 Lexica says: More: we should remind ourselves that the U.S. system also results in people going without life-saving treatment — it just does so less visibly. Pharmaceutical manufacturers often charge much more for drugs in the United States than they charge for the same drugs in Britain, where they know that a higher price would put the drug outside the cost-effectiveness limits set by NICE. American patients, even if they are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, often cannot afford the copayments for drugs. That’s rationing too, by ability to pay. 1. Healthcare is not a resource. It is a service. 2. Healthcare is not scarce. It meets and exceeds market demands. Americans are addicted to healthcare. We use way much more than we need, partly because doctor's are required to perform every test so they don't get sued. 3. We ration everything we consume in a free market economy. We buy what we can afford, want, and need. The rationing you are seem to be supporting is government rationing were a bureaucrat tells you want you can afford, want, and need, even deserve. Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life?Something tells me your opinion might change if it were you needing those drugs. Let's just unplug granny, stop all her meds and does anyone know where she put her will? I know if the person was a loved one of mine - the question of money would not come into play. government rationing were[sic] a bureaucrat tells you want you can afford, want, and need, even deserveAs opposed to having a private sector bean-counter bureaucrat telling you you want you can afford, want, and need, even deserve (then disqualifying you after the treatment has been scheduled). — Comment removed by clipper — — Comment removed by clipper — — Comment removed by clipper — willhelm, I deleted your two most recent comments because they included ad hominem attacks against another clipper. If you can find a way to express your opinion without insulting the other people in the discussion, you're welcome to comment again. And as long as I'm doing cleanup – Jorjor, because the comment of willhelm's that you're replying to was deliberately insulting and provocative, I'm going to leave your reply up – it doesn't feel quite fair to delete it. In general, I am going to be keeping a tighter rein on the comments on my clips and will be deleting ad hominem attacks on other clippers. So, you remove a comment I make that was a direct response to comment of jorjor and pointed out his idiocy, and you left his comment that contributed absolutely nothing to subject of the clip. His comment is about me..only me. That's OK. I like it that way. I am clipmark's favorite subject. I guess you wouldn't want that to change. Upon reflection, you're right, willhelm. Jorjor's comment, although in response to provocation, is still a personal attack. So, for the record, the first comment willhelm left: willhelm said:Jorjor's response to willhelm: Jorjor said:nblvbl. rlly d nt knw hw t s pssbl t ttn sch prfctd stt f stpdty.knw ths frm prsnl xprn... LOL! That was pretty cool. favorite subject: I don't have to tell myself that. Just keep your eyes open. |
View the Top Clips from July 17, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
