Amerika

Off Topic
361

[quote]
You are correct that if everyone got together and said “OK, we’re not going to pay a lot for healthcare anymore,” that the price would go down. But that completely ignores the fact that the level of healthcare would go down. That’s just economic fact. Your previous post makes it sound as if we can just pay less for the same level of healthcare, which is not going to happen unless there is a change on the supply side of the equation, not the demand side.

The funny thing is that you rebuttal yourself for me in the second part of your post. You completely invalidated your own claims by finally acknowledging what the demand side is made up of.

You want cutting edge healthcare? Deal with the insurance companies cause that shit’s expensive.[/quote]

How much is a DVD player now? Probably $80. How much did it cost when it first came out years ago? Probably $800.

The difference is competition. Has the quality gone down? No. In fact it has gotten better. But the cost has dropped dramatically as well.

362

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Hmm…it’s just the coercive, compulsory nature of the government here. Do as they say, or get fined or penalized. Spend more than 4 minutes in the shower? You get fined. Fail to vote? You get fined. There is a whole list of offences building up that carry penalties these days. I can’t rattle them ALL off, but the things we are not allowed to do is building up. Of course there are plenty of reasons of justifying these things in the name of the public good.
[/quote]
If they are the worst a government can throw at you then you’re on a winner. 4 minutes in the shower is because we are running out of water. If you don’t believe that, get out of the city and take a look around the Southern states. Adelaide is in big trouble as is Melbourne and the majority of Victoria. If guys have to go without their pull in the shower, so be it.

The water problem is the biggest crisis facing Australia and you are correct in the fact that money should be spent towards this issue.

Simple. Don’t speed if your worried about money or your licence. I got caught speeding the other day. 81kph in a 60 zone. The cop was nice enough to drop it back to 69kph and give me only 1 demerit point and a smaller fine. I knew the risk and I am happy to pay the cost of the fine.

I actually had a friend die from drink driving. I am happy the government is trying to clean up the roads.

There is a good reason behind this. In many cities the fights and crimes were happening after 3am when people were roaming the streets pissed out of their brain looking for another club to get into. With the 3am curfew, people are now leaving a club and getting straight into a Taxi. Working as a bouncer I have seen this rule work very well and would encourage all cities to investigate it.

Fuck. Your house is not your own country where you can do what you want. If I stuck a dog fighting pit in my house and had the cops come in and bust me for an illegal activity, I would wear it on the chin because I knew what I was doing was illegal.

There are some dumb rules, but on the whole Australia is a great country. Your above stated points are things that might annoy you in a slight way, but compare that to the rest of the world and get some better perspective.

At least there is a handout. Nobody is forcing them to live in Broadbeach, Darling Harbour, Cottesloe or St Kilda. Australia is expensive which confuses me because there is more free land than anywhere in the world but the Government helps out those to an extent. The NEIS program and work for the dole at least get guys off the couch and out of their self destructive behaviour.

Most dole bludgers are losers who don’t want to do anything. In 95% of the countries on earth they would be homeless or dead, yet in this one they can have a roof over their head. There is more work in this country that there is people, so finding a job is not a problem. Finding your dream job might be a little harder but 9th grade drop outs with no further skills can’t be too picky can they?

Fucking ay that is good.

I get your reasons for having some form of gripe with the Government, but they’re not too bad really when you look at the big picture. It’s not perfect and the speeding ticket I copped on the weekend pissed me off, but it’s something I can handle because this country is better than most.

363

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
If guys have to go without their pull in the shower, so be it.[/quote]

LOL

By the way, I just wanted to comment that you’ve really got the use of Australian slang down to a tee. In this thread alone you’ve used cunts, pissed, fuckstick, whinge, dole and have a pull. Not bad for an American :slight_smile:

I agree in general with the principle of learning good water saving habits as a lifestyle. The main gist of my gripe is that something should have been done ages ago to INCREASE or recycle the supply as has been done 30 years ago in the UK and Europe. Instead they gave us free reign with water for so long, that now we’re running out and THEN we get slapped with having to put up with restrictions and enforcement. Those kinds of things should be a government’s LAST resort and not the first resort as is being practiced here.

That’s what I’m pissed off about - whenever there is a problem, the government’s first solution is to create restrictions and then introduce or increase punishment. It’s always a “tougher penalties” philosophy instead of thinking up and implementing creative, viable, constructive ways to deal with a problem. There is not enough intelligence or heart in the beauraucratic system.

You wouldn’t have been so happy to pay the cost of the fine if the cop wasn’t feeling nice that day and hadn’t decided to let you off so lightly! I got caught speeding the other day too. 78kph in a 60 zone, which is $150 and 3 demerit points.

You would have been fined $250 and lost 4 demerit points, being over 20kph above the speed limit! You were very lucky.

[quote]In the nightclubs there is a compulsory 3am lockout/curfew.

There is a good reason behind this. In many cities the fights and crimes were happening after 3am when people were roaming the streets pissed out of their brain looking for another club to get into. With the 3am curfew, people are now leaving a club and getting straight into a Taxi. Working as a bouncer I have seen this rule work very well and would encourage all cities to investigate it.[/quote]

I actually haven’t been clubbing in a long time, so I wouldn’t know from personal experience the difference this rule has made. But I have heard reports from hotel and club owners that it does not really work and not only does it detract from revenue, it detracts from the general festive enjoyment and atmosphere of a club district.

I’ve had much more fun in relatively lawless Asian countries. But I guess I’m someone who likes living more on the wild side.

Anyway I’m not going to address every point here, but in general, you seem to be a “government man” and someone who supports the status quo, because you’re happy with where you’re at. NTTAWWT if/until you become disillusioned with it or get on the wrong side of it. I think you’d perfectly suit the role of a cop or public servant, if you’re not one already. You seem to see eye-to-eye with the police. Maybe that’s why the cop was cool with you.

I do have perspective, having lived in a number of different countries and seen other parts of the world. I’ve been here for over 15 years now, and once you’ve been living in a place for a long time you begin to see the ugly side of it. I’ve lived in Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore and a US territory, and I used to think Australia was a great place to holiday when my family was together and we were rich enough to afford all the good things in life. But now I’m not so happy here and I HAVE seen liberty being whittled down further and further over the years and more control being put in place. That’s the thing - with more safety and security measures comes more restriction of freedom.

You’re still in the honeymoon phase with being in a new country, so everything still looks great to you. I guess if you keep moving around a lot to places you like (such as the Gold Coast), you can stay in the honeymoon phase all the time. You wouldn’t have liked it so much here if you’d been living in Woodridge, for example.

Those on the receiving ends of the benefits of the status quo, such as yourself, will tend to defend it.

I believe the good things we do have here are rights and not privileges. It’s about people looking after each other.

364

First off

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Do you actually know what all goes in to being a medical doctor vs. being a vet? I don’t, but I’m willing to bet that your measure (length of school) only covers a little bit of it. I’m not talking just how much knowledge they need and how long it takes to get it either (I’ll bet it’s different though). I’m talking about that plus equipment, staff, etc.

I’ve never known anyone with a pet that went in for major surgery either. Usually if it gets bad enough they just put them down. That’s where insurance really pays off.[/quote]

365

DeSleeplijn, by the way, I’m not arguing with you here, but you’re on a board where people can speak freely about something they enjoy doing which makes them stronger, and using anabolic substances which are considered illegal and frowned upon by the rest of society. This is one of our only bastions of freedom, and it still is monitored by the law, I am sure. We are in the minority here.

So by you coming in and saying that you support the majority rule, what are you achieving? Of course it’s not going to get a positive reception. It’s just another person supporting the law against steroids.

The thing is, what is more wrong or corrupt? Breaking a law while believing it is right, with full knowledge that you are doing something wrong; or breaking a law because you know it is not necessarily right?

I speed in my car because I believe the speeding laws are not 100% correct. In Europe, they have less restricted speed limits, yet fewer accidents and fatalities because the focus is on a higher level of driver awareness and skill. Over here, it’s about punishing idiots and laying down blanket rules.

I take AAS because I believe it improves the quality of my life and that the laws against them are not based on valid data, principles or motives.

On the other hand, you ‘know’ steroids are wrong, yet you still admit that you have used AAS and would accept the full punishment if caught. You ‘know’ speeding is wrong, yet you still do that too, and accept the punishment if caught.

There is a big ethical difference there…

366

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
How much is a DVD player now? Probably $80. How much did it cost when it first came out years ago? Probably $800.

The difference is competition. Has the quality gone down? No. In fact it has gotten better. But the cost has dropped dramatically as well.
[/quote]

I bet the DVD producers are making more profit per unit now than they were when the players cost $800, too. You’re comparing a relatively static product to a constantly changing industry - one that can only get away with so much cost reduction due to federal regulations.

And medical procedures do come down in cost over time. New technology/techniques that make the procedures easier/shorter and shorter hospital visit time all reduce costs. Also, as the procedure becomes more common the cost goes down.

It doesn’t work that way with pharmaceuticals though because of the insane cost of R&D and then getting the drug past the fed. You’d be OK with having poorer quality drugs? The pharm companies aren’t going to put all that money (seriously, look at some figures. they’re staggering and most drugs don’t make it to the market) into producing a product if they aren’t going to get a substantial return?

There’s a lot more to consider, but to have a coherent discussion you’re going to have to limit your arguments to certain segments of the health care industry instead of making broad generalizations.

367

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
LOL
By the way, I just wanted to comment that you’ve really got the use of Australian slang down to a tee. In this thread alone you’ve used cunts, pissed, fuckstick, whinge, dole and have a pull. Not bad for an American :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Haha. I agree. Working on Cavill has broadened my vocabulary quite a bit in Aussie slang. I really do have a new found appreciation of the word Cunt.

Yeah, totally stupid planning. Surely the alarm bells should have gone off years ago but they let it keep going.

Fair call. I can accept that.

You would have been fined $250 and lost 4 demerit points, being over 20kph above the speed limit! You were very lucky.
[/quote]
It was also supposed to be double demerrit points being a long weekend so I was probably lucky there. That’s why I didn’t put up a fight with the cop.

Some club owners hate it others love it. Where I work security we are pretty lucky because it has been the place to ‘end’ ones night for a long while so everyone makes sure they are in there well before curfew and that means more money for the business owner. Mostly the one’s complaining are the pubs/hotels that were more pre-clubbing drinks because everyone gets out of there earlier and goes to the place where they want to be all night.

Thailand was the shit when I went over there, but I wouldn’t really want to live there forever. A few months is fine, but I’ll take a place like the US, Canada or Australia for life.

I work close enough with the cops as there are always incidents at the club I work at that need police attention.

Fair points there. Where the fuck is Woodridge?

[quote]
Those on the receiving ends of the benefits of the status quo, such as yourself, will tend to defend it.

I believe the good things we do have here are rights and not privileges. It’s about people looking after each other.[/quote]
I agree with most of what you said and I probably look a little like Stan Smith off American Dad on this thread. I’m not that patriotic to the states and Australia sure has it’s problems but I’ll give it 2 thumbs up for a long while yet. Speeding fines, water restrictions and so on are just inconveniences in the long run.

368

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
DeSleeplijn, by the way, I’m not arguing with you here, but you’re on a board where people can speak freely about something they enjoy doing which makes them stronger, and using anabolic substances which are considered illegal and frowned upon by the rest of society. This is one of our only bastions of freedom, and it still is monitored by the law, I am sure. We are in the minority here.
[/quote]
I agree that you guys are better than the crackheads and the ones using illicit substances. You are actually doing something to prolong your lives, still have the ability to get wood in your 50’s and so on. My only concern is that there is a lack of long term, unbiased data to support your case. I’d bet the house that you guys will come out looking good if the Govt was to commission some decent studies into AAS.

I was just trying to show people that they will have to work a little harder to pursuade people that AAS is actually good for you. By simply saying “I wanna do it” and “Why should they stop me from doing something?” you do little more than come off like a teenage girl from that Sweet 16 show on MTV.

I just wanted to see whether people on this thread were able to present decent arguments because you are in the minority here and will have to do a lot to convince the powers that be to change their stance. By abusing people and drawing comparisons to alcohol and fast foods I feel little will get accomplished.

There were about 11 pages when I was wondering what you guys were trying to achieve but later in the piece some people presented some thought out answers. I do not have to achieve anything here because I am actually not that concerned by the Government’s current stance. You guys are so you have to achieve something here in presenting some good arguments that might actually make a guy in his 60’s, who has never properly exercised a day in his life, and makes a living from Public opinion polls think twice on his current stance.

If I want to use AAS, I’ll do it. I can get good quality gear and accept the risks. Only dickheads get caught anyway. My sources are people I could trust with my life and I don’t deal it onto anyone else. I get it, put it away and know that the cops have got better things to do than raid my condo.

I think there are points in Australia where 100km/h seems way too slow and I’m happy to bump the speed up to 120k/h. I believe I am a competant driver but there are many shit drivers out there where a 120km/h rule would be way too fast for them. Also, if it was 120km/h, I’d go 140. I’m always going to speed and there are others who are always going to speed. So the Government draws a line somewhere that they think is best. I can accept that, like I can accept the fine I got Sunday.

I don’t think the ruling on steroids is 100% correct and I’d love some serious studies to be done so we can all enjoy the fruits legally and under doctor supervision. Until that day comes, I’ll enjoy the fact that the people who really want it, will still get it and those that are only half hearted (and would suffer the side affects from improper use) will not get it.

I know we don’t want to cater for idiots but the fact that it is illegal sorts out who is serious and who is not. If some skinny little punk thinks AAS might be for him, he will have to think twice before getting into this illegal activity. Me? I’ll go straight to my source, get the gear and put it away and use it correctly. I don’t even consider purchasing gear a worry. If I was buying a couple of grand worth of E, I would be shitting myself that someone was onto me. AAS just has a safer feel because I don’t think the Cops give a shit.

Closing statement: Just give it some time. There will be more studies and in the end AAS will come out on top, but until then stay nice to your source.

369

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
Where the fuck is Woodridge?[/quote]

Well, being on the Coast, I’m sure you’ve made the drive to Brisbane a few times? Woodridge is a place you would drive past on the way to Brisbane, and keep going. lol. It’s also called Logan Central, if you’ve heard of that. It’s also nicknamed Hoodridge or The Woods, for obvious reasons. Actually the place has improved a lot, but has a reputation for being a shithole.

I live only 40 minutes drive north of you, towards Brisbane.

[quote]
I agree that you guys are better than the crackheads and the ones using illicit substances. You are actually doing something to prolong your lives, still have the ability to get wood in your 50’s and so on. My only concern is that there is a lack of long term, unbiased data to support your case. I’d bet the house that you guys will come out looking good if the Govt was to commission some decent studies into AAS.[/quote]

Are you sure there is no long term data? Anabolic steroids have been around ever since the advent of Dianabol in the 60s, which is a good 47 years.

We have plenty of data available from long term users worldwide, and this would include their health history, lifespan and experiential reports. All it would take is a few confidential interviews and medical background checks to access this information.

The reason it looks like we don’t have enough data is that not many people would be willing to come forward and admit to long-term AAS use because of the law.

I’m sure there have been a decent amount of research studies done, since the field of science analyzes pretty much everything to do with drugs and chemicals - everything from LSD to nootropics.

[quote]I don’t think the ruling on steroids is 100% correct and I’d love some serious studies to be done so we can all enjoy the fruits legally and under doctor supervision. Until that day comes, I’ll enjoy the fact that the people who really want it, will still get it and those that are only half hearted (and would suffer the side affects from improper use) will not get it.

I know we don’t want to cater for idiots but the fact that it is illegal sorts out who is serious and who is not. If some skinny little punk thinks AAS might be for him, he will have to think twice before getting into this illegal activity. Me? I’ll go straight to my source, get the gear and put it away and use it correctly. I don’t even consider purchasing gear a worry. If I was buying a couple of grand worth of E, I would be shitting myself that someone was onto me. AAS just has a safer feel because I don’t think the Cops give a shit.

Closing statement: Just give it some time. There will be more studies and in the end AAS will come out on top, but until then stay nice to your source. [/quote]

Fair enough, no worries mate :wink:

370

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Well, being on the Coast, I’m sure you’ve made the drive to Brisbane a few times? Woodridge is a place you would drive past on the way to Brisbane, and keep going. lol. It’s also called Logan Central, if you’ve heard of that. It’s also nicknamed Hoodridge or The Woods, for obvious reasons. Actually the place has improved a lot, but has a reputation for being a shithole.
[/quote]
I’ve heard of Logan but not Woodridge so that would explain it.

I rarely go North. I actually drove here from Sydney and have only been to Brisbane about 4 times. I went there through work for a Brisbane Lions game and just a couple of times. Nice enough city.

Yeah but the studies were not really that good from what I have read. I’d like to see a little more over the next 10 years. Also, I’ve said I’ll sign up to be a guinea pig.

True. But would the Govt really take that as a quality source of info?

I just want to see some unbiased work done in the near future.

[quote]
Fair enough, no worries mate ;)[/quote]

I’m glad this thread looks to be winding up. It’s been interesting, but it probably has run its course. No doubt the topic will be revisted again in the near future.

371

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You still don’t get it Bro. It is called competition.

If you have a service you are trying to sell and someone comes and sells that same service for less, people start to use the cheaper service instead of yours. Then at some point you are out of business. This is called the market rate.

In healthcare there is no limit on price and hospitals and other service providers set their price based on RVU’s (Relative Value Units). And the thing is that there is no standard for RVU’s. Each service can and does make up what they feel they should change with little rationale behind it. The only guideline is that you cannot control the market by working with competitors to control the price.

This is false. In my practice, my prices for services are set by insurance companies. I am not sure where you are getting your info.

No, it’s true. The price set by the insurance company only applies if you want to be part of their provider network. If you don’t you can set whatever price you want. But if you want the extra volume that an insurance company can provide, then you have to play ball and except their rate.

Now if the consumer of these services had to pay for them directly they would go to the cheapest place and soon prices would drop due to competition. Basic!

Again, this is bullshit. In practices that avoid insurance companies and accept “fee for service”, the doctors usually charge higher fees. Anyone who truly understands how much control these insurance companies have would probably go ahead and accept the higher fees because insurance companies are attempting to not only control price but the quality of the services.

Your comment is accurate but irrelevant in terms of consumer economics. When you join and insurance network you are voluntarily agreeing to their rates. But if there were no insurance companies your rates would voluntary be lower due to what people could afford because if they weren’t, and a competitor had lower rates, you would loose business. That is why you joined an insurance company, because they offer consumers lowers rates than you charge normally. If this was not the case than people would just come to you without insurance and pay your normal rate.

But because the insurance plan is cheaper for people they use network dentists and not you. So you have to become part of the network to stay in business. (I’m not saying this is fair or the best way to do it, I’m just saying that this is the way it is)

I may diagnose a patient as needing a service that may cost more. Even though the cost is higher, I may truly believe it is the better option…however, the insurance company won’t pay for that service because they have already deemed all issues even similar as needing a certain type of restoration. They won’t pay for any other options.

I agree. Quality is sacrificed sometimes for cost. No question. It is a problem with the current system.

Why do you think so many GP’s are leaving the medical field? This isn’t Mc Donald’s. You are paying for quality in health care, not just a simple service. With insurance companies in control, you can be sure that quality will based on that of the lowest bidder.

I agree to some extent. However, quality is not that expensive. Vet’s go to school as long or longer than most medical doctors and dentists and yet their services cost much less than medical services. It is because there is not much pet health insurance driving up the prices.

But if you were paid by the government in a single payor system, you think you would get paid more that in the current system? Not on your life.

[/quote]

You guys are both right and are seeing the same things in slightly different ways.

The main problem with our current system is the insurance companies keep too big a share of the money.

I think the best solution would be to have individuals pay their own way for almost all services and then carry a low premium/super high deductible insurance for real catastrophes.

More money would go to the doctors, patients would save money and most of the insurance executives would have to get new jobs.

I live in a nice town with a nice hospital and a couple health insurance companies have big headquarters in the area. The insurance execs have nicer houses than the doctors. Something is wrong with that.

372

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
The healthcare system in America does not sound like a good situation.

You guys should have a universal health insurance program which is taxpayer funded, just like what we have in Australia. Canada and the UK also have comprehensive free healthcare systems. And they work.

America has to switch to the philosophy that healthcare is a right, not a privilege.[/quote]

Plenty of problems with those systems too.

373

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
How much is a DVD player now? Probably $80. How much did it cost when it first came out years ago? Probably $800.

The difference is competition. Has the quality gone down? No. In fact it has gotten better. But the cost has dropped dramatically as well.

I bet the DVD producers are making more profit per unit now than they were when the players cost $800, too. You’re comparing a relatively static product to a constantly changing industry - one that can only get away with so much cost reduction due to federal regulations.

And medical procedures do come down in cost over time. New technology/techniques that make the procedures easier/shorter and shorter hospital visit time all reduce costs. Also, as the procedure becomes more common the cost goes down.

It doesn’t work that way with pharmaceuticals though because of the insane cost of R&D and then getting the drug past the fed. You’d be OK with having poorer quality drugs? The pharm companies aren’t going to put all that money (seriously, look at some figures. they’re staggering and most drugs don’t make it to the market) into producing a product if they aren’t going to get a substantial return?

There’s a lot more to consider, but to have a coherent discussion you’re going to have to limit your arguments to certain segments of the health care industry instead of making broad generalizations.[/quote]

I agree with most of all you have stated and you have supported my points quite nicely. However, I would also add that if R&D is so expense for pharmaceutical companies why do they sell the same drugs in Mexico and other countries for half of the price in the US?

Why? Because the market will support it. Insurance pays for the drugs in the US and people pay for these drugs in Mexico. So that is why these same drugs are cheaper in Mexico; it’s a consumer driven market not and insurance driven market.

374

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You still don’t get it Bro. It is called competition.

If you have a service you are trying to sell and someone comes and sells that same service for less, people start to use the cheaper service instead of yours. Then at some point you are out of business. This is called the market rate.

In healthcare there is no limit on price and hospitals and other service providers set their price based on RVU’s (Relative Value Units). And the thing is that there is no standard for RVU’s. Each service can and does make up what they feel they should change with little rationale behind it. The only guideline is that you cannot control the market by working with competitors to control the price.

This is false. In my practice, my prices for services are set by insurance companies. I am not sure where you are getting your info.

No, it’s true. The price set by the insurance company only applies if you want to be part of their provider network. If you don’t you can set whatever price you want. But if you want the extra volume that an insurance company can provide, then you have to play ball and except their rate.

Now if the consumer of these services had to pay for them directly they would go to the cheapest place and soon prices would drop due to competition. Basic!

Again, this is bullshit. In practices that avoid insurance companies and accept “fee for service”, the doctors usually charge higher fees. Anyone who truly understands how much control these insurance companies have would probably go ahead and accept the higher fees because insurance companies are attempting to not only control price but the quality of the services.

Your comment is accurate but irrelevant in terms of consumer economics. When you join and insurance network you are voluntarily agreeing to their rates. But if there were no insurance companies your rates would voluntary be lower due to what people could afford because if they weren’t, and a competitor had lower rates, you would loose business. That is why you joined an insurance company, because they offer consumers lowers rates than you charge normally. If this was not the case than people would just come to you without insurance and pay your normal rate.

But because the insurance plan is cheaper for people they use network dentists and not you. So you have to become part of the network to stay in business. (I’m not saying this is fair or the best way to do it, I’m just saying that this is the way it is)

I may diagnose a patient as needing a service that may cost more. Even though the cost is higher, I may truly believe it is the better option…however, the insurance company won’t pay for that service because they have already deemed all issues even similar as needing a certain type of restoration. They won’t pay for any other options.

I agree. Quality is sacrificed sometimes for cost. No question. It is a problem with the current system.

Why do you think so many GP’s are leaving the medical field? This isn’t Mc Donald’s. You are paying for quality in health care, not just a simple service. With insurance companies in control, you can be sure that quality will based on that of the lowest bidder.

I agree to some extent. However, quality is not that expensive. Vet’s go to school as long or longer than most medical doctors and dentists and yet their services cost much less than medical services. It is because there is not much pet health insurance driving up the prices.

But if you were paid by the government in a single payor system, you think you would get paid more that in the current system? Not on your life.

You guys are both right and are seeing the same things in slightly different ways.

The main problem with our current system is the insurance companies keep too big a share of the money.

I think the best solution would be to have individuals pay their own way for almost all services and then carry a low premium/super high deductible insurance for real catastrophes.

More money would go to the doctors, patients would save money and most of the insurance executives would have to get new jobs.

I live in a nice town with a nice hospital and a couple health insurance companies have big headquarters in the area. The insurance execs have nicer houses than the doctors. Something is wrong with that.[/quote]

I agree with you. However, for your plan to work people will have to take some responsibility for their own health. And in case you haven’t looked out the window lately, we live in an entitlement society. Everyone wants someone else to take responsibility for them, their health, and their lives in general. Individual responsibility is not a popular concept in the US.

So everyone wants the very best healthcare money can buy as long as it isn’t their money that is buying it.

This is why universal healthcare will not work in the US, because quality and access will drop when the financial incentive for doctors and healthcare service companies is removed.

375

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

quality and access will drop when the financial incentive for doctors and healthcare service companies is removed.

[/quote]

You really think this isn’t happening already?

376

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I agree with most of all you have stated and you have supported my points quite nicely. However, I would also add that if R&D is so expense for pharmaceutical companies why do they sell the same drugs in Mexico and other countries for half of the price in the US?

Why? Because the market will support it. Insurance pays for the drugs in the US and people pay for these drugs in Mexico. So that is why these same drugs are cheaper in Mexico; it’s a consumer driven market not and insurance driven market.
[/quote]

It’s cheaper there because the US basically subsidizes production. If the US didn’t then these drugs wouldn’t be created. Sucks on our end for sure, but it’s either have it and pay the high cost or don’t have it.

377

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
FlavaDave wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I agree with most of all you have stated and you have supported my points quite nicely. However, I would also add that if R&D is so expense for pharmaceutical companies why do they sell the same drugs in Mexico and other countries for half of the price in the US?

Why? Because the market will support it. Insurance pays for the drugs in the US and people pay for these drugs in Mexico. So that is why these same drugs are cheaper in Mexico; it’s a consumer driven market not and insurance driven market.
[/quote]

It has nothing to do with who’s paying for the drugs and everything to do with patents. In the US, Australia, etc, you invent a drug and you can get the patent on it for 20 years to allow you to recoup your losses, after that theoretically generics can come into the market which would bring the cost down to the cost of production only rather than cost of production plus research.

The reason this system sometimes doesn’t work and drugs cost so much for such a very long time is that the company that invented it will patent one new aspect of the drug, then 20 years later patent a different aspect of the drug to get another 20 years of patents, and so on for as long as they can manage. It’s called evergreening, doesn’t happen with everything but it’s part of the problem.

378

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

quality and access will drop when the financial incentive for doctors and healthcare service companies is removed.

You really think this isn’t happening already?[/quote]

It is happening for access via HMO’s, etc, but not for technology. The US is the leader in healthcare technology, no question. Access is currently limited to those with insurance and further limited by insurance based on cost and the “proven” outcome of certain procedures/drugs, etc.

So under socialized medicine we will loose all cutting edge innovation. And frankly, there will be little sources outside the US to find it. Canada and others now ride our coattails in terms of technology. We invent the shit, spend all the money on R&D, and then they follow what we have done when they are able.

So I think that if the US does go to socialized medicine there will be an absence of technology that will also affect other socialized medicine countries. IMO

379

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I agree with most of all you have stated and you have supported my points quite nicely. However, I would also add that if R&D is so expense for pharmaceutical companies why do they sell the same drugs in Mexico and other countries for half of the price in the US?

Why? Because the market will support it. Insurance pays for the drugs in the US and people pay for these drugs in Mexico. So that is why these same drugs are cheaper in Mexico; it’s a consumer driven market not and insurance driven market.

It’s cheaper there because the US basically subsidizes production. If the US didn’t then these drugs wouldn’t be created. Sucks on our end for sure, but it’s either have it and pay the high cost or don’t have it.[/quote]

So you agree that without a financial incentive the quality of care will decrease?

380

What are you talking about? lol. That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time. I was arguing that you made it sound, in your initial post, as if we the consumers could just magically reduce the cost of medical care with no consequences.

Methinks we’ve been arguing nothing.