79 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

Note the phrase "millions of heart-attack patients". Is my argument looking that crazy now? And this is just in the U.S. The whole world gets a free ride off the backs of the american consumers because of price controls. How many lives have already been saved by U.S. innovation?

That's not the part of your argument that's crazy. The crazy part is the idea that Democrats are going to institute some sort of Stalinist Health Regime and that pharmaceutical innovation will be totally quashed. BTW, most of big pharma is international, not US.

Key word here is mandatory. Next thing you know it'll be against the law to butter a roll.


Edwards backs mandatory preventive care

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 2, 6:30 PM ET



TIPTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care "ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single American?"

"Because if it doesn't they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care," he said. "Because in my view, everybody is worth health care."

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.

Edwards, who has been criticized by some for calling on Americans to be willing to give up their SUVs while driving one, acknowledged Sunday that he owns a Ford Escape hybrid SUV, purchased within the year, and a Chrysler Pacificia, which he said he has had for years.

"I think all of us have to move, have to make progress," he said. "I'm not holyier-than-thou about this. ... I'm like a lot of Americans, I see how serious this issue is and I want to address it myself and I want to help lead the nation in the right direction."

He said he would not buy another SUV in the future.

The Ford Escape, the first hybrid SUV on the market, gets an estimated 36 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway.

http://news.yahoo.co...el_pr/edwards_2

Hehe, I find Edward's hypocracy regarding SUV's amusing. I don't think that his preventative care will do much good. If people want to eat unhealthily, they still will. If they want to smoke and get lung cancer, they still will. If you want to be healthy, well, you have to want to be healthy :-). And I don't like being forced to go to the doctor. Frankly, I can take better care of myself than the government. If he was really serious about health care, he would devote much more resources to medical research and make cigarettes as illegal as marijuana. Frankly, I think the guy is a hypocrite.

[Futurist1000]

So far it doesn't appear that anyone has invalidated my main points.

It seems like several people verbally attack me without even reading any my posts. I won't mention any names. Then they provide no decent evidence to back up their claims. Fun.

I guess people take politics way too seriously.

I don't take my conclusions as being absolute. What's really funny is that people will attack me for being stubborn on my opinion when they themselves don't even seem to want to hear my argument. I guess we tend to collect evidence that fits with our own world view and ignore other data that goes against it. That is what we were designed to do. I'm sure that I am guilty of it. I too am human.

See my post on intelligence below. I used to think that intelligence was something absolute, but now after posting on this forum, I'm begining to realize it really is relative.

Intelligence Post

You can be the judge of whether my conclusions are "right" or "wrong". I hope that it shows that "right" and "wrong" are relative anyway. Universal healthcare might be GOOD for you if you currently don't have insurance. But if you have alzhiemer's disease, Universal healthcare could be bad as price controls would result in fewer new effective medicines. But we have to place things in neat little packages otherwise our brain would be in a constant state of upheavals. People are good are evil in our brains, but in reality there are degrees to everything. We tend to make quick judgements about things without ever listening to the other side. It just wouldn't be healthy though to continuously be reaching new conclusions, so we tend to fall into a redudant pattern of thinking.

I'm not really all that political. In fact the more I think about it, the more I have come to realize I hate politics. I hate Bush and many aspects of the U.S. government but what am I going to do?

The government seems to be an entity. Sometimes we have to treat this entity as being hostile. We can't expect government to always have good intentions even if it is a democracy. A democracy ultimately means a government ruled by the majority, so some people will get sidelined.

At the very least, the conclusion I'm presenting is worth considering only because of its implications for human suffering overall. I am most certainly not the only person who has come to this conclusion either.

If you think my conclusion is wrong, that's fine. Voting for a democrat probably won't be the end of the world.

You always have to get into the other side of the argument. I certainly try and if it appears that I am being one sided, then I apologize.

Several years ago I used to think the democrats were BETTER than the republicans, but looking at different evidence and coming from a different perspective, now I think democrats are worse on many aspects of the economy.

Eh that's the end of my rant.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 05:46 AM.

[suspire]

I'll apologize for the ad hominen attack; it wasn't fair, but your own initial posts were highly inflammatory and insulting and honestly, couldn't be taken seriously. That said, since you've edited it, it doesn't deserve my prior harsh words.

As for debating your main points, this issue is so huge and you've made so many massive assumptions, boiled down the variables to far more simplistic concepts than is the case and ignored or called counter statements propoganda(if you'd fully read the one article I did post, you'd see it wasn't propoganda. In fact, it'd counter some of what you're saying, since it illustrates the high tax rate we've had up to the 70s and how it actually did not negatively impact the nation's growth. I'd say, a lot of your pieces posted were closer to Big Pharma propoganda than anything I've said/posted). Moreover, you've made some pretty wide ranging economic predictations and analysis on tenuous or, at times, irrelevant/incompatible(Europe is not the U.S. for at least a hundred different reasons) data.

I mean, arguments that the U.S. is the leading innovator in medical technology could come from so many variables--differing education systems(for instance, India's education system stamps out creativity in favor of rote memorization, which makes them great at replicating technology produced by the U.S., but terrible at more innovative technological contributions), immigration and citizenship policies(which are vastly superior to most other nations in the world--giving incentive for the best and the brightest to come to America), economic hardships in other nations, post WW II effects, etc. I mean, the list goes on--saying price caping or socialist systems are the reason why U.S. is now dominant in medical innovation is, sheesh, really boiling things down to the simplist of ideas.

Moreover, "medical innovations" is a broad category--Big Pharma puts out stuff like drugs for Restless Leg Syndrome and other "problems" we supposedly have--it
may be putting out loads of new drugs, but what do the drugs do/what are they for, what side effects do they have, are they actually new or simply variations on older drugs, etc? It has marketed like mad in recent years, putting out new drugs in a "shock and awe" campaign, oversaturing us with the idea that we are all desperately ill and need fifty different types of prescription drugs to stay alive--these "new innovations"(which are often near replica of older drugs) that they have come out with(and I am not saying all their drugs are bad--but a lot are useless and more than a few have some serious short term and long term side effects).

You also ignore that Big Pharma isn't pro-capitalist, but rather monopolistic(as a bloc)--it is against foreign competition in U.S markets in the generic drug market, it has made sure Congress passed(through what I consider all but out and out bribery--once against, the very antithesis of free market...60 Minutes had a great piece on this) the Medicare drug benefit bill that disallowed Medicare from bargaining with Big Pharma for lower prices(once again, the antithesis of free market! Other organizations, like the Veterans Association, are able to negotiate, in a market place environment, for better prices for their customers with Big Pharma).

Even with Universal Healthcare and the *possibility* of lower fixed prices, there is no certainty that Big Pharma won't be making massive profits, because in the end, they'll be selling to a wider base since all Americans will be able to afford their drugs. Additionally, the money they put into R&D is just a tiny portion of Big Pharma's budget and a lot of the innovations come out of the public, not private sector(which would actually recommend we raise taxes and give more grants to public research institutions). And moreover, there are multiple universal healthcare concepts being bandied about, some even endorsed by Republicans with free market principles: http://www.tnr.com/d...10&s=cohn091007

The issue is massive, gigantic, and much more complex than you've laid it out to be. It does not follow that because the U.S. is a leader in medical innovation(and once again, there are a lot of disclaimers on that title), it is because of the U.S.'s lack of universal healthcare and price fixing. The variables and extenuating circumstances that you ignore are too long to list. I read and watch a ton of media across the spectrum, right to left, from Z Magazine, the Nation, the New Republic, BBC, the NY Times to the WSJ, Fox News, National Review, the Weekly Standard and pieces put out by think tanks on both sides. While on occassion you will get pundits from either camp making simplistic analysis of the situation, it is generally a rarity(though it has gotten worse in this polarized, ideologically driven political climate). So before unfurling the Big Pharma flag, go out and do more research--from the opposing point of view. But I am honestly not motivated to do it for you, spend all that time and put up a dozen or more links on the topic--the cost/reward ratio isn't worth it. If you want to educate yourself, the information is out there for you to make a more nuanced decision on the topic.

I will leave you with one link that takes to task a lot of your assumptions and you can sort through it and decide its validity on your own: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

In the end, however, I am not a single-issue voter. Even if everything you said was correct, politics, especially modern politics, is so much more complex, with so much more riding on voting for the right candidates than any time prior. And we've seen the impact of single party rule(Republican control of Congress and the Presidency) until 2006. A healthy political environment requires a give and take between both parties(or multiple parties), with us voting for the best candidates possible.

EDIT: If you're still worried about the Democrats "harming" Big Pharma by the end of your research, here is something to warm your restless nights: The Democrats are just as bought by Big Pharma lobbyists as the Republicans. And since her failed attempted at universal health care, I believe Hillary Clinton has happily been funded by various lobbyists of Big Pharma and the HMOs. You can be assured that Congress has been so thoroughly bought and paid for by Big Pharma that there is little chance of bills being passed by either party that will dent their profit margin one iota.

Edited by suspire, 08 September 2007 - 09:05 PM.

[DJS]

HRC, believe it or not I use to be a hard core conservative once upon a time (although never in terms of social policy like gay marriage, etc). Then I flipped in the opposite direction. And now, quite frankly, I care very little about politics. It doesn't constitute part of my identity. It's just "stuff" that has virtually no practical consequence on either my intellectual or "every day" life. So when I make a comment but then fail to thoroughly engage you in debate, it's not that I couldn't defend my position if absolutely required to do so, nor is it that I'm trying to be snide or patronizing to you. What's actually the case is that your comments...irritate me (sort of like how pinko liberal comments probably irritate you [lol] ), but after making an initial comment (I'm terrible with impulse control) I find I am too apathetic to craft a vigorous response.

Of course, this is the politics forum. Thus, as wing girl said earlier, political debate is to be expected. I just tend to have the really bad habit of bitching about the general loss of quality discussions on the ImmInst forum. Politics is fairly pointless to me when there are so many much more pressing topics to ponder like free will vs determinism, philosophy of mind and consciousness, evolutionary theory, the nature of truth...

I view politics in much the same way that I view religion. There are certain underlying suppositions and *values* which frame the debate and usually cause people to talk past each other.

Maybe, if political discussion started with a declaration of personal values, the conversations would be more productive. For instance, two of my core values, politically, are *equal opportunity* and *individual rights*. These two values are in a perpetual state of conflict where neither will allow the other to be absolutely fulfilled. And this will probably remain the case as long as there is scarcity of resources.

PS - I also believe that the rise of mixed economies was not a coincidence, but a logical consequence of the general progress of cultural evolution.

[suspire]

Of course, this is the politics forum. Thus, as wing girl said earlier, political debate is to be expected. I just tend to have the really bad habit of bitching about the general loss of quality discussions on the ImmInst forum. 

Yeah, I generally have Technosophy's attitude when it comes to debating, well, just about anything on the internet. It seems fairly pointless to me, unless I am being paid to write, or I have a large(as in a lot of readers--I don't put much effort into writing for a half-dozen people) and at least somewhat receptive audience(I don't like preaching to the choir, but I do want to think people will be open to considering my POV). Or if I am debating with someone exceptionally intelligent and well versed on the topic who wants to exchange ideas--if I can learn from it, I am game.

But like Technosophy, I have poor impulse control; I get irritated and snap, ranting for a post or two, then wander away if it sounds like it'll be stale or the typical internet garbage/fanaticism.

EDIT: This isn't to imply your ideas are the aforementioned "typical internet garbage", but only that your initial post was, uh, well, kinda in that track until you edited it and added a lot more content in a more even-handed fashion.

Edited by suspire, 08 September 2007 - 07:22 AM.

[DJS]

I forget who originally posted this, but I think it gets the point across. [lol]

[Ghostrider]

Several years ago I used to think the democrats were BETTER than the republicans, but looking at different evidence and coming from a different perspective, now I think democrats are worse on many aspects of the economy.

I don't see how anyone can consider themselves to be a member of a political party. No party fits 100%. The issue is that politicians seek to stay in power and people vote for what they want, not according to utilitarian principles. So politicians simply tell the voters what they want to hear, based on polls, and whoever wins the high school popularity contest gets to write the rules. Nothing beats a benevolent dictator, except maybe an educated democracy. Actually, the problem is that in a democracy, stupid people can vote. Opinion counts, not logic.

[roidjoe]

I'll apologize for the ad hominen attack; it wasn't fair, but your own initial posts were highly inflammatory and insulting and honestly, couldn't be taken seriously. That said, since you've edited it, it doesn't deserve my prior harsh words.

As for debating your main points, this issue is so huge and you've made so many massive assumptions, boiled down the variables to far more simplistic concepts than is the case and ignored or called counter statements propoganda(if you'd fully read the one article I did post, you'd see it wasn't propoganda. In fact, it'd counter some of what you're saying, since it illustrates the high tax rate we've had up to the 70s and how it actually did not negatively impact the nation's growth. I'd say, a lot of your pieces posted were closer to Big Pharma propoganda than anything I've said/posted). Moreover, you've made some pretty wide ranging economic predictations and analysis on tenuous or, at times, irrelevant/incompatible(Europe is not the U.S. for at least a hundred different reasons) data.

I mean, arguments that the U.S. is the leading innovator in medical technology could come from so many variables--differing education systems(for instance, India's education system stamps out creativity in favor of rote memorization, which makes them great at replicating technology produced by the U.S., but terrible at more innovative technological contributions), immigration and citizenship policies(which are vastly superior to most other nations in the world--giving incentive for the best and the brightest to come to America), economic hardships in other nations, post WW II effects, etc. I mean, the list goes on--saying price caping or socialist systems are the reason why U.S. is now dominant in medical innovation is, sheesh, really boiling things down to the simplist of ideas.

Moreover, "medical innovcations" is a broad category--Big Pharma puts out stuff like drugs for Restless Leg Syndrome and other "problems" we supposedly have--it
may be putting out loads of new drugs, but what do the drugs do/what are they for, what side effects do they have, are they actually new or simply variations on older drugs, etc? It has marketed like mad in recent years, putting out new drugs in a "shock and awe" campaign, oversaturing us with the idea that we are all desperately ill and need fifty different types of prescription drugs to stay alive--these "new innovations"(which are often near replica of older drugs) that they have come out with(and I am not saying all their drugs are bad--but a lot are useless and more than a few have some serious short term and long term side effects).

You also ignore that Big Pharma isn't pro-capitalist, but rather monopolistic(as a bloc)--it is against foreign competition in U.S markets in the generic drug market, it has made sure Congress passed(through what I consider all but out and out bribery--once against, the very antithesis of free market...60 Minutes had a great piece on this) the Medicare drug benefit bill that disallowed Medicare from bargaining with Big Pharma for lower prices(once again, the antithesis of free market! Other organizations, like the Veterans Association, are able to negotiate, in a market place environment, for better prices for their customers with Big Pharma).

Even with Universal Healthcare and the *possibility* of lower fixed prices, there is no certainty that Big Pharma won't be making massive profits, because in the end, they'll be selling to a wider base since all Americans will be able to afford their drugs. Additionally, the money they put into R&D is just a tiny portion of Big Pharma's budget and a lot of the innovations come out of the public, not private sector(which would actually recommend we raise taxes and give more grants to public research institutions). And moreover, there are multiple universal healthcare concepts being bandied about, some even endorsed by Republicans with free market principles:  http://www.tnr.com/d...10&s=cohn091007

The issue is massive, gigantic, and much more complex than you've laid it out to be. It does not follow that because the U.S. is a leader in medical innovation(and once again, there are a lot of disclaimers on that title), it is because of the U.S.'s lack of universal healthcare and price fixing. The variables and extenuating circumstances that you ignore are too long to list. I read and watch a ton of media across the spectrum, right to left, from Z Magazine, the Nation, the New Republic, BBC, the NY Times to the WSJ, Fox News, National Review, the Weekly Standard and pieces put out by think tanks on both sides. While on occassion you will get pundits from either camp making simplistic analysis of the situation, it is generally a rarity(though it has gotten worse in this polarized, ideologically driven political climate). So before unfurling the Big Pharma flag, go out and do more research--from the opposing point of view. But I am honestly not motivated to do it for you, spend all that time and put up a dozen or more links on the topic--the cost/reward ratio isn't worth it. If you want to educate yourself, the information is out there for you to make a more nuanced decision on the topic.

I will leave you with one link that takes to task a lot of your assumptions and you can sort through it and decide its validity on your own: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

In the end, however, I am not a single-issue voter. Even if everything you said was correct, politics, especially modern politics, is so much more complex, with so much more riding on voting for the right candidates than any time prior. And we've seen the impact of single party rule(Republican control of Congress and the Presidency) until 2006. A healthy political environment requires a give and take between both parties(or multiple parties), with us voting for the best candidates possible.

[thumb] For the time and energy.

Let us assume that the democrats take office, offer price caps on drugs and institutionalize healthcare. Now, from hcs's post we assume it his belief that drug innovation will be hindered by this but there is another issue to look at. Will more lives be saved by drugs and healthcare being affordable to everyone or would more lives be saved by eventual dollars going into R&D for drug companies if this was not initiated? For the former we can guarantee lives will be saved, for the latter, we can't.

[Ghostrider]

I'll apologize for the ad hominen attack; it wasn't fair, but your own initial posts were highly inflammatory and insulting and honestly, couldn't be taken seriously. That said, since you've edited it, it doesn't deserve my prior harsh words.

As for debating your main points, this issue is so huge and you've made so many massive assumptions, boiled down the variables to far more simplistic concepts than is the case and ignored or called counter statements propoganda(if you'd fully read the one article I did post, you'd see it wasn't propoganda. In fact, it'd counter some of what you're saying, since it illustrates the high tax rate we've had up to the 70s and how it actually did not negatively impact the nation's growth. I'd say, a lot of your pieces posted were closer to Big Pharma propoganda than anything I've said/posted). Moreover, you've made some pretty wide ranging economic predictations and analysis on tenuous or, at times, irrelevant/incompatible(Europe is not the U.S. for at least a hundred different reasons) data.

I mean, arguments that the U.S. is the leading innovator in medical technology could come from so many variables--differing education systems(for instance, India's education system stamps out creativity in favor of rote memorization, which makes them great at replicating technology produced by the U.S., but terrible at more innovative technological contributions), immigration and citizenship policies(which are vastly superior to most other nations in the world--giving incentive for the best and the brightest to come to America), economic hardships in other nations, post WW II effects, etc. I mean, the list goes on--saying price caping or socialist systems are the reason why U.S. is now dominant in medical innovation is, sheesh, really boiling things down to the simplist of ideas.

Moreover, "medical innovcations" is a broad category--Big Pharma puts out stuff like drugs for Restless Leg Syndrome and other "problems" we supposedly have--it
may be putting out loads of new drugs, but what do the drugs do/what are they for, what side effects do they have, are they actually new or simply variations on older drugs, etc? It has marketed like mad in recent years, putting out new drugs in a "shock and awe" campaign, oversaturing us with the idea that we are all desperately ill and need fifty different types of prescription drugs to stay alive--these "new innovations"(which are often near replica of older drugs) that they have come out with(and I am not saying all their drugs are bad--but a lot are useless and more than a few have some serious short term and long term side effects).

You also ignore that Big Pharma isn't pro-capitalist, but rather monopolistic(as a bloc)--it is against foreign competition in U.S markets in the generic drug market, it has made sure Congress passed(through what I consider all but out and out bribery--once against, the very antithesis of free market...60 Minutes had a great piece on this) the Medicare drug benefit bill that disallowed Medicare from bargaining with Big Pharma for lower prices(once again, the antithesis of free market! Other organizations, like the Veterans Association, are able to negotiate, in a market place environment, for better prices for their customers with Big Pharma).

Even with Universal Healthcare and the *possibility* of lower fixed prices, there is no certainty that Big Pharma won't be making massive profits, because in the end, they'll be selling to a wider base since all Americans will be able to afford their drugs. Additionally, the money they put into R&D is just a tiny portion of Big Pharma's budget and a lot of the innovations come out of the public, not private sector(which would actually recommend we raise taxes and give more grants to public research institutions). And moreover, there are multiple universal healthcare concepts being bandied about, some even endorsed by Republicans with free market principles:  http://www.tnr.com/d...10&s=cohn091007

The issue is massive, gigantic, and much more complex than you've laid it out to be. It does not follow that because the U.S. is a leader in medical innovation(and once again, there are a lot of disclaimers on that title), it is because of the U.S.'s lack of universal healthcare and price fixing. The variables and extenuating circumstances that you ignore are too long to list. I read and watch a ton of media across the spectrum, right to left, from Z Magazine, the Nation, the New Republic, BBC, the NY Times to the WSJ, Fox News, National Review, the Weekly Standard and pieces put out by think tanks on both sides. While on occassion you will get pundits from either camp making simplistic analysis of the situation, it is generally a rarity(though it has gotten worse in this polarized, ideologically driven political climate). So before unfurling the Big Pharma flag, go out and do more research--from the opposing point of view. But I am honestly not motivated to do it for you, spend all that time and put up a dozen or more links on the topic--the cost/reward ratio isn't worth it. If you want to educate yourself, the information is out there for you to make a more nuanced decision on the topic.

I will leave you with one link that takes to task a lot of your assumptions and you can sort through it and decide its validity on your own: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

In the end, however, I am not a single-issue voter. Even if everything you said was correct, politics, especially modern politics, is so much more complex, with so much more riding on voting for the right candidates than any time prior. And we've seen the impact of single party rule(Republican control of Congress and the Presidency) until 2006. A healthy political environment requires a give and take between both parties(or multiple parties), with us voting for the best candidates possible.

[thumb] For the time and energy.

Let us assume that the democrats take office, offer price caps on drugs and institutionalize healthcare. Now, from hcs's post we assume it his belief that drug innovation will be hindered by this but there is another issue to look at. Will more lives be saved by drugs and healthcare being affordable to everyone or would more lives be saved by eventual dollars going into R&D for drug companies if this was not initiated? For the former we can guarantee lives will be saved, for the latter, we can't.

Popular topic.

The difference is that more R&D can cure or treat things which currently state-of-the-art medicine cannot treat. So the latter could save more lives. R&D can also reduce the cost of producing drugs. In the long run, I think we are better off with more R&D --> more stuff treatable + the ability to produce cheaper drugs = greater potential for human life savings. Do you want to cure cancer or just treat all cases of it?

[suspire]

I'll apologize for the ad hominen attack; it wasn't fair, but your own initial posts were highly inflammatory and insulting and honestly, couldn't be taken seriously. That said, since you've edited it, it doesn't deserve my prior harsh words.

As for debating your main points, this issue is so huge and you've made so many massive assumptions, boiled down the variables to far more simplistic concepts than is the case and ignored or called counter statements propoganda(if you'd fully read the one article I did post, you'd see it wasn't propoganda. In fact, it'd counter some of what you're saying, since it illustrates the high tax rate we've had up to the 70s and how it actually did not negatively impact the nation's growth. I'd say, a lot of your pieces posted were closer to Big Pharma propoganda than anything I've said/posted). Moreover, you've made some pretty wide ranging economic predictations and analysis on tenuous or, at times, irrelevant/incompatible(Europe is not the U.S. for at least a hundred different reasons) data.

I mean, arguments that the U.S. is the leading innovator in medical technology could come from so many variables--differing education systems(for instance, India's education system stamps out creativity in favor of rote memorization, which makes them great at replicating technology produced by the U.S., but terrible at more innovative technological contributions), immigration and citizenship policies(which are vastly superior to most other nations in the world--giving incentive for the best and the brightest to come to America), economic hardships in other nations, post WW II effects, etc. I mean, the list goes on--saying price caping or socialist systems are the reason why U.S. is now dominant in medical innovation is, sheesh, really boiling things down to the simplist of ideas.

Moreover, "medical innovcations" is a broad category--Big Pharma puts out stuff like drugs for Restless Leg Syndrome and other "problems" we supposedly have--it
may be putting out loads of new drugs, but what do the drugs do/what are they for, what side effects do they have, are they actually new or simply variations on older drugs, etc? It has marketed like mad in recent years, putting out new drugs in a "shock and awe" campaign, oversaturing us with the idea that we are all desperately ill and need fifty different types of prescription drugs to stay alive--these "new innovations"(which are often near replica of older drugs) that they have come out with(and I am not saying all their drugs are bad--but a lot are useless and more than a few have some serious short term and long term side effects).

You also ignore that Big Pharma isn't pro-capitalist, but rather monopolistic(as a bloc)--it is against foreign competition in U.S markets in the generic drug market, it has made sure Congress passed(through what I consider all but out and out bribery--once against, the very antithesis of free market...60 Minutes had a great piece on this) the Medicare drug benefit bill that disallowed Medicare from bargaining with Big Pharma for lower prices(once again, the antithesis of free market! Other organizations, like the Veterans Association, are able to negotiate, in a market place environment, for better prices for their customers with Big Pharma).

Even with Universal Healthcare and the *possibility* of lower fixed prices, there is no certainty that Big Pharma won't be making massive profits, because in the end, they'll be selling to a wider base since all Americans will be able to afford their drugs. Additionally, the money they put into R&D is just a tiny portion of Big Pharma's budget and a lot of the innovations come out of the public, not private sector(which would actually recommend we raise taxes and give more grants to public research institutions). And moreover, there are multiple universal healthcare concepts being bandied about, some even endorsed by Republicans with free market principles:  http://www.tnr.com/d...10&s=cohn091007

The issue is massive, gigantic, and much more complex than you've laid it out to be. It does not follow that because the U.S. is a leader in medical innovation(and once again, there are a lot of disclaimers on that title), it is because of the U.S.'s lack of universal healthcare and price fixing. The variables and extenuating circumstances that you ignore are too long to list. I read and watch a ton of media across the spectrum, right to left, from Z Magazine, the Nation, the New Republic, BBC, the NY Times to the WSJ, Fox News, National Review, the Weekly Standard and pieces put out by think tanks on both sides. While on occassion you will get pundits from either camp making simplistic analysis of the situation, it is generally a rarity(though it has gotten worse in this polarized, ideologically driven political climate). So before unfurling the Big Pharma flag, go out and do more research--from the opposing point of view. But I am honestly not motivated to do it for you, spend all that time and put up a dozen or more links on the topic--the cost/reward ratio isn't worth it. If you want to educate yourself, the information is out there for you to make a more nuanced decision on the topic.

I will leave you with one link that takes to task a lot of your assumptions and you can sort through it and decide its validity on your own: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

In the end, however, I am not a single-issue voter. Even if everything you said was correct, politics, especially modern politics, is so much more complex, with so much more riding on voting for the right candidates than any time prior. And we've seen the impact of single party rule(Republican control of Congress and the Presidency) until 2006. A healthy political environment requires a give and take between both parties(or multiple parties), with us voting for the best candidates possible.

[thumb] For the time and energy.

Let us assume that the democrats take office, offer price caps on drugs and institutionalize healthcare. Now, from hcs's post we assume it his belief that drug innovation will be hindered by this but there is another issue to look at. Will more lives be saved by drugs and healthcare being affordable to everyone or would more lives be saved by eventual dollars going into R&D for drug companies if this was not initiated? For the former we can guarantee lives will be saved, for the latter, we can't.

Popular topic.

The difference is that more R&D can cure or treat things which currently state-of-the-art medicine cannot treat. So the latter could save more lives. R&D can also reduce the cost of producing drugs. In the long run, I think we are better off with more R&D --> more stuff treatable + the ability to produce cheaper drugs = greater potential for human life savings. Do you want to cure cancer or just treat all cases of it?

This is a non-issue. Please read the link I posted to see where the key R&D comes from for drugs. It is not a long article and it is worth the read: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

Edited by suspire, 08 September 2007 - 08:20 AM.

[roidjoe]

Popular topic.

The difference is that more R&D can cure or treat things which currently state-of-the-art medicine cannot treat.  So the latter could save more lives.  R&D can also reduce the cost of producing drugs.  In the long run, I think we are better off with more R&D --> more stuff treatable + the ability to produce cheaper drugs = greater potential for human life savings.  Do you want to cure cancer or just treat all cases of it?

There is a lot of assumption here. That drug companies are pioneers in the advancement and treatment of diseases by creating technological advancement. The advancements will most likely come in other fields, ie. scientifically oriented bodies and then will be applied to the treatment of and curing of disease. Secondly, you assume that more profit means more R&D and that as profits rise, so does R&D. The issue becomes, is there a point where R&D halts and profits, while profits still rise? I'm not sure but it is possible, and, if so have we reached this point? And why are you so confident that it is the main priority of drug companies to cure cancer? The cancer research I see is coming from small innovative companies.

I think a major problem with your argument is that the people with cancer, who lack health insurance, will be unable to afford treatment when the drugs become available - if they ever do, through the supposed R&D you were talking about. This is still part of the problem. So, even with the availability of cancer drugs we still have a segment of the population that it is not available to, and thus, more lives are lost. With nationalized health care we can PROVE that it will save lives. The same cannot be said about the argument against it. It assume that increased R&D leads to lives being saved, which as i have pointed is skeptical and it also assumes that it will save more lives than nationalized healthcare would. Then, the other issue arises when the drugs are developed, and healthcare is still not available it is guaranteed that more lives WILL be lost with a plan of privatized healthcare versus nationalized healthcare. This is because in one instance everyone is covered, with, presumably the same ailments as the instance where just a segment of the population is covered.

Then we also have to examine the statistics of "saving lives." If an uninsured person if feeling chest pains, yet is reluctant to go to the hospital he might suffer a heart attack and die on the spot. With healthcare, his life might be saved, without it he is just a uninsured heart attack death that was untreatable because of lack of care. The issue is not just drugs and drug companies - it's also motor viehical injuries, liver transplants, kidney dialysis, etc. everything that is in an emergency room visit to the local hospital. This is a greater issue of importance that should be addressed.

[suspire]

And why are you so confident that it is the main priority of drug companies to cure cancer?  The cancer research I see is coming from small innovative companies.

I think I've run out of energy in debating this topic, but I wanted to point out that you are dead-on here: It is not in the interest of Big Pharma to permanently cure diseases--this causes a decrease in long-term sales, unless the disease is reoccuring(like bacterial infections). Rather, drugs that need to be taken for extended periods of time(or permanently) for their effects to remain is instrumental for them making large profits. Whether it be for cancer, HIV, or hair loss--unless we're talking about short-term bacterial diseases--Big Pharma's products are intended for long-term/permanent use.

[william7]

fundamental religious nut jobs

I would feel so much more comfortable for Republicans if they weren't the party of crazy fundamentalist religious people.

But always remember those fundamentalists in the Republican party are fundamentally wrong about the Bible. They worship the god of power, privilege and wealth, not the God who gave us Jesus Christ. And that's why there's such a problem in politics and the world today.

[Athan]

But always remember those fundamentalists in the Republican party are fundamentally wrong about the Bible. They worship the god of power, privilege and wealth, not the God who gave us Jesus Christ. And that's why there's such a problem in politics and the world today.

Even assuming that to be true, it is much too simplistic to attribute all the problems in politics and all the problems in the world to a single source - things are far too complex and interconnected.

[Futurist1000]

The advancements will most likely come in other fields, ie. scientifically oriented bodies and then will be applied to the treatment of and curing of disease. Secondly, you assume that more profit means more R&D and that as profits rise, so does R&D. The issue becomes, is there a point where R&D halts and profits, while profits still rise? I'm not sure but it is possible, and, if so have we reached this point? And why are you so confident that it is the main priority of drug companies to cure cancer? The cancer research I see is coming from small innovative companies.

Well looking at Europe vs. the U.S. we see a difference in the capacity of companies to make profits. It appears that the U.S. is much better overall in the field of medical technology. The U.S. has created many life saving technologies. Europe used to be the leader but currently is not. There is a huge barrier to go from R&D to actually getting a therapy to market. Europe does extensive research on things but gets relatively few things to the market. Getting approval can be a difficult process and the success rate is very low.

A person who is an extreme proponent of the free market might tell you that the FDA is too bloated. Obviously the FDA seems to be necessary, but having it means that you can't compare the medical market to other free maket fields in the U.S. The market has a huge barrier which does not exist in any other field. This limits what can actually enter the market.

I think a major problem with your argument is that the people with cancer, who lack health insurance, will be unable to afford treatment when the drugs become available - if they ever do, through the supposed R&D you were talking about. This is still part of the problem. So, even with the availability of cancer drugs we still have a segment of the population that it is not available to, and thus, more lives are lost.

Yes that is a problem. However you do have to look at other indicators too. While universal healthcare might help someone without insurance. It could hurt cancer survival rates overall. It could also hurt the development of new drugs. You always have to realize there are multiple consequences for taking a specific action. Some are not immediately clear. You can't just make a quick judgement necessarily because it seems accurate. Their are many downstream effects and some are very hard to measure.

Europe's Cancer Survival Is Up, But UK Lagging, New Study

For patients diagnosed with solid tumours in 2000 to 2002, the survival rate was lower in Europe than the USA. 5 year survival for all cancers in the USA was 66.3 per cent for men and 62.9 per cent for women. These figures are significantly better than the European cancer survival rates for the same period: 47.3 per cent for men and 55.8 per cent for women.

Access to new drugs, for instance, is far superior for American consumers than European ones. For cancer patients, access to new drugs is crucial: a report by the Swedish Karolinska Institute, published in the Annals of Oncology, found that "The United States has been the country of first launch for close to half of the oncology drugs brought to the market in the past 11 years." The authors of the report observe that "Nearly half of the observed improvement in the 2–year cancer survival rate between 1992 and 2000 at 50 US cancer centers could be attributed to the use of new cancer drugs," evidence that America's embrace of new medicines translates into saved human lives.

I think I've run out of energy in debating this topic, but I wanted to point out that you are dead-on here: It is not in the interest of Big Pharma to permanently cure diseases--this causes a decrease in long-term sales, unless the disease is reoccuring(like bacterial infections).

Sure, statins are an instance of this. You have to take a statin long term to lower your cholesterol. Maybe most people wouldn't even need the drug if took the necessary lifestyle changes. However it appears from many studies at least, that statins can save lives. While I think a japanese company may have created the first statin, (?) it was still commercialized in the U.S. This is because its expensive to get a drug to market thus a company won't do it if it won't make a profit. This of course means that many diseases that don't have a big enough market won't get any treatments. You can't necessarily say the pharmaceutical industry is all about greed and profits. Many of the people who work for those type of companies genuinely want to help people.
I think most of these drugs were created with the best of intentions. However the FDA makes it difficult to turn a profit, thus they are many copycat drugs, lifestyle drugs etc. that may not be that great. But new advances are coming along like gene therapy and rna interference which do have the potential to treat diseases better than pharmaceutical drugs. Many of the trials involving these things are being performed by private companies. I think the first parkinson's gene therapy was shown to be a success fairly recently. Alzhiemer's drugs are coming along which may reduce the amyloid plaque. A lot of stuff is coming on the horizion. So in the short term, price controls while well intentioned, could lead to less of these medical technologies coming to market.
There are also medical technologies such as MRI's, deep brain stimulation, transcranial magnetic therapy etc.. Many of these things have been studied by governments, universities and companies. However many times it ends up being a private company that gets the first device to market.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 04:25 PM.

[Brainbox]

Even assuming that to be true, it is much too simplistic to attribute all the problems in politics and all the problems in the world to a single source - things are far too complex and interconnected.

I would agree to that. If projected to democracy and related politics, I would say that a certain balance is required in the political composition of our everyday governmental influencing institutes.

As a European, it's difficult to engage in political discussion concerning the US since some of the terms that define US political movements have slightly different semantics as compared to the European political landscape. Which obviously is bound to be the cause of misunderstanding.

Anyway, I have my political preferences, but it's very hard to find one political party that reflects this preference. They simply do not exist. Like Technosophy mentioned earlier in this topic, my reaction has been one of disinterest as well in the past, but probably for different reasons. In Holland, we have a political landscape that involves a lot of parties. About 4 or 5 parties that are big enough to matter, as opposed to the (in practice) 2 party system of the US. In our political situation I would favor a voting system that is directed towards choosing a coalition in stead of a single party. But that would make the process very complex but would enforce that voters really think what they would vote.

It seems to be that evaluational psychology is still withholding us from developing more sensible and modern voting concepts. Why choose X OR Y? It's still a exponent of primitive behaviour to choose one single leader and ban (or even kill) the competition. Ok, the coalition forming process after we did cast our votes has become a bit more civilised, but I guess it's time for a next step. Pluriformity of our society is the basic and most important concept indeed, that is able to support our (scientific) development and should become a more intrinsic part of our election concept. To avoid important interests becoming disjunct and hence creating to much polarisation.

[Futurist1000]

I mean on a lot of issues I think I align more with the Democrats. Personally I think a woman should have the right to choose, I really don't have a problem with gay rights, I don't know why I got lead off on that tangent about stem cells. I really favor government spending money on stem cells. I don't think there should be a ban which hampers research. I was just trying to say that the government does not necessarily need to be our nanny for every little thing and stem cell research could continue without the government. I am against the Iraq war as well and I think that it is a terrible waste of money and life.

However, I disagree with a lot of the things that the democrats are proposing about doing to the economy. Here I think the republicans in general are ususually better. The democrats seem to want to make our country more like France. Well you see France has many problems and the socialist got beaten in the last election.

France has a high tax rate and a generous welfare. But this results in there being a lower gdp per capita, a lower yearly economic growth, higher unemployment (especially for the immigrant communities where it can go above 40%) and an unsustainable fiscal environment.

Some people seem to compare the waste in Iraq to the waste in France. Common response, Oh so you don't want your money spent on welfare but you let billions be wasted in Iraq. No this would be a logical fallacy. I think that welfare programs while good intentioned have a bad effect on the economy and end up hurting the poor people more than they help. The immigrants rioted in france partly due to the poverty that is the result of a more socialistic system. I also think we should do everything we can to get out of Iraq.

France and Europe in general are poor economic models for the U.S.. In some countries like the netherlands and U.K. the native populations are emigrating in droves. Why would they leave such paradises, when they have "free healthcare" and all the other programs? Two reasons, you have immigrants who end up exploiting sometimes intentionally but often it may be benign. People who are wealthy and pay a high tax rate thus have incentive to move to another country where taxes are lower. Thus exploiters move in and the people who are wealthy move out. Thus the welfare state becomes unsustainable in the long run because being an exploiter is advantageous. Eventually when you get all exploiters, the country can no longer afford welfare programs.

I guess the main problems I see with people posting is that many fall into the correlation does not prove causation trap. Taking two random data points, lets say the WHO healthcare rankings for disability adjusted lifespan and the quality of the healthcare system. Now on this measure, the U.S. ranks 24th in the world. The WHO used this to measure the overall health of a nation, but in reality it is more complicated than that. Japanese americans have a higher life expectancy than people living in Japan (Japan is ranked #1 by the way). Hispanics in the U.S. have one of the highest life expectancies of any country. African americans however significantly bring down the U.S. average. However there may be different reasons for this that don't necessarily have to do with the quality of the healthcare system. Moral is, sometimes you have to look more closely at the data. If a rooster crows when the sun rises, you could make the faulty conclusion that the rooster made the sun rise.

[suspire]

I guess the main problems I see with people posting is that many fall into the correlation does not prove causation trap.  Taking two random data points, lets say the WHO healthcare rankings for disability adjusted lifespan and the quality of the healthcare system.  Now on this measure, the U.S. ranks 24th in the world.  The WHO used this to measure the overall health of a nation, but in reality it is more complicated than that.  Japanese americans have a higher life expectancy than people living in Japan (Japan is ranked #1 by the way).  Hispanics in the U.S. have one of the highest life expectancies of any country.  African americans however significantly bring down the U.S. average.  However there may be different reasons for this that don't necessarily have to do with the quality of the healthcare system.  Moral is, sometimes you have to look more closely at the data. If a rooster crows when the sun rises, you could make the faulty conclusion that the rooster made the sun rise.

It is kind of interesting that you cite the correlation/causation argument, since many of your data points are, well, precisely that. You say riots in France were due to poverty and you cite the socialist system, while ignoring a whole slew of alternate theories as to why there is ethnic unrest/poverty within France--the argument that it is just a "socialist problem" is repeated so often by the pundits of big business/lower taxes that it has entered our collective vocabulary as a "truth", much in the same way that the Laffer Curve is a "truth" of economics to the political right...if not to most esteemed economists.

You do this again, when you keep repeating the argument that "U.S. medical innovation" is superior due to the freedom of Big Pharma to do as it pleases in the U.S.--once again, data points that may be entirely unrelated. In fact, there is a lot of data out there that shows, clearly, U.S. pharmaceuticals are not superior and are not producing innovative drugs. I've posted three links for you to read, and if nothing else, I wish you'd read the last one--it dismisses a lot of the Big Pharma mythos that has been perpetuated by their multi-billion dollar marketing machine(which is, surprise surprise, where the bulk of their money goes to...instead of R&D...to convince the public that things need to be as they are). The first link I posted, on supply side economics, talks about the history of America tax rates and how American growth was clearly not hampered by it(by the way, why is it France's socialist system that is the reason for France's weaker economy in comparison to the U.S. as opposed to--well, to give just one alternative idea--the U.S.'s massive and overwhelming advantage in human and natural reasources? Or the U.S.'s foreign policy that has forced other nations to give/loan us lands for commercial use at vastly undervalued rates---United Fruits, anyone? I mean, there is much more to the argument that the U.S.'s imperialistic/hegemonic role in the world is the reason for its success over other nations and not because other nations are socialist--just a glance at monopolistic--and clearly counter-capitalistic--imperialistic societies of the past will demonstrate that economic and scientific position supremacy is not dependent on capitalism, but is often dependent on world power, position and resources).

You seem like a fairly intelligent guy. I wish you'd read the three, only three!, links I posted. And then, if it inspires you, maybe do further research on competing theories to some of the truths you hold dear.

Edited by suspire, 08 September 2007 - 08:59 PM.

[Futurist1000]

Again about correlation. Read my post on intelligence. Correlation is in a sense related to intelligence. Think about it, you have to correlate things in your environment all the time. However the correlation between two things is only RELATIVE to the specific person. Now let's say you own a car. What is your relationship with your car? You may have bought it used five years ago. Now to another person, their relationship to the car is different. They may have sold it to you five years and thus never saw it again. Thus you can't compare two different people because they are coming from two different perspectives.

This is where the correlation part can be relative. Thus we make connections between different things all the time. There is not necessarily a right a wrong connection that one can make. It is all relative to your own benefit.

I think I have provided enough links to back up at least a few of my points. By my opinion is only based relative to my own survival.

You have found evidence and have come to the conclusion that the free market is over hyped. Well it really doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, because you must understand it is all relative. For example, look at Hugo Chavez. He has promulgated socialism. Now whether or not you agree that socialism is the best system for Venezuela, for Hugo Chavez it is fitness enhancing because now he is the leader of the country. That's a huge benefit. If he had come to the conclusion that capitalism was the best for the country, he never would have been elected. Another selective benefit you could argue is that the poor in the venezuelan population is better of under his government. They benefit from the oil wealth that Chavez has appropriated. However, let's say the oil dries up, and the rich people leave the country, then that very same system may end up hurting people because circumstances have changed. Things can change all the time.

I hope this can discard the notions of being absolutely right or wrong. The moral being that it is really relative. Instituting universal healthcare may benefit a proportion of the population, but it can also have consequences. Likewise more taxes and socialism can have both benefits and drawbacks.

I have only recently come to this conclusion from reading people's posts on this forum.
I used to think that things were right and wrong, but I'm slowly realizing that this may not in fact be the case. We categorize things in order to better understand things thus we tend to make many overgeneralizations about a world which is in reality exceedingly complex. There are gray areas on every position, but we tend to view the issues in black and white.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 07:07 PM.

[Brainbox]

In some countries like the netherlands and U.K. the native populations are emigrating in droves.

What's the origin of this perception?

[Futurist1000]

Why are so many people emigrating from the UK?

Record numbers of Britons are leaving their homeland to settle permanently overseas, according to figures released today.

The Office for National Statistics reported that 385,000 people emigrated in the year to July 2006, the highest figure since current counting methods were introduced in 1991.

A Dutch "Exodus"?

Radio Netherlands reported last week that Holland is experiencing a "bourgeois exodus." According to the state-funded service, "More and more Dutch people are leaving the Netherlands to live abroad." Nearly 50,000 of them left last year, the highest number since the postwar era when the Dutch government was encouraging emigration. The emigrants are identified in the radio report as "highly skilled people . . . the kind of workforce you want to keep."

Hey my correlations may be relative, but at least most of the specific individual points of data I correlate may true.

Again some might make the correlation this is due to high taxes. But that's certainly not the case for every person emigrating even if true. Thus it is all relative.

[william7]

Even assuming that to be true, it is much too simplistic to attribute all the problems in politics and all the problems in the world to a single source - things are far too complex and interconnected.

I agree. It's not just the powerful, privileged and wealthy who are a problem in the world. But you have to admit many of your major problems are traceable to the struggle to become powerful, privileged and wealthy, and to staying at the top once there.

[Futurist1000]

elijah3 and suspire, if you believe that capitalism benefits a tiny minority, I think you would then have to admit from the perspective of that minority capitalism would be a good thing since it would be beneficial to them, even if it was a detriment to the society as a whole. Of course comparatively the U.S. is significantly wealthier than most other countries and many people in the world connect that imbalance to a capitalist minority dominating the world. In essence, if you live in the U.S. then its possibly a good thing that we are the dominant minority. Again this seems like it depends on which perspective you take on the matter instead of it being absolutely right or wrong. I can totally understand people like Chavez and his views on the U.S. and it being a capitalistic hegemonic power. It can certainly appear that way from his own perspective.

I happen to make different connections though and have drawn different conclusions reading the data that I have come across.

I think one thing that we are all guilty of is that we tend to make conclusions when we have inadequate data on the subject. Unfortunately there is so much data to digest, that it is a very difficult one person to do all the research themselves. Plus whenever reading data that you think is objective, ultimately it is someone else's interpretation instead of being absolute reality.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 10:37 PM.

[Futurist1000]

John Stossel has some interesting pieces about healthcare. He has a special coming up too. You might want to watch it. Maybe it will make you come around to the dark side.

Healthy in Cuba, Sick in America?

"This isn't just me saying this, you know. All the world health organizations or whatever have confirmed that if there's one thing they do right in Cuba, it's health care," Moore said. "And there's very little debate about that."

In fact, there is plenty of debate. Miami-based Cuban Human Rights activist Jose Carro says Moore's movie paints an inaccurate picture.

"These films that try to portray the health-care system as superior to that of the U.S. are lacking in truth," Carro said. He asserts that most hospitals for Cuban citizens are dilapidated, that conditions are filthy and that patients are so neglected that some are starving.

But when "20/20" contacted the CIA, officials said, "We don't say that Cuba has a pretty good system or that Cubans live longer than Americans."

In fact, the CIA's World Fact Book says Americans live nearly a year longer. Although a U.N. report supports Moore's position, that data comes straight from the Cuban government.

Why believe anything the Cuban government says about Cuba? Moore said, "Let's stick to Canada and Britain and this stuff because I think these are legitimate arguments that are made against the film and against the, the so-called idea of socialized medicine. And I think you should challenge me on these things, and I'll give you my answer."

[AaronCW]

hrc579, is it really necessary to offer sympathy to a beligerent and power-hungry dictator wanna-be like Chavez?

Capitalism is easily defended on the basis of the observation that it is the only economic system capable of producing unlimited wealth and of progressively increasing the standard of living for every level of society. The mixed economy of the present US is the closest reference we have to actual Capitalism in practice, and we are more successful in all respects to this degree.

Of course, this is only a natural benefit of Capitalism, and not the primary justification. It is because only Laissez-faire Capitalism, as a socio-economic system, is consistent with the concepts of political freedom and justice. This is the end of the argument as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I would not consider any representatives of the Repulican party to be honest advocates of Capitalism, and the politics that many of them advocate are very dubious. Regardless, I view the socialization of medicine one of the greatest potential threats to both health and freedom that we face.

[Futurist1000]

I honestly think that Chavez does have good intentions, he may be misguided, but I think he thinks he is helping his country.

Anyway another good john stossel article. This is my thread, so I will continue to post what fits my own preconcieved notions of what's best for this country. (I know a lot of people hate this guy, but sometimes he makes a pretty good case for things.)

Let Wisconsin Experiment with Socialized Medicine

In addition, as the Journal put it, "Wow, is 'free' health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes."

And, of course, down the road it will cost much more than that. Even the $15 billion is based on the usual Pollyannaish assumptions such as millions in savings "from putting more emphasis on primary care."

As usual, most of the new taxes will be imposed on employers. Progressives believe money taken from them doesn't cost anything. Rich corporations will simply waste less on lavish perks and excess profits. But taxes on business are often paid by workers, stockholders and consumers. Businesses that can't pass the taxes on to someone else will close or move out of state.

Again this tends to fit my own perceptions. First is that politicians tend to make wild claims of what they will give the country when it really isn't in their power to do so. Also more taxes mean that wealthier people and bussiness will move to a more hospitable environment. You can't make policies that go against nature. The selfish gene rules all politics. Generous welfare programs lead to exploiters moving in and wealthier moving out until exploiters are all that's left.

Socialism may not be an evolutionary stable strategy. People are ultimately selfish and if there is a country with lower taxes they will move to that other country. If a country has generous welfare programs it will attract people who are poor, or who have disabilities or who even intentionally exploit the system for their own benefit. This can be seen happening in Europe. Thus eventually these type of people will eventually outnumber the citizens who actually pay into the system. The U.S. has birthright citizenship and in a world with planes, people can fly into the U.S. to have a baby. While this might sound ludicrous, it does happen as women from South Korea have flown here specifically to have a baby so they can become a U.S. citizen. Thus their children would be entitled to all the benefits of being a U.S. citizen, with the American taxpayer being on the losing end. Open borders and a generous welfare state is ultimately not sustainable. Eventually the welfare state has to be scrapped when the government can no longer get enough money from the population.

The socialist candidate lost in France in the last election to Sarkozy. Sarkozy ran on a platform of introducing more free market ideas such as over time pay and reduced tax rates. France does want to move away somewhat from the welfare state (though it is fairly entrenched there so don't expect much). Many people DO actually like the welfare state. One positive thing about a single payer system is that you don't have to pay ANY bills. Of course the money is taken directly out of your paycheck, but that subjectively can seem nicer than shelling out your own cash for every doctors visit.

A Deregulator in Paris

Today, her challenge is defined by this fact: France's welfare state, which has enabled many to have it "too easy," is incompatible with the welfare of the state, and of society. The government, preoccupied with propitiating dependent groups that it wants to proliferate, is big but weak. And the welfare state weakens its clients. "The ethic of work," Lagarde says, "has vanished."

She favors slashing inheritance taxes and preventing any person from paying more than 40 percent of income in total taxation. One index of her success would be decreased emigration by young college graduates, driven abroad by the fact that French unemployment has not been below 8 percent in 25 years.

Edited by hrc579, 09 September 2007 - 01:54 AM.

[Futurist1000]

Here's another article. The moral of this story is the "free" healthcare can be expensive. It is just one person's opinion I may add, but still interesting.

French Health Care Expert: France's System Broken, Should Copy US; Media Yawn

However, French professor Alice Teil not only said the French system is “not sustainable anymore,” but copying parts of America's could save it.

"It's true we really have good access, but what if the system is not sustainable anymore?" says Teil. "It's going to break. It's going to blow. And then no more accessibility for anybody."

Tiel says the cost of France's socialized health care is growing faster than its economy. Workers pay about fifty percent of their paycheck each month into healthcare, retirement and unemployment and more companies are outsourcing jobs to avoid those costs. Quality of care also suffers in France, says Teil, because hospitals and doctors resist government requirements to report their success and failures.
By contrast, Tiel says privately-owned hospitals in the U.S. are motivated to measure and report their quality of care, which leads to better care.

Contrary to the media standard portrayal of top-rated French health care, Teil stated that the system of “free” unlimited care requires high taxes, and with unlimited care, including costly sex-change operations, in vitro fertilization and alternative medicine, France has a dying system and should look to America for a fix, especially now that the French protested rationing benefits and the government stopped bailing out over-budget public hospitals.

Again this could be evidence of the unsustainability of a large welfare state.

[Ghostrider]

Popular topic.

The difference is that more R&D can cure or treat things which currently state-of-the-art medicine cannot treat.  So the latter could save more lives.  R&D can also reduce the cost of producing drugs.  In the long run, I think we are better off with more R&D --> more stuff treatable + the ability to produce cheaper drugs = greater potential for human life savings.  Do you want to cure cancer or just treat all cases of it?

There is a lot of assumption here. That drug companies are pioneers in the advancement and treatment of diseases by creating technological advancement. The advancements will most likely come in other fields, ie. scientifically oriented bodies and then will be applied to the treatment of and curing of disease. Secondly, you assume that more profit means more R&D and that as profits rise, so does R&D. The issue becomes, is there a point where R&D halts and profits, while profits still rise? I'm not sure but it is possible, and, if so have we reached this point? And why are you so confident that it is the main priority of drug companies to cure cancer? The cancer research I see is coming from small innovative companies.

I think a major problem with your argument is that the people with cancer, who lack health insurance, will be unable to afford treatment when the drugs become available - if they ever do, through the supposed R&D you were talking about. This is still part of the problem. So, even with the availability of cancer drugs we still have a segment of the population that it is not available to, and thus, more lives are lost. With nationalized health care we can PROVE that it will save lives. The same cannot be said about the argument against it. It assume that increased R&D leads to lives being saved, which as i have pointed is skeptical and it also assumes that it will save more lives than nationalized healthcare would. Then, the other issue arises when the drugs are developed, and healthcare is still not available it is guaranteed that more lives WILL be lost with a plan of privatized healthcare versus nationalized healthcare. This is because in one instance everyone is covered, with, presumably the same ailments as the instance where just a segment of the population is covered.

Then we also have to examine the statistics of "saving lives." If an uninsured person if feeling chest pains, yet is reluctant to go to the hospital he might suffer a heart attack and die on the spot. With healthcare, his life might be saved, without it he is just a uninsured heart attack death that was untreatable because of lack of care. The issue is not just drugs and drug companies - it's also motor viehical injuries, liver transplants, kidney dialysis, etc. everything that is in an emergency room visit to the local hospital. This is a greater issue of importance that should be addressed.

1. A drug company will invest in R&D if it feels that it (1) has a pretty good chance of success in developing something useful from it (2) can afford the investment. R&D is very expensive, if you challenge the revenue of a drug company, it will reduce not only its profits, but also its R&D spending. Pfizer could get by fine just selling Viagra.
2. Regarding the 2nd paragraph, this is the same argument thrown against the first anti-aging drugs -- that when they come out, they will be so expensive that only the wealthy will be able to afford them. I will refer to the escape velocity argument -- yes, they will be very expensive at first, but with newer and better therapies (through R&D), they will get cheaper and eventually everyone can afford them.

[scottl]

I view the socialization of medicine one of the greatest potential threats to both health and freedom that we face.

True but like other things, people may have to discover it for themself. Or in the immortal words of Joni Mitchell (Big Yellow Taxi):

Don’t it always seem to go
That you don't know what you’ve got
‘Til it's gone


People IN THE US and their unrealistic expectations are part of the problem. People want:
--Free healthcare
--From baby's born very premature to....very old people.
--We want everything done i.e. no expense spared for our loved ones no matter the age, disease, or prognosis.
--Want want to take no responsibility for our healthcare (well or any other part of our life, but that is another story) and to eat whatever junk we want, consume as many calories, smoke, etc and have medicine save our asses.

[Ghostrider]

--Want want to take no responsibility for our healthcare (well or any other part of our life, but that is another story) and to eat whatever junk we want, consume as many calories, smoke, etc and have medicine save our asses.

So true...at some point I worry if too much medicine restricts natural selection and ends up polluting the gene pool...