[SheWantsTheD]

Billsh!t. It costs billions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherpe...-medicine/

[Ensam]

(05-23-2014 05:03 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Billsh!t. It costs billions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherpe...-medicine/

And it costs even more to convince people they should take the new drug.

I should add - the costs are largely self imposed. The FDA is in the large pharmaceutical companies pockets. High cost of regulator approval prevent smaller players from entering the market. Notice that the cost of compound discovery is only on the order of $100 million or so.

[SheWantsTheD]

So? Look, people do things for a reward. No one spends years and billions out of the goodness of their heart.


You take away the incentive - money - and you're left with everyone doing the bare minimum and the people left with half assed care.

[Ensam]

Not true at all. How do you explain the prevalence of drug compounds from academics? There's really no money in it and yet they produce. Sometimes people do things because it makes them feel good despite the fact that they can barely pay the bills.

[Dusty]

(05-23-2014 04:44 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

It seems like pretty much a settled debate at this point: single-payer is the best way to ensure that everybody gets access to basic medical services.

[SheWantsTheD]

Huh? Yeah there are government funded studies. But they are far less innovative and prevalent than folks doing it for profit.


In fact, the difference is so stark its laughable.


And those scientists, chemists, and researchers are paid well.

[speakeasy]

(05-23-2014 05:09 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

So? Look, people do things for a reward. No one spends years and billions out of the goodness of their heart.


You take away the incentive - money - and you're left with everyone doing the bare minimum and the people left with half assed care.

Quit throwing up false dichotomies and straw men. Nobody is saying they don't believe in profit or that innovators shouldn't get wealthy from their hard work. What we question is a matter of degree. It's been pointed out to you that more overhead is spend on marketing than on R&D. If their profits were cut in half they would still be ridiculously profitable. Half of a fortune is still a fortune. I only care about the prices because we're talking about people's lives here. If Apple wanted to charge $1000 for an iPhone, more power to them if they could get that price. But when it comes to matters of public health we need to scrutinize profits more carefully in this case.

I don't care what anyone says, I can't find a way to justify the fact that someone in New Zealand is paying $6 for a drug that cost $100 in America. If Pharma's profits were negligible, I think I could much more easily swallow that bitter pill, no pun intended. But when they are making fantastic profits already, even more than the oil industry, how can we rationalize such disparity in pricing?

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 04:44 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

It seems like pretty much a settled debate at this point: single-payer is the best way to ensure that everybody gets access to basic medical services.

That GIF is so perfect.

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 05:17 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:09 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

So? Look, people do things for a reward. No one spends years and billions out of the goodness of their heart.


You take away the incentive - money - and you're left with everyone doing the bare minimum and the people left with half assed care.

Quit throwing up false dichotomies and straw men. Nobody is saying they don't believe in profit or that innovators shouldn't get wealthy from their hard work. What we question is a matter of degree. It's been pointed out to you that more overhead is spend on marketing than on R&D. If their profits were cut in half they would still be ridiculously profitable. Half of a fortune is still a fortune.

I don't care what anyone says, I can't find a way to justify the fact that someone in New Zealand is paying $6 for a drug that cost $100 in America. If Pharma's profits were negligible, I think I could much more easily swallow that bitter pill, no pun intended. But when they are making fantastic profits already, even more than the oil industry, how can we rationalize such disparity in pricing?

So what if they're spending a ton in marketing? Why does thy bother you?


An those countries are benefitting from American companies. The only reason they can sell it cheap there is because America is making those companies rich. If America had a cap of $6 on the medicine, those drugs wouldn't exist in the first place because there'd be no reason to develop them in the first place.

[speakeasy]

(05-23-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 04:44 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

It seems like pretty much a settled debate at this point: single-payer is the best way to ensure that everybody gets access to basic medical services.

The 95% of the planet that is not America would agree with Andy B. Only in the USA does the notion of universal healthcare draw laughter.

What can I say? I think there are many great things about America, but the attitudes on healthcare are bizarre to me.

[speakeasy]

(05-23-2014 05:20 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:17 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:09 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

So? Look, people do things for a reward. No one spends years and billions out of the goodness of their heart.


You take away the incentive - money - and you're left with everyone doing the bare minimum and the people left with half assed care.

Quit throwing up false dichotomies and straw men. Nobody is saying they don't believe in profit or that innovators shouldn't get wealthy from their hard work. What we question is a matter of degree. It's been pointed out to you that more overhead is spend on marketing than on R&D. If their profits were cut in half they would still be ridiculously profitable. Half of a fortune is still a fortune.

I don't care what anyone says, I can't find a way to justify the fact that someone in New Zealand is paying $6 for a drug that cost $100 in America. If Pharma's profits were negligible, I think I could much more easily swallow that bitter pill, no pun intended. But when they are making fantastic profits already, even more than the oil industry, how can we rationalize such disparity in pricing?

So what if they're spending a ton in marketing? Why does thy bother you?

Because if I get sick I am going to pay out the ass for it. And if I'm not sick my tax dollars are still going to pay medicare and medicaid which subsidizes the overinflated prices of these drugs.

Quote:

An those countries are benefitting from American companies.

Yes. At YOUR expense. Don't you get it? You like subsidizing health care for the rest of the world? Damn, we're already essentially subsidizing everyone else's defense. Now we have to subsidize their healthcare too?

Quote:

The only reason they can sell it cheap there is because America is making those companies rich. If America had a cap of $6 on the medicine, those drugs wouldn't exist in the first place because there'd be no reason to develop them in the first place.

I didn't say we should cap it at $6 in America. We need to find some equilibrium. You really think we should pay $94 more for the same exact made-in-America drug that New Zealand gets for $6??

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 05:28 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:20 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:17 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:09 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

So? Look, people do things for a reward. No one spends years and billions out of the goodness of their heart.


You take away the incentive - money - and you're left with everyone doing the bare minimum and the people left with half assed care.

Quit throwing up false dichotomies and straw men. Nobody is saying they don't believe in profit or that innovators shouldn't get wealthy from their hard work. What we question is a matter of degree. It's been pointed out to you that more overhead is spend on marketing than on R&D. If their profits were cut in half they would still be ridiculously profitable. Half of a fortune is still a fortune.

I don't care what anyone says, I can't find a way to justify the fact that someone in New Zealand is paying $6 for a drug that cost $100 in America. If Pharma's profits were negligible, I think I could much more easily swallow that bitter pill, no pun intended. But when they are making fantastic profits already, even more than the oil industry, how can we rationalize such disparity in pricing?

So what if they're spending a ton in marketing? Why does thy bother you?

Because if I get sick I am going to pay out the ass for it. And if I'm not sick my tax dollars are still going to pay medicare and medicaid which subsidizes the overinflated prices of these drugs.

Quote:

An those countries are benefitting from American companies.

Yes. At YOUR expense. Don't you get it? You like subsidizing health care for the rest of the world? Damn, we're already essentially subsidizing everyone else's defense. Now we have to subsidize their healthcare too?

Quote:

The only reason they can sell it cheap there is because America is making those companies rich. If America had a cap of $6 on the medicine, those drugs wouldn't exist in the first place because there'd be no reason to develop them in the first place.

I didn't say we should cap it at $6 in America. We need to find some equilibrium. You really think we should pay $94 more for the same exact made-in-America drug that New Zealand gets for $6??

Yes, because that means we stay the hell out of NZ business. What they do is their business, what a private company does is its business. The American government needs to stay the F out of it. They do nothing but ***** up every good thing the market creates.


What happens in NZ is none of my concern and it shouldn't be a concern of the American government.



You start putting up caps on what a drug can be sold for, and the incentive to make the drugs go down the toilet.

[speakeasy]

(05-23-2014 05:36 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

You start putting up caps on what a drug can be sold for, and the incentive to make the drugs go down the toilet.

But you are defending the caps the New Zealand government places on the drugs. You don't care. And you don't mind picking up the tab for their tremendous discount. You make absolutely no sense to me. I'm done here.

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 05:40 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:36 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

You start putting up caps on what a drug can be sold for, and the incentive to make the drugs go down the toilet.

But you are defending the caps the New Zealand government places on the drugs. You don't care. And you don't mind picking up the tab for their tremendous discount. You make absolutely no sense to me. I'm done here.

I defend NZ to do whatever they want because I frankly don't care, it doesn't affect me, and no one in America needs to have an opinion on what another country does. It's not our business. I only care about what America does. More Americans need to be like that. We need to mind our own damn business. NZ can charge and do whatever they want, it won't affect me. The American government needs to stay out o a business' way, plain and simple.

[Dusty]

(05-23-2014 05:23 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 04:44 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

It seems like pretty much a settled debate at this point: single-payer is the best way to ensure that everybody gets access to basic medical services.

The 95% of the planet that is not America would agree with Andy B. Only in the USA does the notion of universal healthcare draw laughter.

What can I say? I think there are many great things about America, but the attitudes on healthcare are bizarre to me.

I'm old enough to remember when Hillary tried replacing the current healthcare system (at the time) with single-payer HillaryCare. It would have meant people giving up their health insurance (80%-90% of the people - I'm too lazy to look up the exact number) to be thrown on essentially Medicaid. The people revolted, and it almost brought down the Clinton presidency (this was early on, like Bill's first year). Bill recovered by essentially saying they won't give Hillary any more real responsibility (she turned to baking cookies) and Clinton "moved to the right."

Most people have good insurance, and they don't want to be forced on some shitty gubmint plan like Medicare (or see the recent VA scandal).

Obama wanted single-payer, but knew the people wouldn't stand for it, so they created this simulacrum of a private insurance plan which they had to force through with legislative chicanery. As it is unfolding its being revealed as a clusterfuck of epic proportion, to the point where the administration that bares it's name has to not enforce key elements of it, lest we have total collapse too soon (and lose too many elections).

Quote:

The 95% of the planet that is not America would agree with Andy B. Only in the USA does the notion of universal healthcare draw laughter.

What can I say? I think there are many great things about America, but the attitudes on healthcare are bizarre to me.

Because they never experienced anything differently. In the old Soviet Union, the people there couldn't understand how it's possible that the people in the USA got milk without the government being in charge of it.

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 05:53 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:23 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 04:44 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

It seems like pretty much a settled debate at this point: single-payer is the best way to ensure that everybody gets access to basic medical services.

The 95% of the planet that is not America would agree with Andy B. Only in the USA does the notion of universal healthcare draw laughter.

What can I say? I think there are many great things about America, but the attitudes on healthcare are bizarre to me.

I'm old enough to remember when Hillary tried replacing the current healthcare system (at the time) with single-payer HillaryCare. It would have meant people giving up their health insurance (80%-90% of the people - I'm too lazy to look up the exact number) to be thrown on essentially Medicaid. The people revolted, and it almost brought down the Clinton presidency (this was early on, like Bill's first year). Bill recovered by essentially saying they won't give Hillary any more real responsibility (she turned to baking cookies) and Clinton "moved to the right."

Most people have good insurance, and they don't want to be forced on some shitty gubmint plan like Medicaid (or see the recent VA scandal).

Obama wanted single-payer, but knew the people wouldn't stand for it, so they created this simulacrum of a private insurance plan which they had to force through with legislative chicanery. As it is unfolding its being revealed as a clusterfuck of epic proportion, to the point where the administration that bares it's name has to not enforce key elements of it, lest we have total collapse too soon (and lose too many elections).

Quote:

The 95% of the planet that is not America would agree with Andy B. Only in the USA does the notion of universal healthcare draw laughter.

What can I say? I think there are many great things about America, but the attitudes on healthcare are bizarre to me.

Because they never experienced anything differently. In the old Soviet Union, the people there couldn't understand how it's possible that the people in the USA got milk without the government being in charge of it.

Are you serious about the milk thing?



If so, perfect analogy.

[el mechanico]

Hold up here. I've put this into practice... Great regular doctors I have do NOT accept my plan even though they did before..Wow just in two months or so they no longer take it? Ha. The freaking Hospital takes it just dandy.

I told them to take my plan and they said we will and filed. I'll add I know these people personal.

[soup]

(05-23-2014 05:00 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Exactly, the entire world benefits from our innovation.



Now when America and their masses of millennial leeches decide it's time to become France, what happens to the innovation, life saving drugs, and new medical devices? They don't exist because the smart kid who could have invented that, went in another direction in college because he wants to be rich.

Yes, but why does he want to be rich as the number one driving force in his life?

This is the real problem.

People not having a sense of purpose other than to make money.

Going to medical school just to make money isn't even the easiest way to get rich.

People who go in to medicine tend to have a genuine passion for the field. This is the case with those I know personally.

I say we get universal health care.

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 06:48 PM)soup Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:00 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Exactly, the entire world benefits from our innovation.



Now when America and their masses of millennial leeches decide it's time to become France, what happens to the innovation, life saving drugs, and new medical devices? They don't exist because the smart kid who could have invented that, went in another direction in college because he wants to be rich.

Yes, but why does he want to be rich as the number one driving force in his life?

This is the real problem.

People not having a sense of purpose other than to make money.

Going to medical school just to make money isn't even the easiest way to get rich.

People who go in to medicine tend to have a genuine passion for the field. This is the case with those I know personally.

I say we get universal health care.

I say we don't, and if you trust the American government with something like your healthcare, you need your head checked.

[soup]

(05-23-2014 06:57 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 06:48 PM)soup Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:00 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Exactly, the entire world benefits from our innovation.



Now when America and their masses of millennial leeches decide it's time to become France, what happens to the innovation, life saving drugs, and new medical devices? They don't exist because the smart kid who could have invented that, went in another direction in college because he wants to be rich.

Yes, but why does he want to be rich as the number one driving force in his life?

This is the real problem.

People not having a sense of purpose other than to make money.

Going to medical school just to make money isn't even the easiest way to get rich.

People who go in to medicine tend to have a genuine passion for the field. This is the case with those I know personally.

I say we get universal health care.

I say we don't, and if you trust the American government with something like your healthcare, you need your head checked.

Maybe people need to be more engaged.

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 07:01 PM)soup Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 06:57 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 06:48 PM)soup Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:00 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Exactly, the entire world benefits from our innovation.



Now when America and their masses of millennial leeches decide it's time to become France, what happens to the innovation, life saving drugs, and new medical devices? They don't exist because the smart kid who could have invented that, went in another direction in college because he wants to be rich.

Yes, but why does he want to be rich as the number one driving force in his life?

This is the real problem.

People not having a sense of purpose other than to make money.

Going to medical school just to make money isn't even the easiest way to get rich.

People who go in to medicine tend to have a genuine passion for the field. This is the case with those I know personally.

I say we get universal health care.

I say we don't, and if you trust the American government with something like your healthcare, you need your head checked.

Maybe people need to be more engaged.

You think people should get engaged and married?!?!



Soup I am disappoint in u.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-23-2014 05:03 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Billsh!t.

(05-23-2014 06:57 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

I say we don't, and if you trust the American government with something like your healthcare, you need your head checked.

(05-23-2014 07:03 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Soup I am disappoint in u.

He Wants The B(an).

[speakeasy]

(05-23-2014 05:53 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:23 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 04:44 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

It seems like pretty much a settled debate at this point: single-payer is the best way to ensure that everybody gets access to basic medical services.

The 95% of the planet that is not America would agree with Andy B. Only in the USA does the notion of universal healthcare draw laughter.

What can I say? I think there are many great things about America, but the attitudes on healthcare are bizarre to me.

I'm old enough to remember when Hillary tried replacing the current healthcare system (at the time) with single-payer HillaryCare. It would have meant people giving up their health insurance (80%-90% of the people - I'm too lazy to look up the exact number) to be thrown on essentially Medicaid. The people revolted, and it almost brought down the Clinton presidency (this was early on, like Bill's first year). Bill recovered by essentially saying they won't give Hillary any more real responsibility (she turned to baking cookies) and Clinton "moved to the right."

Most people have good insurance, and they don't want to be forced on some shitty gubmint plan like Medicare (or see the recent VA scandal).

Obama wanted single-payer, but knew the people wouldn't stand for it, so they created this simulacrum of a private insurance plan which they had to force through with legislative chicanery. As it is unfolding its being revealed as a clusterfuck of epic proportion, to the point where the administration that bares it's name has to not enforce key elements of it, lest we have total collapse too soon (and lose too many elections).

Quote:

The 95% of the planet that is not America would agree with Andy B. Only in the USA does the notion of universal healthcare draw laughter.

What can I say? I think there are many great things about America, but the attitudes on healthcare are bizarre to me.

Because they never experienced anything differently. In the old Soviet Union, the people there couldn't understand how it's possible that the people in the USA got milk without the government being in charge of it.

You can also say that Americans oppose any change in health care because they've never experienced anything differently. But just as they say a conservative is a liberal that's been mugged, a healthcare supporter is a conservative that lost his job and then got sick. There are actually some great, efficient systems out there that cover everyone for a fraction of what our system cost. Singapore for example is an innovative system that costs only 3-4% of GDP and is a mix of private care with the government using subsidies and cost controls to ensure affordability. They have some of the best health indicators in the world. There's a lot we can learn by looking at what other nations are doing right.

What's funny about this all is how Obamacare is the pariah of the right. It's a rallying call. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage. The interesting thing is that Obamacare's health care mandate isn't a new idea at all. The idea behind it came from that Communist think tank called the Heritage Foundation. Yes, the individual mandate is basically a Republican idea from the 80s intended as an alternative to single payer heath care. Mitt Romney ran his state on something similar, though he did an about face when Obama endorsed it. That's the type of ideological bullshit I can't stand. You can fully support something, then when someone from the other party supports it, then it's a scourge.

Here's another glaring example. When you poll conservatives on what they think of Obamacare, they oppose it. However if you ask them what they think about the individual components of Obamacare without letting them know it's Obamacare, they are in favor of it. What's the difference? Nothing other than the word "Obamacare".

[Wadsworth]

(05-23-2014 05:16 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Huh? Yeah there are government funded studies. But they are far less innovative and prevalent than folks doing it for profit.


In fact, the difference is so stark its laughable.

Didn't see anything in the rules about responding to someone who's been banned.

OP actually made some good points, but I just want to say that this is 100% wrong. Free markets don't do positive externalities well, this is something that is well documented. Research is largely a positive externality. So what OP said is theoretically wrong.

It's also wrong in reality. The research being done by research institutions around the world that are publicly funded is far more innovative, and far broader in scope and it's not even close.

It's like comparing a steam engine to a warp drive.

[Katatonic]

I don't support it because the government is overstepping its bounds(again) in requiring that I purchase something from a private organization. The government has also proven itself incapable of doing anything efficiently, and healthcare has been and will be no exception. Remember that refusal to obey, and continued resistance to any law will eventuate in your murder by the government. That statement shouldn't be taken as fear mongering, but as something to be considered before supporting government intervention in any aspect of your life.