5 ms·

> Something has to be done as status quo is not working [for everyone]. FTFY. It's working for me in a way that only one other healthcare system would be able

> Something has to be done as status quo is not working [for everyone]. FTFY. It's working for me in a way that only one other healthcare system would be able to help me (and even that healthcare system can only help me because the US healthcare system developed the medical advances I benefit from). If I moved abroad, I would have to keep a US health insurance plan and return to the US regularly to get the treatment I need here that isn't available in the rest of the World. I'm still waiting for proponents of single-payer healthcare to take the effort to find out what works about the current system and who it works for. If they don't figure that out, they won't propose a solution that maintains the benefits of the current system. The single-payer system being proposed will almost certainly reduce efforts to improve medicine that would improve my health issues in the future.

mebassett 9y ago
what medical treatments are available to you in the US that aren't available in other developed countries?
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  Other developed countries are often more conservative when it comes to covering experimental treatments. Since many of these countries are in Europe and Europe in general has an attitude of "prove that it's harmless before you go to market" (over the American "you can always sue for punitive damages when things go wrong"), that's probably less a property of the health insurance system than of society as a whole.
- malandrew 9y ago
  My treatment for cataplexy/narcolepsy. Only available in the US and Canada. It's also available in Italy, but not approved for cataplexy/narcolepsy. Without the US, it wouldn't exist as a treatment option in Canada. https://www.quora.com/Which-country-develops-the-most-effective-drugs https://www.quora.com/Which-country-develops-the-most-effect...
s_kilk 9y ago
This callow fuck-you-gots-mine attitude is appalling.
codegeek 9y ago
"find out what works about the current system and who it works for" For the most part, the issue is not the quality but the underlying costs and power that insurance companies and drug companies have. So you personally may be getting a treatment that only US provides and I am happy for you but the discussion still remains about the fact that if you don't have insurance, you could end up getting a ridiculous bill for the simplest of procedures. You have no control over that. That is the issue. I hope you can understand that. And let me reaffirm that the system primarily works for the profit making insurance companies and drug companies. Yes, the drug companies do R&D but what do Insurance companies do really ? Nothing except squeezing every bit of profit they can. The point is that we don't need insurance companies to cover EVERY little procedure because then they get too much power.
- malandrew 9y ago
  The insurance company have a contract that typically requires them to provide whatever treatments are available for a medical problem and are not experimental. It's competition in the insurance space that creates such a large market for pharma and other medical companies to bring products to market. If you had a monopsony (single-payer healthcare), where the only buyer is the US government, then the only treatments available are those it has approved via bureaucratic process. Nothing about single-payer healthcare prevents private options from existing per se, but so many people will go without private insurance, greatly reducing the market for medical innovations and shrinking the size of the R&D market. Take a look at these graphs: https://www.quora.com/Which-country-develops-the-most-effective-drugs https://www.quora.com/Which-country-develops-the-most-effect... Single payer healthcare will dramatically shrink the US contribution to medical innovations. In a way, the US healthcare system is socialized medicine that benefits the other 7.2 billion people on this planet at the expense of the 40 million uninsured people in the US. This is a trolley problem. The WHO publishes a list of essential medicines. http://www.who.int/medicines/services/essmedicines_def/en/ http://www.who.int/medicines/services/essmedicines_def/en/ 96 new pharmaceuticals were developed since the list was first published in 1977. There are 306 today, so 31 percent of essential medicines have been developed in just the past 40 years. How many of those 96 were developed in the US? How many fewer would we have developed under single-payer healthcare? It's possible that we still develop as many medicines under single payer healthcare, but simple economics suggest that's unlikely enough that we really want to be sure it won't decimate the R&D market for new drugs because that is what is at risk here, if we are wrong. Are you willing to take the gamble of depriving your future self and the other 7.5 billion people on the planet of the medical innovations we'll lose without the US system. Once you hand people single-payer healthcare, there is no way politically to go back.

mebassett 9y ago

what medical treatments are available to you in the US that aren't available in other developed countries?

pgeorgi 9y ago
Other developed countries are often more conservative when it comes to covering experimental treatments. Since many of these countries are in Europe and Europe in general has an attitude of "prove that it's harmless before you go to market" (over the American "you can always sue for punitive damages when things go wrong"), that's probably less a property of the health insurance system than of society as a whole.
malandrew 9y ago
My treatment for cataplexy/narcolepsy. Only available in the US and Canada. It's also available in Italy, but not approved for cataplexy/narcolepsy. Without the US, it wouldn't exist as a treatment option in Canada. https://www.quora.com/Which-country-develops-the-most-effective-drugs https://www.quora.com/Which-country-develops-the-most-effect...

s_kilk 9y ago

This callow fuck-you-gots-mine attitude is appalling.

codegeek 9y ago

"find out what works about the current system and who it works for" For the most part, the issue is not the quality but the underlying costs and power that insurance companies and drug companies have. So you personally may be getting a treatment that only US provides and I am happy for you but the discussion still remains about the fact that if you don't have insurance, you could end up getting a ridiculous bill for the simplest of procedures. You have no control over that. That is the issue. I hope you can understand that. And let me reaffirm that the system primarily works for the profit making insurance companies and drug companies. Yes, the drug companies do R&D but what do Insurance companies do really ? Nothing except squeezing every bit of profit they can. The point is that we don't need insurance companies to cover EVERY little procedure because then they get too much power.

malandrew 9y ago
The insurance company have a contract that typically requires them to provide whatever treatments are available for a medical problem and are not experimental. It's competition in the insurance space that creates such a large market for pharma and other medical companies to bring products to market. If you had a monopsony (single-payer healthcare), where the only buyer is the US government, then the only treatments available are those it has approved via bureaucratic process. Nothing about single-payer healthcare prevents private options from existing per se, but so many people will go without private insurance, greatly reducing the market for medical innovations and shrinking the size of the R&D market. Take a look at these graphs: https://www.quora.com/Which-country-develops-the-most-effective-drugs https://www.quora.com/Which-country-develops-the-most-effect... Single payer healthcare will dramatically shrink the US contribution to medical innovations. In a way, the US healthcare system is socialized medicine that benefits the other 7.2 billion people on this planet at the expense of the 40 million uninsured people in the US. This is a trolley problem. The WHO publishes a list of essential medicines. http://www.who.int/medicines/services/essmedicines_def/en/ http://www.who.int/medicines/services/essmedicines_def/en/ 96 new pharmaceuticals were developed since the list was first published in 1977. There are 306 today, so 31 percent of essential medicines have been developed in just the past 40 years. How many of those 96 were developed in the US? How many fewer would we have developed under single-payer healthcare? It's possible that we still develop as many medicines under single payer healthcare, but simple economics suggest that's unlikely enough that we really want to be sure it won't decimate the R&D market for new drugs because that is what is at risk here, if we are wrong. Are you willing to take the gamble of depriving your future self and the other 7.5 billion people on the planet of the medical innovations we'll lose without the US system. Once you hand people single-payer healthcare, there is no way politically to go back.