In simple terms
by
So with the health care plan heading into the Senate, I think I want to get to the short and sweet version of why so many people are against it, or are against the idea of nationalized health care in general.
It all boils down to choice.
Now, if you want to believe the idea that the public option is just giving us another choice, all fine and dandy. The problem there is that you can’t choose to not pay for it, like you can choose to not pay for any other kind of health insurance you don’t intend to use. And we’ve all gone over how this is a stepping-stone or impetus for the removal of privatized health insurance anyway, so no reason retreading that yet again. Once you have nationalized health care, your choices are limited even more.
That is the most basic of the basics. Freedom is being able to make your own choices. This bill narrows or eliminates choices.
That’s the most fundamental aspect and why people want smaller government in general. Because government is fundamentally about either limiting your choices or making choices for you. The less of that they do, and the less power they have to do so, the more freedom you have. Sure, there are a number of choices that you give up the right to make willy-nilly just by living in a vaguely civilized society, let alone as part of a country. But the idea is to keep the removal of those choices as basic and minimal as possible. The government is essentially going to remove my choice of what health insurance, if any, I’m going to buy, because they will make me pay for their health insurance, or they will put me in jail.
Taking away a choice, any choice, flies in the face of those who value their freedom. In fact, it flies in the face of what the country was founded on, as the very most basic document of our nation gives us the right to make ten choices and have the government not only stay out of them, but stick up for and defend your right to make those choices.
The choice of whether to be silent or to speak your mind.
The choice of whether to own the means to defend yourself and your property, or to go without.
The choice of whether to let soldiers into your home during peacetime, or even in war unless the law says so.
The choice of whether or not to let your home and possessions be searched without a warrant of probable cause.
The choice… well, honestly, you get the point. The rest still comes down to choice, since you can essentially choose to waive any of them, it just becomes harder to phrase them specifically as such. But they still come down to choices you can make, and once you’ve made them demand that the government respect them. And these were choices that the Founders gave us because they were being denied them. They were denied these choices and more, the choice to decide who represented them, the choice to influence and affect their own destiny. So they gave that choice to the people, and on down to us.
Government exists to give us more choices, more freedom, not less. That is why this bill feels like such a violation to many… it’s just one more choice being stripped away.
Comments
The choice… well, honestly, you get the point
No. No. Let me go on…
- The choice of whether to see a doctor when symptoms first present themselves, thus preventing further, more complicated, more dangerous and more expensive interventions later.
- The choice of hospital and doctor, regardless of which HMO you are with. Yup - most ‘socialist’ health systems do that.
- The choice of treatment, timing, location (within reason, of course). And yup, most ‘socialist’ health systems do that too.
At the moment, there are very few people who don’t think that the health system is not a complete mess. It’s overly expensive, produces very poor value for money, and the health outcomes are nothing to brag about.
However, I am no particular fan of this plan - I think a simple, basic compulsory cover for everyone works much better. Then private insurance picks up the extras.
And I have now lived in three countries where this is how it works. Not once have I ever been denied treatment, had to wait for it, had to pay ridiculous sums for it, and I have always had my choice of doctor and hospital. The government has no role in deciding who gets treated for what. And overall, it costs less.
Yeah: choice is what I have. Real choice. My future is not decided by a bunch of bureaucrats at my HMO.
Allow me to rephrase.
All of you but stogy get the point.
Allow me to rephrase.
All of you but stogy get the point.
I tried to read between the lines, but no… no rebuttal there.
You put up a ‘thin edge of the wedge argument’? But the connection you are making here is kinda weak: the current system actually DOESN’T actually provide real choice. And is expensive and produces poor results. And is poorly administered.
What’s to like about that?
There’s no rebuttal because, as usual, your post is idiotic and without merit.
You refuse to accept that the reason the system is so screwed IS BECAUSE OF government already.
Why would Rann bother trying to explain it to you again when you refuse to actually accept whats plainly laid out in front of you.
#3 This plan will make medical care worse for most.
The only people that will not see a negative result from this bill are those that are immune from its sweeping ministrations (congress and other the elite that are exempt) and the lawyers that will continue to rake us all over the coals and get rich (then donate a small chunk of that to demcorats).
the current system actually DOESN’T actually provide real choice.
I call bullshit. I have plenty of choices.
And is expensive and produces poor results.
So it is being replaced with one where my costs - directly and indirectly - will be even higher, my choices even fewer, the quality and availability even lower/less, and the people that inflicted this scourge on me and so many others are exempt from it? Yeah, that makes sense.
You refuse to accept that the reason the system is so screwed IS BECAUSE OF government already.
Er… so the fact that I have lived in three countries where the health system a) works b) covers everyone c) is cheaper d) provides better outcomes, and e) is on the popular side with the people, means nothing?
the lawyers that will continue to rake us all over the coals and get rich (then donate a small chunk of that to demcorats).
True, but that pales in comparison to the racketeering by big pharma (at least 100 billion a year). The best thing I can think of would be to abandon the patent system - and it might just reduce corporate welfare. So yes, that’s a government intervention that distorts the market - it allows monopolies, which means that companies can charge well above the marginal rate, and that is a deadweight loss on the economy.
I call bullshit. I have plenty of choices.
You do now that you are healthy. But is your HMO just as nice when it starts paying out money? Plenty of people who suddenly lose their coverage when the going gets tough.
What if you got diabetes, and needed $2000 of meds a month. Then it got to the point where you could no longer work, and you couldn’t pay your premiums anymore?
In the US, while you can pay, you have choices. In Australia and Japan, all people have choices. If the state system doesn’t cover you, you can easily go private - with private health cover. And it costs less. And people are healthier.
So it is being replaced with one where my costs - directly and indirectly - will be even higher, my choices even fewer, the quality and availability even lower/less, and the people that inflicted this scourge on me and so many others are exempt from it?
Yeah, I am not sure this system is ideal either. A single payer system works better. The evidence is there already.
I gotta do some work.
Rann.... thank you. Seriously.... thank you. *hugs*
Yeah: choice is what I have. Real choice. My future is not decided by a bunch of bureaucrats at my HMO.
Oh you mean the set up from the last government attempt to fix health care? Yeah, there is a problem with medicine here. It’s call the government butting in already. Putting the choice for care on the employer instead of having the consumer shop for it either by law or lopsided tax incentives, preventing competition across states, and FDA that helps jack up the price of drugs. We have Medicaid and Medicare, strangely enough, if they are so damn efficient and a model for the future, they’d be doing just fine. They are broken as well, and part of that broken system jacks up the prices in the private sector.
Stogy, if you think the rest of the world has better treatment and you are all for government run systems, then go there, that’s your right, but just as you insist the US but out of the world’s business, maybe it would be ok for you to do the same with us?
Plenty of people who suddenly lose their coverage when the going gets tough.
And most don’t. I have family members who have chronic illnesses, and guess what, they get covered. You were denied health care here I assume? I’m glad you were smart enough to go elsewhere since you were treated so poorly here.
Also, anyone can find you examples of government fuckups just the same. Except everyone has to pay for those fuckups, and you don’t get a choice on that.
True, but that pales in comparison to the racketeering by big pharma (at least 100 billion a year). The best thing I can think of would be to abandon the patent system - and it might just reduce corporate welfare.
Yes but that’s easily taken care of by the medical breakthroughs that come from the countries with government controlling healthcare. Why not break the trade barriers here and simply allow all the cures that have obviously been developed in better parts of the world to flow here?
Stogy, if you think the rest of the world has better treatment and you are all for government run systems, then go there, that’s your right, but just as you insist the US but out of the world’s business, maybe it would be ok for you to do the same with us?
It’s a fair point, and I would, but half my family still live in the US. So I have an interest.
It’s a fair point, and I would, but half my family still live in the US. So I have an interest.
Have you tried to convince them to leave this shit hole? The cause of the world’s problems, the hold out on paradise? Have you let them know their days are numbered if they live here? Have they not seen the sick bodies on TV that we dump into pits by the truckload?
Great post by Rann, and I was looking forward to a great discussion of opposing views when I saw Stogy chime in.
But it degenerated into “If you don’t like it go live in France - libtard”.
Shame.
Have you tried to convince them to leave this shit hole? The cause of the world’s problems, the hold out on paradise? Have you let them know their days are numbered if they live here? Have they not seen the sick bodies on TV that we dump into pits by the truckload?
Well, my relatives are all practicing necrophiliacs. What would they do for kicks without all those lovely deadies? Last I heard, the pits were getting too deep though, and it was scratching up their shoes just to climb down. I told them to leave, but you know what rellies are like? Won’t listen! Huh!
Er...and actually… calling for healthcare reform (and I have to add again that I don’t think the current plan will work) is hardly blaming the US for all the world’s ills. Everywhere has good and bad points. I like the US. I don’t like some of the things about it. Same thing here.
And most don’t. I have family members who have chronic illnesses, and guess what, they get covered.
They’re the lucky ones, then:
Last January, I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. MS is the king of “pre-existing conditions”—a chronic, degenerative, incurable disease treatable only by medications that cost around $20,000 a year. I am currently working, and my job provides health insurance. But one of the most disabling aspects of MS is the crushing fatigue, and I don’t know how much longer I will be able to work, at least not in a job with traditional hours and arrangements, the kind that tends to provide health benefits.
How is that working? How is it that sick people are sicker because of the worry and stress of their HMOs? How is it that HMOs can set a policy of only paying back 70%? How is it that HMOs can refuse to pay because treatment wasn’t pre-approved, even when the person was unconscious at the time? How is it that a relatively common procedure costing $2500 a month abroad costs 20 times that in the US?
The system as it stands now is a joke - it doesn’t provide choice, value for money or good health outcomes. And no-one here has been actually able to show me anything good about it at all yet.
Yes but that’s easily taken care of by the medical breakthroughs that come from the countries with government controlling healthcare.
I notice you didn’t actually deal with the issue, which was that patents make monopolies, turn good companies into bad companies, and create a deadweight drag on the economy.
Most of the really good innovation and breakthroughs are done through government funding in the US. Approximately 70% of what Big Pharma do is based around extending patents and developing copycat drugs. The other stuff? Mostly erectile dysfunction, symptom management, and stuff that lends itself to patentability.
Sometimes, something really good does come out of it, though. As in the case of Ornidyl, the treatment for Sleeping Sickness. Oh that’s right: it’s only due to MSF activism that the drug is available at all. It’s unprofitable. But some smart alec at MSF noted that the active ingredients were also being used in a facial hair removal product for women (Vaniqa). And all of a sudden, there’s a five year production deal. Unfortunately as that has run out, they have to rely solely on Melarsaprol, one of the few remaining drugs with arsenic as its active ingredient.
Orphan diseases get almost nothing. Nor do diseases with short-course treatments. Not profitable, you see.
Great post by Rann, and I was looking forward to a great discussion of opposing views when I saw Stogy chime in.
But it degenerated into “If you don’t like it go live in France - libtard”.
Yeah. I wanted a real debate. Come on. Put up. Facts. Figures. Show me! This is pathetic so far!
The system as it stands now is a joke - it doesn’t provide choice, value for money or good health outcomes. And no-one here has been actually able to show me anything good about it at all yet.
No one has said it’s not without problems. The argument here is that the government is part of the problem. You keep brining up HMOs why don’t you point out that the HMO system is a direct result of the HMO act, which was written by good old Ted Kennedy, supported by Nixon, and it is to a degree a broken system. Rewarding the government with more power is not the answer.
The problem is most who want more government involvement conveniently forget the government’s role in “fixing it” last time, and they cherry pick a few stories here and there to make the system sound completely broken at the hands of the private sector. I always love it though when Hal or someone posts some stories about people not getting care in Britain or Canada or some other country, and then suddenly those stories don’t count. Anyone can find a story Stogy. My family aren’t the lucky ones, most do get covered without issue. There is a problem, there can be quite a bit of improvement, but more government is not the answer.
Real competition has always had two side effects in any industry. It drops prices and promotes quality. We need to allow it in this industry as well. That means getting rid of the government built bureaucratic layers that are responsible for jacking up prices. For example, an FDA that stalls the release of drugs, and jacks up the cost. Other barriers either placed there by power hungry politicians, or by lobbying efforts of insurance companies, pharma, doctor, hospitals.
Having the government run the show won’t fix the problem.
Orphan diseases get almost nothing. Nor do diseases with short-course treatments. Not profitable, you see.
Again, we can get those cures from the countries with the better systems right?
Want more drugs? Get rid of the FDA. It’s a problem that makes it too expensive for small companies to make drugs, and get them to market, and get the money to make new drugs. Look at some of the small pharma companies in this country. I’ll dig some up tonight. They are innovative, and you can see their stock prices at 2 bucks or less most of the time as their cash reserve gets tapped by gambling that the FDA will approve their drug. We’re talking drugs that can extend life in terminally ill patients in some cases. The trials show this, and yet, it still takes years of battle.
You keep brining up HMOs why don’t you point out that the HMO system is a direct result of the HMO act, which was written by good old Ted Kennedy, supported by Nixon, and it is to a degree a broken system.
Excellent point. But if you got rid of the HMOs what would you replace them with? How would this extend coverage to people who didn’t have it? Or couldn’t afford it? Market principles point to the fact that private insurance is going to be much more interested in covering healthy people than sick people. How would this get people with pre-existing conditions back into the health system?
they cherry pick a few stories here and there to make the system sound completely broken at the hands of the private sector.
Right. I remember that story about the Canadian woman who had to come to the US to have her ‘terminal’ tumor removed. Only it turned out that the tumor was benign, and she didn’t need it out at all quickly. Both sides are cherry picking to suit their case.
I always love it though when Hal or someone posts some stories about people not getting care in Britain or Canada or some other country, and then suddenly those stories don’t count.
They do count. No country has a perfect health system. But many countries have health systems that produce better health for less money than the US. And the failures in the US are completely systemic - not aberrations at all.
Real competition has always had two side effects in any industry. It drops prices and promotes quality. We need to allow it in this industry as well.
Ah no. Real competition only works when real competition is possible. Whenever you get a monopoly owned privately, you get a disaster - high prices, poor service. Allowing private companies to own telephone companies is a great idea. Allowing them to own the transmission cables is a bad one. Now in health, creating a unified single payer system under government control, and then getting companies to compete for their chunk of that money is to my mind the best solution to producing competition. Private insurance then competes for those willing to pay more for luxury services and elective surgery etc. This system actually would produce the kind of competition that would bring down prices.
That means getting rid of the government built bureaucratic layers that are responsible for jacking up prices. For example, an FDA that stalls the release of drugs, and jacks up the cost
Last time I checked, the FDA had reduced drug approval times to about 6 months. Delays in processing drug approvals were mainly due to drug companies submitting faulty paperwork, deliberately concealing data, and fudging their research results. And the total cost of FDA approvals (carried fifty percent by the drug manufacturers - problematic in itself) was about 250 million last year, I believe. Peanuts! Not nearly enough to justify the massive amounts that drug companies say they should get. And don’t run the phoney ‘800 million cost of research per drug’ number by me again. That number has never been audited and is questioned by just about everyone in the industry.
As for getting rid of the FDA? Glaxo Smith Kline once sent a warning letter to all UK doctors about suicide risks of prescribing Paxel for under 18s. But they didn’t send one to US docs. Why? Afraid of lawsuits? Perhaps, but they certainly didn’t seem to have the interests of young adults in mind at the time. And lets not forget the complete clusterfuck that happened with Vioxx. Or Posilac.
The benefits of selling blockbuster drugs (a billion plus dollars a year) are simply too great to really trust drug companies to reign in their products once something goes wrong. And quite frankly, market principles mean that producers can’t even be trusted to correctly label a cereal box, let alone a pharmaceutical.
Looks like you have bought the pharma line on this, pure and simple. They have a lot to lose from separating innovation (patents) from drug sales. Like their market monopoly.
Having the government run the show won’t fix the problem.
No, but having the government run an intelligent level playing field might.
Again, we can get those cures from the countries with the better systems right?
Again. Almost all real drug innovation is funded by the US government - including grants to your drug startups - not by big pharmaceutical companies. Orphan drugs, unprofitable drugs, infectious diseases are NOT attractive investments for pharmaceutical investment.
We’re talking drugs that can extend life in terminally ill patients in some cases.
Great. So now we get to talking about developing a system which really rewards companies for doing innovation, not copycat research, right? Right?
Again. Almost all real drug innovation is funded by the US government - including grants to your drug startups
Got anything to cite that supports this? I think its bullshit but am willing to read something if you can do more than blow smoke out of your ass.
OK. Some links. Starting with the focus on copycat research:
Estimates of R&D;spending in pharmaceuticals consistently show that a large fraction of expenditures are targeted at products offering little no therapeutic improvement over existing drugs.9 In part, this is a function of the fact that it is difficult to develop new and highly effective drugs, of course; but it is also the case that firms find it profitable to imitate successful drugs.10 Drugs such as Celebrex® and Vioxx® are examples of such products, as are the Viagra® imitators Cialis® and Levitra®, and numerous statins. It is not clear what proportion of research spending is devoted to me-too products, as the industry does not release data on spending by product. However, over 50% of R&D;spending is used for clinical testing (DiMasi, Hansen, and Grabowski, 2003). Public data on the number of subjects in clinical tests suggests that only 20% of the R&D;budget allocated to clinical testing is used for drugs which the FDA categorizes as offering a “significant improvement” compared to marketed products – the other 80% is used for products which do not offer a significant improvement (Love, 2003). It is not my contention that “me-too” drugs are without value. Evidently variety is important since not every patient reacts the same way to all drugs, and in some situations (such as antibiotics) having more drugs can help to protect against resistance, a point which Calfee (2000) makes eloquently. However, since me-too drugs do not typically result in large price reductions, it is likely that they attract more investment than is socially optimal.
And on NIH vs private funding for breakthrough medical research:
Drug companies claim to spend 17% of domestic sales on R&D;, but more objective data reports they spend only 10% (National Science Foundation 2003). Thus, only 1.8% of sales goes to research for breakthrough new drugs (18% x 10%) (Love 2003).
Taxpayers pay for most research costs, and many clinical trials as well.
In 2000, for example, industry spent 18% of its $13 billion for R&D;on basic research, or $2.3 billion in gross costs (National Science Foundation 2003). All of that money was subsidized by taxpayers through deductions and tax credits. Taxpayers also paid for all $18 billion in NIH funds, as well as for R&D;funds in the Department of Defense and other public budgets. Most of that money went for basic research to discover breakthrough drugs, and public money also supports more than 5000 clinical trials (Bassand, Martin, Ryden et al. 2002). Taxpayer contributions are similar in more recent years, only larger.
And here’s something really interesting:
Americans pay for more R&D;than any other country because the United States accounts for more sales than any other country. But while the U.S. accounts for 51% of world sales, it took 58% of global R&D;expenditures invested in the US to discover only 43% of the more important new drugs (NCEs) (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations 2003). This means that other countries are helping to pay for the large, inefficient U.S. R&D;enterprise, the opposite of what the editors of Business Week claimed (Business Week editors 2003). William Safire’s claim of a “foreign rip-off” as Americans pay for the world’s R&D;is contradicted by the facts above (Safire 2003).
And on the deadweight loss to the economy:
Patent monopolies cause economic distortions in the same way that trade tariffs or quotas lead to economic distortions, but the size of the distortions are far greater. While trade barriers rarely increase prices by more than 10 to 20 percent, drug patents increase prices by an average of 300- 400 percent above the competitive market price, and in some cases the increase is more than 1000 percent. Simple calculations suggest that the deadweight efficiency losses from patent protection are roughly comparable in size to the amount of research currently supported by the patent system – approximately $25 billion in 2004. Projections of rapidly rising research costs, and therefore a growing gap between price and marginal cost, imply that the deadweight loss due to drug patents will exceed $100 billion a year by 2013.
You do now that you are healthy.
I have a son with a serious and chronic problem, and they have been fine. My mom also had 2 kidney transplants and they took great care of her. I have nothing to complain about.
BTW. You are, and anyone arguing like you about this issue is, a deluded fool if to think that because government would own the system, a government that has driven itself to the brink of insolvency and the country to the path of a banana republic, things would get better. In fact, it is almost a given based on the track record and the historical data that it will get much, much worse Stogy.
But is your HMO just as nice when it starts paying out money?
I don’t have an HMO. And if you think HMOs are bad keep in mind that government healthcare will be an evil HMO on steroids.
Plenty of people who suddenly lose their coverage when the going gets tough.
Yeah, sure. That’s why we ended up with a plan that fixes that by handing all power to make life and death decisions, as well trillions more of our dollars, to a capricious and political government, which has as its first priority the expansion of its power over the peasants. A government that has already rigged the system and made sure that none of its members have to live or die by the very system we peasants are forced to be part of. That makes it better how?
If the problem was this kind of coverage issue, why not just amend the law to make it illegal and prohibitive for insurance companies? Despite the usual bullshit from the left about how evil insurance companies are, we should not lose track that it is this same government demonizing them that has sets the rules up to allow them to do things like this (if they really do it as often as people that want government to own our freedoms by being able to ration our healthcare constantly claim). On purpose too! So they could then pull off this stunt.
As I said before: methinks every time you defend this disgusting government takeover it has more to do with your desire to see our system go as broke as those of the collectivists so you can stop feeling inferior. The harder and more you or people like you argue, the more I see it too.
As I said before: methinks every time you defend this disgusting government takeover it has more to do with your desire to see our system go as broke as those of the collectivists so you can stop feeling inferior.
Actually, I have said repeatedly in this thread that I don’t think this plan will work. It will fail to reduce prices, it needlessly adds complicated paperwork, and it won’t increase competition.
If the problem was this kind of coverage issue, why not just amend the law to make it illegal and prohibitive for insurance companies?
I have no problem at all with a private option - but the option has to work in a way that covers everyone equitably (remembering that there is very little financial incentive to look after the poor or the sick). It also has promote competition.
You are, and anyone arguing like you about this issue is, a deluded fool if to think that because government would own the system, a government that has driven itself to the brink of insolvency and the country to the path of a banana republic, things would get better
I wonder why it is that other countries can have governments that effectively promote the public good without bankrupting the state or imposing excessive taxes. What is it about the US that means all government is so dysfunctional?
And yes, there is something worse than poor government - it’s a private monopoly. You get both high prices AND poor service. And that’s largely what whole sectors of the health industry in the US are currently run as.
The system as it is now does not generate the kind of competition that will bring down prices - that’s what I have been arguing with the patents issue. But this could be extended right across the whole health sector. There have been a couple of suggestions about opening up interstate competition, but how much of an effect will that actually have on prices.
And will it provide enough incentive to actually provide for the diabetic guy I posted on above, about to lose his health insurance because he is too sick to work. And I repeat - this case is not a sob story. It’s a systemic failure of both government and the market to look after people who are sick. This is no lazy layabout who didn’t insure himself - but a person who has worked until he can no longer. His choices now are to a) die b) go bankrupt by using a system he can’t afford, then die or c) use the free clinic, not be seen when he needs to be seen, pick up an infection, then die.
methinks every time you defend this disgusting government takeover it has more to do with your desire to see our system go as broke as those of the collectivists so you can stop feeling inferior.
Dude, you have to stop with the conspiracy theories.
I have no problem at all with a private option - but the option has to work in a way that covers everyone equitably (remembering that there is very little financial incentive to look after the poor or the sick).
OK Sorry Stogy, but you lose me here. There is no incentive to look after the sick or poor? Whose incentive are you speaking of? This is exactly why we are where we are today. I certainly do not consider it my job to look after anyone but mine. And I certainly do not want it to be the government’s job either. I feel it is my job to look after myself and my family. It should be the same for everyone else. The sick, to use your metaphor, should be looking after themselves. If they bought insurance when they were healthy they should be covered for everything they agreed upon in that insurance contract now that they are sick. If that is not happening, address that issue. I have no sympathy however for people that waited until they got sick to go looking for insurance. There are consequences to choices.
As for the poor the answer has always been the same from me: stop giving them handouts and make them want to leave poverty. Some will rise above it, others will not. It might sound cruel, but this is mother nature at work. As long as we continue to subsidize poverty – what the collectivist politicians do because this ensures them a perpetual vote from a dependant – poverty will not just exist, it will thrive. To limit or get rid of poverty you need a society and an economic system that provides opportunity and rewards those that genuinely try while taking care of those that simply can not make it through no fault of their own. But as soon as you decide that you will coddle everyone that fails due to bad choices, like we are doing now, you simply propagate and increase the bad behavior and the problem.
We have spent over $15 trillion in the US and over some 40+ years to eradicate poverty, and we have only gotten more poor people according to the envious cry babies. Not one of them stops to think that the problem is with subsidizing the bad behaviors that attribute to poverty, in the name of some catchy “social justice” or “humanitarian” reason, is why poverty persists. It is the human condition and norm through history. That so many of us are no longer poor is actually the miracle. And it baffles me why so many ignore what made that possible and continue to hammer us all with things that are based on an economic system that has a hundred year plus record of failing miserably.
It also has promote competition.
Something these very politicians have worked hard to prevent BTW.
I wonder why it is that other countries can have governments that effectively promote the public good without bankrupting the state or imposing excessive taxes.
Name me one, and I will show you that there are excessive taxes, the system is broke or close to breaking, and that these countries are not even close to being as well off as you are pretending they could be otherwise.
What is it about the US that means all government is so dysfunctional?
Erm, why are you assuming this is a problem limited to the US government, Stogy? I think US government is, by any objective standards, far more functional than that of most countries. Some parts of government, especially the local and small kind, are a lot more effective and efficient, while others, especially the federal government, in general are a money wasting, ineffective behemoth. Government everywhere by default is a non-caring entity, comprised in general of bureaucrats with massive baggage, slow in reacting when it needs to and fast in reacting with negative and bad consequences when it should do nothing, and so far removed from both the people and the real world, that expecting anything but mediocrity from it is a sign of insanity.
Maybe the problem is with the fact that you have such low expectations of government that you no longer see the problem with the ones you live under, while hearing those of us that know better complain about ours, and jumped to this conclusion?
And yes, there is something worse than poor government - it’s a private monopoly. You get both high prices AND poor service. And that’s largely what whole sectors of the health industry in the US are currently run as.
What you fail to mention Stogy is that these private monopolies can only exist when that poor government you talk about allows them to. The reality is that every problem we have in our private sector, and doubly so in healthcare, can directly be traced to some government meddling that directly or indirectly allowed the behavior/practice. And yet these bastards that made the problem blame the other side and demand more power in return to “fix it”. In the mean time their fix creates even more problems and screws us citizens far harder than these private monopolies ever could. But let’s not dwell on the real world, and continue to focus on the made up one where capitalism is the bad guy.
The system as it is now does not generate the kind of competition that will bring down prices - that’s what I have been arguing with the patents issue. But this could be extended right across the whole health sector. There have been a couple of suggestions about opening up interstate competition, but how much of an effect will that actually have on prices.
So we come back to what we are getting which is a government take over of healthcare money and decision making while brutally squashing any and all alternatives or other options, for craven political and personal reasons. How will that address any of the things you mention? There is no defending what is getting done right now. No matter how broke you believe or want people to believe the system is, what is being done makes it worse. And I content that healthcare is not even close to as bad or broke as these people make it out to be, on purpose, so they can use the panic that this crisis gives them to screw us so hard our great grand children will still be feeling it. I guess the one lesson that the left learned from 9-11 was that they should actually use their power to create crisis and abuse that. And Bush was called evil and compared to Hitler for made up conspiracy theories.
It’s a systemic failure of both government and the market to look after people who are sick.
Again, why is it either of those group’s responsibility, and not that of the person that is sick? Sure, government should not pass laws that create a system that allows abuse, but then again, ours has, and now their answer to the problem is a take over of 1/5th of our economy and the decision making tied to our healthcare. And they have done so while excluding themselves from the same.
There is no defense for this travesty Stogy. None.
Dude, you have to stop with the conspiracy theories.
You do know the difference between conspiracy theories and behavior, reasoning, or talk based people’s biases, britishcress?
A conspiracy theory would be me saying that the underpants gnomes are destroying healthcare to steal all the hot lady’s panties. Pointing out the obvious jealousy of others – the European government elite and many of its citizens have been living with an inferiority complex ever since we had to come over and save them from their own stupidity not once, but several times, during last century - and how they color their opinions doesn’t quite get there.
You are not going to tell me that having America adopt the same system that the European colelctivists have isn’t a form of vindication and validation of their beliefs and pracitices for those Europeans, or that human nature factors in, now are you?
Option one: 800 million people in Europe have developed a crushing inferiority complex about ‘America*’ and seek to wreak their revenge through persuading them to let the Government run healthcare, thereby precipitating their downfall as a superpower. Also, Susan Boyle.
Option two: Some people who grew up in a different culture from Alex have a different philosophy on the role of Government.
One of these is a conspiracy theory.
* The reason I put America in ‘’ is that I’m not 100% sure of what I am meant to be jealous - America the country, the concept, the people?
* The reason I put America in ‘’ is that I’m not 100% sure of what I am meant to be jealous - America the country, the concept, the people?
All of it, you tyrant. I can see by your flag that you’re from that Imperial evildoer from which we escaped.
Though you’re defending The System as it were, I have to know that you’re familiar with the NHS horror stories. Like the leftists’ horror stories of uninsured here, they’re cherry-picked, I know. That said, in a society where money is used and valued for trade, which makes more capitalistic and “free” sense- allowing someone who has less money to get less treatment because they can’t afford it and didn’t buy insurance or withholding treatment from someone who might otherwise be willing and able to pay for treatment or insurance because it’s what NHS is willing to do? Money buys goods and services. If you have less money, you get less goods and services. The reason it’s easy to talk about “collectivists” and stretch it into “communist” is that things like government health care take a huge part of the economy and expect somehow to make money not matter. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I want a new car, but I can’t afford one. That’s what money is for. If I had back the money that my employer and I spend on my insurance, then I could have one. It would be irresponsible for me to do that. Stupid even. The government is suggesting that somehow this decision should somehow be impossible instead, and further that payment will be spread around. Money losing its meaning.
I have no sympathy however for people that waited until they got sick to go looking for insurance. There are consequences to choices.
Er… what about the guy I posted about? The diabetic? He isn’t poor, but because he is sick will soon lose his job and then health insurance. According to your social Darwinist theory, based on survival of the fittest (a philosophy which is highly dubious at best) he should be sent to the glue factory.
As for the poor the answer has always been the same from me: stop giving them handouts and make them want to leave poverty. Some will rise above it, others will not. It might sound cruel, but this is mother nature at work.
There’s that Darwinism at work again. Actually there is significant evidence that it’s not the strongest that survive, but those who can function socially/cooperatively who do. I can dig out links but it will take me time if you want to question this.
But even then. What if you are wrong. The Chinese economy now is built on the health and education reforms in China in the 70s. The continued drag of the East German economy on the West is due to the failure of the same policies 30 years ago in Germany. Good economies are built on good health. And there’s more. Health is not just a product of a good health system, but a fair system. The greater the levels of inequality in a society, the worse the health outcomes for the poor - more than can simply be explained by biological-medical reasons, but social inequalities themselves determine how healthy a person is and how long they live.
Now you can take the ‘it’s not my problem’ attitude. But what about the disabled? What about my diabetic? What about people who can’t get cover because of a pre-existing? What about people who can’t afford premiums for a family of four, even though they are working full time - two or even three jobs? Your philosophy fails here - because markets only look after those who can pay, not those who can’t. And the the drug Ornidyl I posted earlier is a great example of that: there is little or no health spending or research for the diseases of the poor, even though it is often these very diseases that prevent them from working in the first place. Or lose them their jobs.
As for the poor the answer has always been the same from me: stop giving them handouts and make them want to leave poverty.
Most welfare systems now recognise the problems of welfare dependence - it’s only nutjobs and Marxists who argue that people need to be supported regardless of whether they want to work or not. There are tons examples of good welfare programs, that help people retrain and get back to work. But what about people who won’t work again: 55 year olds, who get laid off. Try like nothing else to get a new job, but are considered too old for retraining, and even McDonalds won’t hire them? No, they are not your responsibility, but their status as surplus to global capitalism now (when previously they showed a consistent work ethic) doesn’t mean they should now be thrown on the Darwinian scrapheap. Your argument is that the poor are poor because they are lazy, but that is a lazy argument - there are lots of social factors that underlie poverty - ones that may well be beyond any individual’s control.
Not one of them stops to think that the problem is with subsidizing the bad behaviors that attribute to poverty, in the name of some catchy “social justice” or “humanitarian” reason, is why poverty persists.
So the persistence of poverty is only due to welfare programs? It might come as a surprise to then realize that poverty existed before welfare. And if poverty is related to behavior, then it’s cultural - and cultures take generations to change. Now again, I don’t support welfare that creates dependency, but not all welfare does. Moving people off welfare and into minimum wage employment may actually increase poverty. The shift from AFDC may have reduced welfare caseloads (as you rightly predicted), however, overall poverty increased, as 2.5 million more people ended up below the poverty line. Their now working, not lazy, as you wished. But can they provide for themselves or their families if they get sick? No. So let’s blame the parents for the condition of their children, shall we? And let’s repeat the cycle every 20 years or so.
Because healthier societies benefit the whole society. Again, there is evidence for this - I can find it given time, but it’s late.
So anyway. Thtat’s your conclusion. It’s not broken. Once again: people employed now losing healthcare because they will lose their jobs because they can no longer work is a systemic failure. Paying 16% of GNP on healthcare for poor health outcomes (when the nearest competitors are paying 2/3s of that) is a systemic failure. The rest of the world carrying the US’s inefficient health research system is a systemic failure. Paying 100 billion a year in deadweight drag on the economy for drugs is a systemic failure. People not being about to et coverage even when they are health because they have minor pre-existings is a systemic failure.
And to this, you offer no solutions: “I’m OK, so there’s no problem. No alternatives. No choices.” What I was really hoping was that you would put up a strong market-base solution that we could use for discussion, in comparison the the mixed public-private one that I put forward. But nothing. Just fait accompli for those strong enough to make the grade, while mixed with a little of that bitter bill we all have had to swallow.
There is no defense for this travesty Stogy. None.
Agreed. More when I wake up.
And will it provide enough incentive to actually provide for the diabetic guy I posted on above,
There already is a government system to take care of people that are too sick to work. It’s called Medicare.
OK so I read through your sources (good thing I have a bunch of work I am trying to avoid). I don’t have tiem to track down their references, but have certainly seen things that argue the opposite. I’ll start with this http://tinyurl.com/c9f4zs
It argues that Americans have better results from common aflictions than many countries with socialized medicine.
For example:
“Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. “
and
“Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them. “
How do people feel about their health care system? Well “More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.” “
While here in the US “When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).”
Medical innovations you ask? “The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.”
And of course the dread waiting times:
“Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment”
There’s more, as they says, read the whole thing.
Here is agreat little example of what happens when the government just commands something to happen: http://tinyurl.com/ykvu4vv
The UK government wasa concerned about people waiting in emergency rooms, so they mandated shorter wait times and punished those facilities that were out of complinace. The enterprising managers of those hospitals just stopped admitting patients until they were ready for them-so they waited in the parking lot sitting in ambulances-sometimes for hours. Hey the numbers looked better even though patients were still waiting. Unintended consequence: shortage of ambulances because many were sitting parked waiting for a spot to open up.
There is more, a lot more, but I really have to do some work. Socialized medicine (like socialized everything) simply ignores the laws of economics. In a world of unlimited wants and limited means, you must ration. If the government eliminates costs as a rationing mechanism then you will ration with time (waiting).
I don’t think anyone here thinks our current system can’t be improved. Many of the problems in our system are caused by government. Adding more government to fix those problems will not work. We do not have a free market in health care. If we did, there would be no tax advantages to employer provided plans, there would be no limits on interstate insurance (really, can anyone explain a rational reason for that), there would be no government mandates on what to cover. I am not arguing that health care should be unregulated, just that we have gone too far in that regulation and should experiment with a little less regulation to see what happens.
You criticized HMOs in a post above by saying that they only paid 70% of costs (some do; some pay more; most have an annual maximum). Why is that a bad thing? If something costs nothing, people will use more of it-a lot more, and you will be back to waiting instead of paying. We need a little more consumer cost in health care to bring back a little more economic rationality to the system.
I’ll leave you with a paean to capitalist medicine by the master: http://tinyurl.com/kkc8c5
There is more, a lot more, but I really have to do some work. Socialized medicine (like socialized everything) simply ignores the laws of economics. In a world of unlimited wants and limited means, you must ration. If the government eliminates costs as a rationing mechanism then you will ration with time (waiting).
Or political influence. Clearly, the system can be rigged to favor those who favored it.
Er… what about the guy I posted about? The diabetic? He isn’t poor, but because he is sick will soon lose his job and then health insurance.
What about him? How did he develop the diabetes? And how can it get so bad that he can’t work. I know many diabetics that have learned to control their disease and lead fine lives. What does this friend of yours have that make his particular case of diabetes so bad that he can’t work? I have long ago learned not to fall for these sad stories because every time there was something left out or exaggerated to make it look bad.
And since you seem not to know these things I should point out that if any American tax payer that has contributed into social security gets so ill they can not work and lose their healthcare, they can apply for social security benefits and government assistance. I have a friend that worked for the post office that was declared unable to work and he spends his days at home, sleeps late and stays up till late hours of the night, playing video games, watching cable, and in general slacking off. He has no problems seeing a doctor or getting any other kind of healthcare treatment – I should mention that he does have to often wait 6 to 9 months for anything just like we all will, if we are lucky, once government takes the whole thing over – including some major surgeries like stomach stapling and other cosmetic stuff. While he isn’t raking in the cash he is quit comfortable and enjoying what he calls his “early retirement”. In fact he lives a pretty good life.
And all of this long before government took over healthcare and appropriated itself the right to choose how to spend the money, who gets what treatment when and why, and how to punish those that will not show the proper difference to their elite masters.
According to your social Darwinist theory, based on survival of the fittest (a philosophy which is highly dubious at best) he should be sent to the glue factory.
My social Darwinist theory? That’s science and the real world dude. You remind me of that idiot lady that complained to the BBC about their Animal program because they went and ruined it by showing some animals killing others to eat which she claimed doesn’t happen in nature. I never wished anyone be sent to the glue factory, well maybe Pelosi and Reid occasionally but that’s just my fantasies, but considering you can’t argue the point I made that when you reward bad behavior it encourages it, I understand the reason for this strawman.
Most welfare systems now recognise the problems of welfare dependence - it’s only nutjobs and Marxists who argue that people need to be supported regardless of whether they want to work or not.
Yeah sure. I will keep it local to the US since we are discussing the US here, because if I had to discuss Europe and the European systems and how their welfare works it would make for too much laughing anyway. So let me ask you why Obama just tacked another $880 billion dollars to our annual welfare spending this year, practically all of it so they could relax he stricter rules and requirements to qualify for it, reversing every single change done during the Clinton years? And no, it had nothing to do with the economic crisis despite his attempts to pretend so. He could have handed every adult American below the poverty line about $50K with the money he just blew this year.
‘
Moving people off welfare and into minimum wage employment may actually increase poverty.
You owe me a new keyboard and screen. I blew the juice I was drinking all over them after reading this crap. The fact is that the welfare recipient s would love people to buy into this shit because it is much easier to then keep the gravy coming. After I heard some lady on a talk show explain how she got a check free and clear from the government every week for some $200 while on welfare, but once employed the remains from her $420 weekly check after taxes and expenses left her with $25, I realized we were all being had by these bastards. Just because I have some desire to make something out of my life should not give politicians or stuck up liberal do-gooders that want to save the world, always on someone else’s dime, the right to punish me.
Because healthier societies benefit the whole society. Again, there is evidence for this - I can find it given time, but it’s late.
This another one of those heavily weighted UN/collectivist factors that skew the numbers and statistics leading them to the conclusion that France and other socialist states have the greatest healthcare? I see hist_ed already took a good swing at this crap. Anyway, I am sure our politicians will soon control what we eat, drink, smoke, and anything else that affects our health. To make us a healthier society and all that.
And to this, you offer no solutions: “I’m OK, so there’s no problem. No alternatives. No choices.”
You are kidding right? You getting a page from Pelosi’s or Reid’s play book? Have you missed every comment where I point out that the fixes are non-existent in this bill? The comments about how the real problems have remained unaddressed?
I have repeatedly said that the solutions are all simple as hell. First we need massive tort reform that forces lawyers, not the people that file the suits, but the damned blood sucking parasites that practice law, to pay for costs of stupid suits as well as a cap on what lawyers can collect as their compensation that is far south of the 33% they now walk away with. Then we need to open insurance offerings across states. Allow private institutions to pool people and service them to lower their overall costs. But more importantly, tell people that if they choose not to buy any insurance when they think they don’t need it, they are going to pay a lot more for it when they get it later, and that they also run the risk that they will be at the back of the line when they show up looking for care unless they can pay. If you give people the option not to spend their own money for something they can get for free by law anyway, you should not be surprised they choose to not buy it.
Stogy, stop digging that hole dude. You are in over your ehad.
Last time I checked, the FDA had reduced drug approval times to about 6 months.
Finalizing the paperwork yes, the 10 years it takes for the mandatory red tape via trials and bureaucracy is another story. During those 10 years, and hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars it can take to test the new drug, many smaller firms simply go belly up, and cannot get the investor to spend money that can take a decade just to get a thumbs up or thumbs down from the FDA at the very end of the game. You don’t like big pharma? Then don’t support methods that are setting the stage for only them to survive.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be tests, clearly there should be, but I think private and private non profit organizations could do a much better job, and place a ranking of safety on this rather than the FDA who can sit around and watch a smaller company piss away all their money just to say no, we’re not going to approve you right at the end of the game.
And considering that the FDA is approving less and less, link it would make sense that any company would just rehash old shit that has made it through the process. It’s a pure high dollar gamble to try to come up with anything new. Fact is contrary to your beliefs, drugs are not cheap to make for a company, have a high failure rate in testing, and many that get on the market don’t make up for the cost of r&d;so your idea of removing patents is a horrible idea. Who the hell would put up money on a drug that if it even makes it to market will simply be copied right out of the gate? The reason only high marketable drugs are being produced, is that the cost and red tape involved force you to have to come up with a blockbuster, and that means other smaller groups are left behind.
Ah no. Real competition only works when real competition is possible. Whenever you get a monopoly owned privately, you get a disaster - high prices, poor service.
HAHAHA that’s true with government monopolies as well. High and higher taxes over time (which some call free service, and most call bullshit), rationing, and deficits will over time will bankrupt a nation. I know it will take a COMPLETE collapse due to public debt beyond repair for some to finally see that, but I don’t care to wait that long. Government monopolies are no better. Real competition is possible, and to do that, you allow the increase in supply, whether it’s drugs, hospitals, doctors, or insurance companies. You drop prices by increasing supply. You don’t drop prices by increasing demand with so called freebees to make a better system. But to make a better system would involve removing the red tape which is set up by government power brokers, and yes, corporate lobbying.
The HMO act has helped create the system you despise today. Those calling this current system a failure right now and demanding more government influence were the same ones champing the system when it was set up. I frankly don’t trust these same yahoos to make it better now. In order to have competition Stogy, the government must first allow it. If they do that first and then it fails, I’ll be right on board with your ideas.
And lets not forget the complete clusterfuck that happened with Vioxx. Or Posilac
FDA approved.
Option two: Some people who grew up in a different culture from Alex have a different philosophy on the role of Government.
Those are called Subjects, or slaves, depending what term is en vogue.
What about him? How did he develop the diabetes?
I think it was type one. And complications from diabetes are now one of the world’s biggest killers. Some people can manage it, other people following the same medication regime end up following a less successful clinical course. And there are tons of people who work until they can’t any more. My point is that the system has no way of looking after them. Blaming them for their illness or saying that “well, that’s your lot” (according to your unscientific social darwinism - yes, evolution happens, but there is some solid evidence that humans are selected based on cooperativeness, rather than aggresiveness) doesn’t actually solve the problem.
Have you missed every comment where I point out that the fixes are non-existent in this bill? The comments about how the real problems have remained unaddressed?
Yeah, they have. Completely. And you might have missed me also saying that this bill does nothing to solve the problems too. So I don’t know where you are pulling the Pelosi playbook from, but I bet it smells down there.
I have repeatedly said that the solutions are all simple as hell. First we need massive tort reform that forces lawyers, not the people that file the suits, but the damned blood sucking parasites that practice law, to pay for costs of stupid suits as well as a cap on what lawyers can collect as their compensation that is far south of the 33% they now walk away with
OK. It’s a good idea. But how much is this going to save? Is it anything like the deadweight drug manufacturers? And how will you make a system that still protects people?
Then we need to open insurance offerings across states. Allow private institutions to pool people and service them to lower their overall costs. But more importantly, tell people that if they choose not to buy any insurance when they think they don’t need it, they are going to pay a lot more for it when they get it later, and that they also run the risk that they will be at the back of the line when they show up looking for care unless they can pay.
OK. It’s also not a bad idea. So how does this get people who are currently locked out of the system because of pre-existings back into it? And I don’t actually see this doing much to reduce prices by generating competition in the actual healthcare industry. And what about the problem of HMOs not providing people with choices of doctor, hospital? I see nothing here but an expansion of the existing system, and nothing that promotes competition by providers.
The system I am arguing for separates medical and financial decisions from each other, pits health care providers against each other, rewards innovation, gives people real choice about health providers, and cuts drug prices to about the level that we pay here in Japan. Prices go down. Service levels go up. The whole system is cheaper, and should bring down healthcare to about 12% of GDP. What’s not to like? Even people in private insurance actually end up paying less than they do now, and the money protects not just them, but everyone else besides (and thereby them too).
During those 10 years, and hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars it can take to test the new drug, many smaller firms simply go belly up, and cannot get the investor to spend money that can take a decade just to get a thumbs up or thumbs down from the FDA at the very end of the game.
Yeah. Um… I dealt with almost all of this already. You need to read the links I posted and then we’ll talk. But if the drug looks good, NIH generally funds clinical trials, more than big pharma.
The FDA says its standards haven’t changed. And hypotheses for what may be driving the slowdown are all over the map.
And considering that the FDA is approving less and less, link it would make sense that any company would just rehash old shit that has made it through the process.
Ah come on: even your own link isn’t blaming the FDA for the slowdown. It actually supports what I have been saying all along:
The FDA says its standards haven’t changed. And hypotheses for what may be driving the slowdown are all over the map. Some argue that big pharma’s research labs are too bloated, bureaucratic and risk averse. Others suggest that the industry has shifted its focus away from novel drugs and toward tweaking existing medicines to maximize sales during the research drought. Or maybe the easy drugs have been found and fresh scientific breakthroughs are needed before drug researchers can get traction again.
It’s time for something new. Does it hurt? Defending a government-created monopoly? I mean, you are literally bending over backwards to support government protection of a private industry, which is distorting the market, investing badly and driving up prices. It’s a tariff. It’s protectionism. It’s not working - and I have very really so clearly shown that. Time for a change. Read the links.
Who the hell would put up money on a drug that if it even makes it to market will simply be copied right out of the gate?
Right. So read the links. People are suggesting alternative ways of supporting real innovation. Some of them are real doozies, but others might just work.
HAHAHA that’s true with government monopolies as well.
To some extent this is true. But people can always vote for a change of government, and new governments offering better services (e.g. improved public transport) is one way that helps to keep services improving. Doesn’t always work. But private monopolies? There is nothing that keeps them in check.They do what they want, and use their relative strength to buy out or crush opposition. It’s rare (but not impossible) for governments to do that.
The HMO act has helped create the system you despise today.
Yup. And the patent system too.
Those calling this current system a failure right now and demanding more government influence were the same ones champing the system when it was set up.
Actually, I am not demanding anything. Just suggesting a different system that might work better for everyone. And I see less room for government interference in the system I am proposing than I see in the system as it is now.
Read the links.
Stogy, have you taken a good look, at all these US federal Government ran programs, They are night mare bureaucratic monsters, they have all, expanded beyond their orgional Mission boundary, swelling mandates that are unfunded.................
And You believe that the Government is best suited to take care of your health?
What makes you Think A National Health Care system would be any different?
All of it, you tyrant.
Thanks for the clarification. It’s usually Alex that lets me know what my secret opinions and hidden feelings are, but its good to know that Insipid can let me know what I think when Alex isn’t around.
allowing someone who has less money to get less treatment because they can’t afford it and didn’t buy insurance or withholding treatment from someone who might otherwise be willing and able to pay for treatment or insurance because it’s what NHS is willing to do?
I’m not sure what you’re writing here – there is a question mark, but no question…I’ll have a go, but let me know if I’m careering off on a tangent
Yes, I like that our system means people who have less money don’t necessarily get less treatment. And if you’re rich you can pay for private medical care. I don’t personally know anyone that has ever had any problem getting treated for anything. (Having said that I understand my frame of reference for ‘acceptible’ lies squarely within UK healthcare.)
Listen – you won’t find me denying that UHC in the UK is a socialist idea. We don’t feel that Healthcare is either a commodity, or a service. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it is a right, but we put it in the same category as police protection, motorway building, and defence. These are things that collectively (!) us Brits feel that clubbing together works out best for society as a whole.
We don’t feel that the provision of cars falls into this category, so I can say with relative certainty that the state won’t be taking charge of the production and distribution of cars any time soon. It all boils down to which aspects of life you want to deal with collectively. Defence? Police? Disaster relief?
I get that you want as little as possible to be collectively administered. That’s cool, me too. But I just think that the marker is best when slightly further left along the line than you do.
This does not however, mean that because I differ in opinion on this one thing, that I want the governments of the world to take control of the means of production, and give every comrade potato tokens. (and especially not in response to some sort of petty ‘revenge’ for a perceived emotional slight by America).
Its just as bad as the liberal line that because you don’t want public healthcare, you are all uncaring, immoral bastards who want the poor to die.
It is a blinding arrogance and short sightedness to say than anyone with a different outlook on the specifics of governmental role is somehow only doing it because they are so jealous of your stellar awesomeness. Perhaps I am being too harsh here.
Those are called Subjects, or slaves, depending what term is en vogue.
Turns out I wasn’t.
We don’t feel that the provision of cars falls into this category, so I can say with relative certainty that the state won’t be taking charge of the production and distribution of cars any time soon.
They got out of that racket 20 years ago.
All of it, you tyrant.
Thanks for the clarification. It’s usually Alex that lets me know what my secret opinions and hidden feelings are, but its good to know that Insipid can let me know what I think when Alex isn’t around.
That subtle English humour falling a bit short of “getting it.”
That said, I think that there is a slight but still-present memory in the American people as to how we got here. A big part of that includes distrust of government, thanks to yours. We had a revolution to pull out of it, you didn’t. The acceptability of what we tolerate from government is different from yours. In the rare occasion you have someone who understands the American Way in charge (Thatcher), everyone there does their best to later remember them as the tyrant.
My belief on government is simple: it should only provide services that the private sector can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t do. This certainly includes the national defense, and I’m accepting a lot of what it does for food, drug, and transport safety and administration. Beyond that, I’m willing to only allow for the necessity of a tiny percentage of welfare programs. I’m absolutely NOT of the belief that the government has any place in the health costs of most citizens.
NIH generally funds clinical trials, more than big pharma.
That’s absolutely 100% false.
Phase III trials are the crux of the system. These trials can make or break a new drug. Virtually all of these extremely expensive trials are paid for by the companies that make the drug.
“The vast, vast, vast majority of clinical trials in this country are performed by pharmaceutical companies that must do these studies to get FDA approval,” DeAngelis tells WebMD. “The government doesn’t pay for them. That is not what NIH [National Institutes of Health] money is used for. Until we decide that it is worth it in this country to put many billions of dollars into clinical trials, then the drug companies will have to do it. And there is nothing wrong with that.”
Interestingly enough, the argument of the article is that the trials might not be reliable because TOO MUCH is funded by the company trying to get the drug approved.
Once again, perhaps removing red tape and working to find ways to lower the cost of trials could be a better solution, rather than putting more red tape in the system.
I’ll spend more time reading your links on this subject when you provide information that’s accurate. I just can’t, however, spend time debating over something that’s completely false to begin with.
To some extent this is true. But people can always vote for a change of government, and new governments offering better services (e.g. improved public transport) is one way that helps to keep services improving
The holes in this argument are…
1) People can vote for a change of government
True, and thanks to the two party government influence tightening down the election rules, the choices are more limited than the number of letters in HMO. Furthermore, where in a true free market system I could just dump my insurer (rather than a system where my company selects it for me), for me to dump my government requires half or more of the population to agree with me. While that half is making a choice, they are factoring in many other issues such as environment, military spending, education, and all the other issues of the day in deciding my healthcare choice. I could hate the government’s choices on healthcare, but love their foreign policy, segments or their fiscal policy, social policy, etc. I’m having to juggle my healthcare choice against completely unrelated issues. That’s not a plus. To top it off, there is no voting on department heads, and even if there were, the electorate would be overwhelmed with what it has to vote on, which would certainly lead to ill informed choices as is the case now.
In a market system, my factor as well as everyone else’s in making a choice about my health won’t be influenced by my or their views on NATO or
gay marriage. Nor will my choice about my health affect their lives.
2) But people can always vote for a change of government, and new governments offering better services (e.g. improved public transport) is one way that helps to keep services improving
Or they can vote for a government pisses away a trillions (see current and last administration) and I’m on the hook, and I am stuck hoping and praying someone more sensible will be in the running next time. If not I’m still fucked, and that can go on for the remainder of my existence.
Again, how do government monopolies help anyone?
Blaming them for their illness or saying that “well, that’s your lot” (according to your unscientific social darwinism - yes, evolution happens, but there is some solid evidence that humans are selected based on cooperativeness, rather than aggresiveness) doesn’t actually solve the problem.
This is where I think the left goes stupid. Why are you assuming or implying that because I do not want to hand government control over healthcare and my life that I must be blaming people that get sick for their illness Stogy?
I have repeatedly said that I do not mind a system that protects those that truly get hosed by life, but also pointed out that by all accounts Social Security already deals with that in the US, Stogy. What I object, and object vehemently to, is any program that gives government, which will as a standard be far worse than the worst possible scenarios I can concoct otherwise, more control of things like this healthcare bill does. I do not want to be in the business of subsidizing idiots. And what you are advocating is just that. I laugh my ass off at that idiotic cooperative argument of yours. In any of those systems where cooperative behavior helped people, the members also killed the SOBs that slacked or were too much of a burden. This current power-grab by government is not going to make things better. In fact, it will be a lot more likely that the government bureaucrat will simply say your buddy with diabetes brought it upon himself, and then deny him care to save money. You keep arguing that he will be better off if government controls healthcare. I am willing to bet he will get hosed harder. That you refuse to see this makes me wonder.
OK. It’s a good idea. But how much is this going to save? Is it anything like the deadweight drug manufacturers? And how will you make a system that still protects people?
Deadweight drug manufacturers? Do you have any idea of the cost and challenge to get one good drug to market these days? Not the crap the left passes of as reality, but the actual facts in the real world. Companies spend on average some $800 million and do hundreds of trials to get one good drug to market. You obviously – in the spirit of cooperation – want them to do hand it out for free or at or below cost? Great way to end up like the rest of the world where the only new drugs are of the illegal kind.
OK. It’s also not a bad idea. So how does this get people who are currently locked out of the system because of pre-existings back into it?
How about a much more limited and less ambitious bill by the politicians - the same one that set the current system up that allows these people to be locked out - that targets just these people with legitimate needs? Most of them can be added back into the system, at a higher premium to them and us of course, and those that are really bad can be set up with some kind of catastrophic coverage. In fact, I am all for some kind of law that helps set up all citizens as part of a catastrophic plan of some kind that covers them when their medical expenses for non-experimental services go over a certain minimum per year (say $50K per year). But al these things will raise the cost of healthcare even more. Just like the current plan. The difference is this might work. The democrat’s plan will not.
And I don’t actually see this doing much to reduce prices by generating competition in the actual healthcare industry.
Why not?
And what about the problem of HMOs not providing people with choices of doctor, hospital? I see nothing here but an expansion of the existing system, and nothing that promotes competition by providers.
You think this is not going to be much, much, worse under the current democrat takeover plan? The fact is that if people want or can afford only low cost healthcare, they are going to have to settle for less. The cost factor can not be magically done away with. Healthcare costs have gone up because people want more and bigger.
The system I am arguing for separates medical and financial decisions from each other, pits health care providers against each other, rewards innovation, gives people real choice about health providers, and cuts drug prices to about the level that we pay here in Japan.
I am all for pitting providers against each other. But you will need to have politicians that will not do them favors and set up barriers to protect them like the very democrats proposing the take over of healthcare here in the US have done. And how much drug research is done in Japan? How much of that do the tax payers subsidize? Have they ever done any analysis to figure out the total and true cost?
Prices go down. Service levels go up. The whole system is cheaper, and should bring down healthcare to about 12% of GDP. What’s not to like? Even people in private insurance actually end up paying less than they do now, and the money protects not just them, but everyone else besides (and thereby them too).
That’s probably why they won’t do it here. This takeover isn’t about lower costs, higher quality and access, and better healthcare. It is about democrats and government getting control of 1/5th of the economy and life & death decisions, Stogy.
Thanks for the clarification. It’s usually Alex that lets me know what my secret opinions and hidden feelings are, but its good to know that Insipid can let me know what I think when Alex isn’t around.
That’s cause you are as easy to read as an open bok bud. :)
Interestingly enough, the argument of the article is that the trials might not be reliable because TOO MUCH is funded by the company trying to get the drug approved.
Er… actually it doesn’t really say that at all. Actually only if you put quite a spin on it (i.e. drug companies are not only corrupting the drug industry, but also supposedly independent researchers too) does it come anywhere close to this interpretation.
Once again, perhaps removing red tape and working to find ways to lower the cost of trials could be a better solution, rather than putting more red tape in the system.
That was you. Now here’s what your article (and your quoted source) has to say about this, which essentially agrees with what I have been saying since the beginning:
Far worse, DeAngelis says, is companies sometimes put marketing ahead of science when reporting clinical trial results. Merck’s apparent misrepresentation of data about deaths among Vioxx patients is just one example, she says.
Pharmaceutical companies “are doing their darndest to hide the side effects of the drugs they are developing,” DeAngelis says. Everybody who uses a drug has to judge its cost — not just the financial cost but cost in terms of side effects — to understand its benefits. But you can’t do that unless you have the data. Some of them are trying to suppress the data on side effects.”
OK. And then you said this:
I’ll spend more time reading your links on this subject when you provide information that’s accurate. I just can’t, however, spend time debating over something that’s completely false to begin with.
Yeah. I take it all back. You need to read your own links before you read mine. They support everything I have been banging on about. You support deregulating an industry which seeks to hide important information from its consumers. This is going to work just fine. And I can already see the ambulance chasers licking their lips with excitement.
And what’s false about anything that I put up? You haven’t questioned or attacked anything. So far, all you have done is parrot back to me the “drug companies need incentives line” without challenging anything I have said. Question the figures? Nope. The distortion to the economy? Nope. Questioning the proposed solutions (some of which I have said seem pretty weak)? Nope.
Yes, we need incentives, but we need to find an incentive system that don’t distort the economy to the tune of 100 billion dollars a year. Yes, the government is at fault in not addressing this. And political donations to both parties have people lining up to cast their vote for more pharma dollars. So nothing is likely to change anytime soon.
Harley said:
And You believe that the Government is best suited to take care of your health?
Actually no. I am supporting a system in which government gets out health care per se. Instead, it runs a very simple single payer compulsory health insurance program. And private health service providers then compete to provide the best service for the maximum number of people, thus actually creating conditions which will increase competition and bring down prices. Private health insurance companies then take care of luxury services, and elective surgery etc.
With real competition, costs should come down to a point similar to most other developed nations - ideally saving everyone money (remember, you are already paying for people who are using free clinics and other health services). But deregulating the patent system, while still promoting independent research is an essential part of this.
Hist-ed (sorry - I missed your post before) put up the fab list of at least some of the 10 reasons why health is better in the US. This list was fairly widely disseminated across right-wing blogs earlier this year. At first read, it seems pretty persuasive.
However, the list is a cherry-picked list of areas in which the US health system does perform better, and yes, there are areas where it does. I did actually find a point by point rebuttal of this. I can’t link it, so I am posting a few select bits below.
REALITY #1 - The “actual” difference in survival rates for colon cancer is 9%, prostate 22% and breast 11%. In Germany the mortality rate from cancer is 22.1/100,000
and in the USA it’s 20.7/100,000 – an edge of 11% for the USA,
NOT 52%. In the UK it’s 26.0/100,000 or 22% NOT 88%. The out-of-pocket
COST to be treated for Cancer in the USA is tens of thousands of dollars
vs ZERO in Europe.REALITY #2 . Again True, but not so much as claimed: Overall mortality
from all forms of cancer is 134/100,000 in the US and 138/100,000 in
Canada, so cancer mortality in Canada is a wopping 3% higher than in the
USA, but again, the COST of getting cancer in the USA is INFINATELY
greater than in Canada. NO Canadian will face bankrupcy because of their
cancer treatments.REALITY #3. Despite all those high-cost statin treatments, the mortality rate
for cardiovascular disease is GREATER in the USA than in most of Europe.
USA=188/100,000; UK=182/100K; Norway=181/100K; Neatherlands=171/100K,
Italy=174/100K; France=118/100K, BUT we are doing better than
Germany=211/100K, fully 12% higher than the USA. Again, the really
interesting stat is COST = all those “undermedicated” Europeans get
their meds FOR FREE.
I can’t find the rest of the list - this was what I e-mailed to myself at the time I saw it.
I also remember reading that for a large number of other illnesses, mortality from for example asthma was much lower in Canada than in the US. It just goes to show: if you cherry pick the illnesses, it is possible to show pretty much anything.
And I checked one of the sources, for fact 7. It said that “More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.” Yet when you actually view the abstract for the source (linked at the bottom) you get this:
This 2007 survey compares adults’ health care experiences in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In all countries, the study finds that having a “medical home” that is accessible and helps coordinate care is associated with significantly more positive experiences. There were wide country differences in access, after-hours care, and coordination but also areas of shared concern. Patient-reported errors were high for those seeing multiple doctors or having multiple chronic illnesses. The United States stands out for cost-related access barriers and less-efficient care.
And then in the actual study (which is behind the firewall):
Repeating the pattern observed since 1998, U.S. adults held the most negative views and were the most likely to report affordability concerns (Exhibit 2). Joining the survey for the first time, the Dutch public stands out for its positive views, including high levels of confidence in the quality and accessibility of care and low levels of cost-related concerns. In contrast to the United States, public views in Canada and New Zealand have grown steadily more positive in the past decade and are now comparable to views in Australia and the United Kingdom.15 German adults rank just behind U.S. adults in negative system views. New Zealand and U.K. adults expressed the least confidence that they will receive the most effective medications or medical technology if they become ill.
So sorry. The list is a dodgy compilation of cherry picking, half truths and bald-faced lies. If the US health system really was that good, they wouldn’t need to resort to behavior like this to defend it.
Sorry for the multiple posting, but there was a lot to respond to.
If something costs nothing, people will use more of it-a lot more, and you will be back to waiting instead of paying.
I am interested in this. I mean, I keep hearing, like some kind of mantra. But what evidence is there that this is the case in health care? Not all ‘socialized’ health care systems have big problems with waiting lists? And if costs came down, wouldn’t that mean that the same or more people could be treated for less money? It still would be a net saving to the economy. So I am asking for links.
Companies spend on average some $800 million and do hundreds of trials to get one good drug to market. You obviously – in the spirit of cooperation – want them to do hand it out for free or at or below cost?
Yeah. This little ‘factoid’ was in my links - it’s completely unaudited, and has been questioned by just about everyone in the industry. Apparently only a couple of very expensive drugs were used for the costings, along with some seriously dodgy accountancy practice, and non-inclusion of (substantial) government subsidies and tax-breaks. I am going to say again: the total amount of real research conducted by private pharmaceutical companies on innovative medicines per year, including all clinical trials is about 2.3 billion - and that is still subsidized by government subsidies and tax breaks. I linked to this earlier.
The strength with which you and SO are arguing for pharma companies is surprising - it’s like you believe that they are charitable organizations who do everything out of the goodness of their hearts. I certainly don’t think they are evil - they are profit motivated and they are taking advantage of a monopoly that the government gives them. And fighting tooth and nail (with much misinformation) to prevent that from being taken away. It’s completely natural that they would do that.
Great way to end up like the rest of the world where the only new drugs are of the illegal kind.
yeah, I dealt with this already. Unless you have an actual rebuttal…
But al these things will raise the cost of healthcare even more. Just like the current plan. The difference is this might work. The democrat’s plan will not.
Possibly. Which is why I am arguing for a plan which focuses on bringing down prices.
And what about the problem of HMOs not providing people with choices of doctor, hospital? I see nothing here but an expansion of the existing system, and nothing that promotes competition by providers.You think this is not going to be much, much, worse under the current democrat takeover plan?
Which is why I don’t support the current Dem plan. it does nothing to improve healthcare, reduce prices. All it does is enroll more people in an inefficient monopoly. And yes, it may bring the whole thing crashing down.
The fact is that if people want or can afford only low cost healthcare, they are going to have to settle for less.
Why? In just about every other country people get good coverage for much less. Why not the US? Again: you are protecting a monopoly.
Healthcare costs have gone up because people want more and bigger.
So you have some kind of evidence for this? Japan has most of the latest stuff, and more MRIs per person than the US, but it doesn’t seem to be driving up prices.
In any of those systems where cooperative behavior helped people, the members also killed the SOBs that slacked or were too much of a burden.
That would be news to most of us living in such systems, where life expectancy is better, and outcomes for a great many diseases better.
but also pointed out that by all accounts Social Security already deals with that in the US
It does? They can get the help they need when they need it? They don’t wait 6 hours to use the free clinic, only to be turned away at the last second because there weren’t enough doctors?
In fact, it will be a lot more likely that the government bureaucrat will simply say your buddy with diabetes brought it upon himself, and then deny him care to save money.
Ah no. Not if it is set up in the way I am proposing. See you have been so traumatized by the HMOs that you assume that this is how it will have to operate. But in Japan, and Australia, where I have had most of my experiences of ‘socialist’ care, all medical decisions are made by myself and my doctor. The government is only involved in the coverage aspect. I have never received or ask for care that I did not need, nor has there ever been any opportunity to refuse me access to care that I need. I had a health scare last year, and I was seen by a top specialist within days, and the whole scare was over within 10. Had I needed further help, this would have been forthcoming.
And how much drug research is done in Japan? How much of that do the tax payers subsidize? Have they ever done any analysis to figure out the total and true cost?
Actually a lot. A number of colleagues are intensely involved in things like HIV cures, cancer research, heart research, transplant rejection drug research, and all kinds of stuff. I myself am involved in health research - although I don’t do pharmaceuticals.
That’s it for now. Time to take a break. Sorry again about the multiple postings.
The strength with which you and SO are arguing for pharma companies is surprising
I am not arguing for pharma companies Stogy. I am arguing against the idiotic stance that companies are evil because they want to make money. Here we are with you pissed that pharma companies make a profit and don’t sell for cheap or give drugs away. The same happens with private insurers. If we were discussing energy I pretty much bet your stance would be the same. There simply are some “special businesses” liberals love to hate and demonize for whatever reason (well, not really, the reason is obvious). But we get raped by supposed “green businesses” or by such simple stuff as bottled water, and you never hear a lib doing anything but defend that stuff. Know what I am saying?
- it’s like you believe that they are charitable organizations who do everything out of the goodness of their hearts.
No stogy, they are like everyone else doing us a favor in the pursuit of a profit. Unlike most leftists I understand, respect, and ultimately prefer the profit motive over pretty much everything else. It is real human nature at work, and has been proven to yield results and benefit everyone. The people that want charity or claim to be motivated by a need to help out their fellow man – always with someone else’s money or at someone else’s expense (yeah, same thing) – are the ones that scare the bejesus out of me. This stuff has always led to tragedy and death.
I certainly don’t think they are evil - they are profit motivated and they are taking advantage of a monopoly that the government gives them. And fighting tooth and nail (with much misinformation) to prevent that from being taken away. It’s completely natural that they would do that.
You mean kind of like the AGW cultists, the “green” watermelon business movement, the “green” government tax increasers, the people claiming to be ramming this disastrous bill down our throats to “fix” healthcare and lower costs, the ones demanding the productive give up more of their earned income so they can buy votes, and so on, do? Like I said: I trust and understand the profit motive, and I fear and am repulsed by those that mask that with humanitarian motives or some other such good intentions. The road to hell and all that.
It does? They can get the help they need when they need it? They don’t wait 6 hours to use the free clinic, only to be turned away at the last second because there weren’t enough doctors?
Not sure I understand your argument. Is it that the fact that I pointed out a system already exists to help those that truly fall through the cracks, that Social Security already offers coverage to people like the sick diabetic friend of yours you claim will be left to die a cruel death, and destroyed your attempt to play on people’s emotions, or the fact that SS, like anything the government does – including the healthcare we will be left with once they take over the entire system – is piss poor, that bothers you? You certainly are not saying that since SS isn’t perfect we need government to take over all of healthcare. Are you going by the assumption that we then all will be subjected to the same miserable treatment so that’s fair? Because I warn you that I will simply laugh at you and call you stupid if your point is that we should hand it all over to government because SS sucks. Yeah, I know you keep claiming you agree that the current bill is terrible, you go on defending those that are screwing us over and pretending that the status quo would not be better than what we are getting.
In fact, it will be a lot more likely that the government bureaucrat will simply say your buddy with diabetes brought it upon himself, and then deny him care to save money.Ah no. Not if it is set up in the way I am proposing.
The problem with liberals and liberalism/collectivism in a nut shell: they think that the reason this stuff has failed every other time and anywhere else it was tried, isn’t that the system simply can’t work, but that those that did it didn’t know better. Unfortunately the real world gets in the way. Anyway, for a second there I felt like you were channeling Obama, Pelosi, and Reed all in one dude… You might need an exorcism to clear that up dude. Will government controlled healthcare offer those too once they take everything over? Inquiring minds want to know.
But in Japan, and Australia, where I have had most of my experiences of ‘socialist’ care, all medical decisions are made by myself and my doctor. The government is only involved in the coverage aspect.
Considering what the end goal of the people decrying our broken healthcare system and demanding a fix is, this will absolutely never come to pass in the US. However, I now understand your problem. For some unimaginable reason you are under the illusion that the left here is interested in fixing healthcare in this country. They are not at all interested in any of that, and this bill should have made that obvious. Their end goal is to control people, control money, and expand and entrench their power. We the people are going to pay more, get much, much, less, and have healthcare used as a weapon against us. Your attempts at a solution is not just falling on deaf ears: it is not welcome. And yet, you are here arguing with those of us that are saying we are being screwed and not the ones that are going to screw us. Go figure.
I am not arguing for pharma companies Stogy. I am arguing against the idiotic stance that companies are evil because they want to make money.
Then we agree. I don’t think they are evil for wanting to make money either. And actually I already said that.
No stogy, they are like everyone else doing us a favor in the pursuit of a profit.
Ah no. Now we disagree. I have repeatedly shown that what they do doesn’t result in a public good. So far you have only responded with platitudes. You want to prove me wrong, you need to take the argument apart point by point.
Unlike most leftists I understand, respect, and ultimately prefer the profit motive over pretty much everything else.
So the government has set up a monopoly whereby big pharma can make as much as they want. That’s not competition, and it’s not in the public interest.
The people that want charity or claim to be motivated by a need to help out their fellow man – always with someone else’s money or at someone else’s expense (yeah, same thing) – are the ones that scare the bejesus out of me.
Er… so that would include Bill Gates then? Cause that’s pretty much what he is doing in funding clinical trials of unprofitable medicines (unprofitable because the people who need them are too poor to buy them, understand?). Although he’s using his own money…
Like I said: I trust and understand the profit motive.
Yup. Works just fine when you don’t have a monopoly. So why won’t you consider a system which removes it? It doesn’t even have to be a government one. I don’t give a fuck.
It does? They can get the help they need when they need it? They don’t wait 6 hours to use the free clinic, only to be turned away at the last second because there weren’t enough doctors?Not sure I understand your argument. Is it that the fact that I pointed out a system already exists to help those that truly fall through the cracks, that Social Security already offers coverage to people
So it’s probably the National Council on Disabilities that’s lying when they say:
The health care system in the United States is complex, highly fragmented, and sometimes overly restrictive in terms of program eligibility. This leaves some people with disabilities with no health care coverage and others with cost-sharing obligations and limits on benefits that prevent them from obtaining health-preserving prescription medications, medical equipment, specialty care, dental and vision care, long-term care, and care coordination.
Yeah, I know you keep claiming you agree that the current bill is terrible, you go on defending those that are screwing us over and pretending that the status quo would not be better than what we are getting.
Nah. Obama sold out on healthcare to the big companies even before the election. Pity really. I don’t know where you get this ‘defending’ stuff. Do you hear voices in your head?
The problem with liberals and liberalism/collectivism in a nut shell: they think that the reason this stuff has failed every other time and anywhere else it was tried, isn’t that the system simply can’t work, but that those that did it didn’t know better.
Well it’s so far better than what you have come up with. Which is more of the same, and nothing to reduce prices except a vague and unsupported plan to reduce civil suits for damages by cracking down on unscrupulous lawyers. How much is it bumping up prices?
Their end goal is to control people, control money, and expand and entrench their power. We the people are going to pay more, get much, much, less, and have healthcare used as a weapon against us.
Nice to know that I am not the only suffering from the creation of highly sophisticated plots by the lizard people to seize the secret pyramid that really sharpens all the razors. Did the voices in your head tell you about this one too?
Britishcress, help me!
Your attempts at a solution is not just falling on deaf ears: it is not welcome.
Yeah, OK. I’ll end it then.
And what’s false about anything that I put up?
Your statement
NIH generally funds clinical trials, more than big pharma.
My response
That’s absolutely 100% false.
From the article
Phase III trials are the crux of the system. These trials can make or break a new drug. Virtually all of these extremely expensive trials are paid for by the companies that make the drug.
“The vast, vast, vast majority of clinical trials in this country are performed by pharmaceutical companies that must do these studies to get FDA approval,” DeAngelis tells WebMD. “The government doesn’t pay for them. That is not what NIH [National Institutes of Health] money is used for. Until we decide that it is worth it in this country to put many billions of dollars into clinical trials, then the drug companies will have to do it. And there is nothing wrong with that.”
I don’t know how much clearer I can point out clinical trials are NOT funded by the NIH which was you statement.
I you want to argue fraud is wrong, I have no problem with that. I don’t support the fraud that goes on in any industry. I don’t however, support government red tap either that puts smaller competitors out of the running, and makes it such a gamble to begin with that companies end up lying about their results in some cases. Either way, fraud is fraud. I have no problem hitting any industry or person on that angle.
However, your statements of how a drug is pretty much paid for by the government, and pharma gets a free ride is a load of BS.
OK. Two things. The NiH funds about 5000 clinical trials a year and is currently spending approximately 30% of its budget on clinical testing (which I calculate works out to approximately 10 billion a year). There are 150 cancer trials aloneNiH center in Bethsheba, Maryland.
Now after 2 hours of searching, I cannot find any reliable certifiable industry equivalent - but I am not going to quibble. The NiH is certainly involved in clinical trials, and significant money is going to start ups.
Tax credits and other incentives also fund clinical trials, although obviously not to the same extent.
However, your statements of how a drug is pretty much paid for by the government, and pharma gets a free ride is a load of BS.
OK. Yeah. Whatever you want to believe is just fine. I am not arguing that they get a free ride, just that lack of competition hurts everyone.
I give up. This is a waste of time.
No no Stogy don’t leave. At the very least this is an amusing exercise that can get in the way of doing work (not that I need the excuse-oh damn there I am showing the inefficiencies of a worker in a government monopoly).
First, regarding your response to the pieces I cited: I don’t mean this in a fuck off sorta way, but without a link of citation, your facts don’t hold weight. I would be interested in reading the originals (more wasted time-no wait I am researching a “current event” social studies assignment, yeah someone will buy that). I do sympathize with the “Damn I can’t find it and don’t want to spend an hour trying to dig it up again” phenomenon, but generally I don’t cite anything I can’t link to (or at least provide info on its publication). I could have mentioned the Canadian Supreme Court decision that said Canada’s system violates the basic right of Canadians, I could have mentioned the fact that one of the reasons that this basic rights violating system performs as well as it does is that it has the US as a safety valve and sends many overflow patients to US hospitals (several hundred high risk deliveries to Washington state alone last year), I could have mentioned the recent piece that shows that UK hospitals are drugging and starving elderly patients that are deemed beyond help without their or their families consent, but I didn’t want to spend the time looking up the links (maybe on the weekend-though playing trains with my 2 and 4 year olds probably has priority over that).
If something costs nothing, people will use more of it-a lot more, and you will be back to waiting instead of paying.
I am interested in this. I mean, I keep hearing, like some kind of mantra. But what evidence is there that this is the case in health care? Not all ‘socialized’ health care systems have big problems with waiting lists? And if costs came down, wouldn’t that mean that the same or more people could be treated for less money? It still would be a net saving to the economy. So I am asking for links.
This is basic economics Stogy (week 3 in Econ 101 if I remember correctly); it applies to everything. I am bewildered by the fact that some people think that the rules of economics magically don’t apply to health care (or other political issues). It is very simple: people respond to economic incentives. If you make something more expensive; the demand for it goes down. If you make something less expensive, the demand for it goes up.* So, if Ferrari started selling cars for $20,000, there would be a much longer wait to buy one. If you pay people more money to be unemployed, you have more unemployed people. If you raise the cost of labor through increasing the minimum wage, you will have fewer jobs. And if you lower monetary cost of seeing a doctor to zero, more people will go to see the doctor. All of these examples have different elasticity, meaning that the magnitude of changes in price will vary, but they will be affected.
As far as health care goes, let’s say you have the flu and are feeling lousy (but not ER lousy). Scenario one: seeing you doctor will cost you $600 and any medicine you receive will cost you $200. Do you immediately show up, or do you wait it out and see if it gets better.
Same scenario but everything cost you nothing. See, economic incentives change behavior.
There will be situations in which you will go to the doctor regardless of cost (accidental amputation of a leg, say), but those are relatively rare.
*That is the layman’s version. Actually, the demand doesn’t change, but the intersection of price and demand moves up or down, resulting in more or fewer transactions.
link of citation
crap, should be “or” not “of”
Ah no. Now we disagree. I have repeatedly shown that what they do doesn’t result in a public good. So far you have only responded with platitudes. You want to prove me wrong, you need to take the argument apart point by point.
I already see that being done, and it isn’t sinking in dude. You should read some <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5dh2xo” target="_new">Thomas Sowell</a> or Walter Williams, both brilliant dudes and far better at explaining why when people are allowed to earn a reward from their hard work, investment, or risk, we all profit.
So the government has set up a monopoly whereby big pharma can make as much as they want. That’s not competition, and it’s not in the public interest.
And instead of blaming government and not trusting them to do better, you pile it high on pharma and defend government? yeah, your priorities are sure in the right place.
Er… so that would include Bill Gates then? Cause that’s pretty much what he is doing in funding clinical trials of unprofitable medicines (unprofitable because the people who need them are too poor to buy them, understand?). Although he’s using his own money…
WTF Stogy? A few guys do some good – I am assuming there has to be one or two more than just Gates, and not to downplay what he is doing, but I would be impressed if Gates gave away all his money, since him giving away a billion or two out of 50soemthing billions, ain’t that much to me in the grand scheme of thing- and you want to absolve all the other ones that don’t use their own money but want others to pay for it? Sheesh.
And the liberal in you seems to think that since “the mythical poor” can’t afford the drugs those of us that can should not get it either? Most of these poor people can’t afford a car either but I am not seeing you demand that they get a free one or we give ours up (don’t get any crazy ideas dude).
Well it’s so far better than what you have come up with. Which is more of the same, and nothing to reduce prices except a vague and unsupported plan to reduce civil suits for damages by cracking down on unscrupulous lawyers. How much is it bumping up prices?
You seem to have missed the rest of my post or ignored it Stogy. I pointed out that there is no way to do what you or the other libs want without increasing the cost of healthcare. If you want to give stuff to people that can’t pay for it themselves, the rest of us that pay will pay more and get less. Demeaning me and demanding I provide a solution that defies logic, facts, and the real world economics to prove I am not an Ogre that wants to deny people healthcare, is not going to change things. There are no such things as free lunches dude. Someone has to pay. Of course if people that want to play mother Theresa with other people’s money admitted that, they would not get very far.
Nice to know that I am not the only suffering from the creation of highly sophisticated plots by the lizard people to seize the secret pyramid that really sharpens all the razors. Did the voices in your head tell you about this one too?
So you not only defend them again, attack me personally, and make light of the argument, but make sure everyone knows it too. Yeah, I am convinced you are sincere when you say you think the plan stinks. Tell you what Stogy. Explain to me how what the left has in mind right now does anything other than what I said. Be careful though. If you claim they are just incompetent what they are doing still has the same end result I point out, only it will be more random.
Yeah, OK. I’ll end it then.
Doesn’t look like you are at all. My bet is that you think the deaf ears are the people here. Go read what I wrote again. I was talking about the democrats in power and pushing this idiotic plan. Then again, since you keep defending them and their idiotic plan, maybe you are right.
First, regarding your response to the pieces I cited: I don’t mean this in a fuck off sorta way, but without a link of citation, your facts don’t hold weight.
Fair enough - I looked at it on my home computer, not my work one, and it didn’t seem to be google-able. Had to wait until I got home.
It’s a response about 2/3 of the way down the page. I realize that it might not meet your truth standards, but given the failure of the original article to accurately cite its own sources, I think this can be forgiven. I notice you didn’t actually respond to this.
This is basic economics Stogy (week 3 in Econ 101 if I remember correctly); it applies to everything.
Maybe. But there are a number of reasons why health may be different - and I am not a health economist, but I can look into this the week after next. People don’t use health services when they aren’t sick. People who use health services sooner may well save resources (by being diagnosed earlier). Also societies with higher levels of inequality are much more likely to result in people becoming sick - as a social determinant of health, higher levels of inequality actually produce poor health (far more than can be explained physiologically or medically). Links are in my office if you want them.
So if you are going to argue that health care is the same as other commodities, such as Ferraris. I am not saying you are wrong, but I’d like to see studies showing me that health works the same way economically as other commodities.
Alex, this is getting frustrating. I don’t really have time for this. What I really wanted was a discussion on how to generate more competition in health care. I came up with a suggestion which I believe will do it. So far, your responses have amounted to:
a) misrepresenting my positions.
b) knocking them down as straw men.
I hate to point out that this is a pattern. But it’s a pattern.
I already see that being done, and it isn’t sinking in dude. You should read some <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5dh2xo” target="_new">Thomas Sowell</a> or Walter Williams, both brilliant dudes and far better at explaining why when people are allowed to earn a reward from their hard work, investment, or risk, we all profit.
OK. I read through your Thomas Sowell articles, and he quite elloquently pointed out exactly the same things you have said, but again, ignored the point I am making. His main point, which he makes over and over again is that, if we reduce prices, then we will also reduce quality. He also, like you, attacks the bogus lawsuits filed by ambulance chasers. But this is once again uncosted. Show me that this will reduce prices. He doesn’t.
And he completely ignores the other things that would bring down prices: increased competition: ending the restrictive practices by the government which allow private health care and big pharma to run as monopolies. This is the fundamental point that I am making - over and over again. Let’s see how you have framed my argument:
And instead of blaming government and not trusting them to do better, you pile it high on pharma and defend government? yeah, your priorities are sure in the right place.
See - that’s a straw man. I do blame the government. The government has set up a system which allows monopolies. I have said this over and over again. And I don’t blame big pharma - they are doing exactly what a private corporation should, which is making money for their shareholders. They are exploiting the rules set up by government for their own benefit, and working hard to ensure those rules are kept in place. It’s not wrong. It’s just that we need to change the rules to make things more competitive. And bring down prices - this is fundamental market economics. I have also said this over and over again.
And the liberal in you seems to think that since “the mythical poor” can’t afford the drugs those of us that can should not get it either?
Er… no. A lot of the underfunded clinical trials are for infectious diseases in poorer countries. But unless you think US health security stops at the border, you might see some kind of benefit in that. You should get whatever you need to stay healthy.
You seem to have missed the rest of my post or ignored it Stogy. I pointed out that there is no way to do what you or the other libs want without increasing the cost of healthcare. If you want to give stuff to people that can’t pay for it themselves, the rest of us that pay will pay more and get less.
Whenever I say that the US system doesn’t look after the poor”, people keep telling me that the US health system DOES in fact look after the poor - through Medicaid and Medicare. So according to you, you are already giving the stuff away and yes, you are paying for it.
And yes there is a way that costs can come down: and that is by creating a system which generates real competition between providers (an option your friend Thomas Sowell completely ignored). The links I put up showed that the system creates bad medicine and huge inefficiencies by distorting the market. I want people to make money, and I completely agree that the profit motive is a powerful incentive for efficiency. So you don’t like the idea of a single payer system? Fine. Come up with one that works that is privately funded and managed and protects the people you assure me that the US does protect (such as the disabled) - you haven’t yet so far. All you have done (rather ironically) is defend the inefficient government created private monopoly the US has now. Put up some actual numbers. This is the discussion I wanted to have.
Yeah, I am convinced you are sincere when you say you think the plan stinks. Tell you what Stogy. Explain to me how what the left has in mind right now does anything other than what I said. Be careful though. If you claim they are just incompetent what they are doing still has the same end result I point out, only it will be more random.
It DOES stink. It does nothing that I have argued for here. It actually does exactly what Thomas Sowell says - it moves the money around as a kind of shell game. Now on your conspiracy (and I’d had a few drinks - Friday night after all): I don’t believe the Dems are remotely competent enough to pull off a conspiracy on the scale of what you are proposing. As to what the Dems are doing? It’s simple: they’ve sold out to special interests - big pharma, big medicine, and fixed interests:
Apparently the Obama administration made a commitment to the drug companies that it would block efforts to reduce drug costs in the Medicare prescription drug program. This was apparently in exchange for a promise by Pharma to cut their prices to seniors by $80 billion over the next decade. While we may not know the full content of whatever agreement was actually struck, if this exchange is at its center, the taxpayers got a bad deal.
Not so different from the deal that Bush struck to get the Medicare expansion through either, apparently.
I didn’t get to read any of the other guy you put up. There was a long list of stories. Got any recommendations?
Go read what I wrote again. I was talking about the democrats in power and pushing this idiotic plan. Then again, since you keep defending them and their idiotic plan, maybe you are right.
LOL. See, this is exactly what I am talking about. Nice. straw. man.
Alex, this is getting frustrating. I don’t really have time for this. What I really wanted was a discussion on how to generate more competition in health care. I came up with a suggestion which I believe will do it. So far, your responses have amounted to:
a) misrepresenting my positions.
b) knocking them down as straw men.
Well blow me down stogy. And here I thought we were discussing the fact that we were getting exactly the opposite of any kind of healthcare improvements rammed down our throats, because no matter how you present your position, in the end you seem to keep making the argument that change is needed, while I am pointing out that if the choice is between the change the left is sticking us with and the status quo, I prefer the later.
See - that’s a straw man. I do blame the government.
The stuff that follows every time you say you blame government could have fooled me into thinking otherwise I guess. Pray tell who do you envision as the guarantor of that competitive system you argue for? I still have not heard you say that if the choice is between the shit sandwich we are getting fed and the stale one we have now, that there is no real choice.
Now on your conspiracy (and I’d had a few drinks - Friday night after all): I don’t believe the Dems are remotely competent enough to pull off a conspiracy on the scale of what you are proposing.
I guess we will agree to disagree about this then.
As to what the Dems are doing? It’s simple: they’ve sold out to special interests - big pharma, big medicine, and fixed interests:
You took this seriously? Obama is making deals that will garner him support from them, but I guarantee you he has no intend to keep the deals he made with these idiots. There are so many bodies under that Obama bus already that you need a telescope to see the thing these days. Many of those that originally made deals with him are suddenly wising up and realizing that.
Not so different from the deal that Bush struck to get the Medicare expansion through either, apparently.
Bush didn’t have as his end goal to give government absolute control of not just the healthcare dollars, but the healthcare decisions as well, like these collectivists do. But you continue to tell me I am the one in the wrong for daring to point that out the sham and saying we should not accept any kind of healthcare reform that comes from them.
Unequivocally say that you agree that nothing is better than the current bill the left is pushing, and we can say we are in agreement. Arguing for or about a different system/solution, saying that the bill sucks, but never saying that it makes things worse and should be put down like a rabid animal, kind of leaves me thinking that you think it is better than what we have now. That’s why we keep going back and forth.
ending the restrictive practices by the government which allow private health care and big pharma to run as monopolies.
Ok sorry I have to jump in on this Stogy. A monopoly is a single company that controls a market. “Big Pharma” is not amonopoly. It may be an oligopoly (I admit I had to look that up), but therre are probably too many firms in the market to even call it that.
There are some states dominated by a single insurer, they are clsoe to a monopoly. But that situation exists because of government. If you want competition in insurance, there is a simple way to do so: allow for insterstate insurance. This will increase competition and bring down prices.
As far as supply and demand go, they affect everything. The demand for different medical procedures may be less elastic (less affected by price) but nothing is compelted unaffected. Simply imagine any procedure you like: open heart surgery, aspirin, anti-biotics, chemo whatever. Now imagine that a course of treatment costs one billion dollars. This will affect how much treatment happens right? If it costs a million dollars then there will be more of that treatment than if it costs a billion. If it costs ten cents there will be a lot more.
Now health care is not affected by supply and demand just like every other market, but neither is any other good. Each good bought and sold has unique factors that affect its market (the demand for and potential substitutions for English muffins are similar, but not the same, as the demand for and potential substitutions for wheat bread). The market for Ferraris does not operate like the market for health care. It also does not operate exactly like the market for Porches or Lamborginis. Each is unique, one can be a potential substitute for another and each is uniquely affected by changes in supply and price.
Again, unless you think that raising health care prices by a facotr of one million would not affect the untilization of health care resources, then you msut conceded that supply and demand affects the health care market (and you can throw in other factors-if 75% of promary care docters died tomorrow, that would affect the market-if 50% of the US became Christian Scientists tomorrow, that would affect the market).
Ok sorry I have to jump in on this Stogy. A monopoly is a single company that controls a market. “Big Pharma” is not amonopoly. It may be an oligopoly (I admit I had to look that up), but therre are probably too many firms in the market to even call it that.
Ah no. This is not actually what my argument is. Monopolies can work in different ways - and control over a single product for which their is no substantial competition can create one. There might be plenty of firms, but it’s the patent system that allow complete control over single products, pricing them at the highest point the market will bear (see Angell, 2004): Here’s how it works. Look see:
In the highly competitive pharmaceuticals sector where development programmes last for years and have budgets ranging into six-figure sums, maintaining a monopoly position for a commercially important drug is key to commercial success. Only by securing a monopoly can a company justify the very significant investment of time and funding into the pre-clinical and clinical development necessary to support the stringent requirements for grant of a marketing authorisation. In the EU, the mechanisms for achieving this include:
Patent protection
Supplementary protection certificate
Data exclusivity
Orphan drug status
This website is from a pharmaceutical licensing service, so they are hardly like to be critical of the process. But yeah, it’s a monopoly that they want.
I strongly urge you to read some of Dean Baker’s stuff - I don’t agree with most of his proposed solutions, but I really think he has a point about the effects on the market.
Next entry: And The Walls Came Tumbling Down
Previous entry: The Jihad Within
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8231
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 46
Total anonymous users: 0
Hal_10000,
inanegoldfish,
Manwhore,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 08:58)
Mark_M: The average American is so fucking stupid I don’t give us much hope. I'll paraphrase a great line from Dennis Miller ..."The American people are so stupid...of course, I know better than them. But then again I DO have a bachelor's in communications from Tallahassee Junior College."
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(30 total, Last @ 08:56)
Manwhore: It is striking to me that Alex is now the only real voice of conservative thinking on this blog. For the few who rebel against the idea are hit in the face with a Limbaugh smear. I think it was fucking hilarious that he handed all of you your asses;…
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
Last 30 Comments
Short and Sweet:
#1 The government does too much now and what it does it mostly does poorly.
#2 The massive deficit spending binge we have been on is profoundly immoral; we are funding our own profligacy by charging it to our children.
#3 This plan will make medical care worse for most.