2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BleedBlueGold]

Assuming the individual is paying with their own money, why is it morally wrong?

If an individual or family wants to pay for superior coverage from superior doctors, let them. We see this all the time. For instance, a family may choose to buy a Mercedes rather than a Honda b/c it's regarded as a safer vehicle. If they're paying, what do I care?

Because the converse is also true. People who can't afford it die of things we could cure.

This.

This isn't some kind of metaphor. This is the literal truth.

Doctor: Patient X has Y cancer. They need Z treatment.

Me: What insurance do they have?

Doctor: Private Insurance W

Me: They won't allow Z treatment. They won't pay for it. If we do it anyways, the patient will get the entire bill. They do allow N treatment, though, but it's not as good.

Doctor: Well, we can't put that kind of financial burden on the patient. Give them N treatment and we'll just deal with the symptoms and side effects. *Couch-Fucking insurance companies won't let me treat a patient the way they deserve to be treated-Cough*

Me: How does it feel to not actually be in charge of your patient's care?

Doctor: [leaves room]


You're ok with that scenario, Wild Bill? That a person w/o money or w/o good insurance deserves the lesser treatment when a better one is available?

Again back to your example: You used cars...I'm talking about peoples lives. See the difference?

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Assuming the individual is paying with their own money, why is it morally wrong?

If an individual or family wants to pay for superior coverage from superior doctors, let them. We see this all the time. For instance, a family may choose to buy a Mercedes rather than a Honda b/c it's regarded as a safer vehicle. If they're paying, what do I care?

Lol at you.

You really must have no, or shit, morals, assuming you actually believe that. What you just said is, "what's wrong with the rich getting better health care?"

That is what's morally wrong. Lol.

Oh my God you're silly if you don't see the moral injustice of comparing health care to a luxury car.

Everyone should receive equal health care opportunities. People should not be priced out of staying healthy.

And corporations should NOT be profiting off our health.

 

[Wild Bill]

Because the converse is also true. People who can't afford it die of things we could cure.

But that's just not true. The poorest of the poor had access to care before the ACA and now it's subsidized by the ACA.

I think the problem with it is that the poor do not have any realistic access to the better treatment available. It's different than which car people can afford -- those are luxury decisions. With health care, determinining the quality of treatment for a human being should probably have nothing to do with how much wealth a person can accumulate. That says that the wealthy are more important, more deserving, and simply better than the working poor. The minimum level of care should be the best possible care available.

See below.

This.

This isn't some kind of metaphor. This is the literal truth.

Doctor: Patient X has Y cancer. They need Z treatment.

Me: What insurance do they have?

Doctor: Private Insurance W

Me: They won't allow Z treatment. They won't pay for it. If we do it anyways, the patient will get the entire bill. They do allow N treatment, though, but it's not as good.

Doctor: Well, we can't put that kind of financial burden on the patient. Give them N treatment and we'll just deal with the symptoms and side effects. *Couch-Fucking insurance companies won't let me treat a patient the way they deserve to be treated-Cough*

Me: How does it feel to not actually be in charge of your patient's care?

Doctor: [leaves room]

You're ok with that scenario, Wild Bill? That a person w/o money or w/o good insurance deserves the lesser treatment when a better one is available?

Again back to your example: You used cars...I'm talking about peoples lives. See the difference?

I'm not talking about cars. I'm talking about what an individual is willing to do or pay to insure their health and safety. People pay for safer cars, people pay for higher quality foods, people pay for higher quality physical fitness, people pay to live in safer neighborhoods, people sacrifice wages to not work at unhealthy places (like a refinery or factory), etc. We make health and safety decisions based on finances all the time. The level of insurance coverage is no different. I don't see a moral issue if I'm willing to strap it up to work an extra shift to provide my family superior health insurance. And rest assured, taxes will be taken away from me for the extra hours to pay for the basic coverage everyone else is "entitled" to.

Regarding the bolded: I'm not entitled to the hands of the best surgeon in the world if I'm unwilling to compensate him. No different than I'm not entitled to the best car in the world b/c I'm not inclined to pay the man who built it.

 

[Wild Bill]

Lol at you.

You really must have no, or shit, morals, assuming you actually believe that. What you just said is, "what's wrong with the rich getting better health care?"

That is what's morally wrong. Lol.

Oh my God you're silly if you don't see the moral injustice of comparing health care to a luxury car.

Everyone should receive equal health care opportunities. People should not be priced out of staying healthy.

And corporations should NOT be profiting off our health.

I check my morals in at the door when I come to work. It's easier to make a profit.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm not talking about cars. I'm talking about what an individual is willing to do or pay to insure their health and safety. People pay for safer cars, people pay for higher quality foods, people pay for higher quality physical fitness, people pay to live in safer neighborhoods, people sacrifice wages to not work at unhealthy places (like a refinery or factory), etc. We make health and safety decisions based on finances all the time. The level of insurance coverage is no different. I don't see a moral issue if I'm willing to strap it up to work an extra shift to provide my family superior health insurance. And rest assured, taxes will be taken away from me for the extra hours to pay for the basic coverage everyone else is "entitled" to.

Regarding the bolded: I'm not entitled to the hands of the best surgeon in the world if I'm unwilling to compensate him. No different than I'm not entitled to the best car in the world b/c I'm not inclined to pay the man who built it.

The problem is that the costs of healthcare don't allow people to just "strap it up to work an extra shift" and come out even. We're talking thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare costs. And private insurance companies have the power to refuse to pay for better treatments (even if the patient has the money to cover the premium). It goes back to my issue with them defining "standard of care" and literally refusing anything that goes above and beyond that (even if it's proven to be better). Yet an uber rich person can still pay for it, where as the middle class or lower class people are stuck with whatever Mr. Insurance Man says. The middle class and lower class people can't just work an extra shift, shop another insurance company, get a third job, etc. They're stuck. And that's wrong.

 

[Cackalacky]

Lol at you.

You really must have no, or shit, morals, assuming you actually believe that. What you just said is, "what's wrong with the rich getting better health care?"

That is what's morally wrong. Lol.

Oh my God you're silly if you don't see the moral injustice of comparing health care to a luxury car.

Everyone should receive equal health care opportunities. People should not be priced out of staying healthy.

And corporations should NOT be profiting off our health.

I check my morals in at the door when I come to work. It's easier to make a profit.

Capitalism is the old New Atheism

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I check my morals in at the door when I come to work. It's easier to make a profit.

In one brief statement, you defined the biggest problem with this country. This greedy, me-first mentality is sickening.

This notion where we step on the heads of those drowning, not just to stay afloat, but to gain entrance into the 100-foot yacht and then sail off without even throwing them a life jacket drives me mad.

I seriously feel sorry for you if money is that important to you.

Edit: Sorry if I missed the sarcasm. It still strikes a nerve with me though because a lot of people are serious when they talk like that.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

In one brief statement, you defined the biggest problem with this country. This greedy, me-first mentality is sickening.

This notion where we step on the heads of those drowning, not just to stay afloat, but to gain entrance into the 100-foot yacht and then sail off without even throwing them a life jacket drives me mad.

I seriously feel sorry for you if money is that important to you.

I think Bill was being sarcastic. But I think you're generally right that profit as a sole motivator is the main issue here.

 

[GoIrish41]

I check my morals in at the door when I come to work. It's easier to make a profit.

I know that this was a snarky response to a post that questioned your morality, and this certainly is not an attack on you but, to me, this is at the heart of what is wrong with this country. It is "profit" over "people".

When I hear politicians say its time "to make America Great again," I recall how life in this country used to be. CEOs made 20 times what their average workers made, not 200 or 300 times more. Workers were paid living wages, and had pensions to retire on and employer provided health coverage to sustain them. We had good manufacturing jobs that provided enough compensation to purchase a home, raise a family and put the kids through school. Families could make it with a single bread winner, and there was always a parent at home to take care of the kids and provide proper guidance.

This nation has gone astray, following the trail of greed to a crummier country than the one I grew up in. It's wonderful for those at the top of the economic food chain, but it is worse for almost everyone else. Our manufacturing jobs have been shipped to the lowest bidder, where the gains the American workers have made in this country are ignored, and children work in sweat shops to produce products. One by one, corporations seek to slash benefits of American workers to improve their own bottom line, and they seem to have no concern for how those workers are going to make it. It seems as though these CEOs would be content if American workers were no better off than those in China or Indonesia or Mexico so long as their ledgers keep growing. All the while, politicians seek to dismantle the mechanisms that provided a safety net to American workers who become sick, or injured, or who cannot make it on the insufficient wages that have become the norm across the nation.

So when we have a discussion about health care, and how the rich deserve to have a better level quality, it is just more of the deterioration of this nation -- a promotion of the immorality that corrodes this nation. Corporations and their greed have played a prominent role in the breakdown of the family, the shrinking of the middle class, the glut of wealth at the top of the economy, the downgrade in the quality of life of almost every American citizen. We have gone astray in no small measure to those who steadfastly defend the horrible direction we have been heading for the past four or five decades.

 

[phgreek]

This isn't shopping for a tv where if you don't like the deal at one store, you simply shop at another. This is my problem w/ the system. People who can afford better insurance are privileged to get better treatment. That's morally wrong. And it's what you seem to be suggesting.

I understand your concern with having the government dictate coverage guidelines. I agree that it'd probably be just as bad. I don't think there's a simple solution to this. But there has to be a way to make it better all around for everyone.

ok...here is a scenario that I've actually lived. I owned a small hubzone business. Myself, and a number of small businesses created a joint venture consortium to chase Federal work. While each of us maintained our own overhead functions (benefits being one), we retained a single rep. to sell us health insurance. We tried to all choose the same. We at least had three companies on the same plan. I had an issue with our provider because they were giving an employee who had been on Human Growth Hormone for treatment of a head injury a rough time. I paid for the drug while we were negotiating, then contacted the rep. and began shopping around with all the participating companies. What little leverage we had, we applied, and the drug was quickly approved.

Please explain to me how I deal with the same scenario where a government agency makes the decision...

 

[Wild Bill]

In one brief statement, you defined the biggest problem with this country. This greedy, me-first mentality is sickening.

This notion where we step on the heads of those drowning, not just to stay afloat, but to gain entrance into the 100-foot yacht and then sail off without even throwing them a life jacket drives me mad.

I seriously feel sorry for you if money is that important to you.

Edit: Sorry if I missed the sarcasm. It still strikes a nerve with me though because a lot of people are serious when they talk like that.

I prefer using humor to answer a poster who called my morals shit b/c of a post he misread. It's better than getting into a pissing contest over something so trivial. Rest assured, money is not my only interest. Fast women are important to me too (only a joke).

 

[BleedBlueGold]

ok...here is a scenario that I've actually lived. I owned a small hubzone business. Myself, and a number of small businesses created a joint venture consortium to chase Federal work. While each of us maintained our own overhead functions (benefits being one), we retained a single rep. to sell us health insurance. We tried to all choose the same. We at least had three companies on the same plan. I had an issue with our provider because they were giving an employee who had been on Human Growth Hormone for treatment of a head injury a rough time. I paid for the drug while we were negotiating, then contacted the rep. and began shopping around with all the participating companies. What little leverage we had, we applied, and the drug was quickly approved.

Please explain to me how I deal with the same scenario where a government agency makes the decision...

That's kind of my point. Insurance companies should not be in the business of making medical decisions (nor should the government). A lot of doctors use standard of care regimens that have been developed through trials, etc. When they decide how they'd like to proceed, the insurance company should have no right to dictate any of the plan.

As it pertains to universal healthcare, I'm not saying there's an easy answer. I don't believe that 100% of the medical sector should be socialized. There needs to be wiggle room for innovation and advancements. The standard of care should be decided with the understanding that no two patients are the same and if a doctors needs to attempt other avenues, they should have the freedom to do so w/o first having to ask permission from the insurance company (or government).

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I prefer using humor to answer a poster who called my morals shit b/c of a post he misread. It's better than getting into a pissing contest over something so trivial. Rest assured, money is not my only interest. Fast women are important to me too (only a joke).

I didn't misread your original post. I just wholeheartedly disagree. Having the disposable income required to buy safer cars, better foods, better insurance coverage 1) Is not something the lower class has the luxury of doing most times and 2) In come cases still doesn't matter. I've seen people with perfectly good health insurance get denied because the insurance co. felt it wasn't the standard of care and deemed it medically unnecessary. A specialized doctor felt it was necessary, showed the proof that it was, and still had it denied. No amount of extra shifts, extra jobs, extra income was going to allow that patient to get the better treatment UNLESS they paid for it in full w/o help from their insurance provider. I have a problem with that as a whole and my issue with your post is that you waved it off claiming people with the means to pay for it, still can. Yet the only people with those means are those with millions of dollars. Hence, rich people can afford the better care that insurance companies are willing to deny to anyone else. I don't agree with that scenario.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

I prefer using humor to answer a poster who called my morals shit b/c of a post he misread. It's better than getting into a pissing contest over something so trivial. Rest assured, money is not my only interest. Fast women are important to me too (only a joke).

1) I did not misread. Perhaps you drew a silly analogy?

2) Trivial matter? Are you truly heartless? You do realize thousands of people are rejected the care they need because they don't have the "right" coverage? I don't find our health to be a trivial matter.

3) Your snarky "comeback" was both immature and lazy.

 

[Wild Bill]

I didn't misread your original post. I just wholeheartedly disagree. Having the disposable income required to buy safer cars, better foods, better insurance coverage 1) Is not something the lower class has the luxury of doing most times and 2) In come cases still doesn't matter. I've seen people with perfectly good health insurance get denied because the insurance co. felt it wasn't the standard of care and deemed it medically unnecessary. A specialized doctor felt it was necessary, showed the proof that it was, and still had it denied. No amount of extra shifts, extra jobs, extra income was going to allow that patient to get the better treatment UNLESS they paid for it in full w/o help from their insurance provider. I have a problem with that as a whole and my issue with your post is that you waved it off claiming people with the means to pay for it, still can. Yet the only people with those means are those with millions of dollars. Hence, rich people can afford the better care that insurance companies are willing to deny to anyone else. I don't agree with that scenario.

I understand you would prefer a system that provides the best care to all individuals. It's just not realistic. The best doctors and the best technology are limited in supply and can't be provided to everyone. If it was a realistic option, I'd prefer it as well. Given that it's not, I don't have an moral issue with someone paying for extra care or better care that I may not be able to afford.

1) I did not misread. Perhaps you drew a silly analogy?

The logic is not silly. If an individual can afford and is willing to spend $600 per month for a PPO (a cadillac plan plus some sort of supplemental insurance) while another is only able to afford a basic HMO for $300, I don't see that person spending more as immoral.

Similarly, I don't have an issue with someone spending $600 per month to drive a car with a more solid construction, better air bag systems, more efficient brakes etc while someone else can only afford $300 for a car that has inferior safety features.

The analogy is that someone is paying for safety that another is not able to afford. I don't have an issue with it. I would prefer everyone having the best of everything but that's just not realistic.

2) Trivial matter? Are you truly heartless? You do realize thousands of people are rejected the care they need because they don't have the "right" coverage? I don't find our health to be a trivial matter.

Whether you misread my post or genuinely think I have shit morals is trivial to me. The post had nothing to do with health insurance.

3) Your snarky "comeback" was both immature and lazy.

Noted.

 

[GoIrish41]

I understand you would prefer a system that provides the best care to all individuals. It's just not realistic. The best doctors and the best technology are limited in supply and can't be provided to everyone. If it was a realistic option, I'd prefer it as well. Given that it's not, I don't have an moral issue with someone paying for extra care or better care that I may not be able to afford.

That's certainly true. There are only so many "best" doctors and "best" technologies, but I don't think that is what BBG is talking about. He is talking about the limitation on treatment options due to costs of paying for them by the insurance companies. During the debates (which is what started this whole conversation) Carly Fiorina proposed a "free market" approach to health care -- something she claims has never been attempted. To the extent which the free market is involved in health care is involved in health care, denials in doctor prescribed treatments are fairly routinely denied by insurance companies because they are more expensive and affect the company's bottom line.

 

[Wild Bill]

That's certainly true. There are only so many "best" doctors and "best" technologies, but I don't think that is what BBG is talking about. He is talking about the limitation on treatment options due to costs of paying for them by the insurance companies. During the debates (which is what started this whole conversation) Carly Fiorina proposed a "free market" approach to health care -- something she claims has never been attempted. To the extent which the free market is involved in health care is involved in health care, denials in doctor prescribed treatments are fairly routinely denied by insurance companies because they are more expensive and affect the company's bottom line.

I realize claims and treatments are denied. That doesn't sit well with me, no different than it doesn't sit well with you. But what is the solution? Insurance companies are not going to run at a loss, medical innovation will not continue without the reward of profit and hospitals will not invest in medical devices/technology if they cannot charge for it's use. While I understand the harsh result of someone not receiving the best care available, I think it's important to consider the level of medical innovation the free markets have motivated. Continually improving medical treatments even if it is not accessible to all citizens, in my opinion, is simply a lesser evil than slowing down innovation in the medical industry.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I understand you would prefer a system that provides the best care to all individuals. It's just not realistic. The best doctors and the best technology are limited in supply and can't be provided to everyone. If it was a realistic option, I'd prefer it as well. Given that it's not, I don't have an moral issue with someone paying for extra care or better care that I may not be able to afford.

My mind works not in the "I can't" mode, but in the "How can I" mode. So when you say something is not realistic, I challenge those in charge of our country to make it a reality (or to at least make the attempt). And like GoIrish said, I'm not necessarily referring to the best of the very best docs/treatments. I'm referring mostly to insurance companies denying a better treatment because they don't want to pay for it. A privatized free-market healthcare system would just lead to more of this type of patient care and I'm completely against that.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I realize claims and treatments are denied. That doesn't sit well with me, no different than it doesn't sit well with you. But what is the solution? Insurance companies are not going to run at a loss, medical innovation will not continue without the reward of profit and hospitals will not invest in medical devices/technology if they cannot charge for it's use. While I understand the harsh result of someone not receiving the best care available, I think it's important to consider the level of medical innovation the free markets have motivated. Continually improving medical treatments even if it is not accessible to all citizens, in my opinion, is simply a lesser evil than slowing down innovation in the medical industry.

How much profit do they need? What is enough?

Happened to see this come across my Facebook feed today.

Blue Cross Blue Shield reports $265M net surplus and CEO bonus | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan reported a $265-million net surplus last year on $21.3 billion of revenue as the insurer’s investment returns compensated for an underwriting loss.

“It is gratifying to see Blue Cross continue to perform strongly — growing membership, maintaining the financial strength our members rely upon, and maximizing income from investments to take as much pressure as possible off our health insurance members,” CEO Dan Loepp said in a statement.

In its annual report released Monday, Blue Cross also reported that Loepp, who arrived in 2005, saw his total yearly compensation jump to $6.6 million from $3.8 million with the payment of a long-term performance bonus.

Loepp got a $1.4 million base salary, a $1.8 million yearly bonus and about $828,000 in other compensation, including personal insurance and a vehicle allowance. He also received a $2.5-million long-term performance bonus that he wasn’t yet eligible for in 2012.

Blues officials compared Loepp’s long-term performance bonus to that of stock options that corporate CEOs routinely receive.

The insurance company’s net surplus was $68 million less than in 2012. It had $417 million in investment income last year that more than made up for a $117-million underwriting loss.

As a nonprofit, the Blues’ surplus goes into reserve funds for paying out policyholder claims. The insurer said it spent $18.8 billion on benefit claims last year.

Paul Mozak, vice president of finance, said Blue Cross will now publicly report its yearly performance using generally accepted accounting principles, known as GAAP. Under GAAP, the insurer’s previously reported net loss of $2.5 million in 2012 would actually be a $333-million net surplus.

The Blues remained the largest health insurer in the state last year with 4.4 million Michigan policyholders, or 3,283 more than in 2012. That was about 45% of the total Michigan population of 9.9 million.

 

[ACamp1900]

It's not easy, but my trust that the gov can handle this is any efficient manner without prices inevitably going up while quality of service goes down is completely nil... straight blunt honesty, I'll trust the insurance companies before big gov.

 

[Domina Nostra]

It's not easy, but my trust that the gov can handle this is any efficient manner without prices inevitably going up while quality of service goes down is completely nil... straight blunt honesty, I'll trust the insurance companies before big gov.

That's not the point. It's not about delivering services in an efficient manner. It's about intending to do the right thing, whether or not it actually makes things better.

 

[GoIrish41]

I realize claims and treatments are denied. That doesn't sit well with me, no different than it doesn't sit well with you. But what is the solution? Insurance companies are not going to run at a loss, medical innovation will not continue without the reward of profit and hospitals will not invest in medical devices/technology if they cannot charge for it's use. While I understand the harsh result of someone not receiving the best care available, I think it's important to consider the level of medical innovation the free markets have motivated. Continually improving medical treatments even if it is not accessible to all citizens, in my opinion, is simply a lesser evil than slowing down innovation in the medical industry.

Good post. Continued innovation is certainly a challenge, but I wonder what good it is if it only benefits a select few? Much of the innovation you speak of begins in government labs -- the heavy lifting is complete before corporations get involved. These companies then push the prices up with obscene marketing campaigns and simple greed! We should not foot the bill for the basic and applied research and then get gouged on the other end, too. I take a medication that for chrhn's disease costs $7600 if purchased out of pocket. My insurance provider pays only $2500 a month. I do not know many people who could afford to pay even the deeply discounted price without a good insurance plan, let alone the no -insurance rate. Question is why are these prices are so high in the first place. If a doctor says this medication for a patient an insurance company should have no say in whether the patient receives it especially when their decision is based on astronomical mark ups.

 

[Wild Bill]

How much profit do they need? What is enough?

Happened to see this come across my Facebook feed today.

Blue Cross Blue Shield reports $265M net surplus and CEO bonus | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Fair question. I'm not familiar with the insurance or medical industry to know the level of profitability required sustain and grow.

Good post. Continued innovation is certainly a challenge, but I wonder what good it is if it only benefits a select few? Much of the innovation you speak of begins in government labs -- the heavy lifting is complete before corporations get involved. These companies then push the prices up with obscene marketing campaigns and simple greed! We should not foot the bill for the basic and applied research and then get gouged on the other end, too. I take a medication that for chrhn's disease costs $7600 if purchased out of pocket. My insurance provider pays only $2500 a month. I do not know many people who could afford to pay even the deeply discounted price without a good insurance plan, let alone the no -insurance rate. Question is why are these prices are so high in the first place. If a doctor says this medication for a patient an insurance company should have no say in whether the patient receives it especially when their decision is based on astronomical mark ups.

Similar to most technologies, what is available to a select few now, will be available to the masses over time.

Big companies using big gov't to fuck the people. Sounds about right.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Good post. Continued innovation is certainly a challenge, but I wonder what good it is if it only benefits a select few? Much of the innovation you speak of begins in government labs -- the heavy lifting is complete before corporations get involved. These companies then push the prices up with obscene marketing campaigns and simple greed! We should not foot the bill for the basic and applied research and then get gouged on the other end, too. I take a medication that for chrhn's disease costs $7600 if purchased out of pocket. My insurance provider pays only $2500 a month. I do not know many people who could afford to pay even the deeply discounted price without a good insurance plan, let alone the no -insurance rate. Question is why are these prices are so high in the first place. If a doctor says this medication for a patient an insurance company should have no say in whether the patient receives it especially when their decision is based on astronomical mark ups.

Many, many innovations first accrue primarily to the wealthy. That's just reality. I am happy to have the benefits of 1980s and 1990s research trickle-down to me.

There never has been, and never will be, a system where some group doesn't get preferences. In communist countries, you just replace the wealthy elite, with the party insiders. They get first dibs on everything.

Some mark-ups are there to re-coup R&D.

You need law to get at the big problems, bot fix everything.

 

[GoIrish41]

Many, many innovations first accrue primarily to the wealthy. That's just reality. I am happy to have the benefits of 1980s and 1990s research trickle-down to me.

There never has been, and never will be, a system where some group doesn't get preferences. In communist countries, you just replace the wealthy elite, with the party insiders. They get first dibs on everything.

Some mark-ups are there to re-coup R&D.

You need law to get at the big problems, bot fix everything.

Most of the R&D is funded and performed by the government, not the pharm companies.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I realize claims and treatments are denied. That doesn't sit well with me, no different than it doesn't sit well with you. But what is the solution? Insurance companies are not going to run at a loss, medical innovation will not continue without the reward of profit and hospitals will not invest in medical devices/technology if they cannot charge for it's use. While I understand the harsh result of someone not receiving the best care available, I think it's important to consider the level of medical innovation the free markets have motivated. Continually improving medical treatments even if it is not accessible to all citizens, in my opinion, is simply a lesser evil than slowing down innovation in the medical industry.

A lot of people just assume that the U.S. is the best when it comes to the medical industry. A recent study found that out of eleven major, industrialized countries, the U.S. ranked dead last overall. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally - The Commonwealth Fund

I agree that there should still be some profit-motive with the innovation and advancement in technology/devices. But it should be within reason and not price-gauged. The rest of the healthcare system needs to overhauled though, imo. It's not as great as what everyone likes to think.

 

[GoIrish41]

Many, many innovations first accrue primarily to the wealthy. That's just reality. I am happy to have the benefits of 1980s and 1990s research trickle-down to me.

There never has been, and never will be, a system where some group doesn't get preferences. In communist countries, you just replace the wealthy elite, with the party insiders. They get first dibs on everything.

Some mark-ups are there to re-coup R&D.

You need law to get at the big problems, bot fix everything.

But again, we aren't talking about IPhones here. We are talking about things that could save and/or dramatically improve the quality of life of people (whose taxes often fund the development of the products).

 

[Domina Nostra]

But again, we aren't talking about IPhones here. We are talking about things that could save and/or dramatically improve the quality of life of people (whose taxes often find the development of the products).

My point would be, if we are talking about goverenment policy, the question is NOT what's abstractly fair, but what actually gets the most drugs on the markets and to the most people in the long-term. I don't care about CEO bonuses in the long run.

If it really is just a matter of goverenments funding drug research, and then corportations taking all of the profits, then that should definitly be addressed. Just have the government do all its own R&D at the CDC or something, and get public patents.

But I suspect its far more complicated than that. I bet a lot of innovation comes from a mix of widely dispersed goverenment funding, private donations, and corporate money, all of which is intended to keep highly motivated and intelligent people working on lots of different things, even during LONG periods where they are unsuccessful. Once they are successful, they want to be rewarded. That's how people are, especially super-hard working gifted people.

 

[GoIrish41]

My point would be, the question is NOT what's abstractly fair, but what actually gets the most drugs on the markets and to the most people in the long-term. I don't care about CEO bonuses in the long run.

If it really is just a matter of goverenments funding drug research, and then corportations taking all of the profits, then that should definitly be addressed. Just have the government to all its own R&D at the CDC or something, and get public patents.

But I suspect its far more complicated than that.

I bet its a mix of widely dispersed goverenment funding, private donations, and corporate money, all of which is intended to keep highly motivated and intelligent people working on lots of different things, even during LONG periods where they are unsuccessful. Once they are successful, they want to be rewarded. That's how people are, especially super-hard working gifted people.

I work at an Army lab that focuses on CB defense technologies. The basic research and prototyping of equipment is generally performed at this lab. When the technology is matured, we seek partnerships with industry because the government is not set up to mass produce and distribute the products. Industry generally makes minor tweaks to the technologies to make them more marketable, and when the products hit the market, the Army can purchase them for use. I'm certain that the development of drugs works the same way. I can see the building where much of that research takes place out of my office window n post. It is a really crazy system when the government pays the R&D and the consumer costs for these products, but that is government inefficiency at its finest. Of course, industry seeks other uses for these technologies to expand the customer base. A gas mask developed for the military, for example can be adapted for use by first responders. These products are generally sold at a higher price because nobody has the purchasing power of the US government. This s similar to my medication example above. Some pay a lot more than others.

Industry is not concerned with fairness or even getting the most drugs on the market. They are concerned with maximizing profits.nif that means producing fewer drugs and jacking the price up by 5000 percent like the douche who cornered the market on one of the primary AIDS drugs a few months back, that is what they do. So all the people who need that drug to survive either pay up or die. It is appalling.

 

[phgreek]

That's not the point. It's not about delivering services in an efficient manner. It's about intending to do the right thing, whether or not it actually makes things better.

I know you did the winky face...but seriously, when you get down to actually assessing planning, launch, and performance to date of ACA...was the wink necessary, other than to spare the feelings of those who were for the ACA?

Whenever a critical discussion comes up, it spirals into "we had to do something". Well if we had to do "something" I'd rather Dems all have gathered in a circle and.....

Anyway, motion does not = progress toward a solution. Spending more money does not = better service/care.