Knowledgeable Liberals: What would a universal healthcare plan do to innovation in the US?

Question

Is it possible to maintain a strong level of innovation at the same time? How would this work?



*Cons- I know you desperately want to answer this one, but please don't unless you can suggest something constructive from this point of view.

Answer 1

Medical research takes place in academia for the most part. The patents are late given to pharmaceuticals for free. Profit has nothing to do with research. Funding for universities has all to do with research and innovation.

What private researchers do is figure out what is the least change that can be made to a drug in order to get a new patent. New patents mean new disorders need to be made up. That is how you get Restless Leg Syndrome.

Profit has NOTHING to do with innovation. Researchers are most often inspired by their own passion. If anything, comfortable salaries help promote competition. Give more money to schools and you will have more innovation.

Lastly. For those asking how will universal health care be paid for. Most people have insurance. They pay insurance companies to research needless variants on profitable drugs, ad campaigns and a huge bureaucracy designed to deny your claims. If people had to stop paying for such a costly and useless system, the would have more expendable income and could not mind paying extra taxes for better service.

Heh! Just go to a European country and check it out. You even get government doctors going to your house!!!

Answer 2

The down side is that industury has to pay part of the health care plan as part of a tax on income, so prices would rise, to european levels.

Upside is that you would be paying the full social cost of the items you produce, if you could do the carbon foot print as well, the would be hope for you.

one word of wisdom, not mine alas - the social health of a vilage depends on the welfare of the poorest child.

If America were to socially care for its poorest citizens, then the health of the whole nation would be much better.

As for Innovation, most medical research the UK is at the forefront. World-class medical facilities already exist in London, Cambridge and Oxford, forming the basis for a cluster. Some of the best universities and hospitals in the world exist within the 60-mile triangle.

Answer 3

It would improve it. The system is now a form of natural selection, that only the wealthy or the lucky ones who have good medical insurance (if there is any left) are the ones who will survive, the rest will die because they cannot afford the care that they need. Anyone who thinks their insurance is so great in this third party system hasn't been sick with any life threatening or chronic condition.

I think innovation would improve in the US, if people didn't have to worry about how they are going to pay their bills if they get sick. Access to preventive healthcare would be available, stress would be reduced, people would be able to spend more time tackling other major issues that usually just fall by the wayside: family, parenting, their own issues, saving for their future, saving the world for the future.

Of course, cons don't want this, they don't want people to get better. They want people right where they are, afraid and not questioning. God forbid there should be any change in the status quo.

This is a great question, a star for you!

Answer 4

Well it would certainly be good for American businesses that are having a hard time competing in an international market because they are saddled with employer provided health insurance costs.
I think that the only innovation the present system is promoting is HMOs and Insurance Companies being innovative in ways to deny coverage to increase profits.

Answer 5

By giving at least a base level of healthcare to everyone here, you can ultimately increase productivity. Too many people without access to healthcare will attempt to self medicate or suffer through an injury or illness. Often times when they do seek care, a $80 doctor visit is now a $1500 ER visit which they can't afford in the first place. Add to that the fact that a person that sick can't work and you have a serious financial problem.

In California, one of the ideas kicked around at one point, which seems to have some merit is the idea of opening up clinics staffed by Nurse Practitioners and Physician assistants. In a medical setting you are more likely to see a Nurse practitioner or PA, than to see a doctor except in acute cases anyway and the care is on par with what you normally see. Also understand that the majority of medical traffic seen in an urgent care revolves around minor illness (Cold, flu, stomach virii) and injuries (sprains, falls, cuts, etc). Opening store front clinics with in strip malls and shopping centers with supplies for dealing with minor injuries, phone/internet access to doctors and xray machines will draw a great deal of the minor illness and injury traffic away from the more expensive hospital settings

By allowing everyone access to medical care from a nurse practitioner or Physician assistant led clinic, we can cut the overall costs of medical care, free up the ER seats for people who truly have an emergency and ultimately keep more people able to work and productive.

Answer 6

I guess I'm more worried about being able to afford getting sick, as are many unisured Americans. The rich can live but the poor have to die. In a country like America, healthcare should be a right and not a priviledge. There's enough money to waste on everything else it's being wasted on, (without any oversight in alot of cases)why not waste it on some tax paying citizens? The biggest trouble we have is that people are only interested in their own position and situation and don't have the empathy to venture too far from their cocoons.

Answer 7

It would have no effect on innovation unless it was linked to lowering money spent on research. A technician in a research lab is not motivated by obscene profits. And besides that, the "profit is a great motivator" arguement is in my opinion irrelevent in this case. There are some things that should not be slave to the dollar. It leads to the conclusion that if your 2-year old is very ill and you can't afford the best treatment, that's just too bad. On top of that, the current system only provides innovation in finding more ways to raise premiums and deductables, limit what's covered and find reasons to deny claims.

Anyone who thinks that the U.S. health care system is just fine is either not paying attention or has enough money that they can access the best parts of it (or, they're Senators and Representatives, who receive excellent health care through a government program funded by our tax dollars).

Answer 8

we're pretty far from universal healthcare, which to me means that you will not be denied any treatment.

for instance, medicare won't cover anything that is dental - you would have a life threatening abscessed tooth, and have it operated on and medicare will deny it.

i also don't think that it's up to the consumers within a system to define how the money makers in that system will continue to make money.

every nation in the developed world has some form of universal healthcare except the usa - and the life expectancy rate in the usa is no longer the longest in the developed world.

the french, cubans and canadians all live longer than americans.

medical care should no more be in the hands of 'anything for protit corporations' than the fire department or the police.

Answer 9

One way in which universal healthcare would promote innovation is that it would permit individuals who are staying in a dead-end job in order to retain healthcare to move to a position or opportunity in which they could creatively contribute. A second way is that children and youth who have adequate healthcare are able to - and do - develop their minds to a greater extent.

Answer 10

I think it would free it up because of the reduction in cost.

If there were incentives for financial backing bonuses by the government and the independent prescription drug laboratories the result would be a race to find cures of many different illnesses by chemists and scientists who specialize in these fields!!

Perhaps even the most successfully aggressive students of these studies could be honored with National recognition and honors and appointments to the highest colleges and perhaps their own departments and/or teaching and experimental facilities.