This is a good thing. You don't want to be putting something in you that doesn't work. Drugs need massive R&D and that's why it's effective. I'm more talking about the majority of your bill where the doctor basically spends 5 minutes with you and charges 2k.
So you're against doctors for "monopolizing" medical knowledge but for drug patents that... monopolize medical knowledge?
It's a temporary evil. The Creation of knowledge costs an incredible amount of money. A 10 year monopolization is a fair incentive to acquire such knowledge. The system has loop holes, yes, but the intention of the system I support. Of course if there's a better way I support it even more.
She not he. When my daughter had her babies I recommended my doctor who was pretty young when she delivered my babies. In fact - we were both pregnant together. She was a couple of months behind me. My doctor notified up front that she did not have malpractice insurance. In fact the insurance situation is pretty hard on working mothers. I know 2 doctors who gave up medicine when they had their children. They wanted t…
Yikes! I’m embarrassed to have assumed your doctor was a male. Thanks for pointing that out :)
Why would you be embarrassed? Most doctors are male, this is a fact. I'm ashamed that your ashamed of this. Sexism is bad but to be ashamed of this, which is clearly not sexism is embarrassing and emasculating.
The US is barely in the top among developed nations, and it's not much better than the next 10-15 countries: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer... And it's notoriously difficult to compare. If cancer is registered as "discovered" early, because a for profit doctor starts treating it early, but the government hired doctor maybe doesn't, the early treated will statistically appear as living lo…
How does your link relate to your comment?
It didn't. Sorry. Clearly I shouldn't post from my phone while cooking. These were the comparisons I meant to post:
The US is barely in the top among developed nations, and it's not much better than the next 10-15 countries: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer... And it's notoriously difficult to compare. If cancer is registered as "discovered" early, because a for profit doctor starts treating it early, but the government hired doctor maybe doesn't, the early treated will statistically appear as living lo…
> The US is barely in the top among developed nations, and it's not much better than the next 10-15 countries: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer... . First, you're posting data that isn't relevant: that's the rate of cancer incidence , not the survival rates. That says nothing about how well the cancer is treated. Secondly, it's nonsensical to compare aggregated cancer statistics between co…
Yes, I posted the wrong data. Sorry. See above :-)
You've failed to correct for over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment which all cause harm. It's worrying that the US places so much emphasis on 5 year survival rates, and not on eg all cause mortality.
> You've failed to correct for over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment which all cause harm. It's worrying that the US places so much emphasis on 5 year survival rates, and not on eg all cause mortality. I'm not, if you actually read the research I linked instead of speculating.
I have read the research. You're using 5 year survival rates, not all cause mortality.
This causes people to get tested, get treated, and sometimes get harmed by that treatment, but does not extend their life.
Worst straw man I saw in a long while. PS: >The obvious answer is drop No. You "feel" it is "right" and "obvious" even, and it might as well be if we really did that experiment, but humans are pretty bad at predictions.
What is your argument that it wouldn't affect R&D spending?
One scenario that might happen is that the increased competition might lead to more R&D spending as companies might try to make up for the "lost" profits of their current portfolio by bringing new (patented) drugs to market.
The idea that competition leads to innovation is not exactly new.
What is your argument that it wouldn't affect R&D spending?
One scenario that might happen is that the increased competition might lead to more R&D spending as companies might try to make up for the "lost" profits of their current portfolio by bringing new (patented) drugs to market. The idea that competition leads to innovation is not exactly new.
Why would a decrease in price drive an increase in competition?
It always seems any American that is against Universal Healthcare quickly changes their tune as soon as they or their loved ones are hit with bankruptingly large bills for things they have no control over. What a shame they can't see outsides themselves and realize they're only an inch away from financial ruin.
That’s how it is in other aspects too: unemployed? Must be lazy. Homeless? Must be mentally I’ll or a druggy. Lost the houses? Must have been living paycheck to paycheck. People are quick to judge others until that thing happens to them and all of a sudden the tune changes.
> I think it's impossible to say how egregious $14k is I live (well, lived. currently in the UK) in Australia, and the concept of a $14k bill for a sprained thumb is so out of my world. I cannot fathom how anyone would find that even remotely acceptable.
On the weekend my 83 year old mother in law fell and broke her ankle. One hour ambulance ride to a metropolitan ER. Examination and diagnosis by a trauma specialist and an orthopedist. X-ray. Moonboot applied, a night in hospital as community team were assigned to make her adjustments to her apartment for recovery period. Physiotherapist consultation and ongoing support. No insurance. Total cost zero dollars. In New…
> Total cost zero dollars.
You mean total bill zero dollars. Cost was much greater than this, it just wasn't covered by your mother.
In Australia the Leftist government of Gough Whitlam introduced health-coverage-for-all in 1975 with a scheme called Medibank. In 1984 after a couple of governments, Bob Hawke's Leftist government created the Medicare scheme (Medibank became a government provider of private health insurance), which exists to this day. The most interesting stat I ever heard about Medicare was this: prior to Medicare the number one cau…
We still cannot get a price list of medical procedures in the US thanks to the antitrust exemption provided in McCarran-Ferguson Antitrust Act of 1945. I think repealing this would be a good start. All other industries are required to provide price lists. My friend went to the ER recently for a sprained thumb. They wrapped it in some bandage and he got a bill for $14,000. His insurance is covering 80% but he is still…
Yes-- we need price information. A family member (US citizen) lives in Europe and has free government health care there, but you often have to wait several months to get treated. Instead of waiting, she thought she might just do needed cataract surgery in the US to get it done if it didn't cost too much. I called several medical centers that do cataract surgery for an estimate. Can't provide it. Can you give a ballpark range? No. Can you say if it's closer to $1k, $10k or $100k? No.