What's wrong with for profit healthcare

[Bern80]

If you were shown evidence that by and large allays your fears would you be prepared to discuss it rather than dismiss it out of hand?

Possibl, but again those are just some of my problems. The bigger issues I have with it are ideological in nature.

 

[Diuretic]

No, the goal of all healthcare companies is to maximize profits.

Of course it is. If something is a business then its objective is to make money. What the business does to make money is what differentiates an oil company from a healthcare company. The profit motive doesn't go away.

I think that point is being lost on some of the thread's posters. Keep making the point though, eventually it will sink in

 

[Diuretic]

I will ignore your post completely unless you admit when you said that, for profit companies don't prevent disease they only treat it because there is no money in it is completely wrong? I proved that a for profit company was developing a vaccine for cancer, which your response was well, there is money in vaccines. You don't understand how your earlier responses conflict in reality with each other? Or are you just going to recite over and over Democratic talking points?

I think there's a difference between a company that, for example, seeks to find a vaccine for preventing cancer is probably going to be a company that has an interest in developing, patenting and selling pharmaceuticals.

A healthcare business that makes it money from treating sick people wants to treat as many sick people as it can so that it can maximise its profits. It's a bit like the bloke who wrote the first virus programme for a pc - I'd bet London to a brick that he also wrote the first anti-virus programme as well

 

[Diuretic]

Democratic talking points? We are talking about preventing disease. For profit companies are focused on making a profit not preventing disease.

Most of the preventions are fairly cheap and related to nutritional therapy rather than drugs. But there is much more money in drugs than nutritional therapy. Why? Because food cannot be patented.

The French have very little heart disease even though they eat rich food and smoke like chimneys. Scientists call this the "French Paradox." When scientists at Harvard Medical School( a non profit, gasp!) studied this, they decided that a substance in red wine called Resveratrol was part of the reason......<snipped>.

No, they have crise de foie instead

 

[Diuretic]

So vaccines do prevent disease, which you stated US for profit companies don't develop because there is no money involved, correct?

See post 103

 

[editec]

What's wrong with for profit healthcare

The return on investment (as evidenced by morbity and motality statistics) isn't very good for the consumers.

Aside from that it's a perfect system.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

OK, Kirk, Jreeves, what are you guys debating, exactly??

Medical Research and nationalized health care are to totally different things. Countries with national health systems don't nationalized R&D firms, which is why some of the largest, most successful multinational Pharmaceutical R&D companies are from all over Europe, Japan, even China. Nationalizing health CARE does not mean suddenly socializing everything that has to do with medicine. The research will continue to be the way it is today, for good or bad, whether a universal system is set up or not.

 

[sealybobo]

For Profit organizations are all about maximizing profits. So they will hire low paying employees who don't care, they'll cut back on services, they'll cut corners, etc.

What's wrong with for profit fire departments?

 

[CA95380]

That is nice.

We could prevent cancer for pennies a day. But like I said, there's no money in it. There's plenty of money in a vaccine, however.

Vaccine to prevent cancer? Where do we buy it? Your statement seems to imply that a vaccine has already been developed, or is close to be developed, and they are not letting it be released because there is no money in it

Your statement above is a pretty bold statement to make - because there are so many causes of cancer and types of cancer. Smoking, diet, the sun, just to name a few. I do not see how you can "prevent cancer" as easily as you seem to think it is. We all know that to stop smoking (or to never start) helps to prevent it, and sunscreen products helps to prevent it.....

...but to say that it could be "prevented for pennies" is a bold statement. If there is a link telling us how to do this - please let us know.

BTW ... interesting link here --> Cancer Research UK | CancerHelp UK | What causes cancer?

 

[Bern80]

If you were shown evidence that by and large allays your fears would you be prepared to discuss it rather than dismiss it out of hand?

I'm revising my orginal response to no it probably wouldn't because there is an entirely other issue here that I want people to try to follow.

One could argue that the U.S. is a very convenience oriented society, by extension we are also a lazy society. I think we can all probably agree on that. The question is are liberal policies helping the problem or makeing it worse. One can only answer that they are making it worse.

Categorically leftist policies shift responsibilities that once resided with individuals to government. Our housing bail out is evidence of that (yes I blame republicans for voting on that one too). Now we're talking about healthcare and once again we are being told we should shift financial responsibilty for your health to the governmet. Please explain to me how our society will improve, how we will become stronger, if we are not forced to be accountable to ourselves? If you teach people they don't have to be then they won't be and they will become weaker, it's that simple.

I would prefer a system of some type that still requires a level of responsibility on the part of the individual. I don't see how shifting the financial responsibility from the individual is going to encourage them to make better health choices, do you?

 

[Diuretic]

For Profit organizations are all about maximizing profits. So they will hire low paying employees who don't care, they'll cut back on services, they'll cut corners, etc.

What's wrong with for profit fire departments?

Not to take the thread off track but that's how fire services started in England. Insurance companies created them, of course if you didn't have the right insurance company then their firefighters wouldn't try and save your premises. That's why cities took up the role.

Back to normal service now.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm revising my orginal response to no it probably wouldn't because there is an entirely other issue here that I want people to try to follow.

One could argue that the U.S. is a very convenience oriented society, by extension we are also a lazy society. I think we can all probably agree on that. The question is are liberal policies helping the problem or makeing it worse. One can only answer that they are making it worse.

Categorically leftist policies shift responsibilities that once resided with individuals to government. Our housing bail out is evidence of that (yes I blame republicans for voting on that one too). Now we're talking about healthcare and once again we are being told we should shift financial responsibilty for your health to the governmet. Please explain to me how our society will improve, how we will become stronger, if we are not forced to be accountable to ourselves? If you teach people they don't have to be then they won't be and they will become weaker, it's that simple.

I would prefer a system of some type that still requires a level of responsibility on the part of the individual. I don't see how shifting the financial responsibility from the individual is going to encourage them to make better health choices, do you?

There are some good questions there but I don't think they're directly in the province of universal health care. In fact those points are so good that they deserve a thread of their own because I think there would be some really interesting discussions coming out of them.

 

[Bern80]

There are some good questions there but I don't think they're directly in the province of universal health care. In fact those points are so good that they deserve a thread of their own because I think there would be some really interesting discussions coming out of them.

Semi-true. Ideologically it is beyond the scope of just universal health care. But it is also directly related in that yet another facet of our society is falling under it.

To focus it back on healthcare I would have you answer some of the related questions there. Reality is people change behavior depending on how things negatively impact them.
Since Kirk is on his cancer prevention binge let's focus on that. Many of our number one killing cancers are directly behavior related. Even knowing in the back of their minds the likely outcomes and costs associated with a life of smoking, millions of people continue to do it. Still those burdens are a dissinsentive to continue a behavior.

the same is true with healthcare overall. While millions of Americans continue to overeat and have genrally poor diets, on some level most people know that they will have to deal with the negative aspects of those behaviors at some point down the road in a financial manner. Thus the costs are a dissinsentive to continuing unhealthy behavior. But now were just gonna take cost out of the equation. Again I ask why should we ravamp a healthcare system that removes a an insentive for people to change their behavior for the better?

I think one can easily see the snow ball effect that would take place. There's the economic fact that demand for healthcare wil go up because teh price is lower, but it will also go up because no one has any real insentive to change their behavior for the better.

 

[Chris]

Semi-true. Ideologically it is beyond the scope of just universal health care. But it is also directly related in that yet another facet of our society is falling under it.

To focus it back on healthcare I would have you answer some of the related questions there. Reality is people change behavior depending on how things negatively impact them.
Since Kirk is on his cancer prevention binge let's focus on that. Many of our number one killing cancers are directly behavior related. Even knowing in the back of their minds the likely outcomes and costs associated with a life of smoking, millions of people continue to do it. Still those burdens are a dissinsentive to continue a behavior.

the same is true with healthcare overall. While millions of Americans continue to overeat and have genrally poor diets, on some level most people know that they will have to deal with the negative aspects of those behaviors at some point down the road in a financial manner. Thus the costs are a dissinsentive to continuing unhealthy behavior. But now were just gonna take cost out of the equation. Again I ask why should we ravamp a healthcare system that removes a an insentive for people to change their behavior for the better?

I think one can easily see the snow ball effect that would take place. There's the economic fact that demand for healthcare wil go up because teh price is lower, but it will also go up because no one has any real insentive to change their behavior for the better.

That has been proven not to be true in other countries. In a single payer system people still have to make a copayment. It's not free. Plus if people get health problems taken care of early, it saves money in the long run.

 

[jreeves]

You have an incompetent Administration in the White House so I understand your fears

But that doesn't invalidate the concept of universal health care.

Entitlement programs and the inefficiency of government ran healthcare in this nation has a long history, its a lot longer than the current adminstration.

 

[jreeves]

But the US doesn't rate does it? It's like arguing that because thousands of Americans can afford multi-million dollar mansions that US housing is in the finest in the world.

That's not comparing apples to apples is it, kind of a stretch don't you think?

 

[jreeves]

Of course it is. If something is a business then its objective is to make money. What the business does to make money is what differentiates an oil company from a healthcare company. The profit motive doesn't go away.

I think that point is being lost on some of the thread's posters. Keep making the point though, eventually it will sink in

Same thing goes for a vast number of healthcare providers that are non profits in the US, huh?

 

[jreeves]

See post 103

That still doesn't change the fact he stated that for profit healthcare companies don't prevent disease because there is no money in it.

 

[Chris]

That still doesn't change the fact he stated that for profit healthcare companies don't prevent disease because there is no money in it.

Has cancer been prevented yet?

 

[jreeves]

The return on investment (as evidenced by morbity and motality statistics) isn't very good for the consumers.

Aside from that it's a perfect system.

U.S. health care: Better than most

By The Times-Union


Health care in the United States still has impressive results, a study in a respected British medical publication has revealed.


Lancet is a much-quoted journal of medicine. The publication just released an ambitious comparison of health outcomes worldwide by the Concord working group.

The study includes data from one or more countries on all five continents. It may be the first attempt at a global comparison of cancer survival rates, Concord reported.

In the United States, the study included analyses of cancer survival in 16 states, covering 42 percent of the population.

Americans have excellent chances of surviving cancer when compared to people in most other nations.

Cuba ranked higher in some cases, but the researchers flagged the results due to concerns with the quality of the data.

Comparisons of cancer survival between Europe and the United States since 2000 have identified wide differences, with survival usually higher in the United States, the Concord study revealed.

For example, the five-year relative survival rate for women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1985 to 1989 was 73 percent in Europe and 84 percent in the United States.

.The improved results for cancer survival in the United States may have more to do with aggressive diagnosis, for instance, with screening for colon cancer starting at age 50 as opposed to later ages overseas

There still are variations in outcomes among African-Americans, such as lower survival rates for black men with prostate cancer.

The insurance system does make a difference. "Survival was highest in patients who had private insurance, intermediate with federal insurance and lowest with no insurance," Concord reported.

There still is a difficult balancing act to integrate wide access, high quality and low cost of health care.

So far, the American system, for all of its access issues, still compares well to the rest of the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cancer survivAl

U.S. leads: U.S. leads industrialized nations in survival of breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Near the top: U.S. also is high in rates of colon cancer survival.Source: Concord study in Lancet, British health publication



Not all is bad with healthcare, the major problem with our system is accessability. We need to make insurance portable between jobs. I would even support tax credits for the self employed. There are many things that we can do to shore up the world's leader in medical innovation. By instilling a Universal Healthcare System, we would be taking money away from medical breakthroughs and better treatments.

I am Jreeves and I approved this message....
U.S. still leader in medical innovation
According to Cowen, supporters of a national health care system cite the fact that, although the U.S. "spends more of its gross domestic product on health care than any nation in the world," U.S. residents "do not live longer than Western Europeans or Japanese."

However, Cowen writes that this "apparently devastating fact" does not account for the 15 Nobel Prizes in medicine that U.S. scientists and foreign-born scientists who work in the U.S. have received or the development of some of the "most important medical innovations of the last 25 years" by U.S. hospitals or companies.

He adds that "[e]ven when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies."

This "innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities," and the "gains from medical innovations are high," Cowen writes.

The U.S. "could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done," Cowen writes, adding, "In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives."

He concludes, "The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world" (Cowen, New York Times, 10/5).