Lies and mistruths about socialized/universal healthcare

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2003-06-17 07:06pm

Hey all,

Awhile back there was a thread about lies being propogated about socialized health care in the US, but the board had to be restarted so a lot of the posts in it are now gone. Can anyone address the common claims about socialized medicine (specifically, Canda's) pertaining to claims of long waiting lists, lack of good care, and the like? I am kinda wanting to do a writeup on it, anyone know of good places to look?

Another thing I was wondering about: with the possibility of new laws like the prescription drug benefit, does anyone think that drug companies based in the US will experience declining profits and rising costs that will cause them to either go out of business, move, or not be as productive? Would the fact that drug companies are not based in countries with socialized medicine have anything to do with the success or failure of a socialized system?

Sorry for all the questions, heh...hopefully we can get some good discussion going on here because it's hard to seperate the crap with the real info in the media.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 07:17pm

I can't really address the Canadian healthcare questions as well as some of the Canadians here probably can, tempted as I am to do so.

As for the prescription drug benefit, fuck it. IIRC, the average per capita wealth of American senior households is something like $250,000. It's time for them to start shelling out their own cash, because I'm getting sick of everyone else having to shell it out for them.

I don't think that a prescription drug benefit will really hurt the drug companies that bad; it will inflate demand enormously, so they'll have no trouble selling their products. The problem is, they'll eventually run into shortages, as is always the case when the government tries to reduce the market price of a good, and will have to devote more of their resources to producing more of the currently-available drugs, which will leave less room for investing in new medicines.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2003-06-17 07:34pm

Well I meant socialized healthcare in general, but I figured that myths about the Canadian one would be the best to address.

And BTW, that's cool that you're from Cobb County, cause I am too

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 07:58pm

Spiffy. What area, East Cobb, South Cobb, North Cobb?

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2003-06-17 08:07pm

South. Graduated from South Cobb High school in 2000...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 08:09pm

I see. I went to Lassiter, in East Cobb, graduated in 2001.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-06-17 09:33pm

For anyone interested, here's a NYTimes article about the Senate Prescription Drug Plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/14/business/14DRUG.html

Only people with more than about $1,100 in drug costs in a year would be better off, in retrospect, for having enrolled in the plan. According to data compiled by Professor Lichtenberg from the government's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, about two-thirds of the elderly used less than $1,100 worth of drugs in 1999. The 10 percent of the elderly who used the most drugs averaged $3,720 in total costs; at that level, the out-of-pocket cost under the Senate plan would be $2,418.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 09:58pm

Canadian health-care costs significantly less per capita than American health care, despite covering 100% of the population. Moreover, Americans are not any healthier than Canadians despite their great public and private expenditures.

The free market system works best when you have two conditions:

1) The power relationship between the buyer and seller is either at parity or weighted in favour of the buyer

2) It is ethically feasible to deny the product being sold if the buyer can't pay for it

When selling TV sets, both conditions are easily met. There is heavy competition, the buyer can always wait and buy the set later, and there is nothing immoral about forcing people to live without TV sets.

However, when it comes to health care, the relationship breaks down. The buyer is in a position of near-helplessness; when someone checks into a hospital with a serious injury, he may literally face death if he tries to shop around for other hospitals before going into surgery. Moreover, it is unethical to deny health care to people who can't afford it, hence the American system relies on a disjointed mishmash of public and private care.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2003-06-17 11:02pm

Well said, Mike. So are the supposed months-long waiting lists for medical testing in Canada a myth, or are they true?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-18 09:09am

Natorgator wrote:Well said, Mike. So are the supposed months-long waiting lists for medical testing in Canada a myth, or are they true?

The last time I wanted to get a physical exam (including blood testing) done on myself, I got an appointment the next day.

There are some exotic, expensive procedures that have waiting lists, but if it's a necessary, life-saving procedure, they WILL get to it quickly.

Basically, American health-care propagandists look for the exception and try to paint it as the rule. They also ignore the fact that if you're willing to pay, you can always speed up the process by going to a private operator, which is your ONLY choice in America anyway, so it doesn't make any difference.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-18 12:44pm

Being in good health is not a privilege; it is a right and a necessity. This should be a simple matter of precedent. The Supreme Court ruled that the government was obligated to provide a public defender to an accused man if he could not afford representation, because the accused has the right to legal representation. No sane person would deny that medical care is a right, either, so the government is obligated to provide full health care services, as well.