Conservapedia: The funniest site in the world
-
An FYI about the pharmaceutical research FUD:
A portion of federal tax revenues goes to support drug research. For example, eight of the 10 most popular drugs produced by one of America's largest pharmaceutical companies were developed at the National Institutes of Health, which is a huge taxpayer-funded research complex. Most of today's anti-cancer drugs also have come courtesy of the National Institutes of Health. Drug companies do research and development, of course. But they devote only 12-and-a-half percent of their incomes to it, on average. They spend more than twice that on advertising and marketing.
-
I don't really care what US drug companies are being told now, today, in this current reality because this is a discussion about a system which has not yet been implemented (and never will be).
Yes, you've shown a lot of disregard for the truth, so long as you can maintain your 100% paid for fantasy.
An American telling me I don't know enough about universal healthcare?
What the hell are you reading?
-
I gotta head out for a while...maybe all night....I'll be back to rant at stupid people later.
-
-
or try this: http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/docs/Lower-Drug-Prices-Jeopardize-Drug-RD.pdf
which despite the name of the pdf, finds that lower drug prices do not jeopardize drug r&d
-
I've never heard of whatever you're talking about. You must be confusing regional news with international problems.
First result googling "country threatens to break patent": http://www.law360.com/articles/23497/brazil-threatens-to-break-merck-s-efavirenz-patent
"Brazil on Wednesday reportedly threatened to break Merck & Co. Inc.’s patent on HIV/AIDS drug Efavirenz, warning it will tap into India’s generic drug industry if the pharmaceutical giant will not offer the country a lower price for the much-needed medicine. "
Translation: We don't like your price, so lower it or we'll steal your work. Note the article date was 2007. This has been going on longer than that, but it's not widely-known. (And a quick scan of the first page of results shows that Brazil had already been threatening to break patents for at least four years.)
Who do you think pays?
-
@aapis said:
3: The only "tradeoffs" are things invented by American politicians in order to scare other Americans into hating the idea.
Congratulations on saying the stupidest thing in this thread.
What about the abysmal wait times in some countries for care? Even care that is deemed to be a non-life threatening emergency. For example, (I know, I know, an anecdote) a patient who will likely lose functionality in limb if not treated immediately. The doctor requests an MRI to determine the exact problem, but isunable to schedule MRI for three months, so recommends treatment in the US. That one happened to my father. The MRI he got in the US a week later revealed that he needed immediate surgery, or completely lose mobility of his arm.
Anyone who thinks our Democrat party is right wing is hopelessly fucked and too deluded to know it.
+1
-
Anyone who thinks our Democrat party is right wing is hopelessly fucked and too deluded to know it.
Well, they probably are, by European standards.
-
Who do you think pays?
No one. You pay what the American "free market"
allowswill bear (to put in economic terms) on drugs, and you would pay that much regardless of how much any other country pays.
-
Who do you think pays?
BTW the second page of results shows Thailand has a history of breaking patents. From http://www.naturalnews.com/021620_drug_patents_the_WHO.html "Thailand has stepped up its challenge to drug companies, saying it will continue to override corporate patents and make generic drugs until the pharmaceutical industry lowers its prices. [...]it is considering granting more compulsory licenses to make generics within five major groups of medicine. These include anticancer drugs, heart medications and antibiotics."
-
-
Vying for the most stupid thing said in the thread, eh?
Vying for not reading the entire comment are we? Anyone can make you look retarded if I take small parts of what you say out of context.
-
Right, your current system is broken. We all agree there. I don't really care what US drug companies are being told now, today, in this current reality because this is a discussion about a system which has not yet been implemented (and never will be). Broken today does not mean broken tomorrow/forever/always.
Except you should care, because it matters. You say that the US should implement a system similar to what is used in other countries. One of the methods used elsewhere is holding patents hostage to force lower drug prices. If the US starts implementing that, then the drug companies have no way to recoup their R&D costs. Who do you think will make new drugs then?
-
We have more than one. There's the VA, the BIA's stuff for Indians, Medicare and various forms of Medicaid.
So like I said, you have no public system. You have a few scattered examples of programs that receive government funding, but are not available to the public.
Congratulations on saying the stupidest thing in this thread.
The only country on Earth where there is still a debate about whether or not this is a good thing is the US. I understand all you see is what your media tells you about the problem, but that's no excuse for blind stupidity. If there were tradeoffs, there aren't but lets play pretend, they would be worth it because at the end of the day the whole point of the system is to have a healthier society. Less sick people means less you have to pay to support sick people, means happiness.
Anyone who thinks our Democrat party is right wing is hopelessly fucked and too deluded to know it.
Ah, you're one of those people who think the demcrats are socialists. They aren't, and you have literally no idea what socialism is or what it hopes to achieve. In your country, maybe, but in the big picture you are right wing vs. right wing and nothing will ever change that.
-
It really doesn't. You guys see one issue (which as far as I'm concerned is completely made up at this point because nobody can point at any other source for this "information") as a roadblock to the entire process and give up. You're in the "fuck it, too hard" camp. Lazy.
-
Vying for not reading the entire comment are we? Anyone can make you look retarded if I take small parts of what you say out of context.
Dude. The rest of your comment didn't bear reply, because it followed from such an "extracting sunbeams from cucumbers" first two words.
Americans pay higher prices partly because other countries refuse to pay what the maker wants. So, with that in mind, how do you think the rest of the world will do if American drug companies stop making new medicines because they're tired of getting ripped off?
-
how do you think the rest of the world will do if American drug companies stop making new medicines because they're tired of getting ripped off?
They will get along just fine. Clearly you refuse to read anything I've linked, but it's probably a good thing you don't because you'll feel like a total fucking retard if you do.
-
Anyone who thinks our Democrat party is right wing is hopelessly fucked and too deluded to know it.
If the Democratic Party is right wing, I'm glad I don't live anywhere that "real" left-wing politics has any influence on government policy.
-
Summary just for this dolt:
- American company patents are only about ~50% of new drug patents as it is
- American drug costs don't even pay the majority of the American R&D expenses as it is, TAXES pay for it.
-
Here's the thing. US drug companies are told something like, "That's a nice patent you have there. It'd be terrible if something happened to it." And have to lower prices. Guess who picks up the tab? It's not the people living in the People's Republics of Universal Healthcare.
I'm not sure if that's funny or sad.Look at Lipitor. Before the patent ran out in 2011, it was about $3.50 per dose. When it went generic, there were two suppliers - Watson and Ranbaxy. Watson actually sold Pfizer Lipitor in generic bottles and Ranbaxy had a license agreement with Pfizer so they could start production while the patent was still active and be first to market. Due to this market meddling, the price stayed over $2.50 a dose for more than a year. To keep prices from falling, Pfizer offered to pay consumer co-pays for brand Lipitor. Most insurance companies have a higher co-pay for a brand name drug if a generic exists, but it still works out for Pfizer. Instead of a consumer paying $10 for a monthly supply that costs the insurance company $75, the consumer would pay nothing and the insurance company would pay $85 (branded Lipitor actually got more expensive). If you were buying Pfizer instead of Watson, you were literally destroying $10 of value since you got exactly the same product.
It turns out that Atorvastatin is very easy to make from cheap ingredients. The manufacturing cost is about three cents a dose. Pfizer made over $100 billion in profit over the 17 years of patent protection, more than covering the R&D costs of the entire pharmaceutical industry. They are still making profit on it today, mostly through anti-competitive practices that should be illegal.
So, the patent system that is supposed to encourage innovation is being used as nothing but a lever to make more money. Instead of encouraging innovation, it's created a focus on blockbusters instead of drugs that actually make people healthy. Rather than tune the system for maximum benefit, the government has instead consistently made anti-consumer changes. My personal favorite is that Congress actually passed a law in 2003 prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices.
So, back to the point I keep making... ObamaCare is irrelevant - I don't have an opinion about it because no matter how good or bad it is, it can't help or hurt much. If we fix the cost problem, then any payment system will be fine as for as I'm concerned.
-
The REASON drugs cost so much in America? Because Americans are willing to pay that much.
YOU are the reason it costs so much in America. Sucker.
-
Another blakeyrat in training?
2 different animals. Blakeyrat just has his personal preferences confused with universal design principles, and has at least some regard for truth in other areas. No, what we're dealing with here is the standard progressive who cares more about Being Right than the truth. Also, for some reason the progressivism brain worm seems to destroy reading comprehension. I haven't yet figured out why.
-
So like I said, you have no public system. You have a few scattered examples of programs that receive government funding, but are not available to the public.
Wut?
- VA is available to veterans. Pretty sure they are part of the public.
- BIA insurance for the Native Americans. Last I checked, Native Americans are part of the American public.
- Medicare is for the elderly and disabled members of the public.
- Medicaid is for low-income members of the public.
Your logic does not work.
-
It really doesn't. You guys see one issue (which as far as I'm concerned is completely made up at this point because nobody can point at any other source for this "information") as a roadblock to the entire process and give up. You're in the "fuck it, too hard" camp. Lazy.
I'm not saying that one issue makes it an unsolvable problem. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread say it is. We have been saying that in the US, the problem needs to be addressed from the supply side first. Addressing the issue from the payer side will not accomplish jack-
.
-
I think he means available to everyone (though why he doesn't just say so is anyone's guess).
-
They will get along just fine. Clearly you refuse to read anything I've linked, but it's probably a good thing you don't because you'll feel like a total fucking retard if you do.
Sure they will! I bet Thailand is SWIMMING in local companies with the know-how to make heart medication and AIDS therapy and other categories of drugs.
Turn off your reflexive US bashing for a bit.
-
American company patents are only about ~50% of new drug patents as it is
Hey, what percentage of the world population is NOT in the US? You dumb fuck. If half the drug companies disappear you ar FUCKED.
-
So, back to the point I keep making... ObamaCare is irrelevant - I don't have an opinion about it because no matter how good or bad it is, it can't help or hurt much. If we fix the cost problem, then any payment system will be fine as for as I'm concerned.
This is a good point. At this time, I'm mainly opposed to it because it has made things worse since nothing has been done to fix issues on the supplier side.
-
I think he means available to everyone (though why he doesn't just say so is anyone's guess).
That's possible, though I was trying not to assume anything about his post.
-
In other words, working as designed. They kick the problem down the road to the next administration, and health care providers and insurance companies continue to get paid in the meantime.
-
The REASON drugs cost so much in America? Because Americans are willing to pay that much.YOU are the reason it costs so much in America. Sucker.
You make me actually WANT to see the drug companies vanish just so you'll see how wrong you are.
-
You make me actually WANT to see the drug companies vanish just so you'll see how wrong you are.
Again, YOU are the reason drugs cost so much. TAXES pay for more R&D than drug company profits. They do not charge more because of R&D, but they sure won't tell you that because then you might not be willing to get sucked dry paying for your pills.
-
It is getting amusing how many research papers and links I have to posted that prove my point while you blindly spout random shit about how US > you (except I live in the US, moron).
-
TAXES pay for more R&D than drug company profits.
"Oh, look at me, I'm darkmatter, and I think tax money comes into existence from nowhere!"
You're the one who said nobody pays for this, you dumb fuck.
-
You're the one who said nobody pays for this, you dumb fuck.
You're the one that is saying the Pharma companies pay for it with profits from huge drug prices and that our drug prices will go up.Which is specifically what I am saying is not true, NO ONE PAYS HIGHER PRICES FOR DRUGS DUE TO WHATEVER RETARDED ARGUMENT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE.
-
"Oh, look at me, I'm darkmatter, and I think tax money comes into existence from nowhere!"
Guess what, the TAX revenue from you and me that the Govt ALREADY dumps into R&D will stay identical regardless of how much the pills cost.
-
This is a good point. At this time, I'm mainly opposed to it because it has made things worse since nothing has been done to fix issues on the supplier side.
That's a complaint about what issues the administration decided to address, not about ObamaCare itself.
-
That's a complaint about what issues the administration decided to address, not about ObamaCare itself.
And how is "ObamaCare itself" different from the "issues the administration decided to address," since ObamaCare is its attempt to address the issues?
-
Also see http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065
or http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~scotch/gerth.htm
or http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/Biosocieties_2011_Myths_of_High_Drug_Research_Costs.pdf
or http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/the_makebelieve_billion.htmlactually the one wasn't quite about the topic at hand, but a parallel tax dodging topic.
-
So like I said, you have no public system. You have a few scattered examples of programs that receive government funding, but are not available to the public.
Sure, if you mean, everyone must use the shittiest health systems in the country, they you're right. We haven't punished ourselves like that. Seriously, what about the US government makes you think we should do that?
The only country on Earth where there is still a debate about whether or not this is a good thing is the US.
Do you guys all jump off bridges, too? This is pretty much the extent of your argument, and it's very bad rhetoric.
Ah, you're one of those people who think the demcrats are socialists. They aren't, and you have literally no idea what socialism is or what it hopes to achieve. In your country, maybe, but in the big picture you are right wing vs. right wing and nothing will ever change that.
Actually, I'll admit that it's all relative. The Democrats are largely socialists in that they want more and more of the economy planned by government. A world full of idiots doesn't make them not idiots.
You're in the "fuck it, too hard" camp. Lazy.
Heh. Lazy. This reminds me of @flabdablet's loser arguments, where he'd just give up and say that my philosophy was just, "Fuck 'em, I've got mine." You don't even understand the situation in the US, let alone all of the ways that people want to fix stuff.
2. American drug costs don't even pay the majority of the American R&D expenses as it is, TAXES pay for it.
So your point is that I'm right? I haven't had a chance to look into the breakdown of stuff you've posted. I know that a lot of research happens in smaller companies that are later bought by bigger firms. I'm not sure how all of that accounting fits in, but however it does, it's not from the generous 100% pay their own way universal idiots of @aapis imagination.
I'm not saying that one issue makes it an unsolvable problem
I think we've established multiple times that @aapis only looks like he's discoursing with us.
-
Part of the public <> the public. Public is everyone. If medicade, VA and whatever BIA is was available to literally everyone then sure, you've got a public system. Public healthcare is not exclusive. This is what I'm talking about when I say you guys just don't get it.
-
That does appear to be your argument, so @flabdablet's assertion is still correct.
You don't have to be a US citizen to know that you're doing everything wrong (though that belief would explain why you guys have taken the wrong approach here). But, like I said, you don't have to agree with or like any of it. This type of argument is only relevant to your leaders. Once again, you resort to NUH UH in order to cover for your fundamental misunderstanding of the system you're trying to argue against. Lazy. Yawn.
-
That does appear to be your argument, so @flabdablet's assertion is still correct.
Are you Australian, too? Maybe it's in the water.
This is what I'm talking about when I say you guys just don't get it.
ZOMG! We're using a word differently!
People have brought those up for a reason. Why is your argument regarding them basically NUH UH?
-
I never said where I was from so for all you know I am Australian.
What you're doing is using the word "purple" to describe the flavour of apples. It's not just different, it's wrong.
What is the "them" and "those" you're referring to?
-
Part of the public <> the public. Public is everyone. If medicade, VA and whatever BIA is was available to literally everyone then sure, you've got a public system. Public healthcare is not exclusive. This is what I'm talking about when I say you guys just don't get it.
I don't fucking care if you consider them public systems or not. They are public run health insurance systems, and they are valid examples of how our government would handle universal healthcare: poorly. The VA, medicare, medicade, and the BIA systems are the biggest reason I don't want universal healthcare in the US. If the government can't properly manage systems for portions of the public, why in hell should we believe it will properly manage something 10 times bigger?
On that note, did you even hear about the debacle that was the rollout of healthcare.gov? I don't remember the exact cost increase, but IIRC the costs more than tripled from the initial budget before the first go-live date, and it was buggy as hell for at least 6 months. From what I understand, it's a lot better now, but those are massive cost over runs when you're talking about a system that ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars to get working. That's not exactly the type of "efficiency" that should be handling health care, period.
-
What is the "them" and "those" you're referring to?
Read your post that @boomzilla just referenced. Maybe you'll get a clue.
-
I don't fucking care if you consider them public systems or not. They are public run health insurance systems, and they are valid examples of how our government would handle universal healthcare: poorly.
I'm sure if we extend these broken systems to everyone, it'll magically work better!
Besides, for how great universal health care supposedly is, you still hear some pretty good horror stories. Liverpool Pathway anyone? There was a story running around a couple years ago that NHS wouldn't pay for some drug for macular degeneration until you'd already lost all vision in one eye. Yeah, sounds awesome to me.
I haven't heard much about other countries' health-care fuckups, is why I usually mention England. For all our system is supposed to suck so much, it's amazing how many times you hear people from other countries (just like upthread!) say "I couldn't get a procedure for three weeks or six months, so I went to the US and got it done the next day!"
Hey, whoever it was upthread who said his dad had an MRI saying he needed immediate surgery--how would you have felt if the US had your country's universal health care and you couldn't get that MRI at all? I ask not to pick on you--I don't even know--or care--how you feel about the US in general, but obviously we had something your family needed. Given our country's job of limited universal healthcare, I can't imagine you'd've seen a better result if the VA and so on covered everyone.
-
-
People thought conservatives were joking when we said stuff like "you think your healthcare is problematic now, wait until it's run by the nice woman from the DMV."
Aside: my wife qualifies for handicapped plates on her car. She went to the DMV twice, and the woman there argued her out of it...basically refused to give her the plates. "You need a placard anyway, so why bother with the plates?"
Because I want 'em, bitch! My mother-in-law WILL park in handicapped spots and forget to hang the placard and I don't want to have to fight to get out of the ticket, especially since there's a smaller fine for "forgetting to use your placard."[1]
That's universal healthcare.
[1] No, really. She was told "we'll waive it this time." Pretend I linked to an ominous music sting on "this time."
-
Hey, whoever it was upthread who said his dad had an MRI saying he needed immediate surgery--how would you have felt if the US had your country's universal health care and you couldn't get that MRI at all? I ask not to pick on you--I don't even know--or care--how you feel about the US in general, but obviously we had something your family needed. Given our country's job of limited universal healthcare, I can't imagine you'd've seen a better result if the VA and so on covered everyone.
It was me. My dad is a US citizen, he was just working in Canada at the time. Fortunately, my mom was working in the states and had insurance through work or he would have been screwed.
