will the united states ever have universal healthcare?

madarab405 · Aug 23, 2009, 11:29 PM

speechlesstx · Sep 30, 2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

This board is full of dysfunctional people.

Welcome to the club.

excon · Sep 30, 2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synnen

So...you can keep the profits as a company IF you do the research with your OWN money. If you use government GRANTS to do the research, then the GOVERNMENT owns the "patent"---or like the polio vaccine, and Jonas Salk, there should BE no patent for it.

Hello Synn:

You're coming along nicely. That's a wonderful idea. However, in terms of medical care, I have a belief that NO ONE should profit from anyone else's misery...

Really, Synn.... Imagine the world gets hit with a really bad epidemic... ONE company has the patent on the ONLY vaccine that can save the world... THAT company, of course, wants to PROFIT from its patent.

Do you think the patent WILL be respected?? Do you think it SHOULD be respected?

excon

PS> Will somebody please tell the Wolverine that I qualified my response above with the WORDS "in terms of medical care"... I'm sure he'll say that I said NO ONE should make ANY profits EVER. But, you'll direct him to the WORDS, won't you, as though that'll make a difference??? Hah!

inthebox · Sep 30, 2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synnen

I would just like to point out that a great way for partially fixing the existing system is to take the patent for life-saving drugs away from pharmaceudical companies IF the research for the drug was in any way, shape, or form funded by the taxpayers.

So...you can keep the profits as a company IF you do the research with your OWN money. If you use government GRANTS to do the research, then the GOVERNMENT owns the "patent"---or like the polio vaccine, and Jonas Salk, there should BE no patent for it.

Excellent idea.

I'm not sure about getting rid of patents though. Does this apply to all patents? Without patents, who is going to put the time, money, r and d to come up with new ideas, technologies, products? Maybe reduce the number of years a patent is enforced?

G&P

ETWolverine · Sep 30, 2009, 01:01 PM

Your words, excon:

Quote:

It's because NONE of it IS true. It resides ONLY in the head of your friendly Wolverine...

Well, the fact is that ALL of it is true.

Obama did all those things. All of them were violations of contract and bankruptcy law.

So... all of them are TRUE.

Aren't they???!!! Yep, they are.

And based on that fact, Obama SHOULD be impeached. He broke the law and violated contractual agreements. But he won't be. Not because he didn't break the law, which he demonstrably did (even you can't deny that fact... it's been reported all over the newspapers), but because nobody would be able to get such an impeachment proceeding to go anywhere. After all, he only broke the law to screw over corporations and rich folks, so that's ok, right? Impeachment would be a political dead end because the Dems control Congress and nobody cares that a bunchg of corporations and rich folks got screwed.

That means that YOU were wrong in your statement that "none of it is true." Because it turns out that ALL of it is true.

Now admit it and move on.

But you can't. You never can.

Wrong on health care.

Wrong on the role of government.

Wrong on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wrong about Bush being a Dufus.

And wrong in saying that I was incorrect on the facts.

And NEVER able to admit it.

Elliot

tomder55 · Sep 30, 2009, 01:38 PM

Good luck discovering all those new drugs in the basement labs of the universities.

You are right about drugs discovered using grant $$ but surely you are not saying that a pharmaceutical company that incurred all the expenses with no guarantee of return should not get some exclusive use of the product on the hope of a return of their investment ,and profit on the side ? Venture capitalists will find better uses of their resources me thinks .

ETWolverine · Sep 30, 2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synnen

Not ALL patents--but can you imagine where we'd be today if the polio vaccine, or the smallpox vaccine, or the MMR every child gets was under PATENT, and only ONE company could make them--and could charge whatever they wanted for them?

And LOTS of people have come up with new ideas for the simple reason of making life better/easier, with no thought to the money involved.

Frankly, the government needs to stop outsourcing the military before it starts taking back medicine, in my opinion. But--if you're looking for a place to improve the current system, then stopping major pharmaceudical companies from taking government grants paid for with taxpayer money from PATENTING those drugs instead of supplying them to the public that paid for their research would be a good place to start.

Synnen,

There's this thing called "licensing" wherein a holder of a patent can allow other companies to make, promote, use or manufacture the patented item. That means that there can be more than one manufacturer for a product, as long as the patent-holder is properly compensated as per any licensing agreements between the parties.

That means that there is rarely a reason for a vaccine to be held back from production by more than one company.

Furthermore, drug patents tend to be relatively short-lived compared to other intellectual properties.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument against patents for drugs.

Do you know how much it costs to develop a new drug?

Here's a rough breakdown:

Animal (screening) in rats—about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year.

Animal screening in monkeys—about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year.

Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year.

If it doesn't kill anybody, then move to Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year.

If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and "off-label" uses: 5–10 years at another. $100+ million a year.

Over the entire term of testing, that's roughly $2 Billion for the cost of the development of ONE DRUG. And for every drug that makes it to market, there are literally HUNDREDS of drugs that fail at some point during their tests, each of which costs MORE money. But those failures are a necessary part of the development process... without those failures, new developments wouldn't happen.

Without patents, how are drug companies to recoup the costs of developing these drugs? If we don't allow the company that spent all that money to make it all back with some profit added, they aren't going to develop any other new drugs. Because companies are not in the business of spending $2 billion to not make any of it back. They would rather exit the business of developing drugs than stay in it for a $2 billion a pop loss.

Would you spend $2 billion if there was no mechanism for you to recoup that money? I'm guessing you wouldn't.

THAT is the reason that patents on intellectual properties exist... to allow companies to make back the money they spent on all those drugs that they managed to develop AND the costs of all the ones that FAILED as well. Because no matter how benevolent, kind, charitable, and compassionate people are, there comes a point when they decide that they can no longer afford to spend money and never see any of it come back to them. There's a point at which they go broke and can't afford to develop more meds.

Patents are a very necessary economic part of the development of new products. As is profit, and for much the same reason.

Elliot

speechlesstx · Sep 30, 2009, 02:29 PM

You've heard the line that every American deserves the same type of health care that members of Congress receive, this is the kind of health care they receive. "And, for the most part, nobody asked what your insurance was," if the member needed to be treated at say, Johns Hopkins.

Quote:

This fall while members of Congress toil in the U.S. Capitol, working to decide how or even whether to reform the country's health care system, one floor below them an elaborate Navy medical clinic -- described by those who have seen it as something akin to a modern community hospital -- will be standing by, on-call and ready to provide Congress with some of the country's best and most efficient government-run health care.

Formally called the Office of the Attending Physician, the clinic -- and at least six satellite offices -- bills its mission as one of emergency preparedness and public health. Each day, it stands ready to handle medical emergencies, biological attacks and the occasional fainting tourist visiting Capitol Hill.

Officially, the office acknowledges these types of services, including providing physicals to Capitol police officers and offering flu shots to congressional staffers. But what is rarely discussed outside the halls of Congress is the office's other role -- providing a wealth of primary care medical services to senators, representatives and Supreme Court justices.

Through interviews with former employees and members of Congress, as well as extensive document searches, ABC News has learned new details about the services offered by the Office of Attending Physician to members of Congress over the past few years, from regular visits by a consulting chiropractor to on-site physical therapy.

"A member walked in and was generally walked right back into a physician's office. They get good care. They are not rushed. They are examined thoroughly," said Eduardo Balbona, an internist in Jacksonville, Fa., who worked as a staff physician in the OAP from 1993 to 1995.

"You have time to spend to get to know your patients and think about them and really think about how you preserve their health going forward," Balbona said. "We're not there to put on Band-Aids. We were there to make sure that everything possible that could be done [is done] to preserve that member of Congress."

No wonder they (including the President) won't commit to using the plans they're proposing for us.

Meanwhile, the reports of the public option being dead may be premature. Two reports, one from Human Events and one from Heritage, suggest Senate Democrats plan on ramming it through next week by attaching it "to a House-passed non-healthcare bill." Obviously they've forgotten the month of August and don't care what their constituents want.