Ventilator

[David Brown]

On 22/03/2020 20:48, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

I don't think the issues are orthogonal - it is merely that a
reasonable universal healthcare system is not sufficient for
dealing with an epidemic. You need a decent health care system,
and a competent government. The UK has one but not the other. The
USA has neither. Norway has both, and is doing okay. And there's a
fair degree of luck involved too.

You are pretty full of crap. The US does have an issue of paying for
healthcare, but it certainly has a world class healthcare system. So
your argument is total BS.

At the highest level of payment, the US is definitely top-class. If you
want a severed limb sown back on, or treated for some weird disease,
it's second to none in quality. If you can afford top-rate prices, you
get top-rate care.

But for everyone else, it is vastly overpriced, and severely
money-oriented. You have a system where figuring out what is wrong with
people comes long after figuring out if the patient can pay for it - and
if they /can/ pay, then comes endless unnecessary scans, tests,
overnight monitoring, and anything else the doctors think they can
charge for.

It is the issue of paying for your healthcare that is the reason you
have the developed world's least efficient and least effective system.
You pay vastly more for much worse treatment than any other Western
country. Look up any statistic you like - or read reports from anyone
who has had treatment in a USA hospital and a European hospital for
comparison.

It is your payment system that meant that while Trump was happily
boasting that anyone who wanted a Corona test could get one, people
trying to get a test were being charged $30K+ for a CAT scan instead of
a nose swab.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:02:10 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 22/03/2020 20:48, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

I don't think the issues are orthogonal - it is merely that a
reasonable universal healthcare system is not sufficient for
dealing with an epidemic. You need a decent health care system,
and a competent government. The UK has one but not the other. The
USA has neither. Norway has both, and is doing okay. And there's a
fair degree of luck involved too.

You are pretty full of crap. The US does have an issue of paying for
healthcare, but it certainly has a world class healthcare system. So
your argument is total BS.


At the highest level of payment, the US is definitely top-class. If you
want a severed limb sown back on, or treated for some weird disease,
it's second to none in quality. If you can afford top-rate prices, you
get top-rate care.

But for everyone else, it is vastly overpriced, and severely
money-oriented. You have a system where figuring out what is wrong with
people comes long after figuring out if the patient can pay for it - and
if they /can/ pay, then comes endless unnecessary scans, tests,
overnight monitoring, and anything else the doctors think they can
charge for.

It is the issue of paying for your healthcare that is the reason you
have the developed world's least efficient and least effective system.
You pay vastly more for much worse treatment than any other Western
country. Look up any statistic you like - or read reports from anyone
who has had treatment in a USA hospital and a European hospital for
comparison.

It is your payment system that meant that while Trump was happily
boasting that anyone who wanted a Corona test could get one, people
trying to get a test were being charged $30K+ for a CAT scan instead of
a nose swab.

You can refuse any treatment you wish and $30k for a CAT scan is not real. I had a kidney stone once and they wanted to do either a CAT or a MRI, I forget which. Normally they so an IVP which is an X-ray with an IV contrast dye. My buddy pulled it up on his phone and pointed out that would cost as high as $2k, so I asked the doc. She said they couldn't do an IVP because there's no radiologist on the weekends. I asked how they did the CAT scan and they can use a lower tech to run the machine then send the scans to Texas to be read. An IVP can only be done by a radiologist (or more likely they have to be in the building "supervising").

I declined since there was no real point to the image. I've had 8 or 9 before and they always pass by the time they do the test anyway. In fact, the pain started to subside and I went home with no tests. So don't give me your BS.

The CV tests have been in short supply. That's not a blanket condemnation of the US healthcare system. That's true in many places such as the UK where they won't test unless you have been in contact with an infected person or been in a "hot spot".

So please dispense with the BS, ok?

--

Rick C.

+-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 6:48:12 AM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

I don't think the issues are orthogonal - it is merely that a reasonable
universal healthcare system is not sufficient for dealing with an
epidemic. You need a decent health care system, and a competent
government. The UK has one but not the other. The USA has neither.
Norway has both, and is doing okay. And there's a fair degree of luck
involved too.

You are pretty full of crap. The US does have an issue of paying for healthcare, but it certainly has a world class healthcare system. So your argument is total BS.

The USA has a world class health care system, for those who can afford to pay for it. Those who can't are less well served, and will get sick and infect the well-off. Once you've got Covid-19, high quality health care isn't guaranteed to save your life or stop you infecting other people before you start showing symptoms.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 3/23/2020 2:13 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 6:48:12 AM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

I don't think the issues are orthogonal - it is merely that a reasonable
universal healthcare system is not sufficient for dealing with an
epidemic. You need a decent health care system, and a competent
government. The UK has one but not the other. The USA has neither.
Norway has both, and is doing okay. And there's a fair degree of luck
involved too.

You are pretty full of crap. The US does have an issue of paying for healthcare, but it certainly has a world class healthcare system. So your argument is total BS.

The USA has a world class health care system, for those who can afford to pay for it. Those who can't are less well served, and will get sick and infect the well-off. Once you've got Covid-19, high quality health care isn't guaranteed to save your life or stop you infecting other people before you start showing symptoms.

Speaking of full of crap, I read a study from a while back that among
some more uncommon medications, the anti-diarrheal loperamide seems to
act as a small-molecule inhibitor of the MERS-CoV. (Middle East
coronavirus.)

exact mechanism of action unknown.

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6316138/>

 

[David Brown]

On 22/03/2020 22:40, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:02:10 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/03/2020 20:48, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:

I don't think the issues are orthogonal - it is merely that a
reasonable universal healthcare system is not sufficient for
dealing with an epidemic. You need a decent health care
system, and a competent government. The UK has one but not the
other. The USA has neither. Norway has both, and is doing
okay. And there's a fair degree of luck involved too.

You are pretty full of crap. The US does have an issue of paying
for healthcare, but it certainly has a world class healthcare
system. So your argument is total BS.


At the highest level of payment, the US is definitely top-class.
If you want a severed limb sown back on, or treated for some weird
disease, it's second to none in quality. If you can afford
top-rate prices, you get top-rate care.

But for everyone else, it is vastly overpriced, and severely
money-oriented. You have a system where figuring out what is wrong
with people comes long after figuring out if the patient can pay
for it - and if they /can/ pay, then comes endless unnecessary
scans, tests, overnight monitoring, and anything else the doctors
think they can charge for.

It is the issue of paying for your healthcare that is the reason
you have the developed world's least efficient and least effective
system. You pay vastly more for much worse treatment than any other
Western country. Look up any statistic you like - or read reports
from anyone who has had treatment in a USA hospital and a European
hospital for comparison.

It is your payment system that meant that while Trump was happily
boasting that anyone who wanted a Corona test could get one,
people trying to get a test were being charged $30K+ for a CAT scan
instead of a nose swab.

You can refuse any treatment you wish and $30k for a CAT scan is not
real.

My apologies - I meant $3K. The 30K was after translation to Norwegian
kroner. (Of course, $3K is still a great deal of money.) The guy in
the article was not, in fact, tested for Corona at all, nor did he get
the CAT scan they wanted to give him - they figured out that he had the
flu.

In other countries, if you go for a Corona test, they take a nose and
throat swab. Without charge.

I had a kidney stone once and they wanted to do either a CAT
or a MRI, I forget which. Normally they so an IVP which is an X-ray
with an IV contrast dye. My buddy pulled it up on his phone and
pointed out that would cost as high as $2k, so I asked the doc. She
said they couldn't do an IVP because there's no radiologist on the
weekends. I asked how they did the CAT scan and they can use a lower
tech to run the machine then send the scans to Texas to be read. An
IVP can only be done by a radiologist (or more likely they have to be
in the building "supervising").

I declined since there was no real point to the image. I've had 8 or
9 before and they always pass by the time they do the test anyway.
In fact, the pain started to subside and I went home with no tests.
So don't give me your BS.

The CV tests have been in short supply. That's not a blanket
condemnation of the US healthcare system. That's true in many places
such as the UK where they won't test unless you have been in contact
with an infected person or been in a "hot spot".

So please dispense with the BS, ok?

In countries with good health care systems, if you think you have a
kidney stone, you go to the doctor. If the doctor thinks you should be
checked at the hospital, you go to the hospital. If the hospital thinks
you should have a CAT scan or any other kind of scan, you get it. The
doctors - those who know what they are doing, based on medical knowledge
rather than what some buddy finds on their mobile - decide on the
diagnostic tests and the treatment. Neither you nor the doctor waste
time on figuring out costs, insurances, bills, payment plans, etc., nor
do you get the options between recommended procedures, cheapo solutions
for poor people, and luxury five-star treatments for the rich.

And if you need time off work to recover, that is covered - you don't
lose pay, and you don't lose your job. (That is the welfare system and
employee rights, rather than health care, but it all ties in.)

<https://qz.com/1022831/why-doesnt-the-united-states-have-universal-health-care/>

Here's a quotation:

"""
Many Americans think their system is expensive because it’s very good.
They are wrong: The US ranks 28th, below almost all other rich
countries, when it comes to the quality of its healthcare assessed by UN
parameters.
"""


You can google for endless numbers of reports, comparisons, opinion
pieces, articles, etc., that all say much the same. In any comparison
between the USA and Europe on health, the USA comes out as 2 to 4 times
more expensive than just about anywhere else (depending on how it is
counted - absolute, relative to median income, etc.), while care quality
and health figures put it near the bottom of every comparison to other
western countries.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 6:18:14 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

In countries with good health care systems, if you think you have a
kidney stone, you go to the doctor. If the doctor thinks you should be
checked at the hospital, you go to the hospital. If the hospital thinks
you should have a CAT scan or any other kind of scan, you get it. The
doctors - those who know what they are doing, based on medical knowledge
rather than what some buddy finds on their mobile - decide on the
diagnostic tests and the treatment. Neither you nor the doctor waste
time on figuring out costs, insurances, bills, payment plans, etc., nor
do you get the options between recommended procedures, cheapo solutions
for poor people, and luxury five-star treatments for the rich.

Same here with the exception that you can decide what your care is if you disagree with the doctor. They may not give you a test or treatment if they don't consider it reasonable, but if there are options, you call all the shots.

Costs and payments are between you and your insurance companies which is what I said. The only issue is payments, the care is as good as anyone's.

And if you need time off work to recover, that is covered - you don't
lose pay, and you don't lose your job. (That is the welfare system and
employee rights, rather than health care, but it all ties in.)

Here that is between you and your employer. Most everyone has sick leave, but it's not mandatory. Low end jobs sometimes don't provide it or have low limits.

https://qz.com/1022831/why-doesnt-the-united-states-have-universal-health-care/

Here's a quotation:

"""
Many Americans think their system is expensive because it’s very good.
They are wrong: The US ranks 28th, below almost all other rich
countries, when it comes to the quality of its healthcare assessed by UN
parameters.
"""

Which is an arbitrary evaluation. I've had this conversation with people before. Care here is very good with very good outcomes. The ratings where US care doesn't rank well look at health rather than the medical system. Other factors play into health such as heredity and lifestyle.

Also your references suck. Your link is an article about the COST of healthcare. It has one paragraph about the quality of care and links to another web page about the COST of care with one mention of quality of care, "Most research shows no correlation between higher quality and better care" which doesn't even make sense. I found no support for the claim, "The US ranks 28th".

You can google for endless numbers of reports, comparisons, opinion
pieces, articles, etc., that all say much the same. In any comparison
between the USA and Europe on health, the USA comes out as 2 to 4 times
more expensive than just about anywhere else (depending on how it is
counted - absolute, relative to median income, etc.), while care quality
and health figures put it near the bottom of every comparison to other
western countries.

Yes, it is more expensive for sure. Our insurance method of paying for healthcare sucks. But the quality of care is as good as most.

--

Rick C.

++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in news:e4b0dccf-2410-4d28-bb04-
cbd6d5d8763b@googlegroups.com:

various U.N. criteria having nothing to do
with health care --

Not 'health care' but certainly just health.

One must open one's eyes to see, particularly in cases which are
blatantly obvious to others.

Poverty affects the health of both the impoverished and those
claiming to be outside the bubble of life and therefore 'unaffected'.

Hungry masses have health issues and affect the healthy as well.

 

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 6:18:14 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

https://qz.com/1022831/why-doesnt-the-united-states-have-universal-health-care/

Here's a quotation:

"Many Americans think their system is expensive because it’s very good.
They are wrong: The US ranks 28th, below almost all other rich
countries, when it comes to the quality of its healthcare assessed by UN
parameters."

I'm surprised to see intelligent people quoting that sort of material.

By the study your article cites, the United States' health care system
falls short according to various U.N. criteria having nothing to do
with health care --

Quoting from the "study,"

"Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere"
"Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition,
and promote sustainable agriculture"
"Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls"
"Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all"

and so forth.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(16)31467-2.pdf

But if you have cancer or heart disease or some other ailment, the
U.S. ranks tops in medical outcomes.

The article argues that replacing private bureaucrats with federal
bureaucrats would reduce cost -- it's clueless. U.S. medical care
is costly almost entirely /because of/ government "lowering"
cost. (E.g. Obamacare, which doubled insurance premiums for people
who buy their own insurance, in order to subsidize those who don't.)

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

Let's not pollute Clifford's thread with drivel. A shortage of
ventilators is a potentially critical need Clifford and public-
spirited others are exploring ways to address. Destroying his
SNR won't help.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 4:11:47 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 6:18:14 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
https://qz.com/1022831/why-doesnt-the-united-states-have-universal-health-care/

Here's a quotation:

"Many Americans think their system is expensive because it’s very good.
They are wrong: The US ranks 28th, below almost all other rich
countries, when it comes to the quality of its healthcare assessed by UN
parameters."

I'm surprised to see intelligent people quoting that sort of material.

By the study your article cites, the United States' health care system
falls short according to various U.N. criteria having nothing to do
with health care --

Quoting from the "study,"

"Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere"
"Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition,
and promote sustainable agriculture"
"Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls"
"Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all"

and so forth.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(16)31467-2.pdf

But if you have cancer or heart disease or some other ailment, the
U.S. ranks tops in medical outcomes.

The US uses the PSA test to find prostate cancer

https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/psa-fact-sheet

It finds a lot of it. It mostly finds cancers that aren't going to kill people, but they get figured into the US cancer treatment statistics, so the US claims to treat a lot of cancer patients and most them survive.

You came out with this bogus statistic during the Anti-Obamacare campaign, and a bunch of others. The US health system has spent a lot of money creating this kind of propaganda - less on curing patients.

The article argues that replacing private bureaucrats with federal
bureaucrats would reduce cost -- it's clueless. U.S. medical care
is costly almost entirely /because of/ government "lowering"
cost. (E.g. Obamacare, which doubled insurance premiums for people
who buy their own insurance, in order to subsidize those who don't.)

The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._O%27Rourke

Let's not pollute Clifford's thread with drivel. A shortage of
ventilators is a potentially critical need Clifford and public-
spirited others are exploring ways to address. Destroying his
SNR won't help.

James Arthur is noise - essentially political propaganda.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.

There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:33:49 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.

There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).

So why does every other advanced industrial country have universal health care, most paid for by a very tightly regulated health insurance industry, and cheaper costs per head?

If US health care worked better than anybody else, it might make sense to have it cost half as much again per head as the French, German and Dutch systems (which are relatively expensive by world standards) but it isn't.

James Arthur brought up a bunch of bogus statistic during the anti-Obamacare campaign claiming that it did better, but they all got knocked down as the cheats involved were exposed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 1:33:49 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.

There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).

I'm not clear. The US has commercial, often for-profit hospitals and the UK, Canada and many other countries have medical care run by the government (at least mostly). Those countries have much less expensive health care than we do in the US and it is just as good. In some ways it is better, for example, they don't have people forgoing care because they don't have the money.

So how can anyone say the cost of healthcare is higher when it's "free"???

--

Rick C.

++-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
> monitor patient's 02 saturation

By comparing expelled gasses, or by testing blood with a clip-on optical
sensor or something?

I've not seen masks used in the ICU; all the vents I saw required
intubation, with an inflatable balloon used to seal the tube in
the patient's airway.

But maybe it could be a mask, and maybe those CPAP things that seem to
be cheap and common could do some good.

 

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 6:17:48 AM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
monitor patient's 02 saturation

By comparing expelled gasses, or by testing blood with a clip-on optical
sensor or something?

Finger sensor.

I've not seen masks used in the ICU; all the vents I saw required
intubation, with an inflatable balloon used to seal the tube in
the patient's airway.

But maybe it could be a mask, and maybe those CPAP things that seem to
be cheap and common could do some good.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Dean Hoffman]

On 3/15/20 6:57 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:

The number of critical cases not surviving the COVID-19 virus is linked
to the limited availability of ventilators. So I'm looking at my
extensive collection of project materials and thinking "how hard can it
be to make a ventilator? How many could I make in the next two weeks?"

Can anyone summarise the key components and functions of these things?

I'm assuming some kind of motor-driven bellows, and a face mask, but...
what else?

Clifford Heath.

Can't really help but MIT supposedly has something for $100.

<https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/03/25/mit-researchers-publish-design-for-ventilator-costing-just-100/>
They started on it ten years ago.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 1:53:09 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

One explanation is the we pay for most of your drugs that you get at a HUGE discount compared to what we pay. That NEEDS to change.

Huh? How does that work???

--

Rick C.

+++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:58:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:33:49 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.

There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).

So why does every other advanced industrial country have universal health care, most paid for by a very tightly regulated health insurance industry, and cheaper costs per head?

If US health care worked better than anybody else, it might make sense to have it cost half as much again per head as the French, German and Dutch systems (which are relatively expensive by world standards) but it isn't.

James Arthur brought up a bunch of bogus statistic during the anti-Obamacare campaign claiming that it did better, but they all got knocked down as the cheats involved were exposed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

One explanation is the we pay for most of your drugs that you get at a HUGE discount compared to what we pay. That NEEDS to change.

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/03/25 10:53 p.m., Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:58:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:33:49 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.

There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).

So why does every other advanced industrial country have universal health care, most paid for by a very tightly regulated health insurance industry, and cheaper costs per head?

If US health care worked better than anybody else, it might make sense to have it cost half as much again per head as the French, German and Dutch systems (which are relatively expensive by world standards) but it isn't.

James Arthur brought up a bunch of bogus statistic during the anti-Obamacare campaign claiming that it did better, but they all got knocked down as the cheats involved were exposed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

One explanation is the we pay for most of your drugs that you get at a HUGE discount compared to what we pay. That NEEDS to change.

You have it backwards - the pharmaceutical companies can't pull the wool
over most country's eyes (who have real health care for their citizens)
about what they want to price their products for. But Americans, without
any centralized health care, are all induhvidualists (rah, rah!) and as
such are royally fleeced.

Ever order medicine from Canada or have relatives who do?

You guys are hosed, clear and simple.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 4:53:09 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:58:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:33:49 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.

There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).

So why does every other advanced industrial country have universal health care, most paid for by a very tightly regulated health insurance industry, and cheaper costs per head?

If US health care worked better than anybody else, it might make sense to have it cost half as much again per head as the French, German and Dutch systems (which are relatively expensive by world standards) but it isn't.

James Arthur brought up a bunch of bogus statistic during the anti-Obamacare campaign claiming that it did better, but they all got knocked down as the cheats involved were exposed.

One explanation is the we pay for most of your drugs that you get at a HUGE discount compared to what we pay. That NEEDS to change.

Sure. The US pharmacy lobby managed to get a no-haggling clause written into some legislation or other. That is purely a US problem.

The drugs are developed and manufactured all around the world, and most drug distributions sets-ups haggle vigorously to get them from the cheapest reliable manufacturer. What I take keeps on coming from different manufacturers in different countries. Australia has a couple of big pharmaceutical manufacturers, but we import a lot of stuff too.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 4:53:09 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:58:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:33:49 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it's free." --P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993

An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.

There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).

So why does every other advanced industrial country have universal health care, most paid for by a very tightly regulated health insurance industry, and cheaper costs per head?

If US health care worked better than anybody else, it might make sense to have it cost half as much again per head as the French, German and Dutch systems (which are relatively expensive by world standards) but it isn't..

James Arthur brought up a bunch of bogus statistic during the anti-Obamacare campaign claiming that it did better, but they all got knocked down as the cheats involved were exposed.

One explanation is the we pay for most of your drugs that you get at a HUGE discount compared to what we pay. That NEEDS to change.

Sure. The US pharmacy lobby managed to get a no-haggling clause written into some legislation or other. That is purely a US problem.

The drugs are developed and manufactured all around the world, and most drug distributions sets-ups haggle vigorously to get them from the cheapest reliable manufacturer. What I take keeps on coming from different manufacturers in different countries. Australia has a couple of big pharmaceutical manufacturers, but we import a lot of stuff too.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The US accounts for nearly half of the world's drug discovery, but even foreign drug companies can sell their products in the US at a higher price than permitted by countries with drug price controls. So, the US underwrites foreign drug research as well.