[pbc1548]

Yes, the system is not perfect but it does seem to work pretty well, or at least it has for my family.
Now, before you hit that recliner, i think you have a job to finish!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[rxter]

Oh boy.

Try as I might I can't not throw in here. Typically I stay away from the political stuff because I come here for auto-entertainment (easy ds [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]

As someone who has fed 3 kids and partially restored a 968 based on the profits of the drug industry I have an admittedly biased, but what i believe is a completely logical and defensible position. And here it is.

- 100 or even 50 years ago "health care" was something for the rich. People on farms in the middle of nowhere, or a poor person in the city who broke a tooth or an arm might get an infection and die. Entrepreneurs who developed a way to treat or prevent a disease were compensated for their inventions - those who could paid for the medicine. You'll find that each major pharma company was started by a physician or a pharmacist - the original entrepreneur - no lobby, just a smart scientist with a product that helped people. Anyway, somewhere along the way "healthcare" has become a universal human right, like freedom, suffrage, schooling, and old-age pensions. I'm not arguing whether it should be regarded as a right or a privalege, I'll leave that to the philosophers.

As each of these became a right rather than a privalege, then an entity large enough to protect that right for all needed to take control. The only institutions large enough in our life times are national governments. And so we see the de-privatization (if that's a word, but you get my drift) of these activities. Problem is that while national governments may be good at raising armies and taxes and setting policy, they pretty much stink up the joint when administering large public programs. Too many examples (even in the items noted above) of how governments have botched administration of these rights and then come back to entrepreneurs (the private sector they like to call it) to find a solution.

As to the big nasty drug companies (<b>warning - editorial content ahead</b>); without profit there will be no new drugs. If we are happy with our current pharmacopia, and we are not interested in finding non-surgical/behavioral (read pharmaceutical) solutions to parkinsons, cancer, and the myriad viral threats to the species, then eliminate the profit margin and buy drugs from the generic houses. Innovation costs money, lots of it. I'm not sure if the majority of people understand what a "generic" drug is. Simply put, the generic outfit needs to show only that the chemical is equivalent to the innovator compound - they do not have to show that the drug is safe or effective as the innovator company already did that. So the generic house can recoup its much lower investment a lot faster for a lower price. Think of the cost of the first working v-tech engine at Honda vs the cost of the 1,000,000 th. Same basic principle at work. The generic company has no development cost, only production of a known, proven product with a known, proven market.

No profit, no new drugs, and one less 968 on the road....

OK, enough of this - I am going for a drive.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Considering my wife works at Genentech I dare not say a bad thing about the drug industry or I will face a lecture about the billions in expenses incurred before any given single drug hits the market which can then only be recovered over many subsequent years via
what are said to be obscene profit margins on brand name drugs. But that aside, I think our health care system without the benefit of a public option similar to Canda, or France and numerous European countries is a carte blanche for medical providers, insurance companies and an entire system for that matter to run amok with absurd costs, abuse, no regualtion or competition to keep anyone in check and an unmitigated disaster which I'm only surprised it took this long to reach the crisis it is now.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Health care is definitely not one of my areas of expertise, plus the fact that I've always been the fat, dumb, and happy recipient of fabulous health insurance through my company makes me woefully unqualified to comment on this topic. However, several good points have been raised here, so here's my attempt at a fair and balanced assessment of what I've gathered:

1) It's difficult to compare the US to other countries for one primary reason: for better or for worse, we are the world's lone superpower, and due to our ingrained belief that we have to be the world's policeman, we're saddled with a defense budget that rivals the GDP of many nations. This makes the US a less-than-ideal country for providing the sort of cradle-to-grave benefits, including universal health care, that most of the rest of the industrialized countries of the world have moved toward. I'm not saying I agree with this situation, but it is what it is.

2) Partly as a result of 1), and our politicians' refusal to recognize this fact, our government is broke. We simply can't afford another government sponsored program that put us further into debt, no matter how desirable the program may be, unless our leaders can find a way to grow a backbone and figure out something else to cut. As soon as pigs take flight.

3) Rxter make a very good point about the criticality of profit to our economy, and therefore to the health of our society. I'd like to add that adding taxation (as an alternative to cutting spending) to fund things like universal health care is also a dangerous path. This goes without saying, but every additional dollar of tax that comes out of a paycheck is one less dollar that could go toward, say, a supercharger for a 968. This also goes for things like rasing the gasoline tax, but that's another topic for another day.

4) Having said all that, I'm very surprised that, given today's very high unemployment rate, the outcry in opposition to health reform has been so strong. It seems very unfair that someone who loses their job through no fault of their own not only loses their income, but their health insurance. It just goes to show how much people mistrust the government, I guess.

No easy answers, for sure.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.