Why Don't We Globalize Health Care?

Africans actually had health care during the revolutions of the 1960s when the former colonies of Europe threw off their yokes of oppression and decided that Socialism was the way to go. Forty years into the future and all those countries are bankrupt due to their over extension of services to the people. Then of course those revolutionary socialist governments have turned into governments afraid of change so they dug themselves in getting rid of any opposition against corrupt rule by the few where the agents of the governments get everything and the people get none. Due to this distrust of government when the government now tries to help the people in terms of health care especially in terms of explaining how AIDS is transmitted they don't believe the crooks thus making the health care problem worse for the whole continent. Note: North Africa doesn't really count in this post since their Islamic traditions have actually held governments and populace together.

Quote:

---

Ya'll know it's Kill or be Killed here and Only the Strong Survive. Kindness is a weakness for fools!

---

Ya know it’s ban together or die alone. There’s not one single human being who ever lived on this planet who didn’t owe his existence and survival to others of his kind. We are a social animal. When there’s danger, fire, or simply work to be done, human beings have a long tradition of facing it together. Kindness is a virtue. Greed and selfishness are character flaws.

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yes, yes, it's much better to live high on the backs of others who only make a subsistence living. If the poor need bandages, let them use silk scarves. Humane behavior is socialistic behavior and I won't have it. Why, because I on the right.

---

As usual, Trish, I agree with you. However, "globalisation" implies reciprocity--ie, if US citizens can go elsewhere, everyone else can go to the US. That means that trade barriers and restrictive practises would have to end.

I think that were the world to develop a level playing-field in health care, this would have many benefits and undoubtedly a reduction in costs in some territories. However to do this, all protectionist policies in the US would have to be abolished so that the cost of health care provision floated naturally to a point that was competitive with the same provision elsewhere; this would mean US professionals, ultimately, paying themselves a lot less. When this sort of thing happened in the steel industry, a lot of Americans lost their jobs. Medical professionals are just another category of worker and the inevitable result of true globalisation would be a reduction in the amount of money available to pay US medical professionals. Funnily enough, I can't see them liking that idea.

As well as that, in general, in Europe anyway (which the writer of the article referred to), States have not developed their health-care systems on a commercial model. Therefore the level of provision is not normally greater than is required by the domestic population; there might be a little spare capacity, but not enough to service the widespread needs of US citizens. So while, for example, the French might be happy to take up some slack by selling surgery to Americans when things are quiet, the instant that it even appeared that those US patients were getting care in preference to the French, who have paid for the system out of taxation all their lives, because the US patient was able to afford to pay more for the procedure as a result of NOT having had to pay tax to develop a universal healthcare system, then I can guarantee riots and political catastrophe and an abrupt end to the practise; this would be the same anywhere.

The issue is not as simple as buying computer-chips and we can be pretty certain that until the US has in place such a universal health-care system, the political difficulties of allowing those US citizens, who can afford to pay, large-scale access to European healthcare systems mean that it just is not going to happen.

This situation, clearly, may be different in other parts of the world, but the author did mention European countries specifically, and it is clear that he has not fully thought through the ramifications.

Those two are my only objections to the idea, but they do seem pretty major.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

---

Ya'll know it's Kill or be Killed here and Only the Strong Survive. Kindness is a weakness for fools!

---

Ya know it’s ban together or die alone. There’s not one single human being who ever lived on this planet who didn’t owe his existence and survival to others of his kind. We are a social animal. When there’s danger, fire, or simply work to be done, human beings have a long tradition of facing it together. Kindness is a virtue. Greed and selfishness are character flaws.

---

My comment was a heavy dosage of sarcasm. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

---

Ya'll know it's Kill or be Killed here and Only the Strong Survive. Kindness is a weakness for fools!

---

Ya know it’s ban together or die alone. There’s not one single human being who ever lived on this planet who didn’t owe his existence and survival to others of his kind. We are a social animal. When there’s danger, fire, or simply work to be done, human beings have a long tradition of facing it together. Kindness is a virtue. Greed and selfishness are character flaws.

---

We are tribal NOT one big happy family. You're brazenly ignoring that.

What you're saying is true on a micro, NOT macro level...

So the company that spends all the money in research to develop a product, is demonized when they try and make a profit from the fruit of there labor?

Be thankful the profit motive is there, you will not find cutting edge medicines in Canada, England, or France.

The drugs only cost a few cents to manufacture, yes, but the millions invested in research and development should be something they should eat? How about the 60% of all drug research that produces nothing, they should also eat that? After all they are evil huh?

Put government in charge of health care and all you will hear is how you had a good run but were sorry were not going to provide the health care you requested. Here is a pain pill now go home and die like a man..... no thanks

Really it's like beating a dead horse. This shit is never ever gonna fly so Obama need to give it up and move on to his next project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Be thankful the profit motive is there, you will not find cutting edge medicines in Canada, England, or France.

---

Idiot!

Did anyone see the Daily Show last week, with Bill Kristol? He said that civilians shouldn't be able to get the same Medical coverage that the Military has because: a)the Military is underpaid and puts their lives on the line on a daily basis, and b) only the Military deserves THE BEST Medical care the Government can provide. Bill Kristol said the Government's Health Care is the best money can buy. Was he just pandering to the audience or does he truly believe what he said? Also, if the Government is so horrible at Healthcare, does that mean everyone on Medicare and Medicaid are getting screwed by the Government? Why is it that those who protest the loudest are the ones who already have Health insurance?