@Dingle: If you'll recall I mentioned a taste test I performed on myself -

"I know for a fact that 'Heinz' ketchup tastes different from 'Daddies' ketchup (another popular ketchup brand here in the UK) for example, because I happen to have bottles of both in my kitchen just now, and I just went and compared them."

For the record, I prefer the taste of the 'Daddies' brand, and only have a bottle of Heinz in the cupboard because the last time I went shopping, the shop had run out of 'Daddies' brand ketchup.

Are you actually sticking to the argument that all ketchup is the same in the same way that all ibuprofen is the same?

Wow, on yourself? Really? How scientific of you :P

No, i don't think that all ketchup tastes the same. I am saying the brand name affects how we think a product works or tastes. Your perception of its taste will change depending on whether you think its a name brand.

Actually, it is probably not an accurate example, but it's inaccurate in a way that reinforces your point.

People are generally willing to pay more for (perceived) quality when it's a matter of health (medicine) than a matter of a basic commodity (ketchup, or food in general). Hence, brand power matters even more.

Here's a study on ice cream which proves that point. I'm sure you could google a million others like it.

http://www.esn-network.com/660.html

Yes, I livw on the US/MX border. Most people here go to mexico for their dental work because it is cheaper and they even say better. For me, no way am I going there to get my teeth worked on. Even if the quality is technically better. So I am paying more for a perceived quality, since I can't prove it either way except by word of mouth by dozens (hundreds in fact) of people.

@Jamiet and Pete.
The key (active) ingredients are the same - whether it's ibuprofen or tomatoes - and the rest (flavor, color, shape, etc.) is secondary. You can add a spicy flavor to both ketchup and a pill - this won't make it really different :)

@ag
or maybe you have some issues with mexicans? Just sounds like it, no offense meant :)

No Ivo, there is definitely a perceived difference in medical practices and licenses in Mexico and the US. I don't think its a racist thing.

@Ivo - adding spice to ketchup will make it different. Adding spice to ibuprofen won't. If it didn't then blind taste testing would show that all ketchups (or baked beans or whatever) taste the same - and they don't. Yes, branding plays a role, but food is not like drugs. I've worked in product development for over 10 years, so i know how much difference in flavour you can deliver.

Brand power is an oddity in healthcare which (in some cases) mean that people spend (a lot) more money on something where the active ingredient is the same - the benefit they get is not worth the extra money (i.e it's not 3 or 4 times more effective than generic)

And ivo - I agree with you that people will pay more for 'quality', whether perceived or real - there is a real skill in understanding how far people will 'trade down' in the current economic climate. The business i work for has seen brands in one area suffer significant shrinkage because the 'generic' own-label product still tastes good enough, whereas other brands (including the ones I work on) have held up because the trade down in quality is unacceptable.

In terms of the debate, in the UK a lot of this branded vs generic falls on the doctors, as only over the counter medicines can be advertised. Tbh, I get the impression that more things are advertised in the US - I don't know if that's true

@ag - we saw the same thing, with people flying to Poland to get dental work done - faster and cheaper than private care, and in some (not all) locations there isn't enough NHS dental care to go around

Back to the issue at hand and healthcare reform. True public healthcare in the US... Pete U's statement just now shows why we DON'T want public healthcare (not saying insurance, but healthcare).

"faster and cheaper than private care, and in some (not all) locations there isn't enough NHS dental care to go around"

No enough to go around. And that's in the UK, nowehere near the 300+ million people of the USofA.

@Draug - that's beacuse successive governments have screwed around with dental contracts, and in affluent areas it's more attractive for a dentist to do private work. Personally, I've had no trouble geting NHS care for me and my family, and that's the case for most people. The problem is that there are no quick fixes (it takes years to train dentists) or easy solutions.

A quick google suggests 6 dentists/10000 pop in the US, 3.65/10000 for England & Wales. Even given the ridiculous US obsession with perfect teeth (joke), that sounds like there should be enough to go round.

No healthcare system is perfect - no-one in the UK is ever forced into poverty because of medical bills, but that doesn't mean that everything about the US system is flawed either

"Even given the ridiculous US obsession with perfect teeth (joke)"

LOL, I would have thought the joke went the other way.

I was reading the latest novel by David Hagbert, they were trying to identify the nationality of a body. They knew he was 'Western'.... A look at the suit leads them to believe they are British. One look in the mouth and OBVIOUSLY he wasn't British.

@DbJ (and veering off topic) - as a Brit I find the US style 'perfect teeth' just a little bit on the freaky side. Our dentistry isn't bad - we just tend to wait until something NEEDS corrected ;)

It is interesting that Eve Myles (Gwen Cooper - Torchwood) is considered a sex symbol with a gap between her front teeth bigger than David Letterman's.

@Draugnar - I'm really having a lot of trouble not cursing and using ad homonym attacks here after you insulted my intelligence, when you very well know from this and other discussions that I'm not an idiot. I try to respect you, even though we frequently disagree, and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

Now back to the point you were trying to make. Just what point were you trying to make? You made the statement in response to someone saying that most people are probably one major medical condition away from disaster. This is a discussion on reforming healthcare/insurance reform (and yes, I know very well there's a difference, I have tried to use the proper term where appropriate, but MADE A MISTAKE, which I think is understandable given how often the terms are conflated in the media, and in just about every discussion on the topic, including here). So what exactly was the point you were trying to make? Now you're saying that only about 25% of the population (I'll give you some leeway on that figure, but clearly you assume that the majority of the population isn't qualified for said jobs) has the skills etc to get a job with good health insurance, either through a corporation or a Small to Medium Business (I'm now assuming that's what you meant by SMB?) So... how does that refute the idea that most people are likely to be one emergency away from disaster?

Perhaps I was expanding your statements too far to the wider discussion going on, but it sounded like you were trying to say that anyone who wanted to (and apparently had the skills) could get good insurance, and therefore there wasn't any need to expand coverage to all or most Americans. But now you're saying that 75% of the population doesn't have the skills to get those jobs. So do those people not deserve good health insurance?

So are you satisfied with just covering 25% of the population well? If your point wasn't that anyone that wants good insurance can get it, then what were you trying to say?

@DrOct - My point was that you stated not everyone could get one in response to my statement that clearly delineated the difference between those who could and those who couldn't (the "skills" part). Maybe I'm an exception, but any job I've actually wanted, I've gotten an offer for. And I've gotten offers I've turned down before too. But I've never really wanted a position and them pass on me. the closest I ever came was one another company offered me a position first and I accepted, then the other one came back and made an offer. I really wanted the second position, but had already accepted and didn't feel right about backing out of the deal. That was UMR (who I've mentioned before) and I probably should have taken the position with US Robotics. My point is, though, that I don't think I'm any different from any other skilled worker. Any properly motiviated, skilled job-seeker can get a job in corporate America.

Now, the 75% was pulled out of my ass. I'll grant that. I don't have a clue if it is 90%, 9%, or .9%.

I also accept, as I mentioned in the original post, that my statement may not be true in today's abysmal economy. But I believe it holds true when times are/were better...

And I apologize for insulting you / your intelligence. No excuses given because none are acceptable for that.

P.S. Yes, SMB means Small to Medium Business. It is a standard business acronym.

Apology happily accepted! Glad we can all be friends again. :)

I agree that in general people with the right skills and motivation can probably get jobs with good insurance if they want to, but I don't think they're the only people that should get decent insurance (or insurance at all!). Not everyone can get the right training for those jobs, and a lot of unskilled, or less valued skilled workers still perform very important, even vital roles in our economy and society, and I just don't think they should be left out of having access to good health insurance (which less face it means they have much less access to good healthcare) because either they have skills that we don't value, or they don't have the means or connections to get access (this may mean skill training or any number of other things) to a better job that would give them some sort of good health insurance.

Now I'm ALL for greater education and training for the American workforce! I think everyone should get as much education as they can, but not everyone is suited for every field, and even if everyone was, there are only so many jobs in any given field. No matter what some people are going to be left out, or are going to have to do something else. I just think it's only fair that everyone get access to decent health coverage. I also happen think in the end it would cost us all as a society less than our current system, which is costly and I think unfair.