But people don't have to pay high drug prices and health care is reasonable.

Just kidding. You yanks are subsidizing the pharmaceutical research for the whole world.

kruuth: You yanks are subsidizing the pharmaceutical research for the whole world.

And yet the US ranks far below other industrialized nations in the general health of it's citizens. WTF?

And yet the US ranks far below other industrialized nations in the general health of it's citizens. WTF?

because a lot of us are hopped up on goofballs and shooting each other and crashing our cars in drunken accidents

It's worrisome and something that must be considered when reforming our healthcare system. Our healthcare system still must be reformed though. Opponents distort the debate by making it an "all or nothing" prospect. According to them, it's either death to progress and 100% socialized medicine, or 100% pure capitalism and wonderous progress.

Yet our healthcare, particularly for the lower middle class and the uninsured, is an embarrassment.

Millions of Viagara users are subsidizing pharmaceutical research for the whole world.

skinnycatullus: I submit (wholly without evidence, of course) that if we were to find a way for everyone to receive adequate healthcare using existing drugs and technology, the overall gains in the healthiness of our population would more than make up for any potential gains we might have received from drug breakthroughs.

unless you can prove that on a powerpoint presentation with a bottom line showing lots and lots of profit, its a moot point.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Capitalism works?!?!

It works for some, others not so much

Good, so then we taxpayers in the U.S. can stop subsidizing the research of the pharmaceutical companies with our tax dollars, then.

You know, since all this foreign capital is pouring in.

Yes, yes, I know the pharmaceutical companies will have to pay those investors back, unlike the taxpayer money they don't have to pay back.

But, they'll be fine.

NuttierThanEver: meanwhile there hasn't been a new worthwhile antibiotic released in almost a decade

Wait until there's a drug-resistant TB outbreak. Then antibiotic research will be profitable again.

Hmmm... their drug companies are ailing. But what of their other medical industries? Most new surgical breakthroughs are being discovered, tested, and approved first in Europe, not the US.

But then again there is not as much money in actual cures as there is in the treatment of symptoms.

NuttierThanEver Think Viagra or Lipitor, meanwhile there hasn't been a new worthwhile antibiotic released in almost a decade

Plenty of research is being done on antibiotics (I'm in the field). The current ones work fine and 'Superbug' infections are few & far between in reality, despite the media worry-warts.

Superbug antibiotics are on the horizon.

This thread is disappointing. I expected a list of two or three counterexamples to prove him wrong.

NuttierThanEver: meanwhile there hasn't been a new worthwhile antibiotic released in almost a decade

Treatments that require a patient to purchase pills for years are a more sustainable revenue channel than cures which can be taken once by a patient and never have to be taken again.

Hence why there have been no new antibiotic or vaccines in over a decade... its not profitable.

It should be noted that Russian epidemiologists have had significant success with bacteriophages (viruses that attack bacteria) in the treatment of extensibly resistant bacterial infections. This is a treatment though that you will not likely see in the US for some time, because according to US law you cannot patent a life-form that exists in nature.

alywa: Can we please stop focusing on healthcare, and get back to the real issues at hand? Gays are threatening to marry! Women are having abortions! They are trying to take away our guns! Mexicans are taking my job!

Just give uncommitted gays guns to shoot Mexican women who are trying to have abortions. Problem solved.

The link the blogger got his info from is suggesting it's the business conditions and science base that make the difference to the pharmeceutical industries, not the socilased healthcare system, like he is saying.

alywa: Can we please stop focusing on healthcare, and get back to the real issues at hand? Gays are threatening to marry!

M-A-R-S Mars biatches

Snarfangel: This thread is disappointing. I expected a list of two or three counterexamples to prove him wrong.

He is correct though. Because of the way that the laws are set up in Europe and the US, drug companies in the US are showing much more profitability than in Europe.

This does not mean that this is necessarily a good thing, or that Europe is suffering through a medical dark ages. Their non-drug relates treatment discoveries outstrip the US significantly. But US companies are not as interested in doing the same research because its either not patentable, or it is not as profitable as making a pill.

Three Crooked Squirrels,

I don't understand how socialized medicine would impact where a drug is developed.

It doesn't.

It will only affect which drugs are available there.

So it really doesn't matter where the drug is developed.

they point sullivan is making is that drastically changing the us health care systm to more reflect the european model could have have a substantial negative impact on drug development globally

albo,

they point sullivan is making is that drastically changing the us health care systm to more reflect the european model could have have a substantial negative impact on drug development globally

Maybe, maybe not.

There are a plethora of reasons why businesses might be choosing to move drug research operations to the U.S.

It could be that corporate activities are taxed at a much lower rate here.

It could be because of the amount of taxpayer money that goes into funding drug research here in the U.S.

It could be a lot of things.

albo

they point sullivan is making is that drastically changing the us health care systm to more reflect the european model could have have a substantial negative impact on drug development globally

Indeed, but he didn't show how it was the socialized healthcare systems that were causing the problems rather than the prevailing business conditions in European countries. He simply made assertions about socialized healthcare that his own link didn't seem to back up.

Code_Archeologist

Hmmm... their drug companies are ailing. But what of their other medical industries? Most new surgical breakthroughs are being discovered, tested, and approved first in Europe, not the US.

That is probably because of the cumbersome FDA testing and other requirements. We certainly need to test new drugs, but the process in the US could be sped up significantly without sacrificing safety.

*yawn*

Read this for a rather reasoned rebuttal of this claim. (should pop)

Sullivan's kind of a hack when it comes to economics, I've noticed. I'm not good at it, but I can recognize arguments that makes more sense.

Skail

Good link.

alywa 2007-06-29 10:43:51 AM
Can we please stop focusing on healthcare, and get back to the real issues at hand? Gays are threatening to marry! Women are having abortions! They are trying to take away our guns! Mexicans are taking my job!

Seriously, it is nice to see this topic finally getting some discussion time. Love or hate Michael Moore, his movies do make people talk.

My proposal for healthcare reform is actually quite simple. I propose an expansion of Medicare to the under 65 crowd. For all working citizens, a single plan could be purchased for a percentage of your salary. This effectively becomes a Flat Tax on healthcare. A family plan would cost a higher percentage of your pay. People, of course, could opt out, but I doubt many would.

This plan, like Medicare, would cover 80% of your fees, you would be responsible for the rest. Unlike medicare, a co-pay would be required each time you access the system (Say $25-50). An emergency provision would kick in over $10,000 per incident, where the system would cover 100% of costs (this would help avoid catastrophic bills due to accident, cancer diagnosis, needing a transplant, etc).

Employees and employers could still purchase and provide private co-insurance (Blue Cross, United, etc), just like is currently available to seniors on Medicare. This co-insurance would cover things like prescriptions, the 20% remaining fees, vision, dental, etc. In addition, pre-tax healthcare savings accounts could be set up, for use on co-pays, vision correction surgery, dental cosmetics, etc. (These plans already exist, many employers offer this service).

Just like with Medicare, you would keep your own doctor, in his or her clinic, and go to the hospital of your choice. There would be very little difference to the policy holder than what they currently have, except a profoundly lower cost.

How would it be a lower cost? Less overhead, and removal of the for-profit insurance industry from the bulk of the process. Take Wall Street out of the equation. Too many middle-men and stock holders are profiting from an essential service, at the expense of the vast majority of other people in this country with little other choice. Centralized billing and claim services would make it more streamlined for both policy holders and healthcare providers. Finally, universally available coverage means that providers and hospitals actually get paid for their services, and don't have to jack up rates to pass on to those who, under our current system, are the only ones paying.

/Feel free to critique


This sounds like a government funded insurance plan, based on most current insurance plans. Personally I would like to see how the Romney plan works out. Has an element of fascism, but if it works it works. I am a beleiver that in the long run private business is more efficeint than government. But I realize there is a problem. Maybe doing away with insurance companies and making people go too a private pay system where Dr's are garanteed to get their money and people have to know the caosts would work too.

I pay $0 for generics

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Capitalism works?!?! Shocking

I didn't realize that imaginary government monopolies on ideas (patents) were "capitalistic."

You yanks are subsidizing the pharmaceutical research for the whole world.

Holy shiatballs - a silver lining!

Code_Archeologist: Hence why there have been no new antibiotic or vaccines in over a decade... its not profitable.

Uh, did you somehow miss the fuss about the new HPV vaccine? Chris Rock is funny, but you really shouldn't get your medical knowledge from him.

The thing is, there actually *are* longer lines in countries with socialized medicine, and research *is* stifled. I think one of the strengths of the US economy going forward is medical research, we're leagues ahead of everybody, but India and China could conceivably catch up due to certain competitive advantages.

I don't know. Our system does need to be fixed to sort out some of the inequities, and insurance is growing more expensive for business and the consumer. But if we just go *POW*, now we're Canada: how are we going to keep Novartis pumping money into research?

Our private companies are, yes, montebanks, but they're also the best in the world at what they do. We need to keep that, especially now that heavy industry is fleeing the States.

sadly, this article is full of crap.

Full of sullivan crap. I don't have the energy to do a full debunking, i suggest www.washingtonmontly.com and look for articles relating to this one. They explain that, yes, he's full of crap.

This all stinks of hyperbole. First of all, there are no significant breakthroughs in pharma anymore, from Europe or the U.S. or anywhere else, for that matter. In case you hadn't noticed, new drugs are increasingly dangerous (nasty side effects and limited effectiveness) and designed to treat a narrower and narrower range of conditions.

New drugs typically are designed to help left-ahnded redheaded people with a missing left leg, heart troubles, and a skin rash - or exotic, low-incidence cancers - or other obscure diseases.

Furthermore, most of the pure research in the U.S. comes out of university labs working on NIH grants, not from big capitalist pharma companies. The big pharmas snap up these compounds after they've been developed in university labs on the taxpayer's dime, and their expense is largely in clinical trials and advertizing.

To say American capitalism is driving innovation in pharma is bullsh*t. There isn't much innovation and most of the pure research is government-funded. Andrew Sullivan is a stupid shill and a weather vane. He couldn't analyze his own elbow with a mirror and couldn't predict the sunrise.

Subby:

You don't go to a Pharmaceutical company for health-care dumbass.

Umm.......canyoneer, you are a well meaning and caring little socialist. But sorry your sytem failed. As long as there is money to be made new medical advances will continue to come out of companies then will come out of tax subsidies. Most university resaerch is funded by private grants which garantee big pharme gets the patent.

canyoneer: Furthermore, most of the pure research in the U.S. comes out of university labs working on NIH grants, not from big capitalist pharma companies.

eeee, it' not all NIH grants, I know many companies patronize Harvard Med and Mayo and the other big shots extensively. Besides hiring their graduates. Whatever the evils of Big Pharma are, there are a lot of things we can't do w/o their money. I'd like to sit here and say they have no reason to exist, pox them, but it's just not true.

What classicliberal said, without the juvenile taunts.

On the healthcare note.

Why does it have to be so expensive unless you sign up under a corporation??

Why can't it be like car insurance? If it wasn't for an organization called the freelancers union here in NY, I would have to pay $450+ for the same coverage on my own that I pay $275 for now.

Open up the market, let people pay the same individually the same any employee or company would pay.

Free market right?