Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: winnar111
Astronomical drugs correspond with astronomical research costs thanks to the lawsuit industry.

The drug industry spends more on marketing than R&D.

Yeah, and? That's part of the budgeting process for any product.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: winnar111
Astronomical drugs correspond with astronomical research costs thanks to the lawsuit industry.

The drug industry spends more on marketing than R&D.

Yeah, and? That's part of the budgeting process for any product.

You blame the astronomical costs of drugs on the research these companies are doing but failed to recognize that these companies are spending more on marketing than R&D. Wouldn't your statement be more accurately worded, "Astronomical drugs correspond with astronomical marketing costs thanks to direct-to-patient advertising and a corrupt continuing education program for doctors where we encourage them to use our drugs in ways not FDA approved which can sometimes lead to the death of patients who's family and state then sue costing us billions of dollars (like the recent Pfizer case concerning Bextra)."

It's a bit of a run-on sentence but is genuinely more accurate.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

You blame the astronomical costs of drugs on the research these companies are doing but failed to recognize that these companies are spending more on marketing than R&D. Wouldn't your statement be more accurately worded, "Astronomical drugs correspond with astronomical marketing costs thanks to direct-to-patient advertising and a corrupt continuing education program for doctors where we encourage them to use our drugs in ways not FDA approved which can sometimes lead to the death of patients who's family and state then sue costing us billions of dollars (like the recent Pfizer case concerning Bextra)."

It's a bit of a run-on sentence but is genuinely more accurate.

Any drug can sometimes lead to the death of a patient. We're the ones who allow massive lawsuits, established a lengthy FDA trial process, and cut the duration of pharma patents.

It's no wonder they advertise the hell out of products when you can only make money on them for a few years after dumping hundreds of billions into it.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: BigDH01

You blame the astronomical costs of drugs on the research these companies are doing but failed to recognize that these companies are spending more on marketing than R&D. Wouldn't your statement be more accurately worded, "Astronomical drugs correspond with astronomical marketing costs thanks to direct-to-patient advertising and a corrupt continuing education program for doctors where we encourage them to use our drugs in ways not FDA approved which can sometimes lead to the death of patients who's family and state then sue costing us billions of dollars (like the recent Pfizer case concerning Bextra)."

It's a bit of a run-on sentence but is genuinely more accurate.

Any drug can sometimes lead to the death of a patient. We're the ones who allow massive lawsuits, established a lengthy FDA trial process, and cut the duration of pharma patents.

It's no wonder they advertise the hell out of products when you can only make money on them for a few years after dumping hundreds of billions into it.

Pfizer paid the money because they were telling doctors to use the drugs for ways which were not FDA approved. This is after Pfizer's own internal testing showed that the product was not more effective than current products on the market for these purposes which had much less severe side effects. Pfizer paid not because people died, they paid because people died needlessly.

Your second statement is so factually incorrect as to not even be bothered with. Few years? Hundreds of billions? Get real. Seriously, do you actually bother to investigate any of your own claims before you post them here?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Get rid of the mechanisms which keep doctor levels artificially low AND make the cost of getting medical training much more approachable and you will have access to a much larger pool of candidates.

Frankly if your only motivation for becoming a doctor is financial, I'm not sure I would want you as a doctor anyway.

Anyway, our current system isn't exactly producing the number of doctors we need.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH...ctors.study/index.html

S&M

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

I believe that problem has already been addressed Red. The way I heard it, medical procedures will be run past a review board, based on a number of factors, the procedure will be approved or declined. One of the things they will look at is life expectancy of the person receiving the procedure, the older you are the less will be spent to keep you alive. So it won't be a matter off having to pay for it, it will be a matter of qualifying for it.
My guess is the medical review won't apply to politicians and the very wealthy, just us serfs.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: winnar111
Astronomical drugs correspond with astronomical research costs thanks to the lawsuit industry.

The drug industry spends more on marketing than R&D.

Yeah, and? That's part of the budgeting process for any product.

Still waiting on a response regarding why you believe my working (edit: ex-) marine friend doesn't deserve healthcare.

 

[Malfeas]

Frontline

I have not read through the entire thread, but I apologize if this has already been posted. This is an interesting episode of Frontline that deals with the universal health care question.

Also, it should be noted that there are dozens of different types of UHC programs. It seems that the critics of UHC are picking and choosing the negatives of each type and lumping them all together as if they are the same. This is dishonest to say the least.