Socialized Medicine

@cystic:

Afterall - a Canadian was the architecht of the UN charter of rights and freedoms.  Not only are we front-and-center when it comes to human rights, but we include social rights (education and healthcare) under that same banner.

so YOUR nation is responsible for that?

The penultimate wiggle clause is included in that UN piece of tripe… read all the way to the end.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

See that next to last section, the one that allows the UN to ignore any and all of the “rights” if it would be contrary to what the UN wants to do at the time?

And that clause actually supports CS’s assertion that the government could indeed mandate any or all of those things by using the same type of wiggle clause.

Hey CC.

I must admit I was quite disappointed I didn’t get a list of American slurs thrown back my way.  Now I’ll have to find another Canadian willing to spill the secret list of American epithets…

If I may, I think I can sum up our argument thusly:
CrazyStraw believes the free market leads to better long term health care; Cystic Crypt believes providing a base level of care to everyone at no direct cost is preferable.
CrazyStraw emphasizes the responsiblity of the individual; Cystic Crypt emphasizes the role of the government.

Please correct that if you think it is not accurate.

I’d say those are not bad places to end up.  We both have valid reasons for thinking our system is “better”, but to really get to the bottom of it we’d have to grind through a heck of a lot core philosophy to shift either of our positions.  I could take a point-by-point look at your reply, but would any answer shift us from our basic positions?

I’m content to end the debate at: the Canadian system has strengths but the US system is better.  I suspect you’re content to end the debate with the reverse view.  If I felt STRONGLY that the Canadian system was much worse, I’d go the distance (like when someone equates Kim Jong Il and Bush).  But since I think there is much merit in both systems, I can respectfully disagree without resolution.

However, if you really want me to respond point-by-point I’d be happy to do so.  I’m betting, though, that I’ve already taken up enough pixels in the forum for the moment :)

Peace

@cystic:

1. Canadian pharmaceuticals are much cheaper in general than those in America.
2. Unless they are generic - i think that US generics are cheaper.

No offense or anything, but who is egotistical enough to believe they deserve name brand drugs?

Now, to be honest, I really shouldn’t be contributing much to this thread since I get all my drugs for $8/month, no exceptions.  All I have to do is go to the VA Clinic and get it perscribed and it’s mailed to me within 48 hours (not including Sunday.)

But let’s be honest here.  Acetometaphine and Tylenol are identical.  Gabapentin is identical to the name brand Neurontin (a major pain reliever for neurological pains).  The chemical formulation’s the same, the name’s different.  So why pay 5 times the cost for the name brand? :P

That’s like paying 5 times the taxes for Socialized Medicine then it would cost to just get Health Insurance for yourself like a responsible human being.

CS - i believe that we may honorably walk away from the discussion with respect intact.

Jen - i think a new forum could open with regards to the “generic drug” question.  Oddly enough i am much more conservative on this issue than you.

How do you feel about it, CC?

I know that pharmecitical companies need to recoup the moneys invested in developing the drugs.  I also understand that is why they charge a premium and get soletary rights to the drug for a number of years.

But after that period has ended, I see no reason, what-so-ever, a person needs to get the name brand drug instead of the generic version.  Especially when you can get 20 pills of Gabapentin for $12 and 20 pills of Neurontin for $157 and they’re identical (except 1’s stamped Gabapentin, the other Neurontin).

Jermo, for the record, I TRIED to make it a slugfest.  CC let you down, not me.  :-D

Regarding patent law and the impact on society, here’s a good link that has is a fairly direct analogy to drug patents.  It’s not about socialized medicine per se, but it does address a critical concept in creating new things and the role of the marketplace and government:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/5/Vaidhyanathan.asp

It talks about fair use under copyright law, which is the media equivalent of manufacturing generic drugs.  The patent for a drug is on a “recipe”, not the end product.  You can’t use the recipe without permission, and that is an intellectual construct rather than physical property.

And as you would expect from my links, it is wicked long.

Peace

Oh yea, and isn’t there this thing called the Hippocratic Oath that says something along the lines of “I’ll help anyone in need to the best of my ability regardless of if they are insured or not.”  (I added parts in, obviously.  But you get the drift.  A doctor who receives a gun shot victem pretty much has to treat the injuries first, then worry about getting paid.  At least in the United States.  I can’t speak for other nations.  Maybe the nation of Ik (a nation commonly invented by historians/sociologists to play devil’s advocate) would video tape the gun shot victem bleeding to death since he isn’t insured???)

My thoughts on generics . . .
As a scientist, i do have a problem with an entity lifting the results of my labor, and using them for their own gain without any assistance.  Generic companies do not develop the original molecule, they do not do any of the phase i-iv trials, they do not provide physicians with ANY new indications, safety or other data.  Furthermore they remove the impetus for the original pharma companies to continue to do trials and testing when their patent runs out, which causes us to rely on academic and gov’t institutions to provide this research (which i understand Jen is against).  Furthermore, i am not sure how it works in the US, but just because a company claims to provide a “generic version” of a medication does not mean that we are, in fact, receiving the equivalent of the developer’s product (in Canada the product only has to contain 85% of the product).  Also the generic company does not carry responsibility for its product (when i worked for Novartis, our medical director was subpoened to attend an inquiry related to the effect of the generic version of the product as the generic company did not have a medical director.  Finally these companies rarely provide any original research, and often they do not sell their product at a low enough price to warrant a switch from the original product, however they gift the pharmacies in order to persuade a switch.

Don’t get me wrong - i can understand the need for a “cheaper alternative” - especially for low-income and seniors, however this could easily be facilliated by gov’t.

Hmm, no idea how it works in Canada.  But the Food and Drug Administration - if it is working properly, and it probably isn’t because it’s a federal program and most federal programs don’t work well to begin with, being filled with crooks and sharlatans most of the time - in the United States is supposed to guarentee us that if it’s a Generic Drug then it is equivalent to the name brand, just as if Keebler says their Grasshopper Cookies have 40 calories per serving and a serving size is half a cookie, then it is an accurate report.

But as I said, that’s how it’s supposed to work.  However, I am so anti-federal it isn’t even funny.  My Political Science and my Advanced History Courses are just making me even more anti-federal government as I study exactly what the fore-fathers of this nation said, did and wrote.

Basically, until FDR, just about every US Politician was for weak central governments and strong state governments in so much as who actually weilded the power, not who had override authority.