Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
What part isn't true?
I’ve been a capitalist my entire life, I believe in the profit motive, and yet I can’t deny this fact.
Never had an issue with you before, don't want one with you now. But this is the point in the conversation where the worm has decidedly turned from defending an argument to frustrated internet insults. I'm bowing out. Good day to you, sir.
Turn the system on its head. When people oay insurance, they get coverage. The healthcare network that gets assigned their dollars gets a flat fee for the year. The incentive then is on keeping the person healthy, so they don't need service.
You said a free market model by the US couldn't work with the global market, even though it does in just about every other imaginable way, because it'd be a square peg in a round hole or something. You said that everyone else would have to be on board for it to work. Yet Canada is on board with selling drugs at discount to US patients, even though the US doesn't have the same healthcare system. It doesn't support your point at all.What part isn't true?
To the bold, it's because our politicians have a lot of money dumped in their pockets by drug companies to keep things just as they are. Drug companies love having the US in their back pocket as a way to "make up" for the profits they perceive they are losing in the rest of the world. The example you provide is in support of my point, not detracting from it
I was reading your comments in the context of your entire post though I only quoted part of it. Let me back up a second. Without changing current Canadian systems and without changing current US systems an agreement between our two countries isn't a "free market" model. It's not even close. It's but ONE aspect of things that would have to change in order to get to the "free market" you seemed to be talking about. Now, if you want to talk about specific trade agreements to make some aspects better between countries, then by all means.....let's talk about them, but it's not accurate to call that anything close to "free market". That's an agreement between us and them. That's pretty limiting. Sorry, I wasn't clearer before.ren hoek said:
Just saw this notification. Thanks for posting. I remember reading it and being really impressed that someone was able to put aside party and take a holistic look at what was wrong with our current health care situation.
Please identify "everywhere else" that has Federal Government provided healthcare for all. Hint: I doubt there are nearly as many examples as you think there are.
Amen. We need to respect the sacred oath of marriage again and appropriately socially ostracise those that don't adhere to that sacred bond.
From Who Funds Biomedical Research?
Your comment above, where you say "created by funding from the NIH or NSF" is misleading. Government funding contributes primarily to basic research. Basic research is obviously necessary and funding that is very important, but a new drug cannot be brought to market based solely upon basic research. Additional applied research is required to do that, and the cost of that is greater than the cost of the basic research.
Paupers, probably not. But it is indisputable that doctors would make less in a "Medicare for All" system than they do in the current system. That is obvious by virtue of the fact that Medicare payouts to doctors are lower than insurance company payouts. That is why many doctors cap their number of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
The comment I was replying to was specifically in the context of the fear that drug companies would stop trying to find NEW cures. They don't (rarely) do that now. Period. Full stop. When it comes to new frontiers, they piggyback almost exclusively off research funded by our government. That is where the new frontiers are forged...not the private sector. This narrative that the private sector drives this aspect has to stop. It's completely false. What IS true is when companies see a way to make boatloads of money they will dump research dollars into it. When they see a way to tweak something to make it different enough to get a new patent on an old drug to maintain exclusivity they dump money into the research. Outside of that, they don't forge unexplored areas all that much. The way we kill innovation is if we defund our research institutions.
I have no problem with this outcome as it's a worthwhile tradeoff for a more extensive, more efficient, more transparent, and less burdensome health care and insurance system.
You are glossing over the fact that industry spends more than $60B annually attempting to bring new drugs to market.
I also can agree that the reduced revenue for pharma and the attendant drop in research $ is a worthwhile tradeoff for the things I outlined above. Increasing access, reducing barriers to health screenings and preventive medicine, and reducing the likelihood of medical bankruptcy will be better for the populace than the next high priced cancer drug / treatment that works on only one specific type of cancer.
Guy says that garbage men are making as much (or more) as he does. And I’m pretty sure he’s pulling at least 250k as an anesthesiologist, maybe more. Guess logic is not your thing.
No...I addressed that in my initial post. Approx 90% of that $60 billion for "new" drugs is simply new versions of the same drug, most of which the changes making them "new" are just enough to get new patents. They are rarely substantial improvement to the drugs and their effects. And we'll disagree that basic research does not result in new drugs on the market. I provided links above (or maybe in one of the other threads, I've lost track) of how that government sponsored research is the fundamental building block for those new drugs. Without that research and it's findings the drug companies would never have them because they aren't doing that sort of innovative research...which is basically my entire point to that specific part of his post.
Only? No. Primarily? Absolutely. Their investment is strategic in what's going to benefit the company first. But I want to be clear. This conversation started with the talking points about why Medicare for All is bad. And one of the common arguments is "because if we move that direction, it takes the incentive for companies to innovate and create new drugs/cures". I will push back on that every time because it's already not true that they spend their time in foundational science plowing new paths. They don't. That foundational work is done primarily in research labs funded by the government.
I have never seen a comprehensive study of what the specific pros and cons are that takes everything into account. By everything, here are some examples:
With your recent spate of postings I had assumed that you had already done comprehensive research. We have other, much longer and more detailed threads about this subject. Perhaps you could read through some of those and the links within them and get back to us.
Like I said, that's a trade I'm willing to make. Those that without health coverage or would go bankrupt under our current system are a bigger problem than finding one more drug.
I have done plenty of reading on the subject, including different sources that address everything I listed. As I said, I have yet to find a single comprehensive source that presents all pros and cons without being biased, whether biased in favor or against.
That's great that you are willing to bet that neither you nor any of your loved ones will be the ones who need that next cancer drug that won't come to market in favor of broader coverage for others.
But like he said, there is also the risk of a loved one not having insurance or quality insurance and going broke trying to pay to treat said cancer. Ideally, I think we would have a pool of money that all countries contributed to that funded medical RnD. Also is it possible that the universities can handle more medical research? Just some thoughts because you are right that the U.S. does a significant amount of research in this area and we don't want to see quality dip.
I literally posted average salaries using the Canadian model most are using as a basis for Medicare for All and showed how much more Canadians were making than Americans in the same field. By the way if we get the tuition reduction we are fighting for perhaps doctors won't be as much in debt as they are.
A few things.
The problem of doctors’ salaries
That last source also says this:
This suggests that, even if Canadian general practitioners do make more than their US counterparts, that would still be an apples to oranges comparison, since Canadian GPs are responsible for more than US GPs.
Sorry I missed that the first time. Working now will try to get it for you when I get a chance later.
They lie because they have multiple court cases against pre existing conditions. Including one from Trump This is not a debate.
I've opined before that single payer would be a boon to entrepreneurship in this country. American businesses are keeping a low profile, however, and many have suggested that it involves this very issue, that businesses fear a work force not hamstrung by employer based insurance. Not many of those people seem bothered by it to the extent that I am, though.
