Question about National Healthcare--anyone know the answer?

[cpamomfromtexas]

If we get national healthcare, will the big pharma influence in medical schools be stopped?

The reason I ask is my friend's child was almost killed from going to regular doctors. My friend graphed out her treatments and saw patterns of the same ole treatments making her worse. She found a doctor who saved her life -- the only catch was they had to go through a hidden door to his office-he would have been thrown in jail for his nonstandard treatments.

I also have found a nonstandard treatment that helps me manage pain - no thanks to the doctors.

[Warpy]

1. Sorry you distrust doctors so much

and a large part of the problem is the system they must work within, a system that tells them if they don't find the cheapest treatment--or figure out a way not to treat at all--they will be penalized.

In countries with national health insurance, doctors are rated on the number of people they successfully treat, not on how cheaply they manage to get them out of their offices.

Can you see the difference here? In our system, sick people are a problem to be disposed of at the least cost to the profit system. In their system, sick people are brothers and sisters who deserve to be cared for and healed.

Please don't keep misidentifying the problem with the US health care system.

[papau]

2. I'm an actuary and my kids are lawyers and doctors and no one know what you are refering to -

Big Pharma would have the same market as now, only the current HMO push to generics would be continued by the government agency making up the rules as to which drug would be paid for by the system rather than out of your pocket.

The drug research money that sustains many research doctors would be unaffected except under Hillary's proposal the doctors would have mandatory hours per year requirements as to continuing education on "best practices".

Drug sales would be less by drug salesmen and more by getting a mention in the continuing education classes.

As to non-standard treatment - I am glad yours works for you, but there will always be conservative treatment approaches and not so conservative treatment approaches, where the choice is dependent on the Doctors personality more than anything else. The liability insurance incentive toward conservative treatment would most likely be reduced as national health plans outside the US live under the threat of very little legal liability for treatment that goes south as their society sees a better society in Doctors making the best decision in their opinion rather than worrying about a lawsuit. I'd expect that attitude to eventually come to America, but it is not directly tied to universal single payer health.

If the universal health program that is passed is just subsidies to insurance companies (Mitt Romney's Mass plan - which also has mandated minimum coverages) then I suspect there would be no change in either the current situation or the expected rapid rise in health cost via big pharma and for profit hospitals demanding profits that increase 15% each year.