The Nutjobs Are Destroying Town Hall Meetings On Healthcare

[Bill3000]

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.

That's not what corporatism is, sorry. Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, patronage, or religious groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body. This is nothing like a semi-public entity like the Fed, and the existence of a central back doesn't make a country any less capitalist.

 

[Patroklos]

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.

The point of the Democratic slur seems to go over your head. The accusation is that they are gouging the American public, which can not be the case if their profit margins are the same. The things you listed above are things any buisness would have to react to.

 

[Earthling]

Yet large pharmaceutical interests are some of the strongest supporters of strict patent restrictions to discourage the selling of generic drugs and other policies that could benefit the public at large. So maybe they're not making "that much profit" according to you, but they are still contributing to the policies that keep drug costs high.

 

[Cutlass]

The point of the Democratic slur seems to go over your head. The accusation is that they are gouging the American public, which can not be the case if their profit margins are the same. The things you listed above are things any buisness would have to react to.

It doesn't make any sense though. Otherwise why would the same drugs cost so much less in other nations? Then of course there's the "cost plus contracting" model of doing business. Where the quantity of the profit is the target rather than the rate of the profit.

 

[Patroklos]

Yet large pharmaceutical interests are some of the strongest supporters of strict patent restrictions to discourage the selling of generic drugs and other policies that could benefit the public at large.

For the same reason Microsoft, GE, Lockheed Martin and L3 want strict enforcement of patent laws; so that they have the ability to recoup on the insanel expensive investments they made to produce the current miracle drugs we enjoy.

Non stict patent laws = no new miracle drugs.

It doesn't make any sense though. Otherwise why would the same drugs cost so much less in other nations?

1.) Not enforcing patents.
2.) Not using the latests and greatest of the same type of drug. This may save money, but it severly stifles innovation (which is why Europe is not the leader in medical research and development). You can't have your cake and eat it too, if you are not willing to pay for your drugs then nobody is going to develope them.

 

[Cutlass]

Where are patents not enforced? Places like China, where we lack the ability to do so is about it. And the government can do a better job funding drug development than the private sector can. There are new drugs coming out in nations that do not protect price gouging.

 

[Patroklos]

Where are patents not enforced? Places like China, where we lack the ability to do so is about it.

Theres a start. I mean, obviously places like China producing massive counterfieting of products has no effect on any industry, right? right....?

And the government can do a better job funding drug development than the private sector can. There are new drugs coming out in nations that do not protect price gouging.

There is also computer programing coming out of Africa, whats your point?

Face it, there is no place in the world that is any where near our peer in medical research and development. Out of the top 100 medical research universitys something like 75 are in the US. There is no contest. We are where the money is, so that is who can afford to develope the drugs physically and attract innovators financially. There is no getting around it. Are you honestly ignorant as to how fostering innovation works? What, do you think this is Star Trek where people just work the "better themselves?"

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, to be fair, it's not entirely not honoring patents. There's also just negotiations between the governments & the companies. The government will say "you're alllowed to sell your product here if it's below $X", and the company will agree if it's reasonable. Since many countries are large customer bases, and the marginal cost of production is so low, it's often a negotiable process.

I'd hope that some large insurers are also able to get 'discounts' on some of their pharmaceutical purchases.

 

[Cutlass]

Theres a start. I mean, obviously places like China producing massive counterfieting of products has no effect on any industry, right? right....?



There is also computer programing coming out of Africa, whats your point?

Face it, there is no place in the world that is any where near our peer in medical research and development. Out of the top 100 medical research universitys something like 75 are in the US. There is no contest. We are where the money is, so that is who can afford to develope the drugs physically and attract innovators financially. There is no getting around it. Are you honestly ignorant as to how fostering innovation works? What, do you think this is Star Trek where people just work the "better themselves?"

And those research universities are government funded.

 

[Death_Machine]

I mentioned in a recent thread that I thought the primary problem is due to a lack of experience protesting by the conservatives. Up until now, they have seethed in anger whenever anybody has had the temerity to do so. But now that they are the ones who want to do so, they simply don't know how to properly act and don't have the leadership that knows how to do it effectively and peacefully.

Right. If they had more community organizers to bus them to events (like Obama is doing with the unions in an astroturfing response) then they would be better at it instead of the genuine response you are seeing on TV nightly.

 

[Patroklos]

And those research universities are government funded.

In part, the much smaller part. Are you under some illusion that research university project support is under the sole control of the government? Such a gross misundertanding (or rather deliberate delusion) certainly explains you wrongheadedness on the topic.

An honest question, you do undertand that all facets of the medical industry invest heavily into medical reseach at all stages including medical research univeristies, right? You also understand that not all corporate funded research happens at medical research universities right? Please god tell us you are aware of this.

 

[zorven]

Well, some of the organisation is astroturf. However, given the number of people who seem to agree with the astroturf's concepts, it's very fair to say that many people do not want reform to pass. (This is strange, because 95% of people voted for a president with massive reform platforms).

Really? 95% of people voted for Obama? Check your facts, it was 53%. Hardly an overwhelming majority.

 

[Bill3000]

Really? 95% of people voted for Obama? Check your facts, it was 53%. Hardly an overwhelming majority.

It's quite obvious he was including McCain in that picture...

 

[Princeps]

It's quite obvious he was including McCain in that picture...

Well, that depends on the voter turnout which doubt was 95 %.

 

[AngryZealot]

Nevermind, beat by two posters!

 

[MobBoss]

It's quite obvious he was including McCain in that picture...

To insinuate that McCains reforms were anywhere near as similar or massive as Obamas plans is simply not intellectually honest. They werent even in the same ballpark of consideration to be honest...

Also, I think he means that 95% of people that actually voted...not 95% of the populace. And its actually more than 98% voted for either Obama or McCain....

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To insinuate that McCains reforms were anywhere near as similar or massive as Obamas plans is simply not intellectually honest.

El Mac: This is strange, because 95% of people voted for a president with massive reform platforms.

Doesn't insinuate anything, it's simply true.

 

[Cutlass]

In part, the much smaller part. Are you under some illusion that research university project support is under the sole control of the government? Such a gross misundertanding (or rather deliberate delusion) certainly explains you wrongheadedness on the topic.

An honest question, you do undertand that all facets of the medical industry invest heavily into medical reseach at all stages including medical research univeristies, right? You also understand that not all corporate funded research happens at medical research universities right? Please god tell us you are aware of this.

Sure it does. Do you understand that the private sector would be developing very very little without government money?

 

[Patroklos]

No, they would be developing things other than what the government specifically wants, or they would simply replace the government wholesale. A good bit of the reason the government funds medical research is not because nothing would happen without them, it is because what would happen may not be in the specific direction the government wants. Its about control and manipulating the market to its own ends (just like any other actor).

Do you honestly think the demand for cancer and heart disease medication would disapear just because the government removes itself from the equation? Do you imagine the private sector would abandon that demand?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I do believe they'd try to make the most bucks out of it, instead of trying to reach as many people as possible. And those objectives can, but don't have to complement each other.

You don't want the market to regulate medication.