|
|
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ss_eaters.html
I apologize in advance to all you libs, incapable of rational thought. Had this been in the American "feeler" you might have felt more comfortable. But, give it a go anyway.
As for the premise of the article, thoughts?
I have been saying for a while that this is what it HAS to come to. If Health Care goes universal, the ONLY practical way to control costs is the reduce expenses for end of life treatment. It is the most obvious solution for bean counters who have to find some way to provide everyone with equal access while funding the program from the public coffers (which will remain under seige by other entitlement-promising democrats and repubs).
http://www.thirteen.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html
It is such an obvious target for cuts.40 percent of Medicare dollars cover care for people in the last month [of their life].
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yep, not only that, your local dr's offices will cut in other ways too. My wife's boss has lived in 3 different countries with universal healthcare. He said they expect you to bring your own bandaids after injections and many of the offices dont use paper towels, they use a towl (a community towel seems pretty disgusting at the dr's office). Anyway, the government will skim on the big stuff (ie keeping you alive longer) and the dr's offices will skim on the small stuff. It will be so great.
uh...yay...
"These are typically administered in the place of treatment intended to prolong life, and instead focus on pain relief until death."
Sounds bad, I know, but seems to be inevitable, most unfortunately...
just give me vicodin or something stronger towards the end. don't need anything else.
Here is another point I have heard about drug companies. Americans pay a ton more for the branded drugs (popular, more expensive, breakthrough) because many socialist countries (cough, Canda, cough) will only pay a slight premium to variable costs to manufacture the drug (ie dont help with the recovery of the fixed costs plus the expense of many drug failures that come along with R and D). So, if we go to universal healthcare and squeeze these drug companies some more, what will happen? I already know the answer, but just wondering if anybody else has read about this.
Why should we pay for their failures anyway???
You do indirectly through the markup on their newest, successful drugs. How else could they stay profitable?
Develop 3 drugs for 1MM each, only one succeeds, and they only get 1.5MM in sales (500K profit on the one drug). However, they lost 1.5MM because they failed at the other drugs.
It is no different than an insurance company. Success for an insurance company is when they insure someone who pays more in premiums than they claim. Failure is when the opposite occurs. They have to stay financially soluble. Success has to pay for failures.
We are the last major capitalist country to not have universal health care. 40 million people do not have access to preventative treatments and regular and consistent health care. Every othe western democracy has it. Since universal health would be an act of Great Satan, lets withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and liberate Great Britain, France, Canada, and Germany from universal health care! Where's Bush when you need him?
I like how idiots who have no idea why it would work or how it would work always sayWe are the last major capitalist country to not have universal health care. 40 million people do not have access to preventative treatments and regular and consistent health care. Every othe western democracy has it. Since universal health would be an act of Great Satan, lets withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and liberate Great Britain, France, Canada, and Germany from universal health care! Where's Bush when you need him?
"everyone else is doing it". We have already discussed that 40MM number and how bogus it is.
Exactly. Research in the pharma field is high risk. Companies fund their research for new drugs off income from patented pharmaceuticals that they currently sell at high margin and off investors hoping to profit off of the high margins of future drugs.
Limiting profitability just results in less research.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
And the people who have NO health coverage at all cares for what reason?? Only you privileged wanna be high class people care about companies and profits. The single parent working two jobs just to make ends meet don't give a damn about none of what you just said.
A lot like Rearden Metal. The guy busts his chops for 10 years because he has a vision of future use of his product and the money he can make from it. Take that away and you have no breakthroughs.
You are an idiot. How do yo think these cheap drug companies make drugs? They wait for one of the big dogs to make the brand name drug, then copy it and sell it for cheap. Without the brand name drug companies that us rich folks pay for, there would be no new, affordable drugs for the poor when they have health issues.
I guess that makes sense.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
