The Nutjobs Are Destroying Town Hall Meetings On Healthcare

[Formaldehyde]

Ha. Not to mention the millions the medical industry spent to buy off Congress:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159838.php

CQ Politics: "During the first half of 2009, health industry groups contributed almost $1.8 million to 18 lawmakers overseeing the House side of the action on an overhaul bill. For 15 of the 18 congressional leaders, health-care-related (political action committees) accounted for the largest or second-largest contributions each lawmaker received from any industry during the first six months of 2009, a CQ MoneyLine analysis of campaign finance reports shows." Leadership in both chambers has taken in hundreds of thousands of dollars from health care PACs, including $224,819 for House Majority Whip James Clyburn of S.C. and $168,250 for Minority Leader John Boehner or Ohio. "Stakes are indeed high for health care interests as Congress considers whether to set up a government-run insurance alternative, whether to require businesses to offer health care coverage, and whether to tax insurance companies or workers' health care benefits" (Roth and Knott, 8/4).

That's the one good thing about democracy in America. It can be bought quite cheaply.

 

[illram]

So how do congressmen write off obvious payoffs? I mean although we all know what these really are, what is the "official explanation" of where this money goes? Future campaign coffers?

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, it's campaign contributions. You pretty much cannot run for major office anymore without special interest money. Members of Congress spend as much time chasing that as they do on anything else. It means that lobbyists are the only ones with access to Members now.

 

[amadeus]

$73.9 billion/year. Amount Big Pharma spends on direct to consumer advertising.

$28.8 billion/year. Amount Big Pharma spends on R&D.

So? Would shifting funds from advertising to research correspond to greater drug development? There's a limited number of biomedical researchers and I don't think they're going without the technology and equipment they need.

 

[Cutlass]

So? Would shifting funds from advertising to research correspond to greater drug development? There's a limited number of biomedical researchers and I don't think they're going without the technology and equipment they need.

The point is that the marketing is intended to drive demand for unneeded drugs. So it's not precisely a waste to the system: It is a specific drive to maximize the waste in the system.

And seriously, do you honestly believe that tripling R&D won't increase drug development? You don't know much about how capitalism works, do you?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

While Cutlass makes a good point that advertising goes for unnecessary drugs, some of that advertising money also goes to drive consumers to "copycat" drugs that are essentially identical to previous drugs, but which still have patent protection. Once the patent on one drug runs out, they start marketing a slightly different one that does the same thing, so they can keep the cash cow . . . umm . . . mooing?

Cleo

 

[Cutlass]

They do that with their connections to doctors as well, to keep the doctor prescribing a more expensive option for no reason except to have a more expensive version of the same thing.

 

[civ_king]

The point is that the marketing is intended to drive demand for unneeded drugs. So it's not precisely a waste to the system: It is a specific drive to maximize the waste in the system.

And seriously, do you honestly believe that tripling R&D won't increase drug development? You don't know much about how capitalism works, do you?

wouldn't economic theory dictate that if there is a killing to be made in a field, people will flock to it? solving the problem of lack of researchers?

 

[Cutlass]

wouldn't economic theory dictate that if there is a killing to be made in a field, people will flock to it? solving the problem of lack of researchers?

Amadeus doesn't think so.

 

[carmen510]

Just a little intervention:



Its kind of sad how someone from . .. .. .. .. . has more common sense than at least 30% of the US population.

 

[civ_king]

That post=win

 

[Elrohir]

Just a little intervention:

Spoiler :

Its kind of sad how someone from . .. .. .. .. . has more common sense than at least 30% of the US population.

That's not an original post on . .. .. .. .. .. It's an anonymous email that's been going around for awhile. You've never seen it before, I take it?

 

[Neomega]

Wait... The Federal reserve is not part of the government... how did they get in that letter? OH.... This letter failed to mention, that we all have too pay everything we have to the banks for the next 15 years at least.

I just don't get it. the Federal reserve is private banks.... how can something the private banks run, be socialism, when it is the very definition of a capitalist mechanism? Well, not exactly capitalist... corporatist, certainly NOT socialist.

 

[Bill3000]

Wait... The Federal reserve is not part of the government... how did they get in that letter?

It's quasi-public, designed to be a compromise between the competing philosophies of privatization and government regulation. It has aspects of a government run system and private enterprise. Good enough to count.

 

[Neomega]

It's quasi-public, designed to be a compromise between the competing philosophies of privatization and government regulation. Good enough to count.

Government and corporation are different? Are you sure? I think not. That is why I know we live in a corporatist state, it is the most honest assessment. It certainly isn't capitalism, not quite socialism, not fascism.... yet. So not only are they not going to regulate themselves, (regulation capture), they also will actually collude with each other. And don't tell me the low interest rates weren't political, of course they were. We just been attacked by al queada... at a time when our market was admittedly going bear.

You know, there was a particular war I hated going on during that time of prosperity, 2003 - 2006 or so. Oh wait, we are still in that war. War boosts the economy, for a while. I wonder, if maybe, just maybe, another war will boost ours!

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Some "libertarian" crazies think that socialism and communism are inventions of bankers and "elitists" who want to control people through debt. So fed reserve, banks, communists, and socialists are all part of the same mechanism.... for some reason.

 

[civ_king]

Some "libertarian" crazies think that socialism and communism are inventions of bankers and "elitists" who want to control people through debt. So fed reserve, banks, communists, and socialists are all part of the same mechanism.... for some reason.

 

[Patroklos]

Correct. Government R&D programs invent many of the most important drugs, and then we allow the drug companies to sell them to us (without a discount.) The public pays for a lot of the drug development and testing, the balance being paid for by drug company R&D budgets. This is public subsidizing of drug company profiteering. It is a system flaw to allow obscene profits to be had in such a scenario.

This is utterly false, while it is true that the government does spend money on R&D they are not the only ones doing so and they do not make up the lion's share of the funding. What the goverment spens almost no time or money on is the lengthy and risky experimentation and trial portion of a drug's development which is as of right now almost exclusively a private run thing.

Again, the price of drugs are not jacked up in the slightest, if they were it would be reflected in the profit margins. They cost what they do because thats what is required to recoup the investment in development. It is also important to note that the US is still by far the world leader in medical tech and drug development, and there is a reason for that.

 

[Earthling]

You've only narrowly defined your baseline in a way that many people wouldn't agree with to say the price of drugs isn't jacked up. If you're saying "The price of drugs isn't jacked up, compared to a public healthcare system which still had the same patent, tort, importation, and regulation problems" then you might have a tautology. But without all the nonsense in the pharmeceutical industry in a variety of ways then things certainly could be a lot cheaper.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

It certainly isn't capitalism, not quite socialism, not fascism.... yet.

I guess it can be quasi-capitalist, quasi-socialist, quasi-fascist... A lot of a quasi- elements which has no word to describe it all.