Obama on healthcare bill

[Flagg]

I know that universal health care is a very sensitive topic in the States right now but I sometimes wonder if it's been blown up far worse than it actually is.

The word "Healthcare" seems to be banded about freely in conjunction with the word "socialism" and while I know there are many educated and intelligent members on the board, i'd wage that a large percentage of people that use the word "socialism" have no idea what the word actually means, mostly in part to heavy hitting TV personalities back in the 1950's suggesting that words like "socialism" were two rungs under "communism", right under a full blown third reich.

Maybe it's because im from a country where this is the norm, but no, you wont be left to die in hospital waiting rooms.

And Universal Healthcare will not lead to "You shall not eat zist greasy BigMac unt penalty of execution!"

Im pretty sure that every other Western country has universal healthcare and no one else is being starved to death or oppressed.

[Quo]

I'm sry

No, it's cool. You were pretty rude, but I am sorry I flew off the handle.

Listen, you honestly do raise some interesting points, but being dogmatic and insulting people isn't the best way to get your point across. There are people like me out there who really haven't made up their minds about this whole health insurance mess, and you do have an opportunity to convince us. But being heavy handed and closed-minded about it simply alienates people.

That's all I'm saying. But like I said, you have put some interesting thoughts and facts out there.

As for me, I like the concept of health care being accessible to all on a fundamental human rights level - but, on the other hand, government run ANYTHING always scares me, and I don't like the invasiveness of being required to purchase health care. I am pretty sure the constitution protects me against being compelled to purchase anything. So... not sure how I feel about all this.

[Bojangles69]

Honestly I have no idea whats going on, I know the bills were passed an all but who cares if they tax brand name drug importers/manufacturers?

These industries have money like oil, and their greedy fvckn bastards, tax them till they go bankrupt for all I care.
I've been ordering all my medicine overseas for years now, its cheaper, less bs, and it detaches you from a lot of the bs US likes to put you through. I think the entire health care system if fvcked no matter how we deal with health insurance.

And we already have free health care for millions of immigrants so who really cares? These mfkrs have been raping our health care for years and years cause they don't give a shit about their credit, at least now americans will have similar.
And seriously everytime we make a change people always wanna flip out, whine bitch and complain about a system thats already broke and already doesn't work right.

You can tax people for farting for all I care, I'd prefer for us to lose all our money so another country that knows how to manage finances can beat us in a war and take over our government. Its like going for a swim in a pool full of shit, then complaining when someone takes a piss in it.. wtf?
America has been doomed since the day we thought we reached "independence", I have no patriotism, and no real concern what happens to this country, I'm a wonderful american I know.

I should also mention I don't know a damn thing about politics, so if I sound like an ignorant naive sob, thats most likely why.

[BgMc31]

I thought I would chime in on this one, since I'm probably the biggest Obama supporter on this forum.

Anyway, I'm not thrilled about this bill, but, IMO, the opposition to this bill wasn't because it was a bad bill, but mainly just a ploy by the opposition party to block Obama's main campaign intiative. If Obama didn't get this passed, in any form, he couldn't put any teeth into any other proposals. No one came up with any alternatives and just continued to say that we should start over. Well we've waisted enough time on this, let's get something done.

Now with that said, this bill is far from perfect. But what bill is? I can't stand all the dealing to get this done, but I'm glad something is being done. The question remains, though, is this going to bankrupt up faster that the current system? Because we know, the current system isn't sustainable.

How many people, truly know the details of this bill, because as studied as I am in politics, I'm not completely sure either? I've already read stuff from people on this thread, that isn't correct (government controlled healthcare), so until we get the details about this bill, there will be fear and anxiety and people are using misinformation to intensify the rhetoric against this bill. Most people are against this bill because of that misinformation, BUT, the vast majority of people want healthcare reform. But I don't think anyone will be happy with the final outcome, regardless of what it is.

[Hoggage_54]

[Kratos]

\ There are people like me out there who really haven't made up their minds about this whole health insurance mess, and you do have an opportunity to convince us. But being heavy handed and closed-minded about it simply alienates people.\.

It doesn't really matter if I convince you or not since they aren't giving us a vote.

You'll either be frustrated by abuse of power going on by not using proper senate protocols via changing the number of votes needed to pass the bill.
or
by the increase in taxes and further fiscal irresponsibility
or
you think it's a good idea to spend another trillion (and that's estimated)when we're on target to double the national debt in the next 10 years.

do you really think if you like the health plan you have now you'll be able to keep it? with no impact on price?

[Kratos]

Honestly I have no idea whats going on, I know the bills were passed an all but who cares if they tax brand name drug importers/manufacturers?

These industries have money like oil, and their greedy fvckn bastards, tax them till they go bankrupt for all I care.
I've been ordering all my medicine overseas for years now, its cheaper, less bs, and it detaches you from a lot of the bs US likes to put you through. I think the entire health care system if fvcked no matter how we deal with health insurance.

And we already have free health care for millions of immigrants so who really cares? These mfkrs have been raping our health care for years and years cause they don't give a shit about their credit, at least now americans will have similar.
And seriously everytime we make a change people always wanna flip out, whine bitch and complain about a system thats already broke and already doesn't work right.

You can tax people for farting for all I care, I'd prefer for us to lose all our money so another country that knows how to manage finances can beat us in a war and take over our government. Its like going for a swim in a pool full of shit, then complaining when someone takes a piss in it.. wtf?
America has been doomed since the day we thought we reached "independence", I have no patriotism, and no real concern what happens to this country, I'm a wonderful american I know.

I should also mention I don't know a damn thing about politics, so if I sound like an ignorant naive sob, thats most likely why.

So you're ready to throw in the towel on America as a whole rather then take an interest in politics and who gets elected and what becomes law. That's kinda sad.

[JDawg1536]

I'm not saying our current system is great..... Lord knows it needs some work but having "universale healthcare" just isn't a good idea. Healthcare is going to suffer greatly..... longer waits.... cheaper treatments..... just overall shittier care.

~Haz~

Why would treatments be cheaper and why would care be shittier?

I'm assuming by "cheaper" you mean they would be spending fewer dollars on your care.

[lovbyts]

Another note... Tell me when EVER in history that they said it will cost XXX (one Trillion $$) has it ever cost that, it has always ended up being 2x at least.

[Kratos]

The question remains, though, is this going to bankrupt up faster that the current system? Because we know, the current system isn't sustainable.
.

There are no cost cutting measures as far as the total cost of health care spent in this country aside from the medicare cuts.

So, yes adding people to the system costs money.

....
and no preventative care doesn't save you money

[Kratos]

I know that universal health care is a very sensitive topic in the States right now but I sometimes wonder if it's been blown up far worse than it actually is.

The word "Healthcare" seems to be banded about freely in conjunction with the word "socialism" and while I know there are many educated and intelligent members on the board, i'd wage that a large percentage of people that use the word "socialism" have no idea what the word actually means, mostly in part to heavy hitting TV personalities back in the 1950's suggesting that words like "socialism" were two rungs under "communism", right under a full blown third reich.

Maybe it's because im from a country where this is the norm, but no, you wont be left to die in hospital waiting rooms.

And Universal Healthcare will not lead to "You shall not eat zist greasy BigMac unt penalty of execution!"

Im pretty sure that every other Western country has universal healthcare and no one else is being starved to death or oppressed.

all is not equal between the US and UK, so it can't be assumed what works there works here.
one variable alone can break a system
for example malpractice
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1246737/
but we're gonna go ahead and leave tort reform off the table.

[JDawg1536]

There are no cost cutting measures as far as the total cost of health care spent in this country aside from the medicare cuts.

So, yes adding people to the system costs money.

....
and no preventative care doesn't save you money

According to whom?

[lovbyts]

According to whom?

What the US considers preventative care is not really preventative. In the US we mostly treat symptoms and not the problem. That's why 90% of people who take Viagra know nothing about HRT/TRT testosterone levels and have no idea why they have libido issues along with many other health issues that they just associate with getting older. Most doctors are only pill pushers for the pharmacies.

Ill bet anyone that in 10 years the one trillion will be 2+ trillion. Like I said/asked; when in the history of the US has the government, congress, state ever kept on budget? Whey have they ever said something will cost XXX $ and it has come in at that price or lower? It has always been 2x or more.

[JDawg1536]

What the US considers preventative care is not really preventative. In the US we mostly treat symptoms and not the problem. That's why 90% of people who take Viagra know nothing about HRT/TRT testosterone levels and have no idea why they have libido issues along with many other health issues that they just associate with getting older. Most doctors are only pill pushers for the pharmacies.

Huh?

[lovbyts]

Huh?

What dont you get? Most doctors in the US do not really try to prevent you from being sick or if you are sick dont really try to find a cure. They give you prescriptions that mask the problems instead of looking for the underlying cause.

Examples
You have high cholesterol. Take a pill. You have high blood pressure, take a pill. You have erectile problems, take a blue pill. All these pills lead to other problems most of the time (side effects).

They rarely do real blood work on people or check for hormonal problems or give real diet/life style change advise.

[thegodfather]

Why would treatments be cheaper and why would care be shittier?

I'm assuming by "cheaper" you mean they would be spending fewer dollars on your care.

No, he indeed means care will be of a lower quality. I shall explain...

This is an area that I have studied heavily, in addition to presenting research in this area as well (not published). I have a B.A. in Political Science with a focus in Constitutional Law and Interpretation. However, as far as policy goes, health care policy is an area that I spend a lot of time researching, writing, and presenting information on (as well as dabbling somewhat in economics).

While we may not have a crystal ball to predict the outcomes and consequences of this bill, our best indicator of what will happen is to look to the past. This is how our entire society operates in all facets of life, including our judicial system. We use phrases such as "Net us never forget about the Holocaust, so that history never repeats itself." We incarcerate people for short or long periods of time based on their PAST actions and outcomes, in order to predict what they MAY do in the future.

History in the United States has PROVEN to us that there is an undeniable, undisputed, simple equation that occurs when government gets involved in ANY area of the private sector. COSTS GO UP, AND QUALITY GOES DOWN. Government bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to be the best allocator of resources. They are not smart enough to run the economy, etc, and so on. I challenge anyone to name just ONE private sector enterprise the government has taken over and either made profitable, or run better than the private sector had been running it previously?

United States Postal Service? Run at a deficit every year. FedEx, DHL, UPS, turn enormous profits each year, and provide an equal or better service.

Railways? The government took over this private sector enterprise, they claimed they would only own it for 3 years and they would turn a projected profit. They never sold it, and it has been run at a deficit EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

INSURANCE
Insurance is a measure of "RISK." You pay a monthly or yearly fee, along with many other people who belong to your insurance company, in case something catastrophic happens, you will be covered. It counts on X number of people not having a catastrophic incident, while measuring and accounting for Y number of people having a catastrophic incident. Rates and coverage of course are based on the level of risk that each insured presents.

"Forcing" insurance companies to cover people for their pre-existing medical conditions is ABSURD! Let me give you an analogous situation. It would be akin to Congress passing a bill that says car insurance companies must cover cars for damages incurred PRIOR to them holding an insurance policy with that company. If your car was set on fire a month ago and sustained major damage, you could then apply for an insurance policy with State Farm, have it issued, and then submit a claim for the full amount of the damages for your car being on fire at a time prior to your insurance policy with that company. Does that make sense to anyone? Is that even logical? Of course not, however most liberals do not care much for logic anyway.

Furthermore, what we know was "health insurance" is not actually insurance at all. Health insurance companies cover FAR too much of the costs and routine health maintenance than they should. As stated previously, INSURANCE is for catastrophic incidences and accidents. It is not the responsibility of insurance to cover routine maintenance, wear and tear, etc. People have become too accustomed to expecting to pay $5,$10,$20 for office visits to their doctor, whilst the health insurance company picks up the tab for $75-$125 per visit. The insured views the service as relatively "free" and therefore has no INCENTIVE to use the service less. This results in people making doctors appointments for every runny nose, hang nail, etc, and so forth. So quite simply, if insurance covered less mundane things, it would cost less. It would also provide incentives for people to be more thrift conscious. Health insurance policies should cover emergency room visits(for legitimate emergencies) and surgeries, and that's about it. Premiums would cost considerably less, and individuals and families would be able to purchase health insurance plans that are not tied to their employers.

DEFENSIVE MEDICINE

One of the key issues plaguing the American health care system is tort reform. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests to cover their ass's from ambulance chasing lawyers. A few big lawsuits can result in them being uninsureable, and essentially out of the job. This, as I understand it, is not part of the bill.


Health care is NOT A RIGHT

The most important reason to be against this bill is because health care is not a "RIGHT." In the United States, we have rights which are enumerated in the bill of rights. They are all "negative freedoms," meaning they are a list of things that the government is RESTRAINED from being able to do. Freedom of speech, the government is restrained from being able to infringe upon it. The right to bear arms, the government is restrained from being able to deny people the right to own firearms. Search and seizure, the government is restrained from being able to search a person, their home, or their vehicle at will. It is set up this way, because you are assumed to be BORN with these rights, you are endowed with them by your creator, therefore the government cannot "GIVE" you your right, you already have them. All that the Bill of Rights does, is acknowledge these rights as existing, being ordained to you by your creator, and a written document that says that your government can never take these rights away.

Therefore, it is impossible that you are "BORN" with a RIGHT to health care. Health care is a SERVICE, and it is a service that must be PROVIDED by another person, a skilled person that we call health care practitioners. If we conceded that you have a "RIGHT" to health care, we are essentially saying you have a RIGHT to that persons service for free, or perhaps at any rate YOU wish to pay them, but which they have no control over. Therefore, you would automatically be infringing on the rights of that person to choose who they offer their service to. You don't have the "RIGHT" to own a house, or the "RIGHT" to a job.

Additionally, it is morally wrong if the government steals my money (taxation) in order to pay for your health care. The only original two approved types of taxation were excise taxes and apportioned taxes. Excise taxes were on certain goods like cigarettes, gas, etc, that a person could opt out of by not smoking or riding a bicycle. Apportioned taxes would be redistributed among the people equally after they were collected. Un apportioned taxes, are those which end up being spent on social welfare programs. It is important to reject any notion of "moral hazard" or "social responsibility." It is not an individual citizens responsibility to have their hard earned income stolen(taxed) in order to pay for another citizens health care, housing, or food. That is not compassionate. This is what charity in our society is for.


I am likely going to get a lot of "emotional" responses to what I've said, and likely they will be from uneducated people who have not studied these issues in depth to know that, all social welfare programs given enough time fail(they go bankrupt, and then NO ONE gets services), and that innovation and progress slows down significantly when there are no large profits motivating research and development of new drugs, technologies, and practices. It is unfortunate, many have bought into the propaganda that we are "BARBARIC" if we do not guarantee health care to every citizen by stealing the income of other productive citizens in order to pay for that health care.

HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT

[thegodfather]

What dont you get? Most doctors in the US do not really try to prevent you from being sick or if you are sick dont really try to find a cure. They give you prescriptions that mask the problems instead of looking for the underlying cause.

Examples
You have high cholesterol. Take a pill. You have high blood pressure, take a pill. You have erectile problems, take a blue pill. All these pills lead to other problems most of the time (side effects).

They rarely do real blood work on people or check for hormonal problems or give real diet/life style change advise.

This is outright false bro. Health care providers are forced to give these people pills in order to lower cholesterol, or other ailments, because the patients are unwilling to change their lifestyle.

You will not meet one doctor who will just indiscriminately hand out Lipitor or Crestor to a patient, without first telling them... Look Lovbyts, your cholesterol is very high, you need to make major changes to your diet, you need to stop smoking, you need to cut down or eliminate sodium from your diet, and you need to start an exercise program. How many patients listen to this advice? None. Doctors will offer to refer these patients to a dietitian/nutritionist, and 90% of the time the patients do not give a flying shit.

So while you may find these drugs unfavorable, they are a necessary evil and offer people a chance at a longer life who otherwise would not have it. The doctor has 15-30 minutes with the patient to evaluate his/her condition, and make a recommendation, prescribe a medication, or make a referral. It is up to the patient with the other 23 hours and 30 minutes of that day, and the rest of their lives, to make the changes necessary to fix their high cholesterol. Many of the most prevalent diseases with the highest mortality rates are related to LIFESTYLE choices. These drugs are not needed for the people who make the right choices, and decide to modify their poor lifestyles. However, there is a reason that the United States is one of the most obese countries in the world, people are lazy, they eat fast food, and they treat their bodies like shit. I really don't have much sympathy for those people, but these medications DO help them.

You state that they don't "cure" anything. Well, there really isn't a cure for laziness and not caring about your body. The doctor does the BEST they can with what they have. So if the patient insists on going down their road of poor lifestyle choices, then Crestor or Lipitor offers them a good shot at reducing their risk of CHF.

[JDawg1536]

I agree and never said anything about it being a right. If you are lower class and were born with cancer, then screw you.... you were meant to die.

I asked how my health care will be affected. I have Blue Cross insurance. Why is my doctor going to give me lower quality care after the bill goes into effect than he does now?

[JDawg1536]

What dont you get? Most doctors in the US do not really try to prevent you from being sick or if you are sick dont really try to find a cure. They give you prescriptions that mask the problems instead of looking for the underlying cause.

Examples
You have high cholesterol. Take a pill. You have high blood pressure, take a pill. You have erectile problems, take a blue pill. All these pills lead to other problems most of the time (side effects).

They rarely do real blood work on people or check for hormonal problems or give real diet/life style change advise.

I don't get how you can say something so ridiculous.

Hell, I had blood work done and received diet/lifestyle advice from a doctor at the "socialist" VA hospital.

[thegodfather]

What the US considers preventative care is not really preventative. In the US we mostly treat symptoms and not the problem. That's why 90% of people who take Viagra know nothing about HRT/TRT testosterone levels and have no idea why they have libido issues along with many other health issues that they just associate with getting older. Most doctors are only pill pushers for the pharmacies.

On one hand I agree with this statement. However, you are not a doctor so you are not aware of the considerations that go into these decisions. Many elderly patients use Viagra, and many of them have lipid profiles which are already compromised, many are already hypertensive, and they are at a much higher risk for an enlarged prostate or prostate cancer. This makes them very poor candidates for Testosterone therapy , which can negatively effect their HDL/LDL, increase their blood pressure, which if they are ALREADY hypertensive could increase their risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiac related incidences. The increased level of DHT in their systems can increase their PSA astronomically, putting them at a much higher risk of prostate cancer. So you see there are very complex decisions that go into these things that the average person wouldn't think about. This is one case where a band-aid really does fix the problem.

It's also kind of contradictory to say that these doctors are just pushing drugs because they hand out Viagra, but in the same sentence recommend that the patient be put on TRT. So, hand out one drug instead of another? How does that make them any less of a drug pusher?


Ill bet anyone that in 10 years the one trillion will be 2+ trillion. Like I said/asked; when in the history of the US has the government, congress, state ever kept on budget? Whey have they ever said something will cost XXX $ and it has come in at that price or lower? It has always been 2x or more.

This is absolutely true. They are trying to use the 'non partisan' CBO figures to say that this plan is going to save X amount of dollars. The government is notorious for under-estimating the cost of things. Furthermore, bills get amended several times before they get passed, and pork always finds its way into the bill. We have 70 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlements by the year 2050, from Medicare/Medicaid alone. That means 70 trillion dollars and we have no idea where the money is even going to come from. And that is not including the new numbers of people who are going to be covered under this 'public option'.

Replied in bold...

[thegodfather]

I agree and never said anything about it being a right. If you are lower class and were born with cancer, then screw you.... you were meant to die.

I asked how my health care will be affected. I have Blue Cross insurance. Why is my doctor going to give me lower quality care after the bill goes into effect than he does now?

Lol, sort of jumping the gun bro. We are talking about long term effects of this bill. For instance, in Canada, the talented doctors opt out of the public health plans and take cash only, because they know they can demand more money. What this does is creates a two-tiered health care system. The best and brightest doctors take cash only or private insurance plans because they can demand a higher rate, whilst the less talented doctors who have poorer patient outcomes stay in the public health system and are paid less money.

As wages for physicians drops, very bright and talented people who would have otherwise pursued medicine as a career, opt instead to pursue careers in other fields. You will always hear about the rare exceptions who are very bright and talented and go into the field because they have a calling, but this of course the exception and not the rule. The highest paying fields will always attract the brightest and most talented individuals. Those fields often have high and costly barriers to entry.

Additionally, if government reduces the amount of money that drug companies, and other medical technology companies can earn, by forcing them to sell their drugs for less, or by penalizing them by taxing their brand name drugs, then innovation stalls. The only reason a company like GlaxoSmithKline invests BILLIONS of dollars into finding a cure for disease X, or a treatment for disease Y, is because of the ability to recoup that initial investment and turn a large profit. Profit is in fact what drives most innovation, discoveries, and progress. Take away this key incentive and you will have medical advancements moving at a snails pace. Of course many great discoveries come out of publicly funded education institutions, but the efficiency and innovation which has come out of the private sector far rivals that.

[lovbyts]

I don't get how you can say something so ridiculous.

Hell, I had blood work done and received diet/lifestyle advice from a doctor at the "socialist" VA hospital.

That is the exception, not the rule. You need to open your eyes to what is going on around you, not just your own personal experience. That is the problem, most people can only see life as what is happening to them and ignore everything else around them.

[lovbyts]

Replied in bold...

I agree with your statements in bold. Im saying though before a lot of those OLDER patients got to that point they could have probably been helped maybe not only with Test but many other things and the proper test.

[peachfuzz]

These industries have money like oil, and their greedy fvckn bastards, tax them till they go bankrupt for all I care.
I've been ordering all my medicine overseas for years now, its cheaper, less bs, and it detaches you from a lot of the bs US likes to put you through.

If you knew how much these companies spent on developing, researching and testing these drugs along with the countless ones that were not successful and millions of dollars were wasted on I dont think you would complain about them trying to make a profit...they are a business. is it wrong they make a profit? or is it wrong to have them invest in these drugs to have you go buy a generic from another country and then gripe about our economy?

[peachfuzz]

Kratos and TGF. you mofos are too smart for your own good. its much easier and less stressful being ignorant and realizing you can fight it all you want but your gonna eventually have to bend over and take it.

[thegodfather]

Honestly I have no idea whats going on, I know the bills were passed an all but who cares if they tax brand name drug importers/manufacturers?

These industries have money like oil, and their greedy fvckn bastards, tax them till they go bankrupt for all I care.
I've been ordering all my medicine overseas for years now, its cheaper, less bs, and it detaches you from a lot of the bs US likes to put you through. I think the entire health care system if fvcked no matter how we deal with health insurance.

Bo, let me fill you in a little bit here.

Their profits are not "large" relative to their investment. Their profits are large in number, but their margins are not. The cost of bringing a drug to market, and getting it through Stage 1,2, and 3 clinical trials is enormous. Let me give you an idea as to why, interestingly enough government is AGAIN the problem here, not private industry.

A patent on a novel drug/substance is 12 years. The clock starts ticking from the moment that drug is patented. For every drug that makes it past all of the testing and clinical trials, there are 10 that the company was researching and spending money on teams of biologists,chemists,biochemists,and PhDs to develop and test at the same time. Those 10 other novel drugs, all aimed at treating the same condition, likely failed to make it past various stages of the development process over time. The typical time it takes to bring a drug to market is about 8 years. It typically costs about 800 million dollars in R&D to bring one drug to market. That accounts for 8 years of research and development on several drugs, of which one will make it past all animal testing for efficacy, dosage, etc, and then finally get granted FDA approval.

Why is this significant? Because it means that the "evil" drug companies typically only have between 3 and 5 years to recover all of their initial investment from 500million to 1 billion dollars, and THEN, and only THEN to turn a profit, as all companies in business wish to do. If a company succeeds with a drug and it is successful, the rewards can be great! The company gets to turn a good profit, it employs thousands of people, and not only that, it benefits the lives of millions of people not just in the United States but in other countries around the world.

What is the point of all of this? The INCENTIVE of being able to reap an unlimited amount of profits is what DRIVES companies to make such a huge investment into unknown novel substances to treat diseases in humans. Without the possibility of a great payoff, medical innovation would move at a snails pace, if not halt completely. What country is responsible for the VAST MAJORITY of research and development of new novel drugs, medical devices, and medical procedures? The United States. Why is this the case? Because of our unique health care industry where companies are free to turn huge profits for their share holders. It may not bode well with many people that yes, these companies actually make a profit, like any other business in the world. But people must understand that it is these profits which drive these innovations.

If we eliminate the ability for the private sector to reap huge profits, or if we penalize them and tax them, we will see the pace of medical innovation slow. From time to time academic institutions make a discovery but the place is slow and arduous, and if it is left solely up to academic institutions working off of NIH grants (Bureaucrats in Washington with no medical education deciding which institutions get grant money, and which medical conditions and drugs are worth researching) then people will die. They will die because the pace of medical innovation will come screeching to a halt, and drugs and medical procedures that may have saved thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of lives will either never be developed, or will be developed at a pace 10 times as long as at present in our quasi-free market health care system.

[j4ever41]

Bo, let me fill you in a little bit here.

Their profits are not "large" relative to their investment. Their profits are large in number, but their margins are not. The cost of bringing a drug to market, and getting it through Stage 1,2, and 3 clinical trials is enormous. Let me give you an idea as to why, interestingly enough government is AGAIN the problem here, not private industry.

A patent on a novel drug/substance is 12 years. The clock starts ticking from the moment that drug is patented. For every drug that makes it past all of the testing and clinical trials, there are 10 that the company was researching and spending money on teams of biologists,chemists,biochemists,and PhDs to develop and test at the same time. Those 10 other novel drugs, all aimed at treating the same condition, likely failed to make it past various stages of the development process over time. The typical time it takes to bring a drug to market is about 8 years. It typically costs about 800 million dollars in R&D to bring one drug to market. That accounts for 8 years of research and development on several drugs, of which one will make it past all animal testing for efficacy, dosage, etc, and then finally get granted FDA approval.

Why is this significant? Because it means that the "evil" drug companies typically only have between 3 and 5 years to recover all of their initial investment from 500million to 1 billion dollars, and THEN, and only THEN to turn a profit, as all companies in business wish to do. If a company succeeds with a drug and it is successful, the rewards can be great! The company gets to turn a good profit, it employs thousands of people, and not only that, it benefits the lives of millions of people not just in the United States but in other countries around the world.

What is the point of all of this? The INCENTIVE of being able to reap an unlimited amount of profits is what DRIVES companies to make such a huge investment into unknown novel substances to treat diseases in humans. Without the possibility of a great payoff, medical innovation would move at a snails pace, if not halt completely. What country is responsible for the VAST MAJORITY of research and development of new novel drugs, medical devices, and medical procedures? The United States. Why is this the case? Because of our unique health care industry where companies are free to turn huge profits for their share holders. It may not bode well with many people that yes, these companies actually make a profit, like any other business in the world. But people must understand that it is these profits which drive these innovations.
If we eliminate the ability for the private sector to reap huge profits, or if we penalize them and tax them, we will see the pace of medical innovation slow. From time to time academic institutions make a discovery but the place is slow and arduous, and if it is left solely up to academic institutions working off of NIH grants (Bureaucrats in Washington with no medical education deciding which institutions get grant money, and which medical conditions and drugs are worth researching) then people will die. They will die because the pace of medical innovation will come screeching to a halt, and drugs and medical procedures that may have saved thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of lives will either never be developed, or will be developed at a pace 10 times as long as at present in our quasi-free market health care system.

glad to see this was pointed out.

[lovbyts]

glad to see this was pointed out.

I think the point is when the profit becomes more important than the medicine and problems, side effects, deaths and sometimes the lack of results are overlooked due to profit and money exchange under the table.

There are many good meds out there available in other countries with less side effects, lower cost, safer but not allowed in the US because of profit from other companies paying someone off (FDA) not to approve them.

[thegodfather]

I think the point is when the profit becomes more important than the medicine and problems, side effects, deaths and sometimes the lack of results are overlooked due to profit and money exchange under the table.

There are many good meds out there available in other countries with less side effects, lower cost, safer but not allowed in the US because of profit from other companies paying someone off (FDA) not to approve them.

Can you link me to an article or a study that shows who gets paid off and in what amounts? Or is this simply conjecture?

Yes, you can find medicines in other countries which are not available here, but not for the reasons you mentioned. For instance, you are able to goto Europe and have available to you more chemotherapy options which may be just beginning clinical trials here in the United States. The reason is that the US has in place checks and hoops to jump through before a medication is approved in humans by the FDA. We have loopholes where experimental drugs can be used in "compassionate use" scenarios for critically ill patients who the benefits outweigh the risks of using an unproven medication on.

Generally though, our medications once approved are much safer. And incidences like Vioxx and FenFen while tragic, PALE in comparison to the number of new drugs which gain FDA approval each year and do NOT have massive recalls. It is a trade off, the amount of time, money, and extra research that goes into making sure a medication's efficacy and relatively safe before it comes to market. Such checks and balances are not in place in Europe, and while they are able to bring drugs to market sooner, does not mean they are safer. Also keep in mind in Europe, if you are hurt because of a medication, it is significantly harder to get reparations and damages from those companies. If a doctor performs malpractice on you in a country with a National Healthcare System, you are essentially going to have to sue the government, do you know how well that usually works out?

[BG]

Its like going for a swim in a pool full of shit, then complaining when someone takes a piss in it.. wtf?

No thats funny.

[BG]

Bo, let me fill you in a little bit here.

Their profits are not "large" relative to their investment.

You crazy, they make assholes full of money. Alot of the drugs are made over seas and then the US pharmacy fight for the patents in court. This summer Ill go down and take a pic of the guy who owns Pfizer yacht, $150 million dollars, its called perfect prescription.

[Kratos]

According to whom?

Well, Massachusetts for 1, who has seen their health care costs go up 46 percent, exceeding the national average substantially. Despite the fact they are pushing hospitals into bankruptcy in lower income areas. The way it works is if you don't pay hospitals well through medicare, they have to make it up on the people who have comercial insurance. Except these populations are not always in the same geographic area.

where you're going wrong here...If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.
Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

but you're more concerned with who says....
hmmm
well, there have been over 600 studies on the subject.

a definitive review in the New England Journal of Medicine of hundreds of studies that found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.
So to be clear, it's not that all preventative medicine is bad, or more expensive. Some things pay off. Most do not, and the net effect is higher costs.

the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

In fact when it comes to preventative testing, America spends a boat load. The number of people who get mamograms, rectal exams ect is way higher. Now we're finding out a lot of those mamograms were a waste and changing the criteria for when you should get one. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

it was noted by insurancenet.com that Ohio, in 2005 had 250 MRI's as opposed to Canada with 151. And no there aren't more people in Ohio then Canada, not even close to as many.

If anything we overtest in the US because of the legal climate. Real preventative care would involve diet and exercise. Ask any doctor how effective it is to stress diet and exercise to their patients. Better yet ask one who's told a women they need to loose weight for their health. LMFAO, they want to try to live through the exam.

[Kratos]

I worked for a large medical device company and was part of rolling out a revoloutionary new product as an alternative to spine fusion.
We beat the market by 4 years or so, and still have the best product on the market.
The company spent over 1 billion dollars to bring to market.
it will never turn a profit because by the time insurance covers the operation the market conditions will change.
it was a gamble for the promise of profits.

I was in a doctors office not too long ago as part of my job. He had a bunch of screws and plates and hardware on his desk and to be dramatic he threw them all in the trash. He said in 20 years we aren't going to be using any of this, that's how fast things are moving.

In fact we have protein derived growth factors that can grow bone anywhere just by squirting it through a syringe. It will attract the nessicary stem cells and bone will be there eventually. That's on the market already and represents 30 years of research.
We have hopefully master molecules on the horizon that can grow any tissue. 10-20 years down the road of studies and research.
meaning...you need a spine fusion...nah, we'll just inject this in your disc space and the cartilage is all better.

I was part of running a clinical trial with a small start up company funded by venture capitol. The results were good, but not as good as expected. So the company ended up spending 50millon of borrowed money and folded.
how do you convince people to loan out 50 million? The promise that maybe they'll get more back.

I'm sorry but if you eliminate profit...who the hell is gonna bother? You take the US system offline as far as profits and there isn't a whole lot to get excited about. A lot of these companies do business in gvmt run health care at minimal margins only because it's better then nothing and bank a ton in the US.

You want to help cut costs...how about asking your doc if there is a generic that's almost as good...not interested...no problem it won't be your choice forever.

I skipped an MD because every doc I talked to told me it wasn't worth it except for specific specialties.

[Kratos]

I
There are many good meds out there available in other countries with less side effects, lower cost, safer but not allowed in the US because of profit from other companies paying someone off (FDA) not to approve them.

for example?

[Kratos]

You crazy, they make assholes full of money. Alot of the drugs are made over seas and then the US pharmacy fight for the patents in court. This summer Ill go down and take a pic of the guy who owns Pfizer yacht, $150 million dollars, its called perfect prescription.

I could also go take a picture not to far from where I live Pfizer global R and D is closing a 3/4 of a million square foot complex they built less then 10 years ago. They still don't have a new cash cow once Lipitor goes off patent.

and yeah they buy technology...but if you buy the wrong technology or pay to much, it can get expensive. They can market it more efficently then the company who developed it. Little bio-techs would rather take the lump sum rather than develop a sales force and marketing deparment. It's common sense really.

http://elitechoice.org/2009/06/09/pf...-private-jets/

they're in cost cutting mode to prepare for post lipitor reality.


torcetrapib had to be halted in development and that was the replacement.

just because you have boat envy doesn't make profit wrong...and in the long run lipitor will be on the market forever for next to nothing once it goes off patent.

150million dollar yacht, who owns it? pfizer or ex-ceo? are you sure it's that much. To my knowledge the largest yacht ever was paul allen's (microsoft) at 200 million. Do you want to nationalize the software industry...having a computer is barely an option anymore.

[Kratos]

Well this is where I think our system needs to be fixed..... the health insurance company should not be allowed to dictate who lives, dies, gets coverage, doesn't get coverage.....

~Haz~

someone will always have to make those choices

[Kratos]

In addition to the previous taxes
The bill also would limit the amount of money you can put in a flexible spending account to pay medical expenses to $2,500 starting in 2013. Those using an indoor tanning salon will pay a 10 percent tax starting this year.

Why limit flexible spending? Tax money I'm gonna spend on health care anyway? Seems stupid.

[Kratos]

Fantasy Math = Fantasy Money

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.
The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

http://2164th.blogspot.com/2010/03/f...ealthcare.html

former director of the CBO quotes

[Kratos]

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

current CBO director

[Iron_Pig]

Is "medical coverage" really such a bad thing to force on people?

That's a serious question.

Let's say you've been saving up for a truck and you've got $15k, and then your appendix decides to get inflamed. That's your savings down the drain.

Even worse, let's say your appendix gets inflamed and you simply don't have any money saved up.

Or imagine you get diagnosed with lung cancer and you've got no money.

Or you're doing squats, you tear some cartilage, and you haven't got the money to get it fixed.

Where I'm from, in Britain, these things don't happen. You go to the hospital, you get treated, you leave. They don't chase you down with a bill for thousands of pounds.

Maybe the transition to free healthcare will be a bumpy ride for the USA... but it's a ride you all would have to take at some stage... there was always going to be a point when a wealthy, civilised society would evolve to provide free healthcare for the people who can't afford it.

I call bullshit on this mate. And I dough you are a brit and can say this crap.