Rationing and long lines

[Taichiliberal]

The short side of it is, Twinky, you don't have shit. Look folks, the ignorant blowhard is getting creative with his attempted insults....now if he could only debate honestly and logically.You show the prices of DISCOUNTED refurbished medical hardware. You do NOT show how much of that hardware is needed. You show salaries, but no comparison to the total budget.

So NOW I'm supposed to detail what hardware is needed for what, EVERY DIFFERENT TYPE OF RESEARCH PROJECT? You can stall all you want by repeating yourself, but you can't get past my last response to your BS. These cost are just an EXAMPLE...and they are not cheap. Compare that to what the paylist shows and compare that to what the article referring to budgets, and you get the idea....or you should if you chose to THINK. I'm tired of doing your homework, because so far all you offer as a counter is YOUR opinion and more questions. Stop being a wussy and just own up that my original assertion has merit.

You give one example of a Dr. who comes up with a SUCCESSFUL vaccine, and use the figures he receives for marketing said successful vaccine as an example of RESEARCH salaries. While I do not in any way condone his use of his position in CDC, the fact is what he received had to do with the marketing and sale of a successful product, NOT research.

I only had to give one example, mastermind....you set the bar that my assertion could not be proved. The FACT is if Offit was part of the research, he got PAID in accordance to the Paylist I supplied (unless you can provide evidence that he worked for free). That is a matter of fact, genius. Add to this the other facts of the article that you readily acknowledge, and my assertion stands. As I said before, neocon parrots seldom use the skills taught to them in grade school when researching material to draw a conclusion....you have to comprehend EVERYTHING, bunky. Got that?

You keep harping about how INFERENCE and CONJECTURE are meaningless, No, I keep accurately pointing out how YOU don't offer a goddamn thing other than YOUR supposition and conjecture. I at least offer documented facts as a basis for the discussion. Stop lying as to who is saying what here, because the recorded post is your undoing. yet now you claim that is what is needed to draw your conclusions. No, YOU are saying that....I am pointing to FACTS and how they coincide with each other. Big difference, but I guess you were asleep in class that year. Wrong answer, Twinky. Oh look folks...whenever our willfully ignorant parrot is about to puff up his own BS and lie about what I write, he starts off with this childish insult. Hold onto your hat folks, here comes the big wind. You can know the prices of medical instruments. (Though if you were HONEST about it you would not be using refurbished equipment for your examples. But then, honesty is not something you use in debate, is it?) You can know the levels of salaries for researchers. But you do NOT know from those two pieces of information what portion of a total research budget is taken up by each.

Are you specifically referring to cancer reserach now? What type? See, since YOU are debating in general terms, all you have to do is take the information I supplied (which does give specifics), and apply it to that item, then go through the points I presented, and you get the idea of what I've been drumming into your thick skull since yesterday. See genius, you cannot refute the information I put forth....you just REFUSE to engage the cognitive reasoning skills that God gave you to draw a logical conclusion. In short, you're just stubborn to the point of insipidness...as your repetition shows.

And also, try looking up what phase 3 and phase 4 clinical trials are, and how they are conducted before showing your complete ignorance on the subject with lies about salaries being a big part of that expense. As to your question, the other 61% is spent on initial research, isolation trials, product development (a med won't work outside the lab if you can't mass produce it.) preliminary trials, phase 1 trials, and phase 2 trials.

Also, stop braying like an ass with repetitive versions of things that were already addressed. THINK, bunky, THINK! What did I say the last time you droned on about this? Here, because I'm just tired of your dodgy lies and bullshit:

------And How do you think the other 61% is divided up, mastermind? Especially if you factor in the TOTAL cost of staff salaries, as I indicated. What makes you think that salaries is NOT a major fraction of that 39%? Why don't you THINK before running off half assed? Comprehend ALL the material when you read, not just bits and parts

------Everything that you are wailing about requires staff that has to be paid....but the LEADING PHYSICIANS in the field get top dollar, bonuses, expenses. As I provided those salaries are a base......one can ASSUME that negotiations for COLA and such happen, but they sure as hell are not for LESS.

------Now, if you had read the article that points to rising budget costs, then to the salary listing I have for private and gov't researchers, their expenses, perks....you deduce that salaries are taking a pretty hefty chunk out of funding. See bunky, when money is allocated, say $1 billion, you have to ask yourself.....how many staff? Is the grant for 1 year? 2 years? 3? Is COLA factored in? Bonuses? Expenses? The paylist I gave you also is a guide of what you have to ADD to get a total picture of what a researcher would be paid. Once again, you factor this in with the ONE TIME cost of equipment or the cost of occasionally replenishing chemicals, micellaneous materials...and that lump sum dwindles real fast. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why some research projects are consistently asking for public donations when the major equipment is seldom replaced?


As for repeating oneself, aren't you the one doing the repeating? I only follow suit....as the recorded post shows. Are you that stupid to think you can lie about who stated what and when in a forum of chronologically recorded posts? Grow up! Your sources have been thoroughly debunked as either irrelevant nonsense to your claim, or at best, incomplete data with no correlation. Because YOU say so? Puh-leeze, you don't even have to balls to address the FACT of how the information correlates. Yet you do not bother to come up with better data, all you do is claim I cannot read it properly. Another lie....I merely pointed out that you read the opening page and stopped there....so I supplied ALL available data. Try again, Twinky. I gave you SPECIFIC reasons why your data does not support your conclusions. No, you gave YOUR OPINION...you haven't given any documentation that would support your contention. You whine and dodge and bluster and bluff, but I just go back to the source information and point out the logical conclusions when the information is brought together. You've got nothing but hot air. The fact that you don't come up with better data simply strengthens the charge that you are an ignorant lying pissant.
But then, we already knew that, didn't we?

"WE"? Grow up, mastermind....it's just YOU who just parrots the same old opinion laden BS, as I've demonstrated. If you truly can't comprehend how to correlate information in order to apply it to various scenarios, then so much more to pity. Now run along and try to convince yourself and others of your deluded "victory". Unfortunately for you, the recorded post are here to contest you..."Good Luck" with that.

Unless you've got something else other than a new version of the same old BS here, I'll just move and not waste anymore time.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah, GL, if you don't come to the same conclusion and therefore share the same opinion based on posted information that most of the time doesn't even correlate (Such as the Dr. who used his government position to sell bunches of stuff) then you must be somehow deficient. It can't be that the unrelated information is actually unrelated.

 

[Good Luck]

Anyway, since Twinky is obviously no longer going to do anything but rant with the same tired crap, let's address some other issues.

For instance, several times I have seen people refer to "rationing" of health care. Certainly the ideal of good, accessible health care for all is a laudable goal. Feeding everyone in the world higher than a minimum sustenance diet is also a laudable goal. However there is also the reality that we are not dealing with infinite resources. When dealing with limited resources, the reality is some type of "rationing" WILL take place whether we like it or not. That is one area where the concept of universal care does not seem to account for. The current system, for all its faults, has a certain amount of health care resources, and an admittedly less-than-ideal method of distributing those resources. What universal health care ideals does not seem to accept is that redistribution of those resources is not going to magically result in greater resources to meet the greater demand. We are not going to magically have more doctors in more offices, more medical equipment to do more medical tests, etc. etc. etc. That is why the proposed approach to attaining greater health care coverage for all is, in the opinion of many, not going to work. We need to approach the problem, not only from an access/demand problem, but also a supply/resource problem.

I have heard stories the past several years of doctors choosing to get out of medicine, thus decreasing health care resources. We need to examine why this is occurring. Why would doctors, after the amount of time, effort and money spent in attaining their profession, give it all up in record and increasing numbers? This is one other problem in health care that the "poor people can't afford it, so let government take over" approach will do nothing to address - yet a problem that NEEDS addressing, desperately, especially if we are going to instill any type of program that significantly increases the demand for good doctors.

 

[Good Luck]

How many vaccines are developed by the CDC or NIH? Whose development is paid for with tax dollars.

None. Neither CDC nor NIH does that type of research. Their function is to find resources for combating a problem disease, and coordinate allocation of said resources.

Dr. Offit's vaccine research did not take place as part of his position with CDC, but under the auspices of a private research facility. That is what makes his use of his CDC position to promote his own product rather less than kosher.

 

[christiefan915]

I received an email from a person who reads this thread. They wish to remain anonymous. They informed me the 8 week wait for treatment was for their body to heal after the operation.

It makes sense to me considering the radiation stops cells from growing and healthy cells are what's needed to grow after an operation in order to heal the incision and surrounding flesh where the tumor was removed.

As for the nausea pills I'd probably require smelling salts after fainting. HA!

True enough. My BFF and a family member had breast cancer, my neighbor's fighting a brain tumor, and all of them had a waiting period between chemo and radiation, as their immune systems were shot after the chemo.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

You are missing the point. Not all cancer patients get chemo. There is a shortage of radiation equipment and technicians in both Canada and GB, thus the wait.

True enough. My BFF and a family member had breast cancer, my neighbor's fighting a brain tumor, and all of them had a waiting period between chemo and radiation, as their immune systems were shot after the chemo.

 

[belme1201]

You are missing the point. Not all cancer patients get chemo. There is a shortage of radiation equipment and technicians in both Canada and GB, thus the wait.

There is also a time lapse between surgery and the commencement of treatment, be it radiation or chemo. Trust me, it is not immediate here either. There is a process leading to treatment, and that process is for the best if it leads to the correct treatment being done by the right professionals. There are plenty of horror stories about cancer treatment mistakes right here in the good ol' USA. Before the initial surgery, the pathologist comes in with a magic marker and writes 'yes' above the cancerous breast and 'no' above the other. It's not done for fun. And then there's being too quick with radical surgery, not so uncommon, and usually the result of too hasty a decision.
Where does your statistic come from? Is it from either of the 2 health services mentioned? Canada is a huge country with far fewer people than the US, is there a variance created by that fact? I'm sure the services available to one living in the Yukon or Hudson's Bay would be fewer and farther than services available to a patient in Toronto or Montreal. Sometimes numbers don't tell the whole story, but using them for a political purpose doesn't change the facts. They are meaningless without analyzing what is behind the numbers to see if they are being manipulated for a dishonest end, meant to deceive.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yeah, GL, if you don't come to the same conclusion and therefore share the same opinion based on posted information that most of the time doesn't even correlate (Such as the Dr. who used his government position to sell bunches of stuff) then you must be somehow deficient. It can't be that the unrelated information is actually unrelated.

Stop being a petulant child throwing rocks......repeating the same assinine BS as GL doesn't detract from what I stated. Like your compadre, you seem to think that just saying "no it isn't" is sufficient for a discussion. Newsflash for ya....it doesn't. Especially when the recorded posts demonstrates otherwise.

C'mon man.....I expect better from you...or you should expect better from youself.

 

[Thorn]

There is also a time lapse between surgery and the commencement of treatment, be it radiation or chemo. Trust me, it is not immediate here either, there is a process leading to treatment, and that process is for the best if it leads to the correct treatment being done by the right professionals. There are plenty of horror stories about cancer treatment mistakes right here in the good ol' USA.
Where does your statistic come from? Is it from either of the 2 health services mentioned? Canada is a huge country with far fewer people than the US, is there a variance created by that fact? I'm sure the services available to one living in the Yukon or Hudson's Bay would be less and farther than services available to a patient in Toronto or Montreal. Sometimes numbers don't tell the whole story, but using them for a political purpose doesn't change the facts. They are meaningless without analyzing what is behind the numbers to see if they are being manipulated for a dishonest end, meant to deceive.

Not only that, chemo is not always the appropriate treatment for some cancers. When people think about cancer, they don't realize that it comes in many different forms, and some are completely chemo resistant.

The treatment in Canada also varies from province to province. As a graduate student in Montreal I maintained my Ontario residency, in part because the OHIP coverage was far superior to the Quebec plan.

As to medical horrors, these are never limited to cancers. Just this past week, here in the good ol' USA, a good friend of mine finally learned, after a year of suffering, that she had two broken bones in her instep. Her physician just blew her off, repeatedly, and finally I persuaded her to get a second opinion. The first small bone had not healed properly, and the stress led to the fracture of the second some time after the initial injury. A couple of years ago, another friend was diagnosed in midlife with a food allergy. She had kidney cancer, that ultimately spread and mutated. Hers was just one of four tragic stories of misdiagnosis that year, and that was only in our place of employment. The irony is that we work at a Medical school.

 

[belme1201]

Not only that, chemo is not always the appropriate treatment for some cancers. When people think about cancer, they don't realize that it comes in many different forms, and some are completely chemo resistant.

The treatment in Canada also varies from province to province. As a graduate student in Montreal I maintained my Ontario residency, in part because the OHIP coverage was far superior to the Quebec plan.

As to medical horrors, these are never limited to cancers. Just this past week, here in the good ol' USA, a good friend of mine finally learned, after a year of suffering, that she had two broken bones in her instep. Her physician just blew her off, repeatedly, and finally I persuaded her to get a second opinion. The first small bone had not healed properly, and the stress led to the fracture of the second some time after the initial injury. A couple of years ago, another friend was diagnosed in midlife with a food allergy. She had kidney cancer, that ultimately spread and mutated. Hers was just one of four tragic stories of misdiagnosis that year, and that was only in our place of employment. The irony is that we work at a Medical school.

I totally agree. Much as some don't realize it, doctors are human and, as such, also make mistakes. My experience with the system, particularly for the last few years, has been with my wife's cancer, and since that time I've come to believe/know that the initial process of choosing the team that will be working on the patient is worth as thorough an investigation as one can pursue as long as the patient's life isn't in immediate danger. I get the feeling sometime that people choose what is nearest to home, putting as much effort into choosing a doctor as choosing an auto mechanic. To me, all doctors and hospitals are not the same.

None of our "friends" will answer me as to the reason why not-for-profit hospitals are usually the best in their areas.

 

[ib1yysguy]

If Medicare is so bad, call your representative and ask them to put up a bill to take it away and see how that works out for you.

 

[Thorn]

If Medicare is so bad, call your representative and ask them to put up a bill to take it away and see how that works out for you.

ib1, whose post(s) were you addressing? That comment doesn't seem to quite fit with our discussions of medical mistakes. The ones I spoke of were BCBS, not Medicare.

 

[uscitizen]

Another point that many may have forgotten. If you retire with medical benefits, medicare becomes your primary ins carrier when you become eligible with most companies retirement health ins.

 

[Damocles]

Stop being a petulant child throwing rocks......repeating the same assinine BS as GL doesn't detract from what I stated. Like your compadre, you seem to think that just saying "no it isn't" is sufficient for a discussion. Newsflash for ya....it doesn't. Especially when the recorded posts demonstrates otherwise.

C'mon man.....I expect better from you...or you should expect better from youself.

The recorded posts demonstrate no such thing. The reality is you post unrelated information then say it supports your position and nobody is supposed to call you on it. What the recorded posts demonstrate is an urge of yours to blame bad action on what you want rather than what is then resort to inane ad hominem to "buttress" the argument.

If somebody uses a government position to sell stuff it does not prove that most of the cost of research money goes where you say it does. It just doesn't.

I expect better evidence than something unrelated to support your position. And more unrelated articles do not prove your point any better.

 

[DamnYankee]

The recorded posts demonstrate no such thing. The reality is you post unrelated information then say it supports your position and nobody is supposed to call you on it. What the recorded posts demonstrate is an urge of yours to blame bad action on what you want rather than what is then resort to inane ad hominem to "buttress" the argument.

If somebody uses a government position to sell stuff it does not prove that most of the cost of research money goes where you say it does. It just doesn't.

I expect better evidence than something unrelated to support your position. And more unrelated articles do not prove your point any better.

I see you've noticed his pattern as well: reply with nonsense, claim the record shows otherwise. Next comes a declaration of victory and a something like "I'm done with you". *shrug*

 

[apple0154]

Anyway, since Twinky is obviously no longer going to do anything but rant with the same tired crap, let's address some other issues.

For instance, several times I have seen people refer to "rationing" of health care. Certainly the ideal of good, accessible health care for all is a laudable goal. Feeding everyone in the world higher than a minimum sustenance diet is also a laudable goal. However there is also the reality that we are not dealing with infinite resources. When dealing with limited resources, the reality is some type of "rationing" WILL take place whether we like it or not. That is one area where the concept of universal care does not seem to account for. The current system, for all its faults, has a certain amount of health care resources, and an admittedly less-than-ideal method of distributing those resources. What universal health care ideals does not seem to accept is that redistribution of those resources is not going to magically result in greater resources to meet the greater demand. We are not going to magically have more doctors in more offices, more medical equipment to do more medical tests, etc. etc. etc. That is why the proposed approach to attaining greater health care coverage for all is, in the opinion of many, not going to work. We need to approach the problem, not only from an access/demand problem, but also a supply/resource problem.

I have heard stories the past several years of doctors choosing to get out of medicine, thus decreasing health care resources. We need to examine why this is occurring. Why would doctors, after the amount of time, effort and money spent in attaining their profession, give it all up in record and increasing numbers? This is one other problem in health care that the "poor people can't afford it, so let government take over" approach will do nothing to address - yet a problem that NEEDS addressing, desperately, especially if we are going to instill any type of program that significantly increases the demand for good doctors.

Let's address the "resources" argument. It's no different than the old argument about housing the poor. "We don't have the resources" was the excuse. Of course, when the Real Estate boom was going full swing houses and condos were being built quicker than one could blink. Where did all these plumbers and electricians and brick layers and carpenters come from? Where did all the materials come from?

The same applies to feeding the poor. There is plenty of food. From machinery to bio-technology there is no legitimate reason for anyone to go hungry.

As to sufficient medical personnel most universal plans require patients to go through referral steps. The reason being it prevents a person from picking up the phone and making an appointment with a specialized surgeon when they've confused a wart with a tumor!

Patients are screened. First a visit to a general practitioner. If the GP doesn't know what the problem is or can't fix it they refer the patient to a specialist. This way the specialist's time is not wasted dealing with common problems.

In a "Pay or Suffer" system it doesn't make any difference to the specialist who visits him/her. The guy with the wart will pay the same price for a visit as someone with a tumor. The problem is the specialist's time is not put to good use. It makes as much sense as having a VP sweep the factory floor instead of dealing with company business.

If there is a lack of doctors lower the costs for education. Or have the government pay part of the cost and the graduating doctors have to commit so many hours to the universal plan in exchange.

People would jump at the opportunity to get a partially paid education. If they're willing to join the military to get an education I'm sure there are more people willing to donate a few years to the universal plan after getting their doctor's diploma.

Lastly, there are dozens of countries that have universal plans and with all the problems there is not ONE country that wants to change back to the old system of "Pay or Suffer". Not ONE country.

What more proof is needed? Capitalists to communists. Black to white. Rich to poor. Not one country wants to change back.

The bottom line is there isn't any bonafide argument against a universal plan. It's been discussed and experienced by hundreds of millions of people of all ages. Every plan has it's objectors but not one country wants to revert to a "Pay or Suffer" system which shows even the most inefficient plan is preferred to the current one.

The proof is there.

 

[Damocles]

Ugh... you keep saying that "no nation is working to return"... while ignoring that many of the nations that adopted these plans are actually beginning to return to more private practice. In Canada these clinics began to appear years ago, while of questionable legality, they are a beginning to alleviating the overcrowded national system...

As we start driving towards nationalized health care in many places where there is nationalized health care they have begun driving towards more private care.

Are there issues with the costs of health care? Yes. There are.

This does not mean we should willingly jump into "solutions" that do not resolve those issues.

For instance, in Florida one simple step allowing people to seek out price differences in pharmacies on the internet and shop for savings saves a ton of cash for both government and private insurance as well as people simply purchasing the necessary drugs directly. This didn't make pharmacies that had low prices raise theirs, it caused (because of competition) lowering in the cost of many drugs at the pharmacies that had higher prices...

Safeway, a local Supermarket chain, gave direct control over health insurance by creating a system whereby a certain amount is set aside for it, and the employee selects how to spend it. What isn't used at the end of the year is kept by the employee. While everybody gets care, there again was shown to be a huge savings as people were able to select care levels. All the employees also have catastrophic coverage for the terminal or chronic, or disabilities...

They get covered but it costs them and the employer less...

But we are supposed to applaud ANY program and never look at any solution that may be found to actually rude costs because nobody in Canada wants the system to go away, even though they are paying an illegal private clinic directly so they can get treated...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Ugh... you keep saying that "no nation is working to return"... while ignoring that many of the nations that adopted these plans are actually beginning to return to more private practice. In Canada these clinics began to appear years ago, while of questionable legality, they are a beginning to alleviating the overcrowded national system...

As we start driving towards nationalized health care in many places where there is nationalized health care they have begun driving towards more private care.

Are there issues with the costs of health care? Yes. There are.

This does not mean we should willingly jump into "solutions" that do not resolve those issues.

For instance, in Florida one simple step allowing people to seek out price differences in pharmacies on the internet and shop for savings saves a ton of cash for both government and private insurance as well as people simply purchasing the necessary drugs directly. This didn't make pharmacies that had low prices raise theirs, it caused (because of competition) lowering in the cost of many drugs at the pharmacies that had higher prices...

Safeway, a local Supermarket chain, gave direct control over health insurance by creating a system whereby a certain amount is set aside for it, and the employee selects how to spend it. What isn't used at the end of the year is kept by the employee. While everybody gets care, there again was shown to be a huge savings as people were able to select care levels. All the employees also have catastrophic coverage for the terminal or chronic, or disabilities...

They get covered but it costs them and the employer less...

But we are supposed to applaud ANY program and never look at any solution that may be found to actually rude costs because nobody in Canada wants the system to go away, even though they are paying an illegal private clinic directly so they can get treated...

I was against all this, at first; but Apple's finally convinced me and I think we should go at it, whole hog.

If you don't have, or can't afford Health Care, then you should expect the Government to step in and give it to you.
If you don't have a job and can't pay your bills, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
If you can't afford a place to live, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
If you can't afford food, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
If you can't afford transportation, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
If you feel bad, because your life style doesn't afford you the things that others have, then the Government should step in and give it to you.
The Government should step in and require everyone to wear the same clothes, decide what everyone is going to eat, where they are going to live, where they should work (if they want to work).

Everyone should depend on the Government supplying everything, for everybody.

This sounds so good, that I see no reason to work or even attempt to work; because this way I and everyone else can have what they feel they need.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The recorded posts demonstrate no such thing. The reality is you post unrelated information then say it supports your position and nobody is supposed to call you on it. What the recorded posts demonstrate is an urge of yours to blame bad action on what you want rather than what is then resort to inane ad hominem to "buttress" the argument.

Essentially you're just parroting GL's responses. Since I dealt with him on the previous posts, those answers are sufficient for your version here.

If somebody uses a government position to sell stuff it does not prove that most of the cost of research money goes where you say it does. It just doesn't. I never said it did....and that was just ONE part of the information I provided. Like GL, in order for you dismiss my position, you have to treat the information I provided like seperate topics all together and not related. And as I demonstrated previously, that is just not the case.

I expect better evidence than something unrelated to support your position. And more unrelated articles do not prove your point any better.

All you've done here is just parrot GL's post. BFD, you make the same errors he did, which I addressed. Essentially, you just wasted space.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I see you've noticed his pattern as well: reply with nonsense, claim the record shows otherwise. Next comes a declaration of victory and a something like "I'm done with you". *shrug*

What's pathetic is that after I've made a complete fool of you on several occasions, you try to piggy back on someone else's post to spew your frustration....and as usual, when you can't logically or factually prove your assertions, you just shrug like an idiot. That may go over big in your home town, but on these boards it just makes you look foolish. Carry on.