Lets hear the sniveling over this one!!

[CMatt25]

I intend mimic the insensitive tone of other people who posted in this thread in this post.

After posting that, do you want to be greeted with lecture regarding your “personal responsibility” to defray for your own health care and how it is not the collective responsibility of society (and wealthy people) and how you should live in abject poverty with no Internet connection or computer (or any other appliance) before you should receive assistance.

Rose, but don’t forget Rachel had a bike to fall off of to put her hip and shoulder back in place. I’m confident that fits the lecturers’ description of personal responsibilty.

 

[CMatt25]

Really - you sound like our Deacon who upon meeting a very outspoken pro-life advocate in our parish for the first time commented to me that the man was very intense, he admired his pro-life stance but it was sad tht he was a ‘single-issue’ advocate … I was taken back-because I know that this man supports with his time talent and treasure and inner city parish … he volunteered three days a week at that other parishes food pantry - a retired dr - he provided some medical care to the homeless and reguarly contributed to this parish to keep its ministry to the poor operational - in addition to being a tireless advocate for the innocent unborn. This man gives hours and hours of his time to help those in need in all walks of life and in all stages … but he would never go around bragging about his deeds - his witness is one of action - being an advocate by doing … The unborn of course have only our voices to raise in their defense - they cannot take to the streets for themselves nor come here to a forum andplead for their lives. the unborn cannot vote … the homeless, unemplyed and uninsured can vote and protest and request help …

Please do not tell me that I care nothing for those in need … I have not once ever met our democratic Catholic governor at a JOIN [JOIN assists people in moving from the streets into permanent housing] fundraiser or at a Father Taaffe Foundation fundraiser [The Father Taaffe Foundation operates three homes for unwed mothers] … he did chair a GALA Fundraiser for NARAL Pro-choice Oregon … Made the front page of the Oregonian Newspaper … but we all know how caring the left is … how religiously they pay their taxes and how generous they are in their charitable giving

Perhaps the deacon arrived at the impression he did about the good man from the single issue the gentleman was so intensely advocating or bragging about upon meeting the deacon. You apparently missed that I said “some”. And let me suggest taking your own advice and not telling us how ungenerous and uncaring the entire left is. Peace.

 

[FlyCatcher]

Well, there are certain existing systems one can use to conduct appropriate comparisons without being idealistic (implying unrealistic and uneconomical), imaginative, or novel policy wonk. For instance, would his predicament be improved he was a Swedish or Canadian citizen receiving health coverage from the state. Those systems seem to reject the principle of individual responsibility for one’s welfare for collective responsibility.

I doubt many individuals are capable of making rational choices. In addition, not switching to a generic maybe due to risk aversion. For instance, a patient taking Lipitor who is content with the drug may not being will to take pravastatin due to fears of unanticipated side effects. However, a public system also has incentives for reducing costs and can accomplish this by exercising its monopsonic power and restricting its formulary by excluding brand name drugs if they have an effective generic equivalent.

Don’t insurance companies have an incentive to restrict their formularies by increasing the premium of brand named drugs with generic equivalents?

I absolutely loathe American conservatism (although I do admire paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan sometimes) and rarely agree with them except on the issue of immigration. I am surprised that you did not mention immigration draining public resources since conservatives tend to mention that, although I doubt that conservatives with political power are adversely affected by immigration to do anything about it.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense since it could also apply to other medical expenditures that are also insured. The prices for generic drugs have fallen drastically too, but this is due to patent expiration and their demonstrated efficacy in clinic trials and decades of use by the general public.

Well, there is plenty of private funding for those diseases based on their disease burden in high-income countries. The “failings” of existing research is due to diminishing returns of scientific research, not the inefficiency of the government or “free market”. The product of this research are pharmaceuticals that only able to yield marginal improvements while costing an exorbitant amount of money. But we are not talking about whether a government should fund Avastin (or a similar novel expensive drug) for a terminal cancer patient, but whether the state should pay through redistributive taxation for doctors appointments and MRIs, not expensive wonder drugs that need large trials to generate enough statistical power to show a marginal benefit.

Here are good blog posts:
robertfortner.posterous.com/tag/medicine

But my main question concerns his predicament, why would the US health system (even with your proposed changes) be superior for him when compared to the Canadian, Swedish, or French systems

1 .His real world predicament cannot be helped in any way other than seeing a doctor immediately. No talk of contrasting systems will do him any good.

1. Individuals make rational decisions about all kinds of things everyday. A simple medical example: a doctor may recommend a test at an imaging lab in his building. A consumer may call around and find the test at another center for a lower price. That is well within anyone’s ability.
2. Monopsonic powers? The mortality rate for death from colon cancer in Canada is 42%. It is 30% in the US. This is because Canada uses those monopsonic powers to deny use of the most effective drug. That drug is used in the US. The results speak fot themselves.
3. "Don’t insurance companies have an incentive to restrict their formularies by increasing the premium of brand named drugs with generic equivalents? " What does that mean?
4. I said nothig about immigration. What are you talking about?
5. My example of laser eye surgery relies on the fact that prices have gone down, contrary to the observation of the vast majority of insured treatments.
6. Redistributive funding eliminates the ability for consumers to make rational choices on marginal costs. That is why all countries that use it are continually cutting back services. The way this is usually done is by limiting treatment resources. We can recognize it by long waiting times for treatment.
7. Tha Daschle notion of preventing new drugs, technologies, and treatments doesn’t depend on whether the research is public or private. They all must be stopped so people can’t utilize them because they will increase costs. No private research will be done if a government plan will not allow its introduction into the system.
8. Note the US is the world’s engine for medical advances. The countries with single payer systems are free riders. Shut down US research and that also makes life easier for the other countries’ systems. No more uncomfortable questions about why those folks can’t have the most effective drugs.
9. So, the government systems being pushed today do not allow consumer choice and shut down medical research in new fields that could save millions of lives. However, it will allow moral exhibitionists to claim they are practicing Christian charity.