I think universal healthcare is stupid

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No you mean, If the government decided to cover everyone that way, big pharma, and her chums, and their lobbyists would hang any administration silly enough to try up by the balls.

Canny screw with "there" money and profits in such a manner and not affect a major response.

I think that's the main reason why universal/socialised healthcare would never work in America. Any major overhaul will only benefit the major companies/providers than the public at large. They hold too much lobbying and political funding power.

Back when the UK and other countries were putting Universal Healthcare in place Pharma Companies were spending 70% on R&D and 30% on advertising. Now they're spending 70% on advertising and only 30% on R & D - most of the 'new' drugs have been old drugs from the 60s/70s rebranded for recently invented 'conditions' everyone experiences in everyday life (i.e beta blockers a redundant heart medication being rebranded as cures for 'social anxiety' aka being a bit shy).

Different countries, different times, different systems.

a reply to: bastion

"Different countries, different times, different systems."

Both first world nations, interesting times, as to our systems of governance, both are corrupt and broken beyond repair by design.

Ile take our NHS over American health insurance, or lack off, any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays all the same.

It's nowhere near perfect, but it exists and without such millions of peoples lives would be in danger.

Different strokes for different folks all the same, quite literally for some poor bastards.

I’ll tell you the real reason you think universal health care is stupid or that it wouldn’t work here. It’s because there are billions to be made by keeping healthcare private, more like trillions really. And those are trillions we would be saving with universal healthcare. And so those companies engage in proven propaganda and psyops that have been shown, again and again, to convince people to vote against their own best interests in support of companies and people who exploit them. I’m not saying you’re stupid, after all this is a multi billion dollar research and science created specifically to change the minds of large groups of people. It’s just the way it is.

I thought of this sad thread when I heard the U.S. govt announce yesterday, they think they are going to import insulin from Canada..because it's 10x cheaper.

Funny because Canada wasn't asked, how about NO! fix your own damn system. I have no problem if individuals need to do this, but the U.S. govt, our good friends who declare us a security risk, so tariffs can be slapped on our goods..I don't think so.




globalnews.ca...
www.cbc.ca...

a reply to: vonclod

Supply and demand will always supersede any and all ""security risks"".

Plus silly lines on a map aside think how many lives might be saved?

Unless of course, they hoick up the price of the import.

a reply to: andy06shake

Unless of course, they hoick up the price of the import.

The problem is, we have enough to deal with our populace, probably not a lot extra..I don't envision the pharma companies are going to want to sell a bunch extra to us, to then service their own high dollar market.

People in the U.S. should be asking why they are getting ripped off, especially on a drug/medicine invented in 1923.

Here is an interesting tidbit

When inventor Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1923, he refused to put his name on the patent. He felt it was unethical for a doctor to profit from a discovery that would save lives. Banting's co-inventors, James Collip and Charles Best, sold the insulin patent to the University of Toronto for a mere $1.

I just think it's pretty sad our type of healthcare system is looked down upon, when there are huge problems with the U.S. system, run by the insurance cabal.

I think two things that should be looked at are the quality of healthcare offered and the price to the taxpayer. Other than that, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having a system where people are guaranteed access to healthcare.

a reply to: vonclod

My friend is disabled and has diabetes. She isn't allowed to get a prescription for insulin because she moved states, and her old doctor won't write her new doctor. When she is able to get insulin, she has to ration. This sounds dangerous. Open to any suggestions.

a reply to: vonclod

God bless our NHS because the Tories and American trade deals sure won't.

Insulin consumption and production is only an issue in any first-world nation when "they" make it so.

Truth is mate, it's not just medical insurance the cabals run, its the whole shebang.

America not only needs but requires a national health service, insurance companies, well not so much imho.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: vonclod

My friend is disabled and has diabetes. She isn't allowed to get a prescription for insulin because she moved states, and her old doctor won't write her new doctor. When she is able to get insulin, she has to ration. This sounds dangerous. Open to any suggestions.

That sounds crazy!
I have heard the rationing thing..not good I'm sure. In Canada you don't need a script, just go to the pharmacy and buy it, at around $30 a vial vs $300 or so(from what I hear)

I know a lot of Americans come here for their Insulin, I don't begrudge them at all. The govt should roll up it's sleeves and do something about it/fix it.

I looked into it, and apparently illegal to send it to the U.S. via USPS, maybe not so via FEDEX, but not sure as in the U.S. it's a perscription. Also it appears to be temperature sensitive, so must be packaged in a coldpack? and not take too long.

Later tonight I will dig into this and see if any solution is there.

a reply to: andy06shake

I fully agree!

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No you mean, If the government decided to cover everyone that way, big pharma, and her chums, and their lobbyists would hang any administration silly enough to try up by the balls.

Canny screw with "there" money and profits in such a manner and not affect a major response.

I think that's the main reason why universal/socialised healthcare would never work in America. Any major overhaul will only benefit the major companies/providers than the public at large. They hold too much lobbying and political funding power.

Back when the UK and other countries were putting Universal Healthcare in place Pharma Companies were spending 70% on R&D and 30% on advertising. Now they're spending 70% on advertising and only 30% on R & D - most of the 'new' drugs have been old drugs from the 60s/70s rebranded for recently invented 'conditions' everyone experiences in everyday life (i.e beta blockers a redundant heart medication being rebranded as cures for 'social anxiety' aka being a bit shy).

Different countries, different times, different systems.

Yep.

More dollars more lobbyists.

More lobbyists, more dollars.

Soon there won't be any economic wealth to fight over, but what little is left will all be going to lobbyists to split up the left overs.

I looked at my earnings statement last year, and the stated value of my benefits came to almost exactly half my base wage. If you leave out overtime, basically 33% of my total compensation was benefits. Healthcare being the biggest ticket item on that list. (With overtime, it was more like 25%)

I live alone with no children.

How is the rest of the economy supposed to function if medical bills are sapping that much of average peoples' incomes.

reply to: rockintitz

It works in Australia because it is not free...

If you don't have private health care a percentage of your income is paid as a tax to cover medical cover.
Public hospitals are generally better run and have better services than private hospitals.

The reason it might not work in the US is that most medical services are private corporations run for-profit. A single-payer scheme would still have to fund the bloated current medical establishment.