I was at the vet's, and the doctor and I were talking about nutrition (he's gone a lot more naturopathic than he used to be ten years ago) versus disease.

In a sort of idle way, he looked at me and said something like "Doesn't it seem kind of funny that after all these years and all the millions and billions of dollars spent on research, they still can't cure cancer or even the common cold? Do you think they might know the answers and be hiding it? Do you think that the medical field could be so callous that they realize that they make more money off sick people than well ones?"

Actually, I've wondered about things like that. But then I thought, No, it's just the same suspicious and cynical Me.

Or... maybe it's not?

Sue

Hi Susan

I think you should have every right to be cynical about the medical industry. I think after that after that other industry, which creates ever more creative ways of killing people, that being the war/defence industry, the medical industry, which purports to save the lives of people, follows up a close second in terms of overall turnover. There is very little profit in ways of naturopathy. The actual facts are as follows,

The main correlation (in a statistical sense) in determining levels of premature death within a population is the individuals level of income. No one wants to talk about this issue though, no politicians, no doctors, only the actuaries for insurance companies who are bound by company secrecy. Poverty and the unfair distribution of incomes is the determining factor for disease. The rest are just consequences to this main issue.

Example, if you want to cure lung cancer and vascular disease, then ban tobacco smoking or at least make it extremely expensive . But tobacco smoking is a consequence of social stress and poverty. The tobacco industry has to much of a vested political interest for a ban to be put in place. Same with drug abuse and alcohol abuse. Cheap processed food consumption is again determined by income levels leading to obesity, which leads to vascular disease and diabetes and premature death. Social stress caused by poverty and the associated problems such as mental health are just seen by the medical industry as a means to sell their wears, just like the tobacco and alcohol businesses. Stressed out! Hmm what to have, will it be a medically prescribed Valium or 20 Benson and Hedges and a bottle of Vodka or some twinky bars and some Ritalin?

If you want to live a contented and happy healthy life with few medical problems, ask an actuary. He will just tell you not to be poor. Ignorance doesn't help either, but again that is mainly a function of poverty once more.

Healthy cynicism keeps the doctor away, much like an apple a day (if only if it wasn't covered in pesticides).

Doesn't sound too cynical to me. After all, sick people need lots of expensive medication, outrageously priced medical tests, etc, etc. Sick is big business. I personally think the body is like an amazing high performance automobile. You put in crappy, cheap fuel and it'll run like crap and eventually start to break down prematurely. Give it premium fuel and the results are pretty amazing. Just look at most of the food in the grocery store. Bread shouldn't have 30 ingredients, most of which you can't even pronounce.

Yeah, it's cynical, but understandable. In general, people do not understand the incredibly small scale of what happens at the cellular level or the difficulty of detecting and understanding what goes on at those levels. For example, say the work "protein" and what do you think? Just some generalized idea of some really small biological thing, right? Without the right training, it's hard to imagine that a protein is a family of thousands of differently shaped molecules, which act like lego blocks. Each protein is shaped differently, and can move, fold or bend differently when combined together. They can't be seen in a microscope. Their shapes historically have been worked out by x-ray crystallography and interactions figured out by indirect observation and logical induction.

What I found when I went and studied it was that the tools to see and represent what goes on at that scale of matter are even now fairly basic. To me, it's really amazing that we are as far along as we are. It's a credit to the power of the scientific method that the actions of many diseases and drugs are the result of simple observation of many thousands of many individual cases over time.

You've got a point... and not. You ever stop to think how many actual viral diseases medicine can cure?

Zero.

Cancers? Actually, some can be cured, some of those quite easily. But the fact is, there's probably close to 100 different cancers (and well over 150 viruses that cause the cold). Since each one is a bit different, it's impossible for a "one size fits all."

And, yup, if you're poor, you'll die younger. Is that a consequence of being poor, less access to health care, healthy life styles? It's not a topic avoided by doctors. But they sure can't go out and make the ghetto rich, so why worry about it? That's a problem for society, NOT medicine.

However, the one thing I try so I can avoid the hospital later in life: avoid their cafeteria

I've thought along the same lines from time to time, but then I remember that human lifespans keep increasing at a pretty good clip, so we must be doing something right. I don't think it is some big vast conspiracy that is preventing progress. Rather, it's the lack of an incentive. There is more money to be made for scientists doing research than there is finding a remedy. Nothing against the people working in the field--it's just that the system is set up that way.

I guess a good way to tell would be to cut off all government funding for cancer research and instead offer a $100 billion reward for a cure. If a blanket cure for cancer is really out there somewhere that ought to shake it loose. I don't personally think there is but I'd like to be wrong.

Having worked in cancer research for over 30 years at the NCI-Frederick located on Ft. Detrick, I can say without any reservation there is no conspiracy to hide or prevent effect cancer prevention, treatment or cures from reaching the public. You must keep in mind that cancer is not a single disease; its causes are due to various origins and influences. One’s genetics’, lifestyle and environment all play key roles in the whether one will or will not develop cancer. There are cancers that are spontaneous in nature, caused by exposure to environmental agents and even ones caused by viruses and bacteria. Since cancer is not a single disease caused by one factor, a “universal” cure is not possible.

Social-economic status also plays a role both in the development of cancer, detection and treatment of cancer. Short of prevention with healthily a life-style and good genes, early detection and treatment remains the best option for remission and/or cure.

Cancers such as childhood leukemia, once a death sentence have reached very high cure rates. There are literally dozens of other cancers, which in recent years have obtained the same high cure rates.

A little more then 3 weeks ago, I insisted my wife who had turned 50 this past year, get both endoscopy and colonoscopy exams. The doctor removed several polyps, one of which he expressed some concern over in terms of its shape. Sure enough when the histopathology report came back it was cancerous. She had as second colonoscopy that week so he could tattoo the site for easy detection by the surgeon who removed a section of her colon a little more then a week ago. Her recovery has gone extremely well and barring detection of cancer having spread to the area lymph nodes, she will have been “cured” by the early detection and subsequent surgical removal of the cancer. There were several key factors in this successful outcome, early detection (everyone of you who is approaching 50 or have reached that golden age (if you have a family history of colon cancer then it is 40), must immediately schedule yourself or a loved one for a colonoscopy – TODAY - I think I ask very little from you guys and gals, this is one thing I beg you to do - TODAY), an excellent gastroenterologist and surgeon. Last but not least, family and friends who provided a support network and offered many prayers from many religious traditions.

You want to be a survivor, then get the appropriate health screening for your age today, no excuses

Pete

I'm corn-fused.

Why would they spend billions of dollars and many years developing a cure for cancer, find it, and THEN decided to hide it? Or did they spend the billions of dollars to find something they intended to hide anyway?

Better check your tinfoil hat liner. I still can't decide if I should wear it on the outside of my hat to prevent them from reading my mind or on the inside to prevent them from controlling my thoughts.

I think medicine has pretty good job security in any case. If you cure cancer, you're heart disease business is going to skyrocket! You gotta get sick and die from something eventually.

Yup. Statistically speaking,none of us is likely to get out of this alive.

I just had to respond to this. Long time reader, infrequent poster. If this turns into a rant, I apologize in advance. I have been in medicine for 30 years as a paramedic, RN, and now physician. I have been in clinical medicine (taking care of sick people) and in research. While there may be a few bad apples, like any industry, folks in medicine by and large devote large parts of there life to helping others have as good and long a life as possible.

We spend millions on research and medicine has had results. Just look at the mortality rate decrease of heart disease and cancers. BUT research shows us avoiding tobacco (in all forms harmful), weight control and daily exercise ALL contribute to less disease, longer and better lives. It just requires the person to do something; I can’t just prescribe a pill. (If I could, you would still have to take it)

Just because it’s natural, don’t mean it’s safe or effective. You can take willow bark for a fever; aspirin is safer and more predictable. Many current meds and therapies have grown out of folk cures.

We do have something to treat certain viral illnesses effectively – vaccines, just look at the fire storm over many of these.

Sorry for the rant, but I hear many of these complaints daily from my overweight smokers who “forget” to take their pills and wonder why they don’t feel well.

I think you have every right to be cynical and suspicious, especially with how the world has changed over the past few decades however I don't think there is a secret cure out there hiding in someone's file drawer simply because while certain elements of the medical community do make a great deal of money off of people being sick there are other elements that would make a great deal by finding a cure.

For example, while surgeons make a fortune on surgeries related to breast, lung, cervical and colon cancers, health insurance companies spend billions paying out claims to cover cancer related expenses under their health plans. If there was a cure available the profit margins for the health insurance companies would go up significantly through the cost savings related to not having to pay out the treatment expenses. In addition every drug company out there would love the opportunity to be the first company to patent a drug that cures cancer.

So while I join you in being cynical I think in the medical industry there are opposing forces that work to make it very unlikely that a conspiracy to conceal a cure would last long.

My mother has been an oncology nurse specializing in chemotherapy for most of my life, I grew up hearing about a first person view of cancer treatment. Her patients typically lack insurance, come from the lower classes. Nonetheless, my mother goes out of her way every day to make everyone she meets as comfortable and at ease as possible. I know how expensive the drugs used in cancer care are, and how chemo cycles without insurance can be devastating financially.

Recently, I asked my mother how she'd feel if they did just cure the entire zoo of cancers and she'd be out of the job.
She said she wouldn't care if all she could do was greet at Wal-Mart if it meant that the people she sees every day didn't need these treatments.

I also have to comment, that the survival rates for most cancers are on the uprise. There are some types of cancer that I don't make much of a deal about after growing up hearing the survival rates for each kind. Others, though...
An aunt of mine had Hodgekins twenty years ago, recently they found tumors taking up most of her digestive track. All together, these tumors would be the size of a volleyball, this is in a five foot hundred twenty pound woman mind you.
...As of last week, she's in remission and was barely halfway through chemo.
Do you think the medical industry is going to be ticked that we only paid for half a chemo cycle? Was the chemotherapy nurse smiling through her teeth when she told us?

I'll say it right now, the medical industry isn't all in the right with what they charge and their testing procedures. But when it comes to cancer, I'm unfortunately born into that kind of world.

Please don't take offense at this, I've really tried to put the following as politely as I can. I won't kiss your butt, but I won't lie to you either:

Sue, that's the paranoia or a lack of knowledge talking. I really hope the latter.

The "common" cold is caused by a collection of viruses that get lumped together becuase they all cause the same symptoms. You'd need a vaccine that would work against every possible virus for that to work, and that's just flat out impossible.

As for cancer, uhmmmm.... We are developing vaccines for it. Maybe you've not heard about the new one for certain forms of cervical cancer? A large part (but by no means all) of developing cancer is having genetic markers- screening will tell you if you've got the gene, but that involves modifying the human genome pre-birth and gene therapy which no one wants to put money into for fear that it might offend some luddite. And even if we could beat that (and maybe cure baldness in a similar manner), you can't rule out exposure to various triggers which we still don't understand.

Let's be honest with ourselves. We've only known what a virus IS for about a hundred and thirty years. About the same time, people generally started living long enough that they could develop cancer. And it's only been about 80 years that most people have been able to say that they've been to a doctor PERIOD over the course of thier lives.

By comparison, we've known about birds since the first primates, but it still took Homo sapiens until the 1850s to understand how an wing works and another 50 years to figure out how to apply it. Even if we want to start with the Greeks and their Chinese counterparts as the "start" of science, that's still a little over two thousand years just to figure out the basics, 50 to apply them, and 30 for it to become common place.

Keep in mind, we still don't understand all the causes of cancer and what viruses cause the "common cold"- we are between where Euler observed what lift was and where Bernoulli determined how lift works. We can't even entirely explain why aspirin works the way it does and we've been using that, in commercial form, for over a century!

This reminds me of people [censored] at me becuase the computer doesn't do what they want it to, even when they admit that it did what they told it to. But it wasn't what they wanted it to do. What? You think you can wish techology into being? I really wish we could, so I could take a pill and get my hairline back. The lack of understanding about science, and the general fear/worship of it, in this culture is frightful. That a veterinarian, supposedly a man of science, would have this view point is disappointing.

Yes it's cynicism... but I don;t think it's being too cynical. Like someone else said, you're suspicious and that's smart.

But....it's hard to argue with Ironraven's logic. I believe we keep forgetting that it takes alot of gall and a lack of historical research to think we've actually advanced farther than we have. I'm guilty too: we start to think "we travel in space, have microwave ovens and cellphones, computers than can almost think on their own, etc." Why can't (we) cure cancer? This is very egotistical in my opinion.

We forget that WE (people today) didn;t do all this, we're just part of an ongoing solution that started long ago....we're just another cog.

The $millions and $billions spent have gone into someone's pocket and he thanks us. A small percentage of that $$ actually paid off, but considering that we are all going to die anyway, I'd just as soon die on my terms.

As for cancer research being a business, check out this letter to the Commissioner of Patent and Trademarks from the Nat'l Breast Cancer Coalition. All that research isn't being conducted for the betterment of all mankind, it's for the betterment of the bottom line. To make that big money you need to patent something and in this case it's small pieces of DNA. Some of those big research dollars have gone toward laying claim to the DNA that makes us tick. As another example from the USPTO files, Piper Rudnick LLP seems to be in this for the big bucks. Yeah, I'm cynical.

While I firmly believe the health care workers (doctors and nurses) are doing all they can to help cancer patients, they are only the tip of the industry iceberg. The rest of the industry is in this for the money. Cancer will never be "cured". That would be the end of the industry. $.02

I eat well, exercise regularly, don't smoke and drink very little alcohol. If I come down with a form of cancer, it just may be the cause of my eventual death. But I won't be dying in a hospital bed. A good canine friend of mine died last year. Walked down to the river and died on the path coming home. If only I can be so fortunate.

Hmm, well, some points I'd like to emphasize. Lessee how this plays out for y'all:

The industry establishes that there's this big problem with some illness, be it a cold virus, some antibiotic resistant bacteria, or cancer. They say they want to study it so they can maybe find a way to protect us from it, so we agree to pay more taxes to the government to fund these studies. Wanting to improve our quality of life, we gladly agree to put for the money, after all, it is only a little bit more than we are already paying for our government to waste on other things we don't really need but think we have to have. Also, look at all the wonderful advances medical science has made in the past hundred years because our civilization collectively supported these studies (or so they would have us believe).

So years go by, and we keep getting told that progress is being made, that we are learning more and more about how the diseases work and that it is only a matter of time, but that they need more money to continue their research. So we pay, because everyone wants to live to be 200 years old. Hmm, sounds to me like a pretty good setup. Well, so much for my conspiracy theory of the day.

I am also reminded of the Whitman tragedy. Apparently the native americans, at least some of them, would hold the medicine man of their tribe responsible for the welfare of the tribe. If a disease started killing the members off and the medicine man couldn't stop it, he could end up being sacrificed.

I am against one dime of anyone's tax money being spent for research on medical issues. If medical associations and pharmaceutical companys spend the money on their own research, I'm happy. In the end, they'll prosper and we'll be better off.

So if there's more money to be made in the medical field on sick people how much is there to be made on dead people? Wouldn't they want people to surive terminal cancer so they could go on to live a long life and continue to spend money on other ailments that aren't terminal.

Do conspiricy theorists even think through the logic of their obsurd claims before they make them?

If there are any bad guys in the medical field, I think that it is the drug companies, with the huge prices they charge for meds, many of which I'll bet don't cost all that much to produce. I understand that they have research costs, etc., but come on; and hospitals, charging you $7.95 for a simple aspirin. Sure, nurses cost them money, but those nurses are being paid whether they are sitting drinking coffee, doing paperwork, or passing pills. Maybe they should buy their aspirin at Costco or something, and put 'em out on the counter, like the military used to do with APC's. Then there are the drug stores. If you have insurance, having a prescription filled costs, let's say, $75. But if you don't have insurance, that same prescription is $100. Why? They know how much the insurance companies will pay, and only charge that much. But no insurance, they can pretty much charge what they want.

Doctors, on the other hand, are for the most part hard working folks who really want to help. But some of them become complacient, lazy, un-informed, whatever. Example: A friend of ours in Central CA was having trouble breathing. She goes to a dr, he says it is just the lousy air. Goes to another, it is because she is overweight. Goes to another, he shrugs his shoulders and says he doesn't know. Goes to a fourth, he says "let's take an x-ray," which seems like med101 to me. Guess what the x-ray shows? Cancerous tumor on the back side of her sternum, which is preventing her lungs from inflating fully. Good news is, that after chemo, radiation, etc, she is cancer free. One doctor saved her life, three would have killed her. Lousy odds...

If there's a conspiracy out there, it sure has a lot of folks keeping quiet. They'd be smarter to point the finger and sign a book and movie deal.

I suspect most, if not all, of us know people who have passed away as a result of cancer. Two that immediately come to my mind were long-time smokers.

A cancer cure being covered up and swept under the rug? Doubt it.

But mismanagement of finances, some research, and potential treatments? I bet so. Look at how hard it is for the FDA to put the rubber stamp on some treatments, or revoke those that go awry.

See, now the beauty of the program is that no matter how many people die from cancer, AIDS, influenza, or whatever, there's always gonna be more people out there who get sick and perpetuate the cycle. Better still, people who've already been treated for terminal illnesses usually end up broke by the time they die or would get cured, so the infusion of new sick people with money is more desirable than keeping bankrupt, really sick people alive.

Regardless of who foots the individual bills for treatment, the government just keeps paying and paying for all the research, whether a cure is found or not, so long as the researchers keep publishing new data.

See how perfect this conspiracy logic stuff works! Go on, toss me another one, I'm on a roll...

The problem with it being a conspiracy is size. You'd have to keep literally hundreds of thousands of people quiet. Couldn't happen, someone would blow the whistle. Too many people who actually believe their Hippocratic oath would be involved.

Your "logic" completely ignores that.

So you want to go back to 1900? When most people died before age 40 when you factor in the child mortality rates? When those who died of old age did so in thier early 50s unless they were rich? When women died not from old age but in childbirth? When every cut was a potential death sentence from tetanus? When smallpox, TB, plague, cholera and typhoid were alive and well in the United States of America?

Let's face it, the system isn't perfect and it has a ton of room for improvement. Like paying the guys at the top something "reasonable", say a half million dollars a year rather than ten million dollars a year (factor in the perks). Like capping malpractice settlements (NOT malfeance- if you don't know the difference, look it up).

But if you take government funding out of it, please tell me where the money would come from. Don't point a finger at a group, put your damn finger on a number. The non-profits have open books, show me where the money would come from. It's one thing to run your mouth, it's another to actually find a solution. If you could find a couple extra billion dollars a year that don't have, they'd fund more research- they already put a hell of a lot of money into R&D. But those couple of extra billion dollars don't exist.

You'd also be taking out the regulation of pharmaceuticals. Yeah, the FDA has dropped the ball a number of times. But they also do things like keep rat poison out of aspirin- before there was government funded regulation of pharmaceuticals, you could sell people kerosene cut with enough cheap booze, perfume and sugar to cover the smell, and it was legal. And it happened, and people died. There was no licensing of doctors, no accountability. ANYONE could hang up a sign that said they were a doctor, and if they could blind enough people with brilliance and baffle the rest with BS, they were fine. And there was no guarantee that there wasn't arsenic in your aspirin, any more than there was a guarantee that there wasn't finger in your sausage. Do you really want to go back to when the difference between russian roulette and your medicine cabinet was mess it made if you were wrong?

And if anyone thinks I sound like I'm taking this personally, no crap. I was born twelve to thirteen weeks premature- 30 years later, while your odds are surviving your first year still suck, I helped test some of the techniques that mean you have a chance. My little brother was born deaf, and he was given hearing by what was a new procedure 26 years ago. I have a strong history of cancer in my family, it contributed to the deaths both of my maternal grandparents, and my mother is a cancer survivors. If you want to spit and whine like a pig ignorant peasant about doctors and medical research, you are whining about me being alive and my brother not being a cripple- and you are spitting on my mother. You are spitting on every cancer survivor you know. Every person you know with diabetes. Every person you know who wasn't killed or maimed by TB, typhoid, cholera, or polio. Every person you know who has ever had an infection that should have killed them beaten by an antibiotic. Every person you know who's had an organ transplant. And every person with a prosthetic limb that is more than a peg leg or hook. ALL of this medical technology was paid for, in no small part, by government funding. ALL OF IT!

Go ahead, spit in their faces. Just be careful you don't spit on yourself or your children.

More & more places are doing exactly that. Tobacco at least used to be one of the cash crops in this area. The state just passed or is passing a ban on smoking in most public places and IIRC by a margin where the govenor couldn't stop it if he tries. The only exemptions are bars, private clubs, and workplaces with less than three employees.

IRONRAVEN, no, you shouldn;t take it personal. The point I was trying to make has nothing to do with your history or anyone elses. The point is that our Government should not fund what the people will do on their own. It's an opinion, nothing more.

My father died of cancer. A number of people in America have died of HIV. Cholera and smallpox were once a plague here. The list goes on, but I could not (with any degree of honesty) blame the Government for not funding cancer and other research "enough". In fact, the research that found "cures" for most of yesterday's maladies were not funded directly by any government, domestic or foreign.

Some things make us feel good. One of those things is thinking that someone is working on a problem that we feel strongly about. The fact is, most research goes on quietly in the background without advertisement. Our Government knows this. But, they support legislation that is PAC-driven because, if they don;t, they appear callous and un-caring.

So, please don;t take it personal. It's an opinion of mine about taxes and Government spending.

I don't agree with Stretch's general statement either, but I think your post (and not just the quote above) steps over the line of civillity and the forum rules. "Pig ignorant peasant"? "You are spitting on my mother"? Posts like this just lead to flame wars, bad feelings, or just make ETS look bad in general. Obviously, this particular topic seems rather personal to you, but that is no excuse for your choice of words and the manner in which you expressed your feelings towards another member.

Well, dang it, there's always something that just don't jibe about them there conspiracy theories, isn't there? If it weren't for the fact that so many would have to be in on it, then it would've been almost scary. Of course, I hope you could tell I was being a bit sarcastic, just to add a little humor to the mix. I'm not really that out of touch to think that something that big could be hid for long.

However, I do believe more in free enterprise. I think it is this aspect of our economy that has put us at the top of the medical development for the past hundred years or so, despite what some socialists might have us otherwise believe. Government, any government, has no business collecting and administering funds that would be used to promote and develop medicines and procedures for treating the sick, save for pandemic sized events, in which case funding would be used to augment already existing private sector programs. Yes, there will always be a need for some level of scrutiny, and I suppose it will have to be a government agency that will have to do that sort of thing, one of those necessary evils we must still live with.

As far as the rest goes, you're preaching to the choir with me. I'd much prefer to live a nice long, healthy life.

Now, what other conspiracy pot can I stir...

Hi benjammin,

Undoubtedly, the US has some of the finest medical care to be had in the world. It also has some of the highest costs as a proportion of the countries GDP and yet there is a substantial minority of the population who have no access to this medical care at all.

In the UK we have the National Health System (NHS), which was established by a PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. government after WW2 in 1945. It is a government run health service with mainly free access to everyone in the UK. The medical services are rationed on a medical basis, that is medical needs of the individual come first in the queue rather than on the sum assured on the medical insurance contract. UK subjects pay for their medical care through general taxation. Any attempts by UK governments to introduce any free markets in to the UK health service NHS generally mean that they are not elected the next time around. It is electoral suicide to attempt to privative the NHS in the UK. Medical research is paid for through government grants through the Medical Research Council and charitable organizations such as the Welcome Trust as well as the research being carried out by the UK based pharmaceutical Companies.

The UK has some of the largest and most innovative medical pharmaceutical companies in the world with GlaxoSmithKline being the largest in the world. These companies have profited substantially because of the NHS.

As for Susan's comments, I don't think that she was putting forward any conspiracy at all. I fully understand the reasoning. Here in the Scotland, we have a reputation for some of the finest medical teaching and biomedical research in the world and yet the country has some of the worst medical problems in the population in the Western World including high rates of cancer and vascular disease. The issue is not to do with medically curing these diseases, it is to take another approach, to ensure that a naturopathic approach is taken. Try to reduce the incidence of disease rather than find a cure for difficult to treat diseases. That is one of exercise, clean air, good nutritious wholesome food and clean water and to dissipate the social stresses rather than trying to mask them with pills and potions, which everyone seems willing to pay a fortune for to wealthy pharmaceutical companies.

If there was a general cure for cancer it would most likely have been discovered over here in Scotland anyway. I've not heard anything about a general cure for cancer in the pubs in Dundee so far.

Sorry, it was quite a long post and I wanted to spare everyone the length. While the UK's system has pros and cons, one of the big things that most Americans probably wouldn't stand for is the "greater good" concept. I've heard that after a certain age, if you get sick in the UK, you're pretty much SOL. Have lung cancer? You're sent home. Diabetes? I'm not sure about that one. But the UK's system won't "waste" money on a person that's reached a certain age, with certain diseases. Also, you failed entirely to mention that people carry supplemental insurance. I'm not sure how that works, but it seems that it allows you more than just the basic service; feel free to correct me.

That's a big part (not the only part) of where the US is different. The elderly in the US make up something like 25% of the health care costs, and 8% of the patient population. Yeah, it's disproportionate, but they tend to have long, chronic diseases. Medicine can't cure lots of them, but it can give a fairly decent quality of life for many.

Another problem in the US is that Americans demand everything "the best" in care. "Fix Grandma! Do CPR!! It works on Baywatch! If you can't bring her back we'll sue!" So drug companies research big-name diseases as well as make equipment and tests. But the problem is, lots of people and insurance companies don't pay what they're charged, which leads me to.....

What other profession in the world gives out a service, but can do little if it isn't paid?

Can you imagine picking up your dog from the vet, or your car from the shop, and saying "I'll just pay $10, cuz that's all I can afford." YEAH RIGHT!!! Your car will be sold to pay your bills, and you won't get any of the money left over. Not so with medicine.

That's a BIG reason why prices are so high in the US. You charge Mr. Smith $100 for an aspirin, because Mrs. Jones, Mr. Cleaver, and Miss Harriet all skipped out on their bills (for everything, not just their aspirin dose). Medicaid and Medicare don't pay anywhere near what the office charge is. That's why so many hospitals have closed down, and why many hospitals are operating only with state and federal funding. The system as it is in the US needs change. Some physicians are starting to become "cash only" services, like they were before the mid-1900s brought about insurance companies.

I'll get off my soapbox. Who's next in line?

Keep in mind that DoD spends almost as much on medical R&D as Health and Human Services. Most of how we treat lung issues was derived from either TB or mustard gas inhalation treatments.

I love the "save for pandemic" bit- Ben, you've got enough of a technical background to know how long things take to develop. Yes, more money makes it go faster, but if you've got a pandemic, it isn't a lab work any more. Or am I missing your point?

Personally, I don't think I'm kosher with using tax payer funds for specifically like things like ED meds. But if it is something like MS, MD, or cancer research and there is surprise that is produced as a result, that's science. Most of what we know we learned while we were looking for something else. Plastic surgery was perfected to conceal horrific scaring from combat injuries- if that means some dowager can now get her ears pulled back until they are bow, that's just the way the ball bounces.

If you want a conspiracy, here's my personal think on JFK- Jackie whacked him. Point blank, with a pocket pistol, for all the cheating. The Governor and his wife didn't talk, probably too scared to.

First off, if you're going to reply to someone's post, reply to THAT post, not something in the same general area. Close doesn't always count. You are lucky I read this.

I'll apologize for "like a pig ignorant peasant"- let's just go with "like a fool". Please note the use of "like"- I know you aren't ignorant, nor are you a fool, but you were sounding it. Comparison, not description. Sometimes I sound like a ass, but my ears aren't long, I'm not grey, and I'm not a hoofed quadruped.

As for funding, look into it- you'd be amazed how much of the money comes indirectly from the feds. Private medical research in the US is almost as heavily underwritten as high energy physics is. Grants cover a lot of the "real medicine" (as opposed to what I call "vanity medicine" and the desperately hanging onto old age by any thread), and lot is from whatever replaced DARPA in the alphabet soup when it was renamed. And pretty much every researcher, tech, and doc had federal loans and grants for their schooling; pharmaceutical companies and research universities get tax breaks. All that adds up to tax payer dollars even if it isn't in big, bold, red letters.

Following your proposal would have condemned a lot of people to death. Your statement was a blanket statement, no funding, period, at any point in history. You didn't say self inflicted, you didn't say stupid stuff (hair loss, can't get it up-itis), your statement was all condemning. If you'd been selective... But you weren't. Instead, you damned every dollar ever spent on TB, polio, smallpox and cholera research, along with every bit of DoD/VA funded research. And the existence of the FDA. Your stated proposal is inherently unsound and short sighted.

But I will admit that I bit your head off a little lower than I intended- I was thinking the tips of your ears and got your collar bones. There has been a lot of paranoia on this thread, and the forum in general has had taken a rather anti-science, illogical feel to it on several recent occasions. I hold ETSers to a higher standard of the mind, maybe unfairly, than I do the average person. You got the brunt of my annoyance and frustration, when you only should have gotten some of it.

*holds out hand* Shake?

"...ED meds..."

What are those???

While not exactly on topic here, I have a huge problem with my tax dollars being spent on some federal grant (as in not payed back) to study the sex life of the Ethopian pisant, or some other silly thing. Sure, it might help some stuggling student get his/her masters in pisant, and a few pisants might get their rocks off, but I (we) shouldn't have to foot the bill...

Hi MDinana,

Yes, there is private supplemental insurance available in the UK, but you wouldn't want to rely on this insurance without access to the NHS. This insurance will get you a few additional extras not provided by the NHS such as limited cosmetic surgery and the occasional medical checkup when requested and some additional cosmetic dentistry services. It will not however pay for any real life medical emergencies or long term care, as the private companies will bail out and you will be left with just the so called 'basic' service provided by the NHS. The private medical insurance does not cover the basics in medical care. There have been many cases where privately treated patients in private hospitals have had to rushed to the NHS to save their lives.

There is care for the elderly with long term medical problems. To say that an elderly person with cancer will just be sent home to die is incorrect. There is hospice care for anyone with terminal cancer, although some may choose to die at home with their families around them. In Scotland there is also long term personal care for the elderly with a mix of private and local government care homes (this would be free long term care provided by local government services). This free long term care for the elderly has not been available in England and Wales.

The NHS is by no means perfect, there are problems with over management and the rationing of resources at the moment because of government plans to introduce an internal market system of health care (large computer system contracts for the eventual billing systems have been awarded to US corporations with the aim to privatise the NHS, with the aim of asset stripping the NHS organisation have resulted in the billions of dollars of tax payers money being wasted) but it does give everyone in the UK access to free medical care without worrying about being landed a huge bill at the end. It is free at the point of use. It might not be up to the very best standards of medical care available for the top five or ten percent of the population in the US, but it provides good quality medical care for everyone in the UK at a substantially lower proportion of the countries GDP.

The UK NHS has nothing to learn from the free market US medical care system. It may well treat the top 10 percent of US citizens with the best health care in the world but this is at the expense of the bottom thirty percent who get very little health care.

There is some ring of truth to the notion of socialized medicine. After all, look at how low malpractice insurance rates are in the UK. If you go to the doctor there and something goes wrong, it isn't automatically a windfall for the patient. One of the banes of our form of free enterprise is the propensity for unsatisfied consumers to litigate. I can't recall exactly how much of our GDP is committed to lawyering, but it has got to be significant, and significantly more than any other country ever, and it is growing.

However, back to the point. I do feel that in our economic model, except for the more militaristic aspects such as Ironraven cited, private sector interests would tend to pick up the slack on R&D funding should government spending diminish. It may not be quid pro quo, but would certainly be more economically efficient. As with any other industry, there are always certain safegaurds there to protect the consumer from excessive price escalation and market monopoly. It is this limbo state we have presently that seems to wrankle so many. Just like Social Security, Medicare and Welfare have also proven to be quite counterproductive to our long term stability. Governmental inefficiencies are the absolute worst from a financial standpoint, just look at the Postal Service, or Amtrak. Either you give up and commit 100% to a government run program much like the Europeans have, or else you decide that government has no business funding goods and services. All this gray area is wreaking havoc on us. Kinda reminds me of the poker games we played aboard ship, where dealers would call 3 or 4 wildcards, low chicago, high chicago, and you'd have so many people splitting the pot that no one won, but the game went on. Regulation is sometimes necessary, but artifical comptetition via subsidy and treaty just hurts the market and the consumer alike, and accomplishes nothing positive. I would prefer a free market to social services, but even going wholly PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. would be better than what we have now. That's something I never thought I would hear myself say, until about a decade ago, when NAFTA went into effect.

[/quote]The UK NHS has nothing to learn from the free market US medical care system. It may well treat the top 10 percent of US citizens with the best health care in the world but this is at the expense of the bottom thirty percent who get very little health care.[/quote]

Actually, not quite true. The American system takes very good care of the top 20% and the bottom 20% income levels. It takes reasonably good care of another 30% or so of the people in the middle. All told, it is about 30% of Americans who comprise the so-called "working poor" who do not have good ongoing access to health-promoting medical care. Most hospitals are required by law to render emergency, life saving treatment without regard to whether or not the patient has any ability to pay. Many community hospitals cannot turn away anyone who requires medical treatment (other than elective, cosmetic, etc), regardless of ability to pay. The problem is, a bill is still generated, and it can hang out there for years, ruining the credit of the uninsured patient, leading in some cases to loss of house, bankruptcy, etc. The unpaid blls are a big part of the cost of medical care in this country. Ask any businessman: if his rate of dishonor on his billings is 1% he can keep his prices a lot lower than if it's 10%.

The American system unrealistically tends to assume that people will make reasonable efforts to protect themselves and their families by setting aside some of their own money against the possibility of medical treatment. There are several tax incentive-supported plans to do so, but the response to this approach has been underwhelming. IMHO many people do not think they should have to assume financial responsibility for their own medical care.

I don't have "the" answer, and I doubt if anyone does. However, I suspect that universal, government funded (which is to say, us) and government controlled (which is to say, not us) medical care is coming, and soon.

Bentirran
Thanks for clearing up the supplemental insurance bit. Very concise and clear answer. I'm also glad you pointed out Scotland's difference from England and Wales. I kind of assumed that being "UK" that everything would be pretty similar. I, like most Americans probably, don't have a good grasp on the internal political differences between the 3 countries on the island.

I hope my post original reply to you didn't come off as condescending, or implying that the American model is better than a social/British model. I feel that each system has pros and cons, like most of life. As for America having the best health system in the world, I don't now about that. We've got some pretty dismal statistics in certain areas, such as neonatal/newborn death rates. The US can be well behind the curve in some areas!

I've just been fed a lot of info in the last 4 years of school, in both health-econ and ethics classes. For example, the figure of "45 million Americans without health insurance" is always thrown around. That's about 1/6 of the US population, obviously something needs to change with our system. I just wanted to point out some ideas of why our system is the way it is, and some areas where our 2 systems differ.

This is something to consider when numbers get thrown around. I don;t deny them, I just get suspicious.

Ever heard the claim that 1 in 5 American children are "starving"? I forget the Organization which makes the claim during an advertisement, but it's popular and widespread on AM radio. Several of a series of most asked questions on questionnaires doled out to students ranging from 6 to 12 is: Did you eat breakfast this morning? Do you - a) regularly eat breakfast, b) sometimes eat breakfast, c) never eat breakfast. How many times a week would you say you eat breakfast? a) 7 b) 5 c) 3 d) less than 3, etc etc etc.

Kids are notorious for not eating breakfast (and other meals). This of course falls back on the parents but it doesn;t change the fact. Now, a kid who didn;t eat breakfast this morning might be considered by one person to be "hungry", by another to be "starving". Either way, for the benefit of our cause, let's just call 'em starving. We need a government-funded free breakfast program anyway becasue our free lunch and free dinner programs are incomplete without it. In high school, we might consider throwing in the free tattoo removal program to make the free babysitting program (for young mothers [kids] 13 and over, of course) a complete series.

Another thing to consider concerning the estimated 1/6 of Americans without health insurance: let's not forget why some of these estimates are made.... for the purpose of advocating the socialization of medicine. Some are in favor of that, some are not. But wherever our loyalties lie, nobody really wants statistical data that's intentionally tilted to one side or the other....well, I don;t anyway, and I trust most others wouldn;t. The problem is, without funding (maybe I could get a government-funded PAC grant) a study of our own, we're left with what's reported to us. Note I said "reported to us" as opposed to saying "what's *available to be* reported to us". Now, it's not that we rely solely on picture-show media, the fact is, there are studies that will never be printed in ANY publication. Why not? Let's all guess.... because one is as good as another.

I think there needs to be health care, food, cars, babysitters, computers and internet, microwaves, free tattoos and removals, higher-education, Nike-brand tennis shoes, beer, medicines, and top-rated surgeons standing by for all. My concern is the source of the funding and the method of payment.

Now, if we say that if the Government doesn;t pay for it the money won;t come... that's analogous to saying that since America is one of the richest nations on our earth, we're depriving riches from other less-fortunate nations. As if there's only so much money and, since we have say 75% of it, the rest of the world can only get 25%. Now, that's not right is it? We forget that as our taxes go up our philanthropic donations go down; as Government steps in private sector often steps out.

What are the average taxes paid in Scotland and the UK? What are the maximums and minimums? I'm asking here because I don;t know.... but I want to.

No, -there's no such kind of Conspirational Holdback going on. I have no Concrete Proof, -but I still know it!

But it is often the case, -that after Billions and Billions are thrown at it!, -Year after Year and Decade after Decade!, -While some measures of Progress may have been made toward the Goal, -Still no Cure has been arrived at! Acheivement of the Goal is not yet anywhere in sight!

This doesn't mean that in all such cases, -that we still shouldn't try. Including financially. But it does make you sometimes wonder, -if the Goal, Noble and Needed though it may be, -is worth the Buck and Chase!

Science and Research must get its Significant, Adequate, Funding. Often such Research cannot proceed otherwise. But Over and Beyond such a Due Point, -We can't always just keep on throwing Money at a Matter or Problem. In such cases, -Science and Research should firstly proceed along a more Natural, -"State of the Art", -kind of Track. (If you and others there get my Drift, -which I think that you Reasonably may). (Let me help you more towards that Drift, if needed, by an Example. As follows).-

For example Nixon's early 70s War on Cancer. I remember the Announcement being made, with Considerable Fanfare. The Goal is both Needed and Noble. But though some Measures of Progress have since been made on various Fronts therein, (Not all Neccessarily due to the "War" and Funding, -Some may have come about in that Natural Progression as I've mentioned, -anyway), -Cancer rages on Cureless! (For the very most part anyway). Makes one wonder how much Value there's Really been for the Buck! How Cost Effective, -or perhaps Cost Wasteful, -it all really is!

But Proceed about it the "More Natural Way" though, -and a Cancer Cure will come when a Cancer Cure comes! Billions could end up being Saved.

But then on another hand, -some 20 years Down the Road, or 10 years, -or even Two years on, -the Great Payoff may come! At Long Last. (This too, -may not entirely be due to such Funding). Reminds me of a saying I've once come up with about Investing, -"The only Investments which ever Pay Off, -are those Initially Made"!

But you still've sometimes got to Wonder!, -at the "Wisdom" and Efficacy of just throwing Money at something!, -sometimes!

It comes down to such a Continuously Renewed, Judgement Call and Balancing Act, -I guess!

Hi Stretch,

The UK tax system is quite a complicated thing to behold , but here is an example for income tax,

Basic rate of taxation assuming $1.95 to the ?1.00

Income Tax Brackets and rates.

$10,774 ? $14,733 - 10%
$14,734 ? $75,123 - 22%
$75,124 ? no upper limit ? 40%

Of course more income at the 40% rate you have the more likely you would employ tax avoidance schemes.
(although generally if it is getting above $100,000,000 you can generally decide to pay the Inland Revenue what you think is a fair sum i.e. 5-10% or nothing at all.)

To these nominal rates there is also something called National Insurance Contributions NICs, which are theoretically collected to pay for the NHS and state pension provision. This is far to complicated to describe here but typically the average earner will have around an additional 9-11% of NICs, though it is capped at around the upper limit of $75,124

National Minium Wage = ?5.35 per hour = $10.4

There are of course lots of hidden taxes on fuel, private pension provision and Value Added Tax (VAT at 17.5% on goods and services excluding items such as clothes, food and books etc) i.e. mostly on what people decide to spend their money on.

Typically around 40 - 42 percent of GDP is government spending. i.e. collected taxation.

Hi MDinana,

I actually didn't think anything you have said in your post was in anyway condescending. Only by putting forward differing viewpoints can such interesting debates take place. I guess the debate about comparing free market and PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. medical provision is really just a distillation of the ideas put forward by philosopher Adam Smith in his writings called An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations available at http://geolib.com/smith.adam/woncont.html
The economics of health provision whether provided by the free market or PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. means as others have pointed out can be compared to the choices made when purchasing simple consumer goods such as a computer or vehicle or an internet service provider. The difference is that the apparent wealth put on display to satisfy our own egos in front of others doesn't impress the grim reaper when he taps his bony finger on the shoulder. But thats not to say I haven't been impressed by the optimism displayed whilst standing in the heart of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh's tomb.

Ain't it funny to consider that a little over 100 years ago most folks kept 100% of what they earned (no income tax), and the government was still able to field a considerable army, pay all it's admin costs, do infrastructure improvements, fund schools, etc, using excise tax, property tax, and a modest 1 or 2% sales tax in a few states.

Somebody's getting rich.