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

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,546
Reaction score
1,320
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.
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.
Ireland had a similar problem with false negative cervical cancer screenings . Over 200 women were misdiagnosed and 18 or 19 have died (I think I saw on twitter where at least 1 more died after this article was published): https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hpv-test-for-cervical-cancer-screening-ireland-1.4735758

In their defense, however, they did send the tests to a low-bidder Texas lab.

I agree that there needs to be more localized treatment but my gut instinct is that in any national system there would be an even steeper divide between haves and have nots than we already see in urban v, rural markets. Obamacare has certainly been blamed for smaller rural hospitals closing.

I am more conflicted on the direct personal relationship aspect though. Sometimes it is better to have a fresh set of eyes on a problem if the symptoms are similar to a patient's usual complaints and history.
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
23,005
Reaction score
3,435
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.
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? ).
So go back to Bulldogs question. Why do US companies charge more in the US than overseas ? The answer is pretty obvious.
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
23,005
Reaction score
3,435
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.
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.
When you use ideological words like enslave and quote anecdotal stuff I cannot see that you want a conversation. Your final paragraph just flew over my head. I didnt understand it.
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
23,005
Reaction score
3,435
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
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?
Where have I said that ? You still havent provided an example of the US subsidising the rest of the world. This was a central claim on the thread that kicked this off but not one example has been put forward.
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
23,005
Reaction score
3,435
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
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.
You make several assertions but do not provide any links to back them up. I am interested in the figure you quote for R and D. Is this your government spending or companies ?
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,145
Reaction score
3,185
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.
When you use ideological words like enslave and quote anecdotal stuff I cannot see that you want a conversation. Your final paragraph just flew over my head. I didnt understand it.
Tommy Tainant
0. Sorry if what I state isn't clear to you, but I don't know why you would
"jump to assumptions" about "not wanting a conversation" when I started this whole thread for the purpose of resolving the issues!
That means all sides participating, through THOROUGH conversation or dialogue. That's the purpose of the thread.

Will this clarify points better:

1. Since you and I agree the point is to get for-profit-insurance out of the way,
I am criticizing how the "nationalized govt reform" attempted by Obama did the opposite and
PAID for-profit-insurance interests to ensure they got the business.

I am pointing out to you that going through govt had the OPPOSITE result.
Instead of removing FOR PROFIT INSURANCE, going through national govt allowed corporate interests to dominate the process,
FORCING citizens to purchase FOR-PROFIT-INSURANCE (plus billions in tax dollars were paid up front to these FOR PROFIT INSURANCE interests in order for Obama to get the ACA approved and passed)

2. Thus I am arguing that the nonprofit cooperative approach
achieves this goal better of eliminating for-profit-insurance.

Instead of going through federal govt that is so far removed from the people that only the BIG CORPORATE INTERESTS
can access representation through partisan politics, the cooperative approach PRESERVES control by citizens on the
GRASSROOTS level to directly pay and manage services WITHOUT relying on profit-driven or politically-driven middlemen.

I am arguing this works better, while going through federal govt FAILED.

3. Then I added further criticism of your approach, arguing if you keep pushing blindly that
the ONLY solution is "nationalized health care through govt" this DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS
that the cooperative and DIRECT ASSOCIATION structure has solved.

BUT IT KEEPS PEOPLE STUCK IN A STATE OF DEPENDENCE ON CORPORATE-INFLUENCED GOVT.
INSTEAD OF TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO ACCESS HEALTH CARE DIRECTLY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

I am saying, in that last paragraph, the more that you and others PUSH BLINDLY AS A MINDLESS MOB
for just "single payer" or "nationalized health care" WITHOUT SPECIFYING the reforms that direct association cooperatives make,
then you end up being part of the problem. You ENABLE the very FOR PROFIT CORPORATE INTERESTS
to remain in control because you keep preaching to people to give up control to Govt that is run by those hostile interest.

That's why I brought up the
point under #1: to show how your "solution" of just having government take over
led to mandates FORCING citizens to buy FOR PROFIT insurance.


So it had the EXACT OPPOSITE effect of what you and I are both arguing.
The "nationalized govt legislation" allowed FOR PROFIT CORPORATE INTERESTS
to control the policy terms.


That is why I was arguing that your INSISTENCE on putting this "in govt hands"
PERPETUATES this very problem of FOR PROFIT INSURANCE INTERESTS injected into the costs instead of being taken out!


Is this more clear?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top