US Adverts on National Healthcare

Oh, the Republicans and the media are the worst, but interference by politicians and political groups outside the US (it's more than one MEP, and I don't think they are acting independently either) is out of line.  It smacks of a conflict of interest when politicians from countries who stand to benefit from keeping the US using their current system try to influence public opinion in the States.  

I think you may be overestimating these people, at least as far as the Tory MEPs are concerned. There's a segment of the Conservative Party, currently suppressed but not all that insignificant, that wants to see the end of the NHS as it currently exists. I imagine these two are actually just saying what they really think.

President Obama spoke today at a town hall meeting in Colorado, here is an article from CNN. I can't find the full video clip but saw part of his speech on TV and he made a lot of sense and I hope those against it, watched it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/15/obama.health.care/index.html

I so don't understand why people are against reform. Yes, I still have questions but I really want to see a change.

I doubt if any of those people protesting against the bill are part of the 50 million with no medical cover that it is designed to help....

I so don't understand why people are against reform. Yes, I still have questions but I really want to see a change.

Because the people who are happy with their insurance and their healthcare don't want things to change. Why should they give up what they have so that people they don't even know can have better access to healthcare?

I'm not saying that attitude is right; I'm just being honest about the way people think.

You'd be surprised, English.bloke.  I know people with little coverage or no coverage who are convinced by the anti-nationalised medicine/insurance propaganda out there.  I am not sure if any of them would go so far as to protest, but it wouldn't shock me.

ETA: My mom who just got Medicare (she was uninsured before that).  I am not sure if she is paying for extra coverage with that, but even with extra coverage, most people don't have great insurance with Medicare.  She is totally convinced that we wait an eternity for treatment here.  Every time I need to see the doctor for something, she asks me how long it took to get the appointment, what was covered, etc...  Every time I explain that we can usually see a GP the next day and usually don't wait more than a week or two for specialists (longest non-dental wait was 6 weeks for a physical therapist).  She seems to totally put that out of her mind.

It's human nature to resist changing perceptions.

Tories who support private healthcare accounts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/16/tory-mps-back-nhs-dismantling

I know people with little coverage or no coverage who are convinced by the anti-nationalised medicine/insurance propaganda out there.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. People are VERY susceptible to scare-mongering.

Because the people who are happy with their insurance and their healthcare don't want things to change. Why should they give up what they have so that people they don't even know can have better access to healthcare?

I'm not saying that attitude is right; I'm just being honest about the way people think.

You are right, that is what people are thinking but the thing is that people who are happy with their current (private) insurance can keep it. Obama keeps repeating that so I am not sure what I am missing?

You are right, that is what people are thinking but the thing is that people who are happy with their current (private) insurance can keep it. Obama keeps repeating that so I am not sure what I am missing?

You're missing Fox News.    They're not reporting how you get to keep your current insurance if you're happy with it, they're reporting about the government death panels that are trying to kill Stephen Hawking.

You're missing Fox News.    They're not reporting how you get to keep your current insurance if you're happy with it, they're reporting about the government death panels that are trying to kill Stephen Hawking.

Exactly! Fox News (as they say, fair and balanced....ha!).

There are a bunch of screaming talking heads on that channel. They are the ones scaring the heck out of people.  That said, it's shocking (sad really) to me the amount of Americans that believe what they say. 

Oh, the Republicans and the media are the worst, but interference by politicians and political groups outside the US (it's more than one MEP, and I don't think they are acting independently either) is out of line.  It smacks of a conflict of interest when politicians from countries who stand to benefit from keeping the US using their current system try to influence public opinion in the States. 

Have you read what Hannan has said today? It's nothing to do with the UK standing to benefit from the US keeping their current system, he doesn't support the NHS, he wants to dismantle it and have us move to a US style system. Looks like the next election might be a bit more interesting with a number of Tories showing their true colours.

Have you read what Hannan has said today? It's nothing to do with the UK standing to benefit from the US keeping their current system, he doesn't support the NHS, he wants to dismantle it and have us move to a US style system. Looks like the next election might be a bit more interesting with a number of Tories showing their true colours.

That might cost the Tories the election if it continues like this...even if everyone wants Brown out of office!

NHS pays less than Medicare not because NHS has some super ultra special negotiating ninja skills, but because by law Medicare is not allowed to leverage its purchasing power to negotiate drug prices.

So you may believe whatever you like, but Lady A is right -- high drug prices in the US subsidize lower drug prices in the rest of the world.

ETA: And as NHS is the majority (if not almost the only) purchaser of drugs in the UK, it's not so much "negotiating" as setting price controls. Which is fine, in my opinion, but let's call a spade a spade here.

I would buy the "subsidizing" argument if Medicare tried to get discounts, but failed to get them to the same extent as the NHS. As you point out, that's not the case. VA, for example, is allowed to negotiate discounts and gets its drugs far cheaper tham Medicare. If you want to call a spade a spade here, this was all about the drug companies using their lobbying $$$ to get Republicans to vote against the Medicare drug benefit unless their profits were protected. In other words "the best political system that money can buy" at work as usual...

I would buy the "subsidizing" argument if Medicare tried to get discounts, but failed to get them to the same extent as the NHS. As you point out, that's not the case. VA, for example, is allowed to negotiate discounts and gets its drugs far cheaper tham Medicare. If you want to call a spade a spade here, this was all about the drug companies using their lobbying $$$ to get Republicans to vote against the Medicare drug benefit unless their profits were protected. In other words "the best political system that money can buy" at work as usual...

So you think if everything else remains equal, the cost for drugs for the rest of the world will remain the same if the US adopts a system that removes out of pocket payment for drugs? 

So you think if everything else remains equal, the cost for drugs for the rest of the world will remain the same if the US adopts a system that removes out of pocket payment for drugs?  

I am not sure what you are asking here... I do think that if the US adopts some kind of universal access to healthcare it will actually increase demand for drugs. Otoh, if the US is allowed to extend its negotiations for price discounts to match what the VA does, the extra profit from additional sales would be offset (to a lesser or greater extent) by those discounts. Absent the ability to negotiate discounts, the Medicare drug benefit turned out to be an absolute bonanza for the drug companies; I am not sure why you would want to repeat that with a more general drug benefit.