"The only difference is a for-profit organization has a strong incentive (money) to be as effective as possible (to be better than their competition)."

The for-profit organizations that are relevant to this issue in the U.S. are the insurance companies, and they have an extremely limited incentive to be as effective as possible, because the main thing they're able to offer their clients as a claim that they're "better than their competition" is lower rates, which puts the squeeze on their profit margin, and results in their doing almost anything possible to deny expensive coverage of patients -- including claiming preexisting conditions, imposing coverage caps, <i>limiting the type of drugs covered</i>, or eliminating prescription drug coverage entirely.

The cost of medical care is so staggeringly, irremediably high that only multi-millionaires could hope to get through a serious or chronic illness by paying out of pocket. And you know what? They don't. It makes far more economic sense to them to buy top-flight insurance -- extremely expensive, but with all the bells and whistles and all-expenses-paid small print that people making ordinary salaries, buying into group plans offered by ordinary employers, can't dream of affording. Then if they still need something that their insurance doesn't cover, they find a specialist who doesn't accept insurance at all and pour money into him. Again, not an option for the sub-luxe.

Very poor people can get free insurance in this country. The very, very rich don't need it, though they usually buy it anyway, because it saves them money in the long run and gives them peace of mind. The middle class is constantly getting fucked up the ass by the health care system, either by insurance companies (which, by the way, market primarily to employers, not to the people who will actually be covered -- another incentive to lower prices at the cost of effective care) scrimping on what they'll cover, and up to what amount -- or by being uninsured and risking bankruptcy with every potential health crisis. Thereby avoiding preventative care, reducing herd immunity, etc.

It's so fucked up. Screw this libertarian bullshit. Give me a National Health Service and I'll lick your boots 'til my tongue's worn through. Not like it'll ever happen in this country. Ugh.

OK, I'll grant you that most insurance companies don't market based on better care. But they could.

Why would a National Health Service act differently?

I don't buy the line that a National Health Service will be able to negotiate prices down to sane levels. I think the right answer here is limiting the duration of medical patents (patents in general, actually) and having a government fund available for "buying-out" patents to the public domain.

I don't buy the goodness of humanity because I believe most people are selfish like I am. Faced with statistics and numbers it's easy to be inhuman. Why spend your life working on new drugs and treatments when you could make ten times the amount of money elsewhere? It's even worse at a corporate level whose entire purpose is to make as much money as possible.

Nationalizing health care would not destroy research, of course. A good chunk will still be done by non-profit institutes. A lot of research will end, however.

If the price is too high the National Health Service simply won't pay it as indicated in the article. At least with my private insurance I'm certain that I can get any drug I need. Granted, for treatments not approved by my carrier I pay a larger chunk, but even if I wanted monkey grease spread over my chest they'd still pay a small portion.

And what of the doctors? I know several practices in my immediate area will not accept Medicare/Medicaid patients. They volunteer once a month at clinics (to ease their conscience?).

I'll dig up some sources if you want, but there was an article in the NY Times (I think?) recently that indicated there was a severe downturn in the number of advanced medical graduates over the past decade. The result is that more care is being given by nurses than doctors. Combine that with the significant exodus of doctors from general practice into the realm of more lucrative specialty practices or the recent trend toward personalized one-on-one care (where one doctor has, at most, 40-50 patients) and you're left with a scenario in which reducing the number of doctors even more is the absolute worst case scenario. And I fully believe a nationalized health system would reduce the overall income of doctors and increase their workloads, which would result in fewer doctors.

I am a believer in greed over romantic dreams; of selfishness over serving the greater good. If altruism was so common we wouldn't have a need to have so many stories / movies / songs praising the rare hero.

Kids dream of becoming doctors. Scientists. Astronauts. Of selflessly giving to save the world. How many actually do? How many simply lose interest in their dream or choose a more lucrative career?

The price of health care is extremely high today. I'm not denying that. And yet today we can save people from conditions that would have been certain death a mere 50 years ago.

Would the same frantic rate of medical advancement have come under socialized care? I tend to think not. I can't prove it. Can you prove the rate of medical advancement would not be slowed?

My own anecdotal evidence is that by far the vast majority of news I read on Google News' health section come from for-profit companies. If most medical breakthroughs came from Universities and other non-profit entities wouldn't medical care be cheaper? Doesn't the high price somewhat indicate that it's the for-profit companies making the breakthroughs?

I'm not saying we're in a good situation now or that things couldn't be done to fix it. I just don't think a national health system is the right idea. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

If it's a choice between putting my faith in greed or selflessness I'm going to choose greed every time. That others will primarily act in their own self interest is one of the only things I truly believe in.

(BTW, if you register your account I'll give you all your anonymous back-credits you deserve to play the DSG or arcade ;) I miss you, Mirababe I'm busy with stuff, and you're busy with New York mayhem, but we should try to catch up some day :)

Dranok, you are now my hero.
I have argued for your point to so many people. It's too bad everyone is so easily manipulated by movies.

I LOVE YOUR ACCENT

That too.

i know some will hate me for this but if we want the country out of death we need to start execution of prisoners agian and sorry but we are going to have to have some poor die. being a tad bit poor myself i understand that would screw me too. but something needs to be done about our increasing debt to china and other countrys whom we buy lots of toys/bullets/etc from and we need to get the hell out of IRAQ

1) This specific type of debt isn't that bad of a thing. Honest.
2) I firmly believe that the death penalty should be abolished in all forms. The state has no business executing people.
3) Iraq is a complete disaster.

So if the state sponsored death penalty should be abolished... then can I execute them?

No.

But you said the STATE has no business executing them. Some people just need to die.

Nobody deserves to die. Why do I keep needing to have this conversation with people? :/

If you say someone deserves to die you're putting yourself in a righteous position above them. You're saying that either you're more than human or that they're less than.

Bullshit.

Prison? Fine; it's the best we have.

But nobody deserves to die.

I'm not saying there's never a time when it's not right to kill someone. Self-defense, for example. Or protecting others.

But killing someone who doesn't pose an immediate threat to you? Killing someone when alternatives exist?

That can't be right.

Can we put them in gladiatorial arenas then?

No :(

lmao. i gotta say i disagree with you on the execution dranok. because,

we as a civilazation must get rid of the threats to our life. true some may not deserve death but many criminals who are convicted go to jail then come out and kill/rape/threaten others agian. i believe if you rape someone then the penalty should be death. not because i believe i am somehow "better" then them but because the person they raped should not have to live with those memorys the rapist may say he is reformed and is sorry but quite honestly he should have thought of that before hand and someone without the capacity to think before they act on raw impulses should be gotten rid of. not by some mean cruel form of torture or anything else because dead is dead but a quick bullet to the head. because they have decided to not live within the moral boundarys we have set as human beings. they may believe that they didnt do something to bad but our goverment has established these rules for a reason. People may have freedom of speech but they do not have freedom of action by any means.

just my thoughts on it. :)

Prison removes their threat just as good. Better, in fact.

Pretend you're a rapist for a second. Today, if caught, you'll be imprisoned for a period of time then set free. If you kill your victim you'd spend the rest of your life behind bars.

Now imagine we executed rapists. Suddenly there's no difference between killing your victim or letting her live. How many more victims would be killed to reduce the culprit's chance of being caught?

The purpose of lesser penalties for certain crimes is to prevent more serious crimes from taking place to avoid capture.

Again, though, life in prison removes a person's threat just as well as executing them does. So why kill them?

Problem is, DranoK, our prisons are overflowing with druggies and rapists and killers. Pretty soon, we will have no room left, for these people that get free food and housing at the simple price of one or two buttsecks a day, with a little beating if they get bad rates.

First, don't incarcerate druggies.

Second, find out why we as a society are producing so many violent criminals.

Third, FIX IT.

I don't believe people are ever evil to begin with. They become evil due to their environment or mental illness.

If we have so many violent criminals it's because we, as a society, are to blame. If we aspire to become more than we are now (as we always have, since we first became aware of thought and reason) we must strive toward a society where nobody feels the need for violence. That means better mental care. That means better environments. That means carrots on sticks for everyone--nobody should feel powerless or stuck.

[Carrot on a Stick] <--- like that?

We can fix our country if everyone gets 3% increased mount movement speed? I don't see how =(

Funny.

I'm just trying to troll in this thread... If you could tell by now, either you're thick headed or I'm a terribad troll.

i dont belive we are evil by nature either but if we execute rapists then the secound victim would never have become a victim and harsher sentences would lend to a decline in crimes. some countrys still cut off a hand if you steal from someone. and as such there are less thefts in that country. so while yes we should strive for a civilzation without the need for death and violence we must work on the now. and we need to have the resolve to fix it even if the solution is a little ugly.

Execution for rape would land a lot of 16 year olds on death row. Particularly when the girl's parents convince her that her boyfriend raped her, and make her press charges. That seemed to be pretty common a few years back.

Drug users should not be jailed. Drug trafficers on the other hand who smuggle drugs in puppies stomachs, should be jailed and disemboweled.

Dranok what would you say to sending violent prisoners to a remote island, like they did with Australia?

We already send terrorists to an island...

GITMO!