An example of just what is wrong with health care.

[Hayabusa Rider]

It isn't corporations. It isn't the Republicans. It isn't the Democrats. It's all of them.

From the Atlantic.

It's a reasonably good article, however it fails to hold government sufficiently accountable for its actions, which have more effect than the businesses themselves.

"It's a precedent. It's a competing paradigm," Jamie Love, 63, the director of Knowledge Ecology International, a progressive group agitating in favor of the idea, told me. "And the Obama administration, instead of wrapping its arms around it and trying to breathe some life into the future so we don't have $200,000 drugs, is killing it."

Last November, the Obama administration made its most strident effort to date to stall the idea. Because successive U.S, administrations have stonewalled the process so effectively, negotiations on actual language for an R&D treaty have never begun. That hasn't prevented the intellectual scaffolding beneath the idea from developing, though.

That's posted for those who will undoubtedly leap on Republicans and corporations and fail to note how no one is supporting these ideas, and the truth is that no one is supporting real reform, just fighting about window dressing.

Pharmaceutical companies do what they do because there is no other option available, and the politicians are going to make sure it damned well stays that way. Blame one, blame all.

The article is long so I'm not going to post the body of the text, but the idea is intriguing and an example of what I mean by reformation. Original ideas, outside the box with the goal of improving standard of care, not what political ideology controls it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

i wouldn't say it's a problem with healthcare.

it's a problem with the way pharmaceutical companies are setup - as publicly traded, for-profit entities. as such a company, their job is not to develop drugs to help the poor, but to develop drugs that make the company (and its shareholders) profit. which means addressing "first world problems" where profit can be had because people have the money to pay for the drugs.

developing a drug, and then getting it through the US FDA approval process, requires massive amounts of R&D. it's very much a high-risk, high-reward scenario.

i think the guy has a great idea, a sort of X-prize for medicine. it's just finding someone (the government or a consortium of governments) to pony up the money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

i wouldn't say it's a problem with healthcare.

it's a problem with the way pharmaceutical companies are setup - as publicly traded, for-profit entities. as such a company, their job is not to develop drugs to help the poor, but to develop drugs that make the company (and its shareholders) profit. which means addressing "first world problems" where profit can be had because people have the money to pay for the drugs.

developing a drug, and then getting it through the US FDA approval process, requires massive amounts of R&D. it's very much a high-risk, high-reward scenario.

i think the guy has a great idea, a sort of X-prize for medicine. it's just finding someone (the government or a consortium of governments) to pony up the money.

The idea is that r&d can be funded by other mechanisms, and it IS a health care problem. What the majority of people and the government seem to think it's that it's just another thing that regulation or the "free market" can fix, but it's not insurance and it's not coverage. I submit it's the most complicated and interrelated system of all time. Getting to Mars is child's play. Allowing researchers to have free access and the means to pool resources to meet health care needs IS a significant factor.

I proposed something similar for energy, and from what I see we will not be allowed this option, not because of ignorance or disinterest but due to active opposition by government. I wonder how many other ideas have been likewise killed.

 

[woolfe9998]

The article is an interesting read. I can't find all that much fault with the idea the article is describing, and that is my problem with the article. For every big idea, there has to be a counter-argument. It may not be a good one, but there has to be one or more such counter-arguments. The article doesn't really present them. It leaves us with the impression that governments and NGO's like the Gates Foundation oppose the idea simply because of the influence of Big Pharma, which might well be the case. However, I suspect the issue is more complicated and I'd like to see both sides of the issue spelled out clearly.

The HHS official is quoted as saying it's a "dumb idea" and proposing an alternative which is shot down in the next 5 paragraphs of the article. That's about it as far as presenting any counter-argument.

That said, we certainly have a problem with the way the system is set up. Granting these patent based monopolies on pharmaceuticals is not necessarily in the interests of global health, not only because of the high prices but because of the lack of information sharing among researchers due to the competitive nature of the process. Whether this particular idea is the solution or not, I do not know.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't see why this is a problem with US healthcare. Or with pharmaceutical companies even.

Even if everything surrounding healthcare was controlled by the government and profits were not an issue it would still be a waste of taxpayer money to research diseases that largely do not affect the US.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't see why this is a problem with US healthcare. Or with pharmaceutical companies even.

Even if everything surrounding healthcare was controlled by the government and profits were not an issue it would still be a waste of taxpayer money to research diseases that largely do not affect the US.

Even if I agreed with your usual complete lack of humanitarian concern, the model being discussed in the article could eventually be applied for all newly developing drugs, not just the neglected diseases which affect mainly the developing world. What is being proposed is essentially a pilot program.

The US government already spends money to provide healthcare in poor countries BTW. You can go ahead and lobby your Congressmen against it. Good luck.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Even if I agreed with your usual complete lack of humanitarian concern, the model being discussed in the article could eventually be applied for all newly developing drugs, not just the neglected diseases which affect mainly the developing world. What is being proposed is essentially a pilot program.

The US government already spends money to provide healthcare in poor countries BTW. You can go ahead and lobby your Congressmen against it. Good luck.

Exactly.

Not only that but it serves as a model for many kinds of research and it facilitates them all. I wonder how much knowledge which would advance science and related fields is withheld. There's a saying that knowledge is power, and this certainly no where more true than R&D

 

[Brainonska511]

Even if everything surrounding healthcare was controlled by the government and profits were not an issue it would still be a waste of taxpayer money to research diseases that largely do not affect the US.

That's a very myopic view of how science works.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The article is an interesting read. I can't find all that much fault with the idea the article is describing, and that is my problem with the article. For every big idea, there has to be a counter-argument. It may not be a good one, but there has to be one or more such counter-arguments. The article doesn't really present them. It leaves us with the impression that governments and NGO's like the Gates Foundation oppose the idea simply because of the influence of Big Pharma, which might well be the case. However, I suspect the issue is more complicated and I'd like to see both sides of the issue spelled out clearly.

The HHS official is quoted as saying it's a "dumb idea" and proposing an alternative which is shot down in the next 5 paragraphs of the article. That's about it as far as presenting any counter-argument.

That said, we certainly have a problem with the way the system is set up. Granting these patent based monopolies on pharmaceuticals is not necessarily in the interests of global health, not only because of the high prices but because of the lack of information sharing among researchers due to the competitive nature of the process. Whether this particular idea is the solution or not, I do not know.

The problem is that someone isn't going to make as much money as I have been saying and based on a quarter century of experience in health care the government rejects good ideas out of ignorance or political concerns. I've advocated something similar for energy with the benefit of reinvigorating our economy as a benefit. The best we get is another program. Perhaps you now understand what I think passes for reform and my general belief that our leadership isn't up to the task.

 

[woolfe9998]

The problem is that someone isn't going to make as much money as I have been saying and based on a quarter century of experience in health care the government rejects good ideas out of ignorance or political concerns. I've advocated something similar for energy with the benefit of reinvigorating our economy as a benefit. The best we get is another program. Perhaps you now understand what I mean passes for reform and my general belief that our leadership isn't up to the task.

That's fine. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still feel like there is another argument here that wasn't explained in the article. I seriously doubt "it's a dumb idea" is the only argument that has ever been made against this. Like I said, it sounds like a great idea to me. In fact, I'm not aware of any downsides other than Big Pharm making less money, because none are discussed in the article.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The downside is always funding. There will need to be an accessable computer of sufficient capability. Legal language for a common creative sort of licensing to prevent others from taking and patenting ideas based on minor variations. Basically keeping the lawyers at bay will be an issue.

 

[woolfe9998]

The downside is always funding. There will need to be an accessable computer of sufficient capability. Legal language for a common creative sort of licensing to prevent others from taking and patenting ideas based on minor variations. Basically keeping the lawyers at bay will be an issue.

Do you think it would provide the same degree of incentive to innovate as the current system, given that expected profits are much lower? That is my main concern. I really like the information sharing aspect of it. That is the single worst thing about all corporate based research.

I'm just concerned that in order to provide enough incentive to not reduce innovation, the cost would be extremely high. It certainly makes sense for the neglected drugs because there is apparently not enough incentive as it is. But for the rest of it, I'm not sure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do you think it would provide the same degree of incentive to innovate as the current system, given that expected profits are much lower? That is my main concern. I really like the information sharing aspect of it. That is the single worst thing about all corporate based research.

I'm just concerned that in order to provide enough incentive to not reduce innovation, the cost would be extremely high. It certainly makes sense for the neglected drugs because there is apparently not enough incentive as it is. But for the rest of it, I'm not sure.

Having done academic research this is a no brainer. There's no reason that researchers can't be paid as they are. What you ought to understand is that money is not the motivator. A good living? Sure, but the work is the reward. It's the challenge, not impressing wall street or advertising or counting beans. Losing the irrelevant can only motivate more, not less.

 

[woolfe9998]

Having done academic research this is a no brainer. There's no reason that researchers can't be paid as they are. What you ought to understand is that money is not the motivator. A good living? Sure, but the work is the reward. It's the challenge, not impressing wall street or advertising or counting beans. Losing the irrelevant can only motivate more, not less.

Perhaps. However, I'd like to point out that this is a pretty left wing idea, eh? Particularly the way you describe it sounds downright socialist. That doesn't make it any more or less appealing to me, but I thought I'd point it out since you seem to consider yourself a middle of the roader.

 

[mattpegher]

This idea could be very helpful or very wasteful depending on implimentation. Being pesimistic I believe that it would be abused worse than the current system of NIH grants.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perhaps. However, I'd like to point out that this is a pretty left wing idea, eh? Particularly the way you describe it sounds downright socialist. That doesn't make it any more or less appealing to me, but I thought I'd point it out since you seem to consider yourself a middle of the roader.

There's a quote for Mr. Spock in the original Star Trek- "I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline; I object to power without constructive purpose." "You" is irrelevant to me. If it's a corporation or a government entity makes no difference to me.

I think people buy into the box they put themselves in too often. Rather than understanding a problem they leap to a solution which generally means the private sector (business) or government take control. This model can be supported by any means, and the people who know what's what are in charge. Most modalities of thought are too constraining. My personal philosophy is that the individual is important, and a crushing conformity for the collective is ultimately harmful to both.

Question? Is freeing up people to do their best work a Left or Right concept? I submit it's neither, in fact it's like asking whether chocolate is married or not, no, demanding that it has to be one or the other. The truth is that the question is illogical, and so is how we approach many things.

With "left" meaning controlled by government, and "right" being ruled by profit, where does being run by researchers who after all are the ones who know fall?