National Health System (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

Although this article is more specific to NSW's health system, I think its fair to say that other state's health system are in a similar situation.

Northern Sydney hospital system 'wretched': Abbott
September 28, 2007 - 8:52AM
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has described Sydney's northern area hospital system as "wretched", saying it is so highly bureaucratised that no one can make a decision.

Mr Abbott's comment comes three days after a Sydney woman miscarried in a toilet after waiting two hours to be seen at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney's north.

The NSW government is under increasing pressure to expand the terms of reference of an inquiry into the incident, after staff and experts yesterday came forward with their concerns about the hospital in the wake of Jana Horska's ordeal.

Mr Abbott said the federal government had increased health spending from 15 per cent to 22 per cent of the federal budget since 1996.

"The problem is that in the (Sydney Northern Area Health) hospital system, no one is in charge," Mr Abbott told the Nine Network this morning.

"I know Royal North Shore Hospital, I know Sydney Northern Area Health system.

"The problem is, no one in that wretched system can make a decision.

"That is a problem of a highly bureaucratised, highly politicised hospital management structure that's been put in place, I have to say, by the state Labor government.

He said he accepted the opposition would say the federal government was blaming the state of NSW.

"My oath I'm blaming the state Labor government," he said.

"They have let people down, comprehensively."
AAP

"No matter what government runs a hospital, no matter what funding arrangements you have, what adequacy of resources there is, there can be administrative mistakes and, in the end, human error occurs," he said. Rudd
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/abbott-needs-a-nudge-rudd/2007/09/27/1190486482401.html

Doctors looked for foetus in bin

*
* Email
* Printer friendly version
* Normal font
* Large font

Kate Benson Medical Reporter
September 28, 2007
AdvertisementAdvertisement

CECILLE HEATH, of Naremburn, was told to use toilet paper from the men's toilets to soak up the blood when she had a miscarriage in the waiting room of the emergency department at Royal North Shore Hospital in 2000. As the bleeding increased, Ms Heath, who was nine weeks' pregnant, said she went to the women's toilets but found no toilet paper. She went back to the nurse to ask for tissues, but was ignored.

"I was so distressed that they would not acknowledge me. I had to raise my voice, explaining that I thought I was miscarrying, but I was told to go away because they were busy. She would not even look at me."

Ms Heath, 48, said her husband then approached the nurse and was told "there is plenty [of toilet paper] in the men's. Go in there".

Ms Heath said when she was seen by a doctor five hours later she was told that part of the foetus or placenta was still in her cervix. Doctors then dug through a bin next to her looking for the bloodied tissues she had used to find the rest of the foetus.

"I couldn't believe it. I felt absolutely sick that they were doing that in front of me. That was my baby. No one even warned me about what they might find in the bin," she said.

"It was highly distressing and heartbreaking."

When Julie Prentice read yesterday's Herald, she was saddened to see that nothing had changed at Royal North Shore's emergency department since her experience there 19 years ago when she lost her baby in a toilet bowl and was wrongly accused by staff of having had a botched abortion.

"After it happens you are just grieving for the lost baby, but you do walk away thinking, 'Did I just catch them on a bad day?'," she said. "After reading the stories about these other women, perhaps it has always been like that."

There are many, many articles on this.

 

[HotShot]

Here we are thinking that Rudd might lead Labour to victory in the upcoming election, and here is his response to the incident. Disgraceful - human error? Administrative error? How can it be?

The next article - shows that this sort of thing isnt from the blue moon. 19 years ago a similar incident occurred, IN THE SAME HOSPITAL..19years ago..gee.

And I do agree with Abbot analysis on the problem, and it lies with Health system, not only in NSW but in other states as well. It isnt a matter a shortage of doctors or nurses or even beds - but its the current system which is just ridiculous.

"The problem is, no one in that wretched system can make a decision.

And no-one will as thats how the system has been designed, its how the doctors have been taught at universities across Australia. Save your skins first - forget you are a doctor, first save yourself. No doubt that doctors are in a risky business, and if somethings happens they can get into a heap trouble - but thats their job, and the system needs accommodate for it and this system basically encourage Doctors not to get involved - to keep away.

Its disgraceful.

 

[williams180]

yeh bit unlucky that situation. However their shouldnt even be public hospitals their a joke

 

[volition]

These socialised medicine screw ups are in no way limited to NSW:
QLD: Ambulance death coverup
SA: Obstructive paramedic plus hospital delay kills man

"No matter what government runs a hospital, no matter what funding arrangements you have, what adequacy of resources there is, there can be administrative mistakes and, in the end, human error occurs," he said.

This is absolutely part of the problem with socialised medicine, it just doesn't work. But don't expect any politician to realise/accept responsibility for this. They're going to continue their spending wars against each other with no real concern for how poor the system has become. Throwing more money at the solution is not the same as actually fixing it. In order to fix it, it needs to be privatised, but that would then mean actually giving up govt control, and that doesn't go down well with voters.

The problem is the same in almost any socialised medicine system, check out the dodginess of the British system.

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what's available.

That's why the British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months.

The wait to see dentists is so long that some Brits pull their own teeth. Dental tools: pliers and vodka.

One hospital tried to save money by not changing bed sheets every day. British papers report that instead of washing them, nurses were encouraged to just turn them over.

 

[HotShot]

I dont know about Privatisaton, that is much bigger issue and before we get there, some things need to be changed to current the system.

I mean the imminent problem here lies with Doctors/and the hospital staff - particularly their attitude to their job. They are unwilling, scared to step outside of their boundaries to do the right thing.

If there is a queue of people, and if there was boy who was hurt - maybe he could have broken his leg. In the current system he would have to wait until his turn - which normally is hours. Now his leg may or not be broken, but in the time that he is waiting the condition of his leg is worsening, no one will come in and have a quick check to see if its broken or if it just needs ice. But if it was broken, then his leg would have been in much worse condition had it been treated earlier.

IF it nots broken, just some ice and pain-killers, then the boy could go home - the queue will be shorter. But the doctors wont do that they will wait, they know that if they jump the queue and something happens they are liable -so you see they care more for themselves - and I believe this is what they are taught at universities - save yourselves first.

The problem not only exists with Hospital management, but with the doctors/nurses are trained as well.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

This is absolutely part of the problem with socialised medicine, it just doesn't work.

You obviously haven't seen Michael Moore's new movie. If you had you would now that socialised medicine always works perfectly.

 

[PrinceHarry]

People in my area accuse Labor govt of deliberately starving northern beaches area hosital staff because it is a solid liberal stronghold.

 

[Iron]

I think you’ve misrepresented Labor's position on this. Not only does it have nothing to do with Rudd, as you seem to suggest, but he was rightly appalled by (Health Minister) Abbott's eagerness to make this tragic case political. It was grossly insensitive.

It's much more beneficial for the electorate if solutions are debated, rather than blame. Fixing the federal balance has been a key Labor theme.

 

[jb_nc]

This is absolutely part of the problem with socialised medicine, it just doesn't work. But don't expect any politician to realise/accept responsibility for this. They're going to continue their spending wars against each other with no real concern for how poor the system has become. Throwing more money at the solution is not the same as actually fixing it. In order to fix it, it needs to be privatised, but that would then mean actually

May I say, OOGA BOOGA SOCIALISED MEDICINE.

Because we all know the the United States of America's health care system is the best in the world if you're an average person. Oh noes, da guvament is THROWING MONEY at public medicine. Well let's compare the land of the brave and the home of the free with prison island.

Wow, they spend more and live less?? Failure in universal health care found set course for privatisation. Considering most of the Democratic candiates are now for UHC, they're absolutely bonkers not to realise that it "just doesn't work". Absolutely crazy. I can't believe the only Western Nation without UHC is now considering it; mental.

Also your sweet link form humanevents.com, "leading the conservative movement, since 1944" totally impartial, bet they didn't receive any money from the medical industry for that article.

Here is a photograph of Ron Paul for you to drool over:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7129/p000583nx6.jpg

 

[Iron]

The picture of health!

 

[volition]

Oh noes, da guvament is THROWING MONEY at public medicine. Well let's compare the land of the brave and the home of the free with prison island. Wow, they spend more and live less?

It's hard to see what your argument is here. I said throwing more money at it is not a good idea, and that privatisation would be best. You respond by showing me a system where more is spent and the life expectancy is lower. Isn't that sort of validating what I said? I think you should elaborate on what you said.

The problem with the US system is there's just too much regulation that constricts it and makes it too hard for the market to actually work. It might as well not be privately owned given how much regulation there is.

But even then, there is a lot of govt money (stolen via taxation) pumped into the system, which means that it hardly represents consumer preferences, which is essential for the proper operation of free markets. One of the problems with the system is the tendency to overinsure.

Also your sweet link form humanevents.com, "leading the conservative movement, since 1944" totally impartial, bet they didn't receive any money from the medical industry for that article.

This is Ad hom, present a real argument.

Here is a photograph of Ron Paul for you to drool over:

I'm actually anarcho-capitalist, so I reject even minarchism. Although Ron Paul would be preferable to any other candidate, I still don't support the system.

 

[jb_nc]

It's hard to see what your argument is here. I said throwing more money at it is not a good idea, and that privatisation would be best. You respond by showing me a system where more is spent and the life expectancy is lower. Isn't that sort of validating what I said? I think you should elaborate on what you said.

You said, "part of the problem with socialised medicine, it just doesn’t work" (well I guess if it doesn’t work than it is the problem, actually) and "it needs to be privatised, but that would then mean actually giving up govt control", well guess what, the American government for the most part does not control the health care industry and it's just as inefficient as anything else.

You are implying that universal health care doesn't work (by slipping the weasel word “socialism” for extra ooga booga) => needs to be privatised => work like clockwork and the sun would shine out of my arse. But then not everyone would have coverage, something like 41 million Americans have no form of health care each year. Which means instead of being told to “sit down and wait, a Doctor will see you soon”, they’re told, “No I don’t care if you are the ebola virus, get the fuck out, get a job and get some money to pay”. Which just shows how ridiculously greedy your logic is and taxes is theft and I should have the right to kill people who step on my property to get their football back.

The problem with the US system is there's just too much regulation that constricts it and makes it too hard for the market to actually work. It might as well not be privately owned given how much regulation there is.

Yes, no regulation is required because health care can be completely relied on to operate under market forces. As a case study I present the unique utopia of some third-world-nation-with-no-regulation.

But even then, there is a lot of govt money (stolen via taxation) pumped into the system, which means that it hardly represents consumer preferences, which is essential for the proper operation of free markets. One of the problems with the system is the tendency to overinsure.

Hahahaha, 16th amendment was never ratified from freedom to fascism, man.

Have you ever considered the fact without the Government assistance the health care industry would be simply unviable? Let market forces do all the work and you’ll be paying $10 000 per month in America for full coverage; medication, accident and emergency, surgery, doctor’s visits aren’t exactly cheap and under libertopia they could price gouge for all they’re worth.

This is Ad hom, present a real argument.

Two of those sources that they "cite" in Britian are from two of the most sensationalist, right-wing, Euro-sceptics tabloids in the world - Daily Mail and The Sun - who are renowned for making up bullshit headlines to sell to the average Scouser.

I'm sorry you think it's an ad hom for calling out some bullshit sourcing.

Let me post a link from www.universalhealthcaremedicineisthebest.com and you can't call me out on that crap.

I'm actually anarcho-capitalist, so I reject even minarchism. Although Ron Paul would be preferable to any other candidate, I still don't support the system.

lolbertarian more like.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Oh God I love you jb_nc.

but that would then mean actually giving up govt control, and that doesn't go down well with voters.

mmm, I'm guessing it doesn't go down well with voters because a good number of people know they won't be able to afford healthcare if it were privatised. Kinda like dental care.

The problem with the US system is there's just too much regulation that constricts it and makes it too hard for the market to actually work. It might as well not be privately owned given how much regulation there is.

Are you seriously suggesting that less regulation in healthcare would be beneficial for anyone? How? How?!

 

[volition]

You said, "part of the problem with socialised medicine, it just doesn’t work"

Yeah, because I was actually quoting from above... "No matter what government runs a hospital..." But allow me to elaborate more on this. Govts don't care how much they spend and on what! They don't know how to apportion resources. They don't go out of business, no matter how bad things get.

But then not everyone would have coverage, something like 41 million Americans have no form of health care each year.

misleading, because

Moore throws around a figure of “50 million uninsured Americans.” It's more accurate to report that the number of Americans who are uninsured cannot be verified. A significant percentage, however, can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. In addition, as many as one-third of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or other free government programs but fail to apply for them. And, ultimately, “uninsured” does not mean without access to care.

Source
Oh yeah, and in some places,Sixty percent of the county's uninsured patients are not U.S. citizens.

Which just shows how ridiculously greedy your logic is and taxes is theft and I should have the right to kill people who step on my property to get their football back.

No, your logic is greedy because you are basically justifying taking other peoples money against their will. I'm not the one proposing we just steal from the rich.

It's not even logically consistent to tax people based on the idea of "majority rule". If majority rule is truly a fair rule, it should work always and everywhere. But clearly our society only applies it to govt(more like people who claim to be the govt), which is wrong. As in, if it were truly a principle that worked, then females could just impose their will on males (they outnumber males), prisoners can impose their will on jailers, students can impose their will on teachers. It doesn't work! Any principle should be universally acceptable, this one clearly isn't and can lead to ridiculous conclusions.

Yes, no regulation is required because health care can be completely relied on to operate under market forces. As a case study I present the unique utopia of some third-world-nation-with-no-regulation.

Not a fair comparison because third world nations have poorer economies and infrastructures too. To make a fair comparison, you would actually have to compare between say, two developed countries, one with a real free market, one without. But as no developed country has a free market in health care, this comparison can't really be made.

]Which means instead of being told to “sit down and wait, a Doctor will see you soon”

Except that instead of being told to sit down and wait for a short while, in a socialised system you'll sit down and wait for ages and ages and ages. Because as I said, there's no incentive to work efficiently.

I'm sorry you think it's an ad hom for calling out some bullshit sourcing.

Well you don't call out 'bullshit sourcing' by saying its "conservative biased" (to paraphrase you). You call out bullshit sourcing by showing me that that actually didn't happen or something along those lines.

Are you seriously suggesting that less regulation in healthcare would be beneficial for anyone? How? How?!

Yes, I am, check this link out:An unhealthy burden Jun 28th 2007 From The Economist print edition - a bit of proof with the regulation thing

For example, look at the way their approval agency takes AGGEEES to do anything. It means ppl have to go without these new revolutionary drugs for longer. It makes companies less inclined to even BOTHER researching new drugs because they know the govt will waste so much time 'testing' (and they're very slow at testing too), so it makes it less profitable to do so.

Increasing regulation also means that there's less freedom to run your businesses in health care, and the only way we find newer faster ways to do things is by having that freedom. Capitalism allows the people to produce at the rate of the "brightest minds" by allowing them to "invent the wheel and us to use it". Part of the problem with regulation is that it makes it harder for them to be innovative like that. So we're stuck at the level of the slowest producer.

Regulation also limits choice in some ways, whereas choice is necessary for the consumer decisions that need to be made. When these decisions are forced by the govt, more efficient producers aren't getting the 'encouragement' they should be. They don't zoom ahead in the profit stakes so much, and as a result we all just kinda chill in the dark ages.

Anyway guys, I'm not saying free markets = utopia, just that free markets are better than socialised medicine.

 

[jb_nc]

misleading, because
Source

What do I value more? The Centre for Disease Control or some crackpot right wing wanna-be- intelligentsia journal? I dunno, um.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf

The amount of uninsured is rising every year, as premiums continue to skyrocket and wages stagnate. From 2004 to 2005 the number of uninsured rose 1.3 million, and rose up nearly 6 million from 2001-2005. Leighton Ku, "Census Revises Estimates Of The Number Of Uninsured People," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 5, 2007 http://www.cbpp.org/4-5-07health.htm. With 44.8 uninsured in 2005, in 2007 the number will be much higher. Professors Todd Gilmer and Richard Kronick, in "It's The Premiums, Stupid: Projections Of The Uninsured Through 2013," Health Affairs, 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.143, "project that the number of non-elderly uninsured Americans will grow from forty-five million in 2003 to fifty-six million by 2013." According to these authors, by now the number of non-elderly uninsured by this date clearly would be nearly 50 million.

Oh yeah, and in some places,Sixty percent of the county's uninsured patients are not U.S. citizens.

So? Are they humans? The majority of “non-citizens” in America are immigrants from Latin America working and paying tax like anyone else. Fuck ‘em though, cause they’re not real Americans. Not a citizen of my country, not my problem, get to fuck to the gutter.

No, your logic is greedy because you are basically justifying taking other peoples money against their will. I'm not the one proposing we just steal from the rich.

Right, I forgot, tax is theft along the lines of robbing a bank. To revolution, brother?


Don’t steal from the rich _{but fuck the poor too, I mean how dumb to you have to be, fuckin’ poor people}

It's not even logically consistent to tax people based on the idea of "majority rule". If majority rule is truly a fair rule, it should work always and everywhere. But clearly our society only applies it to govt(more like people who claim to be the govt), which is wrong. As in, if it were truly a principle that worked, then females could just impose their will on males (they outnumber males), prisoners can impose their will on jailers, students can impose their will on teachers. It doesn't work! Any principle should be universally acceptable, this one clearly isn't and can lead to ridiculous conclusions.

I think the majority of people would prefer not the pay tax but some people like having roads to drive on, parks to play in, ect. I'm sure it would be quite wonderful in LIBERTOPIA to have to pay every time you drive down your street to the shops on your hovercar, so I think people enjoy most public services and accept having to pay tax. I also think there are less criminals than criminals.

Tax protesters are all fucking fruitcakes too.

Not a fair comparison because third world nations have poorer economies and infrastructures too. To make a fair comparison, you would actually have to compare between say, two developed countries, one with a real free market, one without. But as no developed country has a free market in health care, this comparison can't really be made.

Ever stopped and considered why there isn’t a free-market medical system within a Western economy? And I’m going to have to say it probably isn’t because the government aren’t reading Atlas Shrugged.

Except that instead of being told to sit down and wait for a short while, in a socialised system you'll sit down and wait for ages and ages and ages. Because as I said, there's no incentive to work efficiently.

Uh-oh, the weasel word rears its head again; SOCALISM OOGGA BOOGA.

That's great if you have money, you can be seen straight away, but if you don't have enough to pay, can I shank the shit out of you for beingpoor? Like I said, ‘they’re told, “No I don’t care if you are the ebola virus, get the fuck out, get a job and get some money to pay”.’

n.b. In Australia you can choose to go to a private hospital if you wish which is different from Canada and the UK.

Well you don't call out 'bullshit sourcing' by saying its "conservative biased" (to paraphrase you). You call out bullshit sourcing by showing me that that actually didn't happen or something along those lines.

“Prove to me something didn’t happen”, “prove to me God doesn’t exist”, “prove to me magic doesn’t exist”.

Let’s check out some Sun scoops, however: Shark is spotted off Cornwall - http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007340903,00.html
Racists too - http://www.holymoly.co.uk/images/stories/Week: 300707/thesunduff.jpg
FREDDIE STARR ATE MY HAMSTER - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun#Freddie_Starr_.22ate_my_hamster.22
About 5 000 negative articles on the NHS, who says they have a bias against the NHS and would make things up - http://www.google.com.au/search?q=site:thesun.co.uk+NHS&hl=en&safe=off&start=20&sa=N

 

[volition]

What do I value more? The Centre for Disease Control or some crackpot right wing wanna-be- intelligentsia journal? I dunno, um.

You've missed the point though, it's not about "which source you trust" did you actually read it?

The source I quoted ACCEPTS that there are that many people(40 or 50 mil people) uninsured, but it draws the distinction between uninsured and having no access to health care. Also, some of those uninsured are rich and able to buy health care anyway(they CHOOSE not to be insured, but you don't care about that obviously). 1/3 of those uninsured are actually ELIGIBLE for public health care too, but just haven't applied for it or accessed it.

So? Are they humans? The majority of “non-citizens” in America are immigrants from Latin America working and paying tax like anyone else. Fuck ‘em though, cause they’re not real Americans. Not a citizen of my country, not my problem, get to fuck to the gutter.

That wasn't what I was saying though, I was more just saying that the influx of immigrants into the USA puts pressure on the system. As in, it's not sustainable.

Ever stopped and considered why there isn’t a free-market medical system within a Western economy? And I’m going to have to say it probably isn’t because the government aren’t reading Atlas Shrugged.

Why isn't there a free-market medical system? Because govts love power, so they like to try and take over things. Yes, it's damaging to us, but the fact that no free market system exists within a Western economy itself doesn't mean that it is not the best solution.

n.b. In Australia you can choose to go to a private hospital if you wish which is different from Canada and the UK.

Ok fair enough, this is at least something that is good, however the system would be better if privatised.

“Prove to me something didn’t happen”, “prove to me God doesn’t exist”, “prove to me magic doesn’t exist”.

Ok you're probably right here, I'm not going to win this argument from efficiency(we'll just end up posting a gazillion links supporting our own side), so I'm going to stick with the argument from morality now.

I think the majority of people would prefer not the pay tax but some people like having roads to drive on, parks to play in, ect. I'm sure it would be quite wonderful in LIBERTOPIA to have to pay every time you drive down your street to the shops on your hovercar, so I think people enjoy most public services and accept having to pay tax. I also think there are less criminals than criminals.

This whole paragraph is basically talking about the "choice" of people and how that is good. The irony is, you're actually talking about using force to make them pay for something(taxation is force/threat of violence, if you don't think it is, tell me why).

Your argument contradicts itself because if people really did want to all pay to a certain health care provider(by CHOICE), then they would do it willingly! And therefore there would be no need for a socialised medicine system.

Don’t steal from the rich but fuck the poor too, I mean how dumb to you have to be, fuckin’ poor people

You still aren't addressing the actual problem of moral authority that I raised earlier. You're just concocting shit to make me look stupid. Ever heard of sophistry?

It's not even logically consistent to tax people based on the idea of "majority rule". If majority rule is truly a fair rule, it should work always and everywhere. But clearly our society only applies it to govt(more like people who claim to be the govt), which is wrong. As in, if it were truly a principle that worked, then females could just impose their will on males (they outnumber males), prisoners can impose their will on jailers, students can impose their will on teachers. It doesn't work! Any principle should be universally acceptable, this one clearly isn't and can lead to ridiculous conclusions.

Keep in mind:
1. Any rule should be universally applicable
2. What is good for one, must be good for all
3. All human beings are moral equals
4. There is no such thing as "the govt" as far as a moral agent is concerned, only people who act as part of the govt. Moral rules apply to people, not concepts

These people claim the right to use force because of majority rule, I believe this is wrong because it's not a logically consistent rule. "Majority rule" if applied everywhere could mean that females could make males their slaves for eg.

So yeah, actually resolve this problem and then I'll change my mind. Likewise, I ask that you be willing to change your mind if you can't resolve the problem.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

For example, look at the way their approval agency takes AGGEEES to do anything. It means ppl have to go without these new revolutionary drugs for longer. It makes companies less inclined to even BOTHER researching new drugs because they know the govt will waste so much time 'testing' (and they're very slow at testing too), so it makes it less profitable to do so.

Mmmm, yes, because testing new drugs is such a terrible, terrible waste of time. I refer you to the awesome case of thalidomide. In summary, "Before its release inadequate tests were performed to assess the drug's safety, with catastrophic results for the children of women who had taken thalidomide during their pregnancies."

Nice to see that corparations have the best interests of the consumer in mind. There's no such thing as an "onerous or unnessecary trial" in the world of pharmaceuticals. There's also the unfortunate problem that without regulation you'd see pharmaceutical companies rising their prices for profit while people die...

As for your article, within the first paragraph we learn that European countries are the most heavily regulated and enjoy the best healthcare, apparently. Unless you want some more thalidomide ramming its way into the marketplace because greedy corparations don't really care for consumer safety (click here for an unrelated, yet excellent example of this), then I'd say that regulation is for the best.

Regulation also limits choice in some ways, whereas choice is necessary for the consumer decisions that need to be made. When these decisions are forced by the govt, more efficient producers aren't getting the 'encouragement' they should be. They don't zoom ahead in the profit stakes so much, and as a result we all just kinda chill in the dark ages.

I'm not sure that choice is really all that needed in the world of regulated pharmaceuticals. I mean, you either have a drug that does something or one that doesn't. If you have regulated healthcare to keep the costs down (which is ethical) then there's no reason at all for artificial choice.

-=-=-=-=-

Sorry to intrude onto someone elses argument, but...

That wasn't what I was saying though, I was more just saying that the influx of immigrants into the USA puts pressure on the system. As in, it's not sustainable.

But if the healthcare system were to be fully privatised then wouldn't these people go completely without healthcare, which was jb_nc's point? In that because they weren't rich US citizens, they would die?

so I'm going to stick with the argument from morality now.

...That a healthcare system should be introduced that penalises the poor. Hmmm.

 

[volition]

Mmmm, yes, because testing new drugs is such a terrible, terrible waste of time. I refer you to the awesome case of thalidomide.

Ok well first off, if thalidomide is so bad and govt approval is so necessary, then why did the US FDA approve it? That wiki article says it got approved...

Nice to see that corparations have the best interests of the consumer in mind. There's no such thing as an "onerous or unnessecary trial" in the world of pharmaceuticals.

Tough to say really, because you never hear so much about cases where people die because they couldn't get access to a drug that could've helped them.

Testing and application delays have dramatically increased the cost of health care and made it unaffordable for the majority of the world and also has stifled investment in many drugs due to the large approval costs.

edit: just stumbled on this article. Get the FDA Out of the Way, and Drug Prices Will Drop by By Gary S. Becker
It's particularly important because the US companies are bearing a disproportionate burden of creating new drugs, being the richest companies. It'd make a lot of sense to reduce a bit of the burden on them and let them get down to R+D.

The burden of paying for the development of the world's new drugs, however, falls overwhelmingly on Americans: Most other nations impose controls over drug prices or undermine patents through allowing cheaper generic copies. As a result, the U.S. is by far the most important market for recouping investments in new drugs, and the share of medical R&D conducted by U.S. labs has risen sharply over time.

Other criticisms of the FDA:
- FDA disallows drug reimportation from overseas, increasing costs for consumers
- FDA is slow to grant OTC status - meaning patients have to spend time/money seeing a doctor first

But if the healthcare system were to be fully privatised then wouldn't these people go completely without healthcare, which was jb_nc's point? In that because they weren't rich US citizens, they would die?

Yes, and in saying that it's not sustainable, I'm saying that the system will just crash and burn when you just have this huge influx of people who come in and take the benefits without paying for it. Sure, you might think its 'nice' to just help everybody(by stealing!), but the reality is that nothing comes for free, and it's costing them a lot of money. Families need their money too ya know. Even the rich need their money or else their money won't go into investing into newer and better technologies, instead it'll get sucked into the black hole that is the govt.

...That a healthcare system should be introduced that penalises the poor. Hmmm.

You're not telling it like it is. What you're really arguing is for coercive taking of people's money. This is why I oppose it. Initiation of violence is immoral! Why doesn't anybody understand this?

 

[jb_nc]

lol, I cannot believe you support the abolition the the FDA you are an absolute mental case about in touch with reality as Patrick Bateman.

Let's get rid of American/Australian Medical Association too, anyone should be able to act as a doctor if they want, let the market decide.

 

[volition]

lol, I cannot believe you support the abolition the the FDA you are an absolute mental case about in touch with reality as Patrick Bateman.

Ok now this looks a lot like an ad hom to me.

Let's get rid of American/Australian Medical Association too, anyone should be able to act as a doctor if they want, let the market decide.

Yes, because the AMA restrict the supply of doctors making it harder to train them. If we had competing standards and less regulatory burden, there might actually be more doctors and better access to cheaper health care. Besides, if you don't feel comfortable with that, nobody is forcing you to go to that particular doctor. The existence of more doctors would make it cheaper overall.