Why can't healthcare be free?

[Samuraikoku]

France! I know countries too. Evidence that the UK doesn't use the very latest methods or treatments? Hell, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is based in the UK. Obviously NHS hasn't hurt them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

The Daily Mail has been notorious for being a questionable source.

[Enadail]

France! I know countries too. Evidence that the UK doesn't use the very latest methods or treatments? Hell, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is based in the UK. Obviously NHS hasn't hurt them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

First, that neither means the UK doesn't use the latest methods nor the latest treatments. It means one person (and I'm sure others) was denied healthcare, and I'm sure it was because of more then just his age. Second, the Daily Mail? I give it as much credit as I give the National Enquirer, which is not much and only with a grain of salt.

That being said, even if it is pervasive in the UK system, that's not a negative of a single payer system, its a negative of THEIR NHS. The US is great right? The best in the world? Yet people constantly pick out issues with other countries' programs and go "See? The program sucks!", when instead I wonder why we just don't implement it with a solution.

[Blessed Proloterian Isle]

Because.... Oh wait I have an NHS and free healthcare services that are renowned around the world.

Not since the Conservatives (Americans, read right-wingers) got a hold of it, though.

It's still pretty good where I am the UK.

[Jewcrew]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

First, that neither means the UK doesn't use the latest methods nor the latest treatments. It means one person (and I'm sure others) was denied healthcare, and I'm sure it was because of more then just his age. Second, the Daily Mail? I give it as much credit as I give the National Enquirer, which is not much and only with a grain of salt.

That being said, even if it is pervasive in the UK system, that's not a negative of a single payer system, its a negative of THEIR NHS. The US is great right? The best in the world? Yet people constantly pick out issues with other countries' programs and go "See? The program sucks!", when instead I wonder why we just don't implement it with a solution.

Think about the cost of treating all those elderly people, who don't provide anything back to society.

That's the problem with a system paid for by the government. That system has to weigh the cost of treating a person against the benefits of saving them. In the case of the elderly, there are little to no economic benefits. Thus, public systems have incentive to discriminate against the elderly, whereas private systems do not.

[Enadail]

First, that neither means the UK doesn't use the latest methods nor the latest treatments. It means one person (and I'm sure others) was denied healthcare, and I'm sure it was because of more then just his age. Second, the Daily Mail? I give it as much credit as I give the National Enquirer, which is not much and only with a grain of salt.

That being said, even if it is pervasive in the UK system, that's not a negative of a single payer system, its a negative of THEIR NHS. The US is great right? The best in the world? Yet people constantly pick out issues with other countries' programs and go "See? The program sucks!", when instead I wonder why we just don't implement it with a solution.

Think about the cost of treating all those elderly people, who don't provide anything back to society.

That's the problem with a system paid for by the government. That system has to weigh the cost of treating a person against the benefits of saving them. In the case of the elderly, there are little to no economic benefits. Thus, public systems have incentive to discriminate against the elderly, whereas private systems do not.

Which is true, and why I think there should be a secondary program/program built in like the US medicare system... its something you pay into through your life and acts like end of life insurance. However, at least in the US, specially now, a lot of elderly continue to work and should be given the same treatment anyone else is. But in private health insurance, the cost of covering elderly is also very high, and they have increased health insurance costs. Its really the same thing.

[Norsklow]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

First, that neither means the UK doesn't use the latest methods nor the latest treatments. It means one person (and I'm sure others) was denied healthcare, and I'm sure it was because of more then just his age. Second, the Daily Mail? I give it as much credit as I give the National Enquirer, which is not much and only with a grain of salt.

That being said, even if it is pervasive in the UK system, that's not a negative of a single payer system, its a negative of THEIR NHS. The US is great right? The best in the world? Yet people constantly pick out issues with other countries' programs and go "See? The program sucks!", when instead I wonder why we just don't implement it with a solution.

Having weighed the options, I'm certainly inclined to advise Americans to get a bit more NHS-like. ( as in 99%)
But of course, I'm just Johnny Foreigner - and certainly not blind to the fact that you'd also get a bit of the problems. ( as in 99% ).

[Priory Academy USSR]

I think I'll bring this to the attention of those who think the private sector creates innovation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/profit-pr-enemies-innovation

Crap like that is hilarious.

Tell me, when bronze was invented, how long until iron?

Bronze worked fine until we discovered iron, however there was no prior knowledge of it's existence so there was nothing to aim for. However, today there are lots of things big pharmaceuticals could turn their research to-cures for cancer, malaria vaccinations or safer chemotherapy to name a few.

Steel?

Stainless steel?

Each new incarnation of technology, when you look back, brought about rapid (for the time period) advancement to do with such technology.

We went through the rapid advancement in the last century. Things will stagnate for a while.

They shouldn't if people put effort into developing new technology. However, at the moment, they're simply not bothering.

Now that some corporations have enough money, they're getting into space exploration and rapidly outpacing government efforts in that theatre.



Different sectors of technology will advance at different rates at different times. It has little to do with whether this is publicly or privately funded.

Space exploration (and it's derivative tech) only turned up becasue of a political (public) confrontation.
We haven't hit a roadblock in our technological efforts; it's just that companies don't have any particular interest.

[Inis Arglidd]

It is, wait you're American.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k6ghG_h5p8&feature=related

[Blessed Proloterian Isle]

It is, wait you're American.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k6ghG_h5p8&feature=related

This ^^^^

[Samozaryadnyastan]

France! I know countries too. Evidence that the UK doesn't use the very latest methods or treatments? Hell, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is based in the UK. Obviously NHS hasn't hurt them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

They denied a medicine to an elderly man on cost grounds, THEY LIVE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Also, >dailymail lol

[Jewcrew]

Crap like that is hilarious.

Tell me, when bronze was invented, how long until iron?

Bronze worked fine until we discovered iron, however there was no prior knowledge of it's existence so there was nothing to aim for. However, today there are lots of things big pharmaceuticals could turn their research to-cures for cancer, malaria vaccinations or safer chemotherapy to name a few.

Steel?

Stainless steel?

Each new incarnation of technology, when you look back, brought about rapid (for the time period) advancement to do with such technology.

We went through the rapid advancement in the last century. Things will stagnate for a while.

They shouldn't if people put effort into developing new technology. However, at the moment, they're simply not bothering.

Now that some corporations have enough money, they're getting into space exploration and rapidly outpacing government efforts in that theatre.



Different sectors of technology will advance at different rates at different times. It has little to do with whether this is publicly or privately funded.

Space exploration (and it's derivative tech) only turned up becasue of a political (public) confrontation.
We haven't hit a roadblock in our technological efforts; it's just that companies don't have any particular interest.

You've said nothing here that proves me wrong. We have a bunch of great theories right now, and there are a bunch of good people working on these theories. There's a cure for cancer moving into human trials in Israel right now. Both public and private funding creates innovation, but it depends on the motivations of the people doing the innovating. Private companies are where it is at for space technology right now. Startups provide most of the innovation with computer technology. Universities are doing most biotech.

Most of the technology today only appeared from private innovation, so the idea that this:

Space exploration (and it's derivative tech) only turned up becasue of a political (public) confrontation.

is an argument is ludicrous.

[Priory Academy USSR]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

They denied a medicine to an elderly man on cost grounds, THEY LIVE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Also, >dailymail lol

I thought it was on the basis that chemotherapy wouldn't be suitable for him. As far as I'm aware, chemotherapy takes a tough toll on your body, and that man may not have been able to survive it, at least in that doctor's opinion.

[Norsklow]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

They denied a medicine to an elderly man on cost grounds, THEY LIVE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Also, >dailymail lol

It doesn't pay to laugh at the Daily Mail. It may be a paper by office boys for office boys - but it is quite a bother for a politician to have the baleful eyes of the Daily Mail staring at you. Every bit as nice as discovering a cobra between yourself and the exit.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

They denied a medicine to an elderly man on cost grounds, THEY LIVE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Also, >dailymail lol

I thought it was on the basis that chemotherapy wouldn't be suitable for him. As far as I'm aware, chemotherapy takes a tough toll on your body, and that man may not have been able to survive it, at least in that doctor's opinion.

I didn't bother to read the article, because I saw it was Daily Mail website.
All it's good for is lolling at the racist and homphobic comments on its articles. Reading the comments for the Olympics article, during the Opening Ceremony, for example, was hilarious.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Space exploration (and it's derivative tech) only turned up becasue of a political (public) confrontation.
We haven't hit a roadblock in our technological efforts; it's just that companies don't have any particular interest.

You've said nothing here that proves me wrong. We have a bunch of great theories right now, 2.and there are a bunch of good people working on these theories. There's a cure for cancer moving into human trials in Israel right now. Both public and private funding creates innovation, but it depends on the motivations of the people doing the innovating. Private companies are where it is at for space technology right now. Startups provide most of the innovation with computer technology. Universities are doing most biotech.

Most of the technology today only appeared from private innovation, so the idea that this:

Space exploration (and it's derivative tech) only turned up becasue of a political (public) confrontation.

1.is an argument is ludicrous.[/quote]

1.Other than the fact it is true, at least in the early days. Government run space agencies are only winding down now becasue their funding is going to prop up banks. And most of the early private interest in space was government contracts, who told the companies exactly what they wanted doing.
2. Mostly public run, or government grants.

My point is, is that generally the private sector aren't too interested in new tech unless it's an instant profit maker.

[Norsklow]

Oh no. Not in the UK. Unfortunately, the only thing that bickering politicians and Nurses Unions can agree upon is that is best ( for them ) to find sneaky little ways for the NHS to refuse serving certain patients in order to get the budgets right without strikes.

You actually don't know what you're talking about do you?

Either way, with regards to the discussion, I don't think it's the governments remit to provide great healthcare per se. So long as what they provide is adequate then it covers the basic necessity and anything more is a luxury.

There are 3 Stakeholders in the system:
-HMS Government
-Personnel
-Patients.
Guess who is not represented in the debates that follow whenever there is not quite as much money available as might have been deemed desirable in a perfect world?

Well, once you are over a certain age and are told that you no longer need a certain medicine ,
and when you ask if this non-need might have something to do with rationing AND you then get a reply ( accompanied with a stern frown ) that you are not supposed to ask such questions... well, then you know quite enough.

See you after middle age,chum.

[Shadowlandistan]

It can be close to free if the rest of the countries spending is prioritized.

[Sibirsky]

It can be close to free if the rest of the countries spending is prioritized.

How?

[Enadail]

Most of the technology today only appeared from private innovation, so the idea that this:

Space exploration (and it's derivative tech) only turned up becasue of a political (public) confrontation.

is an argument is ludicrous.

Bull. It cannot be argued that the big push to space was between the US and the USSR during the cold war. While prior to that attempts to space had been made, only the big supernations back then had the ability to launch a rocket up there. Both the US and the USSR made the push to prove supremacy over the other, and it was driven mostly by public desire and funding (of course, private companies were contracted for things, but in the US, it was a NASA operation). And we have a TON of technology today that came up almost over night because of the space race and would have been much slower/longer off if it weren't for it.

The idea that private innovation is the only innovation is the biggest set of blinders I've seen in a bit. Hell, look at the internet. Open source technology is the very idea of communal creation without the need for private industry. People write code because they can to show they can, and let anyone else use it.

Even today, a TON of research is done in Universities, through private funding and public grants. New innovation (not improving on something that already exists) is a costly, time intensive process that has no guaranteed payouts, and is something that most companies don't want to do. It happens from people who have an idea and put their everything behind it or from groupthink more often then from companies.

Most technology we have today came from private innovation? Bullshit. The computer was created to break Nazi codes, MRIs, CAT scans, cordless tools, and dozens more technologies came from the space race, the cancer research one of my professors was doing while I was in college was completely public grant funded, and so much more.

[Norsklow]

I agree with Enadail. Someone with must pay for Grunk to stay in the cave and ponder a better spear ( maybe a pointy head will help?) while the rest of the tribe,led by Big Chief Krrrruthhh chases the Mastodon. And likely as not it will be the Big Chief who makes the decision to do so.

[Sevco 5508]

Running healthcare for profit rather than people's health sounds like no-brainer to me.

You mean running it to save people is a no-brainer.

Wrong way around, my brain isn't working right today.

Not that it ever has.

[Jewcrew]

Space exploration (and it's derivative tech) only turned up becasue of a political (public) confrontation.
We haven't hit a roadblock in our technological efforts; it's just that companies don't have any particular interest.

You've said nothing here that proves me wrong. We have a bunch of great theories right now, 2.and there are a bunch of good people working on these theories. There's a cure for cancer moving into human trials in Israel right now. Both public and private funding creates innovation, but it depends on the motivations of the people doing the innovating. Private companies are where it is at for space technology right now. Startups provide most of the innovation with computer technology. Universities are doing most biotech.

Most of the technology today only appeared from private innovation, so the idea that this:

Space exploration (and it's derivative tech) only turned up becasue of a political (public) confrontation.

1.is an argument is ludicrous.

1.Other than the fact it is true, at least in the early days. Government run space agencies are only winding down now becasue their funding is going to prop up banks. And most of the early private interest in space was government contracts, who told the companies exactly what they wanted doing.
2. Mostly public run, or government grants.

My point is, is that generally the private sector aren't too interested in new tech unless it's an instant profit maker.[/quote]

1. If this is your argument, then all biotechnology advancements can be attributed to the private sector, since that is where it primarily came from originally.

2. And corporate grants and philanthropy and student fees and loans.

Your point is pointless. There was no instant profit to be made when the private sector took up space technology. In fact, it cost a massive amount with no promise of payback. Which is largely the problem with most innovation today as opposed to previous innovation - it costs massive amounts of money. The days of Joe Shmoe figuring out something in his garage are largely over for technology.

A private corporation, unless it has a massive bank account, cannot risk much in the way of radical research without also risking bankrupting the company and putting tens of thousands of people out of work. Tell me, where will the money for inventing new biotechnology at universities come from if all the pharma companies bankrupt themselves?

You need a mix of big and small, government and private, university and business to move forward. The rate we're going now is realistically as fast as we can go for technological advancement. It is naive to believe that changes would do anything to speed up technological advance, especially since America still leads the world for technological advancement.

[Jewcrew]

Most of the technology today only appeared from private innovation, so the idea that this:



is an argument is ludicrous.

Bull. It cannot be argued that the big push to space was between the US and the USSR during the cold war. While prior to that attempts to space had been made, only the big supernations back then had the ability to launch a rocket up there. Both the US and the USSR made the push to prove supremacy over the other, and it was driven mostly by public desire and funding (of course, private companies were contracted for things, but in the US, it was a NASA operation). And we have a TON of technology today that came up almost over night because of the space race and would have been much slower/longer off if it weren't for it.

The idea that private innovation is the only innovation is the biggest set of blinders I've seen in a bit. Hell, look at the internet. Open source technology is the very idea of communal creation without the need for private industry. People write code because they can to show they can, and let anyone else use it.

Even today, a TON of research is done in Universities, through private funding and public grants. New innovation (not improving on something that already exists) is a costly, time intensive process that has no guaranteed payouts, and is something that most companies don't want to do. It happens from people who have an idea and put their everything behind it or from groupthink more often then from companies.

Most technology we have today came from private innovation? Bullshit. The computer was created to break Nazi codes, MRIs, CAT scans, cordless tools, and dozens more technologies came from the space race, the cancer research one of my professors was doing while I was in college was completely public grant funded, and so much more.

Read my last post. I'm not arguing that private innovation is the only innovation, and you're reaction here is rather, well, reactionary.

[Capitolinium]

One of maximum transparency in cost and administration and efficiency in bureaucracy. Personally I don't care if it's all public, or shared between public and private, or mostly private.

Why, for example, can health care companies not compete and sell policies across state lines? It's absurd that it wasn't part of this latest health care (ahem) "reform"; it's absolute moral insanity to stop them from doing so, considering what competition has done improve other services.

except vital services don't behave like non-vital services in competition.
http://www.bit.ly/R8hTds

Says you. And your non-sequiturious graph. What point are you trying to make- that competition among health insurance companies won't make better companies than the state-by-state limits on insurance providers currently allow?

[Enadail]

Bull. It cannot be argued that the big push to space was between the US and the USSR during the cold war. While prior to that attempts to space had been made, only the big supernations back then had the ability to launch a rocket up there. Both the US and the USSR made the push to prove supremacy over the other, and it was driven mostly by public desire and funding (of course, private companies were contracted for things, but in the US, it was a NASA operation). And we have a TON of technology today that came up almost over night because of the space race and would have been much slower/longer off if it weren't for it.

The idea that private innovation is the only innovation is the biggest set of blinders I've seen in a bit. Hell, look at the internet. Open source technology is the very idea of communal creation without the need for private industry. People write code because they can to show they can, and let anyone else use it.

Even today, a TON of research is done in Universities, through private funding and public grants. New innovation (not improving on something that already exists) is a costly, time intensive process that has no guaranteed payouts, and is something that most companies don't want to do. It happens from people who have an idea and put their everything behind it or from groupthink more often then from companies.

Most technology we have today came from private innovation? Bullshit. The computer was created to break Nazi codes, MRIs, CAT scans, cordless tools, and dozens more technologies came from the space race, the cancer research one of my professors was doing while I was in college was completely public grant funded, and so much more.

Read my last post. I'm not arguing that private innovation is the only innovation, and you're reaction here is rather, well, reactionary.

Then make your argument better. I quoted what you wrote, and your quote was explicitly that most technology came from private innovation. There's really only one way to interpret that.

So lets look at your last post:

You say there is no instant profit to be made off space technology, and that's true. There are very few players in the private space race, one is an eccentric billionaire who seems to have more money then sense sometimes, another is a private conglomerate who has been working at it for years, barely scraping in funds. Relatively speaking, most of the innovation of how to get to space is already done... the details are left to be worked out. There is no giant innovative leap there at the minute... its fixing up what already exists. And as for anyone figuring out stuff in their garage being over... seriously? Those new micro-gyrocopters, doing amazingly well in industry, were invented in a garage. Facebook was made in garage. Technology is still being built anywhere it can.

If all pharma companies went bankrupt, then we'd have a lot more to worry about then if research will be done, such as... what do we do with all the dying people? Seriously, would you like to pick an example that is actually plausible?

You're right that we do need a mix, but its naive to think that change would stifle technological advances, specially in biotechnology. And if the US is still leading in technology advancement, that's shrinking fast... a lot of medical research is being done and completed overseas, which is where all our PhDs and researchers are coming from now.