It's for your own good

Quote:

---

Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is providing lawmakers with cost estimates for each potential change in the health overhaul, included the option in a broad report on health-system financing in December. The office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years. So far, lawmakers have not indicated how big a tax they are considering.

Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.

The main beverage lobby that represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and other companies said such a tax would unfairly hit lower-income Americans and wouldn't deter consumption.

"Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," said Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association. Instead, the association says it's backing programs that limit sugary beverage consumption in schools.

Some recent state proposals along the same lines have met stiff opposition. New York Gov. David Paterson recently agreed to drop a proposal for an 18% tax on sugary drinks after facing an outcry from the beverage industry and New Yorkers.

The beverage-tax proposal would apply to drinks that many Americans don't consider unhealthy -- such as PepsiCo's Gatorade and Kraft's Capri Sun -- based on their calorie content.

Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.

The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.

The White House, meanwhile, is pulling together private health groups to identify cost savings that will help fund the health overhaul. Mr. Obama on Monday held a White House meeting with groups that represent doctors, hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical-device makers. They pledged to help restrain cost increases in the health-care system in an effort to save $2 trillion over the next decade.

"When it comes to health-care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses and government itself," Mr. Obama told reporters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1242...96608647.html#

---

I'll gladly pay. (slurps Icee)

don't drink soda. problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

don't drink soda. problem solved.

---

HaHa. That would only create more problems. Think about how much the soda industry puts in to our economy. How may people work in the soda industry. You are joking. My bad.

Wow, this tax is really progressive. While we're at it, let's slap on a one or two dollar tax for fast food meal deals. That will really soak the rich.

Lower Taxes. More Taxpayers. Less entitlements. Lower spending.

No need for slippery slope tax ideas.

Common Sense overload.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

don't drink soda. problem solved.

---

Because clearly the Dems who want to control our lives because they know 'what's best for us' will stop at a soda tax...

Clinton would not pull this shit

Meh, I don't really like it but if people drink less soda in the end, well... good.

Maybe there should be a "free refill on a large Mountain Dew" tax instead.

This tax is unfair to gamers and meth users.

I drink Diet Coke with Lime, or Diet Dr Pepper, so I would be unaffected. Crappy idea though. Pretty much all juice drinks are sugary.

Maybe they can also come up with some kind "non-exercise" tax, where people that don't exercise would have to pay a tax. Dems could call it the "Couch Potato Tax".

I'm glad the enlightened have decided to steer us towards a better life.

Let the masses drink Fiji!

Taxing anything unhealthy is the only way to pay for a single payer health care system. If you do not detour people from unhealthy practices, it will bankrupt this nation.

Think about it people. If you want universal health care, this will happen!

I will even support it. You all tend to vote for what benefits you rather than this nation as a whole. I will do the same on this issue if universal health care becomes a reality.

I eat healthy, so it won't affect me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Taxing anything unhealthy is the only way to pay for a single payer health care system. If you do not detour people from unhealthy practices, it will bankrupt this nation.

---

Big daddy, save us! We don't know how to feed ourselves! We need taxes and technocrats to show us how!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Think about it people. If you want universal health care, this will happen!

I will even support it. You all tend to vote for what benefits you rather than this nation as a whole. I will do the same on this issue if universal health care becomes a reality.

---

That is so not conservative, gravy train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I eat healthy, so it won't affect me!

---

So long as the tax doesn't affect you, you're cool with it.

Please tell me this was another misfired another comedy bit.

I don't worry about all that "healthy" eating crap. Talk about Americans being pussified. When your time is up, your time is up.

I imagine Dijon mustard and arugula will be exempted from the health taxation cam-pain, of course.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ajfZZtGpIemc
Cheerios Cereal Isn’t So Wholesome as Package Claims (Update3)
By Catherine Larkin and Duane Stanford
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Cheerios, the world’s best-selling cereal, isn’t so wholesome as its maker General Mills Inc. claims, U.S. regulators said.

Packaging and Internet advertising for the toasted oats violate federal law with promises to lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer, according to a warning letter posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s Web site today. General Mills, ordered to fix the issues or risk product seizure, said it would try to resolve the letter with the regulator.

The FDA allows food companies to make nutritional claims backed by scientific studies, and restricts wording. Health claims have helped food and beverage makers boost sales as more consumers struggle with obesity. Food companies are testing the regulator’s “relatively subjective view” of how much scientific proof is needed, said Christopher Shanahan, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan Inc. in Mountain View, California.

“We certainly don’t have any issues with the safety of Cheerios,” Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in an interview today. “We just believe that the labeling on this particular product has gone beyond what the science supports.”

The FDA started its Cheerios review after the National Consumers League, a Washington-based advocacy group, complained in a September letter that the cereal’s health claims made it out to be a drug, Sundlof said.

The warning letter represented the FDA’s first action against a “mainstream food product” in more than nine years and showed the agency is exerting its authority under President Barack Obama, said Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, in Washington.

Doctor’s Advice

“Consumers are influenced by food claims on labels,” Silverglade said in a telephone interview today. “To the extent that they’re misleading, it’s as bad as a doctor giving out poor medical advice.”

General Mills, based in Minneapolis, rose 74 cents to $53.65 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The company is the second-largest cereal maker, after Kellogg Co., of Battle Creek, Michigan.

Cheerios was introduced in 1941 as the world’s first ready- to-eat oat cereal, according to the product’s Web site. The honey-nut variety came out in 1979, followed by apple cinnamon, multigrain and frosted flavors. The cereal box has said for more than two years that the product can “lower your cholesterol 4 percent in 6 weeks” for more than two years, according to General Mills.

Rising Sales

General Mills’ cereal sales rose 13 percent in the third quarter ended in February, helped by the marketing of Cheerios health benefits, Chief Executive Officer Ken Powell said during a March 18 conference call.

“Cheerios, which is the largest franchise in the category, is also one of the fastest-growing brands in the category,” Powell said during the call. “So that’s a great story.”

The company believes “the science” behind the cereal’s claims “is not in question,” Tom Forsythe, a spokesman for the cereal company, said in an e-mailed statement today. “The FDA is interested in how the Cheerios cholesterol-lowering information is presented on the Cheerios package and Web site. We look forward to discussing this with FDA and to reaching a resolution.”

Cereal or Drug?

The FDA took issue with Cheerios boxes that say the cereal can lower cholesterol. That statement qualifies Cheerios under U.S. regulations as an unapproved new drug, the FDA said. While the agency allows a health claim linking soluble fiber from whole grain oats to a reduced risk of heart disease by means of lowering cholesterol, Cheerios boxes have cholesterol as a prominent, stand-alone claim, the FDA said in its letter, dated May 5.

Cheerios’ online marketing of heart disease and cancer benefits also fails to include language the FDA requires about other foods that help reduce risks, according to the agency.

“The claim on your Web site leaves out any reference to fruits, vegetables, and fiber content,” the FDA letter said. “Therefore, your claim does not convey that all these factors together help to reduce the risk of heart disease and does not enable the public to understand the significance of the claim in the context of the total daily diet.”

Kellogg’s box for Frosted Mini-Wheats also has fallen under U.S. government scrutiny. In April, Kellogg settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it falsely advertised the cereal to improve children’s attentiveness. The FTC said the clinical study Kellogg cited found that only half the children who ate the cereal showed any improvement in their attentiveness.

“We stand behind the clinical results,” Kellogg Chief Executive Officer David Mackay said in an April telephone interview. “Their concern was that it may have tried to say something that we weren’t intending to say. We made that modification and we move on with life”

To contact the reporters on this story: Catherine Larkin in Washington at [email protected]; Duane D. Stanford in Atlanta at [email protected].

Last Updated: May 12, 2009 16:42 EDT

The vast majority of the healthcare dollars a person (or other payor) spends on their healthcare are during the death-throes at the end of life. Guess what? You can delay that, but you cannot put it off forever. As illogical as it may sound, making people "Healthier" will NOT significantly reduce the amount we spend on health care in this country. Ultimately, everyone WILL die, and most are going to die of something expensive (in many cases, a healthy body simply allows a person to deteriorate mentally for a longer period before they kick; costing tons in nursing and assistance). That doesn't even address the problems additional life expectancy would do to the SS trust fund! We NEED smokers who die at 61 & never collect! We need diabetics that die before their time! Over the course of a lifetime people with BAD health, who die young, ultimately cost society LESS, not more. Taxing unhealthy items in order to save money, or pay for healthcare, is not financially sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I eat healthy, so it won't affect me!

---

bullshit. you spend all your time and money in that strip joint eating pot stickers served up by that skanky ho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

The vast majority of the healthcare dollars a person (or other payor) spends on their healthcare are during the death-throes at the end of life. Guess what? You can delay that, but you cannot put it off forever. As illogical as it may sound, making people "Healthier" will NOT significantly reduce the amount we spend on health care in this country. Ultimately, everyone WILL die, and most are going to die of something expensive (in many cases, a healthy body simply allows a person to deteriorate mentally for a longer period before they kick; costing tons in nursing and assistance). That doesn't even address the problems additional life expectancy would do to the SS trust fund! We NEED smokers who die at 61 & never collect! We need diabetics that die before their time! Over the course of a lifetime people with BAD health, who die young, ultimately cost society LESS, not more. Taxing unhealthy items in order to save money, or pay for healthcare, is not financially sensible.

---

Of course, individuals could be responsible for saving enough for their retirement, procuring health care services for themselves, and their lifestyle choices. Perhaps we don't have a tax code that ultimately encourages individuals to pay for small, routine medical expenses through insurance, at a fraction of the true cost.

At this point I could live with some kind of nationalized, catastrophic insurance plan provided by private insurers, so long as we move away from the use of insurance for routine, small medical expenditures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

so long as we move away from the use of insurance for routine, small medical expenditures.

---

give us an example. are you talking about office visit co-pay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

so long as we move away from the use of insurance for routine, small medical expenditures.

---

Imagine the cost of auto insurance if there was a "Copay" for oil changes, car-washes, window cracks & paint dings!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

give us an example. are you talking about office visit co-pay?

---

Yes, yes he was. (and ridiculously low deductibles).

Before the advent of the copay (+- 1987), the average American saw a doctor 2.5 times PER YEAR. Now it's closer to a dozen. And remember, with each visit comes and tests, and usually, a prescription.

System DOES provide a LOT of jobs in this country, however - both on billing, and paying, sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Imagine the cost of auto insurance if there was a "Copay" for oil changes, car-washes, window cracks & paint dings!

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Yes, yes he was. (and ridiculously low deductibles).

Before the advent of the copay (+- 1987), the average American saw a doctor 2.5 times PER YEAR. Now it's closer to a dozen. And remember, with each visit comes and tests, and usually, a prescription.

System DOES provide a LOT of jobs in this country, however - both on billing, and paying, sides.

---

i'm sure it works both ways.....unnecessary test and procedures advised and performed by the physician....greed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Big daddy, save us! We don't know how to feed ourselves! We need taxes and technocrats to show us how!

---

That's what most people seem to want. Cradle to grave protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

That is so not conservative, gravy train.

---

Maybe not in a strict sense, but we are applying this to a social program. Look at it this way. If my tax dollars are being used to provide for others, I want a say in how it's spent. I say if someone wants those benefits, they don't get them if they don't take care of themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

So long as the tax doesn't affect you, you're cool with it.

Please tell me this was another misfired another comedy bit.

---

No, limiting unhealthy food won't affect me. I am for eliminating unhealthy foods to reduce my tax burden. Don't you understand my point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

The vast majority of the healthcare dollars a person (or other payor) spends on their healthcare are during the death-throes at the end of life. Guess what? You can delay that, but you cannot put it off forever. As illogical as it may sound, making people "Healthier" will NOT significantly reduce the amount we spend on health care in this country. Ultimately, everyone WILL die, and most are going to die of something expensive (in many cases, a healthy body simply allows a person to deteriorate mentally for a longer period before they kick; costing tons in nursing and assistance). That doesn't even address the problems additional life expectancy would do to the SS trust fund! We NEED smokers who die at 61 & never collect! We need diabetics that die before their time! Over the course of a lifetime people with BAD health, who die young, ultimately cost society LESS, not more. Taxing unhealthy items in order to save money, or pay for healthcare, is not financially sensible.

---

Isn't that what the Canadian system does? ration care to those problems so they die sooner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, limiting unhealthy food won't affect me. I am for eliminating unhealthy foods to reduce my tax burden. Don't you understand my point?

---

Yeah, you want technocrats to monitor our diet and withhold health benefits to get us to comply with their diktats. Couldn't be clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Yeah, you want technocrats to monitor our diet and withhold health benefits to get us to comply with their diktats. Couldn't be clearer.

---

If I have to pay for others, then fuck yes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If I have to pay for others, then fuck yes!

---

this....coming from a guy that admitted he was raised on welfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I don't worry about all that "healthy" eating crap. Talk about Americans being pussified. When your time is up, your time is up.

---

I don't go overboard or out of my way to eat healthy. I just limit some types of food. I eat very little of something that is sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup for example. That means I rarely have a soda. Maybe two or three times a month. I don't eat fried foods very often, except fried zucchini. I use real Butter and drink whole milk. I buy real Maple Syrup, rather than the fake stuff. I cook my eggs and pancakes with olive oil. I don't buy red meat for at home, but sometimes eat a burger, and normally order steak at a restaurant. The meats I do bring home are salmon, tuna, turkey, and chicken. I eat allot of eggs, cheese, vegetables, and fruits. I buy 100% juice, like Simply Orange and the V-8 Fusions. I buy my vegetables from the growers market about 1 mile from where I live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't go overboard or out of my way to eat healthy. I just limit some types of food. I eat very little of something that is sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup for example. That means I rarely have a soda. Maybe two or three times a month. I don't eat fried foods very often, except fried zucchini. I use real Butter and drink whole milk. I buy real Maple Syrup, rather than the fake stuff. I cook my eggs and pancakes with olive oil. I don't buy red meat for at home, but sometimes eat a burger, and normally order steak at a restaurant. The meats I do bring home are salmon, tuna, turkey, and chicken. I eat allot of eggs, cheese, vegetables, and fruits. I buy 100% juice, like Simply Orange and the V-8 Fusions. I buy my vegetables from the growers market about 1 mile from where I live.

---

Well, to me, that is going overboard. I still eat meat, drink whole milk, eat fried foods, but I do use PAM when I cook eggs in non-stick pan, I do eat more chicken...fried that is..but I bake it or grill it too.
But I do walk everyday.
I eat real food for real guys.

Oh, and I'm drinking a nice cold root beer right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Well, to me, that is going overboard. I still eat meat, drink whole milk, eat fried foods, but I do use PAM when I cook eggs in non-stick pan, I do eat more chicken...fried that is..but I bake it or grill it too.
But I do walk everyday.
I eat real food for real guys.

Oh, and I'm drinking a nice cold root beer right now.

---

LOL... I love steak and potatoes, I just don't buy it that often. I don't believe it a bad meat, some say red meats not good for you, and I really don't know or care. I just find fish and poultry as satisfying and leaner. I have a craving for beef on occasion, so I get a burger sometimes. I love root beer as well, I just drink little of it. I drink a whole lot more real beer, and I mean real beer. Not that Schludwiller pisswater stuff.

What I cannot and do not do is always buy fried foods, chips, soda's etc.

I'm out of my Inversion IPA. I'll be gone a few minutes as I go to the store.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL... I love steak and potatoes, I just don't buy it that often. I don't believe it a bad meat, some say red meats not good for you, and I really don't know or care. I just find fish and poultry as satisfying and leaner. I have a craving for beef on occasion, so I get a burger sometimes. I love root beer as well, I just drink little of it. I drink a whole lot more real beer, and I mean real beer. Not that Schludwiller pisswater stuff.

What I cannot and do not do is always buy fried foods, chips, soda's etc.

I'm out of my Inversion IPA. I'll be gone a few minutes as I go to the store.

---

No, I hear ya. We do limit chips and soda as we are trying to teach our kids better eating habits. I only buy lean meat and we do eat more chicken. I'm more into living an active lifestyle and we do use Olive oil.

Obama is ridiculous doing this. There is no argument unless you are a fucking douchebag idiot. He is taking money from successful companies. Taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. He punishes people for being successful. Seriously there is no debate. I feel sorry for you who think Obama should do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Obama is ridiculous doing this. There is no argument unless you are a fucking douchebag idiot. He is taking money from successful companies. Taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. He punishes people for being successful. Seriously there is no debate. I feel sorry for you who think Obama should do this.

---

Oh please. That whole "punishing" people for being successful is pure BS. I sure as hell wouldn't be complaining and it depends on what you consider successful. I consider many, many people successful who aren't living high on the hog and making tons of money. More power to those who do as I work to make tons of money myself.

Damn whiners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

HaHa. That would only create more problems. Think about how much the soda industry puts in to our economy. How may people work in the soda industry. You are joking. My bad.

---

HaHa. That would only create more problems. Think about how much the tobacco industry puts in to our economy. How may people work in the tobacco industry. You are joking. My bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Oh please. That whole "punishing" people for being successful is pure BS. I sure as hell wouldn't be complaining and it depends on what you consider successful. I consider many, many people successful who aren't living high on the hog and making tons of money. More power to those who do as I work to make tons of money myself.

Damn whiners.

---

That makes you a douchebag idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Obama is ridiculous doing this. There is no argument unless you are a fucking douchebag idiot. He is taking money from successful companies. Taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. He punishes people for being successful. Seriously there is no debate. I feel sorry for you who think Obama should do this.

---

I agree with you. I don't think he should do it. However, if we get socialized health care, then I want to force healthy habits in people. At least those who are on socialized programs.

It's the people's choice here.

I say, if you want universal health care, expect universal self-health regulations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I agree with you. I don't think he should do it. However, if we get socialized health care, then I want to force healthy habits in people. At least those who are on socialized programs.

It's the people's choice here.

I say, if you want universal health care, expect universal self-health regulations!

---

Nope, no "however", that just makes you a douchebag not a idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I agree with you. I don't think he should do it. However, if we get socialized health care, then I want to force healthy habits in people. At least those who are on socialized programs.

It's the people's choice here.

I say, if you want universal health care, expect universal self-health regulations!

---

Having lived in a country with universal healthcare, I can absolutely say that your claim is complete and utter bullshit.
Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Oh please. That whole "punishing" people for being successful is pure BS. I sure as hell wouldn't be complaining and it depends on what you consider successful. I consider many, many people successful who aren't living high on the hog and making tons of money. More power to those who do as I work to make tons of money myself.

Damn whiners.

---

I see it different and I reserve the right to whine about how much I already pay in taxes. We don't need things like this that will cost more yet.

This nation does punish success, and rewards the lazy asses. I say that because we have redistribution of wealth and we don't make sure people on social systems are doing anything to better themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Having lived in a country with universal healthcare, I can absolutely say that your claim is complete and utter bullshit.
Thank you.

---

LOL... You still pissed at me for being right in that other thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL... You still pissed at me for being right in that other thread?

---

What thread?
No, I was responding to your post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

That makes you a douchebag idiot.

---

Then that makes two of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What thread?
No, I was responding to your post in this thread.

---

I know, but there are so many different factors I bet. Regulations and liability protections are major costs here in the USA. Then those who pay end up paying extra to help cover the losses from those who cannot pay as well. How did they deal with such things where you're from.

Isn't it Argentina? I forget...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I see it different and I reserve the right to whine about how much I already pay in taxes. We don't need things like this that will cost more yet.

This nation does punish success, and rewards the lazy asses. I say that because we have redistribution of wealth and we don't make sure people on social systems are doing anything to better themselves.

---

I see it differently and reserve the right to be a douchebag idiot. I've got friends who are very successful financially and live in big homes, take great vacations, send their kids to great colleges and you know what? They don't complain near as much as other successful people do and they give to the less fortunate lazy asses all the time.
I'm just saying that some are not thankful for what they have but whine more about what they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

HaHa. That would only create more problems. Think about how much the soda industry puts in to our economy. How may people work in the soda industry. You are joking. My bad.

---

So you smoke since the tobacco industry puts in the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I know, but there are so many different factors I bet. Regulations and liability protections are major costs here in the USA. Then those who pay end up paying extra to help cover the losses from those who cannot pay as well. How did they deal with such things where you're from.

Isn't it Argentina? I forget...

---

My personal experience is from Argentina. And basically everyone has access to public health. A good amount of hospitals are funded and run by the government. Whenever you have an emergency or you need to go see a doctor, you can walk right in there, and they'll treat you, and you won't ever receive a bill at home for that. Now, the quality of care is rather low in those places. But for common illnesses it's really no different than any other place (ie: a broken leg, flu, a concussion). There are also private hospitals that you can go to, and pay if you want. Those normally provide better quality of care. Some of those also offer an insurance type of package that you can pay monthly (about U$S 50/month) that allows you to have access to the totality of their services.
You can also go visit a private doctor's practice, and pay off your pocket. They're normally fairly priced, depending on the specialty.

There are various key things at work here:
1) Healthcare price is rather low because there's a tort limit for things such as malpractice, which makes liability insurance basically extinct (that right there would lower half the cost of running a practice in the US). Instead, there are other methods in place: A doctor found with repeated offenses can be stripped of his license to practice.
2) If you're a pharma and want to sell your brand new medicine in the country, you're agreeing to waive whatever patent claims you have in said medicine for a period of 10 years. If a local lab wants to produce a generic of your drug during that period, they're perfectly allowed to do so.
3) Since the cost of both care and medicine is reduced dramatically, and there's a public net to fall back to, the whole insurance industry there is rather small. They sure as hell don't control prices like they do over here.

I also have a first hand account from my sister that lived in Canada for many years. Over there it's a different system altogether. It's closer to the US system, but most of the cost is funded by high taxes.
Then again, they don't require you to do anything special in Canada either. You can be smoking, drinking, etc and still have access to care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

1) Healthcare price is rather low because there's a tort limit for things such as malpractice, which makes liability insurance basically extinct (that right there would lower half the cost of running a practice in the US). Instead, there are other methods in place: A doctor found with repeated offenses can be stripped of his license to practice.

---

I have been consistent in past posts of saying we need to do real tort reform before before considering socializing medicine. I will never accept socialized medicine without trying to fix the current free market system first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

2) If you're a pharma and want to sell your brand new medicine in the country, you're agreeing to waive whatever patent claims you have in said medicine for a period of 10 years. If a local lab wants to produce a generic of your drug during that period, they're perfectly allowed to do so.

---

That probably limits many types of medications available. Do you think it's right for a corporation to spend millions, or billion in research and development, just to have someone else make free profit on their work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

3) Since the cost of both care and medicine is reduced dramatically, and there's a public net to fall back to, the whole insurance industry there is rather small. They sure as hell don't control prices like they do over here.

---

We could have a similar cost reduction here if regulations were relaxed and if we had serious tort reform.

Funny thing is, if they socialize medicine here, the governments not going to get sued! The people will in essence lose the more rights to sue in a socialized system than with serious tort reform!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have been consistent in past posts of saying we need to do real tort reform before before considering socializing medicine. I will never accept socialized medicine without trying to fix the current free market system first.

---

I agree. The problem is that applying tort reform in this country could be a major hurdle, considering you're basically tampering with 'free market' and lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That probably limits many types of medications available. Do you think it's right for a corporation to spend millions, or billion in research and development, just to have someone else make free profit on their work?

---

It doesn't really limit availability. If a medicine is not cost-effective to be produced in the local market, then it can be imported (and you end up paying whatever money you already pay). Or if the medicine is popular enough, then a local lab will produce it and price it accordingly. The end result is you normally end up paying almost cost for a drug.
As far as companies recouping their investment, yes, this system does screw them over. But I also don't like the current patent system either, where greed rules over whatever human needs. I think just like tort reform above, there needs to be a balance. My suggestion would be a system where you allow the company to recoup it's costs plus a hard cap on the profits they can make (just like the hard cap you would place on tort reform). Say, a 15%. In a way, that's somewhat how the current system works if you're insured. An insurance company will only pay a fraction of what it would cost you out of pocket. The problem is that if you're not insured, you can't afford to pay those exorbitant prices (And I've been in that boat).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We could have a similar cost reduction here if regulations were relaxed and if we had serious tort reform.

Funny thing is, if they socialize medicine here, the governments not going to get sued! The people will in essence lose the more rights to sue in a socialized system than with serious tort reform!

---

Not really. I don't envision the public system to be like that here. I think it would basically be an expansion of Medicare basically for everybody. That still reserves you the right to sue the doctor if needed be.