Bull Ring Tommy T (or Lysistrata): Can you answer reply by Dekster to your OP?

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Tommy Tainant Thanks for bringing up the issue of benefits of national health safety net programs
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US
in cases where patients can't afford meds like insulin.

I thought Dekster's response was well presented:
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US

Ridgerunner doesn't think this post will get read, understood or answered
by the people it was addressed to
Dexter said:
She is disingenuous. The UK imports over 99% of its insulin which means that their healthcare system is putting virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs for which there is a growing demand both there and globally. She holds up her little sign attacking the US company while saying zilch about the companies in Denmark, France or Germany which are in the same game. She and Bernie also don't point out that the UK is starting to stockpile insulin and other drug stores for fear a no-deal Brexit could leave them without critical medicines like insulin because, as stated, their healthcare system puts virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines it needs. No I don't blame her for doing what is best for her individually. I do, however, blame her for trying to paint this issue with a victimhood brush when she sits in a free-rider country while criticizing the US which is investing billions in research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs.
I thought Dekster's point was well made.

Tommy Tainant would you mind replying and explaining if this is accurate or
incorrect? Don't the US govt and pharmaceutical companies end up subsidizing
the research for medical development charged to taxpayers but not passed overseas?

Also which problem comes first: the US govt and businesses
funding research through Big Pharm so it jacks up the prices in the US?
Is it the fact that Big Pharm has corrupted the free market with excess profit,
so it ties up the govt in that mess. And THAT is what leads to the problems
both you and Dekster point out.

Can you answer Dekster's post. Even if that means admitting
you are both right, and the problem is bigger than just protesting one side or the other.

Thanks! If Tommy doesn't answer, can I open this one on one thread to Lysistrata to get an answer from someone else (besides me reading both sides to understand the problems causing both objections).
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
22,633
Reaction score
3,128
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
Tommy Tainant Thanks for bringing up the issue of benefits of national health safety net programs
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US
in cases where patients can't afford meds like insulin.

I thought Dekster's response was well presented:
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US

Ridgerunner doesn't think this post will get read, understood or answered
by the people it was addressed to
Dexter said:
She is disingenuous. The UK imports over 99% of its insulin which means that their healthcare system is putting virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs for which there is a growing demand both there and globally. She holds up her little sign attacking the US company while saying zilch about the companies in Denmark, France or Germany which are in the same game. She and Bernie also don't point out that the UK is starting to stockpile insulin and other drug stores for fear a no-deal Brexit could leave them without critical medicines like insulin because, as stated, their healthcare system puts virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines it needs. No I don't blame her for doing what is best for her individually. I do, however, blame her for trying to paint this issue with a victimhood brush when she sits in a free-rider country while criticizing the US which is investing billions in research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs.
I thought Dekster's point was well made.

Tommy Tainant would you mind replying and explaining if this is accurate or
incorrect? Don't the US govt and pharmaceutical companies end up subsidizing
the research for medical development charged to taxpayers but not passed overseas?

Also which problem comes first: the US govt and businesses
funding research through Big Pharm so it jacks up the prices in the US?
Is it the fact that Big Pharm has corrupted the free market with excess profit,
so it ties up the govt in that mess. And THAT is what leads to the problems
both you and Dekster point out.

Can you answer Dekster's post. Even if that means admitting
you are both right, and the problem is bigger than just protesting one side or the other.

Thanks! If Tommy doesn't answer, can I open this one on one thread to Lysistrata to get an answer from someone else (besides me reading both sides to understand the problems causing both objections).
I already answered his points - debunked.

The problem you have is that everybody is looking to fill their pockets and that drives up the costs. I am sure there is a lot more to it than that but ask yourself why the US is the only country still without a modern healthcare service.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Tommy Tainant Thanks for bringing up the issue of benefits of national health safety net programs
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US
in cases where patients can't afford meds like insulin.

I thought Dekster's response was well presented:
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US

Ridgerunner doesn't think this post will get read, understood or answered
by the people it was addressed to
Dexter said:
She is disingenuous. The UK imports over 99% of its insulin which means that their healthcare system is putting virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs for which there is a growing demand both there and globally. She holds up her little sign attacking the US company while saying zilch about the companies in Denmark, France or Germany which are in the same game. She and Bernie also don't point out that the UK is starting to stockpile insulin and other drug stores for fear a no-deal Brexit could leave them without critical medicines like insulin because, as stated, their healthcare system puts virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines it needs. No I don't blame her for doing what is best for her individually. I do, however, blame her for trying to paint this issue with a victimhood brush when she sits in a free-rider country while criticizing the US which is investing billions in research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs.
I thought Dekster's point was well made.

Tommy Tainant would you mind replying and explaining if this is accurate or
incorrect? Don't the US govt and pharmaceutical companies end up subsidizing
the research for medical development charged to taxpayers but not passed overseas?

Also which problem comes first: the US govt and businesses
funding research through Big Pharm so it jacks up the prices in the US?
Is it the fact that Big Pharm has corrupted the free market with excess profit,
so it ties up the govt in that mess. And THAT is what leads to the problems
both you and Dekster point out.

Can you answer Dekster's post. Even if that means admitting
you are both right, and the problem is bigger than just protesting one side or the other.

Thanks! If Tommy doesn't answer, can I open this one on one thread to Lysistrata to get an answer from someone else (besides me reading both sides to understand the problems causing both objections).
I already answered his points - debunked.

The problem you have is that everybody is looking to fill their pockets and that drives up the costs. I am sure there is a lot more to it than that but ask yourself why the US is the only country still without a modern healthcare service.
Dekster (and/or Ridgerunner)
1. Do you agree that Tommy Tainant "debunked" the claims the US subsidizes costs of research and
medication sold cheaper to other nations?

2. Tommy Tainant do you also address the issue I've found
with NONPROFIT cooperative direct associations taking away all this excess profit and waste
So there IS A SOLUTION that DOESN'T REQUIRE GOVT mandating the central programs to get services at cost.

People can do this directly so it retains free choice that Govt is not equipped to manage for such large diverse populations.

Are you taking nonprofits into consideration that do a better job of minimizing costs, maximizing benefits access and choice,
while totally avoiding the politics, conflicts and bureaucracy of going through govt?

Is this part of the problem? Not just getting rid of profits exploiting medical needs
but also the shift in mindset and RESPONSIBILITY where people understand the REAL costs of medical services
and how much can be saved by taking back control and running this democratically through cooperatives
instead of through govt representation that adds burdens and costs of bureaucracy!
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
22,633
Reaction score
3,128
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
Tommy Tainant Thanks for bringing up the issue of benefits of national health safety net programs
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US
in cases where patients can't afford meds like insulin.

I thought Dekster's response was well presented:
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US

Ridgerunner doesn't think this post will get read, understood or answered
by the people it was addressed to
Dexter said:
She is disingenuous. The UK imports over 99% of its insulin which means that their healthcare system is putting virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs for which there is a growing demand both there and globally. She holds up her little sign attacking the US company while saying zilch about the companies in Denmark, France or Germany which are in the same game. She and Bernie also don't point out that the UK is starting to stockpile insulin and other drug stores for fear a no-deal Brexit could leave them without critical medicines like insulin because, as stated, their healthcare system puts virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines it needs. No I don't blame her for doing what is best for her individually. I do, however, blame her for trying to paint this issue with a victimhood brush when she sits in a free-rider country while criticizing the US which is investing billions in research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs.
I thought Dekster's point was well made.

Tommy Tainant would you mind replying and explaining if this is accurate or
incorrect? Don't the US govt and pharmaceutical companies end up subsidizing
the research for medical development charged to taxpayers but not passed overseas?

Also which problem comes first: the US govt and businesses
funding research through Big Pharm so it jacks up the prices in the US?
Is it the fact that Big Pharm has corrupted the free market with excess profit,
so it ties up the govt in that mess. And THAT is what leads to the problems
both you and Dekster point out.

Can you answer Dekster's post. Even if that means admitting
you are both right, and the problem is bigger than just protesting one side or the other.

Thanks! If Tommy doesn't answer, can I open this one on one thread to Lysistrata to get an answer from someone else (besides me reading both sides to understand the problems causing both objections).
I already answered his points - debunked.

The problem you have is that everybody is looking to fill their pockets and that drives up the costs. I am sure there is a lot more to it than that but ask yourself why the US is the only country still without a modern healthcare service.
Dekster (and/or Ridgerunner)
1. Do you agree that Tommy Tainant "debunked" the claims the US subsidizes costs of research and
medication sold cheaper to other nations?

2. Tommy Tainant do you also address the issue I've found
with NONPROFIT cooperative direct associations taking away all this excess profit and waste
So there IS A SOLUTION that DOESN'T REQUIRE GOVT mandating the central programs to get services at cost.

People can do this directly so it retains free choice that Govt is not equipped to manage for such large diverse populations.

Are you taking nonprofits into consideration that do a better job of minimizing costs, maximizing benefits access and choice,
while totally avoiding the politics, conflicts and bureaucracy of going through govt?

Is this part of the problem? Not just getting rid of profits exploiting medical needs
but also the shift in mindset and RESPONSIBILITY where people understand the REAL costs of medical services
and how much can be saved by taking back control and running this democratically through cooperatives
instead of through govt representation that adds burdens and costs of bureaucracy!
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
 

Ridgerunner

'Ole Wise One'
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
8,600
Reaction score
3,359
Points
1,095
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
Best Medicine in the world is practiced in the USA... If the problem has been solved why do folks travel from worldwide to the US to receive medical care?
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
63,987
Reaction score
8,246
Points
2,030
I'm still not clear on why drugs have to cost so much more here than in the rest of the world. Yes, development costs are huge, but if the same drug, made by the same manufacturer can be sold for a profit elsewhere, why can't it be sold for that price here? No need to let them make all their profit off of us and let the rest of the world slide. Could someone explain that to me?
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
63,987
Reaction score
8,246
Points
2,030
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
Best Medicine in the world is practiced in the USA... If the problem has been solved why do folks travel from worldwide to the US to receive medical care?
The same drugs made by the same manufacturers cost less in other countries. Those drugs don't work any better here than they do in other countries.
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
22,633
Reaction score
3,128
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
Best Medicine in the world is practiced in the USA... If the problem has been solved why do folks travel from worldwide to the US to receive medical care?
The same drugs made by the same manufacturers cost less in other countries. Those drugs don't work any better here than they do in other countries.
The fragmented state of US healthcare makes it easier to hike prices. And of course the hospital and the insurance company need to show a profit.
 

Ridgerunner

'Ole Wise One'
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
8,600
Reaction score
3,359
Points
1,095
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii
I'm still not clear on why drugs have to cost so much more here than in the rest of the world. Yes, development costs are huge, but if the same drug, made by the same manufacturer can be sold for a profit elsewhere, why can't it be sold for that price here? No need to let them make all their profit off of us and let the rest of the world slide. Could someone explain that to me?
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
Best Medicine in the world is practiced in the USA... If the problem has been solved why do folks travel from worldwide to the US to receive medical care?
The same drugs made by the same manufacturers cost less in other countries. Those drugs don't work any better here than they do in other countries.
I am not an expert in the field but the way I have it figured is that the drugs are sold for the same prices around the world... The reason that Joe Sixpack gets Meds at reduced rates is because the government where ever Joe lives at subsidizes the cost... So Joe has all ready paid for the drugs whether he uses them or not... Somebody has to pay for the drugs... This how Socialized Medicine works...
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
63,987
Reaction score
8,246
Points
2,030
I'm still not clear on why drugs have to cost so much more here than in the rest of the world. Yes, development costs are huge, but if the same drug, made by the same manufacturer can be sold for a profit elsewhere, why can't it be sold for that price here? No need to let them make all their profit off of us and let the rest of the world slide. Could someone explain that to me?
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
Best Medicine in the world is practiced in the USA... If the problem has been solved why do folks travel from worldwide to the US to receive medical care?
The same drugs made by the same manufacturers cost less in other countries. Those drugs don't work any better here than they do in other countries.
I am not an expert in the field but the way I have it figured is that the drugs are sold for the same prices around the world... The reason that Joe Sixpack gets Meds at reduced rates is because the government where ever Joe lives at subsidizes the cost... So Joe has all ready paid for the drugs whether he uses them or not... Somebody has to pay for the drugs... This how Socialized Medicine works...
The US is specifically prevented from negotiating drug prices. Government subsidizing is a separate issue. The actual price of the drugs is what I'm talking about. The same drugs made by the same manufacturers cost less in other countries before any subsidization is considered.
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,231
Reaction score
1,042
Points
275
Tommy Tainant Thanks for bringing up the issue of benefits of national health safety net programs
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US
in cases where patients can't afford meds like insulin.

I thought Dekster's response was well presented:
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US

Ridgerunner doesn't think this post will get read, understood or answered
by the people it was addressed to
Dexter said:
She is disingenuous. The UK imports over 99% of its insulin which means that their healthcare system is putting virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs for which there is a growing demand both there and globally. She holds up her little sign attacking the US company while saying zilch about the companies in Denmark, France or Germany which are in the same game. She and Bernie also don't point out that the UK is starting to stockpile insulin and other drug stores for fear a no-deal Brexit could leave them without critical medicines like insulin because, as stated, their healthcare system puts virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines it needs. No I don't blame her for doing what is best for her individually. I do, however, blame her for trying to paint this issue with a victimhood brush when she sits in a free-rider country while criticizing the US which is investing billions in research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs.
I thought Dekster's point was well made.

Tommy Tainant would you mind replying and explaining if this is accurate or
incorrect? Don't the US govt and pharmaceutical companies end up subsidizing
the research for medical development charged to taxpayers but not passed overseas?

Also which problem comes first: the US govt and businesses
funding research through Big Pharm so it jacks up the prices in the US?
Is it the fact that Big Pharm has corrupted the free market with excess profit,
so it ties up the govt in that mess. And THAT is what leads to the problems
both you and Dekster point out.

Can you answer Dekster's post. Even if that means admitting
you are both right, and the problem is bigger than just protesting one side or the other.

Thanks! If Tommy doesn't answer, can I open this one on one thread to Lysistrata to get an answer from someone else (besides me reading both sides to understand the problems causing both objections).
I already answered his points - debunked.

The problem you have is that everybody is looking to fill their pockets and that drives up the costs. I am sure there is a lot more to it than that but ask yourself why the US is the only country still without a modern healthcare service.
No you did not. I did not go through your entire list but I can tell you for certain that Bristol-Myers is an American Company based in New York, City, as is Colgate, as is GE Healthcare.....is there any or your list that aren't American companies? In addition you fail to mention that exactly 1 company in the UK manufactures insulin and it only does enough to cover 2K diabetics. You also did not address that the uK's largest insulin supplier--which is a Danish Company that has a distribution company in the UK--has been stockpiling insulin ( Britain's biggest insulin manufacturer building up four-month stockpile in case of no-deal Brexit ).

You simply haven't refuted a single thing I posted with your cut and paste list of global drug companies that have UK divisions, many of them American.
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
22,633
Reaction score
3,128
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
Tommy Tainant Thanks for bringing up the issue of benefits of national health safety net programs
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US
in cases where patients can't afford meds like insulin.

I thought Dekster's response was well presented:
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US

Ridgerunner doesn't think this post will get read, understood or answered
by the people it was addressed to
Dexter said:
She is disingenuous. The UK imports over 99% of its insulin which means that their healthcare system is putting virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs for which there is a growing demand both there and globally. She holds up her little sign attacking the US company while saying zilch about the companies in Denmark, France or Germany which are in the same game. She and Bernie also don't point out that the UK is starting to stockpile insulin and other drug stores for fear a no-deal Brexit could leave them without critical medicines like insulin because, as stated, their healthcare system puts virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines it needs. No I don't blame her for doing what is best for her individually. I do, however, blame her for trying to paint this issue with a victimhood brush when she sits in a free-rider country while criticizing the US which is investing billions in research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs.
I thought Dekster's point was well made.

Tommy Tainant would you mind replying and explaining if this is accurate or
incorrect? Don't the US govt and pharmaceutical companies end up subsidizing
the research for medical development charged to taxpayers but not passed overseas?

Also which problem comes first: the US govt and businesses
funding research through Big Pharm so it jacks up the prices in the US?
Is it the fact that Big Pharm has corrupted the free market with excess profit,
so it ties up the govt in that mess. And THAT is what leads to the problems
both you and Dekster point out.

Can you answer Dekster's post. Even if that means admitting
you are both right, and the problem is bigger than just protesting one side or the other.

Thanks! If Tommy doesn't answer, can I open this one on one thread to Lysistrata to get an answer from someone else (besides me reading both sides to understand the problems causing both objections).
I already answered his points - debunked.

The problem you have is that everybody is looking to fill their pockets and that drives up the costs. I am sure there is a lot more to it than that but ask yourself why the US is the only country still without a modern healthcare service.
No you did not. I did not go through your entire list but I can tell you for certain that Bristol-Myers is an American Company based in New York, City, as is Colgate, as is GE Healthcare.....is there any or your list that aren't American companies? In addition you fail to mention that exactly 1 company in the UK manufactures insulin and it only does enough to cover 2K diabetics. You also did not address that the uK's largest insulin supplier--which is a Danish Company that has a distribution company in the UK--has been stockpiling insulin ( Britain's biggest insulin manufacturer building up four-month stockpile in case of no-deal Brexit ).
US
You simply haven't refuted a single thing I posted with your cut and paste list of global drug companies that have UK divisions, many of them American.
Have another look at your claims. It is clear that the US is not subsidising cheap drugs for the rest of the world. If you still think this is so please give me an example.
 

Ridgerunner

'Ole Wise One'
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
8,600
Reaction score
3,359
Points
1,095
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii
Have another look at your claims. It is clear that the US is not subsidising cheap drugs for the rest of the world. If you still think this is so please give me an example.
Hell no they are not... And they shouldn't have to subsidize your meds... The NHS is negotiating with the Drug Companies not the US Government... Do you think Private company in the US should give you a break because you have socialized medicine?
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,231
Reaction score
1,042
Points
275
Tommy Tainant Thanks for bringing up the issue of benefits of national health safety net programs
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US
in cases where patients can't afford meds like insulin.

I thought Dekster's response was well presented:
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US

Ridgerunner doesn't think this post will get read, understood or answered
by the people it was addressed to
Dexter said:
She is disingenuous. The UK imports over 99% of its insulin which means that their healthcare system is putting virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs for which there is a growing demand both there and globally. She holds up her little sign attacking the US company while saying zilch about the companies in Denmark, France or Germany which are in the same game. She and Bernie also don't point out that the UK is starting to stockpile insulin and other drug stores for fear a no-deal Brexit could leave them without critical medicines like insulin because, as stated, their healthcare system puts virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines it needs. No I don't blame her for doing what is best for her individually. I do, however, blame her for trying to paint this issue with a victimhood brush when she sits in a free-rider country while criticizing the US which is investing billions in research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs.
I thought Dekster's point was well made.

Tommy Tainant would you mind replying and explaining if this is accurate or
incorrect? Don't the US govt and pharmaceutical companies end up subsidizing
the research for medical development charged to taxpayers but not passed overseas?

Also which problem comes first: the US govt and businesses
funding research through Big Pharm so it jacks up the prices in the US?
Is it the fact that Big Pharm has corrupted the free market with excess profit,
so it ties up the govt in that mess. And THAT is what leads to the problems
both you and Dekster point out.

Can you answer Dekster's post. Even if that means admitting
you are both right, and the problem is bigger than just protesting one side or the other.

Thanks! If Tommy doesn't answer, can I open this one on one thread to Lysistrata to get an answer from someone else (besides me reading both sides to understand the problems causing both objections).
I already answered his points - debunked.

The problem you have is that everybody is looking to fill their pockets and that drives up the costs. I am sure there is a lot more to it than that but ask yourself why the US is the only country still without a modern healthcare service.
No you did not. I did not go through your entire list but I can tell you for certain that Bristol-Myers is an American Company based in New York, City, as is Colgate, as is GE Healthcare.....is there any or your list that aren't American companies? In addition you fail to mention that exactly 1 company in the UK manufactures insulin and it only does enough to cover 2K diabetics. You also did not address that the uK's largest insulin supplier--which is a Danish Company that has a distribution company in the UK--has been stockpiling insulin ( Britain's biggest insulin manufacturer building up four-month stockpile in case of no-deal Brexit ).
US
You simply haven't refuted a single thing I posted with your cut and paste list of global drug companies that have UK divisions, many of them American.
Have another look at your claims. It is clear that the US is not subsidising cheap drugs for the rest of the world. If you still think this is so please give me an example.
You haven't earned an example based on your disingenuous list. In 2016, the US spent $171.8B on medical R&D, over half of which is in prescription drugs alone that our companies will eventually distribute through its subsidiaries in your free-rider country ( US Medical Health Research Spending on the Rise, but for How Long? ).
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Tommy Tainant Thanks for bringing up the issue of benefits of national health safety net programs
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US
in cases where patients can't afford meds like insulin.

I thought Dekster's response was well presented:
American Diabetic doesnt want to come back to the US

Ridgerunner doesn't think this post will get read, understood or answered
by the people it was addressed to
Dexter said:
She is disingenuous. The UK imports over 99% of its insulin which means that their healthcare system is putting virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs for which there is a growing demand both there and globally. She holds up her little sign attacking the US company while saying zilch about the companies in Denmark, France or Germany which are in the same game. She and Bernie also don't point out that the UK is starting to stockpile insulin and other drug stores for fear a no-deal Brexit could leave them without critical medicines like insulin because, as stated, their healthcare system puts virtually no money into research, development and manufacturing of the medicines it needs. No I don't blame her for doing what is best for her individually. I do, however, blame her for trying to paint this issue with a victimhood brush when she sits in a free-rider country while criticizing the US which is investing billions in research, development and manufacturing of the medicines she needs.
I thought Dekster's point was well made.

Tommy Tainant would you mind replying and explaining if this is accurate or
incorrect? Don't the US govt and pharmaceutical companies end up subsidizing
the research for medical development charged to taxpayers but not passed overseas?

Also which problem comes first: the US govt and businesses
funding research through Big Pharm so it jacks up the prices in the US?
Is it the fact that Big Pharm has corrupted the free market with excess profit,
so it ties up the govt in that mess. And THAT is what leads to the problems
both you and Dekster point out.

Can you answer Dekster's post. Even if that means admitting
you are both right, and the problem is bigger than just protesting one side or the other.

Thanks! If Tommy doesn't answer, can I open this one on one thread to Lysistrata to get an answer from someone else (besides me reading both sides to understand the problems causing both objections).
I already answered his points - debunked.

The problem you have is that everybody is looking to fill their pockets and that drives up the costs. I am sure there is a lot more to it than that but ask yourself why the US is the only country still without a modern healthcare service.
Dekster (and/or Ridgerunner)
1. Do you agree that Tommy Tainant "debunked" the claims the US subsidizes costs of research and
medication sold cheaper to other nations?

2. Tommy Tainant do you also address the issue I've found
with NONPROFIT cooperative direct associations taking away all this excess profit and waste
So there IS A SOLUTION that DOESN'T REQUIRE GOVT mandating the central programs to get services at cost.

People can do this directly so it retains free choice that Govt is not equipped to manage for such large diverse populations.

Are you taking nonprofits into consideration that do a better job of minimizing costs, maximizing benefits access and choice,
while totally avoiding the politics, conflicts and bureaucracy of going through govt?

Is this part of the problem? Not just getting rid of profits exploiting medical needs
but also the shift in mindset and RESPONSIBILITY where people understand the REAL costs of medical services
and how much can be saved by taking back control and running this democratically through cooperatives
instead of through govt representation that adds burdens and costs of bureaucracy!
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
Dear Tommy Tainant
How is waiting in line to die of Stage 4 cancer that got missed in earlier stages any kind of solution?

Isn't there a clear need to LOCALIZE treatment more where there is a DIRECT personal relationship between providers and patients?

Did you see this video:

Mom who says she has Stage 3 cancer calls out politician in viral video about health care crisis

A Facebook video of a mother in tears has more than a million views after she challenged a Canadian premier to look her in the face and tell her that there is no health care crisis in the province as she faces a Stage 3 cancer diagnosis -- years after she says her issues started and her concerns were brushed aside.

The video, posted just days ago, calls out Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil. As of this writing, it has more than a million views.

Canada has a universal, publicly-funded health care system.
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,231
Reaction score
1,042
Points
275
And of course the hospital and the insurance company need to show a profit.
OMG!!! Those people should be tarred and feathered... Profit ppfffttt! That shit has to stop immediately...
We annually spend more on R&D than the UK spends on the entire NHS. The problem isn't that we are greedy. It is that they are cheapskates who don't pull their weight. If we adopted their model, there would be virtually no medical progress. That may be cool for people who have treatable conditions. For others, not so much. :chillpill:

This is one are where the democrats are just completely moronic in their analysis. Progressives are arguing for no more progress just so they have more money to spend on over-priced electric cars and such.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Have another look at your claims. It is clear that the US is not subsidising cheap drugs for the rest of the world. If you still think this is so please give me an example.
Hell no they are not... And they shouldn't have to subsidize your meds... The NHS is negotiating with the Drug Companies not the US Government... Do you think Private company in the US should give you a break because you have socialized medicine?
Dear Tommy Tainant and Ridgerunner
Thank you for following up here, both your contributions are very helpful to understand where we are missing points and need to make corrections and reforms.

RR brings up a good point:
Tommy Tainant the reason the insurance and medical providers can give BREAKS through cooperatives is not because of subsidizing but because the high end admin, bureaucracy, claims are cut out, not just the extra profits.

Running programs through Govt does not clean up the problem with waste, abuse, poor service etc. It is argued it makes it worse.

The more SUSTAINABLE and cost effective way to reduce pricing to AT COST "Medicare Rates" or close to it is to make the SERVICE RELATIONSHIP and structure more effective so it saves money on both sides, both the provider and the patients.

So yes Tommy Tainant we do have the benefit of "larger groups" pooling together to get discounts, but it's not because of govt it's because they set up direct payment WITHOUT going through a third party adding costs and regulatory claims, baggage and burdensome bureaucracy to the process (whether govt or big profit middlemen).

This is a critical point in what is different between the collective discounts through govt (which just push the burden of paying the difference onto other taxpayers WITHOUT solving the problems creating that gap in budget) and the collective discounts through direct care associations and nonprofit cooperatives that cut the costs because they cut the waste.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I'm still not clear on why drugs have to cost so much more here than in the rest of the world. Yes, development costs are huge, but if the same drug, made by the same manufacturer can be sold for a profit elsewhere, why can't it be sold for that price here? No need to let them make all their profit off of us and let the rest of the world slide. Could someone explain that to me?
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
Best Medicine in the world is practiced in the USA... If the problem has been solved why do folks travel from worldwide to the US to receive medical care?
The same drugs made by the same manufacturers cost less in other countries. Those drugs don't work any better here than they do in other countries.
I am not an expert in the field but the way I have it figured is that the drugs are sold for the same prices around the world... The reason that Joe Sixpack gets Meds at reduced rates is because the government where ever Joe lives at subsidizes the cost... So Joe has all ready paid for the drugs whether he uses them or not... Somebody has to pay for the drugs... This how Socialized Medicine works...
The US is specifically prevented from negotiating drug prices. Government subsidizing is a separate issue. The actual price of the drugs is what I'm talking about. The same drugs made by the same manufacturers cost less in other countries before any subsidization is considered.
Dear BULLDOG

From what I understand, in the agreements for federal govt subsidizing the cost of research and development, the drug companies sign restrictions where they are required to sell those medications to govt at cost. So that's how the federally funded clinics get the same drugs for less.

The nonprofit PPC I am researching as a model for health care and medical reform has 2 federally funded clinics in the Houston network where certain medications can be obtained at cost.

The PPC also was able to obtain and negotiate lower prices by getting some medications through India at a fraction of the cost.

There is some clause in the funding through federal govt of developing the pharmaceuticals that adds conditions on pricing when the federal govt obtains them.

As for negotiating insurance and hospital costs, the nonprofit cooperative associations can work with each state to secure the necessary licensing.

If we support this approach and system of DEMOCRATIZING health care where people can be empowered to manage their own resources and choices, we won't waste more time and resources battling politics through govt but can bypass all that and invest directly in solutions that work. This will also give people greater direct leverage in larger groups to start compelling govt and company interests to work more effectively with people running our own programs.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Fragmenting the service would increase the costs. Big is beautiful when looking at insurance schemes, The NHS is basically a big insurance scheme.
I know you are keen on your suggestion Emily but the problem has already been solved across the world.
Best Medicine in the world is practiced in the USA... If the problem has been solved why do folks travel from worldwide to the US to receive medical care?
The same drugs made by the same manufacturers cost less in other countries. Those drugs don't work any better here than they do in other countries.
The fragmented state of US healthcare makes it easier to hike prices. And of course the hospital and the insurance company need to show a profit.
BINGO Tommy Tainant
When Obama forced taxpayers to fund insurance corporate interests, this was done at profit pricing. They were being subsidized to keep their companies running which is at profit.

However, with the nonprofit cooperative associations, there is no such high profit added but it is removed, and the providers can still operate because the patients and providers can keep the difference and pay directly under their own terms and contracts.

So this ends up being even better than govt health care which cannot create or manage those nonprofit relationships.

it takes the BEST of all systems, including the federally funded low cost clinics, and makes them better by cutting out the worst flaws that otherwise create waste, abuse and bureaucracy adding to costs, including the high profits, high deductibles, high copays that are all about making money for middle men that CANNOT COMPETE with cooperative pricing and structure.

Tommy Tainant if you keep promoting "disinformation" you are basically enabling big pharm to abuse govt and party to push their programs for PROFIT.

If you insist on refusing to research and promote better solutions, you are helping indirectly to keep people enslaved to the idea that govt will save them, when in fact corporate interests abuse that to keep their own monopoly on the industry, and by negligence or omission are HELPING to fuel the monopoly profits by Big Pharm buying out govt which the cooperative nonprofit approach would liberate people from.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top