Unfortunately, there is no box on the ballot to check for "I don't want to vote for any of these tossers. I demand that you fetch me some new candidates."

So true, hit the nail on the head,

Reg. Frank R.

Hi Jersey, "A little like breathing"

That says it all.

I will steal that line, with your permission.

Reg. Frank R.

This is true. We just went through the stats in one of my grad classes a couple of weeks ago. In doing my practicum I cannot begin to tell you how many working people I see who do not have health insurance...

We are the lucky ones...we can always to home.

Home.

No place like it

I don't consider you a "lucky one", because you live somewhere you don't consider home. I, on the other hand, am already home - so who's lucky?

There is that way of looking at it.

I'm pleased you feel at home here. I hope you never need healthcare you can't afford. If you do you can always go back too the UK.

Since I work in the medical sector, I can't resist the temptation to get drawn into these arguments.

I think it's important to draw the line at what we mean by free healthcare, before arguing whether or not it shoudl be a fundamental right. Like most Scots I'm a socialist, and I strongly believe in free basic healthcare, but I don't think that means open access for all to the latest and greatest healthcare innovations.

The problem is, as most NHS trusts have found out, it doesn't matter where you draw the line, there will always be some people left out.


While I am at it, drug companies are not charities. Although some of them are a bit top heavy with overpaid executives and lawyers, by and large the big pharma companies are staffed with very talented scientists and engineers who deserve to be well paid.

Healthcare for all?? Pfffttt what a preposterous idea!! Filthy communist ideology! Next you'll be wanting to feed the hungry, and house the homeless! Why can't we just use the blood of the poor to fuel my giant SUV and therefore solve the fuel crisis? Now if you don't mind I'm off to a Rick Perry conference.

Problem is, most talented scientists and engineers, are not that well paid. Drug manufactures are over charging, purely because "its life or death", they rip off people in need.
Gouging, because the sick, need to drug to live, is GOUGING.
Reg. Frank R.

That's one way to look at it.

However that point of view conveniently ignores the massive cost and complexity involved in bringing a drug to market.

High-end drugs (which are usually the ones that get people worked up) are expensive to develop and expensive to produce.

So you are left with three options.

1.) Governments picking up the tab
2.) Punters picking up the tab
3.) Drug companies working out of the goodness of their hearts.

Since governments are broke these days, #2 is the only practical option.


There seems to be a misconception among the general public that because they generally come in small containers, then drugs are cheap to make. That isn't the case, particularly for the modern cancer-fighting biotechnology products.


That's not to say the drug industry doesn't partake in cynical business practices, of course. It's led by MBAs who are in it for themselves, just like any other industry.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for the pharmaceutical companies if they didn't spend the entire GDP of a small African country on advertising. Watched any network news programme recently? Wall to wall drug ads.
My wife has a prescription that tops $400 per month for 30 pills. Is that really justifiable?

I've worked in healthcare in both the UK and the US. I could go into mind numbing detail, but suffice to say, the outright greed of many health care facilities I've worked at here is sickening. Yes, many are run as businesses and they have a right to make a profit. Gouging the sick and needy though is a whole other plane. Having said that, the worse offender by far is a certain "non-profit" hospital that I happen to frequent. Non-profit in this case appears to be charging your patients 3 times (or more) any facility is a similar sized city would and then paying yourself all the money paid. Oh look, there's no profit.

A survey where I live showed that almost 60% of people in full time (40+ hours a week) have no benefits at all. Most of those people are making minimum wage. In Oregon, that's $8.50 per hour, a hell of a lot better than may states but not much in the big scheme of things. $1530 per month pre-tax doesn't go far, especially when you have no health insurance, sick pay or vacation pay included.

As far the "they should go to college and get a better job" argument, don't get me started. Not everyone can (or should) do that. With no disrespect to these people, society needs janitors, street cleaners, gas pump attendants (in OR anyway), kitchen hands, etc. Don't those people need access to healthcare too?

Tying social benefits, especially healthcare, to employment seems counter-productive to me. Back home I was able to leave my job to start up a business without having to worry about giving up, or having to pay an extortionate amount for healthcare.

As for the unemployed, yes there are always going to be people who will take advantage of the system, but many more are in need and deserve some sort of safety net. Personally, I'd rather 10 "scroungers" got a benefit rather than 1 person genuinely in need went without. Then again, I'm a self-confessed loony left socialist.

As for the original question, it's a hard one. On one hand, if I knew then what i know now, I'd never had made the move. Financially and professionally it has been a disaster. Then again, I've met some wonderful people (and some total arseholes), been places I would never had been otherwise and experienced a different culture and way of life. Trust me, those who haven't lived here, it is a different culture, not an extension of the UK with funny accents, big houses and big cars.

As for Britain, despite what the likes of the Daily Mail says, we have a hell of a lot to be proud of. I love the "idea" of the U.S. but I feel that things have gone badly off-track since the election of Bush Jr (or the '98 elections). A country that enshrines the right to carry weapons but doesn't believe in the right of everyone to have access to decent, affordable healthcare needs to have a good look at itself.

I am all for business's making profit, its the general idea.
Big difference between Mercedes, saying "Take it or leave it" & Pfizer saying "Take it or leave it".

Or in the case of Pfizer holding on for dear life to out of time Lipitor, they are scratching, biting & screaming to keep it a branded drug, when should already be Generic. Guess how, they have politicians, in their pockets.

Drug companies could save a ton of money, just by firing all the lobbyists. Wow, no can't do that, who would help us maintain, the rip off prices.

Why are drugs, so much cheaper in Canada, UK, Europe?

Hospital's apart from few very private ones, should be not for profit.

Health Insurance companies should be not for profit.

Probably drug companies should be not for profit.

Not for profit, should not mean paying directors $5-10 million a year.


Reg. Frank R.

Frank, everything you wrote is unfortunately true.

Although you got one bit wrong - our CEO just upgraded his package to $21 million a year.

I will say the one thing that bothers me is the way that the major companies, especially American ones, treat the US as their core market. That is, when they develop a drug and price it, they are using US and European numbers to balance the business decisions. The basic strategy seems to be to take the American market for as much as possible and then all other global markets are a bonus.

This is one of many reasons why healthcare in the US is such a ridiculous rip-off.

One good thing about the NHS is that it's in the governments interests (somewhat) to fight against the drug companies and their price-fixing.