they have to make money so that they can research new drugs. i sometimes think it would be fitting for all the people who damn these companies repeatedly to be barred from using their products.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:05 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Most of the funding for research at my university comes from commercial and industrial benafactors. Government grants are also significant.

My university does some biolmedical research, but I imagine this is mostly the same for the Univesity of Missouri - Columbia (Mizzou) which has a large medical program with lots of research.

I know when proposition A2 came up here in MO back in 2006 (a bill to allow for embryonic stem cell research) there were a great number of contributors to it's success. Most of the research is conducted on university campuses.

T
K
O


Didn't realize you were in the MO. Hiya neighbor.


Hokie, you are an engineer by trade correct? You live in STL? KC? Where did you go to school?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:12 pm
Illegal immigrants is an entirely different issue.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:28 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Quote:


Basic, fundamental research - research which is not designed to create new products, but to learn new information - is rarely if ever performed by Pharma companies. Most of the revolutionary drugs we see today would have been 100% impossible to develop without the aid of gov't funded research. You would have to be pretty ignorant of how the scientific process works to claim otherwise.

In other news, the Pharma industry spends twice as much of advertising as they do on research. That's what is important to them: the almighty dollar. The bottom line. The investor's buck. Capitalists. If they were actually more interested in saving lives then making money, you would see these numbers reversed - heavily. The switch to consumer-advertising for drugs is a pox on our entire society.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

Cycloptichorn


everyone is so mad at drug companies for spending money on advertising... and they should be saving the world... blah blah blah. they have to make money so that they can research new drugs. i sometimes think it would be fitting for all the people who damn these companies repeatedly to be barred from using their products.


Actually, the entire enterprise could be run as non-profit. And why not?

But, that's not the point, really; the point is that you didn't respond to my contention that you don't understand the scientific and research process if you don't agree that a massive amount of the research which leads to these drugs comes from the Federal government, performed by Universities.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:43 pm
Actually one of the key factors motivating increased advertising for new pharmaceuticals is to create sufficient patient demand to induce insurance companies and the Federal Governmant to include the new drugs on their lists of approved remedies. The more we have inattentive bureaucracies acting as intermediaries between patient and doctor, the more we will depend on commercially-motivated advertising to get them to respond to beneficial (and other) innovations.

While the Federal government does indeed finance considerable basic research into the precursors of new drugs, it only rarely actually develope a specific remedy. In the rare case in which it does it is fully able to claim ownership or patent rights. The actual task of developing and producing new drugs and completing the very risky and very expensive process of certifying them and dealing with continuing issues of product liability is borne exclusively by the pharmaceutical companies. Suppressing their profit motive and replacing it with some bureaucratic "solution" is an excellent way to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:49 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Actually one of the key factors motivating increased advertising for new pharmaceuticals is to create sufficient patient demand to induce insurance companies and the Federal Governmant to include the new drugs on their lists of approved remedies. The more we have inattentive bureaucracies acting as intermediaries between patient and doctor, the more we will depend on commercially-motivated advertising to get them to respond to beneficial (and other) innovations.

While the Federal government does indeed finance considerable basic research into the precursors of new drugs, it only rarely actually develope a specific remedy. In the rare case in which it does it is fully able to claim ownership or patent rights. The actual task of developing and producing new drugs and completing the very risky and very expensive process of certifying them and dealing with continuing issues of product liability is borne exclusively by the pharmaceutical companies. Suppressing their profit motive and replacing it with some bureaucratic "solution" is an excellent way to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.


You will note that my initial contention was that the Pharma companies benefit greatly from research funded by the US gov't, in what many would call a socialistic fashion; USAF was arguing this was untrue.

I've noted that in pretty much every post that I've read of yours, you manage to put in a dig or two at the 'inefficient bureaucracies.' I wonder if you give these same groups any sort of credit whatsoever for anything good they have done? Efficiency is not the highest or only calling in life and very rarely does it intersect with good governance; the cold knife doesn't play well when you have to explain your actions to voters.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:56 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
[...]There are countries in this world that have universal healthcare, hospitals that get paid, and pharmaceutical companies that research and market new medications. One of them is Germany, the country I come from. Another is France.

What are the tax rates? [...]

In Germany, depending on your provider, it's between 13 and 15% of your gross wage -- about 10% of the national income. This is less than what Americans pay, on average, under their current system.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:57 pm
Well I've had a good deal of personal experience in my life with organizations of many types, military & government bureaucracies; academia; and business enterprises. My impressions, such as they are, are based on real experience, and I have seen nothing that would induce me to change them.

Regardless of its assigned role or mission the chief motivation of a bureaucracy is to preserve its role, budget, and authority, and to enforce its "rules" generally without regard to their effect on the results achieved (or more often than not) not achieved. Examples of this abound - you don't have to look hard to find them. (When was the last time you visited the DMV office?)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:59 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
(When was the last time you visited the DMV office?)

Don't scare me. I have a visit to the DMV office coming up.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 06:02 pm
Thomas wrote:

In Germany, depending on your provider, it's between 13 and 15% of your gross wage -- about 10% of the national income. This is less than what Americans pay, on average, under their current system.


My company provides excellent health care coverage with no deductables and minimal per visit charges. The cost to us (which is simply an administrative fee from our insurer, plus recent actual claims costs) is about 10% of total salary cost. It appears that we are getting a bargain.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 06:04 pm
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
(When was the last time you visited the DMV office?)

Don't scare me. I have a visit to the DMV office coming up.


Well some states are worse than others. However, let's just say that customer satisfaction is not generally an obsessive goal with them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 06:06 pm
georgeob, I've been out of the workforce since 1998, but what is your cost for employee benefits (if I be so bold to ask)?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 06:20 pm
In the information age there is really no such thing as insurance. The company's payments to our health insurer (Blue Cross) are based on the actual claims & costs of our employees, plus an administrative charge & fee. The total cost to us varies from year to year & quarter to quarter, however over any two year period or so the average is no more than 10% of total salary cost. In our case the company pays about 80% of the total cost and the employee the remainder -- it works out to an employee cost of about $60/month for family coverage - less for individual coverage.

We experiment for a while with a selection of HMOs, but found that their cost advantage generally disappeared as time passed and that the hassle factor for the employees was generally a bit high.

Admittedly our employees do not represent a random sample of the country. However, it is a large enough number, and the fact that the relative cost is so much less than the average tax in Germany is at least interesting.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 06:22 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Well I've had a good deal of personal experience in my life with organizations of many types, military & government bureaucracies; academia; and business enterprises. My impressions, such as they are, are based on real experience, and I have seen nothing that would induce me to change them.

Regardless of its assigned role or mission the chief motivation of a bureaucracy is to preserve its role, budget, and authority, and to enforce its "rules" generally without regard to their effect on the results achieved (or more often than not) not achieved. Examples of this abound - you don't have to look hard to find them. (When was the last time you visited the DMV office?)


Funny you should ask, it was last month - and I made an appointment and was in and out in less then 10 minutes.

My point is that bureaucracies, while inefficient, do serve a purpose. I understand that it is incredibly frustrating to deal with them as they are often difficult to navigate and the overall goals are many times impeded by the personalities of those running the place, who usually are not the most intelligent people. Yet, they plod on and the services keep getting performed, year after year, after countless turnovers of administrations and ideological shifts.

While it may be satisfying to rail against them, I wonder, what is the point? Replacing bureaucracies with more efficient systems leads to situations which we don't normally describe as 'Democracies.' I have no doubt that if we put you in charge of the DoE, and let you ignore the various forces and tensions which constrain them currently, you could have our energy policy fixed up lickety split; but that wouldn't be the American way, and the consequences of this would not be easily predicted.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 06:23 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Thomas wrote:

In Germany, depending on your provider, it's between 13 and 15% of your gross wage -- about 10% of the national income. This is less than what Americans pay, on average, under their current system.


My company provides excellent health care coverage with no deductables and minimal per visit charges. The cost to us (which is simply an administrative fee from our insurer, plus recent actual claims costs) is about 10% of total salary cost. It appears that we are getting a bargain.

The two points are not mutually exclusive, depending on who you mean by "we".

The reason is that the distribution of medical expenses among citizens is highly unequal. I don't remember the exact figure, but much of a developed nation's total healthcare spending goes to the top 1% of the distribution -- chronical, sometimes inherited illnesses, rare diseases requiring expensive treatment, rare injuries requiring expensive operations and rehabilitation, and the like. In a free market for health insurance, providers are free to deny policies to those one-percenters. Consequently, it may well happen that medical expenses per citizen are higher than under universal health care, and that medical expenses per policy holder are lower at the same time.

When we are talking about the general welfare, costs per citizens is the relevant figure. Costs per policy holders doesn't mean much in this context. All it means is that very sick people can't buy health insurance in a free market for healthcare.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 03:14:19