Support NeoGAF

[SickBoy]

And thus, this thread has jumped the shark.

 

[Cloak]

Bolded for idiocy.

I'm not even going to argue with you. People who defend the cut-throat private "health care" system in America are morally bankrupt individuals who will learn what cocks taste like when they end up in hell.

Shrill, closed-minded people such as yourself are the reason that there's a paucity of reasonable discourse on this board. He didn't propose or defend a completely privatized system, but rather included exceptions for children and the needy; yet you still cast aspersions on him. Many people agree that a mixed system, of the sort being tested in Canada and Britain, is the best way to go for a variety of reasons (financial, ethical etc.). But terrene, a virulent leftist on the GA boards, disagrees. Not only does he disagree, but he asserts that anyone who doesn't hold the exact same belief that he does (down to the particulars) is "morally bankrupt" and deserves to choke on cocks.

How cute.

 

[terrene]

Shrill, closed-minded people such as yourself are the reason that there's a paucity of reasonable discourse on this board. He didn't propose or defend a completely privatized system, but rather included exceptions for children and the needy; yet you still cast aspersions on him. Many people agree that a mixed system, of the sort being tested in Canada and Britain, is the best way to go for a variety of reasons (financial, ethical etc.). But terrene, a virulent leftist on the GA boards, disagrees. Not only does he disagree, but he asserts that anyone who doesn't hold the exact same belief that he does (down to the particulars) is "morally bankrupt" and deserves to choke on cocks.

How cute.

Please. You can moralize to me when I'm not addressing someone who smugly says "the general population wouldn't be healthier" when the 100 million Americans with no health coverage have a fucking place to go. This shit isn't a game, and those people shouldn't be a puff of smoke in the minds of people who say shit like "they should jog more."

 

[Cloak]

Please. You can moralize to me when I'm not addressing someone who smugly says "the general population wouldn't be healthier" when the 100 million Americans with no health coverage have a fucking place to go. This shit isn't a game, and those people shouldn't be a puff of smoke in the minds of people who say shit like "they should jog more."

I can moralize to ornery folks such as yourself whenever I please, thank you. And unless we've recently added about 50-55 million people to the uninsured rolls, I think you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. This is not to say that there isn't a huge problem that needs to be addressed, only that your tactics in doing so (invective, hyperbole, falsehoods, and closed-mindedness) don't further any sort of reasonable, productive dialogue. You're one of the "my way or the highway" folks I mentioned earlier who seem to populate this board. But you keep on with your bad self, terrene-- I'm sure you'll get far. :lol

 

[teh_pwn]

Please. You can moralize to me when I'm not addressing someone who smugly says "the general population wouldn't be healthier" when the 100 million Americans with no health coverage have a fucking place to go. This shit isn't a game, and those people shouldn't be a puff of smoke in the minds of people who say shit like "they should jog more."

The population would not be healthier because prescription drugs do not address the cause, only the symptoms. It's like duct taping a sinking ship, with really, really expensive duct tape.

Simply throwing drugs at the general population as a temporary fix that has a permanent recurring cost is not going to increase people's health in the long run. It will worsen it because it will increase the mentality that you don't need to take care of yourself, and that magical pills will fix everything.

Teaching people to eat right through education, cracking down on false/deceptive health advertising will. Because eating healthy will prevent health problems by maintaining health. It's a much cheaper, and effective solution than merely keeping someone alive in poor health.


The reason why I use "health care" is because it does not support health, it supports fudging symptoms. My ideas would promote health. I say "free" because it would not be free, but rather dramatically increase taxes on average Americans.

 

[teh_pwn]

And answer this question: If prescription drugs make people healthier, why is obesity, heart disease, and in general disorders on the rise while prescription drug usage is increasing dramatically?

 

[DopeyFish]

everytime i see americans desperately trying to justify their broken healthcare system... I just sit back and think about the movie John Q

 

[Cloak]

everytime i see americans desperately trying to justify their broken healthcare system... I just sit back and think about the movie John Q

You would, because it was largely a piece of propaganda. No one can be denied emergency service in the US. Besides which, I don't see anyone trying to "justify" the American system. I perhaps see people who admit its faults and are willing to work towards fixing them, but who reject the idea that in order to do so we must fully embrace a single-payor system, which is its polar opposite. That strikes me as sensible.

 

[Richard Cranium]

And answer this question: If prescription drugs make people healthier, why is obesity, heart disease, and in general disorders on the rise while prescription drug usage is increasing dramatically?

That's entirely faulty thinking. Correlation does not imply causation. Lots of new prescription drugs benefit the sick and don't have anything to do with obesity or heart disease. The most expensive drugs in the world are aimed at disorders that nobody can do much about at the moment besides treating symptoms. As I recall, the most expensive drug today is an enzyme replacement therapy for a lysosomal storage disease that costs up to $580,000 per year.

We're able to keep people who would've died ten years ago a lot longer, which is one reason why prescription drug spending has increased. And it'll only get worse. I mean, just take a look at cystic fibrosis. A decade ago, I think the average lifespan was under 20. Now patients are living into their 30s. And let me tell ya, the drugs aren't cheap.

 

[pestul]

Well, I've been bailed out for about $60,000 worth of surgeries.. I will proudly wave the Canadian flag anywhere. While not a brilliant/flawless system that is for sure.. my student loans are enough thanks. My Dad also just had free heart surgery, where they used microwaves to fix his irregular heartbeat.

Canada +1

Sorry.

 

[siamesedreamer]

FWIW, the breakdown of my cancer treatment:

Chemo ~$35,000 x 6
Radiation ~$1500 x 23
Surgery ~$75,000

I pay about $100 a month for Blue Cross Blue Shield hopitalization/surgery only health insurance. That means I had to pay for (and will have to pay for in the future) all my doctor visits, scans, MRIs, etc. Those total about $6,000 a pop every 3 months. So, while BC/BS did cover the majority of the costs, the maintainance costs are really adding up.

 

[teh_pwn]

That's entirely faulty thinking. Correlation does not imply causation. Lots of new prescription drugs benefit the sick and don't have anything to do with obesity or heart disease. The most expensive drugs in the world are aimed at disorders that nobody can do much about at the moment besides treating symptoms. As I recall, the most expensive drug today is an enzyme replacement therapy for a lysosomal storage disease that costs up to $580,000 per year.

We're able to keep people who would've died ten years ago a lot longer, which is one reason why prescription drug spending has increased. And it'll only get worse. I mean, just take a look at cystic fibrosis. A decade ago, I think the average lifespan was under 20. Now patients are living into their 30s. And let me tell ya, the drugs aren't cheap.

Yeah, I understand that correlation doesn't imply causation. I understand that some drugs are doing good things.

However, I'm talking about the majority. The TV ads I see about lowering cholesterol. These prescriptions treat the symptoms, and do nothing in the long run about the causation. There are people that have genetic disease that may benefit from these, but the vast majority of people can balance cholesterol through diet and exercise. Taking the prescription while doing nothing to really improve diet and exercise is not health care.

What I'm getting at is there is this idea that doctors and prescription drugs are miracle workers, and that throwing cash at them is going to fix people's problems with universal health care. Neglecting your body and thinking that pills will fix your problems is what I see when I hear people wanting universal healthcare.

I don't think about people wanting Univeral health care to help needy children, and I get that impression because the idea of univeral healthcare is to provide coverage for all, and recently the prescription drug prices have soared.

It's the idea that you don't have to eat right, and that the pills will fix everything is causing health problems. Extra Virgin Olive oil, walnuts, etc and other healthy fats increase good cholesterol and decrease bad cholesterol without any negative side effects. In fact there's positive. Eating bacon, burgers, etc while taking a cholesterol formula has many negative side effects in addition to costing lots of money. Statin depletes CoQ10, which when in deficiency, increase the risk of heart disease....the irony.

 

[Richard Cranium]

However, I'm talking about the majority. The TV ads I see about lowering cholesterol. These prescriptions treat the symptoms, and do nothing in the long run about the causation. There are people that have genetic disease that may benefit from these, but the vast majority of people can balance cholesterol through diet and exercise. Taking the prescription while doing nothing to really improve diet and exercise is not health care.

These drugs are prescribed in addition to a change in lifestyle. It's not like physicians are ok with their patients eating fast food every day. Any competent physician will counsel the patient about these factors, but in the end, it's up to the patient to comply. Unfortunately, patient compliance is abysmally low. Besides, only 30-35% of cholesterol comes from the diet. Some people do need the drugs to prevent disease, and putting them on a statin certainly works.

What I'm getting at is there is this idea that doctors and prescription drugs are miracle workers, and that throwing cash at them is going to fix people's problems with universal health care. Neglecting your body and thinking that pills will fix your problems is what I see when I hear people wanting universal healthcare.

I don't understand why you keep lumping universal healthcare and pharmaceutical drugs together. What about cancer? Diabetes? Alzheimers? Infections? Genetic disorders? Injuries? STIs? Pregnancies? Vaccinations? People without healthcare have limited access to treatment and it often comes too late. They consume vast amounts of resources when they show up to the emergency room for things they should be seeing a general practitioner for. Get them regular appointments and maybe they'll become educated enough to prevent some of these things and save the system some money.

Statin depletes CoQ10, which when in deficiency, increase the risk of heart disease....the irony.

Which is why CoQ supplementation is recommended when on a statin.

I don't think about people wanting Univeral health care to help needy children, and I get that impression because the idea of univeral healthcare is to provide coverage for all, and recently the prescription drug prices have soared.

I think you have it backwards. The cheapest health coverages DON'T allow you to get expensive prescription drugs. They only cover generics. You're on your own if you want a newly patented drug. And really, why would they even want to cover your expensive drugs anyway? Cheaper to just tell you to go exercise and charge you for the doctor's visit, right?

 

[Azih]

Phoenix: Prescription medicine is not TVs or candybars. They are drugs whose effectiveness or need can only be judged by someone who is a freaking Doctor, and that is best done in peer reviewed medical journals. And that is where it should remain, period.

In any case I think all necessities should be provided to some degree by society at large (i.e: through taxes).

But I see public health and public education as being extremely different from things like food stamps and subsidised apartments (I see utilities as a being part of shelter).

The difference is this:

There is a pretty clear low level at which the basic requirements of food and shelter are met beyond which you start talking about luxury. 2 or 3 kids sleeping in a room and getting one hot meal a day from school fulfills the basics but is pretty different from kids having their own rooms and being able to get three square meals at home. And it's a lot different from living in mansions and choosing between sayyyy lobster and beluga caviar for breakfast. The incentive to work hard remains and everyone is getting the basics and society is healthier for it.

The level at which this happens for health and education is much much higher. Every kid should get a world class education; if you want your kid to associate exclusively with snobby priviliged brats or have a religous themed education... well those are luxuries and you're more then welcome to pay for them. Every kid should have the chance to join school teams or the school band and put on a school play, but if you want your kid to have violin lessons, take ballet or go to hockey camp every summer, well those are luxuries and you can pay. The issue is that providing the basic public world class education and the public school band and the public school teams requires so much in the way of staff, faculty, management, land, buildings, and all the associated costs that it requires the resources of a nation to provide them (i.e: taxes). If you shirk these tax responsibiliies then the public school system deteriorates and degrades. Which is bad for everybody because bad schools pump out more adults that are burdens on society then good schools.

If you want to pop pills because you can't pull a stiffy at age 70 or lacerate your breasts to fill them with silicon cuz you think your titties just aren't large enough, then go ahead, pay for it; It's a luxury. But setting a broken bone isn't, needing a hip replacement isn't, recovering from a heart attack isn't, help during a preganancy and delivering a baby isn't. And just like education, providing these necessities requires a LOT of infrastructure and manpower. Which can only be provided by a whole country coming together (i.e: taxes). Now I suppose the benefit of a strong public health care system to society at large isn't quite as clear cut as a strong vibrant public school system but it's there (healthy workers who don't have medical bill related stress are more y'know productive).

My basic belief in all of this really comes from the whole idea of equality of opportunity. Because believe this, you will not have equality of opportunity if one person can see a doctor any time they want while someone else won't be able to go to a doctor at all. You will never have equality of opportunity if some kids get a better quality of education by virtue of who they were lucky enough to be born too while other kids didn't have the same fortune.

 

[teh_pwn]

These drugs are prescribed in addition to a change in lifestyle. It's not like physicians are ok with their patients eating fast food every day. Any competent physician will counsel the patient about these factors, but in the end, it's up to the patient to comply. Unfortunately, patient compliance is abysmally low. Besides, only 30-35% of cholesterol comes from the diet. Some people do need the drugs to prevent disease, and putting them on a statin certainly works.

The masses do not need drugs to get healthy cholesterol. They don't need drugs and a healthy diet/exercise. They just need a healthy diet and exercise.

Cholesterol doesn't just appear in your body. I'm sure that 30-35% you're talking is about is direct consumption of cholesterol. The rest of it is being produced in your body. If you eat foods loaded in saturated fat, trans fats, processed carbs, and you don't get any healthy omega 3/6, your LDL cholesterol production will increase and your HDL decrease.

Yes there are people with genetic dispositions, however it's not enough to make it on every other commerical break.

Because of the irresponsibility, I should never have to forfeit my right to select my own health care and foot the bill with these people.

I don't understand why you keep lumping universal healthcare and pharmaceutical drugs together. What about cancer? Diabetes? Alzheimers? Infections? Genetic disorders? Injuries? STIs? Pregnancies? Vaccinations? People without healthcare have limited access to treatment and it often comes too late. They consume vast amounts of resources when they show up to the emergency room for things they should be seeing a general practitioner for. Get them regular appointments and maybe they'll become educated enough to prevent some of these things and save the system some money.

I lump them together because universal healthcare is healthcare for all. I'm sure you've seen all the advertising on TV. We're an overmedicated society, and those drugs are expensive. When I hear universal healthcare, at least from what it's propenents describe, they want unrestricted access to healthcare because they think that will impove the health of society. With the way we treat disease now, people will see a new drug on TV, and go and get it. That's not how things should work.

If we had healthcare for specific groups of people, or people with specific problems, it would not be universal. If that's what you're envisioning, then we probably do not disagree that much.

As for Cancer, it is by far best treated by pervention. Once cancer gets to the growth stages, the barbaric treatments we perform today (that's probably how they'll view it in 100 years) don't have a very high success rate. People should buy health insurance if they want coverage. They have the freedom to do so. Children on other hand do not. They should be covered, and if it's found that their parents induced the cancer somehow, they should be prosecuted.

There are numerous foods that have been documented to strongly prevent cancer. Green tea, spinach, broccoli, garlic, etc.

Vaccinations should be provided to children for free. Not adults, they're adults...they've got to work for it...unless there's a bubonic plague level disease sweeping the nation.

Alzheimers, that person is an adult and should have insurance or some sort of coverage. If they don't, they really don't have a right to mandate that society has to pay for it.

Genetic disorders should be treated within reason for all ages. Once prenatal selection becomes a reality and is inexpensive, any person with a major genetic disorder that wants to procreate and receive government support must procreate with prenatal selection.

Which is why CoQ supplementation is recommended when on a statin.

For the masses, there's only positive side effects to a healthy diet/exercise.

What else are these prescription drugs doing to our bodies?

People should make permanent changes to prevent the problem. Permanently taking statin drugs is not a good idea. Eventually they'll have to stop taking them. If they haven't changed their ways, the problem simply returns. It's just like people with diets. They lose weight in an unhealthy way, stop doing that, and get even fatter. The solution to dieting is to permanently make healthy changes.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Cholesterol doesn't just appear in your body. I'm sure that 30-35% you're talking is about is direct consumption of cholesterol. The rest of it is being produced in your body. If you eat foods loaded in saturated fat, trans fats, processed carbs, and you don't get any healthy omega 3/6, your LDL cholesterol production will increase and your HDL decrease.

I'm pretty sure you don't know that for a fact because even doctors don't know exactly why cholesterol levels tend to rise with age. But they do and you can't just demand that everyone change their lifestyles. People don't listen.

Because of the irresponsibility, I should never have to forfeit my right to select my own health care and foot the bill with these people.

I don't want to foot the bill either, but the cost problem is not really due to these people. As I recall, the biggest costs are coming from catastrophic cases. Something like 10% of patients consume 90% of resources. Do you suggest we just give up on these people? Just let them die? Refuse to research life-prolonging treatments?

When I hear universal healthcare, at least from what it's propenents describe, they want unrestricted access to healthcare because they think that will impove the health of society. With the way we treat disease now, people will see a new drug on TV, and go and get it. That's not how things should work.

I don't think drugs should be advertised either, but I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. However, don't expect the way we treat diseases to change significantly anytime soon; there's just no other way to treat a lot of the illnesses we suffer. You can preach on and on about prevention, but by the time a patient gets into the healthcare system, they're already ill.

As for Cancer, it is by far best treated by pervention.

Good luck with that. Oh, and we don't know what causes a lot of cancers. We have vague linkages and we're limited to monozygotic twin studies that only show the presence of an environmental factor. 60-80% may be environmentally related, but these diseases have really complex etiologies. And then there's the other 20-40%

There are numerous foods that have been documented to strongly prevent cancer. Green tea, spinach, broccoli, garlic, etc.

Strongly is probably too... strong of a word. The media has a way of spinning things out of proportion. There's probably a high relative risk reduction associated with those foods, but that number in and of itself doesn't tell you all that much, but it does sound impressive.

Genetic disorders should be treated within reason for all ages. Once prenatal selection becomes a reality and is inexpensive, any person with a major genetic disorder that wants to procreate and receive government support must procreate with prenatal selection.

That's a very dangerous path. I hope you realize that the US had a eugenics program in the past and that the Nazi program was based upon the US one. And prenatal selection IS a reality right now.

What else are these prescription drugs doing to our bodies?

Lots of things, but at some point the benefits far outweigh the risks. What is your mom or your aunt going to do if she gets rheumatic arthritis? Probably take methotrexate. Horrible drug, but what else can she do? Google up some rheumatic nodules if you want to see the alternative.

 

[Warm Machine]

When did free prescription drugs come into this? I've never gotten free prescription drugs aside from a few samples from my doctor.

 

[Azih]

When I hear universal healthcare, at least from what it's propenents describe, they want unrestricted access to healthcare because they think that will impove the health of society

Universal healthcare means everybody gets care regardless of ability to pay. No more. No less.

The question of who decides what kind of care and what kind of treatments to provide to patients is a completely seperate matter. I think you're confusing the two. After all America stands out in not having universal health care (most other developed nations have some form of it) and is the most overmedicated nation on the planet. So the two issues are not linked at all.

 

[snatches]

This is a key point. Noone is turned away from care in Canada. A homeless person will get care at any Canadian hospital in Canada without insurance, medical ID or any identification whatsoever. Even if he needs brain surgery and needs to be in hospice for a month afterwords.

Why should anyone in a civilized country die needlessly?

 

[Azih]

This is a key point. Noone is turned away from care in Canada. A homeless person will get care at any Canadian hospital in Canada without insurance, medical ID or any identification whatsoever. Even if he needs brain surgery and needs to be in hospice for a month afterwords.

Why should anyone in a civilized country die needlessly?

Er you need to be a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant. So you do need a health card. Non citizens get a bill.