Expensive without the results: Health care in the U.S. costs the most, not the best i - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Bill-Watson** · 04-10-2009, 05:19 AM

The best healthcare in the world is in the United States. It is why tens of thousands of people come to the US every year to recieve medical care. Try landing in the middle of Berlin not speaking German and see how that works out.

Here are some more lies about your idiotic world health rankings.
QUality of linens count and you have to be the stupidest living thing on planet earth to think people in Guam, Singapore or any of the other 36 countries ranked above the US offer better care than here.

Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System
Jun 1st, 2009 | By Dawn | Category: Featured Writers
By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

The media and political community have made a big deal out of the fact that the U.S. ranks 37 out of 191 countries on the World Health Organization’s Health Care Ranking System. Is this tool a credible way to compare quality health care delivered in the U.S. vs the rest of the world?

Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1

But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2

“Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well.

The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

“Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.

In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems.

**VipInoLo** · 04-10-2009, 05:34 AM

The best healthcare in the world is in the United States. It is why tens of thousands of people come to the US every year to recieve medical care. What about the tens of thousands of Americans who seek out health care abroad? In 2003 alone, over 30,000 Americans choose to travel abroad for surgeries and dental care: Medical Vacation Overseas, Health Tourism, Affordable Surgery abroad, Europe, Bulgaria, Turkey, Czech Republic

Have you ever heard of Try landing in the middle of Berlin not speaking German and see how that works out. I can assure you that it would be much easier than vice versa--landing in a NYC hospital and only speaking German.

The article that I cited above from the NY Daily News also contained a nifty chart in the print edition, which unfortunately was not included int he online version of the paper. It compared the USA, Germany, Canada, UK, Netherlands and three or four other countries according to a set of criteria such as, average time to see primary care physician, average lifespan, average time for a cancer patient to begin chemo treatment, etc. and trust me, the USA didn't fare that well. I don't have that chart here with me, but when I lay my hands on it again, i will reproduce it here.

**Bill-Watson** · 04-10-2009, 05:47 AM

Really? You can assure me of that? Because NYC hospitals spend millions a year on dialysis alone for non english speaking foriegners.

THey travel there because they are very stupid. People goto Mexico to save $300 on dental work and risk picking up an infection from unsanitary equipment. THey fly abroad to revcieve lesser care for a lesser price.

and every new drug, machine and procedure comes from here.
so all of these other places that have better healthcare are getting their drugs, machines and procedures from here. Just like you and everyone else you know.

France is ranked number one in your post? When was the last time you took a drug that was invented in France? Here is a hint-Never,

when has Canada had medical breakthrough-another hint the answer is NEVER.

Where do you think these other country's doctors go to get an education?

Do US doctors fly abroad to learn of the latest techniques or do they fly here?

People need to wake the f up badly.

**Bill-Watson** · 04-10-2009, 05:53 AM

What matters more?
the average time for a cancer patient to begin chemo treatment
or that the
US has the highest survival rate for 13 of the 15 most common life threatening forms of cancer.

These global comparisons are great, they keep the worldwide envy of the US to minimal,
as far as a basis in reality, they are a joke-try reading the thing I posted one can obviously see where all of their rankings derive their lunacy from.

**Bill-Watson** · 04-10-2009, 05:59 AM

"There's a solidarity that operates in these other countries in terms of social values, a sense that people are entitled to health care," Osborn said. "In these countries, the idea of someone going bankrupt because of medical bills, it just does not exist."

In the United Kingdom, for example, there is no out-of-pocket cost to see a primary care physician or a specialist. Adults can fill prescriptions, no matter how new, rare or advanced the drug, for about $12.
yep and there is solidarity from the rest of the world that they will not ever have another major medical breakthrough ever again. THey completely depend on the US for everything new. That sounds like a good plan to me,

prescriptions cost $12 in the UK, that is awesome, do the same thing here and you saw the last of the new drugs. It costs a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market-no worldwide governments are spending that because they are too busy spending on nationalized healthcare. How many $12 prescriptions does one have to write to get to $1billion just to break even?

**VipInoLo** · 04-10-2009, 06:10 AM

Really? You can assure me of that? Because NYC hospitals spend millions a year on dialysis alone for non english speaking foriegners. Can you show me some facts and figures on this one please?

and every new drug, machine and procedure comes from here.
so all of these other places that have better healthcare are getting their drugs, machines and procedures from here. Just like you and everyone else you know. I'm quite certain that multinationals not headquarted in the USA, such as Siemens Medical GmbH, Phillips Healthare Solutions B.V., Novartis International AG (the world's largest pharma company in revenue), GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer GmbH, to just name a few would all disagree with that. Check out their annual reports; I am sure you can find them online.

France is ranked number one in your post? When was the last time you took a drug that was invented in France? Here is a hint-Never, Dude, I never said France was ranked # 1 in health care, so don't even try to put words in my mouth. It did rank significantly higher in some aspects than the USA in the Daily News chart which I mentioned earlier, but not quite as high in others and the cost per capita for health care there is significantly less. Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention above, Sanofi-Aventis, headquartered in Paris (France NOT Texas), you know, the world's largest producer of vaccines.

when has Canada had medical breakthrough-another hint the answer is NEVER. Apparently, you don't consider the discovery of insulin to be a major "medical breakthrough". (hint: just google "Sir Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best").

**Bill-Watson** · 04-10-2009, 06:12 AM

Are you quite certain?

Then you would be even more certain that Bayer makes 65% of its money off of aspirin and another 25% off of crop chemicals,

how much have they contributed to the advancement in mankind's medical care?

Did they discover insulin under a socialized healthcare system? of course not-how far back did you have to go exactly?

Try more than google for a change and go ask a professional where all the new stuff comes from.

**VipInoLo** · 04-10-2009, 06:16 AM

Try more than google for a change and go ask a professional where all the new stuff comes from.

I know where it comes from- E U R O P A! Bayer also invented Levitra, is that a new enough drug for you?

**Bill-Watson** · 04-10-2009, 06:23 AM

Last year, a study comparing preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries placed the U.S. dead last. France was first, followed by Japan and Australia

did you post this or was it someone else?

Right and when the US government takes over the US healthcare system it too will be the largest everything and contribute nothing to the advancement of mankind.

Likewise they are called multinationals for a reason. None of them develop new drugs anywhere but in the US. and they are very limited in that capacity, earth shattering events when it happens.

but of course you know that because you know that the US system is ranked dead last on some list and therefore FRance has better healthcare.

**VipInoLo** · 04-10-2009, 06:29 AM

Last year, a study comparing preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries placed the U.S. dead last. France was first, followed by Japan and Australia Yes, I posted that, and evidently in that one (of various) categories, the USA placed dead last among the industrialized countries surveyed. If you are taking umbrage to that, I suggest that you write The Daily News; their Vox Populi column of readers' letters puts just about any comparable forum in the Philly media market to shame. Also, while you are looking for their address, you can check out the expose that the NY Daily News did earlier this summer about people dying while waiting for care in NYC hospitals and the coverups that they caught the hospital administrators doing in flagrante delicto.

**Bill-Watson** · 04-10-2009, 07:59 AM

Need more competition.

Introducing more government is not adding competition it is dictating to the existing competition, amongst other things:

THey should lower the barriers to entry into health insurance in every state in the union. These people making billions of dollars a year pushing paper and the reason they getting billions is because me and you can't go open our own paper pushing company without immense capital resources to satisfy ludicrous state and federal minimums.

and those barriers did nothing to prevent AIG from going under. Those capital and licensing/regulatory bull**** did absolutely nothing.

So basically we have a cartel system of insurance due to government regulations. Why doesn't Walmart sell actual health insurance? Because they don't want to answer to a bunch of politicians.

More competition with drugs. IT should not cost $1billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. The patent period is too long, the FDA process is ridiculous.

IF you want to lower the price of anything that is not a natural resource,
just introduce more free market competition, it works everytime.

**VipInoLo** · 05-09-2009, 08:15 AM

More competition with drugs. IT should not cost $1billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. The patent period is too long, the FDA process is ridiculous.
IF you want to lower the price of anything that is not a natural resource,
just introduce more free market competition, it works everytime.

Or perhaps MORE governmental regulation is necessary to ensure that the pharmaceutical companies don't gouge the public:

In many non-US western countries a 'fourth hurdle' of cost effectiveness analysis has developed before new technologies can be provided. This focuses on the efficiency (in terms of the cost per QALY) of the technologies in question rather than their efficacy. In England NICE approval is required before technologies can be adopted by the NHS, whilst similar arrangements exist with the Scottish Medical Consortium in Scotland and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia. A product must pass the threshold for cost-effectiveness if it is to be approved. Treatments must represent 'value for money' and a net benefit to society. There is much speculation that a NICE style framework may be implemented in the USA to ensure Medicare and Medicaid spending is focused to maximise benefit to patients and not excessive profits for the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**SkatrySkith** · 05-09-2009, 09:36 AM

Did they discover insulin under a socialized healthcare system?

Banting and Best discovered insulin at a publicly-funded Canadian university. Virtually all major groundbreaking research is done at universities, through the use of government research grants. The pharma companies mainly make "me too" drugs and knockoffs that they can patent.

**KlaraNovikoffaZ** · 05-09-2009, 09:40 AM

Banting and Best discovered insulin at a publicly-funded Canadian university. Virtually all major groundbreaking research is done at universities, through the use of government research grants. The pharma companies mainly make "me too" drugs and knockoffs that they can patent.

Oh, like no uni research happens in the US. I forgot.

**SkatrySkith** · 05-09-2009, 09:46 AM

I really shouldn't feed the troll, but I can't resist pointing to actual information, in case anyone out there is interested in educating themselves.

when has Canada had medical breakthrough-another hint the answer is NEVER.

Insulin is the most famous one, but it's hardly the only one. Canada has had quite a few major medical breakthroughs for such a small country.

Here's a long list of Canadian medical breakthroughs.

Here's a more in-depth description of 10 of the biggest ones.

France is ranked number one in your post? When was the last time you took a drug that was invented in France? Here is a hint-Never, Perhaps they were too busy winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering the human papilloma viruses (HIV) that causes AIDS.

**Arkadiyas** · 05-09-2009, 09:58 AM

Oh, like no uni research happens in the US. I forgot.

I believe Arbor was speaking to YN's specific Canada rant.

**MortgFinsJohnQ** · 05-09-2009, 04:17 PM

Instead of getting endlessly tied up in philosophical arguments, could we PLEASE just all keep repeating this part? Pretty please?

"No one is suggesting that we adopt another country's health care system," said Robin Osborn, vice president and director of the international program in health policy and practice at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit.

"We should be open-minded, and we should be entrepreneurial about looking at what works," she said.

**RicyReetred** · 05-09-2009, 04:42 PM

I really shouldn't feed the troll, but I can't resist pointing to actual information, in case anyone out there is interested in educating themselves.

Insulin is the most famous one, but it's hardly the only one. Canada has had quite a few major medical breakthroughs for such a small country.

Here's a long list of Canadian medical breakthroughs.

Here's a more in-depth description of 10 of the biggest ones.

Perhaps they were too busy winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering the human papilloma viruses (HIV) that causes AIDS.

You've got some nerve giving links and not just running off with half baked opinions. The next thing you'll do is promote a legitimate discussion !

**KlaraNovikoffaZ** · 05-09-2009, 05:56 PM

If Canada is so great, why haven't you moved there? They're still accepting immigrants with open arms, you know.

**VipInoLo** · 05-09-2009, 06:05 PM

If Canada is so great, why haven't you moved there? They're still accepting immigrants with open arms, you know.

hmmm-- America, love it or leave it, eh?

I don't believe anyone was suggesting that Canada is some northern version of Utopia; rather, we were offering rational evidence against the patently false and hare-brained assertion posted earlier in this thread that Canadians have made absolutely no contributions to the field of medicine.

04-10-2009, 05:19 AM	#1
Bill-Watson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	The best healthcare in the world is in the United States. It is why tens of thousands of people come to the US every year to recieve medical care. Try landing in the middle of Berlin not speaking German and see how that works out. Here are some more lies about your idiotic world health rankings. QUality of linens count and you have to be the stupidest living thing on planet earth to think people in Guam, Singapore or any of the other 36 countries ranked above the US offer better care than here. Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System Jun 1st, 2009 \| By Dawn \| Category: Featured Writers By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD The media and political community have made a big deal out of the fact that the U.S. ranks 37 out of 191 countries on the World Health Organization’s Health Care Ranking System. Is this tool a credible way to compare quality health care delivered in the U.S. vs the rest of the world? Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1 But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are: 1. Health Level: 25 percent 2. Health Distribution: 25 percent 3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent 4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent 5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent “Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2 “Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well. The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention. “Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system. In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 05:34 AM	#2
VipInoLo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	The best healthcare in the world is in the United States. It is why tens of thousands of people come to the US every year to recieve medical care. What about the tens of thousands of Americans who seek out health care abroad? In 2003 alone, over 30,000 Americans choose to travel abroad for surgeries and dental care: Medical Vacation Overseas, Health Tourism, Affordable Surgery abroad, Europe, Bulgaria, Turkey, Czech Republic Have you ever heard of Try landing in the middle of Berlin not speaking German and see how that works out. I can assure you that it would be much easier than vice versa--landing in a NYC hospital and only speaking German. The article that I cited above from the NY Daily News also contained a nifty chart in the print edition, which unfortunately was not included int he online version of the paper. It compared the USA, Germany, Canada, UK, Netherlands and three or four other countries according to a set of criteria such as, average time to see primary care physician, average lifespan, average time for a cancer patient to begin chemo treatment, etc. and trust me, the USA didn't fare that well. I don't have that chart here with me, but when I lay my hands on it again, i will reproduce it here. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 05:47 AM	#3
Bill-Watson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	Really? You can assure me of that? Because NYC hospitals spend millions a year on dialysis alone for non english speaking foriegners. THey travel there because they are very stupid. People goto Mexico to save $300 on dental work and risk picking up an infection from unsanitary equipment. THey fly abroad to revcieve lesser care for a lesser price. and every new drug, machine and procedure comes from here. so all of these other places that have better healthcare are getting their drugs, machines and procedures from here. Just like you and everyone else you know. France is ranked number one in your post? When was the last time you took a drug that was invented in France? Here is a hint-Never, when has Canada had medical breakthrough-another hint the answer is NEVER. Where do you think these other country's doctors go to get an education? Do US doctors fly abroad to learn of the latest techniques or do they fly here? People need to wake the f up badly. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 05:53 AM	#4
Bill-Watson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	What matters more? the average time for a cancer patient to begin chemo treatment or that the US has the highest survival rate for 13 of the 15 most common life threatening forms of cancer. These global comparisons are great, they keep the worldwide envy of the US to minimal, as far as a basis in reality, they are a joke-try reading the thing I posted one can obviously see where all of their rankings derive their lunacy from. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 05:59 AM	#5
Bill-Watson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	"There's a solidarity that operates in these other countries in terms of social values, a sense that people are entitled to health care," Osborn said. "In these countries, the idea of someone going bankrupt because of medical bills, it just does not exist." In the United Kingdom, for example, there is no out-of-pocket cost to see a primary care physician or a specialist. Adults can fill prescriptions, no matter how new, rare or advanced the drug, for about $12. yep and there is solidarity from the rest of the world that they will not ever have another major medical breakthrough ever again. THey completely depend on the US for everything new. That sounds like a good plan to me, prescriptions cost $12 in the UK, that is awesome, do the same thing here and you saw the last of the new drugs. It costs a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market-no worldwide governments are spending that because they are too busy spending on nationalized healthcare. How many $12 prescriptions does one have to write to get to $1billion just to break even? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 06:10 AM	#6
VipInoLo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	Really? You can assure me of that? Because NYC hospitals spend millions a year on dialysis alone for non english speaking foriegners. Can you show me some facts and figures on this one please? and every new drug, machine and procedure comes from here. so all of these other places that have better healthcare are getting their drugs, machines and procedures from here. Just like you and everyone else you know. I'm quite certain that multinationals not headquarted in the USA, such as Siemens Medical GmbH, Phillips Healthare Solutions B.V., Novartis International AG (the world's largest pharma company in revenue), GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer GmbH, to just name a few would all disagree with that. Check out their annual reports; I am sure you can find them online. France is ranked number one in your post? When was the last time you took a drug that was invented in France? Here is a hint-Never, Dude, I never said France was ranked # 1 in health care, so don't even try to put words in my mouth. It did rank significantly higher in some aspects than the USA in the Daily News chart which I mentioned earlier, but not quite as high in others and the cost per capita for health care there is significantly less. Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention above, Sanofi-Aventis, headquartered in Paris (France NOT Texas), you know, the world's largest producer of vaccines. when has Canada had medical breakthrough-another hint the answer is NEVER. Apparently, you don't consider the discovery of insulin to be a major "medical breakthrough". (hint: just google "Sir Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best"). Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 06:12 AM	#7
Bill-Watson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	Are you quite certain? Then you would be even more certain that Bayer makes 65% of its money off of aspirin and another 25% off of crop chemicals, how much have they contributed to the advancement in mankind's medical care? Did they discover insulin under a socialized healthcare system? of course not-how far back did you have to go exactly? Try more than google for a change and go ask a professional where all the new stuff comes from. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 06:16 AM	#8
VipInoLo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	Try more than google for a change and go ask a professional where all the new stuff comes from. I know where it comes from- E U R O P A! Bayer also invented Levitra, is that a new enough drug for you? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 06:23 AM	#9
Bill-Watson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	Last year, a study comparing preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries placed the U.S. dead last. France was first, followed by Japan and Australia did you post this or was it someone else? Right and when the US government takes over the US healthcare system it too will be the largest everything and contribute nothing to the advancement of mankind. Likewise they are called multinationals for a reason. None of them develop new drugs anywhere but in the US. and they are very limited in that capacity, earth shattering events when it happens. but of course you know that because you know that the US system is ranked dead last on some list and therefore FRance has better healthcare. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 06:29 AM	#10
VipInoLo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	Last year, a study comparing preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries placed the U.S. dead last. France was first, followed by Japan and Australia Yes, I posted that, and evidently in that one (of various) categories, the USA placed dead last among the industrialized countries surveyed. If you are taking umbrage to that, I suggest that you write The Daily News; their Vox Populi column of readers' letters puts just about any comparable forum in the Philly media market to shame. Also, while you are looking for their address, you can check out the expose that the NY Daily News did earlier this summer about people dying while waiting for care in NYC hospitals and the coverups that they caught the hospital administrators doing in flagrante delicto. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-10-2009, 07:59 AM	#11
Bill-Watson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	Need more competition. Introducing more government is not adding competition it is dictating to the existing competition, amongst other things: THey should lower the barriers to entry into health insurance in every state in the union. These people making billions of dollars a year pushing paper and the reason they getting billions is because me and you can't go open our own paper pushing company without immense capital resources to satisfy ludicrous state and federal minimums. and those barriers did nothing to prevent AIG from going under. Those capital and licensing/regulatory bull**** did absolutely nothing. So basically we have a cartel system of insurance due to government regulations. Why doesn't Walmart sell actual health insurance? Because they don't want to answer to a bunch of politicians. More competition with drugs. IT should not cost $1billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. The patent period is too long, the FDA process is ridiculous. IF you want to lower the price of anything that is not a natural resource, just introduce more free market competition, it works everytime. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-09-2009, 08:15 AM	#12
VipInoLo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	More competition with drugs. IT should not cost $1billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. The patent period is too long, the FDA process is ridiculous. IF you want to lower the price of anything that is not a natural resource, just introduce more free market competition, it works everytime. Or perhaps MORE governmental regulation is necessary to ensure that the pharmaceutical companies don't gouge the public: In many non-US western countries a 'fourth hurdle' of cost effectiveness analysis has developed before new technologies can be provided. This focuses on the efficiency (in terms of the cost per QALY) of the technologies in question rather than their efficacy. In England NICE approval is required before technologies can be adopted by the NHS, whilst similar arrangements exist with the Scottish Medical Consortium in Scotland and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia. A product must pass the threshold for cost-effectiveness if it is to be approved. Treatments must represent 'value for money' and a net benefit to society. There is much speculation that a NICE style framework may be implemented in the USA to ensure Medicare and Medicaid spending is focused to maximise benefit to patients and not excessive profits for the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-09-2009, 09:36 AM	#13
SkatrySkith Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 596 Senior Member	Did they discover insulin under a socialized healthcare system? Banting and Best discovered insulin at a publicly-funded Canadian university. Virtually all major groundbreaking research is done at universities, through the use of government research grants. The pharma companies mainly make "me too" drugs and knockoffs that they can patent. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-09-2009, 09:40 AM	#14
KlaraNovikoffaZ Join Date Oct 2005 Location USA Posts 384 Senior Member	Banting and Best discovered insulin at a publicly-funded Canadian university. Virtually all major groundbreaking research is done at universities, through the use of government research grants. The pharma companies mainly make "me too" drugs and knockoffs that they can patent. Oh, like no uni research happens in the US. I forgot. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-09-2009, 09:46 AM	#15
SkatrySkith Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 596 Senior Member	I really shouldn't feed the troll, but I can't resist pointing to actual information, in case anyone out there is interested in educating themselves. when has Canada had medical breakthrough-another hint the answer is NEVER. Insulin is the most famous one, but it's hardly the only one. Canada has had quite a few major medical breakthroughs for such a small country. Here's a long list of Canadian medical breakthroughs. Here's a more in-depth description of 10 of the biggest ones. France is ranked number one in your post? When was the last time you took a drug that was invented in France? Here is a hint-Never, Perhaps they were too busy winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering the human papilloma viruses (HIV) that causes AIDS. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

05-09-2009, 09:58 AM	#16
Arkadiyas Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 692 Senior Member	Oh, like no uni research happens in the US. I forgot. I believe Arbor was speaking to YN's specific Canada rant. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-09-2009, 04:17 PM	#17
MortgFinsJohnQ Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 608 Senior Member	Instead of getting endlessly tied up in philosophical arguments, could we PLEASE just all keep repeating this part? Pretty please? "No one is suggesting that we adopt another country's health care system," said Robin Osborn, vice president and director of the international program in health policy and practice at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit. "We should be open-minded, and we should be entrepreneurial about looking at what works," she said. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-09-2009, 04:42 PM	#18
RicyReetred Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 577 Senior Member	I really shouldn't feed the troll, but I can't resist pointing to actual information, in case anyone out there is interested in educating themselves. Insulin is the most famous one, but it's hardly the only one. Canada has had quite a few major medical breakthroughs for such a small country. Here's a long list of Canadian medical breakthroughs. Here's a more in-depth description of 10 of the biggest ones. Perhaps they were too busy winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering the human papilloma viruses (HIV) that causes AIDS. You've got some nerve giving links and not just running off with half baked opinions. The next thing you'll do is promote a legitimate discussion ! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-09-2009, 05:56 PM	#19
KlaraNovikoffaZ Join Date Oct 2005 Location USA Posts 384 Senior Member	If Canada is so great, why haven't you moved there? They're still accepting immigrants with open arms, you know. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-09-2009, 06:05 PM	#20
VipInoLo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	If Canada is so great, why haven't you moved there? They're still accepting immigrants with open arms, you know. hmmm-- America, love it or leave it, eh? I don't believe anyone was suggesting that Canada is some northern version of Utopia; rather, we were offering rational evidence against the patently false and hare-brained assertion posted earlier in this thread that Canadians have made absolutely no contributions to the field of medicine. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote