http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/1...lth_insur030812

quote:

WASHINGTON - A group of 8,000 American doctors has called for a national health insurance system, saying heath care in the U.S. is collapsing. 'How many patients have to die from lack of health insurance?' In a paper published on Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the physicians say the solution is to create a health insurance program administered by the government. The doctors are going up against two of the most powerful lobbies in the U.S.: the insurance and the pharmaceutical industries. One in seven Americans – 41 million people – have no health insurance, which Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School says is a disaster. "How bad does it have to get?," Woolhandler asked. "How many patients have to die from lack of health insurance? How many seniors have to choose between medicine and food before our legislators enact national health insurance?" Woolhandler is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, which calls for the U.S. to abandon a "mangled" and "collapsing" health care system based on private insurance. The group says only a government-run insurance plan can guarantee complete medical care and prescription drugs for every American. The group's plan calls for new taxes, but would end insurance premiums that cost many families more than $10,000 a year. Dr. Marcia Angell says the U.S. would avoid Canada's problems, such as long waits for medical services, by keeping its funding at its current level, nearly twice as much as Canada per person. "If (Canadians) were to put the same amount of money as we do into their systems, there would be no waits," said Angell. "For them, the problem is not the system; it's the money. For us, it's not the money; it's the system," she said. The insurance and the prescription drug industries helped defeat a less ambitious proposal in the early days of the administration of former U.S. president Bill Clinton. The authors of the paper, who represent a minority of American doctors, say they know they're going up against powerful lobbies, but they say there's no alternative.

i say, it's about time. Maybe i can move to the states and make twice what i do here.

Oh wait, they still have the patriot act. The DCMA, the R.A.V.E act, capital punishment, George Bush, and everything else. Guess not.

Besides, as the article says, the doctors are going up against the pharmaceutical and insurance agency. This isn't even david and goliath, this is a bunch of gnats against the toronto argonauts.

it will never happen, there is too much money to be made of dying people for them to give it up. then again, the US fed govt. are just as greedy, maybe they would do this for their own gain?

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

I see this as result from pressure from the pharmaceutical industry:
Here are some key points.
I) In general seniors have a limited income.
II) Generally seniors use medical services more than other age groups.
III) Generally seniors take more prescription drugs than people from other age groups.
IV) On average prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada than they are in the United States.
V) Canadian companies are selling Canadian prescription drugs to Americans through Internet pharmacies.

This all fits together in this way:

If the government starts supporting public health plans then the seniors in the United States will receive more and better health care using more prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical industry makes more money through added sales. Also the people who used to get their prescriptions from Canada would get them in the United States now. In Canada there is stricter laws on Prescription drug pricing than there is in the United States so the prices are higher in the United States. Making more profit for the drug companies.

The pharmaceutical industry is already trying to shutdown the Internet pharmacies because they are cutting into their profits. Pfizer has decided that they will not sell to Canadian companies that resell their drugs into the United States.

the issues of mankind... pray i dont grow old and die

___________________
Art is useless.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/1...lth_insur030812 i say, it's about time. Maybe i can move to the states and make twice what i do here. Oh wait, they still have the patriot act. The DCMA, the R.A.V.E act, capital punishment, George Bush, and everything else. Guess not.

erm yeah....examples such as the above would definitely not deter me from going over the border to make 2x my current salary. the economic benefits definitely would outweigh any of the above, as the above dont really impact my life in an significant, or even minor way.

>JM<

Although the salaries are a lot higher in the U.S. isn't it true that the cost of living is higher too?

I mean, sure, if you go over to the states, work full time (abysmall vacation time included) and then go back home after a year or two, you would most probably have made a lot of money. However, I get the feeling when I visit the U.S. that you have to pay for a lot of stuff that's usually paid through taxes here in europe.

From what I understand,a yearly income of around 20.000-30.000 US$ is considered to be in the lower income brackets (please correct me if I'm wrong). In Sweden that would make a middle class income. And the standard of living isn't all that bad here either

___________________
www.assortedtrance.com
www.facebook.com/assortedtrance
http://www.soundcloud.com/johannilsson
http://www.di.fm

If we went to a nationalized system, where it became regulated and distributed through taxes, our taxes would just go up even more, then the professonals in the field would make less...(i.e. you wouldn't make twice as much by moving down anymore)

Both systems have their benefits. National systems treat everyone equally and you can walk in and get treated, while the private system rewards us with good jobs/employers to pay less out of pocket. (I.E. I have a good job, pay $0 out of pocket (my employer pays a ton I know) and my costs from small cuts to major surgery are virtually 0)
And I don't have a tax hike to cover it (more take home pay). I know that if we nationalized, my employer, or any other employer, would not cut a check (give me a raise) for the difference in them not paying for health insurance. And I only know of a few select employers that will give you a percentage (not the full amount) to get your own insurance rather than accept theirs.

I know I think of myself and not the poor on this...but I'm happy with it, since it doesn't rape my paycheck. Although it does need an overhaul...I'm on a teeter-totter as far as my views.

*As far as US salaries..it just depends where you live in the country. A person living in San Fran making $50,000 a year is poor, while $50,000 in North Dakota can own 100 acres and live in a mansion...not quite, but it just depends on where you are at.

___________________

"I'd like to buy a techno song."

It is hard to say which side I fall on the socialized medicine issue....while I am all for everyone getting access to healthcare (esp. since I cannot afford insurance) I am not sure the US would be able to pull a socialized system off.

Here is my main reason:
The US congress does what the people who got them elected want them to do. And, sadly, the people who "get" one elected in this day and age are the people with the money. And two of the most lucrative businesses in the US are Insurance and Pharmacuticals. They don;t want to see socialized medicine because it cuts into their profits.


I have heard that in Australia the universal health coverage is done on a "sliding scale" based on household income. I think this might be the most fair system overall, but no system is perfect....I am just going to look for a full time job with health benefits

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel I have heard that in Australia the universal health coverage is done on a "sliding scale" based on household income. I think this might be the most fair system overall, but no system is perfect....I am just going to look for a full time job with health benefits MrS

everyone receives treatment but the people who earn less get their medicine cheaper. Its a good system.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish From what I understand,a yearly income of around 20.000-30.000 US$ is considered to be in the lower income brackets (please correct me if I'm wrong). In Sweden that would make a middle class income. And the standard of living isn't all that bad here either

yeh that is lower income...its not poverty, as one could still be able to survive (unless living in cali and other really expensive areas), but is far from middle class too. then again, what constitutes middle bracket income when you got some of these microsoft goons here in seattle making a whole lot of $$$.

>JM<

I heard on NPR (radio) at work today that a study was done comparing the government spending on healthcare in the US and Canada. It covered the costs of the bureaucratic administration of programs as well as the costs of care.

Oddly enough, according to the study, the US government pays something like $1200 US per patient while the Canadian government pays something like $375 US per patient.

I will have to find a copy of the journal it is going to be published in and read the study to be sure, but it sounded like one of the arguments against socialized medicine in this country (that it would cost considerably more money) might not be such a strong argument anymore.

Food for thought.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

When Clinton was in office he was crowing about the same thing but it wont happen the country has done some major over spending and cannot in any way afford to make this happen.
Most of the medical treatments are such a massive joke. The medial monopoly makes its money on the come back which is why the medical system is the way it is. IT will stay that way because it is good for business.
AND WE ALL KNOW WHATS GOOD FOR BUSINESS IS GOOD FOR AMERICA.......

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel I heard on NPR (radio) at work today that a study was done comparing the government spending on healthcare in the US and Canada. It covered the costs of the bureaucratic administration of programs as well as the costs of care. Oddly enough, according to the study, the US government pays something like $1200 US per patient while the Canadian government pays something like $375 US per patient. I will have to find a copy of the journal it is going to be published in and read the study to be sure, but it sounded like one of the arguments against socialized medicine in this country (that it would cost considerably more money) might not be such a strong argument anymore. Food for thought. MrS

If the US converted over to a socialist health care system, the cost per capita of heatlh care would in no way magically disappear. Yes the amount spent on prescription drugs have been increasing, however, in general, the trend in perscription drug costs have been decreasing. In 1999, prescription drug costs accounted for one third of the spending growth. In 2001 it accounted for one fourth of the spending growth. The main problem are hospital expenses. One third of personal health care spending goes into hospital care costs, and that represents more than half of the total increase in spending in 2001. Additionally, another main factor in the high costs are as a result of the number of specialists in the country. I think part of the problem are the ridiculous prices that result from our overly litigious society. It has essentially demanded overly exessive wages to not only doctors but to hospital administrations in order to cover the insane premiums they must pay on insurance. In Pennsylvania, doctors have been going on strike because of the increased premiums they are now having to pay. I think that tort reform would have a significant impact in reducing costs.

At any rate, here's a good article on why US health care costs are so high in comparison to other countries:

http://www.cmwf.org/programs/qualit...stimony_654.pdf

Essentially the article concludes that inefficiency in the health industry accounts for many of the problems, and better accountability and quality standards are needed to reduce high costs.

___________________
Retro ...