Any thoughts on the new 23 trillion cost of free healthcare?

[bueno bob]

Cut military spending.

Fund universal health care.

Problem solved, easy as that.

[Big Train]

All this pissing and moaning from both sides but no real discussion on WHY things cost so much and how to control that. Just "Who is gonna pay for it".

Single payer does not solve that root issue.

While I'm no medical expert, the basic problems seem to be two fold.

1. Medical companies right to fully exploit patents on medical tech and drugs.
2. Legal possibilities and the attendant needs to insure to protect against it.

The answers aren't any simpler. What is being proposed just shifts those same burdens from private companies to the government. I don't see how either of those issues get easier under a single payer or what the benefit of it might be.

Until those needs are addressed, who is paying for it doesn't make it any more effecient.

[letsrock]

Pop over to my blog here VanHalener, I have a chat module set up. Or, drop me a PM and I’ll give you an accessible yahoo chat ID or restricted email that can carry off line conversations.
Heart failure is quite an adventure in its self. People that have not experienced their heart stopping for brief periods cannot understand the feeling.

There was talk about a heart afib for me, but my decent was happening fast. As screwed up as it sounds I would not want to have not experienced what I did. I am not thrilled that I did experience it. But, there is a direct connection to life and your heart and people that have not crossed that threshold don’t quite grasp the intensity of that connection.

It is a long shot to an extent, depending on your background, and experimental, nevertheless, noninvasive and not expensive.

Hey how is your status now? Are you feeling better? Still in crisis mode? Have you recovered any?
i hope that your doing better and on the way to good health.
It sucks being sick.

John

[FORD]

WHY things cost so much is simple. You have corporations running the show, and corporations motive is profit, not the health of the patient.

A single payer system would take that bullshit completely out of the equation, at least as far as the insurance companies go. Since the government wouldn't be running the hospitals themselves, they would probably still attempt to overcharge. But with the government being the sole insurer, that would also leave an obvious public interest basis for serious regulation and oversight of the medical & pharmaceutical industries for their billing practices, which are (to put it mildly) less than honest under the current corporate system.

A true public option, as proposed by Howard Dean, would arguably keep the corporations in check by forcing them to compete with a more efficient public system. And if the corporations didn't clean up their act, they would be cutting their own throats, eventually forcing themselves out of the game.

Any shell game played by the Baucus/Schumer/Conrad types in the Senate will leave us with either a mandatory corporate Romneycare system, or state/local based "co-ops" which cannot possibly compete with insurance corporations, because in the insurance game, the biggest number is always the size of your "pool". And I don't mean the cement pond behind the mansion of United Health Care's CEO.

[Big Train]

That is oversimplified.

Overall healthcare would suffer in the pissing contest between the government and the insurers. Many companies will leave medical altogether, since it is now an all or nothing proposition. Either the government plays ball with you or not. What company is gonna pour billions into R&D for a new miracle drug that the government will buy for cost or less? Not many. Ditto many surgeries that the government would deem not neccesary or excessive. Without private ins. which would allow those options to those who can pay for them, they will not be available.

There will be less choice, less options and less overall innovation.

You WANT that?

[FORD]

I don't things like boob jobs and face lifts should be eligible for a public system. Insurance corporations could still sell supplemental coverage for things like that.

Thom Hartmann mentioned this morning that there are European countries where a private/public system exists, BUT it's also the law in those countries that regular health care is NOT a for profit business.

[Big Train]

But that's just it, what is and what is not funded by the public system? Tonsils according to the President are just being overdone.

What if the drug you need is not available because of the government? What if it is priced very high since such a small number of people have access to it? Have you solved ANYTHING by being single payer?

The only way to reduce cost is to reduce reward. The Obama admin wants to go after profits as if profits were a bad thing. The way to do that and remain productive is for government to massively ramp up R&D on it's dime, which reduces the amount of patents companies and individuals can be a party to and enjoy. Has that even been put on the table?

No, Pelosi is ranting "the ins. companies are the villians!!". Ditto the drug companies. Even though she could clearly benefit from their wares.

This plan would be useful if the President actually did "made it about him". Make it a plan every member of Congress and the Government uses, with the same level of care. No special plans for them, no add ons. Let them pay for it like we will. Then I would take them seriously.

[Seshmeister]

The R&D thing is a bit of a myth really. It's surprising because they ram that argument down our throats all the fucking time but if you look at the accounts of big pharma companies R&D makes up only about 15% of their budget and marketing over 40%. Plus your argument is typically US insular.

There are more customers of drug companies outwith the US in government schemes than in the US. Why would you want to subsidize the rest of the world any way by overpaying?

The present system is also not helpful because companies spend all their resources researching drugs that people will have to take for a long time like ADT drugs or Viagra to maximise profits rather than making the stuff we really need like new antibiotics.

[letsrock]

Arent most drug companies testing the new products of the poor in Africa. I heard that at one point, no idea if its true.

[LoungeMachine]

Arent most drug companies testing the new products of the poor in Africa. I heard that at one point, no idea if its true.

Then why not educate yourself and do your own fucking research and come back and tell us what you learned, rather than just regurgitating something you heard on the radio while you weren't working?

What a mindless fucking post.

You have no idea if something is true, and rather than finding out, you just spew it here and wait for us to tell you what you don't know.



You really bring nothing to this forum, moron...

[LoungeMachine]

This took all of 4 seconds to find......

Is Africa the dumping ground for Pharmaceutical company experimental drugs?
This report reinforces my long held view that Africa is the dumping ground for Drug company's experimental drugs.
What do you think?

BBC NEWS | Africa | Anger at deadly Nigerian drug trials

Anger at deadly Nigerian drug trials
By Senan Murray
BBC News website, Kano

In school, Anas Mohammadu's mates call him "horror" and make fun of him.

When the 14-year-old goes to bed at night, he dreams of becoming a soldier.


Anas survived the treatment, but was permanently damaged His father, Muhammadu Mustapha, knows his son's dream is unlikely to come true. "It's only a pipedream. You don't become a soldier with weak and wobbly legs and a permanently drooling mouth," he says bitterly. "He tires too quickly. The other day, he was trying to draw water from a well and the small bucket almost pulled him into the well."

But Anas is lucky to be alive.

Deformities

Many other children who were used in the controversial 1996 drug trial by US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer died.

The Americans and some local Nigerian doctors gave Anas this evil drug Anas's father

Anas, then only three years old, was the first child to be given the experimental antibiotic Trovan at the Infectious Diseases Hospital, Kano, during the drug trial.

Pfizer tested the then unregistered drug in Nigeria's north-western Kano State during an outbreak of meningitis which had affected thousands of children.

Officials in Kano say more than 50 children died in the experiment, while many others developed mental and physical deformities.

But Pfizer says only 11 of the 200 children used in the drug trial died.

"From our records, the fatalities were only 11, but the survival rate was 94 per cent," Pfizer spokesman in New York, Bryant Haskins, told the BBC News website.

Following pressure from rights groups and families affected by the trial, the Nigerian government set up an expert medical panel to review the drug trial.

The experiment was "an illegal trial of an unregistered drug", the Nigerian panel concluded, and a "clear case of exploitation of the ignorant".

'Verbal consent'

Pfizer denies any wrongdoing and reiterates its position that its trial of Trovan was conducted in accordance with Nigerian regulations.

Hajara survived the trials but cannot now hear or speak

"These allegations against Pfizer, which are not new, are highly inflammatory and not based on all the facts," Mr Haskins, recently told Reuters news agency.

He also said the trial had helped save lives.

The company has previously said that "verbal consent" had been obtained from the parents of the children concerned and that the exercise was "sound from medical, scientific, regulatory and ethical standpoints".

But Mr Mustapha is still burning with anger.

"My son was ill and we took him to the hospital like any other family would. Then the Americans and some local Nigerian doctors injected Anas with this evil drug."

Another man, Hassan Sani, says his daughter Hajara, 14, was also given the drug.

He says the pill made his daughter deaf and unable to speak, and he wants the doctors involved to be treated as criminals.


We did not suspect that our children were being used for an experiment

Hajara's father
"The American doctors took advantage of our illiteracy and cheated us and our children. We thought they were helping us," Mr Sani says.

"We did not suspect that our children were being used for an experiment. They have cheated us and our children. All I can say is that God will judge them according to their evil deeds.

"Where there is a crime, there must be punishment."

'Charges'

After more than a decade of silence, the Nigerian government has decided to sue Pfizer, seeking $7bn (£3.5bn) in damages for the families of children who allegedly died or suffered side-effects in the experiment.

Kano State government has also filed separate charges against Pfizer.

But Mr Sani says compensation will not be enough.

"In addition to the compensation, they should be killed like the children they have killed," he says.

The Pfizer experiment was cited by many as a reason for the mass rejection of polio vaccinations in many parts of northern Nigeria in recent years.

Some local Islamic preachers said there was a western plot to sterilise Muslim women.

After several tests were carried out to proving the vaccine's safety, the programme has now been resumed.

Whether the families ever receive compensation, it will never be enough to bring back Anas's lost dreams of becoming a soldier.

[WACF]

When the hospital is in it to make a profit...and the only way an insurance company makes money is by turning down some claims...I would say you are fucked.

There are many models in the world today.

Take them...look at them...and try to make the best one you can.

Who cares if every one pays into it but some reap more from it because...they got sick.

I hope to get through life without a tragic health condition...and I am happy to know my tax dollars help those that are.

....because it is only right to help our fellow countrymen/women when in need.

[Big Train]

The R&D thing is a bit of a myth really. It's surprising because they ram that argument down our throats all the fucking time but if you look at the accounts of big pharma companies R&D makes up only about 15% of their budget and marketing over 40%. Plus your argument is typically US insular.

There are more customers of drug companies outwith the US in government schemes than in the US. Why would you want to subsidize the rest of the world any way by overpaying?

The present system is also not helpful because companies spend all their resources researching drugs that people will have to take for a long time like ADT drugs or Viagra to maximise profits rather than making the stuff we really need like new antibiotics.

Well yea, I'm from the US. When I get on the U2 fan forums, we can I'll make it more UK centric for you...

The R&D layout is a big number, as is the marketing. But over the life of the patent, both numbers are paid in full many times over. The key point I'm trying to make is that nobody will lay out billions in risk for the research without tens of billions of reward in patents. The only way to circumvent that and keep the path of innovation to new drugs and cures is for the government to ramp up R&D on it's dime.

[FORD]

Well yea, I'm from the US. When I get on the U2 fan forums, we can I'll make it more UK centric for you...

Why would you be more UK centric for an Irish band?

[Blackflag]

the government to ramp up R&D on it's dime.

But a dollar of government research does not equal a dollar of private sector research.

The whole problem here is the something-for-nothing mentality. People want drugs without having to pay for the development costs. People want medical care without paying for insurance. It's all bullshit.