American Suckage

[Jackalope]

Anyone who reads ghastly's LiveJournal saw his lament about canadian society being broken and failing individuals. Well, here's mine about american society. Friday morning, Allan Glenn died from the complications of cystic fibrosis. He'd been fighting Medicaid to try and get a lung transplant operation that would save his life. Medicaid turned him down claiming that the operation was too dangerous and might kill him. You can read the details at Allan's blog www.save-allan.org.

The very worst part of all this is that I know 4 or 5 other people in similar situations right now. One of them is trying to figure out how she's going to pay for the medications that keep her alive because Medicaid told her in June that they wouldn't be paying for them anymore. And MediCal (the state program) had previously told her they were releasing her case to Medicaid and wouldn't be handling her. Oh yeah, and if she manages to make more than $730 a month, she loses any benefits she gets at all (and the meds certainly add up to more than that). Did I mention she can't walk because of a ruptured tendon that they can't repair because she has a resistant infection right now and she's on oxygen as well? And that's just one of the other people who's fighting the Medicaid bureaucracy...who's still alive, that is.

I have to wonder how many people I know are going to die in the next year or two because our government has decided to simply throw them away.

[Error of Logic]

... If there weren't rules against using profanity on public forums ... I mean ... This is crap! 'Land of the free and home of the brave', indeed ... No offense intended to the American people as such, but your socio-political cadre is last-rate garbage.

[Chaszmyr Mae'Val]

Thank God for my Quasi-Socialist society - it may not be perfect but at least we have the NHS. I just wish it worked a bit better right now

[Gengar003]

It is unrealistic to expect the government to pay for medical expenses for everyone. It should help, and in the interest of overall fairness develops guidelines it has to follow. Unfortunately, with 250-300million people, there are going to be some cases that don't fit reasonably into the guidelines and end up in some ridiculous, unfair situation. I'm very sorry that your friends got to be one of these unlucky people.

America's government/economy is not structured to pay completely for the health care of its citizens. We have medicAID, but it's designed to be just a temporary AID, not a complete, life-long coverage for every citizen; some of the funds should and do have to be provided by the people who will actually be recieving the health care. We also have myriads of private insurance companies, and many employers providing coverage for their employees. Some people, however, because there are so many people and said people have to, for the most part, find their own health care solutions, are going to end up out of luck. Again, I'm sorry that your friends got stuck out in the cold on this one.

[Warmachine]

As we're badmouthing the US health system.

At the age of 13, in a Geography class, I learnt how the ill in Third World countries can be stuck in a vicious circle. If someone becomes ill, they cannot work, so they cannot afford the medical care to make them well enough to work again. This struck me as the dividing line between enlightened First World and Third World countries doomed to stay that way. Any society that can see past its nose implements a universal health care system, as it is in the economic interest to get people working again, as well putting people at ease by eliminating a worry. Health insurance? The working or peasants classes are on the poverty line as it is and can't afford insurance.

If a nation doesn't have a universal health care system, this suggests a nation that doesn't care about an underclass in inadequate housing and infrastructure that resent the wealthy and resort to violent and petty crime? A nation that implements a sort of economic discrimination. A nation that distributes medical care among the poor, not according to medical need but by the whims of the charitable wealthy. No enlightened country like the US wants this. Umm...

[Gengar003]

That said, it's important, I think, to distinguish between healthcare provided universally to anyone who needs it, and healthcare that covers everyone all the time for everything.

One's bad.

[Honor]

My respects and condolences on the loss of your friend, Jackalope... And my sympathy. I've had friends dropping like flies here, it seems... About one every two months. It's getting really kinda scary on a personal mortality level.

...This struck me as the dividing line between enlightened First World and Third World countries doomed to stay that way...

A favorite bit of Honor's Endless & Pointless Trivia^TM: There are two strong theories as to the origins of the term "Third World" and neither was originally intended to mean "poor" or "backward" (of course, that's what it pretty exclusively means in common usage now...)
One, with a certain sense of logic, relys on the terms "Old World" (Europe, mostly) and "New World" (the Americas, mostly) leaving everyone else, the "third world".
Another, with some presuasive documentation, calls any nation not aligned with the Western (First World) or Eastern (Second World) blocks during the cold war, the "Third World"... Although most of them were "unaligned" becausee they were either too undeveloped or in the wrong geographic location to be of value to the mai "combatants".
No, don't thank me.... It's all part of The service here at Claudia Jean's house of Useless Knowledge. (boucoup bonus points to anyone who knows where I got that line.)


Pre-Strike Warning Shot: Given that I think I've been offending some folks lately, I should say in advance... The following is not a flame, a shot, a fight, or a rant... I don't hate you, I like you a lot, and I think you're grand... But this exchange of ideas is now fixin' to get... strenuous.

It is unrealistic to expect the government to pay for medical expenses for everyone.

I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter crap. Of course it's entirely realistic to expect the government to "pay for" medical expenses for everyone. Especially when you consider that the government can't ever pay for anything. Society- The Nation- Taxpayers... We pay for things. "Government" is the vehichle by which we decide what we'll pay for and then administrate the process of doing so... And it's wholly reasonable for us to expect to split the bill on this one. Your assertion to the contrary is a point of view that's a blend of 'uniquely American' and 'outright barbaric'. And I don't mean barbaric as an insult, I mean it the way it appears in the dictionary... Savage, cruel, unsophisticated, and primitive.

If you think about it, the very idea of a healthcare system that exists solely in the private sector is absolutely ghoulish - and I feel completely safe in the statement that future generations will look at it as such. Just as we might look back several generations ago, to a time when people with a mindset similar to the one you're putting forward now were saying it was unrealistic to expect the government to pay for police protection. Or fire protection. Or basic education. All of those things were strictly privately funded not so long ago, but we've grown up a bit as a society... We've learned that the more access people have to these things when they're needed, the better off society is as a whole. It won't take long for us to learn the same lesson with secondary education and healthcare... I hope.

Almost every other "civilized" nation in the world has realized that citizens are the engines on which a nation runs, and that they should be taken care of and improved at every opportunity, if you want that nation to excel. But, here in America, we're constantly getting this "You should pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" "A man should pay his own way!" half-baked macho bullshit from people who've never -touched- a bootstrap because their fortunes were made from thievery, exploitation, and/or sucked directly off the teat of federal programs.

That said, it's important, I think, to distinguish between healthcare provided universally to anyone who needs it, and healthcare that covers everyone all the time for everything.

One's bad.

What's bad is not noticing the obvious fallacy of that statement... That all healthcare is "needed". If it's not needed, it's not healthcare.

"We'll only pay for health care you need..." What... Like I'm gonna go get a shot of whatchamazine for the endorphin rush of getting poked with a needle?

Perhaps what's important to distinguish is the difference between healthcare and elective procedures... But even that is an awfully dangerous hobby, already being practiced by insurance groups and HMO's... "Two things we can do with your arm, Mr. Smith... We can amputate it, which costs a dollar seventy-five, or we can attempt to rehabilitate it, which costs about twenty thousand dollars, and might not work anyway. As your insurance provider, guess which one we recommend?"

Well... That's bullshit. Yes, a society should guarantee full and total medical coverage to it's members.

It should go a long way toward offering them -any- procedure that they want and their doctors agree might be beneficial, or even just "ok", and whether someone can try a procedure that might save their life should never be decided by pricetag.

Specialists in some fields, like cosmetic surgery, should be allowed to do private work for private payment, just like a person can hire their own private services for transportation, utilities, fire protection, and "police" protection in the form of security and investigation professionals. The option of additional coverage from the free market is always a good idea.

Medical & pharmaceutical professionals who do work for the system should be paid competitvely... Somewhere between 'right good' and 'pretty awesome'... just like fire and police professionals are and educators should be. We've seen what happens in a social medicine system that is understaffed and under funded. There has to be a decent living to be made.

Will a system this vast and expensive be subject to graft, cheating, and larceny? Yes. Will unscrupulos people get rich from cheating it? Absolutely. does that mean we sound't do it? Hell no. People get rich skimming from insurance, police, military, and most other government programs... We can't not do them for fear someone will cheat.

Can, then, we afford to do it? Well... If we'd settle for being able to destroy the world twice over instead of 16 times over, we could easily provide full healthcare and education to everyone in the United States, and feed every starving human being on the planet. All while remaining the most militarily powerful nation in the world by more than a full order of magnitude... So, yeah. We can afford it.

Know why we should spend all this money getting healthcare to all these people? Lots of reasons. Because, as noted above, we can afford it, easily, if we clean up our act just a tiny bit. Because it'll make our society and our economy stronger. Because it'll advance medical research and improve medical technology, and thus extend the span and improve the quality of our lives. Because it's the goddamned right thing to do... We should, by now, be a little more compassionate than to watch fellow human beings die because they wont pay the extortion money, if we ever expect to be able to hold the moral high ground on anything.

[Toawa]

In the interest of my sanity, and completely dodging the topic at hand, I think I'll go back to single-handedly rewriting the tax codes.

(I think we can all agree that the system is messed up. Unfortunately, the risk-arbitrage industry (commonly referred to as insurance) has got it into their heads to try and manipulate risks at moral costs. Economics and morality would probably be best approached separately, and not in that order. But I don't forsee that happening in our solar-system's lifetime.)

[Gengar003]

Removed, re-wording, making more coherent

Pre-Strike Warning Shot: Given that I think I've been offending some folks lately, I should say in advance... The following is not a flame, a shot, a fight, or a rant... I don't hate you, I like you a lot, and I think you're grand... But this exchange of ideas is now fixin' to get... strenuous.

Don't worry; I only take offence when people stop these discussions, not start or take part.

It is unrealistic to expect the government to pay for medical expenses for everyone.

In light of your response, I need to reword this:

It is unrealistic to expect the government to pay for all essential medical expenses for everyone all the time in the near future.

If we'd settle for being able to destroy the world twice over instead of 16 times over, we could easily provide full healthcare and education to everyone in the United States, and feed every starving human being on the planet. All while remaining the most militarily powerful nation in the world by more than a full order of magnitude... So, yeah. We can afford it.

(I assume you're talking about our nukes? [nukes=atomic weaponry of any sort])
[SARCASM ATTACK!]
Um... how would that work? Cancel our plans to manufacture explosives capable of destroying the planet 14 times and instead direct that money to healthcare/food aid/education? I was under the distinct impression that that power already existed... do you propose selling our weaponry down to 2x Geocidal capacity to pay for health/food? We'll need the money to treat all the radiation poisoning and burns our enemies would give us after getting our hands on those weapons...

No, we live in a violent world. Violence abounds oustide our (relatively) protected and isolated capable-of-blowing-up-the-world-more-times-than-YOUR-country-nation. Really, I think America is probably the safest place for those weapons. We've got a representative democracy/republic-thing that's answerable to not just the 300 or so million of its citizens for its actions, but because America is so involved in global politics/affairs, it/she/we are answerable to considerably MORE than that. Mock him all you want, Mr. Bush is NOT going to be ordering any nuclear (or nucular) strikes.

So we're left with weapons we can't use and can't sell, and, thanks to the dammnable matters of their half-lives and radiation, can't really dispose of or store very well, either. Most missile silos or wherever these weapons are stored are really nothing more than storage sheds. Well-protected storage sheds.
[/sarcasm attack]

I do understand your point, though -- Blowing up the planet and killing all human life once is enough, why the FUCK do we need to be able to do it 16 times? (The actual number of times is considerably greater, I believe... I got a neat piece of paper in school last year on that topic... I'll see if I can find it...)

Know why we should spend all this money getting healthcare to all these people?

Cause it's the right thing to do, especially since we "can?" ... I'm not completely heartless...

I agree it would be wonderful to know that if I ever suffered a major catastrophe, a la car wreck, diabetes, cancer, alzheimerz, parkinson's, leprosy, ebola, antibiotic-resistant infection, aids, avian flu, WHATEVER, the government would be there to pay people to keep me well.

But in our society, our political structure... where people can influence the government, and where the odd outspoken-but-minority-opinion person can wield considerable power (Sheehan,KKK back in the day, That guy during the depression who wanted to be king of america, ect.. those kind of people), how long would it be before someone decided that the stress caused by financial troubles whilst unemployed was a major cause of health problems, and we got unlimited-duration umeployment that you could live off of? Or that the sparse conditions of retirement of the baby boomers (to pick one generation as an example) because of their failure to save enough as a whole led to significant stress, and eased it with increased welfare/social security payments to not just those in "need," but to everyone, to "prevent" this "stress?"

While I see gov't directed healthcare for every citizen as a great, wonderful thing, I also see it as a step toward the government paying for too MUCH for the citizens... If you can live off your unemployment payout, why work? If the government will keep you fed, clothed, and housed (and healthy!) during retirement, why bother to save? With less people working and less saving, there will be less and less taxes collected, less and less capital/money being invested, generated, etc, leading to overall economic stagnation with almost universal unwillingness to change. Why unwilling? If the government is "paying" for your food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, so what if it's killing the economy, are you going to want to give that up? Most people, I believe, wouldn't. And America would be screwed.

Think decline of the roman empire, where the gov't provided food and entertainment to the unemployed to pacify them, or Europe's socialist states nowadays. I don't want America to decay like that.

I should point out I don't think (can I just call it healthcare, instead of the long list of qualifying adjectives in front of it? It's getting tedious to retype every time...) healthcare will lead to America's downfall, but it is a dangerous balance... Think Jedi-confronting-the-dark-side: Will they vanquish/avoid it, and come away stronger, or fall to temptation? America needs to be careful.

*adds "free healthcare clinics for all lower-income people" to list of things to do when filthy rich*

[Jackalope]

But how will you define "essential?" The care for the six months after Medicaid denied Allan's transplant operation cost them nearly as much as the operation itself. And he died. As opposed to giving him a chance to live decades longer and become a productive member of society instead of dying at the age of 20. Remembr, the justification they gave for the denial was that it was too risky and might kill him. Well, not doing the transplant was sure to kill him and his medical reports made that quite obvious.

He had a less than 50% chance of living out 2 more years and the total cost of his healthcare (which Medicaid was willing to pay for) was expected to come out to more than the cost of the transplant operation. It'd just be doled out in smaller blocks, to various hospitals and healthcare vendors. This is where "follow the money" becomes an important and interesting exercise. Though it would have actually cost less money to do the transplant operation, Medicaid couldn't play the usual shell game with the funding. So it really was bureaucratic bullshit that killed him.

The drug coverage issues are similar. It's not an issue of generic vs brandname, it's "we've got a deal with this drug manufacturer, so only this drug is covered. If you can't take it, you're SOL, even it's it's totally inappropriate for your condition." And even if the appropriate drug is cheaper when you do the math. Can't have that particular anti-nausea med because it's "too expensive," but they'll pay to have you go to the ER for IV fluids and meds. They'll even pay to have a nurse come to your house and administer an IV med and fluids every day, which costs way more than the simple pills would. But because of the way things get funded, they can play a shell game and make it look like it's saving money.

It's not that Medicaid can't afford to cover things, it's that the system wastes money all over the place. Nursing homes are much more expensive than in-home care, but care to guess what is preferentially funded? Want to take any guesses why?

Do some research on how much this stuff actually costs and what the system is spending money on before you claim they can't afford to pay. Politics and lobbying have a fuckload to do with where the money gets spent. And the people deciding where the money goes don't have to rely on the system because they can afford private health insurance.

If I ever lose my extremely good private health insurance I'll be another one of the ones fighting not to be killed by the system. I know for a fact they won't fund the drugs that I take. Or at least, the ones that work and won't slowly (or not so slowly) kill me. And thanks to the way SSDI works, if I get a job that makes any money at all, I wouldn't qualify for benefits...so I'd have to get a job that both pays a whole lot, and has fucking fantastic benefits besides. Oh, and is willing to give me time off for frequent doctor's appointments and illnesses. Right. That'll happen. There's unfortunately no such thing as partial disability benefits, so to just survive most people on disability are forced to not work, increasing the pressure on the system.

The whole thing is fucked up.

[Honor]

Ok... No quotes reply.

I'm going to open by sticking to my guns, and restating a little... Hospitals should be like fire departments and police departments. Something the public needs that are funded by taxes, and are there to do the job. Wellness clinics, childcare clinics, and planned parrenthood operations shold be the same way. There should be private sector add-ons in any area where the market will support them.

I'm not suggesting we cover unemployment for laziness, or feed or house or clothe people who simply don't want to work... [TANGENT WARNING] But I think the time will come fairly soon when we could (though I'm still not saying I'm sure it would be a good idea in the long run.) A study of macroeconomics that takes into account history, markets, and technology seems to indicate that market potential and standard of living aren't anything like done improving yet. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that we'll hit a star-trek-like economy where production technology is so advanced that people work how, as much, and because they want to. Granted, it might take a hundred years, or even a little more, and there may very well be a darker, more Phillip K. Dick like period between here and there.

The point is, healthcare isn't welfare. It isn't free food or houseing or clothing. It's something we all need eventually, and that tends to be catastrophically expensive sometimes when we do. Especially emergency medical... It's simply sick... I'll use the words I used before... It's barbaric and ghoulish for us to think of money when a little girl gets hit by a car, or when a fellow human becomes the victim of a virus. It's less than human for us to use old age and sickness and frailty as leverage for a sale... "Wow. Sucks to be old. If you've got money (or someone to give us money in your name) we can help you with that."

The more we use this medical industry, the more capable and cost effective it will become. The more experience and production we have in treating a given problem, the cheaper and better those solutions become. It works that way with almost everything... The problems you're afraid of would be temporary, at worst.

Europe is a great example... The problems they've had aren't problems born of taking care of their population. They were problems born of lack of direction... Born of stagnation, ennui, and a sense of helplessness... And we, as Americans, would do well to not count on that status quo.

We need to give ourselves a decade or two to get used to being the second most powerful consumer market in the world, because we are now... And by the time we're used to it, we'll be the third.

Over the course of the next, say, three decades - max - we're going to be introduced to a far more economically powerful society to the east... One with higher taxes, better social services, and a higer standard of living. To the west, we'll see another super-union form, and they'll be hungry for that standard of living, too... And they'll pay for it with more social and technological innovation, and a work ethic like the world hasn't seen since the US in the fourties.

If we don't get off our short-term mentality and our "I'd rather have one dollar in unpaid taxes than five dollars in social services" values, we'll find ourself the "europe of the 2050's"... Unemployed, under-utilized, socially impotent, and very unhappy. And a people like that, with our religious zeal and our military might... That is the most dangerous thing this world has ever seen. We'd probably be better off with a comet strike.

I'll stray for a second into socialism... But my own variety.

You're worried that if we make the basics of life available to everyone, no-one will work... That's only true if the basics are all you can get. That's communism, and it'll never work with individual creatures... It takes a hive mentality. But, if we make that the bottom of the barrel... If we make basic shelter and enough food and basic health care and police protection and fire protection and safe public transit as low as you can go... But still leave room to get more... Still leave room to learn and work and advance and invent and build and grow... People want to work. People want a better life. They want purpose and dreams and pleasure. If we tell every child "you can go as far as you want to... As high as you're willing to climb... And we'll always be here to catch you if you fall." then most people will take life by the hand and do all they can. People don't stay on welfare because that's all they want. They stay on welfare because they feel that's the best they can do.

We can make the world a lot better... But we need to stop putting up brick walls at "today" or "this year" or even "in my lifetime" and start thinking for the future.

*sighs* Sorry. /tired, sad rant.

[Jackalope]

Another example of what's wrong with the system right now:

Medicaid covers Viagra. And at the same time, it refuses to cover life-saving operations, antibiotics for resistant infections, and wheelchair cushions that would prevent pressure sores. Pressure sores, by the way, can end up costing tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills and can even cause death (that's what killed Christopher Reeves), yet Medicaid deems it cheaper to deny claims for $300 and $400 gel-filled or air-floatation cushions that would prevent the problem in the first place.

The fact that Medicaid covers Viagra but not Cipro should bother you.

[Gengar003]

But how will you define "essential?"

Well, I don't know. I could give some short, cynical defninition that would cover most cases, but there'd be bound to be exceptions that would make my definition crap. Some comittee (this is America, after all) somewhere will have to figure out what "essential" is going to mean.

I'll try anyway though: A condition that, left untreated, would be fatal or permanently debilitating, or, if not fatal or permanently debilitating, is contagious and has a reasonable chance of spreading to others where it WOULD be fatal/debilitating, qualifies for complete financial coverage of the medical expenses accrued treating it.

If we don't get off our short-term mentality and our "I'd rather have one dollar in unpaid taxes than five dollars in social services" values, we'll find ourself the "europe of the 2050's"... Unemployed, under-utilized, socially impotent, and very unhappy. And a people like that, with our religious zeal and our military might... That is the most dangerous thing this world has ever seen. We'd probably be better off with a comet strike.

Europe (in many places, especially their socialist states, not everywhere, though) is like that now -- much higer unemployment than the US, much longer unemployment, declining workforce, declining work hours. And any talk of change is met with huge resistance, because people are living off the social services instead of getting a job.

You're worried that if we make the basics of life available to everyone, no-one will work... That's only true if the basics are all you can get. That's communism, and it'll never work with individual creatures... It takes a hive mentality. But, if we make that the bottom of the barrel... If we make basic shelter and enough food and basic health care and police protection and fire protection and safe public transit as low as you can go... But still leave room to get more... Still leave room to learn and work and advance and invent and build and grow... People want to work. People want a better life. They want purpose and dreams and pleasure. If we tell every child "you can go as far as you want to... As high as you're willing to climb... And we'll always be here to catch you if you fall." then most people will take life by the hand and do all they can. People don't stay on welfare because that's all they want. They stay on welfare because they feel that's the best they can do.

I'll agree people want a better life. And many probably want to work... In America, that's because, mainly, of the "better life" thing, but also, you don't really have a choice. In Europe's socialist states, people don't have to work to live. Bottom of the barrel, maybe, but there are lots of people who would settle for that. If you can live off of welfare/healthcare provided by the government, then slowly but surely people ARE going to stop working. Maybe not their current generation...But eventually, they will stop. This happened/is happening in europe.

So America (perhaps seeing this, perhaps because we're just too attached to the "cold-hearted capitalism" we're so often accused of), opts to provide social services that you CAN'T really live off. You have to work, you have to save for retirement. People keep working, people keep paying taxes, country survives.

Again, I don't see UIHealthcare (Universal Essential healthcare, I'mma call it now) as directly leading to this, but it opens the door, and scares me a little because of that.

[Toawa]

I'm not suggesting we cover unemployment for laziness

Just a side note... It's always interesting when this comes up, because it's so hard to know when lack of work is "laziness" or when it's something else. There are many reasons why people wouldn't work, be it physical issues (they might have an untreated medical problem), social issues, mental issues (note I did not say disease or disability), etc. The point is that writing unemployment laws or running unemployment insurance in a way to try and make "lazy" people work, while taking care of people with "valid" reasons for not working, is doomed to fail one way or ther other.

(I believe a large portion (though certainly not all) of the welfare problem stems from aspects of welfare law that make working less attractive than remaining on welfare, i.e. cases where holding any job causes them to lose all benefits, even if the job pays less. I'd propose a system whereby every earned dollar reduces benefits by $.50, but I'm sure that'd be just as fraught with fraud and beurocracy as the current system. I think we should try to structure the system such that working is always more beneficial than not working, but that's easier said than done.)

[Kenryoku]

I'll try anyway though: A condition that, left untreated, would be fatal or permanently debilitating, or, if not fatal or permanently debilitating, is contagious and has a reasonable chance of spreading to others where it WOULD be fatal/debilitating, qualifies for complete financial coverage of the medical expenses accrued treating it.

Im learning to stay out of political arguement on this forum as I am outclassed - but to this I can already hear your cynical responses from some groups (not on this forums, Im talking abroad). One of them would revolve around anything that people have done to themselves which would be quickly followed with "being overweight". We all know what weight gain can do to us - is this going to be covered ? Another one would be "alcohol abuse". Someone comes in with a pice of their digestive system failing because of abuse (stomach, kidney, whatever) is that going to be covered as well ? And I am sure the ugly topic of "AIDS" would rear it's head too (followed by other STDs). Obviously, I hope, you know I can see where you are going with this definition - but like you hinted at this definition would quickly be eaten by nay-sayers looking to eat any form of middleground.

[Kenryoku]

Medicaid covers Viagra.

I dont want to play down your friend's serious situation as it was grave and by no means a laughing matter ... but Viagra being covered by Medicaid I always thought a matter of priorities by people in charge. Pill after pill it would seem is on the way for ensuring the safety of our nation's sexual lives, women and men alike, that is time and time again covered by broad base publicity, advertisements, and everything else possible to get exposure to it. I dont know about anyone else, but the last time I heard anything in the way of medical breakthroughs OTHER than sex was an osteoporosis medication about two years ago.

[Gengar003]

@Kenryoku: Yeah, AIDS should be treated, and there should be a program promoting awareness and prevention, health problems stemming from Obesity should be treated, provided the person also enrolls in a weight loss/management program, alchoholism-induced ills should be treated provided the person enters rehabilitation, etc, in our dream-healthcare system. *waits for shuriken to tear this addition apart*

I dont know about anyone else, but the last time I heard anything in the way of medical breakthroughs OTHER than sex was an osteoporosis medication about two years ago.

Sex is good for you! It increases well-being, bloodflow, and, if you do it right, can be a cardiovascular workout!

[Kenryoku]

@Kenryoku: Yeah, AIDS should be treated, and there should be a program promoting awareness and prevention, health problems stemming from Obesity should be treated, provided the person also enrolls in a weight loss/management program, alchoholism-induced ills should be treated provided the person enters rehabilitation, etc, in our dream-healthcare system. *waits for shuriken to tear this addition apart*

Sex is good for you! It increases well-being, bloodflow, and, if you do it right, can be a cardiovascular workout!

Ahh so you are suggesting a system of benefits that requires people to take responsibilities for their actions to recieve coverage. Now that TRUELY is an impressive thought process. Id fall out of my chair they day I heard that this country would agree to that and make it work all at the same time. /more sarcasm

[Gengar003]

*snerk* It won't work all at the same time.. first the country will agree to it, then they'll put it into practice poorly and it won't work, and people will try to dismantle it. If they fail, it will eventually end up working.

[Wilmo]

Hey there, I havent really said much about this until now; but I figure I'll put my 2 cents in.

There are a number of reasons why american healthcare blows, but I'll only name a couple.

Massive Healthcare inflation. Between crippling FDA restrictions, inflated doctor salaries, and corporate nonsense, Healthcare has become ridiculously expensive; healthcare without insurance companies is only accessible for the ridiculously wealthy.

There are not enough doctors. Not very many people are accepted into medical school annually; which would be fine, except that the demand for healthcare is increasing (as baby-boomers get older) there really arent enough doctors around to treat the number of people that need help. So, for a hospital to make sure it can treat people, it has to offer-up "incentives" to doctors to lure them to their particular hospital, which brings us back to inflation.



But, in pharm companieses defense...

If all they were out to do was make money, blockbuster drugs would be all they would produce; they wouldnt bother making the drugs that dont make money (that people need). But, people do actually need those drugs, so they make them anyway and lose money at it; not to mention the HUGE cost of researching/validating a drug from discovery to approval by the FDA. Sometimes, they'll spend a shitload of money on developing a drug, and then, half way through the clinical trials, its found that it cant be sold, which sucks for them; but dont cry for the pharm companies, when they patent something good, they make an unthinkable amount of money.

sorry about any spelling/grammarical errors, I'm sleepy and not very coherent.