Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 3:12 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
cave_canem wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
The incorrect assumption you make is that the U.S. is a free market, I am well aware the costs are less in other countries. We have something worse than socialism in this country, its a system which favors corperate interests.
Hrrmm...
Huh?First you say that the reason healtcare costs are high is because of a move to "socialist" healthcare (ie - medicaid).
Then you say it's not socialsit... it's worse... It's a system that favours corporate interests... and which allows drug costs to increase unchecked... in other words: free market capitalism.
I can see how that would be confused with socialism. lol.
Favoring corporate interests is not equal to free market captalism, technically when corporate interests are aligned with the state it's called fascism, free market capatilism implies the separation between the state and economics. in the case of medicare fascism seems worse than socialism - when you look at it on the surface - but again you have no metric for the things that are really important, namely the progress in the medical fields.
If the more costly U.S. system is innovating more, - you might make the argument that the U.S. system is better. All countries benefit from that innovation while the U.S. bears the cost. If progress in the medical field is the metric to define how good a medical system is, I would argue the United States is one of the best.
Agreed, maybe we should start having other countries pay us royalties for using our medical innovations, that would go a long way towards dealing with the cost issue.
Can you prove the U.S should get all the credit for innovations in the medical industry?
it shouldn't get all the credit, and I cannot prove a subjective view. I suspect that the innovative achievements in the medical industry - such as the development of new drugs, research into the human genome, new medical procedures and devices are created in the United States primarily. I think this because the incentives benefit progress more in the United States than in other areas of the world.
The point I am trying to make is to say don't overlook things like innovation. It's hard to quantify as its subjective, but we all realize how important it is. I think socialism undermines this progress.
I disagree. I believe there are many smart people in this world who's definition of success does not include obscene financial gain. I believe there are intelligent, educated people who have a pure passion for helping others and would be more than satisfied, probably overjoyed, just to know they helped out a fellow human being.
I'm not exactly sure how it works elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure other nations make an investment into medical progress for all to share in the gains. The mighty dollar doesn't rule their thinking the way it does ours. In a socialized system, the people directly invest into progress and are directly rewarded for it. Here, we directly invest into it progress via medical expenses and the drug companies reap the rewards. It's not necessarily even the researchers and developers who are getting rich. It's the business departments, and the legal departments and the financial departments. All this money is being poured into advertising and pharm reps. I don't know exact percentages here, but it seems unlikely that the majority of pharm revenues go directly into further development.
Then, you've got the issue of conflict of interest. The more drugs a pharm company sells, the higher their profits. It's not necessarily in the best interest of the people to be continually medicated. Some argue that it's in a pharm company's best interest to focus on the treatments and not the cures. Keep them sick and keep them buying. Once they're cured, you lose their business. I don't know if there's actually any evidence of this, but there is evidence of some really shady business practices - like lying about trial outcomes or delaying recalls. It's basically all about the numbers - not the people.
To add to all of that, in order to come up with the best new developments, you need some really smart people. This is an area where the U.S. is clearly falling behind. When you look at who's doing a better job at educating their students, it's often the socialized countries who rise to the top. Finland is often credited with having the best education system in the world. They are not exactly socialist, but their public sector is very large and public employees are revered - teachers especially. In the U.S., we look down on teachers and we pay them peanuts.
Even if the U.S. had been the primary innovators, I think those days are coming to an end, if they haven't already.
Medical Research costs money, a lot of money, why shouldn't we get reimbersed for it?
Why should I not have access to healthcare?
Last I checked hospitals in the United States provide emergency care to people, even if they don't have health insurance. If people were really serious about cost savings, there would be tort reform and the ability to buy insurance across state lines.
Yeah and how do you propose I pay the bill they send me for the emergency care? I mean I almost feel like if I felt suicidal I would be better off killing myself then going to an emergency room...just thinking of how high that bill would be. And I think Health Insurance is a scam.....there is really no valid reason for it especially when these companies are all about profit but don't really give a damn about your health and would prefer to deny you if you have a condition that might make insurance nessisary.
Luckily I have been able to fight my suicidal thoughts and have not attempted since that time when I was 15, but it still freaks me out that should I lose control there is no real help.
If the insurance company wasn't making a profit, they would go out of business. A lot of insurance companies do care about their customers, just things tend to break down when you see crony capitalism.
Yes they care so much about their customers they will find any way to get out of covering medical expenditures when something does come up......and people who work for these companies are paid more the more people they deny. I mean with this system there are so many issues:
1. All the people who cannot afford health insurance and are not on medicaid
2. people who make too much money to be on medicaid but have a pre-existing condition and thus are denied.
3. people who have insurance and are dropped from it.
4. All the places that do not accept medicaid
I do not see the purpose of insurance companies.....why should someone have to go through a greedy big buisness to get medical treatment?
And I guess I feel my life is a little bit more important than the money in someones wallet.....but my very existance probably hurts things like insurance companies and we all know profit, competition and buisness are the most important things even more important than peoples lives.
And they wouldn't be pulling those stunts if we didn't have the crony capitalism that allows only Insurance company X and Y to provide insurance in a state, while there are over a hundred insurance companies that would be more than willing to enter the market.
But why do we need insurance companies in the first place? even if any insurance company could provide insurance in any state.....they still pay their employees more for denying more people, the still deny people with pre-existing conditions(some of these people cannot get on medicaid so what are they to do?) and they still try to find ways of getting out of actually covering anything if the person paying in does suffer a severe injury or illness.
07 Aug 2011, 3:16 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
cave_canem wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
The incorrect assumption you make is that the U.S. is a free market, I am well aware the costs are less in other countries. We have something worse than socialism in this country, its a system which favors corperate interests.
Hrrmm...
Huh?First you say that the reason healtcare costs are high is because of a move to "socialist" healthcare (ie - medicaid).
Then you say it's not socialsit... it's worse... It's a system that favours corporate interests... and which allows drug costs to increase unchecked... in other words: free market capitalism.
I can see how that would be confused with socialism. lol.
Favoring corporate interests is not equal to free market captalism, technically when corporate interests are aligned with the state it's called fascism, free market capatilism implies the separation between the state and economics. in the case of medicare fascism seems worse than socialism - when you look at it on the surface - but again you have no metric for the things that are really important, namely the progress in the medical fields.
If the more costly U.S. system is innovating more, - you might make the argument that the U.S. system is better. All countries benefit from that innovation while the U.S. bears the cost. If progress in the medical field is the metric to define how good a medical system is, I would argue the United States is one of the best.
Agreed, maybe we should start having other countries pay us royalties for using our medical innovations, that would go a long way towards dealing with the cost issue.
Can you prove the U.S should get all the credit for innovations in the medical industry?
it shouldn't get all the credit, and I cannot prove a subjective view. I suspect that the innovative achievements in the medical industry - such as the development of new drugs, research into the human genome, new medical procedures and devices are created in the United States primarily. I think this because the incentives benefit progress more in the United States than in other areas of the world.
The point I am trying to make is to say don't overlook things like innovation. It's hard to quantify as its subjective, but we all realize how important it is. I think socialism undermines this progress.
I disagree. I believe there are many smart people in this world who's definition of success does not include obscene financial gain. I believe there are intelligent, educated people who have a pure passion for helping others and would be more than satisfied, probably overjoyed, just to know they helped out a fellow human being.
I'm not exactly sure how it works elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure other nations make an investment into medical progress for all to share in the gains. The mighty dollar doesn't rule their thinking the way it does ours. In a socialized system, the people directly invest into progress and are directly rewarded for it. Here, we directly invest into it progress via medical expenses and the drug companies reap the rewards. It's not necessarily even the researchers and developers who are getting rich. It's the business departments, and the legal departments and the financial departments. All this money is being poured into advertising and pharm reps. I don't know exact percentages here, but it seems unlikely that the majority of pharm revenues go directly into further development.
Then, you've got the issue of conflict of interest. The more drugs a pharm company sells, the higher their profits. It's not necessarily in the best interest of the people to be continually medicated. Some argue that it's in a pharm company's best interest to focus on the treatments and not the cures. Keep them sick and keep them buying. Once they're cured, you lose their business. I don't know if there's actually any evidence of this, but there is evidence of some really shady business practices - like lying about trial outcomes or delaying recalls. It's basically all about the numbers - not the people.
To add to all of that, in order to come up with the best new developments, you need some really smart people. This is an area where the U.S. is clearly falling behind. When you look at who's doing a better job at educating their students, it's often the socialized countries who rise to the top. Finland is often credited with having the best education system in the world. They are not exactly socialist, but their public sector is very large and public employees are revered - teachers especially. In the U.S., we look down on teachers and we pay them peanuts.
Even if the U.S. had been the primary innovators, I think those days are coming to an end, if they haven't already.
Medical Research costs money, a lot of money, why shouldn't we get reimbersed for it?
Why should I not have access to healthcare?
Last I checked hospitals in the United States provide emergency care to people, even if they don't have health insurance. If people were really serious about cost savings, there would be tort reform and the ability to buy insurance across state lines.
Yeah and how do you propose I pay the bill they send me for the emergency care? I mean I almost feel like if I felt suicidal I would be better off killing myself then going to an emergency room...just thinking of how high that bill would be. And I think Health Insurance is a scam.....there is really no valid reason for it especially when these companies are all about profit but don't really give a damn about your health and would prefer to deny you if you have a condition that might make insurance nessisary.
Luckily I have been able to fight my suicidal thoughts and have not attempted since that time when I was 15, but it still freaks me out that should I lose control there is no real help.
If the insurance company wasn't making a profit, they would go out of business. A lot of insurance companies do care about their customers, just things tend to break down when you see crony capitalism.
Yes they care so much about their customers they will find any way to get out of covering medical expenditures when something does come up......and people who work for these companies are paid more the more people they deny. I mean with this system there are so many issues:
1. All the people who cannot afford health insurance and are not on medicaid
2. people who make too much money to be on medicaid but have a pre-existing condition and thus are denied.
3. people who have insurance and are dropped from it.
4. All the places that do not accept medicaid
I do not see the purpose of insurance companies.....why should someone have to go through a greedy big buisness to get medical treatment?
And I guess I feel my life is a little bit more important than the money in someones wallet.....but my very existance probably hurts things like insurance companies and we all know profit, competition and buisness are the most important things even more important than peoples lives.
And they wouldn't be pulling those stunts if we didn't have the crony capitalism that allows only Insurance company X and Y to provide insurance in a state, while there are over a hundred insurance companies that would be more than willing to enter the market.
But why do we need insurance companies in the first place? even if any insurance company could provide insurance in any state.....they still pay their employees more for denying more people, the still deny people with pre-existing conditions(some of these people cannot get on medicaid so what are they to do?) and they still try to find ways of getting out of actually covering anything if the person paying in does suffer a severe injury or illness.
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 3:22 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 3:23 pm
07 Aug 2011, 3:26 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
If the government was not basically owned by corporate america maybe they would be more competent and play the role of passing laws that actually help people rather than passing laws that serve corporate intrests. And maybe the jerks who run insurance companies are not idiots but I don't see how they are competent when they belive profit is the most important thing in the world.
Uh, for any business if you can't turn a profit and keep operating at a loss you go into bankruptcy, in fact they have to put together a budget for their company at least once every year (something else the Government has been unable to do (House of Representatives did pass one, Senate tabled it and didn't submit their budget plan).
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 3:30 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
If the government was not basically owned by corporate america maybe they would be more competent and play the role of passing laws that actually help people rather than passing laws that serve corporate intrests. And maybe the jerks who run insurance companies are not idiots but I don't see how they are competent when they belive profit is the most important thing in the world.
Uh, for any business if you can't turn a profit and keep operating at a loss you go into bankruptcy, in fact they have to put together a budget for their company at least once every year (something else the Government has been unable to do (House of Representatives did pass one, Senate tabled it and didn't submit their budget plan).
Ok great...fact of the matter is there is no way for me or many other U.S citizens to get adequete medical treatment. Yes I realise emergancy care has to be provided regardless of if you can afford it or not, but what about after that.......how would someone like me then pay the bill? there is a human factor...you know its not all just numbers, figures and profits these are peoples lives that get ruined because of this system.
07 Aug 2011, 3:35 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
If the government was not basically owned by corporate america maybe they would be more competent and play the role of passing laws that actually help people rather than passing laws that serve corporate intrests. And maybe the jerks who run insurance companies are not idiots but I don't see how they are competent when they belive profit is the most important thing in the world.
Uh, for any business if you can't turn a profit and keep operating at a loss you go into bankruptcy, in fact they have to put together a budget for their company at least once every year (something else the Government has been unable to do (House of Representatives did pass one, Senate tabled it and didn't submit their budget plan).
^ Completely off-topic with regards to providing medical care. Please cite one example that shows how U.S. citizens have benefited from the consumer model as opposed to the patient model used by other, more civilized nations.
07 Aug 2011, 3:36 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
If the government was not basically owned by corporate america maybe they would be more competent and play the role of passing laws that actually help people rather than passing laws that serve corporate intrests. And maybe the jerks who run insurance companies are not idiots but I don't see how they are competent when they belive profit is the most important thing in the world.
Uh, for any business if you can't turn a profit and keep operating at a loss you go into bankruptcy, in fact they have to put together a budget for their company at least once every year (something else the Government has been unable to do (House of Representatives did pass one, Senate tabled it and didn't submit their budget plan).
Ok great...fact of the matter is there is no way for me or many other U.S citizens to get adequete medical treatment. Yes I realise emergancy care has to be provided regardless of if you can afford it or not, but what about after that.......how would someone like me then pay the bill? there is a human factor...you know its not all just numbers, figures and profits these are peoples lives that get ruined because of this system.
Doctors, doctor offices, hospitals, etc. all have bills to pay, and quite frankly if they accepted the Government's rates they would go out of business. Doctors devote a lot of their income to medical liability insurance, despite what some people claim, junk lawsuits are a huge problem.
07 Aug 2011, 3:50 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
If the government was not basically owned by corporate america maybe they would be more competent and play the role of passing laws that actually help people rather than passing laws that serve corporate intrests. And maybe the jerks who run insurance companies are not idiots but I don't see how they are competent when they belive profit is the most important thing in the world.
Uh, for any business if you can't turn a profit and keep operating at a loss you go into bankruptcy, in fact they have to put together a budget for their company at least once every year (something else the Government has been unable to do (House of Representatives did pass one, Senate tabled it and didn't submit their budget plan).
Ok great...fact of the matter is there is no way for me or many other U.S citizens to get adequete medical treatment. Yes I realise emergancy care has to be provided regardless of if you can afford it or not, but what about after that.......how would someone like me then pay the bill? there is a human factor...you know its not all just numbers, figures and profits these are peoples lives that get ruined because of this system.
Doctors, doctor offices, hospitals, etc. all have bills to pay, and quite frankly if they accepted the Government's rates they would go out of business. Doctors devote a lot of their income to medical liability insurance, despite what some people claim, junk lawsuits are a huge problem.
Junk lawsuits don't make it to juries. That's where the tort reform comes into play - only after a jury has decided whether or not wrong doing has occurred, at which point judgements are reduced to be within cap limits regardless of the loss suffered by the patient.
Also, tort reform has already happened in a number of states, and their liability insurance costs have not gone down.
You seem to be avoiding my rebuttals completely. Is it because you can't refute them?
07 Aug 2011, 3:57 pm
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
If the government was not basically owned by corporate america maybe they would be more competent and play the role of passing laws that actually help people rather than passing laws that serve corporate intrests. And maybe the jerks who run insurance companies are not idiots but I don't see how they are competent when they belive profit is the most important thing in the world.
Uh, for any business if you can't turn a profit and keep operating at a loss you go into bankruptcy, in fact they have to put together a budget for their company at least once every year (something else the Government has been unable to do (House of Representatives did pass one, Senate tabled it and didn't submit their budget plan).
Ok great...fact of the matter is there is no way for me or many other U.S citizens to get adequete medical treatment. Yes I realise emergancy care has to be provided regardless of if you can afford it or not, but what about after that.......how would someone like me then pay the bill? there is a human factor...you know its not all just numbers, figures and profits these are peoples lives that get ruined because of this system.
Doctors, doctor offices, hospitals, etc. all have bills to pay, and quite frankly if they accepted the Government's rates they would go out of business. Doctors devote a lot of their income to medical liability insurance, despite what some people claim, junk lawsuits are a huge problem.
Junk lawsuits don't make it to juries. That's where the tort reform comes into play - only after a jury has decided whether or not wrong doing has occurred, at which point judgements are reduced to be within cap limits regardless of the loss suffered by the patient.
Also, tort reform has already happened in a number of states, and their liability insurance costs have not gone down.
You seem to be avoiding my rebuttals completely. Is it because you can't refute them?
It actually did go down a little in some states, but then we have Obamacare. The reason that the premiums are so high is because liability insurance companies tend to want to settle rather than deal with a huge legal fight that drags on for years.
Factors:
1. Frivalous lawsuits
2. Illegal Immigration -- yeah the costs of emergency room visits have to go somewhere for a hospital to remain in business.
3. lack of competition due to crony capitalism.
Seriously, if 3 insurance companies suddenly saw 100 new competitors enter the scene, they would either have to shape up, or go out of business.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
07 Aug 2011, 3:57 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
If the government was not basically owned by corporate america maybe they would be more competent and play the role of passing laws that actually help people rather than passing laws that serve corporate intrests. And maybe the jerks who run insurance companies are not idiots but I don't see how they are competent when they belive profit is the most important thing in the world.
Uh, for any business if you can't turn a profit and keep operating at a loss you go into bankruptcy, in fact they have to put together a budget for their company at least once every year (something else the Government has been unable to do (House of Representatives did pass one, Senate tabled it and didn't submit their budget plan).
Ok great...fact of the matter is there is no way for me or many other U.S citizens to get adequete medical treatment. Yes I realise emergancy care has to be provided regardless of if you can afford it or not, but what about after that.......how would someone like me then pay the bill? there is a human factor...you know its not all just numbers, figures and profits these are peoples lives that get ruined because of this system.
Doctors, doctor offices, hospitals, etc. all have bills to pay, and quite frankly if they accepted the Government's rates they would go out of business. Doctors devote a lot of their income to medical liability insurance, despite what some people claim, junk lawsuits are a huge problem.
So I should be ok with the fact that should I ever need emergency medical attention or immediate psychological help, I will be completely destroyed financially.......I am pretty sure to pay that bill would cost me over 3,000 dollars and guess what my income to live on is 3,000 dollars no not per month per college semester and that is grants/loans so I already have to try and pay that back when I graduate college. You keep failing to adress my question about what someone in my position is supposed to freaking do.
Also with universal healthcare there would be no need for healthcare related insurance, which would= more money in peoples pockets.......without having to pay a bill to a greedy insurance company every month or whatever you pay less in taxes then you would pay into that and everyone is covered. And according to interveiws in the documentary I watched Doctors in countries with Universal Healthcare are paid quite decent wages(I could probably do more research on that myself) but what makes you think the doctors here would not be paid enough to pay their bills under universal healthcare.......if doctors in contries with this system are already being paid decent wages?
07 Aug 2011, 3:58 pm
number5 wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
cave_canem wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
The incorrect assumption you make is that the U.S. is a free market, I am well aware the costs are less in other countries. We have something worse than socialism in this country, its a system which favors corperate interests.
Hrrmm...
Huh?First you say that the reason healtcare costs are high is because of a move to "socialist" healthcare (ie - medicaid).
Then you say it's not socialsit... it's worse... It's a system that favours corporate interests... and which allows drug costs to increase unchecked... in other words: free market capitalism.
I can see how that would be confused with socialism. lol.
Favoring corporate interests is not equal to free market captalism, technically when corporate interests are aligned with the state it's called fascism, free market capatilism implies the separation between the state and economics. in the case of medicare fascism seems worse than socialism - when you look at it on the surface - but again you have no metric for the things that are really important, namely the progress in the medical fields.
If the more costly U.S. system is innovating more, - you might make the argument that the U.S. system is better. All countries benefit from that innovation while the U.S. bears the cost. If progress in the medical field is the metric to define how good a medical system is, I would argue the United States is one of the best.
Agreed, maybe we should start having other countries pay us royalties for using our medical innovations, that would go a long way towards dealing with the cost issue.
Can you prove the U.S should get all the credit for innovations in the medical industry?
it shouldn't get all the credit, and I cannot prove a subjective view. I suspect that the innovative achievements in the medical industry - such as the development of new drugs, research into the human genome, new medical procedures and devices are created in the United States primarily. I think this because the incentives benefit progress more in the United States than in other areas of the world.
The point I am trying to make is to say don't overlook things like innovation. It's hard to quantify as its subjective, but we all realize how important it is. I think socialism undermines this progress.
I disagree. I believe there are many smart people in this world who's definition of success does not include obscene financial gain. I believe there are intelligent, educated people who have a pure passion for helping others and would be more than satisfied, probably overjoyed, just to know they helped out a fellow human being.
I'm not exactly sure how it works elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure other nations make an investment into medical progress for all to share in the gains. The mighty dollar doesn't rule their thinking the way it does ours. In a socialized system, the people directly invest into progress and are directly rewarded for it. Here, we directly invest into it progress via medical expenses and the drug companies reap the rewards. It's not necessarily even the researchers and developers who are getting rich. It's the business departments, and the legal departments and the financial departments. All this money is being poured into advertising and pharm reps. I don't know exact percentages here, but it seems unlikely that the majority of pharm revenues go directly into further development.
Then, you've got the issue of conflict of interest. The more drugs a pharm company sells, the higher their profits. It's not necessarily in the best interest of the people to be continually medicated. Some argue that it's in a pharm company's best interest to focus on the treatments and not the cures. Keep them sick and keep them buying. Once they're cured, you lose their business. I don't know if there's actually any evidence of this, but there is evidence of some really shady business practices - like lying about trial outcomes or delaying recalls. It's basically all about the numbers - not the people.
To add to all of that, in order to come up with the best new developments, you need some really smart people. This is an area where the U.S. is clearly falling behind. When you look at who's doing a better job at educating their students, it's often the socialized countries who rise to the top. Finland is often credited with having the best education system in the world. They are not exactly socialist, but their public sector is very large and public employees are revered - teachers especially. In the U.S., we look down on teachers and we pay them peanuts.
Even if the U.S. had been the primary innovators, I think those days are coming to an end, if they haven't already.
This is a fantastic point you bring up, the idea that the profit motive may not produce the best solution - that pharma companies would rather have you pay a lifetime of pills over giving you a single cure. However, I suppose the treatment is better than nothing at all. I operate on the basis that incentives are what drive progress, and if there is no incentive to have a lasting cure then you are correct - but even the government wouldn't pursue something when it has nothing to gain. However, I would challenge that notion, if someone were to develop a lasting cure for a particular disease, they could charge much more than the treatments. It would compete favorably with long term treatments because people would prefer it over a pill.
If someone could cure ADHD with a single injection, I would pay more for that than a lifetime of pills. There is the incentive.
07 Aug 2011, 4:04 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering Government can't even run a Post Office, I'm not sure I'd want them managing my Healthcare. As aggrivating as Insurance Companies are, at least they aren't incompetitent idiots.
If the government was not basically owned by corporate america maybe they would be more competent and play the role of passing laws that actually help people rather than passing laws that serve corporate intrests. And maybe the jerks who run insurance companies are not idiots but I don't see how they are competent when they belive profit is the most important thing in the world.
Uh, for any business if you can't turn a profit and keep operating at a loss you go into bankruptcy, in fact they have to put together a budget for their company at least once every year (something else the Government has been unable to do (House of Representatives did pass one, Senate tabled it and didn't submit their budget plan).
Ok great...fact of the matter is there is no way for me or many other U.S citizens to get adequete medical treatment. Yes I realise emergancy care has to be provided regardless of if you can afford it or not, but what about after that.......how would someone like me then pay the bill? there is a human factor...you know its not all just numbers, figures and profits these are peoples lives that get ruined because of this system.
Doctors, doctor offices, hospitals, etc. all have bills to pay, and quite frankly if they accepted the Government's rates they would go out of business. Doctors devote a lot of their income to medical liability insurance, despite what some people claim, junk lawsuits are a huge problem.
So I should be ok with the fact that should I ever need emergency medical attention or immediate psychological help, I will be completely destroyed financially.......I am pretty sure to pay that bill would cost me over 3,000 dollars and guess what my income to live on is 3,000 dollars no not per month per college semester and that is grants/loans so I already have to try and pay that back when I graduate college. You keep failing to adress my question about what someone in my position is supposed to freaking do.
Also with universal healthcare there would be no need for healthcare related insurance, which would= more money in peoples pockets.......without having to pay a bill to a greedy insurance company every month or whatever you pay less in taxes then you would pay into that and everyone is covered. And according to interveiws in the documentary I watched Doctors in countries with Universal Healthcare are paid quite decent wages(I could probably do more research on that myself) but what makes you think the doctors here would not be paid enough to pay their bills under universal healthcare.......if doctors in contries with this system are already being paid decent wages?
No, it doesn't mean people would have more money in their pockets, it means we would have higher taxes and our Federal Budget would be even more screwed up than it is now. We would have unelected officials dictating what kind of health care we can be offered and can't be offered.
A 64 year old women, and cancer survivor, living in Oregon; Ms. Wagner learned her cancer had returned and would likely kill her. There was a chance for her survival however, a $4,000 a month drug which her doctor felt she was a good candidate for. Sadly her insurance provider determined this was not a good allocation of resources and denied coverage. Ms. Wagner is now dead from cancer. Which insurance company denied her coverage? Which greedy corporation put profits ahead of people and let Ms. Wagner die when lifesaving care was available? As I stated above, Oregon's state run health insurance plan determined $4,000 was too large an expense for a 64 year old women who had already had cancer once before. A better use of funds would be a $50 assisted suicide pill. This is what was offered to Ms. Wagner in an unsigned letter, this was her “public option”. (Recap, the greedy drug manufacturer offered Ms. Wagner free cancer drugs after her Government health plan denied coverage)
Continue reading on Examiner.com State health care plan denies cancer drugs, offers cheaper suicide pill instead - National Law and Politics | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/law-and-politic ... z1UNZBUAsO
So we have the "benevolent" government telling the woman to just go kill herself, and the "evil" prescription drug company providing her the medication for free.
Oh here is the source the above article used:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492
07 Aug 2011, 4:08 pm
07 Aug 2011, 4:12 pm
07 Aug 2011, 4:14 pm
