scb, I gotta say, I agree with you on the car analogy. I mean, its comparing cars and people is it not? that just doesnt feel right. lemme ax you a question, what do you think a fair decidable is if the government controlled healthcare? is it zero? how about $500?
It is not comparing cars to people, that is a way too simplistic look. It's comparing coverages.
Many good critiques pointed out, but I think the overall concept is still a decent one. Is insurance really needed to pay for an annual checkup? Or, if you get a fairly routine issue (ear infection, allergies, etc.)?
Anyhow, it was just a thought posted by someone else that I found intriguing.
yea I hear ya, but it just doesnt feel right. but the concepts do make sense. its hard to draw the line though and what gets covered and what doesnt. how do you define catastrophic event? its going to have to be with a $. thats what lead to my deductible question. I don't think its unreasonable for the government to ask for a deductible....even one based on income. that way, everyone helps chip in for the costs WHEN they use them.
scb, I gotta say, I agree with you on the car analogy. I mean, its comparing cars and people is it not? that just doesnt feel right. lemme ax you a question, what do you think a fair decidable is if the government controlled healthcare? is it zero? how about $500?
It is not comparing cars to people, that is a way too simplistic look. It's comparing coverages.
Many good critiques pointed out, but I think the overall concept is still a decent one. Is insurance really needed to pay for an annual checkup? Or, if you get a fairly routine issue (ear infection, allergies, etc.)?
Anyhow, it was just a thought posted by someone else that I found intriguing.
Here's another critique of that analogy: There's more or less a limit on out-of-pocket expenses for cars. Worst case scenario is that you have to buy a new car for, say, $25,000. With healthcare, even if you don't die, you could rack up medical bills in the millions.
another thought.........instead of providing health insurance for all.......let us just put in place a program that caps the cost of fuel at 1.00 dollarper gallon. this will save people a large amount of money that they can then use to apply to health insurance.
wait......that would not work, because a large amount of people would use the money saved on gas and use the savings toward large tvs, atvs, chrome wheels, campers, boats.......the list goes on.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
another thought.........instead of providing health insurance for all.......let us just put in place a program that caps the cost of fuel at 1.00 dollarper gallon. this will save people a large amount of money that they can then use to apply to health insurance.
wait......that would not work, because a large amount of people would use the money saved on gas and use the savings toward large tvs, atvs, chrome wheels, campers, boats.......the list goes on.
how about we do away with health insurance and have a single payer system thus you won't have to worry about anyone buying a chrome camper boat with a big ol' tv...?
Here's another critique of that analogy: There's more or less a limit on out-of-pocket expenses for cars. Worst case scenario is that you have to buy a new car for, say, $25,000. With healthcare, even if you don't die, you could rack up medical bills in the millions.
Hence the need for catastrophic care insurance. BUt as I said, there are good reasons as to why the analogy won't wonk without soem major tweaking.
another thought.........instead of providing health insurance for all.......let us just put in place a program that caps the cost of fuel at 1.00 dollarper gallon. this will save people a large amount of money that they can then use to apply to health insurance.
wait......that would not work, because a large amount of people would use the money saved on gas and use the savings toward large tvs, atvs, chrome wheels, campers, boats.......the list goes on.
how about we do away with health insurance and have a single payer system thus you won't have to worry about anyone buying a chrome camper boat with a big ol' tv...?
i am not worried about spending my money on a chrome atv camper boat with a big ol' tv, my priorities are not in those recreations........i still would like to see the decision put into the hands of each state.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Some people have suggested that pharmaceutical companies would stop making a profit and cease to make new drugs under a system with universal healthcare, thereby lowerng the quality of care. I just ran across the following article. While it's not at all about universal healthcare, it does give me the impresstion that the concerns above have not come to fruition in countries where UHC already exists. I know it doesn't really flow with the conversation here right now, but I didn't want to start another healthcare thread.
When graying baby boomers celebrate the 40th anniversary of Woodstock in August, many of them will be popping cholesterol-lowering pills and blood pressure medication instead of the harder stuff of their youth.
And as boomers age, the British drug giant AstraZeneca will keep taking a bigger share of their outlays for anti-cholesterol drugs and other meds that treat the ailments that come with aging.
The reason: Direct competitors such as Merck and Pfizer are getting hammered by patent expirations, which invite competition from generic drugs. AstraZeneca has a stable of popular drugs with years of patent protection remaining.
Merck sales, for example, fell 5% in the first quarter, due largely to the patent loss on its osteoporosis drug Fosamax. And Pfizer sales declined by 3% because of generic competition and falling sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug, Lipitor, which was losing share to Crestor, made by -- you guessed it -- AstraZeneca. Crestor's 35% sales growth helped AstraZeneca beat most of its U.S. rivals with a 7% sales growth in the first quarter. AstraZeneca's top-selling drugs also include Nexium, used to treat ulcers, and Arimidex and Symbicort, which treat cancer and breathing problems, respectively.
The British drug giant also stands above its peers because it has a "hefty" pipeline of drugs in late-stage development, Morningstar analyst Damien Conover says. While competitors like Eli Lilly face serious challenges over the next four years as so many of their drugs go off patent, AstraZeneca has several potential blockbusters coming on line, Conover says. They include one, Dapagliflozin, to treat diabetes and several new cancer therapies.
Rival Bristol-Myers Squibb also has an impressive portfolio of drugs, a strong pipeline and solid sales growth. But AstraZeneca's stock has held up much better over the past two years, probably because the British company performs much better by so many measures, including cash flow, operating margins, and return on assets and equity. So we'll give the nod to AstraZeneca as the likely winner among the Big Pharma companies.
Some people have suggested that pharmaceutical companies would stop making a profit and cease to make new drugs under a system with universal healthcare, thereby lowerng the quality of care. I just ran across the following article. While it's not at all about universal healthcare, it does give me the impresstion that the concerns above have not come to fruition in countries where UHC already exists. I know it doesn't really flow with the conversation here right now, but I didn't want to start another healthcare thread.
When graying baby boomers celebrate the 40th anniversary of Woodstock in August, many of them will be popping cholesterol-lowering pills and blood pressure medication instead of the harder stuff of their youth.
And as boomers age, the British drug giant AstraZeneca will keep taking a bigger share of their outlays for anti-cholesterol drugs and other meds that treat the ailments that come with aging.
The reason: Direct competitors such as Merck and Pfizer are getting hammered by patent expirations, which invite competition from generic drugs. AstraZeneca has a stable of popular drugs with years of patent protection remaining.
Merck sales, for example, fell 5% in the first quarter, due largely to the patent loss on its osteoporosis drug Fosamax. And Pfizer sales declined by 3% because of generic competition and falling sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug, Lipitor, which was losing share to Crestor, made by -- you guessed it -- AstraZeneca. Crestor's 35% sales growth helped AstraZeneca beat most of its U.S. rivals with a 7% sales growth in the first quarter. AstraZeneca's top-selling drugs also include Nexium, used to treat ulcers, and Arimidex and Symbicort, which treat cancer and breathing problems, respectively.
The British drug giant also stands above its peers because it has a "hefty" pipeline of drugs in late-stage development, Morningstar analyst Damien Conover says. While competitors like Eli Lilly face serious challenges over the next four years as so many of their drugs go off patent, AstraZeneca has several potential blockbusters coming on line, Conover says. They include one, Dapagliflozin, to treat diabetes and several new cancer therapies.
Rival Bristol-Myers Squibb also has an impressive portfolio of drugs, a strong pipeline and solid sales growth. But AstraZeneca's stock has held up much better over the past two years, probably because the British company performs much better by so many measures, including cash flow, operating margins, and return on assets and equity. So we'll give the nod to AstraZeneca as the likely winner among the Big Pharma companies.
great article....and exactly.
i think more than a few posters have said the same, that innovation can and DOES still exist, and THRIVE, within a UHC system. no reason for it not to, really. the US in no way corners the market for medical advancements/innovations/research.
Comments
yea I hear ya, but it just doesnt feel right. but the concepts do make sense. its hard to draw the line though and what gets covered and what doesnt. how do you define catastrophic event? its going to have to be with a $. thats what lead to my deductible question. I don't think its unreasonable for the government to ask for a deductible....even one based on income. that way, everyone helps chip in for the costs WHEN they use them.
Here's another critique of that analogy: There's more or less a limit on out-of-pocket expenses for cars. Worst case scenario is that you have to buy a new car for, say, $25,000. With healthcare, even if you don't die, you could rack up medical bills in the millions.
i like this idea..........i just wonder if people will expect health repairs to be on the same level as car repairs.
wait......that would not work, because a large amount of people would use the money saved on gas and use the savings toward large tvs, atvs, chrome wheels, campers, boats.......the list goes on.
how about we do away with health insurance and have a single payer system thus you won't have to worry about anyone buying a chrome camper boat with a big ol' tv...?
Hence the need for catastrophic care insurance. BUt as I said, there are good reasons as to why the analogy won't wonk without soem major tweaking.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/7-companies-beating-the-odds.aspx?GT1=33002&slide-number=5
7 Companies Beating the Odds
When graying baby boomers celebrate the 40th anniversary of Woodstock in August, many of them will be popping cholesterol-lowering pills and blood pressure medication instead of the harder stuff of their youth.
And as boomers age, the British drug giant AstraZeneca will keep taking a bigger share of their outlays for anti-cholesterol drugs and other meds that treat the ailments that come with aging.
The reason: Direct competitors such as Merck and Pfizer are getting hammered by patent expirations, which invite competition from generic drugs. AstraZeneca has a stable of popular drugs with years of patent protection remaining.
Merck sales, for example, fell 5% in the first quarter, due largely to the patent loss on its osteoporosis drug Fosamax. And Pfizer sales declined by 3% because of generic competition and falling sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug, Lipitor, which was losing share to Crestor, made by -- you guessed it -- AstraZeneca. Crestor's 35% sales growth helped AstraZeneca beat most of its U.S. rivals with a 7% sales growth in the first quarter. AstraZeneca's top-selling drugs also include Nexium, used to treat ulcers, and Arimidex and Symbicort, which treat cancer and breathing problems, respectively.
The British drug giant also stands above its peers because it has a "hefty" pipeline of drugs in late-stage development, Morningstar analyst Damien Conover says. While competitors like Eli Lilly face serious challenges over the next four years as so many of their drugs go off patent, AstraZeneca has several potential blockbusters coming on line, Conover says. They include one, Dapagliflozin, to treat diabetes and several new cancer therapies.
Rival Bristol-Myers Squibb also has an impressive portfolio of drugs, a strong pipeline and solid sales growth. But AstraZeneca's stock has held up much better over the past two years, probably because the British company performs much better by so many measures, including cash flow, operating margins, and return on assets and equity. So we'll give the nod to AstraZeneca as the likely winner among the Big Pharma companies.
great article....and exactly.
i think more than a few posters have said the same, that innovation can and DOES still exist, and THRIVE, within a UHC system. no reason for it not to, really. the US in no way corners the market for medical advancements/innovations/research.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow