Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Not many restaurants have health care so you're forced to look for it on your own which is a pain in the ass.

Rob

And here we are back at the same basic, unanswered question from last fall :

Health Care : Basic Human Right or Commodity ?

My Argument is this:

Is it better for the country to have a healthy populace that does not have to worry about health care costs/procedures/coverage

or

"Natural Selection" of the poor and unhealthy.

Right now Health Care is something that can only go up in price. I know there are several people (with good arguments) that totally oppose nationalization of health care but I see this as the only ( and best ) solution.

At the very least i think we need to have complete nationalized health care/insurance/whatever for everyone under 18.

Oh and I think any industry associated with Public Health should be required to be non-profit. I feel that way about all insurance anyway.

BB - we should run some kind of math (or research) to try and see what the average Canadian ends up paying for healthcare a month. I can't see more than maybe a couple hundred bucks of my monthly taxes going into it, if even that.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Ah, good points all.

Pure capitalism is a pipe dream that would eventually result in 99% of the world being starving. Pure socialism is equally a pipe dream that would have the same result.

A would make one small change...

Socialism is a pipe dream that would eventually result in 99% of the world starving.

Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true.

DuneFishUK wrote:Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true.

Under socialism man coerces man, under capitalism the reverse is true.

How about Frank's approach?

(Am I the only one having trouble parsing the "the reverse is true" parts of the previous two posts? )

In a capitalist society, man coerces and exploits man,
whereas in a socialist society, man exploits and coerces man.

It's a very subtle difference ....

Ever been to a Veterans Administration Hospital? I have, once. It's good to know I have that to fall back on if I can't afford health care, but man that is a scary place. If that is any taste of how a "national" health care system would be, no thaks.

Our Constitution promises the you the right to live but it doesn't say it will pay for it.

Health Care is a service, sold by private, citzen doctors with federal standards and should remain that way. What needs to be looked at are the standards.

We also need to stop treating symptoms and treat causes.

Was I really stoned sitting in traffic or did a hear on the radio that a stem cell transplant cured an AIDS patient?

I don't know if this adds to the discussion at all, but my roommate recently researched for-profit healthcare...

He discovered that for-profit hospitals have a higher mortality rate than the nonprofit ones. There were some other nasty statistics for the for-profit hospitals, but I don't remember exactly what they pertained to.

You know, if you're worried about the quality of your healthcare going down if your doctor is getting paid less...I don't think I'd worry about it.

It makes sense, too. What kind of person is going to take a job with a higher salary, where they get to treat higher-class patients, versus the kind of person who takes a job where they know they're dealing with people in poverty? I think the latter is probably a more compassionate person who cares more about actually helping people, and would be less likely to skimp on the details. If you're just in it for the money, you want to get your patients in and out as quickly as possible. If you actually give a damn, you might notice things that the other guy wouldn't

(I have to agree with the Chigger, though. The cost of health insurance is ridiculous no matter which side of the aisle you're on.)

Mr. Teg wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Ah, good points all.

Pure capitalism is a pipe dream that would eventually result in 99% of the world being starving. Pure socialism is equally a pipe dream that would have the same result.

A would make one small change...

Socialism is a pipe dream that would eventually result in 99% of the world starving.

Um... am I missing some subtle joke? I think that's what I said, just didn't feel like re-writing the whole sentence.

I think Teg's attacking your grammar ...

All sentient beings are created unequal.
The best society provides each with equal opportunity to float at his own level.

-The Gowachin Primary


(The Dosadi Experiment)

Hmm, so I didn't check here this entire long weekend (yesterday was Family Day, here in the north [side bar: How was everyone's Family Day? Mine was terrible, and my family ruined it like they do every year ] so I hadn't posted since Friday afternoon).

I logged on this morning (95% of my posting here is done while I'm at work ) and skipped right to the Iran thread, only to see the entire discussion Freak and I had was totally missing. Not only that, but it ended in such a way that Freak seemed to have the last word on it I was ready to call him out and everything when I found this thread.

Anyway, back on track...

Freakzilla wrote:But what if I loose my choice of doctors or the quality of care suffers? Is that worth lower health insurance rates?

I think this should have it's own topic...

I maintain that socialized medicine simply wouldn't have that effect. You can still choose your family doctor, and even your surgeons, and you'll find the quality of work doesn't suffer at all. Like I said before, these people want to be doctors, and they'll doctor you the best they can. Socialized healthcare simply takes the unnecessary overcompensation out of the equation. Repeating myself again, you might say that this simply filters out the crummy doctors who are more interested in the profits than the practice, thus improving the quality of care, and making it available to everyone who needs it.

And as for student loans, I was one of the applicants for OSAP with the "coveted financial need" and I'm extremely thankful for it, since I definitely wouldn't have been able to go into the program I wanted without it (or attend post-secondary at all). I received about 9k for each year of college I did (3 years) and that covered me for tuition, books, and helped a lot with living arrangements and other expenses. And now I've found a decent-paying job, and I'm slowly-but-surely paying back the loan. Literally could not have done it without government assistance.

The way I see it, one's own education is probably the best investment one can make.

Baraka Bryan wrote:making a new thread for the Family Day question...


i don't think the OSAP program is too broken, but they shoudl take more into account to ensure those with the most need for loans are actually getting it. It's the scholarship/bursary system in Ontario that is screwed. Scholarships shouldn't be based on financial need at all.

and I agree on the education-investment statement... almost always a great investment

Ah, I forgot to mention my scholarship... At the end of grade 12, I received the Queen Elizabeth II "Aiming For The Top" Scholarship which was a handy $3,000 and is not based on financial need at all. You must apply for the scholarship, and only a couple students from a graduating class will receive it, based on marks. my marks weren't super great in grade 12 (pretty decent though) but I received it anyway, probably due to a lack of applicants from my highschool. The scholarship was renewable, if my average for my first year of college stayed above 80, but it didn't so I only got it the one year.

SandRider wrote:I think Teg's attacking your grammar ...

Ah, yes then, carry on.

Baraka Bryan wrote:

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Baraka Bryan wrote:making a new thread for the Family Day question...


i don't think the OSAP program is too broken, but they shoudl take more into account to ensure those with the most need for loans are actually getting it. It's the scholarship/bursary system in Ontario that is screwed. Scholarships shouldn't be based on financial need at all.

and I agree on the education-investment statement... almost always a great investment

Ah, I forgot to mention my scholarship... At the end of grade 12, I received the Queen Elizabeth II "Aiming For The Top" Scholarship which was a handy $3,000 and is not based on financial need at all. You must apply for the scholarship, and only a couple students from a graduating class will receive it, based on marks. my marks weren't super great in grade 12 (pretty decent though) but I received it anyway, probably due to a lack of applicants from my highschool. The scholarship was renewable, if my average for my first year of college stayed above 80, but it didn't so I only got it the one year.

actually the QE2 is based on need as well. if you remember, the application for it was with the OSAP application and it is given as supplemental to OSAP basically as a loan that doesn't need to be repaid. They do it with the OSAP application so they have your parent's income etc to determine your need.

as an example, my friend at mcmaster had poor marks and came from a very low income family. she received 12,000 from the QE2 based purely on her financial need.

as stated before, I come from a family who didn't fall under the financial need category, and I graduated from grade 12 at the top of my class iwth a 96.33 admission average. I received $100 from the QE2. that's one-hundred dollars. I sent a letter telling them to keep their $100 as it's an insult to call that a scholarship for my marks.

I stand corrected... I just seem to remember a description of their mandate, and that's how I remember it breaking down. I do recall, however, that it was an option in the OSAP application process.

I think it's funny how Freak created this thread so save another thread from being derailed, only to have this one derailed into education.

I guess it's the fate of all threads, really.

We can make an Education topic if need be.

Meh

Mom sent this to me in my email:

Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 7:53 PM

Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United States contain active ingredients made in other countries. In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America .

Celebrex:100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
Percent mar kup: 21,712%


Claritin:10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%


Keflex:250 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
Percent markup: 8,372%


Lipitor:20 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
Cost of general active ingredients: �$5.80
Percent markup: 4,696%


Norvasc:10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%


Paxil:20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
Percent markup: 2,898%


Prevacid:30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent markup: 34,136%


Prilosec: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%

Prozac:20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%


Tenormin:50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%


Vasotec:10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general acti ve ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%


Xanax:1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%


Zestril:</ B>20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
Cost of general active ingredients $3.20
Percent markup: 2,809%


Zithromax:600 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
Percent markup: 7,892%


Zocor:40 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
Percent markup: 4,059%

Zoloft:50 mg
Consumer price: $206.87
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
Percent markup: 11,821%


Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone should know about this.

It pays to shop around! This helps to solve the mystery as to why they can afford to put a Walgreen's on every corner. On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit , did a story on generic drug prices gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. So often we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills.
The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are saving $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!

At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs.


I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience I had to use the drug Compazine which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients.

I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at Costco for $28.08.

I would like to mention, that although Costco is a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.

I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own e-mail, and send it to everyone you know with an e-mail address.

Sharon L. Davis
Budget Analyst
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 6839
Office Ph: 202-482-4458
Office Fax: 202-482-5480
E-mail Address:sdavis@doc.gov

I use Paxil and pay for 100 tablets $10 bucks, get it directly from my doctor.

Rob

And that's why I love the pharmaceutical industry!

Whats just as bad is the fact that thousands and thousands of people are prescribed these drugs, and much of the time they don't need them. Depression, anxiety, ADD pills... More than half of cases of the diagnosis of stuff like that is probably totally unnecessary. Maybe you just need to chill out, or maybe a kid is naturally fidgety.

I heard a great story somewhere on http://www.TED.com in which a young girl's teachers asked her parents to look into their daughter's behaviour. The teachers suspected she had ADD. Instead, the parents took her to a psychologist, who watched the girl play for half an hour, and told her parents to enroll her in a dance class. She ended up becoming some famous ballerina or something. I don't recall her name but if you search "creativity" on TED.com you should find the story I'm speaking of.

The point is, meds would have calmed her down for school alright, but it would also have squashed her desire to move around like she did. the TED talk goes on to say that the education system doesn't support creativity enough, which I totally agree with. It's suppressive instead of encouraging, and think of all the creativity they've been denying children for generations. Maybe we'd all be creative enough by now to solve all these giant problems facing us.

I think the same goes for a LOT of bullshit medication. All it takes is for a patient to complain about some condition, and a doctor to recommend an overpriced product that will take care of it in the wrong way.

Government (public) schools aren't there to create inspired youth, they are there to create easily lead government subjects.