Furthermore, we are broke. 113 trillion in unfunded liabilities. 14 trillion dollar debt. This is because of socialism. Who is going to pay for this? You think it is free? Then doctors should work for free, no? Universal healthcare is extremely expensive and inefficient! Everyone pays HIGHER TAXES in other countries in order to afford such a massive inefficient program. We can't even run a post office, how is the government going to overhaul the healthcare system LOL!!
SUN: A point I've made many times. If you're interested my friend, see my "Universal Health Care & Gov't Inefficiency" vids. I have to laugh at the libs who think our health care system is laissez-faire. About 12% of all payments are out-of-pocket, the gov't has made themselves and other third-party payers the major source of payments. That's not a free market.
What liberals don't understand is that we have had government involved in medicine for over thirty years! We don't have free market insurance!! To all you uneducated misguided leftists out there, economic rule number one: When government spending increases, the prices of the goods they subsidize ALSO increase because of a willingness to pay on the side of the government. This explains rising medical and tuition costs.
When the Prime Minister of Canada comes to the US for surgery, I find it hard to believe the standard tripe the Left tells us about how good Government Health Care is up there.
Folks, we recently took several comments the troll below (HAUS) made on this video and corrected them. You can find it at the second link on the left side of our channel. This person at one time listed MCCAINISTHROUGH as her only friend, now her friends' list is invisible. No need to thank us now for correcting HAUS' misconceptions.
Those interested in reading the Lancet Study (HAUS hasn't read it, it dealt with more than 5-year survival rates, although that was a damning piece of evidence) can find a link to it at another of my vids. watch?v=ckFqB7aV7FY
The user HAUS has been blocked from posting, we finally checked her channel and it appears to be a spam account. She has one friend listed (mccainisthrough) and only 326 channel views on an account that is well over 3 years old. We have refuted user McCainisthrough many times, check the second link on the left side of our channel or our video playlists refuting mccainisthrough. Her comments will stay up.
Now the Kook has started flagging my comments as spam! Like, my question asking for the medical value provided by the medical insurance industry (a completely unnecessary overhead consuming 15% of insurance costs (and heaven knows how much cost in the delivery sector). An overhead completely absent in the NHS system in the UK.
HAUS: I never flagged any of your comments as spam. Quit crying little man. If you think gov't projects have no overhead costs then give me some of what you're smoking. You obviously didn't read the comments I left concerning those drugs which for years were not available in the UK, only to become available later. Please pay attention.
Anyone listening to Fox and Friends on the NHS would no doubt be very worried about health care in the UK. But the stories you hear are often gross exaggerations. One youtube user dprjones has made 5 great videos on these. Use search to watch his "Letter to America" videos about Daniel Hannan and his friends at Fox.
HAUS: You're spamming again. If you want to spam those vids (which you've done several times) do it on your own channel. I never brought up Fox & Friends, you must be getting pretty frustrated to be crushing straw men. The Lancet study went over a lot more than just 5-year cancer survival rates. Those getting transplants here were typically in worse health, yet did better after the transplant.
If two health care systems A and B were equally good you would expect in the statistics A appears better B half the time and B better than A half the time. You simply cannot judge two systems by pulling out one or two statistics. It is dishonest.
HAUS: We're still waiting for your response to that Centre for a New Europe study which you just tossed aside as biased. What's next? Are you going to say a mathematician has a bias towards 2+2=4? Everyone has health coverage in the UK, they just wait for it. It's even worse in Canada if you look up the Fraser Institute reports that come out every year.
In a lifetime of 70 years the average person might appear ONCE on a wait list. (70m people, 1m on a wait list),
"Wait times" are a misnomer. It includes all the time needed for tests to assess what's wrong, time to discuss your treatment options and the time needed to schedule the final treatment. It is not dead time at all.
@hauskalainen Now I have answered your questions lets not let you get away with not answering mine. Let's all hear your comments about the videos and the weblogs I pointed you to. You say they are spam. But they are real cases from real people who have no axe to grind and no story to tell other than their own.
Brits do live longer than Americans. There's nothing fishy about the stats. The only reference on your web site I could find was one that moaned about American's over-addiction to foods, cigarettes and guns. The first two are treatable (for free on the NHS). The third is not a problem Brits have. Even our policemen don't carry guns.
HAUS: You must not be looking very hard. The WHO report was flawed for several reasons 1) It didn't take into account traffic deaths per capita 2) Didn't take into account population demographics (certain ethnic groups are more suspceptible to heart disease and diabetes) 3) Didn't account for how diff. countries compile infant mortality stats. Economics teaches us there is no such thing as a free lunch.
@UTubekookdetector The UK is probably more ethnically diverse than the US. The UK is certainly much more densely populated than the US and we have a higher speed limit on the roads. It is hard to believe that we have a better road accident receord than the the US. If you have more road deaths that could equally well be due to poor health care post event. As for mortality statistics there is a uniform national agreement on how to do this (the ICD codes).
HAUS: Again in the second link on the left side of my channel I provided links to auto fatalities per capita. We're higher than Canada by a longshot. We cite actual data, not your bathroom wall material. We also linked to differences in how the US compiles infant mortality in comparison to several European nations. It's only hard to believe because you've never looked at the data. You sound like the users who have parroted the WHO data to us--almost verbatim
That Google link also picks up the same writer's post titled "What a Strange School System!" - What she discovered on moving back to America. That one is also worth reading. Pure anecdote of course but it in a funny way it picks up a huge difference in the cultures that many people don't even think about.
or Google "This Americans Experience of Britains Healthcare System"
It's another take on the real situation by an American who lived as a student in the US and then as a mother in the UK, and who didn't realize what she had going for her until she moved back to America.
Yes, Britiain spends less than the US on health care. A LOT LESS. And I'd say that is a good thing because it leaves us Brits to have even more spending power in our pockets. About $12,000 a year more for a family of four in fact. We are free to spend that on whatever we want.
HAUS' point here is refuted by my comments in the archives concerning the R&D research done worldwide and how much the US accounts for in new chemical entities on the market. He's avoiding this. His comment above is a subjective appeal made by one person. Probably paid to take a certain position but it doesn't look at the big picture folks.
@UTubekookdetector No. If you really want to know, it is widely acknowledged that many of the "new drugs" are nothing of the kind. The new molecules are often just slightly tweaked versions of old molecules, and this is done primarily to justify a new licence and the monopoly pricing which keeps profits high. Pharmaceuticals is a global industry, Health care is local.
HAUS: My point stands. Most chemical entities are created here in the US, more than the rest of the world combined. The rest of your rant here is just a generalized screed to cover up another one of your errors.
@UTubekookdetector Pharmaceutical research is not the same as health care. The pharmaceutical industry is global but health care is local. You have not proved your claim that the NHS is not a success. Pointing to you do as to a few statistics (which worry nobody greatly in the UK for reasons I have already given) ignores the big picture on costs and coverage, Which is what those links you are still refusing to comment on point out.
Your silly stats and stories miss the obvious fact. NHS and private exist side by side. If the NHS was as bad as you claim, Brits would demand a change. ´The simple truth is that NHS works and Brits want to protect it. Its silly of you to claim the political parties are scared of it.
HAUS: It seems you're getting frustrated. You can't refute my stats. I cite peer-reviwed research and you use Google and YT vids. You're now using ad populum appeals. If you promise Paul a handout from Peter's wallet, you'll have a lot of constituents named Paul. I'm very familiar with the stats I cite, I've been over them many times with uninformed people like you.
@UTubekookdetector Health Insurance is really the well paying for the health care of the unwell. The Peter / Paul argument applies to any kind of insurance whether privately run or government run. Your claim that people don't need insurance and can just save for their health care needs ignores the fact that costs can be astronomical and savings can run out.
HAUS: You don't pay attention very well. I never said peopel don't need insurance, what I have said is when we get the gov't involved in it prices rise and they just contribute to that with good old price controls. They always fail. Your first sentence is wrong too. Older people have higher premiums and most states (save MA, NJ &NY) allow companies to vary premiums for smokers, drug use & age.
The UK disproves your argument, Health care is cheaper when the government is involved. $12 000 per family per year cheaper
In the UK we have private & public health insurance and health care operators competind side by side. Patients can choose to be insured or get their care from either system and medical staff are free to work in the public or private system.
HAUS: I don't think your cheaper argument works. Your top personal income tax rate is 40%, ours is 35 (you do have a lower corporate income tax). Your gov't spending as a % of GDP was a little over 36% in 2000, now it's over 44%. Your taxes on capital gains are much higher than ours and you have a VAT. I said this before, more drugs are available here and you have long wait lists. That's a good cost-cutter.
@UTubekookdetector The national spend is what the national spend is. And the per capita difference between US and UK equates to about $ 3k per person. That difference already INCLUDES the tax so you are trying to muddy the issue.
You also have given no evidence regarding your drug availabilty claim. The NHS has a formulary same as most insurers but you don't have to get your drugs thru the NHS.
HAUS: I provided evidence for myclaim about drug availability. All one has to to is click the second link on the left side of my channel and see my response to McCainisthrough and a few other users.
HAUS: You obviously didn't look at my response to McCainisthrough and a few of her friends. To reiterate, my article on HC went over a lot more than the info I covered in the video. I've made that clear several times. The NHS' quest to make medical records digital has also been a failure. It will fail here too when Obama attempts it.
@UTubekookdetector No your article does not provide any evidence that there are more drugs available in the US. As for the medical records, there have been cost overruns but these have come because two private sector firms were either pulled from the project for lack of progress (CSC if I remember rightly) or pulled themselves out from the project (Arthur Andersen if I recall). Both happen to be American firms. There is little doubt that the project will deliver long term benefits.
@UTubekookdetector Older people in the UK (over 65) not only ge FREE medical care when they need it their drugs are FREE too. The cost is met from taxes. The cost of our taxes is way way lower than the cost you guys pay in terms of medical insurance, co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance. and medical related taxation. The UK system has not failed. It works brilliantly. We Brits would not want it any other way.
HAUS: Your argument here is absurd and contradictory. You assert that it's FREE and then in the next breath reference in generalized fashion "taxes" to pay for it. I do believe the Emperor needs a robe! I do need to ask you a question related to your rant above. What is the typical health insurance comp. profit margin in the US and what did the 5 biggest companies make per member last year?
@UTubekookdetector There is no such thing as a free lunch which is why I mentioned the taxes. Our doctors work to a budget to deliver maximum bang for the buck. They are incentivixed to keep people well. . A new (private) dentist in the UK one filled three of my teeth and wanted to fill a fourth. I had it rechecked with an NHS dentist. He said there was no proble. I learned a big lesson that day. Paying medics for piece work is dangerous.
HAUS: You just contradicted yourself again. Several times you've referenced "free" care and then contradicted yourself later. Now you're agreeing that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Welcome to the club! Our Constitution doesn't give the gov't the authority to engage in this sort of income redistribution.
@UTubekookdetector Insurance company profit margins are not the issue. Read the recent MY Times article on the work insurance company paperwork causes doctors. All that work in the doctors office and the insurance company adds costs that is of no benefit to the patient.
HAUS: Profit margins are an issue. You were just complaining about these companies but apparently you don't realize that their profit margin doesn't even put them in the top 50 industries in America. Their profit margin is only 2.2%.
watch?v=2OGiYg-SBoo What doctors here complain about (and sometimes bar those with gov't insurance) here is paperwork with Medicaid/care and the price controls.
HAUS: I don't accept your premise that gov't is better at delivering X, whether it be health care, education or donuts. It's inefficient. In early 2008 NICE refused to approve Abatacept because it wasn't cost effective. It took 2 years for them to change their minds on Gleevec. In a free-market, the consumer decides what is and isn't cost-effective.
There is a free market on medicines in the UK. Anyone can opt to pay for a drug if that has had marketing approval. NICE does not do marketing approvals.
NICE decisions only apply to NHS and if a drug is effective and cost effective in your circumstances you get it for free, If its not, then you free go to a private hospital and pay for it yourself. Nobody will stop you.
@UTubekookdetector So you agree then that the insurance industry in America is an overhead that does not deliver ANY heath care per se. Admin costs were $1,059 per capita $1,059 per capita in the US compared with $307 in Canada (private versus government insurance). UK is not comparable because there is no reimbursement in the main because most staff are salaried and he NHS does not have to reclaim funds from anyone. There are no speciali health care taxes as there is with Medicare for example.
HAUS: Canada's costs are much lower because they have a lot less doctors per capita, waiting times have steadily increased since 1993 and they have a lot less MRI and CT scanners per capita then the US. I've been over this once before and it is in the article I have linked under the video. Doctors here typically get paid a lot better than in Europe. Medicare is still broke even with those taxes and price controls. That's not helping your cause any.
@UTubekookdetector The Abtacept review committee was comprised 18 experts in medicine including 5 professors (of. Medical Statistics, Neurology, Surgery, Research and more), 8 medical doctors ( consultants. physicians. pharmacologists, and others) plus representatives from the nursing and medical technology professions and others. Oh and ONE representative from an NHS strategic health authority (i.e. the government). You think patients know better than these people what is and isn't effective?
@UTubekookdetector If a worried person walks into a UK onologist's office, he gets an assured income even if his patient is found not to have cancer. Not so is American counterpart. Why risk a potential malpractice suit and lose income by sending the patient away? Is it any wonder that the US has the highest rate of "cancer incidence" in the world. but only middling rates of cancer deaths?
HAUS: You're generalizing again, I will refer user to the Lancet Oncology article I've referenced several times in the archives. Many people here are getting turned away from places like Walgreens and doctors offices because they have gov't insurance (Medicare & Medicaid) and they're subject to price controls. The people crowding ERs here are not those without insurance, but those with gov't insurance.
@UTubekookdetector Find me a web site in the UK where the retail pharmacies (all private by the way) are complaining about price controls. You won't find one. They get stocked by the pharmaceutical companies who have negotiate prices with the NHS. The pharma groups could decline to deliver to the UK but of course they don't. The system works and rewards everyone fairly.
HAUS: I assume you're agreeing with my point about the US being responsible for most new chemical entities. Considering the UK is responsible for less than 4% of it, I doubt they're pulling the cart.
HAUS: Your point here is silly. NHS bureaucracy is one of the main reasons your pharma industry is tiny compared to ours and the reason we have access to more drugs. Your post above is conjecture, which you rely on quite a bit. "MAYBE"? Maybe you should deal in absolutes instread of conjecture. My article on HC went over a lot more than just cancer survival rates. I can tell you have not read it.
@UTubekookdetector You make claims but offer no evidence. There are some very large UK drug companies; GlaxoSmithKline for example and Astra Zeneca. If what you said was true you should easily find evidence from them of your claim about NHS bureacruacy. I doubt you can point me to any though 'cos u simply made it up,
@UTubekookdetector Really?? Astra Zeneca is British/Swedish and GlaxoSmithKline is totally British and you STILL have not founded your claim about availability on any evidence .
AZ and GSK are major world players. They are not saying what you say. You are making it up!
If you have evidence give it here (not pointers to our web site which NEVER backs up what you claim. it does).
HAUS: It doesn't matter if you believe me or not kiddo. I've cited several times research showing the massive amounts of $ used on R&D and the fact that our pharma industry dwarfs yours. Those interested can check the second link on the left side of my channel. McCainisthrough and several of her friends were already corrected on this.
HAUS: I can turn this argument around on you, if health care is "free" why does anyone have to pay for Abtacept? I've gone over free-market reforms several times where people could use their HC for major items like surgery and if they wanted something like the chiropracter or an experimental drug, they could pay for that themselves. You're letting gov't bureaucrats decide for you. The reason you're worried about costs is because the cost is covered by someone else, not the patient usually.
Listen Bud. I am only querying your silly video statement that the UK's NHS is not a success because a little pinprick of data in one area of care appears to show the US does better. Apart from the fact that even that data is questionable, such a small statistic is no way to judge a complete health care system!
@UTubekookdetector Those references from real Americans telling their stories are, to me, much more meaningful than your references to exceptional items. America has a terrible record of premature deaths in pregnancy and infancy. Those free mother and baby clinics for pre and post natal care we have in Europe are marvellous. I don't regret paying taxes to fund them.
HAUS: Once again, you leave a lot out. There are many different ways countries compile infant mortality stats and that is part of the reason the US was behind in that skewed WHO report. In addition, more and more mothers here are taking fertility drugs (which contributes to multiple births and chances of problems) and are over 35 when having their first kid. You're being generalized.
@UTubekookdetector I am not referring to any WHO report. You can get the mortality rates from the CDC web site (US) and the Office of Naional Statistics (UK). And hear this. Fertitily treatment (available for free in the UK NHS) is not unique to the US. The world's first test tube baby was born in the UK thanks to the NHS..
HAUS: I never said fertility treatment was NOT available to the rest of the world. Rather than take issue with my stats you offer another diversion. I assume you're not going to challenge those stats I went over in previous messages. You need an economics class, there is no free lunch. You're using the same talking points parroted from a WHO report a few years ago.
No you are diverting from the main issue which is that your video judges an entire health care system by its 5 year cancer survivial statistics.
There are very many states that have no canccer registers so the US data is lacking. Also US cancer "incidence" way more cancers than other countries but in fact US mortality from cancer is in the middle range internationally. Maybe those high US "cancer incidences" were like the "hole" in my tooth (i.e. non-existent).
I think this HAUS person also need to be reminded (as most liberals do) that the US HC system is not free-market. It has not been for some time. When almost 50% of HC dollars are covered by the gov't (and rising) and people via POMS regulations are forced into a gov't-run Medicare system, that's hardly free-market. The fact that they do not know this is very telling.
Given justification. A couple of statistics where the US does better.
The wider view. People in the UK lead healthier lives, live longer, never have to worry about the affordability of medicines or visits to the doctor, have access to private health insurance and private hospitals if they want (only 10% do so).
HAUS: I gave more than a few stats. Canada and the UK spend a lot less (remember, life-saving drugs and operations don't come without a price tag) because people are waiting much longer there. Remember my figures about R&D, it's expensive and we have many more drugs available here. Your point about life expectancy has already been debunked, see the 2nd link on the left side of my channel.
@UTubekookdetector There is no evidence that people wait longer in the UK than in the US. Getting to see a general doctor is easy in the UK and many of those people in the links I gave indicated that its no better or worse than in the US. .Same day appointments are the norm in the UK and home visits by doctors are possible. Not so in the US. There are no statistics available on wait times for patients in the US because nobody dares to track it.
HAUS: I would wager there are plenty of stats for U.S. wait times, you're just too lazy to find out. You need it spoonfed to you. I will say that our gov't-run HC apparatus is having major problems--more and more doctors are staying away from Medicare and Medicaid because of price controls and red tape. That's bureaucracy for you.
I have looked. The US does not track people waiting.
The UK tracks all people who have to wait bit not thse like my mother who was scheduled to get new hip joint the day after a fracture was diagnosed. For this reason our wait times seem higher then they really are.
In America there are no central tracking systems. Many people in the U.S. have to wait even for an appointment but their wait times are not tracked.
The fear mongering! "If you're retred and lover 70 and you need a hip replacement you can forget about it".
The truth. Google "At 59, GOP congressman says he couldn't get a hip replacement in Canada or England" for the independent politifact research on this.
Age discrimination in the NHS is outlawed by both the the Eqality Act and the NHS's own constitution.
HAUS: You need to pay better attention. Several times on this thread I've gone over free-market solutions to health care dilemmas. In addition, those interested can see in the archives where HAUS obviously didn't pay attention to my initial post about Judith R. I mentioned the fact that the Ombudsman ruled against the NHS. HAUS made it seem as if I left that out.
You: People are responsible for their own lives - not the government.
Me: The NHS is there to relieve worry about costs during illness. Not to ensure that relatives get an inheritance.
Roe's home SHOULD be sold to pay for end of life nursing care and the government take over only when her resources run out. But you were seemingly outraged at the idea.
HAUS: Glad you brought up the NHS again (remember you didn't read my comment about Mrs. Roe and omitted my remark about the Ombudsman--was that deliberate or are you just sloppy?). DId you see the reports on Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust? Very poor conditions there and you're digging yourself a bigger hole when one brings up the transition to digital medical records. Way over budget and very late in being implemented.
@UTubekookdetector Er.... I will answer you on Mid-Staffs once you answer my question about who should have paid for Mrs Roe's end of life care. The government or Mrs Roe (Given that these were the only two options).
HAUS: Your silence on Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust was predictable, but it does speak volumes (and we accept your concession on that point). I already answered your question concerning Mrs. Roe. You see, over here the gov't doesn't have the constitutional authority to redistibute income, nor does it have the inherent authority to enact price controls, which is what Medicare and Medicaid rely on. Ergo, you have a lot of claims for those on gov't insurance getting rejected.
@UTubekookdetector I said I would respond when you tell me if you think it was the government's responsibility to protect Mrs Roe's family from losing their inheritance to pay for her day to day care given that Alzheimers had prevented her from caring for herself. She clearly had no more use for that house herself. So far you have not answered that point. I am not evading answering your point about Mid-Staffs but you seem to be evading mine.
HAUS: I already answered your questions and I'm not going to go round in circles three more times with you on this. In the US it's not the job of the gov't to provide retirement security or to use Peter's wallet to pay for Paul's expenses. Those interested can check the archives and see your errors in this regard.
@UTubekookdetector My point is that you tried to mislead readers about the situation with Mrs Roe. You said
"the NHS told one family that Alzheimer's was not a "health condition" and Judith Roe was denied treatment. "
The argument was not whether or not she had Alzheimer's but whether the social care arising from it was a medical issue (to be paid from her health insurance) or a social care issue.. The NHS had not denied her any health care.
@UTubekookdetector Not so??????? It was a direct quote from you!!!! It was wrong and its purpose was to mislead.
There are people with severe arthritis who get social care as well as health care. Their health care is paid for by the NHS but their social care is their own responsibility until their resources are exhausted. I don't see why Mrs Roe should be in a more privilidged position which is what the ombudman decided.
Interesting to read in the New York Times today that the scare tactics used by republicans such as referencing "Obamacare" , "government take over" and "death panels" (all of which are false) has so well sunk into the public that the scammers have moved in and are selling fake policies telling people the policies will mean they can escape these things. Shame on people like you for stirring up unwarranted fear.
HAUS: This comment here must be your last-ditch effort. Nobody is going to sell me a fake policy because I don't do anything in the "heat of the moment." Your comment about a gov't takeover is quite curious, the US has slowly been moving towards HC socialization for some time. Next year, more than half of all HC dollars spent will be by the gov't and less than 12% of all expenses will be out-of-pocket.
@UTubekookdetector But for govt employees & military, govt spending comes from the Medicare trust fund. Yes, it is socialized medicine. Seniors like it. And for the most part it is not going broke (despite what people say). If costs are reigned in (as they can be if you get to European cost levels) and contributions raised only slightly, the funds are solvent. My guess is that Obama will turn to the high costs next.
HAUS: Are you dropping your contentions about people waiting for HC in the UK and the fact that the US has access to many more drugs when compared to the UK and Canada. I also noticed you didn't say anything about the research published in Lancet Oncology.
@UTubekookdetector Certainly not. Wait times are not a problem in the UK. See the vid links or get the stats from the Dept of Health web site. One third of all hospital admissions are emergencies (no wait time), one third are scheduled normally, and only one third cannot be scheduled to the patients earliest preference. Of this last third, nobody should waits more than 18 weeks from referral to final treatment (including time for investigations and tests). Median wait time is about 9 weeks.
HAUS: You're making it up. You need to read Lancet Oncology, Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 730 - 756, August 2008, we're better at treating most cancers. I already cited that once anyways. We need to get a response to your Big Pharma argument though, per our Axelrod response. Are you dropping that now? You used that as a response to the study showing long wait lists in the UK.
@UTubekookdetector Figure are real but I accidently put the stats for breast cancer deaths the wrong way round. That was accidental and not deliberate. the point I was making is that the difference is small even though the percentage difference is high. British women are not likely to want to rid themselves of the NHS because of that risk any more than Americans will want to abandon the motor car for the other. Your use of stats is intended to scare where mine just puts it into perspective.
Suppose Mrs Roe had had cancer and Treatment A would extend her life by 18 months but costs $60 000. Adding Treatment B to Treatment A (the wonder drug, say) extends it an extra 6 months but it costs an additional $50 000. What happens?
The NHS pays for treatment A but not B. You can have Treatment B if you pay for it privately out of pocket or from a private top up insurance.
HAUS: When you say the NHS pays for treatment you need to say "taxpayer" instead. Suppose Mrs. Roe has "catastrophic insurance" and could put pre-taxed dollars into an HSA her entire life. She could probably pay for her cancer treatment then. Treatment B probably wouldn't even be available in the UK, we have access to more drugs here.
@UTubekookdetector "Not available in the UK"? The EMA (European Medicines Agency) is an EU body which licenses medicinal products for use across the whole of Europe in conformity with arrangements laid down by the World Health Organization. I'm unsure why you isolate the UK. And where is your evidence that drug marketers get lisences in the US but not in Europe?
HAUS: According Joseph DiMasi & Henry Grabowski it takes about 1.2 billion to do the necessary R&D to bring a drug to market. Since 1999 America has accounted for 71% of the sales of new chemical entities, up from 62%. Japan and Germany, the next two largest pharma markets account for just 4% each.
@UTubekookdetector A classic reply. You ignored a question which merely asked you to justify your claim and dropped another misleading statement in. All I am asking for is your evidence for your claim that drugs get licensed in the US but not in UK. (You said UK but drugs these days get licensed Europe-wide). I'll tell you why its misleading once you answer my question. Where is the evidence for drugs not getting a licence in Europe?
HAUS: Not every entity in Europe is like the UK's health care system. You're the one that is being very misleading. You're falsely assuming that European health care is like the UK, it is not. From your reply you're clearly upset because I've seen the data and you're spamming YT videos as evidence.
@UTubekookdetector Here we have a classic reply from UTubekookdetector which ignores the reality as I have stated it and posits, without evidence, a new "fear", The situation in the UK is exactly as I have described it. An HSA is not insurance but a tax loophole for the rich to pay for their wives facelifts and boob jobs with aid from the government. The government ought not to fund these things.
HAUS: You're actually undercutting your own argument here. When the gov't takes over, there's always going to be rent-seeking where every individual and corporate entity wants their product paid for so demand can be artificially stimulated. A Health Savings Account is paid for by the consumer, with their own dollars. No wonder LASIK eye surgery has gotten cheaper, it's not mandated... yet.
HAUS: Axelrod has ties to AKPD Message and Media which handled advertising for ObamaCare. Axelrod has conflicts of interest and is in favor of socialized medicine, ergo socialized med. is bad. This is the same argument you used when I cited that Centre for Europe study showing millions of Britions were waiting for health care. You'll have to drop your argument or adjust it.
HAUS: Thanks for the spam. Or a person could read my article on it and see that people like HAUS don't even understand our HC system and how it has slowly been moving towards socialism for decades. Any comment about the Lancet Oncology article comparing cancer treatments in the US against those in Canada and Europe? Any comment about the fact that we have so many more drugs available here?
@UTubekookdetector Your video is more misleading that the one I referenced. US cancer registers are not representative. They cover much lower population percentages and overrepresent the big teaching hospitals with the latest equipment. We should not dismiss this research but we need to be cautious.
@UTubekookdetector Drugs are licenced same as FDA rules and sold to the NHS as well as to private paying patients. The NHS has a formularly just as US insurers do, You can always buy it out of pocket or use a private insurance supplement if you have one. The NHS does not waste money on drugs that are approved for safety but have little effect.
HAUS: THe NHS has the final say as to what can be on the market. A drug that is safe and being used in the US might not be available over there because of the prevalence of price controls. Shouldn't the people decide whether a drug is worth the money or not? NHS does not empower the people. The Rarer Cancers Forum reported that 16K people were denied cancer drugs by the NHS.
@UTubekookdetector WHAT PRICE CONTROLS???? Sure, the NHS sets a limit on what it is prepared to pay looking at all things such as benefit and the cost recovery needed for research and manufacture. But they don't set prices for anyone else. The drug companies can sell to the rest of the market for whatever price they want.
HAUS: You didn't know about Medicare and Medicaid's price controls? You just admitted that the NHS has to set a cap on benefits, otherwise the system would go bankrupt. We thank you for being so candid. That's what happens when you put the gov't in charge instead of the people. Everyone should have "catastrophic health insurance", then they would pay for more treatement out-of-pocket and big-ticket items such as surgery would be covered.
@UTubekookdetector We Brits know that there is a limit on spending just as there is in the US. We do it by a mixture of democratic choice re overall budget and trust in the medical profession to spend it wisely.
HAUS: Glad to see you finally realized that money doesn't grow on trees and when the Fed prints is, everyone gets the shaft. Rather than have my money redistributed I should be allowed to 1) Save for my own retirement and not be shackled with payroll taxes. 2) I should be allowed to get a high-deductible, low-premium HC plan. 3) I should be allowed to have an HSA and save pre-taxed dollars for HC in my retirement. Much better than our current redistributionist mindset.
No it is hard earned by working people like me and controlled demoncratically.
Brits don't waste health care funds on insurance overheads (because there is none);: or in marketing, or on billing functions (there are none); or the funding of political campaigns of lawmakers, or funding spammers trying to scare people.
None of that would generate any health care benefit so we just don't do it.
HAUS: You need an economics class. Competition lowers prices. If I had the option of getting "catastrophic insurance" I would pay low premiums and in the event of a major injury I would be taken care of. I rarely go to the doctor, I could build up my HSA in that time frame. Socialized medicine is the government's way of making the young pay for the old.
@UTubekookdetector I need no education. It's the absence of competition that is the problem. The new expensive cancer drugs always come from companies seeking to exploit the limited period of their exclusive rights.
HAUS: Another fallacious point here: How much does the typical pharmaceutical company spend on R&D for a new drug? Why does the UK and Canada lag behind the US in R&D?
@UTubekookdetector Pharma industry is global. There is a huge industry in the UK. GlaxoSmithKline is 4th in the world behind Roche which is Swiss. America is number one but then Britain is a tiny country by comparison. 18 of the world's top 100 medicines were developed in the UK. watch?v=lk_4_kGy1OM
@UTubekookdetector Ha ha ha ha. The Forum you speak of is financially supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Celgene Ltd, Idis , GSK, Merck Sharp Novartis, Pfizer & Roche Products Ltd. I wonder why?
HAUS: Your comment here could be turned against you. I could simply cite David Axelrod's ties to Big Pharma as my entire argument against ObamaCare but you wouldn't go for that. It's apparent you're getting more desperate as this debate progresses. No comment about that NHS hospital I mentioned and its major problems with treating patients?
@UTubekookdetector I don't care about Axelrod - he's nothing to me. As regards the hospital its poor results were picked up and investigated. That gives me some assurance. The sad truth in America is that there is evidence of unwarranted over use of surgery and not much evidence of supervision. Could that be because American doctors only get paid if they cut people open?
HAUS: If you don't care about Axelrod then that invalidates your argument about Bayer et al. backing up that study I posted to you proving that the UK had long waiting lists for HC. You just invalidated your own argument. We appreciate you being candid. I don't care about over use of surgery as long as I am not paying for it.
HAUS: In addition, the NHS told one family that Alzheimer's was not a "health condition" and Judith Roe was denied treatment. Later that was reversed by the Health Service Ombudsman. Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust has come under fire for very poor conditions. Empower the gov't and you don't empower the people.
@UTubekookdetector Hmm. Judith Roe was NOT DENIED TREATMENT!!!! A body decided (wrongly) that the government was not liable TO PAY for her care. The family went to the Ombudsman (who is there to safeguard against wrongful decision making in the public sector without resort to lawyers) who agreed that the government should pay. So what do you think? Should the government pay for her care?? I look forward to hearing your answer!!!!
HAUS: Judith Roe had to fight to get her treatement from a gov't-run system. Should the government be responsible for the health care of people? If that's what you're asking, then no. Why would I want a Medicare-like system to take care of me? Of course a lot of seniors like Medicare, they're not paying for it anymore and its liabilities will eat up the entire budget in 72 years.
We are educated people in the UK and we know the line you are selling to be a deliberate distortion..Most Americans too, I am sure have come to see the difference between spin and reality, They too are not stupid,
The world wide interweb thingy has become a weapon a mass of deception but people can see beyond the lies when the look carefully and use the thing that sits between their ears properly.
He was only 65 (but a heavy smoker and drinker most of his life) and had both lung and neck cancer. I have never smoked but I think that if I get to a ripe old age I'd rather have a quick death from cancer than a slow death from Alzheimers.
It is very misleading to just pick and choose what stats to publish. Also we need to think about whether we want to be cured. Last week I lost a cousin to cancer after a three year battle. He was grateful for the extra time to do the things he wanted to do but decided about 4 weeks ago that the treatments had extended his life but his life was becoming so hellish he told his doctors he wanted no more.
There are no laws preventing you from purchasing insurance across state lines.
But the insurer in another state selling into a state must comply with that states's laws and keep proper accounts for the insured in that state, That's entirely reasonable!!!
HAUS: Unless you work for a large firm and fall under ERISA regulations (which should be repealed) you can't. If you're a member of the private insurance market you are given the shaft because the gov't already skewed the system towards those with employer-provided insurance, which is great until we have a recession.
"States have primary regulatory authority over insurance. As a result, insurers are allowed to sell policies only in states where they are licensed to do business. Most insurers obtain licenses in multiple states. "
So all that needs to happen is for a insurer to seek a licence to sell in the target state. It is for the insurers to act if they want to get the business of people in the target state.
HAUS: I never said states didn't have regulatory authority over health ins., but I can't purchase health insurance outside IA and unless you fall under ERISA, you can't (I meant to say earlier that ERISA should be expanded, not repealed). There are a lot states should do. Dump a lot of the costly mandates which raise premiums and allow more purchasing of health ins. across state lines. Ever thing some insurers don't venture into a state because of regulations?
Nonsense! Go to ehealthinsurance and you'll get lots of quotes from out of state companies. I just checked one but there are many listed. Celtic for example is Illinois based but is licenced in all states except New York. Mandated coverage will only raise premiums if they cost the insurers a lot. All the more reason to be insured against those things. The reason the mandates are there is to protect the public from insurers selling cheap but ineffective policies.
HAUS: You're losing it. I never said health insurers never have branches in other states, nor did I say everyone was unable to purchase health insurance across state lines (remember my ERISA comment?). However, millions of Americans are indeed trapped in their state, only able to buy insurance in that state. If you live in NJ, you're in big trouble. NH and KY repealed their "guaranteed issue" laws because insurers started leaving the state.
HAUS: What's your source? I remember going over (in my HC article) the fact that you're more likely to survive a major organ transplant here than in the UK, but not the # done. I also remember that the typical person getting an organ transplant here was in much poorer health, yet they still had a better chance for survival.
@UTubekookdetector US stats are from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients web site ustransplant(dot)org. The UK stats are from the main UK charity in support of kidney patients in the UK from their site at kidney{dot)org(dot)uk. These are my sources. Where are yours from?
HAUS: My material comes from many sources, check under the video. One of the main articles is The Lancet Oncology, Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 730 - 756, August 2008 showing the US treats 13 of 16 cancers better than Europe. You're simply saying the US does more transplants per capita, which I'm not denying, but our sirvival rates are much better after a transplant.
HAUS: I will dispute your figures concerning # of Britons waiting for HC. IN 2004, about 1 million were waiting to be admitted to a hospital. I have tried in vain to post the URL by disguising it, but it won't work. It was published by the "Centre for a New Europe" in Sept of 2004. Titled "Towards a Greater Partnership in Health Care Funding."
Almost nobody in the UK waits more that 18 weeks between the date of the referral and the end of their treatment. Guaranteed! (Transplants are of course an exception due to supply).
There are 70 million Brits so at any one time just over 1% of the population is ever on a wating list. A waiting list which ensures they are treated within 18 weeks. The median wait time is about 9 weeks. That's pretty good news I'd say!!
UK adults wait on average just over 2 years for a kidney transplant but in that time just 14% of those waiting will have died. Kids in the UK wait less than 6 months.
Wait time in the US is 4 years! Almost 20% of those waiting will have died in that 4 years.
Who cares if the 5 year survival rate is marginally lower.
"If you eliminate illegal aliens and the young who are healthy and uninsured then there are only 5% uninsured"... well I don't know where you get your numbers but you can eliminate whole classes of people who are uninsured and then claim that there are no (or not many) uninsured!
In other countries everyone has to be insured and so it will be in America. Aliens will not qualify for subsidies.
HAUS: See the linked info under the vid, I made that clear in the vid. My base # comes from the Census Bureau and it not even in the 40 millions, where the libs parroting talking points put it. Many of these households make more then $75K year or are eligible for some program but fail to enroll. Requiring Americans to purchase something is a violation of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amend.
The healthy young need to be protected by insurance because ill health can strike at any time.
The very principle of insurance is that the fortunate ones are the healthy one who pay their premiums and thank their lucky stars that they don't get ill. The unfortunate ill also pay their premiums but are assured that their bills are paid even though they exceed their premium contributions.
Furthermore, we are broke. 113 trillion in unfunded liabilities. 14 trillion dollar debt. This is because of socialism. Who is going to pay for this? You think it is free? Then doctors should work for free, no? Universal healthcare is extremely expensive and inefficient! Everyone pays HIGHER TAXES in other countries in order to afford such a massive inefficient program. We can't even run a post office, how is the government going to overhaul the healthcare system LOL!!
AroundSun 7 months ago
SUN: A point I've made many times. If you're interested my friend, see my "Universal Health Care & Gov't Inefficiency" vids. I have to laugh at the libs who think our health care system is laissez-faire. About 12% of all payments are out-of-pocket, the gov't has made themselves and other third-party payers the major source of payments. That's not a free market.
UTubekookdetector 7 months ago
What liberals don't understand is that we have had government involved in medicine for over thirty years! We don't have free market insurance!! To all you uneducated misguided leftists out there, economic rule number one: When government spending increases, the prices of the goods they subsidize ALSO increase because of a willingness to pay on the side of the government. This explains rising medical and tuition costs.
AroundSun 7 months ago
When the Prime Minister of Canada comes to the US for surgery, I find it hard to believe the standard tripe the Left tells us about how good Government Health Care is up there.
PaulUmbarger 1 year ago
PAUL: Good point, are you referring to Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams? Italy's PM Silvio Berlusconi also came here for health care.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Folks, we recently took several comments the troll below (HAUS) made on this video and corrected them. You can find it at the second link on the left side of our channel. This person at one time listed MCCAINISTHROUGH as her only friend, now her friends' list is invisible. No need to thank us now for correcting HAUS' misconceptions.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Those interested in reading the Lancet Study (HAUS hasn't read it, it dealt with more than 5-year survival rates, although that was a damning piece of evidence) can find a link to it at another of my vids. watch?v=ckFqB7aV7FY
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
The user HAUS has been blocked from posting, we finally checked her channel and it appears to be a spam account. She has one friend listed (mccainisthrough) and only 326 channel views on an account that is well over 3 years old. We have refuted user McCainisthrough many times, check the second link on the left side of our channel or our video playlists refuting mccainisthrough. Her comments will stay up.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Now the Kook has started flagging my comments as spam! Like, my question asking for the medical value provided by the medical insurance industry (a completely unnecessary overhead consuming 15% of insurance costs (and heaven knows how much cost in the delivery sector). An overhead completely absent in the NHS system in the UK.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I never flagged any of your comments as spam. Quit crying little man. If you think gov't projects have no overhead costs then give me some of what you're smoking. You obviously didn't read the comments I left concerning those drugs which for years were not available in the UK, only to become available later. Please pay attention.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Anyone listening to Fox and Friends on the NHS would no doubt be very worried about health care in the UK. But the stories you hear are often gross exaggerations. One youtube user dprjones has made 5 great videos on these. Use search to watch his "Letter to America" videos about Daniel Hannan and his friends at Fox.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You're spamming again. If you want to spam those vids (which you've done several times) do it on your own channel. I never brought up Fox & Friends, you must be getting pretty frustrated to be crushing straw men. The Lancet study went over a lot more than just 5-year cancer survival rates. Those getting transplants here were typically in worse health, yet did better after the transplant.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
If two health care systems A and B were equally good you would expect in the statistics A appears better B half the time and B better than A half the time. You simply cannot judge two systems by pulling out one or two statistics. It is dishonest.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Here are the links again still awaiting your comment.
watch?v=yPiMMCD3ec4
watch?v=SFEnbRt-4FE
And Srawberry's blog "PotentialandExpectations"
I am not saying health care in the UK is the world's best or the world's cheapest but it is not the horror story that people like he pretends it is.
You are selling unwarranted "fears". I am just asking people to think rationally about the subject.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: We're still waiting for your response to that Centre for a New Europe study which you just tossed aside as biased. What's next? Are you going to say a mathematician has a bias towards 2+2=4? Everyone has health coverage in the UK, they just wait for it. It's even worse in Canada if you look up the Fraser Institute reports that come out every year.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I didn't toss it aside.
In a lifetime of 70 years the average person might appear ONCE on a wait list. (70m people, 1m on a wait list),
"Wait times" are a misnomer. It includes all the time needed for tests to assess what's wrong, time to discuss your treatment options and the time needed to schedule the final treatment. It is not dead time at all.
The median "wait time" is 9 weeks.
All told, I think that is EXCELLENT.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@hauskalainen Now I have answered your questions lets not let you get away with not answering mine. Let's all hear your comments about the videos and the weblogs I pointed you to. You say they are spam. But they are real cases from real people who have no axe to grind and no story to tell other than their own.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
I STILL want t hear your response to this
potentialandexpectations (dot) wordpress (dotcom)
This is the real world of health care in the US and the UK by a mother who has children with health issues.
I don't think she is being paid by any political or commercial outfit to say these things. I comes from the heart.
Your thoughts please. Your readers will judge you by the tone of your reply.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@hauskalainen Still waiting for your reply
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Brits do live longer than Americans. There's nothing fishy about the stats. The only reference on your web site I could find was one that moaned about American's over-addiction to foods, cigarettes and guns. The first two are treatable (for free on the NHS). The third is not a problem Brits have. Even our policemen don't carry guns.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You must not be looking very hard. The WHO report was flawed for several reasons 1) It didn't take into account traffic deaths per capita 2) Didn't take into account population demographics (certain ethnic groups are more suspceptible to heart disease and diabetes) 3) Didn't account for how diff. countries compile infant mortality stats. Economics teaches us there is no such thing as a free lunch.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I have not referred to any WHO statistics. Whatever gave you that idea?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You're parroting the same talking points from the WHO report. I've heard them all countless times.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The UK is probably more ethnically diverse than the US. The UK is certainly much more densely populated than the US and we have a higher speed limit on the roads. It is hard to believe that we have a better road accident receord than the the US. If you have more road deaths that could equally well be due to poor health care post event. As for mortality statistics there is a uniform national agreement on how to do this (the ICD codes).
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Again in the second link on the left side of my channel I provided links to auto fatalities per capita. We're higher than Canada by a longshot. We cite actual data, not your bathroom wall material. We also linked to differences in how the US compiles infant mortality in comparison to several European nations. It's only hard to believe because you've never looked at the data. You sound like the users who have parroted the WHO data to us--almost verbatim
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
That Google link also picks up the same writer's post titled "What a Strange School System!" - What she discovered on moving back to America. That one is also worth reading. Pure anecdote of course but it in a funny way it picks up a huge difference in the cultures that many people don't even think about.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
watch?v=yPiMMCD3ec4
watch?v=SFEnbRt-4FE
or Google "This Americans Experience of Britains Healthcare System"
It's another take on the real situation by an American who lived as a student in the US and then as a mother in the UK, and who didn't realize what she had going for her until she moved back to America.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Yes, Britiain spends less than the US on health care. A LOT LESS. And I'd say that is a good thing because it leaves us Brits to have even more spending power in our pockets. About $12,000 a year more for a family of four in fact. We are free to spend that on whatever we want.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS' point here is refuted by my comments in the archives concerning the R&D research done worldwide and how much the US accounts for in new chemical entities on the market. He's avoiding this. His comment above is a subjective appeal made by one person. Probably paid to take a certain position but it doesn't look at the big picture folks.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector No. If you really want to know, it is widely acknowledged that many of the "new drugs" are nothing of the kind. The new molecules are often just slightly tweaked versions of old molecules, and this is done primarily to justify a new licence and the monopoly pricing which keeps profits high. Pharmaceuticals is a global industry, Health care is local.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: My point stands. Most chemical entities are created here in the US, more than the rest of the world combined. The rest of your rant here is just a generalized screed to cover up another one of your errors.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Pharmaceutical research is not the same as health care. The pharmaceutical industry is global but health care is local. You have not proved your claim that the NHS is not a success. Pointing to you do as to a few statistics (which worry nobody greatly in the UK for reasons I have already given) ignores the big picture on costs and coverage, Which is what those links you are still refusing to comment on point out.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Your silly stats and stories miss the obvious fact. NHS and private exist side by side. If the NHS was as bad as you claim, Brits would demand a change. ´The simple truth is that NHS works and Brits want to protect it. Its silly of you to claim the political parties are scared of it.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: It seems you're getting frustrated. You can't refute my stats. I cite peer-reviwed research and you use Google and YT vids. You're now using ad populum appeals. If you promise Paul a handout from Peter's wallet, you'll have a lot of constituents named Paul. I'm very familiar with the stats I cite, I've been over them many times with uninformed people like you.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Health Insurance is really the well paying for the health care of the unwell. The Peter / Paul argument applies to any kind of insurance whether privately run or government run. Your claim that people don't need insurance and can just save for their health care needs ignores the fact that costs can be astronomical and savings can run out.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You don't pay attention very well. I never said peopel don't need insurance, what I have said is when we get the gov't involved in it prices rise and they just contribute to that with good old price controls. They always fail. Your first sentence is wrong too. Older people have higher premiums and most states (save MA, NJ &NY) allow companies to vary premiums for smokers, drug use & age.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
The UK disproves your argument, Health care is cheaper when the government is involved. $12 000 per family per year cheaper
In the UK we have private & public health insurance and health care operators competind side by side. Patients can choose to be insured or get their care from either system and medical staff are free to work in the public or private system.
Most patients and staff choose the public option.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I don't think your cheaper argument works. Your top personal income tax rate is 40%, ours is 35 (you do have a lower corporate income tax). Your gov't spending as a % of GDP was a little over 36% in 2000, now it's over 44%. Your taxes on capital gains are much higher than ours and you have a VAT. I said this before, more drugs are available here and you have long wait lists. That's a good cost-cutter.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The national spend is what the national spend is. And the per capita difference between US and UK equates to about $ 3k per person. That difference already INCLUDES the tax so you are trying to muddy the issue.
You also have given no evidence regarding your drug availabilty claim. The NHS has a formulary same as most insurers but you don't have to get your drugs thru the NHS.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I provided evidence for myclaim about drug availability. All one has to to is click the second link on the left side of my channel and see my response to McCainisthrough and a few other users.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
Your claim was
"there are drugs available in the US that are not available in the UK".
Nothing in your links proves that claim. Try again.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
It does not say what you claim (that there are drugs available in the US they are not availbale in the UK). Try again!
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You obviously didn't look at my response to McCainisthrough and a few of her friends. To reiterate, my article on HC went over a lot more than the info I covered in the video. I've made that clear several times. The NHS' quest to make medical records digital has also been a failure. It will fail here too when Obama attempts it.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector No your article does not provide any evidence that there are more drugs available in the US. As for the medical records, there have been cost overruns but these have come because two private sector firms were either pulled from the project for lack of progress (CSC if I remember rightly) or pulled themselves out from the project (Arthur Andersen if I recall). Both happen to be American firms. There is little doubt that the project will deliver long term benefits.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Older people in the UK (over 65) not only ge FREE medical care when they need it their drugs are FREE too. The cost is met from taxes. The cost of our taxes is way way lower than the cost you guys pay in terms of medical insurance, co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance. and medical related taxation. The UK system has not failed. It works brilliantly. We Brits would not want it any other way.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Your argument here is absurd and contradictory. You assert that it's FREE and then in the next breath reference in generalized fashion "taxes" to pay for it. I do believe the Emperor needs a robe! I do need to ask you a question related to your rant above. What is the typical health insurance comp. profit margin in the US and what did the 5 biggest companies make per member last year?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector There is no such thing as a free lunch which is why I mentioned the taxes. Our doctors work to a budget to deliver maximum bang for the buck. They are incentivixed to keep people well. . A new (private) dentist in the UK one filled three of my teeth and wanted to fill a fourth. I had it rechecked with an NHS dentist. He said there was no proble. I learned a big lesson that day. Paying medics for piece work is dangerous.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You just contradicted yourself again. Several times you've referenced "free" care and then contradicted yourself later. Now you're agreeing that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Welcome to the club! Our Constitution doesn't give the gov't the authority to engage in this sort of income redistribution.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Insurance company profit margins are not the issue. Read the recent MY Times article on the work insurance company paperwork causes doctors. All that work in the doctors office and the insurance company adds costs that is of no benefit to the patient.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Profit margins are an issue. You were just complaining about these companies but apparently you don't realize that their profit margin doesn't even put them in the top 50 industries in America. Their profit margin is only 2.2%.
watch?v=2OGiYg-SBoo What doctors here complain about (and sometimes bar those with gov't insurance) here is paperwork with Medicaid/care and the price controls.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
Why have an insurance industry ?
Does it deliver health care ?
Or just overhead ?
NHS doctors and patients never have an insurance coming between them.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I don't accept your premise that gov't is better at delivering X, whether it be health care, education or donuts. It's inefficient. In early 2008 NICE refused to approve Abatacept because it wasn't cost effective. It took 2 years for them to change their minds on Gleevec. In a free-market, the consumer decides what is and isn't cost-effective.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UTubekookdetector
Why have an insurance industry ?
Does it deliver health care ?
Or just overhead ?
NHS doctors and patients never have an insurance coming between them.
hauskalainen 3 days ago
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
There is a free market on medicines in the UK. Anyone can opt to pay for a drug if that has had marketing approval. NICE does not do marketing approvals.
NICE decisions only apply to NHS and if a drug is effective and cost effective in your circumstances you get it for free, If its not, then you free go to a private hospital and pay for it yourself. Nobody will stop you.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector So you agree then that the insurance industry in America is an overhead that does not deliver ANY heath care per se. Admin costs were $1,059 per capita $1,059 per capita in the US compared with $307 in Canada (private versus government insurance). UK is not comparable because there is no reimbursement in the main because most staff are salaried and he NHS does not have to reclaim funds from anyone. There are no speciali health care taxes as there is with Medicare for example.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Canada's costs are much lower because they have a lot less doctors per capita, waiting times have steadily increased since 1993 and they have a lot less MRI and CT scanners per capita then the US. I've been over this once before and it is in the article I have linked under the video. Doctors here typically get paid a lot better than in Europe. Medicare is still broke even with those taxes and price controls. That's not helping your cause any.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
You are diverting again with a minor issue away from the big picture.
What health care benefit do YOU think the health insurance industry delivers?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The Abtacept review committee was comprised 18 experts in medicine including 5 professors (of. Medical Statistics, Neurology, Surgery, Research and more), 8 medical doctors ( consultants. physicians. pharmacologists, and others) plus representatives from the nursing and medical technology professions and others. Oh and ONE representative from an NHS strategic health authority (i.e. the government). You think patients know better than these people what is and isn't effective?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector If a worried person walks into a UK onologist's office, he gets an assured income even if his patient is found not to have cancer. Not so is American counterpart. Why risk a potential malpractice suit and lose income by sending the patient away? Is it any wonder that the US has the highest rate of "cancer incidence" in the world. but only middling rates of cancer deaths?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You're generalizing again, I will refer user to the Lancet Oncology article I've referenced several times in the archives. Many people here are getting turned away from places like Walgreens and doctors offices because they have gov't insurance (Medicare & Medicaid) and they're subject to price controls. The people crowding ERs here are not those without insurance, but those with gov't insurance.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Find me a web site in the UK where the retail pharmacies (all private by the way) are complaining about price controls. You won't find one. They get stocked by the pharmaceutical companies who have negotiate prices with the NHS. The pharma groups could decline to deliver to the UK but of course they don't. The system works and rewards everyone fairly.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I assume you're agreeing with my point about the US being responsible for most new chemical entities. Considering the UK is responsible for less than 4% of it, I doubt they're pulling the cart.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
You didn't find a web site in the UK complaining about drug price controls then?
Your point about "new chemical entities" is just a distraction.
I am discussing the NHS which is a health care provider and insurer rolled into one. It is not a pharmaceutical company so stick to the topic.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Your point here is silly. NHS bureaucracy is one of the main reasons your pharma industry is tiny compared to ours and the reason we have access to more drugs. Your post above is conjecture, which you rely on quite a bit. "MAYBE"? Maybe you should deal in absolutes instread of conjecture. My article on HC went over a lot more than just cancer survival rates. I can tell you have not read it.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector You make claims but offer no evidence. There are some very large UK drug companies; GlaxoSmithKline for example and Astra Zeneca. If what you said was true you should easily find evidence from them of your claim about NHS bureacruacy. I doubt you can point me to any though 'cos u simply made it up,
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Really?? Astra Zeneca is British/Swedish and GlaxoSmithKline is totally British and you STILL have not founded your claim about availability on any evidence .
AZ and GSK are major world players. They are not saying what you say. You are making it up!
If you have evidence give it here (not pointers to our web site which NEVER backs up what you claim. it does).
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: It doesn't matter if you believe me or not kiddo. I've cited several times research showing the massive amounts of $ used on R&D and the fact that our pharma industry dwarfs yours. Those interested can check the second link on the left side of my channel. McCainisthrough and several of her friends were already corrected on this.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Nope, your stuff on HC does NOT confirm your claim that more drugs are available.
Abtacept for example IS available in the UK, but just not for free from the NHS.
You have to buy it yourself and pay a private hospital to infuse it.
NICE gave the manufacturer advice on the additional research needed for it to make decision given the holes found their data submission.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I can turn this argument around on you, if health care is "free" why does anyone have to pay for Abtacept? I've gone over free-market reforms several times where people could use their HC for major items like surgery and if they wanted something like the chiropracter or an experimental drug, they could pay for that themselves. You're letting gov't bureaucrats decide for you. The reason you're worried about costs is because the cost is covered by someone else, not the patient usually.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
Listen Bud. I am only querying your silly video statement that the UK's NHS is not a success because a little pinprick of data in one area of care appears to show the US does better. Apart from the fact that even that data is questionable, such a small statistic is no way to judge a complete health care system!
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Those references from real Americans telling their stories are, to me, much more meaningful than your references to exceptional items. America has a terrible record of premature deaths in pregnancy and infancy. Those free mother and baby clinics for pre and post natal care we have in Europe are marvellous. I don't regret paying taxes to fund them.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Once again, you leave a lot out. There are many different ways countries compile infant mortality stats and that is part of the reason the US was behind in that skewed WHO report. In addition, more and more mothers here are taking fertility drugs (which contributes to multiple births and chances of problems) and are over 35 when having their first kid. You're being generalized.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I am not referring to any WHO report. You can get the mortality rates from the CDC web site (US) and the Office of Naional Statistics (UK). And hear this. Fertitily treatment (available for free in the UK NHS) is not unique to the US. The world's first test tube baby was born in the UK thanks to the NHS..
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I never said fertility treatment was NOT available to the rest of the world. Rather than take issue with my stats you offer another diversion. I assume you're not going to challenge those stats I went over in previous messages. You need an economics class, there is no free lunch. You're using the same talking points parroted from a WHO report a few years ago.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
No you are diverting from the main issue which is that your video judges an entire health care system by its 5 year cancer survivial statistics.
There are very many states that have no canccer registers so the US data is lacking. Also US cancer "incidence" way more cancers than other countries but in fact US mortality from cancer is in the middle range internationally. Maybe those high US "cancer incidences" were like the "hole" in my tooth (i.e. non-existent).
hauskalainen 1 year ago
I think this HAUS person also need to be reminded (as most liberals do) that the US HC system is not free-market. It has not been for some time. When almost 50% of HC dollars are covered by the gov't (and rising) and people via POMS regulations are forced into a gov't-run Medicare system, that's hardly free-market. The fact that they do not know this is very telling.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Video Assertion. The UKs NHS is NOT a success.
Given justification. A couple of statistics where the US does better.
The wider view. People in the UK lead healthier lives, live longer, never have to worry about the affordability of medicines or visits to the doctor, have access to private health insurance and private hospitals if they want (only 10% do so).
Per capita spending (2001) UK=$1.992 US=$4.487
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I gave more than a few stats. Canada and the UK spend a lot less (remember, life-saving drugs and operations don't come without a price tag) because people are waiting much longer there. Remember my figures about R&D, it's expensive and we have many more drugs available here. Your point about life expectancy has already been debunked, see the 2nd link on the left side of my channel.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector There is no evidence that people wait longer in the UK than in the US. Getting to see a general doctor is easy in the UK and many of those people in the links I gave indicated that its no better or worse than in the US. .Same day appointments are the norm in the UK and home visits by doctors are possible. Not so in the US. There are no statistics available on wait times for patients in the US because nobody dares to track it.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I would wager there are plenty of stats for U.S. wait times, you're just too lazy to find out. You need it spoonfed to you. I will say that our gov't-run HC apparatus is having major problems--more and more doctors are staying away from Medicare and Medicaid because of price controls and red tape. That's bureaucracy for you.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
I have looked. The US does not track people waiting.
The UK tracks all people who have to wait bit not thse like my mother who was scheduled to get new hip joint the day after a fracture was diagnosed. For this reason our wait times seem higher then they really are.
In America there are no central tracking systems. Many people in the U.S. have to wait even for an appointment but their wait times are not tracked.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
The fear mongering! "If you're retred and lover 70 and you need a hip replacement you can forget about it".
The truth. Google "At 59, GOP congressman says he couldn't get a hip replacement in Canada or England" for the independent politifact research on this.
Age discrimination in the NHS is outlawed by both the the Eqality Act and the NHS's own constitution.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
UTubekookdetector has not commented on these yet
watch?v=yPiMMCD3ec4
watch?v=SFEnbRt-4FE other than to complain it is "spam".
I am not saying health care in the UK is the world's best or the world's cheapest but it is not the horror story that people like he pretends it is.
You are selling unwarranted "fears". I am just asking people to think rationally about the subject.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Regarding Judith Roe.
WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD PAY FOR HER END OF LIFE CARE?
SHE HERSELF (by selling her home)
or
THE GOVERNMENT (thus preserving the relatives' inheritance).
These were the only possibilities.
Can we have an answer please?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You need to pay better attention. Several times on this thread I've gone over free-market solutions to health care dilemmas. In addition, those interested can see in the archives where HAUS obviously didn't pay attention to my initial post about Judith R. I mentioned the fact that the Ombudsman ruled against the NHS. HAUS made it seem as if I left that out.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Comment removed
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Comment removed
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
You: People are responsible for their own lives - not the government.
Me: The NHS is there to relieve worry about costs during illness. Not to ensure that relatives get an inheritance.
Roe's home SHOULD be sold to pay for end of life nursing care and the government take over only when her resources run out. But you were seemingly outraged at the idea.
Why?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Glad you brought up the NHS again (remember you didn't read my comment about Mrs. Roe and omitted my remark about the Ombudsman--was that deliberate or are you just sloppy?). DId you see the reports on Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust? Very poor conditions there and you're digging yourself a bigger hole when one brings up the transition to digital medical records. Way over budget and very late in being implemented.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Er.... I will answer you on Mid-Staffs once you answer my question about who should have paid for Mrs Roe's end of life care. The government or Mrs Roe (Given that these were the only two options).
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Your silence on Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust was predictable, but it does speak volumes (and we accept your concession on that point). I already answered your question concerning Mrs. Roe. You see, over here the gov't doesn't have the constitutional authority to redistibute income, nor does it have the inherent authority to enact price controls, which is what Medicare and Medicaid rely on. Ergo, you have a lot of claims for those on gov't insurance getting rejected.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I said I would respond when you tell me if you think it was the government's responsibility to protect Mrs Roe's family from losing their inheritance to pay for her day to day care given that Alzheimers had prevented her from caring for herself. She clearly had no more use for that house herself. So far you have not answered that point. I am not evading answering your point about Mid-Staffs but you seem to be evading mine.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I already answered your questions and I'm not going to go round in circles three more times with you on this. In the US it's not the job of the gov't to provide retirement security or to use Peter's wallet to pay for Paul's expenses. Those interested can check the archives and see your errors in this regard.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector My point is that you tried to mislead readers about the situation with Mrs Roe. You said
"the NHS told one family that Alzheimer's was not a "health condition" and Judith Roe was denied treatment. "
The argument was not whether or not she had Alzheimer's but whether the social care arising from it was a medical issue (to be paid from her health insurance) or a social care issue.. The NHS had not denied her any health care.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Not so, check the archives, I did state that the Ombudsman stepped in to aid Mrs. Roe.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Not so??????? It was a direct quote from you!!!! It was wrong and its purpose was to mislead.
There are people with severe arthritis who get social care as well as health care. Their health care is paid for by the NHS but their social care is their own responsibility until their resources are exhausted. I don't see why Mrs Roe should be in a more privilidged position which is what the ombudman decided.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
The last one
watch?v=yPiMMCD3ec4
was from Mentor as well as Clevland Ohio
Here is one from an Alaskan..
watch?v=SFEnbRt-4FE
I wonder if she could drop a line to Sarah Palin?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You're just spamming now and using subjective arguments. Either debate the specific points or take your spam elsewhere.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Interesting to read in the New York Times today that the scare tactics used by republicans such as referencing "Obamacare" , "government take over" and "death panels" (all of which are false) has so well sunk into the public that the scammers have moved in and are selling fake policies telling people the policies will mean they can escape these things. Shame on people like you for stirring up unwarranted fear.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: This comment here must be your last-ditch effort. Nobody is going to sell me a fake policy because I don't do anything in the "heat of the moment." Your comment about a gov't takeover is quite curious, the US has slowly been moving towards HC socialization for some time. Next year, more than half of all HC dollars spent will be by the gov't and less than 12% of all expenses will be out-of-pocket.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector But for govt employees & military, govt spending comes from the Medicare trust fund. Yes, it is socialized medicine. Seniors like it. And for the most part it is not going broke (despite what people say). If costs are reigned in (as they can be if you get to European cost levels) and contributions raised only slightly, the funds are solvent. My guess is that Obama will turn to the high costs next.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Are you dropping your contentions about people waiting for HC in the UK and the fact that the US has access to many more drugs when compared to the UK and Canada. I also noticed you didn't say anything about the research published in Lancet Oncology.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Certainly not. Wait times are not a problem in the UK. See the vid links or get the stats from the Dept of Health web site. One third of all hospital admissions are emergencies (no wait time), one third are scheduled normally, and only one third cannot be scheduled to the patients earliest preference. Of this last third, nobody should waits more than 18 weeks from referral to final treatment (including time for investigations and tests). Median wait time is about 9 weeks.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Re Oncology
Deaths per 100 000 pwe year
Breast cancer: 24 (US), 19 (UK)
Motor accident fatalities: 50 (US), 23 (UK)
British Women are unmoved by such small differences in risks. They are really insignificant compared to other risks we take.
Try goading me on prostate cancer stats! I'm ready for ya!
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You're making it up. You need to read Lancet Oncology, Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 730 - 756, August 2008, we're better at treating most cancers. I already cited that once anyways. We need to get a response to your Big Pharma argument though, per our Axelrod response. Are you dropping that now? You used that as a response to the study showing long wait lists in the UK.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Figure are real but I accidently put the stats for breast cancer deaths the wrong way round. That was accidental and not deliberate. the point I was making is that the difference is small even though the percentage difference is high. British women are not likely to want to rid themselves of the NHS because of that risk any more than Americans will want to abandon the motor car for the other. Your use of stats is intended to scare where mine just puts it into perspective.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@hauskalainen
Suppose Mrs Roe had had cancer and Treatment A would extend her life by 18 months but costs $60 000. Adding Treatment B to Treatment A (the wonder drug, say) extends it an extra 6 months but it costs an additional $50 000. What happens?
The NHS pays for treatment A but not B. You can have Treatment B if you pay for it privately out of pocket or from a private top up insurance.
Seems fair to me.
This is what happens.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: When you say the NHS pays for treatment you need to say "taxpayer" instead. Suppose Mrs. Roe has "catastrophic insurance" and could put pre-taxed dollars into an HSA her entire life. She could probably pay for her cancer treatment then. Treatment B probably wouldn't even be available in the UK, we have access to more drugs here.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector "Not available in the UK"? The EMA (European Medicines Agency) is an EU body which licenses medicinal products for use across the whole of Europe in conformity with arrangements laid down by the World Health Organization. I'm unsure why you isolate the UK. And where is your evidence that drug marketers get lisences in the US but not in Europe?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: According Joseph DiMasi & Henry Grabowski it takes about 1.2 billion to do the necessary R&D to bring a drug to market. Since 1999 America has accounted for 71% of the sales of new chemical entities, up from 62%. Japan and Germany, the next two largest pharma markets account for just 4% each.
professor_enigma . webs . com/youtubekooks . htm#545463745
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector A classic reply. You ignored a question which merely asked you to justify your claim and dropped another misleading statement in. All I am asking for is your evidence for your claim that drugs get licensed in the US but not in UK. (You said UK but drugs these days get licensed Europe-wide). I'll tell you why its misleading once you answer my question. Where is the evidence for drugs not getting a licence in Europe?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Not every entity in Europe is like the UK's health care system. You're the one that is being very misleading. You're falsely assuming that European health care is like the UK, it is not. From your reply you're clearly upset because I've seen the data and you're spamming YT videos as evidence.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Here we have a classic reply from UTubekookdetector which ignores the reality as I have stated it and posits, without evidence, a new "fear", The situation in the UK is exactly as I have described it. An HSA is not insurance but a tax loophole for the rich to pay for their wives facelifts and boob jobs with aid from the government. The government ought not to fund these things.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You're actually undercutting your own argument here. When the gov't takes over, there's always going to be rent-seeking where every individual and corporate entity wants their product paid for so demand can be artificially stimulated. A Health Savings Account is paid for by the consumer, with their own dollars. No wonder LASIK eye surgery has gotten cheaper, it's not mandated... yet.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector @UTubekookdetector
"OUR" Axelrod response? How many of you are there working at countering my responses?? LOL Gotcha!!
You'll have to spell out the Axelrod issue. I don't know what you mean. But its unlikely to interest me because he's nnothing to do with the NHS
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Axelrod has ties to AKPD Message and Media which handled advertising for ObamaCare. Axelrod has conflicts of interest and is in favor of socialized medicine, ergo socialized med. is bad. This is the same argument you used when I cited that Centre for Europe study showing millions of Britions were waiting for health care. You'll have to drop your argument or adjust it.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
Erm... You said Axelrod has links to big Pharma but you have not said what that link it.
Axelrod's relations to a firm that delivers political advertising is not a conflict if interest but the very opposite - an alignment of interest.
Where is the conflict of interest? What is the link to Big Pharma?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
try watching the youtube video " Is the British Health Care System Really Better?" for a neutral opinion from an American living in the UK.
watch?v=yPiMMCD3ec4 ?v=yPiMMCD3ec4&feature=player_embedded
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Thanks for the spam. Or a person could read my article on it and see that people like HAUS don't even understand our HC system and how it has slowly been moving towards socialism for decades. Any comment about the Lancet Oncology article comparing cancer treatments in the US against those in Canada and Europe? Any comment about the fact that we have so many more drugs available here?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Your video is more misleading that the one I referenced. US cancer registers are not representative. They cover much lower population percentages and overrepresent the big teaching hospitals with the latest equipment. We should not dismiss this research but we need to be cautious.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Drugs are licenced same as FDA rules and sold to the NHS as well as to private paying patients. The NHS has a formularly just as US insurers do, You can always buy it out of pocket or use a private insurance supplement if you have one. The NHS does not waste money on drugs that are approved for safety but have little effect.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: THe NHS has the final say as to what can be on the market. A drug that is safe and being used in the US might not be available over there because of the prevalence of price controls. Shouldn't the people decide whether a drug is worth the money or not? NHS does not empower the people. The Rarer Cancers Forum reported that 16K people were denied cancer drugs by the NHS.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector WHAT PRICE CONTROLS???? Sure, the NHS sets a limit on what it is prepared to pay looking at all things such as benefit and the cost recovery needed for research and manufacture. But they don't set prices for anyone else. The drug companies can sell to the rest of the market for whatever price they want.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You didn't know about Medicare and Medicaid's price controls? You just admitted that the NHS has to set a cap on benefits, otherwise the system would go bankrupt. We thank you for being so candid. That's what happens when you put the gov't in charge instead of the people. Everyone should have "catastrophic health insurance", then they would pay for more treatement out-of-pocket and big-ticket items such as surgery would be covered.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector We Brits know that there is a limit on spending just as there is in the US. We do it by a mixture of democratic choice re overall budget and trust in the medical profession to spend it wisely.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Glad to see you finally realized that money doesn't grow on trees and when the Fed prints is, everyone gets the shaft. Rather than have my money redistributed I should be allowed to 1) Save for my own retirement and not be shackled with payroll taxes. 2) I should be allowed to get a high-deductible, low-premium HC plan. 3) I should be allowed to have an HSA and save pre-taxed dollars for HC in my retirement. Much better than our current redistributionist mindset.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
No it is hard earned by working people like me and controlled demoncratically.
Brits don't waste health care funds on insurance overheads (because there is none);: or in marketing, or on billing functions (there are none); or the funding of political campaigns of lawmakers, or funding spammers trying to scare people.
None of that would generate any health care benefit so we just don't do it.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You need an economics class. Competition lowers prices. If I had the option of getting "catastrophic insurance" I would pay low premiums and in the event of a major injury I would be taken care of. I rarely go to the doctor, I could build up my HSA in that time frame. Socialized medicine is the government's way of making the young pay for the old.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I need no education. It's the absence of competition that is the problem. The new expensive cancer drugs always come from companies seeking to exploit the limited period of their exclusive rights.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Another fallacious point here: How much does the typical pharmaceutical company spend on R&D for a new drug? Why does the UK and Canada lag behind the US in R&D?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Pharma industry is global. There is a huge industry in the UK. GlaxoSmithKline is 4th in the world behind Roche which is Swiss. America is number one but then Britain is a tiny country by comparison. 18 of the world's top 100 medicines were developed in the UK. watch?v=lk_4_kGy1OM
hauskalainen 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Ha ha ha ha. The Forum you speak of is financially supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Celgene Ltd, Idis , GSK, Merck Sharp Novartis, Pfizer & Roche Products Ltd. I wonder why?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Your comment here could be turned against you. I could simply cite David Axelrod's ties to Big Pharma as my entire argument against ObamaCare but you wouldn't go for that. It's apparent you're getting more desperate as this debate progresses. No comment about that NHS hospital I mentioned and its major problems with treating patients?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I don't care about Axelrod - he's nothing to me. As regards the hospital its poor results were picked up and investigated. That gives me some assurance. The sad truth in America is that there is evidence of unwarranted over use of surgery and not much evidence of supervision. Could that be because American doctors only get paid if they cut people open?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: If you don't care about Axelrod then that invalidates your argument about Bayer et al. backing up that study I posted to you proving that the UK had long waiting lists for HC. You just invalidated your own argument. We appreciate you being candid. I don't care about over use of surgery as long as I am not paying for it.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
HAUS: In addition, the NHS told one family that Alzheimer's was not a "health condition" and Judith Roe was denied treatment. Later that was reversed by the Health Service Ombudsman. Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust has come under fire for very poor conditions. Empower the gov't and you don't empower the people.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Hmm. Judith Roe was NOT DENIED TREATMENT!!!! A body decided (wrongly) that the government was not liable TO PAY for her care. The family went to the Ombudsman (who is there to safeguard against wrongful decision making in the public sector without resort to lawyers) who agreed that the government should pay. So what do you think? Should the government pay for her care?? I look forward to hearing your answer!!!!
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Judith Roe had to fight to get her treatement from a gov't-run system. Should the government be responsible for the health care of people? If that's what you're asking, then no. Why would I want a Medicare-like system to take care of me? Of course a lot of seniors like Medicare, they're not paying for it anymore and its liabilities will eat up the entire budget in 72 years.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Me? Spamming? No. I and they tell it as it really
We are educated people in the UK and we know the line you are selling to be a deliberate distortion..Most Americans too, I am sure have come to see the difference between spin and reality, They too are not stupid,
The world wide interweb thingy has become a weapon a mass of deception but people can see beyond the lies when the look carefully and use the thing that sits between their ears properly.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Comment removed
hauskalainen 1 year ago
He was only 65 (but a heavy smoker and drinker most of his life) and had both lung and neck cancer. I have never smoked but I think that if I get to a ripe old age I'd rather have a quick death from cancer than a slow death from Alzheimers.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
It is very misleading to just pick and choose what stats to publish. Also we need to think about whether we want to be cured. Last week I lost a cousin to cancer after a three year battle. He was grateful for the extra time to do the things he wanted to do but decided about 4 weeks ago that the treatments had extended his life but his life was becoming so hellish he told his doctors he wanted no more.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
There are no laws preventing you from purchasing insurance across state lines.
But the insurer in another state selling into a state must comply with that states's laws and keep proper accounts for the insured in that state, That's entirely reasonable!!!
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: Unless you work for a large firm and fall under ERISA regulations (which should be repealed) you can't. If you're a member of the private insurance market you are given the shaft because the gov't already skewed the system towards those with employer-provided insurance, which is great until we have a recession.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector NOT SO!! . According to Kaiserhealthnews(dot)org
"States have primary regulatory authority over insurance. As a result, insurers are allowed to sell policies only in states where they are licensed to do business. Most insurers obtain licenses in multiple states. "
So all that needs to happen is for a insurer to seek a licence to sell in the target state. It is for the insurers to act if they want to get the business of people in the target state.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: I never said states didn't have regulatory authority over health ins., but I can't purchase health insurance outside IA and unless you fall under ERISA, you can't (I meant to say earlier that ERISA should be expanded, not repealed). There are a lot states should do. Dump a lot of the costly mandates which raise premiums and allow more purchasing of health ins. across state lines. Ever thing some insurers don't venture into a state because of regulations?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
Nonsense! Go to ehealthinsurance and you'll get lots of quotes from out of state companies. I just checked one but there are many listed. Celtic for example is Illinois based but is licenced in all states except New York. Mandated coverage will only raise premiums if they cost the insurers a lot. All the more reason to be insured against those things. The reason the mandates are there is to protect the public from insurers selling cheap but ineffective policies.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: You're losing it. I never said health insurers never have branches in other states, nor did I say everyone was unable to purchase health insurance across state lines (remember my ERISA comment?). However, millions of Americans are indeed trapped in their state, only able to buy insurance in that state. If you live in NJ, you're in big trouble. NH and KY repealed their "guaranteed issue" laws because insurers started leaving the state.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Yearly Kidney transplant facts.U.S. (versus UK)
Transplants 5,060 (2,076)
Median wait time (months): 44 (adults 27, children 5))
Died waiting: 4403 (400).
No. waiting : 83.053 (6,331)
pop. 350m (70m)
I know where I'd rather live!
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: What's your source? I remember going over (in my HC article) the fact that you're more likely to survive a major organ transplant here than in the UK, but not the # done. I also remember that the typical person getting an organ transplant here was in much poorer health, yet they still had a better chance for survival.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector US stats are from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients web site ustransplant(dot)org. The UK stats are from the main UK charity in support of kidney patients in the UK from their site at kidney{dot)org(dot)uk. These are my sources. Where are yours from?
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: My material comes from many sources, check under the video. One of the main articles is The Lancet Oncology, Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 730 - 756, August 2008 showing the US treats 13 of 16 cancers better than Europe. You're simply saying the US does more transplants per capita, which I'm not denying, but our sirvival rates are much better after a transplant.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
HAUS: I will dispute your figures concerning # of Britons waiting for HC. IN 2004, about 1 million were waiting to be admitted to a hospital. I have tried in vain to post the URL by disguising it, but it won't work. It was published by the "Centre for a New Europe" in Sept of 2004. Titled "Towards a Greater Partnership in Health Care Funding."
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Comment removed
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Comment removed
hauskalainen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UTubekookdetector
My sources are impeccable.
Almost nobody in the UK waits more that 18 weeks between the date of the referral and the end of their treatment. Guaranteed! (Transplants are of course an exception due to supply).
There are 70 million Brits so at any one time just over 1% of the population is ever on a wating list. A waiting list which ensures they are treated within 18 weeks. The median wait time is about 9 weeks. That's pretty good news I'd say!!
hauskalainen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hauskalainen
UK adults wait on average just over 2 years for a kidney transplant but in that time just 14% of those waiting will have died. Kids in the UK wait less than 6 months.
Wait time in the US is 4 years! Almost 20% of those waiting will have died in that 4 years.
Who cares if the 5 year survival rate is marginally lower.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
"If you eliminate illegal aliens and the young who are healthy and uninsured then there are only 5% uninsured"... well I don't know where you get your numbers but you can eliminate whole classes of people who are uninsured and then claim that there are no (or not many) uninsured!
In other countries everyone has to be insured and so it will be in America. Aliens will not qualify for subsidies.
hauskalainen 1 year ago
HAUS: See the linked info under the vid, I made that clear in the vid. My base # comes from the Census Bureau and it not even in the 40 millions, where the libs parroting talking points put it. Many of these households make more then $75K year or are eligible for some program but fail to enroll. Requiring Americans to purchase something is a violation of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amend.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector
The healthy young need to be protected by insurance because ill health can strike at any time.
The very principle of insurance is that the fortunate ones are the healthy one who pay their premiums and thank their lucky stars that they don't get ill. The unfortunate ill also pay their premiums but are assured that their bills are paid even though they exceed their premium contributions.
Its not a savings scheme FCS!!
hauskalainen 1 year ago