wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 26, 2012 8:36:10 GMT -5
They lose at least $90 billion a year to fraud. how does this compare to private insurers? how does it compare to their profits? I am sure private insurers are not losing $90 billion a year to fraud. They aren't losing that much because they can take steps to stop fraud that CMS cannot or will not do. If the insurers are part of a publicly traded company check their financials for profitability. The private insurers who adminster Part D on behalf of CMS have suggested various ways to cut down on fraud. Methods they have found to effective in their other lines of business but CMS says you can't do that.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 26, 2012 8:38:23 GMT -5
And it socialized medicine was vastly superior those with money wouldn't come from those countries to the US for treatment ---------------------- Interesting that you don't mention the other side of the coin..... all the Americans who travel to places like India for cradiac surgery and hip replacements. "With money" is correct, however. If you have enough of it, American care is top-notch. I have yet to hear of anyone going to India for cardiac surgery. Considering the problems the FDA has with Indian manufacturers, I'd say they are gambling with their lives. We didn't get to be this good through government control.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 26, 2012 8:40:54 GMT -5
For profit drives innovation and gives us things like new drugs for cancer and juvenile diabetes. A double-edged sword. Profit also restricts access to things like new drugs for cancer. Needless to add - profit is not the only thing that drives innovation. Socialised medicine is vastly superior because it takes care of those without money. Profit isn't the only driver but its damn hard to fund research without money. Healthcare research isn't cheap. Training world class surgeons and physicians costs money. If you need emergency care, you will get it regardless of ability to pay. Our laws say so.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 26, 2012 8:47:52 GMT -5
Last I checked private insurance companies were all about cheap solutions. Hell my insurance company doesn't even charge me a copay for generic medications. But only cheap solutions in the realm of their knowledge using a western medical model. Lithium was used for manic depression in spite of the fact the Pharma companies couldn't make much money on it. The reason it is still used is because so far no manufactured drugs have beaten its performance profile. Because the US is western medicine with a huge lobby of doctors and pharma lots of cheaper solutions aren't even considered or tested such as alternative medicine and herbs, etc. In fact the lobby is so strong, that alternative medicine is called alternative medicine instead of something denoting it is a viable standalone choice. It has been legislated into impotence although some areas have crawled into the AMA table scraps arena. Likewise, the FDA is trying to regulate herbs and supplements not purely for safety and health reasons but with the added Pharma pressure of making sure these aren't used and lessen their expected yearly profits. If and only if the government takes on healthcare could the FDA use its power to transform the herb and supplement industry to a path for more affordable, more sustainable healthcare. Another example, think of the difference in pain management between China and the US. China used accupressure and reusable accupunture needles. In the US it is one time use pills and IV drips, i.e. continuing costs in the US versus one time costs in China. Or you could take responsibility for your own care and do some research. One of my coworkers did accupuncture treatments for headaches instead of pills. It wasn't that hard for her to that treatment. Anyone who blindly takes pills or has tests without understanding what they are for is doing themselves a grave disservice. If your doctor isn't willing to explain then you need a new one. All of my doctors have been very willing to discuss non drug solutions and to try them first. Many institutions no longer give pharma unlimited access to their physicians. No pens, notepads, lunches, cpe that's all gone at Hopkins and others like them. Pharma companies now have to disclose their payments to physicians.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 26, 2012 9:04:50 GMT -5
But only cheap solutions in the realm of their knowledge using a western medical model. Lithium was used for manic depression in spite of the fact the Pharma companies couldn't make much money on it. The reason it is still used is because so far no manufactured drugs have beaten its performance profile. Because the US is western medicine with a huge lobby of doctors and pharma lots of cheaper solutions aren't even considered or tested such as alternative medicine and herbs, etc. In fact the lobby is so strong, that alternative medicine is called alternative medicine instead of something denoting it is a viable standalone choice. It has been legislated into impotence although some areas have crawled into the AMA table scraps arena. Likewise, the FDA is trying to regulate herbs and supplements not purely for safety and health reasons but with the added Pharma pressure of making sure these aren't used and lessen their expected yearly profits. If and only if the government takes on healthcare could the FDA use its power to transform the herb and supplement industry to a path for more affordable, more sustainable healthcare. Another example, think of the difference in pain management between China and the US. China used accupressure and reusable accupunture needles. In the US it is one time use pills and IV drips, i.e. continuing costs in the US versus one time costs in China. Or you could take responsibility for your own care and do some research. One of my coworkers did accupuncture treatments for headaches instead of pills. It wasn't that hard for her to that treatment. Anyone who blindly takes pills or has tests without understanding what they are for is doing themselves a grave disservice. If your doctor isn't willing to explain then you need a new one. All of my doctors have been very willing to discuss non drug solutions and to try them first. Many institutions no longer give pharma unlimited access to their physicians. No pens, notepads, lunches, cpe that's all gone at Hopkins and others like them. Pharma companies now have to disclose their payments to physicians. You are talking to the wrong person on this. I do research and I know more about non western alternatives than most people. I am part of the uninsured 20% and I know going to the emergency room would only give me debt and incomplete care. Medical insurance will pay for pain pills but my guess is not accupuncture which was my point. Pain management isn't an issue for me, it was just a good cost comparison example I thought of.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 9:08:26 GMT -5
Was this at a state level or at the federal level? I'm genuinely curious as there is a vast difference. both. Gingrich supported it up until 2010. Romney, of course, not only supported it, but implemented it. And that's why I say there is a vast difference for a STATE to implement something like this and the FEDERAL gov't to implement it. I can easily move out of MA. I can also move out of the US...but then I have to renounce my citizenship to not have to pay taxes for this...so much more difficult on the FEDERAL side of things.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 26, 2012 9:10:29 GMT -5
You will get emergency care. You will most likely also get a bill at the highest possible bill rates to be paid or ... you will have to come up with money for bankruptcy or spend a good portion of your life and income avoiding bill collectors. Hopefully the stress won't lead to more medical issues and bills.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 26, 2012 9:13:27 GMT -5
My insurance covers accupuncture for pain relief. Furthermore, insurance was never intended to cover everything. Insurance is to protect you from the catastrophic. I make my medical decisions based on what provides the best benefit to me not what an insurance company will cover.
Sure some things can be changed about our system but ACA needs to go. They need to go back to the drawing board and start over. And this time they need to read the damn bill and comprehend it before they vote on it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 10:33:51 GMT -5
Profit isn't the only driver but its damn hard to fund research without money. Healthcare research isn't cheap. Training world class surgeons and physicians costs money. Very true, although before the rise of modern private power we didn't have much difficulty deriving our advancements from publicly-funded institutions. There was a certain nobleness to science back then -profit was to be found in the benefits to mankind; the noble mission of science has been perverted by the self-interested motives seemingly inherent to private enterprise; perhaps one pertinent example of this is the way in which profit not only funds research but now also acts as counsel to those who decide exactly what is to be researched -restricting investigation into areas, regardless of the potential such may have to bestow benefits upon us all, purely out of concern for financial return. Then of course we have the ramifications of patenting, intellectual property rights et al, as companies snarl and claw over scientific advancements like hyenas at the kill. Whereas with the NHS it is more than just emergency care that is covered for those who would otherwise not have the ability to pay.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
how does this compare to private insurers? how does it compare to their profits? I am sure private insurers are not losing $90 billion a year to fraud. They aren't losing that much because they can take steps to stop fraud that CMS cannot or will not do. If the insurers are part of a publicly traded company check their financials for profitability. these all sound plausible to me, but i am not sure that any of it is true. do you know for a fact that private insurers are NOT losing $90B/year due to fraud? do you know for a fact that steps can't be taken to prevent it in the public sector? if so, how do you know it?The private insurers who adminster Part D on behalf of CMS have suggested various ways to cut down on fraud. Methods they have found to effective in their other lines of business but CMS says you can't do that. ok, once again, you are saying things, but can you point me to anything other than you saying so that says so?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2012 11:26:30 GMT -5
And it socialized medicine was vastly superior those with money wouldn't come from those countries to the US for treatment ---------------------- Interesting that you don't mention the other side of the coin..... all the Americans who travel to places like India for cradiac surgery and hip replacements. "With money" is correct, however. If you have enough of it, American care is top-notch. I have yet to hear of anyone going to India for cardiac surgery. really? i have. you can read about it HERE:
www.indian-medical-tourism.com/Considering the problems the FDA has with Indian manufacturers, I'd say they are gambling with their lives. We didn't get to be this good through government control. control and regulation are totally different. regulation limits the legal outcomes to generally positive ones, it doesn't determine outcomes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2012 11:28:52 GMT -5
A double-edged sword. Profit also restricts access to things like new drugs for cancer. Needless to add - profit is not the only thing that drives innovation. Socialised medicine is vastly superior because it takes care of those without money. Profit isn't the only driver but its damn hard to fund research without money. Healthcare research isn't cheap. Training world class surgeons and physicians costs money. If you need emergency care, you will get it regardless of ability to pay. Our laws say so. the idea that research can't be funded publicly is ludicrous. Cuba, of all places, has a kick ass medical research program that they run on a shoestring. one of the advantages of it is that the public sets the priorities. so rather than doing research on hardons and big tits, they focus on things that actually matter in the health of people. our research disproportionately focuses on things that are profitable, rather than things that are needed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2012 11:31:28 GMT -5
My insurance covers accupuncture for pain relief. Furthermore, insurance was never intended to cover everything. Insurance is to protect you from the catastrophic. I make my medical decisions based on what provides the best benefit to me not what an insurance company will cover. Sure some things can be changed about our system but ACA needs to go. They need to go back to the drawing board and start over. And this time they need to read the damn bill and comprehend it before they vote on it. portions of the ACA need to go. portions need to stay. i predict that this is precisely what will happen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 11:43:05 GMT -5
Profit isn't the only driver but its damn hard to fund research without money. Healthcare research isn't cheap. Training world class surgeons and physicians costs money. If you need emergency care, you will get it regardless of ability to pay. Our laws say so. the idea that research can't be funded publicly is ludicrous. Cuba, of all places, has a kick ass medical research program that they run on a shoestring. one of the advantages of it is that the public sets the priorities. so rather than doing research on hardons and big tits, they focus on things that actually matter in the health of people. our research disproportionately focuses on things that are profitable, rather than things that are needed. And for all that "focusing on what matters" medical research the average life expectancy in Cuba is 78.8 years while in the US it is 78.1 years. That 0.7 years difference is rather negligible don't you think?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2012 12:12:00 GMT -5
the idea that research can't be funded publicly is ludicrous. Cuba, of all places, has a kick ass medical research program that they run on a shoestring. one of the advantages of it is that the public sets the priorities. so rather than doing research on hardons and big tits, they focus on things that actually matter in the health of people. our research disproportionately focuses on things that are profitable, rather than things that are needed. And for all that "focusing on what matters" medical research the average life expectancy in Cuba is 78.8 years while in the US it is 78.1 years. That 0.7 years difference is rather negligible don't you think? it is. and considering how much wealthier, by every measure, the US is compared to Cuba, it is an utter disgrace, don't you think?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2012 12:45:13 GMT -5
have yet to hear of anyone going to India for cardiac surgery. -------------------- Seriously? Look it up. The marketplaces were colorful and vibrant, the Hindu temples sublime. But what propelled award-winning Memphis filmmaker Willy Bearden to India earlier this year wasn't an urge to go sightseeing or seek adventure. Bearden, 61, was a different kind of traveler. He was a medical tourist. In need of heart surgery and lacking adequate insurance to pay for it, Bearden traveled to a country where he could receive a triple-bypass for a fraction of what it would cost in the U.S Recent statistics indicate Bearden is part of a growing trend. In 2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled overseas to receive medical treatment, according to the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Despite a decline in recent years attributed to the recession, the numbers are expected to grow to as much as 1.6 million next year, the group said. The increasing outflow of patients to other countries is a reflection of both the soaring health care costs in the U.S. and the proliferation of high-quality services overseas, industry officials say. A chart published in a report by the AMA's Council on Medical Services showed that operations ranging from hip replacements to heart bypasses cost about five to 10 times more in the U.S. than they do in countries such as India, Singapore and Thailand. www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/dec/04/medical-travel-may-be-just-the-ticket-to-health/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 13:53:48 GMT -5
And for all that "focusing on what matters" medical research the average life expectancy in Cuba is 78.8 years while in the US it is 78.1 years. That 0.7 years difference is rather negligible don't you think? it is. and considering how much wealthier, by every measure, the US is compared to Cuba, it is an utter disgrace, don't you think? Meh. It's choice...whether I agree with it or not. If people didn't choose to buy Viagra and breast implants, then those businesses wouldn't be there. I'll take choice over Cuba any day.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2012 15:00:56 GMT -5
it is. and considering how much wealthier, by every measure, the US is compared to Cuba, it is an utter disgrace, don't you think? Meh. It's choice...whether I agree with it or not. If people didn't choose to buy Viagra and breast implants, then those businesses wouldn't be there. I'll take choice over Cuba any day. life expectancy has nothing to do with choice. but if you are talking about how corporations spend their R&D money, yes, it is a matter of choice- FOR THEM. it is lame how much money goes to dick medicine in this country. there IS such a thing as manufacture of demand, by the way. for more information use the search parameters "bernays debutantes smoking". the first dick medicine commercial i heard was in 2001 in Las Vegas (which was a test market).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 15:47:47 GMT -5
Meh. It's choice...whether I agree with it or not. If people didn't choose to buy Viagra and breast implants, then those businesses wouldn't be there. I'll take choice over Cuba any day. life expectancy has nothing to do with choice. but if you are talking about how corporations spend their R&D money, yes, it is a matter of choice- FOR THEM. it is lame how much money goes to dick medicine in this country. there IS such a thing as manufacture of demand, by the way. for more information use the search parameters "bernays debutantes smoking". the first dick medicine commercial i heard was in 2001 in Las Vegas (which was a test market). All kinds of money is wasted in this country by private and public entities. That's never going to change whether it be for Viagra, Cialis, boob jobs, nose jobs, welfare, DoD, DHS, whatever. Of course I'd like to see a cure for all the diseases we have and honestly it's probably possible given some time and money. The problem with this is the companies know there is only so much money in a CURE for a disease. It's not in their best interests to CURE the disease but to MANAGE the disease. Now, the government does their own studies on drugs and all that so I'm curious why they don't try and cure diseases? Is it like smoking and alcohol? There's to much tax revenue given to the government by these companies for the government to want an actual cure. Basically, it all comes down to the "All-Mighty Dollar" whether you want to believe it or not.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2012 16:06:48 GMT -5
Now, the government does their own studies on drugs and all that so I'm curious why they don't try and cure diseases? Is it like smoking and alcohol? There's to much tax revenue given to the government by these companies for the government to want an actual cure. Basically, it all comes down to the "All-Mighty Dollar" whether you want to believe it or not ------------------- Actually, several years ago, there was a "cure" for solid cancerous tumours in children, Western Canada was used as a test market. The nurses were excited, because it was such a miraculous breakthrough and it really seemed to work. You know what happened? The company that made the drug decided not to continue. "We have a responsibility to our shareholders, and it's too expensive to produce. Besides, chidhood cancers are usually systemic, like leukemia. So, too bad, little Johnny."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2012 16:07:33 GMT -5
life expectancy has nothing to do with choice. but if you are talking about how corporations spend their R&D money, yes, it is a matter of choice- FOR THEM. it is lame how much money goes to dick medicine in this country. there IS such a thing as manufacture of demand, by the way. for more information use the search parameters "bernays debutantes smoking". the first dick medicine commercial i heard was in 2001 in Las Vegas (which was a test market). All kinds of money is wasted in this country by private and public entities. That's never going to change whether it be for Viagra, Cialis, boob jobs, nose jobs, welfare, DoD, DHS, whatever. Of course I'd like to see a cure for all the diseases we have and honestly it's probably possible given some time and money. The problem with this is the companies know there is only so much money in a CURE for a disease. It's not in their best interests to CURE the disease but to MANAGE the disease. Now, the government does their own studies on drugs and all that so I'm curious why they don't try and cure diseases? Is it like smoking and alcohol? There's to much tax revenue given to the government by these companies for the government to want an actual cure. Basically, it all comes down to the "All-Mighty Dollar" whether you want to believe it or not. i don't see the government as much different from corporations in the US. that is actually the point that i have been making over and over again on this and many other threads. there is a good reason for that, of course. and yes, i consider it a problem.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 26, 2012 20:41:29 GMT -5
Sorry - this extortion is from your own government (you're British, right?). Instead of giving you the option to pay for it, unless you go with private insurance, you cannot have the medicine. 3rd rate care in the UK through the NHS that is tiered from the very beginning contingent on whether you live in the best post codes in the UK.
How is this an indictment on the insurance industry? The Pharma industry and the government, maybe but nothing to do with the insurance industry.
Nothing in Obamacare focuses on this issue. In fact, it exacerbates it.
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Jun 26, 2012 20:45:54 GMT -5
If Obamacare is overturned, and I hope that it is, the us economy will benefit and it may result in more jobs. One of the elements of the law has to do with 'employer responsibility' which requieres small employers to provide coverage or face stiff fines.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 21:32:18 GMT -5
Sorry - this extortion is from your own government (you're British, right?). Instead of giving you the option to pay for it, unless you go with private insurance, you cannot have the medicine. No, the truth of the matter is that the NHS is extorted by a private sector who view it as something of a free lunch; there is much information available on this deplorable phenomenon. The point escaping us here is that x-rate care is far beyond what many people would receive if the NHS was privatised. I wonder what-rate care the uninsured masses of America receive?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2012 21:48:11 GMT -5
If Obamacare is overturned, and I hope that it is, the us economy will benefit and it may result in more jobs. One of the elements of the law has to do with 'employer responsibility' which requieres small employers to provide coverage or face stiff fines. the fines are utterly toothless, actually. and the rest of your post makes me think you don't understand the law very well.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 26, 2012 22:08:54 GMT -5
Without a doubt, favorably.
I believe the people are much more capable of taking care of themselves than you give them credit for. 15% and growing of the population of Britain purchase private insurance above and beyond the care the NHS provides due to the inadequacy of the system...and that's after paying 11% NIC for the shitty system.
The uninsured in America are split into 4 categories:
1) those that can afford it but choose not to buy 2) those that are here illegally 3) those that are already eligible for one of our government programs 4) the truly unfortunate
Each make up approximately 25% of the uninsured. No sense in completely reshaping the best system in the world for what amounts to about 3% of the population.
I'm not a huge fan of the UK system since it was the reason my wife and I moved back to the US. The care & condition of the hospital was atrocious in the public system and that was at one of the better hospitals in London. Our pets get better care here than the people in those hospitals.
Please show the information about this phenomenon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 8:35:45 GMT -5
I believe the people are much more capable of taking care of themselves than you give them credit for. 15% and growing of the population of Britain purchase private insurance above and beyond the care the NHS provides due to the inadequacy of the system... Oh there's no doubt that people will seek what they feel to be the best service they can afford, if they so wish; the point escaping us once again concerns those who are less able in this regard, for whatever reason. To overlook this group is to invite accusations of savagery. I've tried to clarify this point but somehow your focus has remained on the haves rather than the have nots. … and total approximately 46 million people, or just under 20% of the population… within the wealthiest nation on Earth. It makes for truly abysmal reading regardless of how one might try to massage the figures. I guess from this one can probably deduce that your pets also receive better care than millions of 'unfortunate' Americans. What lucky animals they are. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295610/NHS-doesnt-care-cost-medicine-Drugs-firms-accused-profiteering-raising-prices-ONE-THOUSAND-cent.html
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 9:04:56 GMT -5
Now, the government does their own studies on drugs and all that so I'm curious why they don't try and cure diseases? Is it like smoking and alcohol? There's to much tax revenue given to the government by these companies for the government to want an actual cure. Basically, it all comes down to the "All-Mighty Dollar" whether you want to believe it or not ------------------- Actually, several years ago, there was a "cure" for solid cancerous tumours in children, Western Canada was used as a test market. The nurses were excited, because it was such a miraculous breakthrough and it really seemed to work. You know what happened? The company that made the drug decided not to continue. "We have a responsibility to our shareholders, and it's too expensive to produce. Besides, chidhood cancers are usually systemic, like leukemia. So, too bad, little Johnny." I basically said the same thing. Obviously some here don't realize that a corporations duty is to maximize profit for their shareholders. If those interests are in line with a cure, then that's what they would do. However, if they can manage a disease and maximize profit then that is what they will do. Whether you, I, anybody likes it or not, that is what the central function of a corporation is. That is 1st day Business 101.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 9:06:35 GMT -5
All kinds of money is wasted in this country by private and public entities. That's never going to change whether it be for Viagra, Cialis, boob jobs, nose jobs, welfare, DoD, DHS, whatever. Of course I'd like to see a cure for all the diseases we have and honestly it's probably possible given some time and money. The problem with this is the companies know there is only so much money in a CURE for a disease. It's not in their best interests to CURE the disease but to MANAGE the disease. Now, the government does their own studies on drugs and all that so I'm curious why they don't try and cure diseases? Is it like smoking and alcohol? There's to much tax revenue given to the government by these companies for the government to want an actual cure. Basically, it all comes down to the "All-Mighty Dollar" whether you want to believe it or not. i don't see the government as much different from corporations in the US. that is actually the point that i have been making over and over again on this and many other threads. there is a good reason for that, of course. and yes, i consider it a problem. Really? You don't see any difference in business and government? Unless the government interferes with the natural course of business, a business can't run "never-ending" deficits and remain in business. The government seems to do just that. There's a huge difference in that aspect.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 27, 2012 9:07:33 GMT -5
Who benefits? People like me who pay for their own coverage and therefore go without things that I'd rather spend that money on. Why should i pay for those who choose other things over their own health care?
|
|