Who else watched 20/20 Tonight? Very interesting, indeed. A universal healthcare policy may hurt research. Without big profits, who will come up with new cures and technology?

Let's discuss it tomorrow, when we are fresh..

Sally,
Probably some foreign companies. If we get access to their products that is okay with me. There are some very smart people in other parts of the world, and they don't get paid the big bucks. Go figure..

I didn't see the show, but I read that there will continue to be institutions such as Universities, NIH, and other privately funded institutions, that will continue to research extensively for the reputation and/or the "other sales" it brings. Research funds are hugely important for "good" medical schools, it helps them attract the best and brightest students as well as instructors who need to publish research papers to advance their career and build a reputation.

It probably really depends on how the health care plan is structured in the end.

Seems like big celebs, when they find a cause, can really get a fundraiser going. Too bad they have to *get* something before it's important to them.

But even the rest of us... if we didn't have to spend SO much on day to day medical, do you think we'd be more apt to do some grass roots fundraising? Now that we know how critical it is, I do.

MS studies/research - as well as medical studies for all medicine - goes on all around the world. I read that Israel and Great Britain both have MS studies that look sorta/hopefully promising. Both have a form of socialized medicine.

Scientists, doctors, nurses, lab techs do not go into the medical field because of the money. They go into it because it interests them. At least that is what I know. Maybe there are SOME that go in for money. But lots of people, like teachers, become so because of their love for what they will do.

I was listening to the radio yesterday. A woman called in to say the health position should rename socialized medicine to civilized medicine because EVERYONE has a right to good medical care.

I liked that way of thinking.

If health care (I am selfish for ME and my kids) means healthcare for all but I can continue my own private policy thru DH's work but get some to defray his end of cost (YIPES!), I'm all for it. Everyone should get health care. I did not see 20/20 so know nothing. Government health care quality scares me. I like quality I get. But right now I get it. Things change. I know that.

All this worry seems just that, worry.

All industrialized countries with the exception of USA have socialized(gasp!) medicine. The citizens are all alive and well. In fact, some are doing pretty well in life. No medical worries and a better vacation plan, for sure.

Doctors still doctor and nurses still nurse.

The system is broken. I sat next to a Mayo Clinic doctor in first class on a flight back to Phoenix, he is the guy that does the transplant operations. Handsome too. Even he says that the way we look at health care must change. Money is NOT why he became a doctor, his words not mine.

I do not trust insurance companies!!! They want to make a profit!!! How do they do it? Charging you!!! What is 20% of $200,000? Answer: more than I can pay if something dire happens to me!!!

We are not getting the best care and I see lots of threads about fighting some desk jockey insurance person.

I believe it can and will work.

The stimulus is working, it worked so well that it ran out of money! The auto bailout is working. People have their jobs so they will pay taxes and continue to eat, go to ball games, spend. Old gas guzzling cars are off the road, less smog with a newer car. People BOUGHT cars.

The economy is awful but it is not sliding down as fast. That was my wish for a new administration.

Don't worry, it is bad for MS.

LOL, love it, Cyn..

And when the rich folks in those countries get cancer or need specialized care or surgery, they fly to hospitals in the US. The Texas Heart Institute has whole floors with multilingual staff dedicated to serving patients who come from the middle east and europe for heart surgery. When guys who can afford to buy gold plated rolls royces are flying here instead of Britain or Canada or Sweden or Norway for their surgeries, I think it makes it clear where the best care is being provided.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to turn a profit. The ability to turn a profit and share those profits with shareholders who invested in the company is at the absolute heart of a capitalist economic system. If you believe the companies who make a profit are evil and can't be trusted, you are saying that the last 200+ years of economic freedom that has made us the most prosperous economy on the planet should be scrapped. Businesses can't afford to give their services away for free. Without the ability to turn a profit, there is no incentive for investment. Without investment there is no incentive for innovation or motivation for efficiency and quality. Do I think some executives are overpaid...absolutely. Do I think a company can't be trusted just because they make a profit? Absolutely not.

Go back and read, because an awful lot of the threads I remember are people arguing with medicare and SSDI. Yet now they want the government to run even more of our health care system. Can insurance companies improve customer service? Sure. Are they all rotten to the core and should be replaced with government desk jockeys? Nope. Not warranted. See above for my opinion about the quality of our care. I don't see Americans scheduling medical vacations to Britain or Canada to get surgery...I DO see them scheduling surgeries here...nuff said.

You seem to be confused...the stimulus has shown no signs of working and is not even close to running out of money. We were told that if we didn't pass the stimulus, unemployment would go to 9%. With it, we were told unemployment would not go over 8%. We are in the 9s and predicted to hit double digits soon...so I would say no...it isn't working at all. Last numbers I saw from early July were less than 10% of the money had been allocated and even less actually spent. Obama's administration has delayed the next report (hoping to not let the numbers out until after health care had passed...which won't happen now) and the numbers are not expected to be much better. You are probably confusing the trillion dollar spendulus package with the 1 billion dollar CARS program.

Yes, cash for clunkers worked very well, but what did it actually do? The government printed new cash...spent that cash to give people up to $4500 for a new car (forcing them to take out loans...which many of them probably can't afford). Then destroyed the cars. Since most of the top cars bought under the program were imports, that means we just shipped hundreds of millions of dollars overseas. Hundreds of millions of dollars that all of our children and grandchildren will be paying off for the rest of their life as part of the enormous debt being racked up by this administration. They could have accomplished the same thing by just randomly giving $4500 away to anybody who wanted to buy a car, and then let them sell their old ones.

Something like 2/3 of the overall carbon footprint of a car comes from its original construction, not from its operation. So we spent a billion dollars buying cars where way more than 90% of the total carbon footprint had already been realized...so that we could cause a bunch of new cars to be built, requiring much more carbon to be produced in the production. The overall environmental impact of the program was next to nothing when you consider that fact alone.

As for paying taxes...the most recent tax receipts recorded the largest drop since the great depression...so don't be so sure about that paying taxes part either.

Not trying to be confrontational with you, but most of the things in the stimulus are not designed to even start until 2010 (to provide a nice pre-election boost), so to say that it is working so well it ran out of money...when less than 1/5 of the money has even been spent and unemployment is still rising just isn't truthful.

To her point though, if you look at the statistics provided by the World Health Organization, Americans don't have the best care, we have the most expensive care.

The doctors Saudi Arabian dignitaries come to see are not the same doctors - in the same institutions - our insurance companies will pay for us to see. A foreign diplomat doesn't have to worry about going 'out of network' to get his surgery covered.
So I believe it's inaccurate to imply 'the best doctors are in the US, therefore US citizens receive the best care'.

The truth of the matter is, if you have the money, you can see whatever doctor you choose. THAT is why we're having this conversation.

Receiving consistently good - or even great - healthcare should not be dependent on how much individual wealth a person has. But that last comment of mine is what sets us apart and defines the fundamental difference in our arguments. I think you believe the quality of healthcare a person receives is directly proportionate to their income. I don't.