5 ms·

Canada recently fought No, the province of Quebec did... Canada's system is not national, it's provincial. BC for instance allows for several areas of private

Canada recently fought No, the province of Quebec did... Canada's system is not national, it's provincial. BC for instance allows for several areas of private care. I'm not to be allowed to make decisions that balance for or against my lifespan. You just gave examples in both Canada and the UK that showed that you most certainly can. You're argument is bullshit and comes from a place of ignorance - assuming that somehow the rest of the world has some sort of inferior system simply because we have single payers. It isn't true. Every health statistic shows that the US is actually lagging behind. You're fighting each other for a dwindling and ever more expensive piece of the pie, and the solution is staring you right in the face.

cwan 17y ago
Sorry, every health statistic doesn't show the US is lagging behind. Look at cancer detection and treatment and survival rates from heart attacks. I think that you can get a system that works with a single payer system - but it's tough to find one that also innovates and is sustainable - there's a good case to be made here that the US actually subsidizes the rest of the world with developments in drugs and medical technologies/techniques.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Please point me to these stats, they seem interesting but I can't locate them.
  - cwan 17y ago
    Here's a start: On cancer: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 and http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716... On heart attacks: http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.0000142671.06167.91v1 http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.... On access to medical technologies: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/113.pdf http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/113.pdf
blhack 17y ago
The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet. Who do you think pays for medical research and why?
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Prove this. This is nothing more than conjecture and PR taken to laughing stock levels (outside of the US at least). Even in the US, the largest research funder is in fact the US government, just like every other country.
  - blhack 17y ago
    This is common knowledge to anybody that works in medical research. I don't know of a way to prove other than telling you to go to a medical research laboratory and ask some of the people that work there. Most of them are going to chuckle a bit at your suggestion that I'm wrong. I would also suggest looking at the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, which are the premier medical research institutions in the world. (I'm sorry, this is also common knowledge...I can't offer you any 'proof' of it other than...look).
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      This is common knowledge to anybody that works in medical research. Then it should be easy to support. Let's talk fact here, common knowledge is often wrong. For reference, the largest medical research funder in the world is actually NIH; an arm of the US government.
      - blhack 17y ago
        Then it should be easy to support. Let's talk fact here, common knowledge is often wrong. Sure! In 2003 the United States spent about $94 Billion Dollars on medical reseearch. About 28% of this came from the National Institute of health. Yes, you are technically correct, this makes them the largest "single" contributor. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/1767 http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/...) In 2002/2003 the UK (the largest EU contributor to health research) spent about $480 Million (400 Million Euro) on cancer research. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1513045 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=15...) In this same period, the United States spent about $1.9 Billion. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-fu...) I understand that these sorts of things are inconvenient, and I apologize for not citing sources earlier. Like I said, this is pretty much common knowledge to anybody even remotely familiar with medical research. In the future, I suggest using this website: http://www.google.com http://www.google.com .. it is really great for helping you find things that support "common" knowledge.
billswift 17y ago
I don't know about other statistics off-hand, but there has been a debate about this off and on for months on Megan McArdle's blog - one thing that has been well established is that cancer survival rates are substantially higher in the US than any other country.
- mgrouchy 17y ago
  I would be interested to know if this takes in account people who die of cancer who cannot afford to see a Dr. in the US.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
You're argument is bullshit and comes from a place of ignorance You need to learn to argue civilly. Then you might not get down-voted. No, the province of Quebec did... Fine, that doesn't affect my argument. You just gave examples in both Canada and the UK that showed that you most certainly can. No. There's a difference. The UK system says "we'll give you $X for treatment A; if you want the more-expensive ($Y) B you get 0". What I'm arguing is "we're willing to invest $X; if you want B, you'll have to kick in Y-X". In concrete terms, suppose that my hypothetical colon cancer can be treated for $50,000 but there's also a $60,000 treatment that's better but the government doesn't cover. The UK says that I have to "take it or leave it"; they won't let me get the alternative by kicking in the extra $10,000. I'd have to pay the full $60,000. For practical purposes, that's all but a prohibition. You're fighting each other for a dwindling and ever more expensive piece of the pie This is wrong. The pie is enlarging; everyone has access to better healthcare than anyone could get 60-70 years ago. The increasing expense is due to the availability of additional treatments. As Mr. Kamen said, there are treatments (e.g., polio) that were in effect infinitely expensive two generations ago that are now within the reach of literally everyone. The stuff that's outrageously expensive will be available for our kids. But not if nobody develops them. If those researching new treatments can't sell those treatments because the gov't puts a wet blanket on the industry, then the treatments will never be sought. Another thread in this page claimed that government funding would prevent this. There's a little truth in that, but it all revolves around the politicization of disease. We can already see the effects of that: government subsidizes AIDS/HIV research at something like 10x the rate of breast cancer, normalized to the number of people suffering from each. It winds that we help those with the best lobbyists, not those with the most need. And that's certainly no better than the Adam Smith's invisible hand could do.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Fine, that doesn't affect my argument. It does, actually. It shows that the specifics of one particular system aren't even true across the same country. For practical purposes, that's all but a prohibition. No, it's a feature of that particular system. You're discounting the entire idea of single payer health care because one particular version has a component that you don't agree with. You're being intentionally deceptive in your argument. everyone has access to better healthcare than anyone could get 60-70 years ago ...including those of us in government run systems, moot point. If those researching new treatments can't sell those treatments because the gov't puts a wet blanket on the industry, then the treatments will never be sought. By this logic, there should be effectively no medical research occurring anywhere else in the world save the US. This isn't the case. And that's certainly no better than the Adam Smith's invisible hand could do. Except of course for the however many millions that can't actually access any of this medical treatment. That's the whole crux of things: For those able, the trade-offs between a government run system and the US system are trivial overall. The major downsides in the US system have no equivalent in other systems.

cwan 17y ago

Sorry, every health statistic doesn't show the US is lagging behind. Look at cancer detection and treatment and survival rates from heart attacks. I think that you can get a system that works with a single payer system - but it's tough to find one that also innovates and is sustainable - there's a good case to be made here that the US actually subsidizes the rest of the world with developments in drugs and medical technologies/techniques.

run4yourlives 17y ago
Please point me to these stats, they seem interesting but I can't locate them.
- cwan 17y ago
  Here's a start: On cancer: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 and http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716... On heart attacks: http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.0000142671.06167.91v1 http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.... On access to medical technologies: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/113.pdf http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/113.pdf

blhack 17y ago

The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet. Who do you think pays for medical research and why?

run4yourlives 17y ago
Prove this. This is nothing more than conjecture and PR taken to laughing stock levels (outside of the US at least). Even in the US, the largest research funder is in fact the US government, just like every other country.
- blhack 17y ago
  This is common knowledge to anybody that works in medical research. I don't know of a way to prove other than telling you to go to a medical research laboratory and ask some of the people that work there. Most of them are going to chuckle a bit at your suggestion that I'm wrong. I would also suggest looking at the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, which are the premier medical research institutions in the world. (I'm sorry, this is also common knowledge...I can't offer you any 'proof' of it other than...look).
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    This is common knowledge to anybody that works in medical research. Then it should be easy to support. Let's talk fact here, common knowledge is often wrong. For reference, the largest medical research funder in the world is actually NIH; an arm of the US government.
    - blhack 17y ago
      Then it should be easy to support. Let's talk fact here, common knowledge is often wrong. Sure! In 2003 the United States spent about $94 Billion Dollars on medical reseearch. About 28% of this came from the National Institute of health. Yes, you are technically correct, this makes them the largest "single" contributor. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/1767 http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/...) In 2002/2003 the UK (the largest EU contributor to health research) spent about $480 Million (400 Million Euro) on cancer research. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1513045 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=15...) In this same period, the United States spent about $1.9 Billion. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-fu...) I understand that these sorts of things are inconvenient, and I apologize for not citing sources earlier. Like I said, this is pretty much common knowledge to anybody even remotely familiar with medical research. In the future, I suggest using this website: http://www.google.com http://www.google.com .. it is really great for helping you find things that support "common" knowledge.

billswift 17y ago

I don't know about other statistics off-hand, but there has been a debate about this off and on for months on Megan McArdle's blog - one thing that has been well established is that cancer survival rates are substantially higher in the US than any other country.

mgrouchy 17y ago
I would be interested to know if this takes in account people who die of cancer who cannot afford to see a Dr. in the US.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

You're argument is bullshit and comes from a place of ignorance You need to learn to argue civilly. Then you might not get down-voted. No, the province of Quebec did... Fine, that doesn't affect my argument. You just gave examples in both Canada and the UK that showed that you most certainly can. No. There's a difference. The UK system says "we'll give you $X for treatment A; if you want the more-expensive ($Y) B you get 0". What I'm arguing is "we're willing to invest $X; if you want B, you'll have to kick in Y-X". In concrete terms, suppose that my hypothetical colon cancer can be treated for $50,000 but there's also a $60,000 treatment that's better but the government doesn't cover. The UK says that I have to "take it or leave it"; they won't let me get the alternative by kicking in the extra $10,000. I'd have to pay the full $60,000. For practical purposes, that's all but a prohibition. You're fighting each other for a dwindling and ever more expensive piece of the pie This is wrong. The pie is enlarging; everyone has access to better healthcare than anyone could get 60-70 years ago. The increasing expense is due to the availability of additional treatments. As Mr. Kamen said, there are treatments (e.g., polio) that were in effect infinitely expensive two generations ago that are now within the reach of literally everyone. The stuff that's outrageously expensive will be available for our kids. But not if nobody develops them. If those researching new treatments can't sell those treatments because the gov't puts a wet blanket on the industry, then the treatments will never be sought. Another thread in this page claimed that government funding would prevent this. There's a little truth in that, but it all revolves around the politicization of disease. We can already see the effects of that: government subsidizes AIDS/HIV research at something like 10x the rate of breast cancer, normalized to the number of people suffering from each. It winds that we help those with the best lobbyists, not those with the most need. And that's certainly no better than the Adam Smith's invisible hand could do.

run4yourlives 17y ago
Fine, that doesn't affect my argument. It does, actually. It shows that the specifics of one particular system aren't even true across the same country. For practical purposes, that's all but a prohibition. No, it's a feature of that particular system. You're discounting the entire idea of single payer health care because one particular version has a component that you don't agree with. You're being intentionally deceptive in your argument. everyone has access to better healthcare than anyone could get 60-70 years ago ...including those of us in government run systems, moot point. If those researching new treatments can't sell those treatments because the gov't puts a wet blanket on the industry, then the treatments will never be sought. By this logic, there should be effectively no medical research occurring anywhere else in the world save the US. This isn't the case. And that's certainly no better than the Adam Smith's invisible hand could do. Except of course for the however many millions that can't actually access any of this medical treatment. That's the whole crux of things: For those able, the trade-offs between a government run system and the US system are trivial overall. The major downsides in the US system have no equivalent in other systems.