Thanks to Scott Atlas we learn that American Health Care (rated number 1 in the world in patient care by the liberal WHO) is much better than Canada's Public Health Care system.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
- Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
- Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
- More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
- Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Why if we are number one in the world in patient care would we want to change the system so drastically that it could only hurt people? Where is the crisis?
Those of you who complain heathcare costs are too high, do you realize the costs of malpractice insurance? Get rid of punitive damages and costs will come down. And lets not forget all the new medical technology that is available that wasn't 20 years ago.
Using new technology costs money but is your life worth it? That's a personal decision and should not be left to the government to make.
The WHO ranks the U.S.24th in
The WHO ranks the U.S.24th in healthy life expectancy, behind Canada, Great Britain, France, Monaco, Andorra and San Marino just to name a few.
The WHO ranks the U.S 37th in Overall Health System Performance. Well behind countries like Dominica, Qatar, Singapore and Saudi Arabia and just two places ahead of Cuba.
The WHO ranks the U.S as having the number two MOST expensive healthcare system in the world as a percent of GDP.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html
Here's more info on the WHO
Here's more info on the WHO rankings
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp101/bp101index.html
Sorry Peter, you don't get to
Sorry Peter, you don't get to use WHO stats in one post then try to debunk them in your next.
The WHO is a non-partisan organization who's only job is to comment on and try to improve public health throughout the world. The Cato Institute is a Neo-Conservative think tank who's only job is to promote right wing ideals. Who should we trust to be objective here?
There are a lot of great things to say about the American health care system, but there are a lot of improvements to be made as well.
Chris, Cato is not
Chris, Cato is not neo-conservative. It is libertarian and non-partisan.
I used it to debunk your
I used it to debunk your "Overall Health System Performance" number of 37 that is wildly flawed in design. The report says nothing about the numbers I mentioned.
An organization cannot be
An organization cannot be both Libertarian and non-partisan.
OK Peter, for the sake of debate let's throw out the performance stat. What did you have to say about healthy life expectancy and cost as a percentage of GDP?
We can also toss infant
We can also toss infant mortality rates into the mix if you like.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2…
Would you care to debunk numbers from Central Intelligence?
Did you read my post? Costs
Did you read my post? Costs can be handled without loss of care. Tort reform first and in <a href="http://www.thebatavian.com/blogs/nebula/obamacare/7939#comments">this article</a> in the comments I mention a plan for saving at emergency rooms that would also lower health care costs (though it does use tax money but not at the rate we are about to spend)
But the best care costs the most money. That's the way it should work.
You are going to use the
You are going to use the Infant Mortality Rate as a sign of the health of a nation when Taiwan and Singapore rank higher than the US? Tell me, are they healthier than the US?
Oh and lets not forget that these are estimates and the page you linked does not give error percentages.
As far as I'm aware, we don't
As far as I'm aware, we don't have a "Libertarian" party that is even close to gaining even a little control in the federal government. I think there is 1 member in congress, maybe?
So, since Libertarians generally don't have a party, they can be considered non-partisan. It's like saying being registered as an Independent you can't be non-partisan. Or a member of the Green party. Partisan generally means you don't belong to, or favor, one of the two major parties.
Don’t you think the
Don’t you think the remoteness of many Canadians has a lot more to do with their access to health care?
90% live within 100 miles of
90% live within 100 miles of the US border
<hr>
Despite the vastness of the nation, 90 percent of the Canadian population is located within 160 kilometers (100 miles) of the U.S. border. With the exception of some notable groups, most of the nation's people live in urban areas. By 2000, 75 percent of Canadians lived in cities or towns.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/Canada.html
In this thread we have looked
In this thread we have looked at statistics that state, very obviously, that we do not have the best care.
The 40 million plus uninsured in this country are part of what drives our healthcare costs up. They have to use emergency and urgent care services to be seen for minor ailments; did you think that no one pays for that? It is reflected in your premiums.
There is certainly room for reasonable tort reform in any healthcare bill. Certain reforms would allow doctors to stop ordering unnecessay tests and procedures as a CYA measure. This would, in theory, drive down the average premium cost. But so would a cheaper public option. Why not have both?
Because the cheaper public
Because the cheaper public option will drive out the insurance companies and then we will be left with a government monopoly and health care rationing.
That 40 million plus number is a myth as well. http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx
Did you read the plan in the comments of the other thread to help the premiums rate affect by ER visits by those who can't pay?
If the insurance companies
If the insurance companies can't survive government competition then there is obviously a problem with their service. I think we've arrived at the root of the issue.
One of the proposals doesn't
One of the proposals doesn't let the companies get another customer. They also need to make a profit to be viable where as the government does not. They can run at a deficit indefinitely as far as the Dems are concerned which makes the playing field slanted.
If the goal is to increase
If the goal is to increase competition then just allow insurance to be purchased across state lines.
True, they would have to deny
True, they would have to deny claims, refuse care for patients with pre-existing conditions and otherwise walk the thin line between unethical and unconscionable.
But wait, they do that now.
Chris, I said libertarian.
Chris, I said libertarian. You wrote "Libertarian." There is a world of difference between proper case and not.
There are libertarians who belong to no party, such as myself, and libertarians who are Democrats, and Republicans and, of course, the Libertarian Party.
As far as I know, Cato is not associated directly with the Libertarian Party, though I'm sure many of its supporters are members of that party.
But we then both now agree that Cato is not neo-conservative?
I don't have a problem with
I don't have a problem with allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. You see Peter, I am very willing to make life a little easier on the consumer who chooses and can afford to purchase insurance through private carriers.
What I'm talking about here is a hybrid system with serious concessions made to private enterprise to allow them to compete. The goal is to create a system that opens our healthcare system to the folks who currently can't get through the door while ensuring the ability of private providers to continue offering their services to the folks who want it.
It can be done if our legislators are willing to shut their mouths, open their ears and work together for once.
Chris it comes down to
Chris it comes down to this,
Do you trust the government to spend your money wisely?
If not, how can you trust them with you life?
Howard, their stated ideals
Howard, their stated ideals are very right wing. I will, however, remove the 'neo' from conservative.
Peter, Do you trust your
Peter,
Do you trust your insurance company to have your health in mind when making decisions on what to cover or do you think they're considering their bottom line instead.
Neither system is perfect.
There are over 1,300 health
There are over 1,300 health insurance companies in the US. So there is plenty of competition! The governement offering health insurance will not improve competition and anyone that understands the basic fundamentals of economics will agree with that.
The government, as Peter stated, does not need to make a profit - let alone break even. They have proven time and time again they are fully incapable of even staying within a budget.
So why should they price their insurance to make a profit. They can give it away for "free." (And tax the crap out of the job creaters or the evil rich as many would prefer to call them. And by the way, when have you heard of a poor person creating jobs and employing people?)
How come health insurance premiums are 20-30% higher in this state than in NJ? Allowing me to buy health insurance from another state will improve competition because companies in states like NY will NEED to readjust their business model to stay in business.
And, YES, there is the issue of pre-existing conditions. I think this is POSSIBLY the only place the gov't belongs to help folks that truly need care but can't obtain it because of pre-existing conditions.
However, suggesting that insurance companies SHOULD cover people with pre-existing conditions is ABSURD and quite frankly FOOLISH!!!
Thats like you buying a smashed up totaled car for $100, buying a car insurance policy with collision on it, and then putting in a claim. You can't do that with car insurance, and you can't do that with health insurance.
Buying insurance after you need it defeats the very purpose of insurance, otherwise everyone would buy insurance after they needed it. DUH!??
One can argue about the
One can argue about the political aspects of health care til the cows come home. That's what politicians do. That's why politicians never get anything done; all they do is argue. The fact remains that health care should not be restricted to people who have insurance or the independently wealthy.
I've had to change physicans twice in my lifetime. Once, because my doctor died (certainly can't blame him for that); the second doctor-change resulted from layoff-forced re-employment. My job offered health insurance that my previous doctor would not honor.
My new doctor is a test-lover. He has prescribed more tests for me in two years than the sum of tests in my 50+ years on the planet. And what did his tests indicate? You'll never guess! He recommended I start taking Lipitor. Yes, I was thrilled with the prospect of liver, kidney and muscle damage plus the statin-drug haze that results from taking Pfizer's pills. So I told my doctor that I had no intention of helping him get a kick-back from Pfizer. Instead, I became a vegetarian; no quite what my new doc had in mind, "I don't want you to give up eating steak," this coming from a physician of Indian-descent who didn't know me well-enough. I hadn't eaten beef in two years, protesting the American beef industry.
Also, when I first switched jobs, my pay was so low that I couldn't afford my personal contribution to the insurance. So I went without health insurance (or a doctor) for a year. That first year after being layed-off, I went without alot. I had to roll up pennies to survive January. Between the cost of heating oil and county taxes, I almost didn't make it to February.
My point in all this: we shouldn't need insurance to afford health care. Between doctors who order expensive, unnecessary tests; pharmaceutical companies that peddle dangerous drugs and greedy insurance companies who's sole competition is the Hearse- - - health care costs too much (period). Take all these greedy bast**ds out of the picture, and average people could afford health care without insurance. Insurance should be for extraordinary care- like surgery; not to rein in the absurd costs of an office visit.
20 dollars an office visit, 15-minutes per patient, eight-hour day; minus 1-hour lunch. That's 28 patients times 20 dollars equals $560 per day. That's $2800 per week. Weekly average in the U. S. is about $835. Ol' Doc can still afford a secretary/nurse, payments on the Lexus and take off Fridays for golf.
Jason, The disdain with
Jason,
The disdain with which you speak about poor people saddens me. If one is 'poor' or just unable to afford 9-12k annually for health insurance are they then unworthy of good health? Should we abandon them?
Insurance costs vary from state to state for a number of reasons, but one of the big ones is legal costs. We have already discussed the need for reasonable tort reform as a measure to help drive down the cost of doing busines as an insurance provider.
President Obama has made the stipulation that any new health care bill must be paid for. Deficit talk is just talk right now. I would be happy to have a conversation about deficits and taxation when a new plan is established on paper.
I think we agree, for the most part, on pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies are not currently required to insure these folks and typically they do not. This is one of the major reasons we need to look at a public option.
Jason J.- I don't know how
Jason J.- I don't know how old you are, but you sound young- someone who has no health issues and probably doesn't anticipate any. You also sound like a cold, individual who would make a great insurance claim adjuster. I don't wish you ill, but someday you should have to talk out of the other side of your mouth. There is a world of people out there that would love to trade places with you. How nice to be so self-assured. How privileged to have a choice.
Why does ones opinion matter
Why does ones opinion matter less if you assume they are in good health?
As far as his view on the poor he is wrong, the poor increase the number of government workers to handle the associated paper work with their handouts. So they do create jobs, that the rest of us pay for.
(Americans spend less time
(Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.)
A really good friend of mine lives in Northern Ont. He is having surgery on his shoulder this morning. He waited 6 months to get in to see a surgeon (4 hours away from his home) and waited another 8 months for the surgery. (also 4 hours away from home) They called him about 6 weeks ago and told him, your surgery is on Aug 12th if you cant make it.. you go to the end of the list. another 6 - 8 month wait!
And, YES, there is the issue
And, YES, there is the issue of pre-existing conditions. I think this is POSSIBLY the only place the gov't belongs to help folks that truly need care but can't obtain it because of pre-existing conditions.
However, suggesting that insurance companies SHOULD cover people with pre-existing conditions is ABSURD and quite frankly FOOLISH!!!
If it wasn't for my "pre exsisting conditions" I wouldnt need ins. LOL My meds are over $600.00 a month.
Peter- think hard. Why would
Peter- think hard. Why would a person's health affect their view on health insurance? Maybe because, if one is healthy, health insurance is a low priority. A healthy person can afford to assume a cavalier attitude about something that is non-essential.
That's like saying that a
That's like saying that a welfare recipient is better to consult when writing welfare reform.
Your opinions or what you
Your opinions or what you think just don't matter the dems socialist war on corporate american is going to continue until the country is totally destroyed just like they loony leftys destroyed California. Its the we won its our turn approach to federal policy making.
Peter- just read what I
Peter- just read what I write. Don't read INTO it. Everyone has a unique perspective. The priorities of a healthy person visavis an ill person would vary on the subject of health insurance. I didn't say that one view is more valid than the other.
A young healthy person would see less value in health insurance than someone in their fifties. Just as a young person tends to undervalue retirement plans at the outset of a career. It's human nature.
Peter, if you were less prone to hyperbolize and instigate, you might improve your comprehension.
Why even mention that he
Why even mention that he might be young and that affects his opinion if you are not trying to get others to dismiss it for that reason?
I'm 27. I don't need health insurance. I have it through my job (though I wish there was a market for it like car insurance). I play a ton of sports that are high impact and injury prone. But I am healthy, I eat mostly right, and I generally take care of myself. I don't need the insurance. That doesn't affect my desire to not pay for someone else's type 2 diabetes medication that they are on for being fat.
Peter, I'm going to side with
Peter, I'm going to side with C.M. on this -- health insurance, and this issue, is a bit more important to me at 48 than it was at 28. I've been in business for myself at least once in each decade since I was 25. This is the first time where I worry a good deal about making enough money to pay my health insurance. At 28, or even 38, I was willing to take a chance and go without health insurance, but not at 48.
I'm not endorsing any POV on this debate other than to confirm, age does change your perspective.
Howard, why not endorse the
Howard, why not endorse the plan? You’re a prime candidate for this discussion. So called supporters of business have been talking for years about the needs of the "small businessman".
How much more difficult is it in this country to strike out on your own and start a business if your too worried about health coverage for your family to do it?
I just don't trust the
I just don't trust the federal government.
Frankly, I've not had time to make a detailed study of the proposals, but there is such a large gap between my willingness to give the feds more power over my life and what it would take to convince me we need one more major federal program that it's hard to imagine I would support it.
And I'm not convinced that all the ways in which the current system might be reformed have been adequately studied and discussed.
But being not fully informed, I'm not willing to speak out against it just because what I've heard so far doesn't fit my view of limited government. I would weigh this issue on its own merits if I had time to really dig into it. So I'm more or less neutral.
CM: "20 dollars an office
CM: "20 dollars an office visit, 15-minutes per patient, eight-hour day; minus 1-hour lunch. That's 28 patients times 20 dollars equals $560 per day. That's $2800 per week. Weekly average in the U. S. is about $835. Ol' Doc can still afford a secretary/nurse, payments on the Lexus and take off Fridays for golf."
Sadly you forget about building rent, malpractice insurance, general liability insurance, errors and omissions insurance, debt payments on student loans, housing, and dozens of other excesive costs for running a business.
Your example makes it seem like its easy to be a doctor and they are overpaid. Even at triple the amount of "gross" income - he still probably can't afford to keep the lights on. That, unfortunately is the reality of being a doctor in todays current conditions.
Yes, you are right, doctors are expensive and drug companies charge a lot for thier products. But lets clear up some confussion, its neither cheap nor easy to become a doctor - even more expensive to become a specialist.
AND to bring drugs to market takes years, sometimes over a decade, and many multi-millions of dollars in R&D, legal fees, etc. Prices are high because the investment and risk in creating new drugs is so substantial. If we could find a way to ease that burden, drugs wouldn't be as expensive because the drug companies wouldn't have the excessive costs to bring new drugs to market.
Sure, regulate the crap out of drug companies and prices go up even higher or they are forced out of businsses and innovation stops.
To clarify my comments about being poor:
Certain issues can cause financial struggle in anyones life that is out of their control. That is being broke. Broke may last a few months, like a cold January, or may last a few years. But broke is temporary... Poor is forever until someone chooses to change it.
Issues WITHIN someones control that contribute to them remaining in their current financial situation IS a choice. And why should it be my responsibility to pick up the slack for someone elses bad choices?
And lets clear up my earlier comments on PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS....
ME: "And, YES, there is the issue of pre-existing conditions. I think this is POSSIBLY the only place the gov't belongs to help folks that truly need care but can't obtain it because of pre-existing conditions. However, suggesting that insurance companies SHOULD cover people with pre-existing conditions is ABSURD and quite frankly FOOLISH!!!"
Susan: "If it wasn't for my "pre exsisting conditions" I wouldnt need ins. LOL My meds are over $600.00 a month."
By definition: pre-existing conditions occured BEFORE someone sought out insurance. If you're health changes while you have insurance - thats what insurance is for! And that's why it covers your $600/mo meds.
Posted by Howard Owens on
Posted by Howard Owens on August 12, 2009 - 3:31pm
I just don't trust the federal government.
Which government do you trust?
Am I reading that statement wrong?
I understand that you want the smallest entity to decide how to spend the citizens' money (which I assume would come from taxes).
Exactly how much would each citizen, in Batavia for example, be taxed in order to provide needed services?
Without the aid from the state and federal programs, which programs would be reduced or cut completely?
I believe you said you believed that it should be up to the citizens to decide if money should be sent to the state or to Washington. So, if the citizens feel that no money should be sent then, of course, it means they do not receive a share contributed by other communities.
Will all schools be private? If so, will only the elite who can afford private school, have the privilege of educating their children.
Home school! Who will determine the syllabus for a home school program?
Health care! The crux of all of this. If we still have a hospital, it will not receive funds from that government you don't trust. Will the citizens of Batavia be able to afford the equipment and resources needed to maintain a hospital? Once again, only the elite can afford their own insurance, if the insurance company finds them a good risk.
What do we do with those who lose insurance because they have a catastrophic illness? There will be no programs in place to help them. What do we do with the unemployed; the elderly; and the disabled? Where will the veterans go who are now in the NYS Veterans Home or the VA? Both are funded by government programs.
Does our small community have the resources to maintain watershed areas without the help of the Corps of Engineers (another program)?
Who decided on rules of conduct for the community or is it every person for themselves?
The list goes on and on and I'm not being difficult.
I'm just curious exactly how it works when a community is self sufficient with no help from the state or federal governments.
I'd just like to chime in
I'd just like to chime in with a personal insight. I've been a little sick the last year or so, and have had occasion for some extended hospital visits. One was for a surgery, as well as one coming up next week. I was blessed to have worked for a great employer, who had me covered with both health and disability insurance. While I no longer can say I'm employed by this company, I continue to receive my full benefits. (which I am extremely grateful for.)
Well,I've had visit after visit, hospital stays, meds and "medical supplies". My friends, the last item I listed cost more than the sum of my surgery,operating room, doctors time, and my 6 day stay at the hospital! I was absolutely floored when I took the time to add up the numbers. Now here's the thing, I had no limit as to what could be ordered, so they loaded me up when I got out of the hospital. As time progressed, I found less of a need, but the med supply company kept calling and filling new orders. These were way, way over priced and when I questioned it, I was told "it's not coming out of my pocket, don't worry about it". Multiple this horrible concept of what's right and wrong a couple a million times a year, and I see some HUGE savings! Let doctors heal, nurses help you recover, and hospitals break even. Take the greed out of the most important aspect of your life, your health.
And I can appreciate living without insurance. I worked a lot of years in the hospitality business. Enough said.
AND to bring drugs to market
AND to bring drugs to market takes years, sometimes over a decade, and many multi-millions of dollars in R&D, legal fees, etc. Prices are high because the investment and risk in creating new drugs is so substantial. If we could find a way to ease that burden, drugs wouldn't be as expensive because the drug companies wouldn't have the excessive costs to bring new drugs to market.
Sure, regulate the crap out of drug companies and prices go up even higher or they are forced out of businsses and innovation stops.
Jason,
I worked, in Philadelphia, in pharmeceutical R & D, and yes it is expensive - up to a point.
I worked with drug programs from preformulation; drug delivery and targeting; formulation design, engineering, and processing; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenomics; molecular biopharmaceutics and drug disposition; and computational biopharmaceutics, among others.
I wrote the SOPs for animal trials; part of a team that wrote INDs for clinical trials; worked on the labels for blind clinical studies; collected the data from those studies; and acted as the 'man in the plant' when the medications were processed in the 'pilot' program.
At every step of the way, the FDA was a constant presence - not in an adversarial way, but working with them, we knew that we were always on the right tract.
Without the regulations that you find not necessary, there is a greater risk of contaminating medication during the manufacturing process. There is a greater risk of unreliable physicians conducting clinical trials and skewing data. There is a greater risk of adverse events.
Is there a less expensive way to bring a pharmaceutical to market? Yes, if the public wants to assume the risk. Shut down the FDA (another one of those pesky federal programs). Eliminate the Good Manufacturing protocols; and the Good Science protocols. Take away the watchdog and maybe the pharmaceutical companies will reduce their costs and pass along the savings. Do you think that would really happen?
We was talking about new
We was talking about new regulations not sensible ones that keep the public safe.
Off topic but, If all schools
Off topic but,
If all schools are private they will compete for students by reducing their price and increase in the quality of their education.
Home schooling curriculums should be made by those teaching. Let future employers determine if what the student has learned is enough to hire them.
Why shouldn't a hospital be allowed to make money? If they offer better services then the next closest hospital for more money what is wrong with that? That like saying you shouldn't pay more at Alex's then at Ponderosa because they both serve steak. And are you going to limit how much a doctor is allowed to make with some arbitrary figure? Why not pay him based on merit. If he does a terrific job he should be paid a terrific salary, if he sucks then his pay should also suck. This will cause everyone in the profession to want to increase their knowledge and skills to earn more money.
That is capitalism. That is the American way. Everyone is helped when a large number of people look out for number one. The banker is able to offer more loans by being more trustworthy and encourage more people to bank at his establishment. That loan money is given to a new enterprenuer to open a business. He makes a profit at that business but pays his suppliers that support him. His customers get a great product at a price they find acceptable (if it wasn't they don't have to buy it). This is simple economics. It works. It has led the US to the forefront of economies in the world. Socialist ideas didn't work for the USSR, why adopt them when we handily defeated them with capitalism?
Nope instead we are going to take from the rich, the wealth creators, the job creators, the earners, and give to those who won't help themselves because somehow we think health care is a right. It seems to me that I don't see medical care as a right given to us in neither the Constitution, Bill of rights, or the Declaration of Independence. The right to life has been disregarded by Roe vs Wade so don't try to make that argument.
Rove vs Wade ? Weren't they
Rove vs Wade ? Weren't they women tennis players?
oops fixed
oops fixed
just trying to lighten things
just trying to lighten things up a little :)
"Sure, regulate the crap out
"Sure, regulate the crap out of drug companies and prices go up even higher or they are forced out of businsses and innovation stops."
Nowhere in this statement does it imply new regulations.
Innovation is expensive. A portion of pharm R&D is for orphan drugs. This is our tax dollar spent to help a very small portion of the population. The company for whom I worked developed a product that was only used by ONE young boy.
How many, paying for insurance, would prefer that the FDA drop the Orphan Drug Act in order to see their premiums reduced?
People who have rare diseases or disorders have not had as much research attention in past decades. This is because their numbers are small and therefore the potential market for new drugs to treat them is also small.
The 1983 U.S. Orphan Drug Act
Recognizing that adequate drugs for rare disorders had not been developed in the U.S., and that drug companies would actually incur a financial loss in developing drugs for rare conditions, the U.S. Congress in 1983 passed the Orphan Drug Act. The Orphan Drug Act offers incentives to induce companies to develop drugs (and other medical products) for the small markets of individuals with rare disorders (in the U.S., 47% of rare disorders affect fewer than 25,000 people). These incentives include:
•Federal tax credits for the research done (up to 50% of costs) to develop an orphan drug
•A guaranteed 7-year monopoly on drug sales for the first company to obtain FDA marketing approval of a particular drug. This applies only to the approved use of the drug. Another application for a different use could also be approved by the FDA, and the company would have exclusive marketing rights for the drug for that use as well.
•Waivers of drug approval application fees and annual FDA product fees.
Prior to the passage of the Orphan Drug Act, few orphan drugs were available to treat rare diseases. Since the Act more than 200 orphan drugs have been approved by the FDA for marketing in the U.S.
I find it strange that the pharmacuetical companies are paying for fearmongering ads touting the idea that government will get between you and your doctor while accepting research money, waivers, marketing rights from that same government.
"Sure, regulate the crap out
"Sure, regulate the crap out of drug companies and prices go up even higher or they are forced out of businsses and innovation stops."
Nowhere in this statement does it imply new regulations.
Are businesses closing now? Has innovation stopped? No? Then it must be about the future.
What happened to not replying to me?