Has Bush found out you can't be all things?

[TX1911fan]

Ceetee, I don't think we are ok with our costs being higher because Canada regulates prices there, but there is not much we can do. The drug companies limit the amounts of drugs sold to the Canadian market, hence CANADA's attempts to prohibit Americans from buying drugs over the Internet. They were worried, and rightly so, about shortages. If the US also regulates prices on drugs, then the Pharma companies will stop doing as much research. They will do some, yes, but not as much. You'll still pay for it, just in taxes instead of in medical costs.

The problem with people in this country is that we think certain things should be free. How ridiculous is that? Is my water free? Nope, and without water, I die in a couple days. How about my food? Nope, and without that, I can last maybe a couple weeks, if I have water. How about clothing? Nope, not free either. But medicine? Medical services? Oh sure, that should be free for sure. We can't have people dying because medical care and drugs cost so much, now can we!

 

[bogie]

Some countries don't really recognize US patents as much as we'd like them to. When a drug is "discovered," it is patented. It can then take 5-6 or more years for it to be approved for sale. The patent gives the companies (very little pharma research is government-funded - mostly political diseases, and most academic research is done using grants from the pharma companies) a chance to recover their investment, and possibly make a profit.

In some cases, Canada closest, if a drug company will not sell its drug at the state-set prices, the state authorizes production of a generic version. Usually the pharma company will make some money, but it's generally a little above break even. Eventually, the situation will swing far enough that investors will be able to realize greater return on their money in other sectors, and then you can forget about new drugs.

If you do not like pharma companies making a profit, set a date a decade or so in the past, and do not use ANY non-generic drugs.

While you're at it, quit throwing perfectly good money at your automobile. It doesn't need $10 worth of wash/wax every few weeks. It'll run just fine if you don't change or add lubricants (at least until it doesn't...). Most of us spend FAR more money on our automobiles (in many cases status symbols) than we do on our health, even when a few dollars a month has the potential of adding years of activity to our lives.

What does a heart attack cost you? Can you put a money value on it? $50,000? If you can take a pill that costs a buck a day, and avoid a heart attack, that's cheap. But people get their bottle from the pharmacist, see a $30 price tag on it, and freak...

 

[Dravur]

TANSTAAFL

Those of you who know what TANSTAAFL might understand this. Those of the Socialist "Money is magical and grows on trees" viewpoint will probably miss the point. One of the points on the Demo "Free ride on at Government Expense" Bus is that all the states would band together and force the drug companies to sell drugs to medicaid at cut-rate prices.... WOW, what a bennie, if you are on medicaid. All the oldsters will be able to purchase Viagra for a nickle....

Now, here is the rub, the Pharmaceuticals must get money from somewhere, so guess what? If you ain't on Medicare, bend over and take your medicine. You will see prices skyrocket for people not on the system. This will force more and more people to be on medicare and so on and so on. This will result in no R&D budgets and those of you with diseases with no pills or resistant to current antibiotics... well, tough toenails! but, you will be able to get Viagra at cut-rate prices.

If any of the lefties in here can tell me of one example where the US Government stepped in and managed a business and that Business did BETTER than the private sector, I wish you would let me know.

I love this one....
"The government" can actually change the depreciation schedule for development costs or even provide other tax incentives to prevent some development costs from being passed to the consumer.
__________________
RealGun

So, let's see, the consumer doesn't pick up the costs on the back end when they buy the pills... No no, the Taxpayer pays for it up front! great idea.

TANSTAAFL

 

[Borachon]

Color coded terror warning system. Patriot Act. Suspension of freedoms. Library book checks. Advocation of torture.

Didn't win many admirers around where I live for those.

 

[ArmedBear]

If any of the lefties in here can tell me of one example where the US Government stepped in and managed a business and that Business did BETTER than the private sector, I wish you would let me know.

Offhand I can only think of a couple of government enterprises that have been truly successful, as in doing what they were supposed to.

1. The Lottery in the US (aka Tax on People with Bad Math Skills). These have been run by State governments. The Lottery provides no real utility; it merely exploits the addictive urges of those who don't understand TANSTAAFL.

2. The Kalashnikov in the USSR. A damn nice weapon, for what it is. As much as some of us like to play with guns, you've got to admit that the, on the whole, AK is just a more efficient tool for killing people, often innocent people whose only crime is to object to being oppressed by their rulers.

So there you have it: a ripoff scheme and a killing machine.

Neither one of these will replace modern American medicine, faulty though it may be.

 

[ceetee]

If any of the lefties in here can tell me of one example where the US Government stepped in and managed a business and that Business did BETTER than the private sector, I wish you would let me know.

I just did a quick google search on a few terms, and can't find anything to verify this, so take it for what it's worth...

I read a story in Science Magazine some years back (mid-80's, I'd guess) regarding the origins of the "Health Maintenance" idea. Seems some enterprising government laddies over in the U.K. came up with an idea on how to reduce the cost of health care. The way I remember the story, they chose a small village, went in with some doctors, and nutritionists, and interviewed everybody in the village. One of the key questions asked was "How are you feeling today?" An overwhelming majority of villagers responded that they were not feeling well.

They gave everyone nutritional advice, took care of whatever actual medical problems they found, encouraged excercise and a more healthy lifestyle, and waited. Every month, every person was interviewed again. As more time passed, more and more people responded that they were feeling well, and not unwell.

The end result was that the first year or so, health costs were higher than normal, but thereafter, costs fell to a fraction of the national average.

Maybe some of our U.K. members might remember some of this...

Besides which... I'm not averse to pharmaceutical companies making a profit. I just don't want to pay for other countries subsidies. I think there should be some kind of regulation of the drug companies besides "which lobbyist can you pay the most". Same as gas... I don't want to pay the cost of our little Iraq adventure every time I fill my tank.

 

[Hazzard]

All of that said, Americans over 50 are addicted to drugs. Many people take 10 kinds of pills daily, when a decent diet and regular exercise would help most of them.

Armedbear, you get the A+ for truth on this one. Not just over 50 though. I have a nephew who, on the advice of his pediatrician, was once on 13 different medications. He was constantly sick. My sister finaly said "enough is enough" and consulted another doctor. The new doctor's response? OMG, why is he taking all of this?" He weened him off of the medications and the boy, who is now 11, leads a normal life and is healthy as a horse.

 

[Y.T.]

I remember reading a pharmacologist's essay in a newspaper here.. about how the
Big Pharma isn't really into R&D, and mainly capitalizes on university research.

The lady in question was from the MIT... (newspaper was Slovak)..
One point was, that government can afford to lose money in unprofitable ventures.. *
but corporations are not into losses.

One thing about medicine.. my mother is an MD. She has a working knowledge of English, and regularily reads US medical papers, studies.. etc.
(english is de-facto a must for all MDs... in some places, like Iraq, medicine is taught only in English)

Patients get stressed, are moved from place to place.. etc.
Medicine shouldnt be a business. I mean... businesses want to make more money, increase their ARPU (average revenue per user). Healthy people dont need any medication.

She claims, that the US practice of "defensive" medicine.. that is subjecting the patient to a whole host of procedures, some of them unnecessary, all of them costing money, is in fact more dangerous than what we do in Europe (not so many tests, no defensive medicine, more pondering)

She is under pressure from pharmaceutic companies to treat patients with more expensive drugs.. and not always the more expensive drug is the ideal one.
(sales representatives visit M.D.s.. you get the idea)

M.Ds who write out many prescriptions for expensive medications are frequently invited to various congresses or meetings organized by Pharma companies.
Usually.. in places most people pay to visit. (Rome, Athens, Brazilian resorts... )

Same as gas... I don't want to pay the cost of our little Iraq adventure every time I fill my tank.

Your govt meant well.. they wanted to secure the oil there for the US.
It did not work out..

If the US werent so car - dependent, and instead used a more collectivistic form of transport (streetcars, electric trains), there wouldnt have been an Iraq war.

Kalashnikov is also a boon for opressed people. If they have enough of them, they can drive out bad government.. There is an essay from Orwell about "democratic - rifles, molotovs, SMGs " and "undemocratic - tank, bombers, nukes" weapon systems..

 

[bogie]

Thank the lawyers for a good portion of a lot of US costs...

And most of those tests. A guy says he has indigestion. Well, he's in the hospital because he broke his ankle, but they won't blame the hospital food... Wham, it's a hookup to the big screen, blood gas tests, etc., etc... Then they give him a coupla rolaids...

What drives me nuts is that they don't listen to the patients anymore - they just look at test results.

Because the test results get brought up in court.

And as for the Iraq war... We went and kicked ass on the biggest baddest SOB in the region, scared the bejabbers outta folks like Khadaffy (hey, pick your spelling...), and sent one helluva message. He was PAYING people to attack us. He was FINANCING their training. He had THOUSANDS of people killed...

Maybe he'll write a book about how he shoulda done it...

 

[Art Eatman]

I've watched medical costs increase as government involvement has increased; Bush's "free pills for old farts" is merely part. Somebody has to make up for the subsidies of MediCare and Medicaid. Soembody has to pay for the extra office space for the extra staff to deal with the madated paperwork.

Malpractice insurance for an orthopedic surgeon runs some $1,000 a week--fifteen years ago. In Florida, malpractice insurance for an ob/gun was roughly $250K a year. I hear that Nevada is now in that same deal, and they're short of ob/gyn folks. TANSTAAFL; somebody's gotta pay for that.

Ten years back, it was generally accepted that a new anti-biotic cost some $125 million in R&D. Then came the FDA requirements for testing, before the new goodie could be put on the market.

Many pills and potions are reverse-engineered overseas and sold as generics.

Old guys like me are the largest voting bloc in the country, which is why in 2000 Gore campaigned on the free-pill deal in Florida, and why Bush pushed for and got it. Unfortunately, we didn't appreciate the goodies enough to help the Republicans who got it passed. Dunno what this new crop of Dems will do; rumors are that Hillaryplan will be resurrected.

So, yeah, Bush tried to be Big Poppa To Us All, as we all said we wanted.

We lied.

Art