universal healthcare

[PLAYER57832]

Further, are you saying that these diseases that have been cured in England are not cured in the United States?

This is the key point.

Also, you would have to see if the exposures are the same. Proving cause and effect from environmental hazards is very, very difficult, even when a lot is known. Britain has a far longer and perhaps nastier history of industry, along with a weather system that tends to let things "sit" in the air perhaps more than many places in the US.

So, you need to look at overall death rates. Then you need to track down the causes. Then you would need to establish that the British Health care system does a poorer job.

However, here is another issue that we Americans typically like to skirt. The real truth is that there is not enough medicine, not enough devices, not enough trained doctors to treat every patient. No one likes saying that right now we have no chance of fighting this cancer or that cancer, so instead of spending millions on a few patients, we will keep up some studies to find better cures and put that money into prevention. But, that is the sad reality. IN the US kids die regularly from lack of decent care. Sure, anyone has to get treated in the emergency room, but only if its truly serious. Not to long ago there was a guy here who told of being about 8, breaking his arm and being sent home because his parents did not have insurance and a broken arm was not considered a true emergency.

So, the bigger issue is not whether a few people with very advanced, difficult to treat issues might die, the real issue is if millions will get the basic care they need. A private pay system can take over the extra care for those who can and wish to pay for it.

[thegreekdog]

Further, are you saying that these diseases that have been cured in England are not cured in the United States?

This is the key point.

Also, you would have to see if the exposures are the same. Proving cause and effect from environmental hazards is very, very difficult, even when a lot is known. Britain has a far longer and perhaps nastier history of industry, along with a weather system that tends to let things "sit" in the air perhaps more than many places in the US.

So, you need to look at overall death rates. Then you need to track down the causes. Then you would need to establish that the British Health care system does a poorer job.

However, here is another issue that we Americans typically like to skirt. The real truth is that there is not enough medicine, not enough devices, not enough trained doctors to treat every patient. No one likes saying that right now we have no chance of fighting this cancer or that cancer, so instead of spending millions on a few patients, we will keep up some studies to find better cures and put that money into prevention. But, that is the sad reality. IN the US kids die regularly from lack of decent care. Sure, anyone has to get treated in the emergency room, but only if its truly serious. Not to long ago there was a guy here who told of being about 8, breaking his arm and being sent home because his parents did not have insurance and a broken arm was not considered a true emergency.

So, the bigger issue is not whether a few people with very advanced, difficult to treat issues might die, the real issue is if millions will get the basic care they need. A private pay system can take over the extra care for those who can and wish to pay for it.

Separate issues Player. The diseases have been cured in the US, just like in England. You're saying that a segment of the population has no access to such cures. It's disengenous to say that the US hasn't cured these diseases, when they have. England is not more technologically advanced in medicine than the US.

[Snorri1234]

Okay (frankly, I still think you're saying more people die of cancer because they have to die of something, so why not cancer),

They die of cancer because cancer is astonishingly difficult to treat. At the moment death of cancer is sort of like death of old age. that is; you die from cancer because you've managed to not die from everything else.

There are ways to not only treat cancer, but catch it early (through the use of preventative medicine), which increases the effect of treatment.

Wow, thanks for information I already knew....

I'm studying medicine dude, I have to actually know what types of cancers occur, how they are treated, how the medicines work, what the side-effects are and what the prognosis is in general.

Further, are you saying that these diseases that have been cured in England are not cured in the United States?

Yes.

You mentioned preventative medicine, but you forgot that for a large part the US doesn't practice it. I know I've mentioned the article where it was outlined that treatment of Diabetes was ignored over treatment of the symptoms of diabetes, and it showed very well what I mean.
If you do not keep blood-glucose levels within a clinically acceptable limit, the effect on the overall health of the patient is devastating. These effects are not immediately apparent but even when well-managed the chance of , for example, a heart-attack are greatly increased.

Now, apply this on a broader scale (not just diabetes) and you can see that when it would be prevented the deaths would accumulate in the areas where there is no real cure for the disease. (There is no real cure for cancer, killing part of the body is what we've got so far.)

[Snorri1234]

Separate issues Player. The diseases have been cured in the US, just like in England. You're saying that a segment of the population has no access to such cures. It's disengenous to say that the US hasn't cured these diseases, when they have. England is not more technologically advanced in medicine than the US.

Yeah but England is far better at applying that technological advancement to everyone.


Seriously, you mentioned preventative medicine and then didn't spot the obvious problem of getting that preventative medicine to people who can't afford it?

[PLAYER57832]

Further, are you saying that these diseases that have been cured in England are not cured in the United States?

This is the key point.

Also, you would have to see if the exposures are the same. Proving cause and effect from environmental hazards is very, very difficult, even when a lot is known. Britain has a far longer and perhaps nastier history of industry, along with a weather system that tends to let things "sit" in the air perhaps more than many places in the US.

So, you need to look at overall death rates. Then you need to track down the causes. Then you would need to establish that the British Health care system does a poorer job.

However, here is another issue that we Americans typically like to skirt. The real truth is that there is not enough medicine, not enough devices, not enough trained doctors to treat every patient. No one likes saying that right now we have no chance of fighting this cancer or that cancer, so instead of spending millions on a few patients, we will keep up some studies to find better cures and put that money into prevention. But, that is the sad reality. IN the US kids die regularly from lack of decent care. Sure, anyone has to get treated in the emergency room, but only if its truly serious. Not to long ago there was a guy here who told of being about 8, breaking his arm and being sent home because his parents did not have insurance and a broken arm was not considered a true emergency.

So, the bigger issue is not whether a few people with very advanced, difficult to treat issues might die, the real issue is if millions will get the basic care they need. A private pay system can take over the extra care for those who can and wish to pay for it.

Separate issues Player. The diseases have been cured in the US, just like in England. You're saying that a segment of the population has no access to such cures. It's disengenous to say that the US hasn't cured these diseases, when they have. England is not more technologically advanced in medicine than the US.

I just read the article. First, note that England is worse than other nations that also have socialized medicine. I was saying that over all survival rates alone for something like cancer just don't tell you much. The quote that the reason for the difficulty is delay in diagnosis and treatment is important. However, this can be for a lot of reasons that have little to do with socialized medicine.

The comparison I will make is to mammograms here in the US. The reccomendation was recently changed to have women get fewer exams. Why? won't a few lives be saved? Yes, but studies found that while a few cases were caught, there were far more false positives and even treatments for non-cancers. If all you looked at was does the test reduce deaths, then yes. They did. However, you have to look at whether the tests are worth the "expense" (expense here meaning much more than just money).

The nastiest word in medicine is "triage". Cancer can be treated. In some cases -- childhood luekemia, for example, we have made extraordinary gains. However, many cancers still go undiagnosed, untreated, unprevented. One thing England does much better than the US is to prevent.

One issue Snorri eluded to in a back-handed way, but which I have no statistics for (not sure even where you would get them) is that the general health of the UK population is much more uniform than here in the US. In the US, you have genetic factors, absolutely, but you also have variation in care. People with poorer health insurance are more likely to die of something other than cancer here in the US. In many cases, even if cancer is suspected in a poorer patient, it is not necessarily diagnosed because there just are no treatment options or the patient is already very ill from other causes, making cancer irrelevant or simply untreatable.

I know of quite a few of my neighbors and acquaintances who have serious heart issues, diabetes, etc. I know of only 4 who have had or have cancer. One was a boy and his father (both treated), the other is my 90+ neighbor (in mildly aggressive treatment because of her age), the last one was a man who died.

[Snorri1234]

I know of quite a few of my neighbors and acquaintances who have serious heart issues, diabetes, etc. I know of only 4 who have had or have cancer. One was a boy and his father (both treated), the other is my 90+ neighbor (in mildly aggressive treatment because of her age), the last one was a man who died.

Which is, to illustrate the point, quite different from my experience. I know quite a lot of people who've either died from cancer or had cancer at one point. And my books tell me that cancer and/or accidents (depending on age) are the number one and two killer in the country.

[PLAYER57832]

I know of quite a few of my neighbors and acquaintances who have serious heart issues, diabetes, etc. I know of only 4 who have had or have cancer. One was a boy and his father (both treated), the other is my 90+ neighbor (in mildly aggressive treatment because of her age), the last one was a man who died.

Which is, to illustrate the point, quite different from my experience. I know quite a lot of people who've either died from cancer or had cancer at one point. And my books tell me that cancer and/or accidents (depending on age) are the number one and two killer in the country.

I know (and actually believe) you are asserting this is likely because things like heart disease are more often prevented in your country. However, I have to throw some caution in that genetics and "lifestyle" issues may have a lot to do with that. My experience is that riding a bike and walking are much more a part of daily life in the Netherlands than here. Also, I think (??) people in many parts eat more fish and different types of vegetables than we do here. Socialized medicine may be part of the reason for this emphasis, but a lot of it is just cultural.

The bottom line is that the article might be a condemnation of the way the UK deals with some cancers, but it is not an indictment of socialized medicine, particularly since the US is the only country on the list without socialized medicine and several countries cam pretty close to our numbers.

[thegreekdog]

First off, good luck with the medicine thing Snorri. I've heard it is very hard (at least here in the US).

Second off, I've acknowledged that preventative medicine is not a strong suit of the US healthcare system. That's not what I'm really arguing. And, while I admittedly know little about medicine, it seems that the preventative care of something like diabetes (and heart disease) is eating right and exercise, which has little to do with medicine and a lot more to do with, well, eating right and exercising.

Third, is there some sort of study comparing the medical technologies of the US and England? I was under the impression that the US's medical technology was far greater than anywhere else, including the other "first-tier" (for lack of a better term) countries.

[PLAYER57832]

First off, good luck with the medicine thing Snorri. I've heard it is very hard (at least here in the US).

Second off, I've acknowledged that preventative medicine is not a strong suit of the US healthcare system. That's not what I'm really arguing. And, while I admittedly know little about medicine, it seems that the preventative care of something like diabetes (and heart disease) is eating right and exercise, which has little to do with medicine and a lot more to do with, well, eating right and exercising.

No, keeping your blood sugar levels stable are key. For the early stages of Type II, careful diet and excercise management can help, but eventually, most people need insuline. You also have to get regular check-ups, have complications in wound healing, etc.

Though not quite directly related, the US subsidies have created a situation where unhealthy foods -- simple carbohydrates (refined cane sugar, wheat, corn) are cheaper than healthier food unless you are able to grow it yourself.

T

hird, is there some sort of study comparing the medical technologies of the US and England? I was under the impression that the US's medical technology was far greater than anywhere else, including the other "first-tier" (for lack of a better term) countries.

I don't know of any study, but I believe your asserting is that the US has more because ours is a private system. That is not really the true case. Some private research does result in real developments, but it tends to be in things like Viagra that provide an easy profit for little effort. Understand, I am not just talking about ignoring so-called "orphan" diseases (those that have few victims and therefore are unlikely to provide much of a market), I refer to even just complicated issues and things that are not "popular". You may or may not know that Malaria was a major killer in Vietnham. The military tried to interest private companies in the research, but it did not interest them (this disease still kills millions, but the perception is they are mostly poor people in third world countries). Walter Reed (before its downward spiral) then did the research. They came up with several drugs, the most popular used today for malaria. BUT, the patent went to a private company who now markets the drugs.

I heard a Ralph Nadar speech in which he asserted that a very large percentage of the true medical advances actually result from government studies, but that most people don't know this because the agencies are specifically prohibited from lobbying. The give the technology away, then the companies take credit and market, but in many cases they did not do the basic research (in many cases they refined technology they were given).

Along the same lines, we have to get back to the reality today in the US. Most people have some form of HMO insurance. The limits you find under an HMO are very similar to those found in socialized medicine. EXCEPT, they often represent the worst of socialized medicine (long waits for diagnosis, cures). Further, those limits are usually based not upon real limits in availability, but on profit. THAT is what really grates on people like myself. I can accept that living in Timbuktu (or as some say "pennsyltucky") I might not have the same access as someone living in LA or Bethesda Maryland. I can accept that the number one doctor in the country for brain surgery might not be able to deal with my child along with the hundreds of other requests he gets each day. I can accept even that curing my difficult cancer might just be too expensive.

BUT, its one thing if I know that my expensive cancer is not being treated because the money is needed to provide 100,000 school kids vaccinations and dental care. It is something else entirely when I know (and this IS the reality now!) that money is going to line the pockets of shareholders and a whole plethora of administrators.

Now, in the case of Blue Cross leadership, I do actually feel there is true greed and poor intent. However, for the vast majority, it doesn't take being a greedy, evil person. It takes not knowing the alternatives, believing what you are told by your employer and a fair level of self-deception.

Socialized medicine does not create more medicine, no. There are real limits. But socialized medicine spreads out the care in a way that is far more equitable than the US does now. It offers a certain amount of reason to difficult situations and decisions. (and yes, I am using the "s" word even though that is not really what is being proposed now in the US)

[thegreekdog]

No, keeping your blood sugar levels stable are key. For the early stages of Type II, careful diet and excercise management can help, but eventually, most people need insuline. You also have to get regular check-ups, have complications in wound healing, etc.

Though not quite directly related, the US subsidies have created a situation where unhealthy foods -- simple carbohydrates (refined cane sugar, wheat, corn) are cheaper than healthier food unless you are able to grow it yourself.

Okay, so basically what you and snorri are saying is that people in the US that have type II diabetes aren't getting insulin? And then they are, at some later point, expiring because of complications from diabetes? What do either of these things have to do with technological advancements? The answer is nothing.

On the general technological point, I'm not saying that the treatment of disease or medical breakthroughs are necessarily due to private healthcare systems. What I am saying is I have seen no evidence that the technological breakthroughs of England (whether public or private) are more impressive than the technological breakthroughs in the United States (whether public or private). In the Philadelphia area (both in Pennsylvania and New Jersey) we have some of the more technologically innovative pharmaceutical companies. Some of these companies are European-organized companies with operations in the United States. These operations consist, generally, of technological research. In other words, the technology is researched here and the resultant treatments are produced out of the country. I believe this is done for tax-motivated reasons, but I'm not entirely sure. And these companies are not creating the next Viagra. I can't go into details for privacy reasons, but some of these companies treat actual diseases.

[PLAYER57832]

No, keeping your blood sugar levels stable are key. For the early stages of Type II, careful diet and excercise management can help, but eventually, most people need insuline. You also have to get regular check-ups, have complications in wound healing, etc.

Though not quite directly related, the US subsidies have created a situation where unhealthy foods -- simple carbohydrates (refined cane sugar, wheat, corn) are cheaper than healthier food unless you are able to grow it yourself.

Okay, so basically what you and snorri are saying is that people in the US that have type II diabetes aren't getting insulin? And then they are, at some later point, expiring because of complications from diabetes?

No, it involves far more than just not getting insulin. It involves not getting the overall care they need before they need insulin (more than just diet and excercise regimes, though those are key).
Also, understand, this is just an example. Diabetes is easy for me to discuss becuase I have family members and close friends who have it. I will use one as an example. He was diagnosed a few years ago. He actually had it a while before being diagnosed, but the doctor he saw did not find it. (I point this out because a lot of the discussion here has been along the lines of "socialized doctors are bad/profit doctors good") He did not get diet counseling. He lives with his mom, who cooks for him. She did not get counseling. I was rather shocked to see her add grape jelly to a dish while declaring that her son does not eat sugar. Okay, this is not your average american family, but it is also not that far out of norm here. He has had serious trouble regulating his diet. I, a couple of other people I quietly enlisted have tried to gently educate them, but .. this is an older lady set in her ways (why I enlisted help, instead of saying much on my own).

[What do either of these things have to do with technological advancements? The answer is nothing.

Not true. First, diabetes is just an example, one I know a bit about (and apparently Snorri also). But let's look at what has happened in the past few years. New meters and so forth are coming out. You no longer have to prick your finger, for example. I don't actually know who designed them, but let's say it was fully private. A few years ago, they came out with insulin pumps. These are particularly good for kids and others who have a hard time regulating their blood sugar (just to clarify, Type II means your body does not produce correct amounts of insulin, Type I is when you produce NO insulin -- also sometimes called "juvenile diabetes", though that term is sort of a misnomer). A lot of the research for those was government funded, though again, I don't know the exact mix. (even getting that information is hard because while much of the government funding is public -- though hard to get at sometimes, once it is turned over to private companies it becomes "proprietary" and more often than not the lines get very, very blurry).

You can add into this mix some genetic research. Curing diabetes, understanding it was one of the earliest points of research into gene recombination and splicing. Absolutely, that is mostly government funded and directed.

Now I don't have the time right now to really track all this down. Also, for this level of discussion, I am not sure it really is necessary.

[On the general technological point, I'm not saying that the treatment of disease or medical breakthroughs are necessarily due to private healthcare systems. What I am saying is I have seen no evidence that the technological breakthroughs of England (whether public or private) are more impressive than the technological breakthroughs in the United States (whether public or private). In the Philadelphia area (both in Pennsylvania and New Jersey) we have some of the more technologically innovative pharmaceutical companies. Some of these companies are European-organized companies with operations in the United States. These operations consist, generally, of technological research. In other words, the technology is researched here and the resultant treatments are produced out of the country. I believe this is done for tax-motivated reasons, but I'm not entirely sure. And these companies are not creating the next Viagra. I can't go into details for privacy reasons, but some of these companies treat actual diseases.

Now you are mixing apples and oranges. The US absolutely has made more medical advances than England, but if you consider how much larger our country is, that is no real surprise. Also, what happens is that when you have a center for advanced research, doctors tend to travel there, rather than starting up new operations.

One point you rather side-stepped is how much of that research is government funded or, how much originated with government funding. For example, Taxol was initially found by government scientists on government land. I myself was among those paid to pay attention to Yew trees (though in my case it was just a minor point -- "while you are out working, look for this tree"), some government workers worked fulltime for a while tracking them down. Then, at some point all the was handed over the pharmaceautical company who actually took the drug to market. No doubt they did some refining. They absolutely conducted tests, but also almost certainly with government oversight.

One thing I did not realize myself until very recently is just how much research is funded by government sources and not private companies at all. Yet, it is the private companies and not taxpayers who get the profits.

It is absolutely possible to balance the two -- profit and public interest. For example, I would have all patents arising from government research issued to the taxpayers (permanently), but then offered to companies for a low royalty rate (either a percentage of profit or a set percent -- I leave the details up to economists). In regards to "orphan" drugs.. drugs that are developed, but the companies don't consider profitable enough to produce, I would perhaps do something of the reverse. Either have the taxpayers buy the patents outrightat a set, low but reasonable rate if a company declines to market a drug for a certain time (or just gives it up) OR offer the company a set, low royalty rate. In some cases, those drugs might need private support to be produced. In other cases, the government might need to do more. The bottom line, though is that the drug patents would not be tying up medication. Any limits would be from other causes.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, so the real issues are education and access to the technological advances made. I'm not, nor have I ever, indicated that the government cannot provide technical advancements or research into medicine. I'm simply questioning the effectiveness of British research over American research.

Therefore, you and I are not arguing about the same things (which always tends to happen... probably because one or both of us go on tangents). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lack of education regarding many diseases and general health in the United States (and in England). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lack of preventative care in the US.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, so the real issues are education and access to the technological advances made. I'm not, nor have I ever, indicated that the government cannot provide technical advancements or research into medicine. I'm simply questioning the effectiveness of British research over American research.

Therefore, you and I are not arguing about the same things (which always tends to happen... probably because one or both of us go on tangents). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lack of education regarding many diseases and general health in the United States (and in England). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lack of preventative care in the US.

I do not know exactly how British and US Research compare. I would guess US research is more advanced, for a lot of reasons. However, I don't believe universal health care is one of those reasons and I thought that was your assertion.

Also, in many cases much government research is shared, so it becomes hard to even define who did what precisely. Your example of things that might be developed here, but tested or produced elsewhere is just one example.

Probably a more related case is the recent nobel prize winners in medicine who discovered that bacteria cause ulcers. That research was actually begun by a US scientist, but he could not get support and funding, so he had to quit and do other things. He did not get the nobel prize, but the laureates from Australia gave him an unusual mention and thank you. (I say "unusual", because its another open secret in most all science that many people who do much of the real work for advances go unrecognized, even if they did the majority of the work).

[Snorri1234]

Second off, I've acknowledged that preventative medicine is not a strong suit of the US healthcare system. That's not what I'm really arguing. And, while I admittedly know little about medicine, it seems that the preventative care of something like diabetes (and heart disease) is eating right and exercise, which has little to do with medicine and a lot more to do with, well, eating right and exercising.

No preventative care for diabetes has a lot to do with medicine. Complications can arise even with a good diet and exercise due to the nature of diabetes. Eventually patients will need medication which, for example, prevents their aorta-wall from rupturing and many other things.

And I say that educating and monitoring the patient is a very important task of a doctor. Anyone who gets insulin must regularly get a checkup to see whether his blood-glucose levels are acceptable or not.

Third, is there some sort of study comparing the medical technologies of the US and England? I was under the impression that the US's medical technology was far greater than anywhere else, including the other "first-tier" (for lack of a better term) countries.

Depends on what you mean by "far greater". There are indeed more advances in the US but with the medical community becoming increasingly more global the gap is getting smaller and smaller. Generally the newest procedures get tried in europe 3 or 4 years after introduction in the US.

But I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion. Regarding care that is relevant for more than 99% of the population care is about equal on a technological level.

[thegreekdog]

I guess it's relevant to the conversation because I thought you and player were indicating that the lack of care in the US had to do with the technological advancements of England compared to the US. However, now that I understand it's not the technological advancements, so much as the access to those technological advancements, there is nothing really to argue about because I agree that the access to technological advancements in the context of a universal healthcare system is far greater than in the US.

[PLAYER57832]

I guess it's relevant to the conversation because I thought you and player were indicating that the lack of care in the US had to do with the technological advancements of England compared to the US. However, now that I understand it's not the technological advancements, so much as the access to those technological advancements, there is nothing really to argue about because I agree that the access to technological advancements in the context of a universal healthcare system is far greater than in the US.

That was part of it. Though really I would say we mean fewer need those advancements becuase the issues are treated earlier.

I also thought you were implying that the reason the US has more advancements is private companies. With that, I disagree.

[thegreekdog]

I guess it's relevant to the conversation because I thought you and player were indicating that the lack of care in the US had to do with the technological advancements of England compared to the US. However, now that I understand it's not the technological advancements, so much as the access to those technological advancements, there is nothing really to argue about because I agree that the access to technological advancements in the context of a universal healthcare system is far greater than in the US.

That was part of it. Though really I would say we mean fewer need those advancements becuase the issues are treated earlier.

I also thought you were implying that the reason the US has more advancements is private companies. With that, I disagree.

No, I wasn't trying to imply that (but I can see how maybe I did). I don't think research can be limited to just private companies or just the government to be successful.

[PLAYER57832]

No, I wasn't trying to imply that (but I can see how maybe I did). I don't think research can be limited to just private companies or just the government to be successful.

I don't think anyone is talking about limiting.

The problem I have is that many people (in this thread and elsewhere) laud the US advances as proof that competition in Healthcare works, but the truth is that most of that ground-breaking research was actually done by our government (technically by scientists working with government funding, directives). I know I didn't for a long time.

[thegreekdog]

No, I wasn't trying to imply that (but I can see how maybe I did). I don't think research can be limited to just private companies or just the government to be successful.

I don't think anyone is talking about limiting.

The problem I have is that many people (in this thread and elsewhere) laud the US advances as proof that competition in Healthcare works, but the truth is that most of that ground-breaking research was actually done by our government (technically by scientists working with government funding, directives). I know I didn't for a long time.

I don't know if I would go as far as to say "most of the ground-breaking research" was done by the government.

[Snorri1234]

I also thought you were implying that the reason the US has more advancements is private companies. With that, I disagree.

There is a point to be made for it though. However, I would argue that the effect of having private companies is not that large compared to other things.

[PLAYER57832]

No, I wasn't trying to imply that (but I can see how maybe I did). I don't think research can be limited to just private companies or just the government to be successful.

I don't think anyone is talking about limiting.

The problem I have is that many people (in this thread and elsewhere) laud the US advances as proof that competition in Healthcare works, but the truth is that most of that ground-breaking research was actually done by our government (technically by scientists working with government funding, directives). I know I didn't for a long time.

I don't know if I would go as far as to say "most of the ground-breaking research" was done by the government.

If you trust Ralph Nadar, he has come out with some well articulated speeches on the matter.

Other than that, some of this gets into basic rolls of the government. We read all these stories about ground breaking research that gives people Nobel prizes, occasionally makes companies some real money. The reality is that for every successful research idea, hundred or thousands are pursued to no avail. They fail, not because the research was faulty or the basic idea bad, it was just wrong. Not everyone comes up with the correct gues right off.

Companies inherently need to make a profit. There is a serious limit to the research they can conduct that yeilds little or nothing. So, government by necessity fills that roll.

[Mr Scorpio]

What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

Well, the cost of health care would increase, the quality would go down due to lack of competition, and as a result the government might be tempted to ration services to save money thus creating waiting lists like the ones in Canada (The average Canadian patient has to wait for medical services much longer than an American). There would also be less technological innovation in medicine. Other than that, not much.

[PLAYER57832]

What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

Well, the cost of health care would increase

Evidence? Because right now, the US, the only country without universal coverage pays MORE, not less. Much, much more in fact.

, the quality would go down due to lack of competition

Evidence?

Because competition doesn't really exist for the most expensive forms of health care -- emergencies, and rarely truly exists for other types.

, and as a result the government might be tempted to ration services to save money thus creating waiting lists like the ones in Canada (The average Canadian patient has to wait for medical services much longer than an American).

And right now, if you have a Blue Cross HMO or PPO (lower tiers, not the upper tier policies), you don't have to worry about lines -- they will just flat out deny you until you give up, die or, on occasion, wear them out.

, There would also be less technological innovation in medicine. Other than that, not much.

Another often quoted, but dead wrong idea. In truth, many of the major medical advances in the US come from government direct or government sponsored research.

Actually, this is true for most ground-breaking research. Its the marketing at which private companies excell.

[Mr Scorpio]

These are the predictions of basic economics, which has been tested for many other industries.

[Snorri1234]

These are the predictions of basic economics, which has been tested for many other industries.

Actually, you are incredibly wrong there.

I mean not only are those predictions contrary to the evidence you can clearly see in nations which have universal healthcare. (Which are all of the modern nations except the US) But it is completely foolish to say that other industries resemble healthcare in this way.