Canadian, British and American healthcare

[CanuckMA]

Dental is generally not covered in Canada anyway. It generally only covers the young, old or poor.

However, because our employers don't have to pay insurance for basic medical coverage, most offer dental and drug coverage as part of the benefits.

We never claimed our system is perfect. It's practically a national sport to complain about it. But you will find few people willing to give it up.

What baffles a lot of us is that the US had the opportunity to look at healthcare systems arounf the world, from the totally govt run to many blended systems like France, then pick the best part and build a truly affordable national universal coverage system. And istead it chose to cave to the insurance companies.

 

[CanuckMA]

Bill, Canadian hospitals and universities are on the forefront of medical breakthroughs. This may come as a shock to you, but $$$ is not always the motivator for finding cures. AAMOF, not having to produce a profit enables reaearchers to focus on more obscure diseases and cures.

 

[billc]

From yahoo answers: In terms of technically advanced medicine and surgery, then the USA has the edge as this is where the most research is carried out.

Also, say goodbye to cheap drugs in canada. You have cheap drugs because the majority of the money spent on drug research comes from the U.S. Then canada can take those drugs and make the 3o cent pill and provide cheap drugs. Once obama care kicks in the opportunity for new, life saving drugs is going to decline or disappear.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bill,
Canadian drugs are lower than their US equivalent due to being subsidized in part by Canadian tax payers. Drug coverage varies by Province, and other factors. When you buy a Canadian drug, part of the cost was prepaid by a Canadian tax payer. Drugs still under patent have their prices set by the Canadian governement, a step that the US Special Interests and Lobbyists would never accept here.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Also, currently the Chinese are leading in drug innovation.....

 

[Steve]

Constitutionally, the US Federal government has no business getting involved in health care. Amend the USC, and create a real program for ALL Americans that is affordable, efficient and effective, and I'm fine with it. Personally, I like the idea of being able to get my ills taken care of with the ease and headacheless Ken described. But it's currently not legal the way the current system is done.

Here here! But that would be single payer, which Fox News says is bad.

 

[billc]

this is a column by Walter Williams, an economist at George Mason University and former chair of the economics dept. there. He also fills in for Rush when Rush goes on vacation. He discusses the cost of Canadian drugs and the problem with re-importation of drugs from canada.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2003/07/30/drug_industry_destruction

 

[billc]

Here is another article by Thomas Sowell on Canadian drugs and why they cost less. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4474

"One major consequence is that Canada and other countries do not create nearly as many of the new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs as the United States does. These other countries live off the results -- the medicines -- produced by the enormously costly research that "obscene" pharmaceutical profits finance in America."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Here here! But that would be single payer, which Fox News says is bad.

Fox News, like any news source, has a bias and lean. I tend to check Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC sites to get a bit of the fuller spectrum, as well as Slashdot and Consumerist for some balance and debate.

I'm ok with single payer, as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's not, if done currently at the Federal level.

Legally, by the Constitution, the Federal government shouldn't be in any of these: retirement, medical, drugs, education, environmental, economics and a dozen other things they do. Previously mentioned bits spell out the limits ot what the Fed should be doing. The only way they can get involved, is by Amending the Constitution. This is why we had to make a change to even allow for an income tax on the people. Prior to the 16th Amendment it just wasn't legal to tax peoples incomes. That passed in 1913.

Assuming they were to pass an amendment authorizing the Fed to handle health care, funding it then becomes a problem, unless the amendment also addresses it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

this is a column by Walter Williams, an economist at George Mason University and former chair of the economics dept. there. He also fills in for Rush when Rush goes on vacation. He discusses the cost of Canadian drugs and the problem with re-importation of drugs from canada.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2003/07/30/drug_industry_destruction

He didn't discuss the cost of the drugs, but the price. Those are 2 separate things. The price of the drugs is lower because they are subsidized.

Here is another article by Thomas Sowell on Canadian drugs and why they cost less. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4474

"One major consequence is that Canada and other countries do not create nearly as many of the new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs as the United States does. These other countries live off the results -- the medicines -- produced by the enormously costly research that "obscene" pharmaceutical profits finance in America."

There are other factors including population density, access to researchers, and so on to determine development ability. US drugs often do not meet safety and quality checks in other countries, while safe alternatives from non-US companies are withheld from US markets simply to prop up profits. Stevia for example is a safe natural sweetener, as is Agave, yet both were denied FDA approval for use in the US despite centuries of evidence as well as use in other nations, so to keep dangerous artificial sweeteners markets secure. Germany long approved Ginko, St. Johns Wort and other natural herbs for medical use, while the US denied approval while proping up complication rich drugs. No one has the perfect system, and the US one is as flawed as the rest.

Drug companies enjoy several years (10 I believe) of exclusive marketing of their creations in order to help them make back development costs and make a profit. After that, the drugs are then allowed on the market as generics. But a Bayer aspirin in the US is a Bayer aspirin in Canada, both made by the Bayer company. The only real difference between them is how much tax payer money subsidizes them.

 

[CanuckMA]

Our patent is also shorter (7 years I believe), allowing generics to get to market faster.

Whoever says that drug manufacturers would stop R&D if the US had a single payer system is either a moron, or is ou honestly believe that they would stop R&D in a system that does not usually affect drugs anyway?

Bob, we subsidize drug prices for people who can't afford it, and set limits on the price of generics. Most people buy drugs at retail prices, helped by drug plans from work. Those plans are part of normal benefits mostly because the employer does not have to pay for expensive medical insurance.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Even if all drug R&D in the US ground to a full stop, I'm sure that Europe and Asia will continue to develop on their own.

 

[Tez3]

I'm looking to Baghdad for treatment!
I was reading an article in a newpaper here about the Church of England Bishop of Baghdad just out of interest as to how he manages to run his diocese in war torn Iraq, it mentioned he is receiving stem cell treatment for MS which isn't available here due to it's experimental nature. I'm now keeping a close eye on this, as it could be something good.

 

[Steve]

Fox News, like any news source, has a bias and lean. I tend to check Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC sites to get a bit of the fuller spectrum, as well as Slashdot and Consumerist for some balance and debate.

I'm ok with single payer, as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's not, if done currently at the Federal level.

Legally, by the Constitution, the Federal government shouldn't be in any of these: retirement, medical, drugs, education, environmental, economics and a dozen other things they do. Previously mentioned bits spell out the limits ot what the Fed should be doing. The only way they can get involved, is by Amending the Constitution. This is why we had to make a change to even allow for an income tax on the people. Prior to the 16th Amendment it just wasn't legal to tax peoples incomes. That passed in 1913.

Assuming they were to pass an amendment authorizing the Fed to handle health care, funding it then becomes a problem, unless the amendment also addresses it.

I don't disagree at all, although Social Security has set a precedent for single payer without an amendment. We've talked about that before.