CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:05 pm
 


Prof_Chomsky wrote:
Sorry but that 1.5B and 7-10 years figure was pulled straight out of the same place most stats are - thin air.


Actually, it is rather common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development


Prof_Chomsky wrote:
Same goes for this completely made up rubbish
Quote:
One of Obama's apparatchiks in his health care committee said something about an "obligation to die" for older people. Maybe you need to apply for a job with Obama.


With that cleared up, I don't claim to be an ethicist and therefore won't speak on this topic too much. Money and human lives shouldn't be compared.


The comment was “Old people have a duty to die and get out of the way” and it was uttered by Richard Lamm who worked on both the 1993 Health Care proposal and the current health care law.


So, no you are not an ethicist and you are also not a fact checker. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:17 pm
 


4 months? Not worth it. People shouldn't be outright denied Access, but Public Medical coverage should not be used to Pay for this. Individuals. Private Insurance, or Charities can Pay for it if they deem it worthwhile.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20852
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:29 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
And it's that argument that is used to argue against national health care because, inevitably, expensive medications will be rationed or prohibited. If a private insurance company can cover it, then why not?

But when you're saying that 4 months of life for an 80 year old guy has to be balanced against 930 vaccinations for impoverished kids (something that has to be done in a national plan) then that 80 year old guy can kiss off those four months.

Myself, I am not sure I would want such a treatment even if my insurer paid for it. But that's me.


A national health care plan and a plan to cover rare drug expenses are apples and oranges. One is, IMHO, a right, and the other is a privilege. Of course, that's just one of the fundamental differences between Americans and Canadians.

You guys feel everyone has the right to own a firearm, while up here we feel everyone has the right to decent health care (neither opinion is in any way incorrect, just a reflection of attitudes in each country). It's just a matter of different priorities due to different national culture and history.

If I had my choice, it'd be national health care - which of course, Canada has.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:33 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
A national health care plan and a plan to cover rare drug expenses are apples and oranges. One is, IMHO, a right, and the other is a privilege. Of course, that's just one of the fundamental differences between Americans and Canadians.

You guys feel everyone has the right to own a firearm, while up here we feel everyone has the right to decent health care (neither opinion is in any way incorrect, just a reflection of attitudes in each country). It's just a matter of different priorities due to different national culture and history.

If I had my choice, it'd be national health care - which of course, Canada has.


I consider my right and ability to defend myself a key component of my personal health care: if someone may try to kill me I have the right and the means to prevent that from happening, thus maintaining my current state of health; breathing.

In your case, were you set upon by crazed Mohawks you could rest assured that the police would very sternly watch from afar and they'd be sure to come pick up your corpse afterwards so as to prevent any environmental harm. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20852
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:45 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
A national health care plan and a plan to cover rare drug expenses are apples and oranges. One is, IMHO, a right, and the other is a privilege. Of course, that's just one of the fundamental differences between Americans and Canadians.

You guys feel everyone has the right to own a firearm, while up here we feel everyone has the right to decent health care (neither opinion is in any way incorrect, just a reflection of attitudes in each country). It's just a matter of different priorities due to different national culture and history.

If I had my choice, it'd be national health care - which of course, Canada has.


I consider my right and ability to defend myself a key component of my personal health care: if someone may try to kill me I have the right and the means to prevent that from happening, thus maintaining my current state of health; breathing.

In your case, were you set upon by crazed Mohawks you could rest assured that the police would very sternly watch from afar and they'd be sure to come pick up your corpse afterwards so as to prevent any environmental harm. [B-o]


Given that I live thousands of KMs from where the Mohawks live, I'm not too worried. In fact, odds are I'm far more likely to be attacked by crazed Americans (given that I live less than a thousand KM closer to the nearest gun-toting Americans) :lol:

Maybe American police would watch from afar, but given that the EPS motto is;

Quote:
is to provide protection of life and property, preservation of public peace, prevention and detection of crime, regulation of non-criminal conduct as required by law, and perform services incumbent upon police as a social and community agency.


I'm not too worried. I don't live in fear of my neighbours like Americans do.

Seriously though, I was just pointing out a difference in what each nation's citizens consider rights. If Americans want to put economics and/or firearms ahead of the health of their citizens, that's their prerogative.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:08 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
Seriously though, I was just pointing out a difference in what each nation's citizens consider rights. If Americans want to put economics and/or firearms ahead of the health of their citizens, that's their prerogative.


Economics must come before health care. Just ask Fidel Castro. :idea:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13956
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:25 pm
 


MY problem with the US system is, it makes the very ppl that pay for health care, a commodity. And the quality of your health care depends entirely on how much the insurance company wants to spend on you and how much the stockholders wanna make that year. That scares the crap right outta me 8O
I certainly won't say that doctors shouldn't earn some nice cash for all the money and time they spent on educating themselves, but putting capitalism ahead of a nation's healthcare seems a little..well backwards.
You can't have a healthy economy if you don't have a healthy nation, which includes the health of the average Joe. And that includes their mental and emotional health as well as physical.
Prescription drugs are another thing entirely and THAT'S where private insurance should come into play.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15030
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:51 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
Seriously though, I was just pointing out a difference in what each nation's citizens consider rights. If Americans want to put economics and/or firearms ahead of the health of their citizens, that's their prerogative.


Economics must come before health care. Just ask Fidel Castro. :idea:


Please, how many bankruptcies were filed in the US today for medical reasons again? The US debt load for both personal and government is at criminal levels and is retarding the economy. The private insurance industry and big pharma are out of control and are doing more harm then good. It is a byproduct of the system they are exploiting rather then by good design and policy that is creating new patents.

I'm not saying the US should abandon the model they have but it is the last one that should be throwing stones at Cuba for economic reasons. The US is too busy driving itself into the ground because the private industry has all the say. Obama can make all the promises about setting policy they want like covering children but it's a big joke when they just refuse to cover kids anymore.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Tampa Bay Lightning
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 191
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:19 pm
 


Now I seriously hope I don't get cancer; how am I suppose to pay a drug that might not even work?


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 883
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:24 pm
 


I wouldn't pay for private health insurance with a company that supplied someone with a 93G medication for a very common cancer for 4 months extra life.

I'm all for helping pay for youngsters with a slow start to life, but throwing buckets of money at a dying elderly man?

What is the name of the company thats paying out for this so I can not buy stock in it and advise people not to pay into it unless they secretly suspect their already dying?

And stop defending insurance companies Bart. Being owned by a private company doesn't make paying into a communal pool of funds for use by the group and allocated by well paid bureaucrats in a highly arcane fashion not communism. Very out of character. Your supposed to point out that people should be able to pay for their own illnesses with their own savings.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15030
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:05 am
 


CKA_Patriot wrote:
Now I seriously hope I don't get cancer; how am I suppose to pay a drug that might not even work?


Sad to say but there is no cure only delay. We can hope for remission but our cells are only designed to divide so many times before they mutate into cancer. If we don't catch it in time there is no way to stop it from getting into the blood and then to vital organs.

These treatment are costly and for the sake of one 80 year old to have 4 more months it may not make sense to use it for the cost but that may also lead to a breakthrough that we could retrofit for cancer suffers of any age. It's a gamble every time though and we have to take into consideration just how much good can be done with 100k towards established treatments for ailments we can cure vs trail blazing tech that is cancer research.

It's like the argument vs the space program, many say we don't need to spend billions trying to walk on the surface of another planet but there has been so many developments created because of the space program that their benefits have dwarfed what the initial investment was into the program to begin with many times over.

The only way such developments are possible are with national strategies with clear long term goals. NASA would never gotten off the ground if it was just lone states providing funding and health care is the same. In BC we have the best cancer treatment in Canada but that because it became a provincial initiative but every other province has there own version. Like reinventing the wheel this is wasteful and counter productive.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
 Montreal Canadiens
Profile
Posts: 679
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:34 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
A national health care plan and a plan to cover rare drug expenses are apples and oranges. One is, IMHO, a right, and the other is a privilege. Of course, that's just one of the fundamental differences between Americans and Canadians.

You guys feel everyone has the right to own a firearm, while up here we feel everyone has the right to decent health care (neither opinion is in any way incorrect, just a reflection of attitudes in each country). It's just a matter of different priorities due to different national culture and history.

If I had my choice, it'd be national health care - which of course, Canada has.


I consider my right and ability to defend myself a key component of my personal health care: if someone may try to kill me I have the right and the means to prevent that from happening, thus maintaining my current state of health; breathing.

In your case, were you set upon by crazed Mohawks you could rest assured that the police would very sternly watch from afar and they'd be sure to come pick up your corpse afterwards so as to prevent any environmental harm. [B-o]


Unless you're Jack Bauer, the odds are that you will not use your gun to defend yourself a single time in your life. In the opposite, you might be a father someday, or be sick, and this is where the National Health Care become interesting.

Also, for the question, life is priceless, but it doesn't worth 93 000$ for 4 months. I'd rather give this money to my family.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 73
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:45 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
No, it's the economy at work. The cost to bring a drug to market is some $1.5 billion over seven to ten years and those costs have to be recovered. If you don't want to pay for the costs of drug development then pharmaceutical companies will stop developing new drugs.


So goes the theory. Reality doesn't always match that. The reason these drugs cost so much is because they have been patented and no one else can create generics at a lower cost. David Levine's book Against Intellectual Monopoly has a great chapter http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf (warning: pdf file) on why the argument for patents in the pharmaceutical industry isn't nearly as strong as people make it out to be. It completely destroys the idea that without pharma patents there can be no pharmaceutical industry, by pointing to other countries that had no patent protection over pharmaceuticals until recently -- but still had absolutely thriving pharma industries. In other words, patents aren't needed for a pharmaceutical industry.

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has been publishing articles every few months pointing out how patents slow down pharmaceutical innovation http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-8-2005_pg5_12. Meanwhile, economists David Levine and Michele Boldrin have a whole chapter in their book on intellectual property that shows that pharmaceutical industries have done fine even in countries that don't allow drugs to be covered by patents http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm.

The whole "pay for the cost of drug development" or they will stop developing is a myth. Take some time to research patents in the pharma industry and you'll see costs like this are nothing more than multinational corporations seeking more and more monopoly rents in the form of patents at the cost of peoples health.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:58 pm
 


Scape wrote:
Please, how many bankruptcies were filed in the US today for medical reasons again?


Something that typically speaks to insurance reform, not a government takeover of an entire sector of the economy.

Scape wrote:
The US debt load for both personal and government is at criminal levels and is retarding the economy.


I agree. So why should the government add another $1 trillion a year in debt to pay for this system?

Scape wrote:
The private insurance industry and big pharma are out of control and are doing more harm then good. It is a byproduct of the system they are exploiting rather then by good design and policy that is creating new patents.


I disagree...to a point. Private insurance and the pharma industry are what they are as a result of (mostly good) government regulations. Drugs are expensive because of the massive investment required to bring them to market and the risks in doing so are huge. Thalidomide, anyone? That said, the rewards must be in proportion to the risks or else there won't be any investment in new drugs. Period.

Scape wrote:
I'm not saying the US should abandon the model they have but it is the last one that should be throwing stones at Cuba for economic reasons.


Fidel Castro condemned the economy he created. We don't need to say anything past that. :idea:

Scape wrote:
The US is too busy driving itself into the ground because the private industry has all the say. Obama can make all the promises about setting policy they want like covering children but it's a big joke when they just refuse to cover kids anymore.


That's the thing about the US Constitution: while the government can prohibit an action, it cannot compel an action. A business has the right to stop doing business. That's what Obama is up against. If he and the Democrats make it unprofitable to be in the healthcare business the investors will move their money elsewhere and then the government can run hospitals, clinics, medical schools, and pharmacy and medical supply to their heart's content. But they cannot order anyone to do business in any segment of the market because they can always choose not to do business at all.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:08 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
No, it's the economy at work. The cost to bring a drug to market is some $1.5 billion over seven to ten years and those costs have to be recovered. If you don't want to pay for the costs of drug development then pharmaceutical companies will stop developing new drugs.


Would you then support euthenasia?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rosco and 31 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.