HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v128pvry@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Christophe A Stoner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: RE: Medical Insurance and Cost Efficency
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:27:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov23.073838.7717@u.washington.edu>, roth@math.washington.edu (John Roth) writes...
>Two points:
>1) The techonology exists to solve the renal/cardiac/liver disorder 
>(I think you mys-spelled it) problem in the large: ban tobacco and
>alcohol.  And don't say prohibition failed, because from a public health 
>standpoint it was a success, and it was also never really implemented.
> 
>2) Is there any evidence that preventative medicine reduces medical costs?
>I am not asking if there's evidence that taking care of yourself improves
>your health or longevity-- I don't doubt that.  But it's not at all clear 
>to me that you save money this way.  It *maybe* money better spent, but it's 
>comparable money.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's more money, even.
>People will still get sick, still need bypass operations and transplants,
>still get cancer, even if they live longer healthier lives.  Nor is 
>preventative care cheap.
>
The only way to truly curb health care is to drastically limit the amount of
funds we divert to the care for those beyond care. Giving a triple bypass
to an individual who is likly to die regardless of the operation is not a
good idea. We must be willing to make some tough choices so that improved
medical care can be given to those who can truly be helped and not on those
we can only prolong the inevitable at a staggering cost. It would be nice
if we could all live forever but it is not a reasonable expectation.

Secondly prevenative care can be cheaper than treatment. Which is cheaper
a $20 polio vaccine or the necessary treatment once the illness has set in?
Vaccines are the most fundemental of all prevenative treatments. Others
include the improvement of personal habits. Look at the enrollment at the
local gym. Americans, for the most part, have realized the benifit of
caring for their bodies

	-Chris Stoner. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: health care industry woes
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:14:12 GMT

roth@math.washington.edu (John Roth) writes:
>
>However, Libertarianism is an already tried-and-failed philosophy of 
>health care in general.  I'm not saying there is at all a plain need 
>for governement insurance, but there is an obvious need for licensing 
>of physicians and regulation of drugs and treatments.  Medical fraud 
>is widespread now, it is at least avoidable by carefully choosing a 
>liscenced physician.  One can be sure that prescribed drugs are 
>proved safe and effective.  There is no alternative to government 
>standards for medical practice, except to educate everyone as a 
>physician.

The health insurance is a nonpartisan issue in Canada, France and
Germany -- government took the basic medical insurance because private
companies will not take the uninsurable; in fact, our own insurance
companies have lobbied against reprivatization of some segments of
insurance (this happened in Quebec this past spring) because their
supplementary private insurance and travel plans have an obscene
profit margin.

And in case you're thinking socialism, we have never had a left wing
federal government in Canada.  Ottawa is run by the Conservatives
while Quebec is run by the Liberals, as in the UK party of Disraeli
and Churchill -- not what you Americans call "liberal".  France and
Germany had theirs installed by the Gaullists (de Gaulle, D'estang)
and the Christian Democrats (Helmut Kohl, my girlfriend's father (-;),
both pro-business.

I come from a tax-hating Conservative family, and if Canada were as
bad as people in the United States tell each other it is, I would be a
prime person to be bitching and moaning about it ... and I wouldn't be
alone, either.  There are Can.* newsgroups at some sites and there is
Soc.culture.canada ...  funny that nobody has ever come up with any
first-hand testimony with all the technically right details (e.g.,
that we have pronices, etc.).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Jesus Saves!
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Gretzky gets the rebound -
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			he shoots, he scores!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: health care industry woes
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:30:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.163528.1494@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
}As I have pointed out in other articles, all of our doctors in Canada
}are private.  They have to buy malpractice insurance.  Their premiums
}are lower, though, due to the generally smaller presence of litigation
}outside of the U.S.  
}Also, erroneous assumption that government is involved in the Canadian
}health care provision process.

Then my Canadian friends who tell me about the government regulating private
hospitals out of existence so that they don't make the government hospitals
look bad are wrong?

}While some people do not care to distinguish, there are major and
}radical differences between socialized medicine of the UK and (because
}the risks are beyond the free market) public universal (real) health
}insurance as in Canada, France and Germany.  Britain and Italy have
}true socialized medicine with civil servant doctors and nationalized
}hospitals.  It is like an HMO, with a bureaucrat on the doctor's
}shoulders.  In Canada, it is just insurance and you spend your
}benefits as you choose and as the medical market allows; in fact, the
}Canada Health Act has certain provisions that prevent government
}intrusion into the direct provision of health (a concern if a radical
}leftist NDP administration such as Dave Barret's in 70's B.C. ever
}wanted to attempt to socialize their province's system ... I do not
}consider Canada to be "socialized").

The relevance of these distinctions is debatable, although it tends to be
far worse for governments to deliver services as well as finance them.

}>>This is why there's an "underground railroad" for Canadians in need
}>>of immediate treatment to get it in the States.
}>
}>I've seen no evidence that Canadians in need of immediate treatment 
}>were forced to wait in line.  There are waiting lists for some forms 
}>of elective surgery, for example heart bypass operations.
}
}A common myth repeated among Americans upon the assumption that our
}government(s) is involved in the health care process, rather than the
}market.

Perhaps, but I heard it from Canadians.

}Waiting lists have been debunked by Vancouver's conservative Fraser
}Institute, and CNN could not find any convincing ones during their
}June focus series on the health care system in Canada.  It was also
}one of the first times in the U.S. that I've seen the distinction that
}we have private doctors in Canada, and that the only public portion is
}centered on provincial (not federal - surprise! (-;) health insurance.

I'd like to know the reference for this, please, as I seem to recall the
opposite conclusion coming from Fraser.  I'll check a book of theirs
tomorrow.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Health Care Costs
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:28:29 GMT

In article <Bxw5Ht.B54@news.iastate.edu>
>
>1.  Do you feel that the current U.S. health care system is effective? (Y/N)

No, unless you have good health insurance.	

>2.  Do you feel health care in the U.S. would be improved to switching
>    to a universal health care system similar to Canadas? (Y/N)

Yes, but only to access because people will have insurance benefits to
spend.  In Canada, our system is only insurance; doctors and hospitals
are private.  Our shortcomings are due to geography (low population,
unevenly distributed over a large area).  France and Germany have the
same system that we do (or, vice-versa (-;) but they have much larger
populations in a more geographically compact region.

>3.  Do you think that Bill Clinton's proposed health care revisions
>    will improve
>      a) availability of health care? (Y/N)

Yes, but only to access. 

>      b) quality of health care? (Y/N)

No.  The market determines that in the USA, Canada, France and Germany.
However, the US will see worse health care for those forced into HMO's
to endure pseudo-socialized medicine.  Canada, France and Germany offer
pure health insurance, it's up to you as how to spend your benefits.

>      c) cost of health care? (Y/N)

Depends.

Canada, Germany and France have shown that people with benefits to
spend do so like adults, getting check-ups regularly and offsetting
advanced complications more likely to be seen in the USA (which is 
one reason why so many medical technologies are developed here (-;).
Because our systems are unchecked comprehensive health insurance,
our per-capita costs are 2nd, 3rd and 4th behind America's.

However, there is no way to predict that Americans will behave in the
same manner.

>4.  Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in order to improve the
>    health care system? (Y/N)

Yes, because outside of ideology the difference is a health insurance
premium.

>5.  What do you think is the number one problem with health care in
>    the U.S. today?

Access.  In Canada, France and Germany, doctors know that they will
get paid for each procedure that they perform.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Jesus Saves!
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Gretzky gets the rebound -
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			he shoots, he scores!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Canadian Health Insurance (was: health care industry woes)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 09:00:27 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>}A common myth repeated among Americans upon the assumption that our
>}government(s) is involved in the health care process, rather than the
>}market.
>
>Perhaps, but I heard it from Canadians.

One cultural point to note is that most Canadians have not had to take a
close look at our system to know some of its inner workings; I wouldn't
without the contacts that I have had by circumstance, plus living in the
United States presently has provided comparison.  Most Canadians seem to
believe there is more government in our system than there actually is,
and it can be broken down by dialogues such as:

Q: So your mom/dad's a doctor?
A: Yeah ...
Q: Do they work for the goverment?
A: Why, like, NO!!  What would make you say that??

Try it on a fresh arrival or a tourist and see what happens ...

Also, you might want to ask your Canadian friends about the Macleans
magazine (our Time/Newsweek/Economist) annual July 1st survey giving 
a profile of Canada.  The health system gets some pretty high points
from people.  If the question of bias arises, note that the polls are
peformed by Decima Research, upon whom the Mulroney federal Tories owe
their past two election victories.  Decima's chief is rock'n'roll
pollster Allen Gregg, a lifelong Conservative who irks their upper
echelons by dressing hipper than video music station VJ's and manages
a rock band (The Tragically Hip, racing up the alternative charts) in
his spare time.  (He was on the October 26th Referendum coverage that
I caught on CSPAN2, now sporting an "urban vampire" look that has
probably caused more than a few old Tories to faint into their tea 
and crumpets.)

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Jesus Saves!
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Gretzky gets the rebound -
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			he shoots, he scores!
From: v128pvry@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Christophe A Stoner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: What's the state of the art in computer simulation?
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:01:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov17.172802.23906@access.usask.ca>, choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.) writes...
>Can computer simulations reduce the amount of testing medical
>procedures, drug usage, etc. on live subjects? There must be
>difficulties in convincing the general public that a computer
>can replace testing altogether, let along in getting such a
>computer to run, but testing is expensive, time consuming, and
>arduous. Computers might be used to decrease the testing
>workload.
> 
>Henry Choy
>choy@cs.usask.ca
The concept of computerized medical analysis of drugs is to improbable
to be practical. The sheer amount of variables in an organism makes
a computer simulation impractical. The  limitations on a computer,
both memory space and CPU speed, make it only possible for the largest
computers to simulate the simplest biological functions. The central
problem is that biologist, and programers, do not fully understand all
the variables in a single cell let alone the entire human body. Before
we can do away with live test we must first be able to understand the
minutest detail of the human body. The best computers can do, in my 
opinion, is provide essential breakdown of data retrived from tests
and decrease the time it normally takes to test/market a new drug.

			-Chris S. Biology major and Computer Science minor.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Health Care & Malpractice
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:52:02 GMT

Are there any statistics that actually show whether malpractice is a
significant part of medical expense in the U.S?  It would interesting to
know just how much money is awarded for malpractice suits, whether
througf awards or settlements and also how much is paid for the
insurance.  I have read that health care costs $800 billion in the U.S.
What percentage is actually spent on legal-related expenses?
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: health care industry woes
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:10:25 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>So, who owns Canadian public hospitals?  Who appoints those who run them?

Oh, sorry, that's what you meant.  I thought you were hitting on the
*health insurance* being public, which brought a few "???" to my mind.
Sorry to have been a bit thick there ...

Okay, just like the U.S. ... cities, municipalities, counties.  I
don't think that any provinces (other than Prince Edward Island, which
is REAL small) establish any hospitals directly.  They run seperately
from the health insurance funds -- e.g., OHIP == The Ontario Health
Insurance Plan, RAS == Regie de L'Assurance-Sante' (Quebec).  However,
before you run off towards visions of British National Health or City
of New York Health and Hospitals Corporation nightmares, please don't
prejudge ours (nor the Germans' nor the French) on that basis (being
city/county/etc.).  I had to go to a public one in western Winnipeg
after a bike race crash and had my knee fixed up really nicely (a
second opinion after having had some emergency treatment at our
not-for-profit private hospital (St.  Boniface was founded by the 
Grey Nuns (Les Soeurs Grises) 150 years ago, by the way) indicated 
no fixes or touch-ups needed).

The Toronto Globe & Mail, which gets national and (somewhat) international
distribution, has professional job adverts including for hospital admins;
the public and not-for-profit private (better? (-;) Canadian hospitals
hire them the same way.  The only difference in function is that the
privates have better building and development opportunities because of
their private philanthropies -- some very powerful, in cases such as
Montreal's Davis Jewish General (underwritten by the Seagram Bronfmans).

By the way, I have no problems with for-profit private hospitals at
all.  If they can operate within the provincial insurance rate,
dictated by the health professions anyways, all the better.  There
is a question whether in our culture, even the rich would be willing
to pay above the base rate of the insurance.  I think that the French
have for-profit private hospitals operating within their insurance,
but that may also be helped by having a population 3X of Canada's in
an area the size of Ontario (and maybe parts of Quebec).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Jesus Saves!
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Gretzky gets the rebound -
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			he shoots, he scores!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: v128pvry@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Christophe A Stoner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Medical Insurance and Cost Efficency
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:19:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

The unfortunate aspect of medicare, or any socialized medical plan for
that matter, is that the entire group insurance can be rapidly spent on \
a very few individuals. This makes it necassary for doctors to classify
patients not only by their symptoms but also buy their chance of success
in any given treatment area. It would be unwise to perform a triple 
transplant (heart,kidney,liver) on a 96 year old who will most likly
die as a result of any surgery. In this contry we must come up with a 
modified health plan which is prevenative rather than corrective in 
an attempt to stem the increase in medical expenses. If we could prevent the
renal, cardiac and liver dysorder we would not have to spend hundreds of 
man(or women) hours chasing down viable organs and hundred of thousands
on operating equipment and drugs. The only way to stop the skyrocketing
costs of Medical Insurance, in my opinion, is to drasticly redure the 
number of those in need of major medical attention. Only when we have
become more aware of general health in this country can we expect
to reduce medical expendeture.

	Chris Stoner- University at Buffalo, New York.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Medical Insurance and Cost Efficency
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:12:34 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>It follows Gammon's Law, that government involvement tends to increase 
>the amount of paperwork too much (as I mangle it in paraphrase).

I assume that Gammon's Law is bounded by the borders of the United
States, or even just those of the Lower 48?  I have read about what
doctors have to put up with regarding Medicare/Medicaid/Calaid paper
work and can honestly say that I am glad that our system is not like
that up north.  If anything, our universal insurance is an example of
passive government; since the system has been in place, any time a
province has tried to tamper with it (usually a New Democratic Party
(i.e., Labour) administration), they get burned and back off.  The
public watches the health care issue like hawks up north ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Jesus Saves!
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Gretzky gets the rebound -
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			he shoots, he scores!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: dalton@spot.Colorado.EDU (lizard man)
Subject: Truth in Labeling and Herbal Remedies
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:19:25 GMT




So what's the scoop? Are traditional medicines, herbal remedies,
megavitamins, Sleepytime (tm) Tea and nutritional supplements 
still legal to use in America? How long do we have?


--lizard man
-- 
---
"a woman wants an abortion not as she might want a Porsche or an ice
cream, but rather more as a trapped animal wants to gnaw off its leg."
--Frederica
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: health care industry woes
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:23:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.165032.2266@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
}>
}>}Also, erroneous assumption that government is involved in the 
}>}Canadian health care provision process.
}>
}>Then my Canadian friends who tell me about the government regulating 
}>private hospitals out of existence so that they don't make the 
}>government hospitals look bad are wrong?
}
}This now becomes a matter of definitions ... while we have no hospital
}corporations like Humana, all or most hospitals have great autonomy.
}Like universities, they get a basic operating budget and collect fees
}for services rendered.

This is quite strange to me.  It's like saying that the University of
California is private, when its a creature of the State, pure and simple.

}In
}the same way that U. of Toronto and McGill wield their big purses and
}can act like Ivy League colleges 'cos they spend as they please, our
}hospitals control their own endowment and build their facilities.  If
}our "private" hospital, St. Boniface, is actually run by government
}bureaucrats, I should tell my father so Cam can it raise during their
}next board meeting ...

PBS gets the same sort of endowment, yet few I know of would call it private.
Few I know of would call UT private.  This the strangest construction of
the term I've ever encountered.

Thanks for the reference on the waiting periods.  Now I merely have to
reconcile it with anecdotal evidence from your fellow Canadians.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine