What country invents most of the technology and drugs?

france? NOPE
Canada? NOPE

America? YES.

Does France and Canada benefit from America's capitalist health care system? YES.

What are the details of the Japanese comparison? Surely there's a long detailed report that was written that backs that up.

So, tell me, why do so many canadians come to america and pay for their healthcare with their own money, if they have free healt hcare at home?

And who exactly funds that research? It's not the insurance industry. It's not even the exclusive province of the pharmaceutical industry: a lot of that research emerges from publicly-funded universities.

As to what countries contribute the most medical research, well, I can give you one quick measure:

NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS IN MEDICINE OR PHYSIOLOGY, BY NATION, LAST TWENTY YEARS

United States: 30
United Kingdom: 8
Australia: 4
Germany: 4
France: 2
Switzerland: 2
Sweden: 1
Italy: 1
Japan: 1

A few things to note here: first, I counted those scientists who claimed dual nationalities under both countries. This inflated the US number considerably, but I think it's the fairest and most accurate for this quick-look comparison. Second, it'd be fair to consider the EU countries as a whole; their number then would be 18. (I'm adding Great Britain, as it is closely aligned scientifically with EU institutions)

As to Canadians jumping the border for health-care, I'm finding that meme harder and harder to fully credit as time goes on,especially as more than one such famous example has been proven to be a paid shill for the insurance industry.. Canada DOES, after all, have private health-care providers. If I had to guess, I'd say that phenomon is largely confined to border towns with impatient rich Canadians.

I wish I understood the bare bones issues of this whole health care issue but my ADHD will not allow me to focus long enough.

AC, other countries citizens who come here for their care are being sent to the best facility, on their state's dime. So they are being provided with that care by their country. When you've got a facility thats dedicated toward treating a rare disorder, its just not common enough to set one of these facilities up in every single country. Its really no different than if your health insurance sends you to the same facility. These facilities aren't "U.S. provided", so I'm not sure what you think your point is about us having better care. Its a private system, the state gets no credit for that facility's existence.

AC is Dick, guys. I believe he's making a statement to me about this not really being worth his time by choosing not to log in.

[link]

The costs in Canada initially went up, too, for the first several years after they adopted their system, but ultimately stabilized.

The governmental costs aren't even the only ones you're going to see. There's going to be a lot of frictional transition costs in the wider economy.

Nonetheless: when a large majority of bankruptcies are medical-related, and large segments of people cannot even obtain insurance in the private marketplace, it is time to DO SOMETHING.

If you read the spreadsheet at the original link for this thread, it'll make clear some of the ways the economy would benefit from jettisoning the insurance industry's monopoly protection. It's just too bad we can't go pure single-payer.

"Nonetheless: when a large majority of bankruptcies are medical-related, and large segments of people cannot even obtain insurance in the private marketplace, it is time to DO SOMETHING."

yeah, it's called GET INSURANCE BEFORE YOU HAVE A PROBLEM YOU LAZY STUPID JACKASS, TURN OFF THE SATELLITE TV AND DON'T BUY THAT NEW CAR ON CREDIT!!!!

Else if you wait until you have a pre-existing condition, is it any wonder you will not be able to afford insurance?

Should we care that you file a medical bankruptcy because you were a dumb ass?

Might try reading the actual words: there's a very large segment of people who cannot buy insurance AT ANY PRICE. And it's not all people with PEC's, though the law on that is equally nonsensical.

Myself? I can't insure my family affordably, because I'm self employed. I'd be paying twice or three times as much as I would with a private employer with the scale to negotiate the rates for their larger risk pool. Luckily, we have other options, but nonetheless, people should not be relegated to die to serve this fucked up system.

That's another thing that gets me: The ultra-rich don't need insurance; the ultra-poor are ALREADY being given insurance through Medicaid. So what's the problem with making health-care accessible for the self-employed, who DO contribute to the economy and pay taxes?

Oh, and then there's recission, and claims denial, and a billion other con jobs the insurance companies pull.

Sorry, brother, but you're not going to get me feeling all weepy-eyed and sympathetic for that particular industry. They're parasites, nothing more, and their myriad regulations and constant attempts to dodge their own obligations do not make health-care cheaper or more affordable, but rather, very much the opposite.

I hear you now: "But Medicare has a byzantine regulatory framework around it, too!"

Well, fine, better we stop burdening doctors with multiple systems and just go with a single-payer program then. That way, Doctors can save on the insurance specialists they have to employ, thus allowing them more take-home pay.

So let me get this right: You attempt to make money as a capitalist in our free enterprise system, and are ALLOWED to control your own budget, and you place making more profit and living a life style you can't afford ahead of insuring your own family? You put the problem onto the REST OF US when we have to pay your bills? WTF?

You are a parasite.

Either spend less, make more, or get a real job you bum, instead of providing excuses (waaah, paperwork, approvals, waaah).

"to dodge their own obligations do not make health-care cheaper or more affordable"

Oh, coming from a self described businessman that's just CLASSIC.Yeah, a for-profit insurance company has NO MOTIVATION to save money, eh? It's not like it's actually COMPETITIVE to do so.

On behalf of the Republican party I say "Thanks for leaving, we don't want you back"

I'm not making my living by promising to take care of people when they're sick, then RENEGING.

Yet again, you've failed to properly read the words, searching as you are for a means of getting my goat. If you'd actually read the words, it's not hard to figure out the situation I'm in, even though I'm not explicitly spelling it out for you. And there's simply nothing I can do about it until reform of one type or another is passed.

One thing's for sure: the Republican trope of "OMG if we just passed tort reform medical costs would go down!" would not help me and mine.

In fact, I've not yet seen the Republican "plan" at all, except as a talking point that claims it will be superior to anything the Dems offer.

As for whether I'm a parasite: I thought Republicans were the "Party of Small Business"? Why should I be different than Halliburton? They've got butt-buddies watching out for them in the Congress, why shouldn't I?

And don't worry, I don't see the Rethuglicans getting me back anytime soon: Y'see, I'm all about responsible governance based on facts and logic, and not a faith-based theocracy based on the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible.

AC, do you LIKE paying twice as much for the same product? Whats so fiscally responsible or conservative about that? No one's saying single payer is free. Its paid with taxes, and costs a whole lot less in the process. Idiots like you are costing me 400 a month out of my salary when I would only have to be paying 200 in taxes and keeping the rest if everyone would get their heads out of their asses about a single-payer system. Thats my fucking money you're costing me with your hysteria. And yours too but you seem happy to throw it away. I'm not.

As for the new health plan you're so blindly voting for, like a good sheep would:

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

Ender, I hope you enjoy paying up to 20% of your pre-tax money. I'm sure the lack of tort reform will have nothing to do with this issue.

I read your words, and what I understand is "I'd be paying twice or three times as much as I would with a private employer with the scale to negotiate the rates for their larger risk pool."

And you probably account for the employers portion of the payment as free money, dontcha? Doubt it would go towards your salary instead?

Since you are self-employed, you might consider enrolling in a “qualified” High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). This is health insurance with high deductible amounts, so it costs less than traditional health insurance. Under federal law, the minimum deductible in a HDHP plan is $1,100 for an individual and $2,200 for a family. The maximum deductibles are $5,500 for an individual and $11,000 a family.

The advantage of an HDHP is that you can shelter up to $2,850 for an individual or $5,650 for a family per year from state and federal taxes in a Health Savings Account (HSA). Depending on your tax bracket and where you live, that could save you as much as $2,870 in taxes per year, assuming a combined tax rate of 50.8%—7.5% in state income tax (Ohio), 28% in federal income tax, and 15.3% in self-employment Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax. Another way of looking at it is that the HSA doubles your buying power, since you are using pre-tax dollars. The contributions you make to an HSA are yours to keep, rolling over each year. The funds are not taxed, provided you use them to pay medical expenses or withdraw them after age 65. The funds earn interest on a tax-deferred basis. Think of it as an IRA that you can use to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses.

To find a qualified plan, speak with a health insurance broker. A broker works with several insurers and can find the best plan, rates and coverage for the monks. To find a broker, log on to a website like [link] and fill out a form requesting a free quote. Your information will be sent to a broker in your area who will contact you. Good luck!

Squee, I enjoying getting what I pay for in a free-market system, and I feel the single biggest problem is that the system is too regulated as it is. I believe the switzerland model is ideal, and all people including illegal immigrants should be required to have health care insurance. Those that aren't are to be fined 110% of the cost of the insurance per year. THEN most regulation should be removed and the government should get the hell out of the market. Medicare needs a complete and painful overhaul else for that reason alone we will go bankrupt, and I fully support death panels. If you're 90 years old, we have no obligation to spend $300,000 on you for expensive treatment that will only prolong your life a few more years. We should tell it to your face that we're not spending the money and you will die, because that's life.

Gee, an $11,000 deductible, that's reasonable. Thanks for illustrating the problem at hand.

Single payer isn't in the health reform, AC. You won't find too many people who dislike the reform package more than me, precisely because its bowed to people like you and the result is costs are going to be up higher than ever and the economy is going to dry up from everybody funneling all their spare cash into health care costs that shouldn't be that high.

The point of the reform was, during the last recession, health care costs weren't the problem stagnating business. They only cost 5% of the GDP so it was normal to include benefits. Now that the health care costs themselves are 15% of the GDP and heading toward 30, employers can't start businesses anymore because they're expected to include benefits and that makes the cost of doing business too high. Hence, the economy won't recover from the recession until you get that tax on doing business under control.

Shifting around who pays the costs, without controlling the costs, doesn't improve the situation. The money has to come from somewhere in the end. If employers don't pay for it, they'll still have to pay wages that include enough for workers to buy it because workers will be forced by mandates to. But why can't health care costs be sky high, you say? If they are then stop buying coffee, stop traveling, stop buying clothes, you're a bum who can't afford those things because you should be paying for health care at whatever it costs instead. What do you think is going to happen to all of industry when people do that? Hello economic meltdown. Everyone's angry at these young people who don't buy insurance, but the economy runs on the choices they've made to buy other things because the health insurance cost just isn't doable anyway. The business owners, employers, economy etc are not going to be happy at all when their consumer base dries up because they're putting every last spare dime into health care instead. This is the essence of the republican solution, perpetuate an economic crisis.

We need a return to previous non-exorbitant health care bill cost levels, and every cost controlling measure has been deleted from the reform and there's nothing but measures that exacerbate the problem left in it. And its all because people are fucking morons about the concept of a single payer.

A system that covers all health care for all citizens, and covers my right to live as long as i want, and does it cheaper than a free market system with death panels, has officially out competed the latter system in my opinion. I'd rather do whatever every single other first world country is doing to keep their health care costs normal. This is a basic scientific test, you try out systems and see what works. When you have to lie about how good or bad health care in other countries is, you're not on the right side of the argument anymore.

If this approaching hurricane wipes out New Orleans will we blame Bush/ Cheney? What will we say about chocalate city? ray ray nagin? hussein obama?

Something tells me, call me crazy, that if a C5 Hurricane hits N'awlins during Obama's Presidency, that his response won't be as incompetent as Bush's crew's.

As to the health-care legislation, I'm now a bit concerned about it. The objective was universal health care, not 96%.

Squee, your comments make good points.

"I'd rather do whatever every single other first world country is doing to keep their health care costs normal."

I'd rather do what Switzerland does, not what Canada does. Thankfully that's the direction that the democrats are aiming for, however they are making some major mistakes by not addressing tort reform and trying to place extra taxes on high net worth individuals. They don't understand the story of the Goose that laid golden eggs.

ray nagin and that incompetent governor had the most blood on their hands you fool. and all of the stupid criminals who stayed got what GOD meant for them to have.hahahahahahah retribution

Have you ever drank beer for 2 or 3 days straight and then thought you had gas..... only to realize that you had the Budweiser Squirts?

Uhhh..... NO

Makes a mess