by watson 347 Replies latest jw friends
the US currently leads the medical specialty marketplace in r & d breakthroughs
I'd appreciate some evidence for this claim if possible.
What is undisputed is America's leadership position in obesity.
If y'all would eat less there would be more money in the system and less need for medical intervention.
The CDC website has plenty stats on the economic impact of eating too much.
I'd appreciate some evidence for this claim if possible.
Can't give you the specific ones, but it's based on a few Journal of American Medicine articles I read a few years ago for a research paper I was doing. The paper is on an old hard drive, and I could find it if I look for a few hours.
LOL Besty!!
Doe, of all people who would have a better point of view on this, I would think it would be Sammieswife, considering she has lived with such a system. Besty too.
None of your negatives jive with the facts at hand. You would still (as in countries who already have universal care) be able to buy private insurance if you wished.
You would still (as in countries who already have universal care) be able to buy private insurance if you wished.
And you claim that too many people can't afford single insurance now, yet you think they could pay for two plans?
It's a fact Doe. We are fortunate to have working systems in place all over the world to look at.
The way it works in the UK is that everyone has lifetime coverage and entitled to the same level of cover and treatment irrespective of age or 'usefulness to society'.
This cover is paid for by National Insurance contributions - a 'tax' that employees and employers jointly pay. It is income-related and has a maximum amount - in my case I was at the maximum amount which was about $600 per month. The money is ring-fenced and cannot be used for government spending outwith the payment of benefits back to the people.
Additionally some companies offer private health care as a perk. And of course you can buy private health insurance if you wish.
So yes some people (a minority) pay twice and some people do not pay at all. Most people in the UK like the scheme and see the value in universal care.
This cover is paid for by National Insurance contributions - a 'tax' that employees and employers jointly pay. It is income-related and has a maximum amount - in my case I was at the maximum amount which was about $600 per month. The money is ring-fenced and cannot be used for government spending outwith the payment of benefits back to the people.
Sounds like our Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid plans. I wish we had a "ring-fence" around ours though.
Sounds like our Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid plans.
I'm not qualified to talk about the differences but it sounds like extending existing schemes could work well :-)
Did you read those stats that llbh posted on the other thread?
Did you read those stats that llbh posted on the other thread?
No, I haven't. I'll take a look.
I haven't read many of those threads on here because of all the condescending ad hominems and slant that I've seen from a few of the more vocal posters. I have a hard time with sifting for good information when no one is willing to admit any deficiencies in their plans.
the US currently leads the medical specialty marketplace in r & d breakthroughs
I'd appreciate some evidence for this claim if possible.
The USA is the undisputed world leader. For instance, In the last 10 years, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to US born scientists working in the USA, 3 have gone to foreign born scientists working in the USA, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country. That is more than two thirds of the winners for the most prestigious prize in medicine.
That is amazing.
The revenues generated from the high healthcare costs here have encouraged greater investment in life saving breakthrough medical research. This subject touches me closely so I am briefly breaking my silence. This is my jounalistic "beat". Not a month goes by that I do not speak to a CEO or researcher that does not say this in one way or another. The USA dominates the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields. It accounts for 75% of the world’s spending in research and development.
That is 75% of the global R&D.
That is a simply astonishing.
http://www.efpia.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=388
The research environment in the USA, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, meritocratic and tolerant of waste and chaos. This environment leads to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States. Why? Superior financial compensation and research facilities.
Rational self interest? Greed? But it is always "the other guy" that is greedy, right? Never ourselves.
By the way, when something is invented in the USA, all the technologically stagnant countries get many of the benefits too without having to pay the up front costs that we do.....but we get them first...and when we export these products, it improves our balance of trade.
I strongly recommend you read the link above at the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations site. It contains much more information regarding what has occurred regarding the shifting of the global brainshare in biotech/medicine to my country. By the way, only 3% of our R&D comes from the public sector.
"Socialism is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." Ludwig von Mises, Socialism
Our system generally works very well. In the long run, medical advances will do far more to improve quality of life than misguided attempts at enforcing parity. This will simply freeze the state of the art into the state it is in in the first decade of the 21st century. A stasis. However, I suspect the baton will move to Asia in the event of this. Also, excluding the higher death rates here due to murder and other factors such as less walking and unhealthier food, lifespan here compares favorably to Europe. Our system needs some reform, not socialization.
There is more here from the University of Vienna:
How can we explain the American dominance in biomedical research and development?
http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf
I'd appreciate some evidence for this claim if possible.
Does this post answer your question?
BTS
