Healthcare (AMERICANS ONLY!!!)
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
And I just want to add to my last post that I don't feel you or anyone else should have to pay for medical treatment either. Everyone should takes of themselves and their own. I do, however, make generous contributions to charities but that's for another discussion entirely.
Dying is never fair to the person who's dying! But what does that have to do with anything? There are literally thousands and thousands of people dying, right now, right at this moment, and it happens every minute of the day, every day, every month, every year. Why can't you accept that as natural, normal?
And worse, why is it that you think *I* should be responsible for all of those people? You talk about "fair", do you call it "fair" to make me responsible for all those deaths? ...jsut because I didn't help them by sending my money to them all? ...all thousands and thousand of them, every moment, every day?
What the fuck is "fair" to you, anyway?
Baron Max
Yeah, ya' mean sorta' like what's done in India, Sam? Like how the welfare-lovin' Indians are taking care of the Dharvians in Bombay? And that's just one of the many, many major slums in India.
Baron Max
I agree. And ya' know, the world seemed to get along just fine with families and close friends and community members taking care of one another ...WITHOUT... the government handing out taxpayer money.
Now, when everyone talks of love and understanding and peace and all that good horseshit, there's none of that kindness from families or friends ...because the govenment has subverted it into a mass charity/handout state!
Baron Max
As a matter of fact, Sam, I read some more about the poverty and starvation in India ...it's even worse than I mentioned in the post above. India is one of the world's worst for taking care of it's poor and hungry and starving people ...I think Mexico is just slightly worse than India. But that's sure not something for Indians to be proud of, is it??
So, Sam, what I'm trying to say, in case you didn't get it, is ....you ain't one to be tellin' some other nation how to take care of their poor and hungry!!
Baron Max
First fairness is a large part of what ethics and justice are about. Second fair to me is doing what any ethical and moral person would think is reasonable to help people. Third you would not be responsble for those people in our country the us government would. Forth a good portion of those dying are not dying natural deaths there being killed and murder by others. Sixth i find you trying to make yourself a victom of this issue appaling. Seventh the fairness of taxing people to support a universal heath care system in the us is irrelevant to a debate on the ethics of it. Eighth come down and relax your getting way to relax. Ninth get your head of your ass if you want to refute something i say don't curse and use hostile language all that shows is your to afraid to stand up to me thoughts and logic. Cursing in a debate is the refuge of a coward. Tenth enjoy
Productive, working people who can afford their own care are not sick or injured. Almost all health care delivery involves some kind of socialized medicine.
There is not, and never will be, a working free market in health care. The basics of a free market do not, in general, exist in this area. It's like free market roads - you end up with very few and very bad roads.
The US is spending billions to pretend there can be. The US system is at least twice as expensive as any other system that provides US average level of care.
The cost, in productivity, public health, inefficiency on the job, human life and happiness, is huge.
The US spends all that money to keep the privilege of denying someone medical care. That's it. Every single separate insurance company has to have its own staff of care-deniers and cost managers. Half the expenditures of Blue Cross, for example, go to bureaucratic overhead, most of which is devoted to "managing" delivered care - keeping high risk or sick people from purchasing coverage, limiting care delivered to that contracted for, etc.
The US provides taxpayer money for most drug research, most fundamental biological research, etc - and then allows drug companies to patent the drug after they've taken the final couple of steps in development. US drug companies spend far more on marketing than on R&D. The US allows marketing of drugs to the lay public - even TV ads.
Failure to deliver health care means the US population - including the work force - is living with high rates of disease, chronic pain and injury, reduced capacity both mental and physical, greater risk of pandemics, etc, compared with first world medical care systems. Teachers in inner city schools, for example, have classrooms full of teenagers who have seldom or never been to the dentist. They don't learn as well.
The US system puts its manuacturing industries at a severe competitive disadvantage.
Any of the major first world systems now in use in one of the dozens of countries that supply such care would be cheaper and more effective than the US system.
Example: Machinist at local high-tech shop, diagnosed with Lou Gherig's disease. He has what is normally described as "full coverage" health insurance - the very best at the hourly wage level - but he has to work at least 32 hours a week to keep it. As soon as the disease progresses to the point that he can't work, coverage stops. The punch line ? Working until tired accellerates the progress of the disease.
Example: Every single one of my coworkers is nursing along a chronic injury or health problem. Dislocated collarbone, congenital foot deformity, torn joint ligaments, hearing loss in one ear, etc. Every one of those problems is going to be more expensive to treat later, and every one of them reduces these guys' productivity both on and off the job from now until fixed.
There is not, and never will be, a working free market in health care. The basics of a free market do not, in general, exist in this area. It's like free market roads - you end up with very few and very bad roads.
The US is spending billions to pretend there can be. The US system is at least twice as expensive as any other system that provides US average level of care.
The cost, in productivity, public health, inefficiency on the job, human life and happiness, is huge.
The US spends all that money to keep the privilege of denying someone medical care. That's it. Every single separate insurance company has to have its own staff of care-deniers and cost managers. Half the expenditures of Blue Cross, for example, go to bureaucratic overhead, most of which is devoted to "managing" delivered care - keeping high risk or sick people from purchasing coverage, limiting care delivered to that contracted for, etc.
The US provides taxpayer money for most drug research, most fundamental biological research, etc - and then allows drug companies to patent the drug after they've taken the final couple of steps in development. US drug companies spend far more on marketing than on R&D. The US allows marketing of drugs to the lay public - even TV ads.
Failure to deliver health care means the US population - including the work force - is living with high rates of disease, chronic pain and injury, reduced capacity both mental and physical, greater risk of pandemics, etc, compared with first world medical care systems. Teachers in inner city schools, for example, have classrooms full of teenagers who have seldom or never been to the dentist. They don't learn as well.
The US system puts its manuacturing industries at a severe competitive disadvantage.
Any of the major first world systems now in use in one of the dozens of countries that supply such care would be cheaper and more effective than the US system.
Example: Machinist at local high-tech shop, diagnosed with Lou Gherig's disease. He has what is normally described as "full coverage" health insurance - the very best at the hourly wage level - but he has to work at least 32 hours a week to keep it. As soon as the disease progresses to the point that he can't work, coverage stops. The punch line ? Working until tired accellerates the progress of the disease.
Example: Every single one of my coworkers is nursing along a chronic injury or health problem. Dislocated collarbone, congenital foot deformity, torn joint ligaments, hearing loss in one ear, etc. Every one of those problems is going to be more expensive to treat later, and every one of them reduces these guys' productivity both on and off the job from now until fixed.
I would like to see you present solid, definitive proof of that statement.
I worked for a pharmaceutical company for over nine years and although it wasn't my department, I had full access to the company's accounting records. Not one dime was provided from the government or any of it's various agencies. We paid for every single penny spent on R&D, manufacturing, distribution and (limited) advertising.
I assume your treatment will consist of nothing more than a bottle of whisky and a bit of a lie down should your legs go all wonky on your next shopping trip, then - yes?
What about the millions of people who work and are still poor(or semi-poor)?
How do you expect people to not have kids if you want to ban abortion? You'd rather let the kids die from disease or(assuming you also don't support foodstamps) starvation? Also, in respects to getting an education, what do you think of people who graduate from the incredibly useless high schools without ever learning how to read? Or developmentally handicap people who are passed to the next grade in special classes, despite the fact that if they were held back until their minds matured enough do the material like everyone else, they could actually be on par with everyone else(at a later age)?
It shouldn't be that expensive - that's the main part of the problem.
the problem in the us is were paying for curative medicine which tends to be far more expensive then prevenative medicine which is what most uhc systems push for
Do me a favor, Max.
Give me a breakdown of the cost of pharmaceutical R&D, as you are so obviously well informed on the issue.
Where does the money go?
Vile, venom-filled, hateful Hypochristian.
Is that so?
And how much of your time did you dedicate to researching these records and tracking all the money coming into the company?
As part of your in-depth analysis, did you include federal and state tax deductions and other incentives?
I think you are being disingenuous, if not about your level of acess, at least your level of knowledge and understanding.
The pharmaceutical industry is heavily subsidized by the US government.You can start with a simple Google search if you are honestly interested (which I somehow doubt you are)
No, raven, I'm making no attempt to be disingenuous about anything and I saw exactly where every dollar came from and where they went. But not being a TAX ACCOUNTANT, I wasn't aware that they were getting TAX BREAKS that other companies were not. And the time period was long before there was any Medicare plan for prescription payments.
As to costs of development, there were only two completely new drugs developed during my tenure there. And due to the way the accounting system was set up, there was no total cost for either of shown. The accounting system was exactly what you would expect it to be (accounts payable, receivable, etc.) so various amounts were spread across many sub-accounts. In other words, the cost of lab equipment was in one capital account, the cost of supplies for the labs were under a different category, the lab personnel's salaries were in yet another - and so on.
But I can give you a pretty rough estimate. R&D costs and the expenses for all phases of the clinical trials ran about $15 million to get to the point where the NDA (New Drug Application) was started being put together. The filing alone, together with follow-up requests from the FDA, easily ran another half-million. A large pool of secretaries, under doctor's supervision, were constantly preparing boxes of documents to be sent for those follow-ups over a course of several months.
I've addressed your questions as completely and honestly as I know how and really do not care if you believe me or not. I certainly owe those people no allegiance because I, along with several others, were caught up in a downsizing during a period of time in which the company (and it's stock) were doing quite well.
I don't know why you say I'm informed ....you're the one who so lightly suggested that universities do all the R&D, so I assumed that you knew all about the costs and had deemed it feasible. No? And now you're asking me about the costs?? Hmm.
Lots of things are heavily subsidized by the USA, but that doesn't mean every cost is paid in full. Many wheat farmers in the mid-west were heavily subsidized, yet still ended up bankrupt due to wheat production.
If drug R&D and production and sales is such a simple thing to do, why don't more people do it? Why don't the universities do it?
Baron Max
First of all, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable (right behind oil) so the claims about the costs driving up prices not entirely true.
Where the costs are involved, they have skyrocketed in the past ten years.
Does that make sense that it would cost so much more ten years later, especially with globalization driving down wage and manufacturing prices?
Maybe if you take into account the fact that advertizing and other marketing approaches (such as "detail men" visiting the doctors and pushing the drugs, free samples and trade shows) is one of the greatest costs (if not the single greatest cost) in bringing a new drug to market, it makes more sense.
Marketing cost, of course is tax deductible, which is why the average pharmaceutical corporation in this country pays less than 1% tax on their income, and the average American is stuck subsidizing the advertizements that inundate the airwaves (ones that were not nearly as prevalent 10 years ago).
Marketing is a cost, which would of course be eliminated completely by removing medical drug patents (let them keep vanity drugs and such) and leaving research strictly to the schools.
Another huge cost involved is salaries (salaries of the researchers, executives, marketing department, auditing department, etc etc) which will also be mostly eliminated by having students do the work.
Where the costs are involved, they have skyrocketed in the past ten years.
Does that make sense that it would cost so much more ten years later, especially with globalization driving down wage and manufacturing prices?
Maybe if you take into account the fact that advertizing and other marketing approaches (such as "detail men" visiting the doctors and pushing the drugs, free samples and trade shows) is one of the greatest costs (if not the single greatest cost) in bringing a new drug to market, it makes more sense.
Marketing cost, of course is tax deductible, which is why the average pharmaceutical corporation in this country pays less than 1% tax on their income, and the average American is stuck subsidizing the advertizements that inundate the airwaves (ones that were not nearly as prevalent 10 years ago).
Marketing is a cost, which would of course be eliminated completely by removing medical drug patents (let them keep vanity drugs and such) and leaving research strictly to the schools.
Another huge cost involved is salaries (salaries of the researchers, executives, marketing department, auditing department, etc etc) which will also be mostly eliminated by having students do the work.
It's all about self-responsibility. Ambition. Wanting to be successful in life. It's not about handouts and being a loser. There's always an answer. There's always a solution to get ahead.
If people don't want kids they should be very careful when they have sex. Condoms, sterilization, etc. Abortion should never be a method of birth control. I never said I wanted any kids to die.
Parents need to be more responsible. If you can't afford kids and ALL they entail, don't have them. It's parents jobs to teach kids to read. Not schools. Kids should be reading by 4 or 5. They should have books in their hands by age 1. The handicapped do deserve some special services but their parents should have planned ahead. There's always a chance of having a handicapped child.