A Philosophical Thought On Health Care & Drug Companies...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
JEATON wrote:
…

A simple test of your theory. Go down to any local DMV (Dept of Motor Vehicles). Next go to your nearest grocery store (Krogers, SuperWalkart, Wholefoods, Costo, Safeway) Give an honest appraisal of the efficiency and service, attitude and respect you received from each and get back to us.

There is truth to this, but by the same merit, go to any not-for-profit committee for some sort of social benefit, perhas an aids treatmetn center or a public clinic, and then go to some Union workshop. The inverse would be true.
[/quote]

In a union shop, there is no incentive for high productivity due to the employment protection the union provides. As a result you’re not going to get the best service as opposed to a non-union workshop. If most corporations had their way they’d dump unions like a bad habit because they breed inefficiency. You often see corporations moving out of union controlled areas in the northeast and west coast of the U.S. and move south in “right to work” states where people don’t have to join the union.

62

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
All of the companies listed are truly international, they recruit talent from all over the world and are the result of international mergers.

So then again I ask, what is your point in posting that? It is a global economy that produces stuff. They would not be produced if there was no profit to be made. Take that ways and these companies and the drugs they produce go bye-bye…and then people suffer as a result.[/quote]

I think some confusion has wandered in, I am arguing against the guy that said that the US was way ahead of the rest of the world in Pharma.

I am all for big business making profits (it pays my wages)

63

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Unaware wrote:
No they don’t. A drug made in mexico is not a Mexican drug if it was designed in the US or Europe. The overwhelming majority of drugs come from the US.

Fixed that for you.

New drugs come from America almost exclusively. Seriously, we are BY FAR the leader in pharma.

Not true. New drugs come from multinational companies that have collaborating departments working accross the US and Europe. Whether the parent company is US or European, the brains are a mix of the two. (for the record, I used to work at Glaxo and my mother still works there.)

And those companies are based…?

Lets look at the top 10 shall we?

1 Novartis - Switzerland
2 Pfizer - USA
3 Bayer - Germany
4 GlaxoSmithKline - UK
5 Johnson and Johnson - USA
6 Sanofi-Aventis - France
7 Hoffmann�¢??La Roche - Switzerland
8 AstraZeneca - UK / Sweden
9 Merck & Co. - US
10 Abbott Laboratories - US

Your info checks out. My bad.[/quote]

No worries :slight_smile:

64

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
All of the companies listed are truly international, they recruit talent from all over the world and are the result of international mergers.

So then again I ask, what is your point in posting that? It is a global economy that produces stuff. They would not be produced if there was no profit to be made. Take that ways and these companies and the drugs they produce go bye-bye…and then people suffer as a result.

I think some confusion has wandered in, I am arguing against the guy that said that the US was way ahead of the rest of the world in Pharma.

I am all for big business making profits (it pays my wages)[/quote]

Well, considering countries do not actually produce stuff but rather individuals who happen to live there it is a moot point anyway. Why or how it came to be that way is a more interesting idea.

I accept your apology :wink:

65

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
All of the companies listed are truly international, they recruit talent from all over the world and are the result of international mergers.

So then again I ask, what is your point in posting that? It is a global economy that produces stuff. They would not be produced if there was no profit to be made. Take that ways and these companies and the drugs they produce go bye-bye…and then people suffer as a result.

I think some confusion has wandered in, I am arguing against the guy that said that the US was way ahead of the rest of the world in Pharma.

I am all for big business making profits (it pays my wages)

Well, considering countries do not actually produce stuff but rather individuals who happen to live there it is a moot point anyway. Why or how it came to be that way is a more interesting idea.

I accept your apology ;)[/quote]

I agree, I don’t remember apologising though…

66

It is really not so much about where the stuff is researched and produced but if there is a market somewhere.

Right now that research is driven by rich Americans that can and will shell out for expensive pharmceutical products.

If that markets disappears for some reasons medical research is dead, because this market ultimately finances it.

67

[quote]orion wrote:
It is really not so much about where the stuff is researched and produced but if there is a market somewhere.

Right now that research is driven by rich Americans that can and will shell out for expensive pharmceutical products.

If that markets disappears for some reasons medical research is dead, because this market ultimately finances it.
[/quote]

Good points.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
It is really not so much about where the stuff is researched and produced but if there is a market somewhere.

Right now that research is driven by rich Americans that can and will shell out for expensive pharmceutical products.

If that markets disappears for some reasons medical research is dead, because this market ultimately finances it.

[/quote]

Bingo! Everyone else gets to ride the U.S. coat tails. If it weren’t for the american health care system the drug industry would undergo massive contraction.

Everyone in England should be vehemently against a nationalised US healthcare system.

69

[quote]orion wrote:1) Federal agencies audited federal agencies and found they did a better job than provate contractors.

No conflict of interest there I guess.[/quote]

Not when it’s the Bush Administration, eager to privatize anything they can.

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. There’s still a government, so it’s not “technically” a free market, and thus it doesn’t count. Nice schtick you’ve got there: set up an impossible standard that no real economy will ever meet, and then counter any argument against the free market with “that’s not a free market.” I’m just a little tired of this bullshit. It’s dishonest and it’s boring.

Furthermore, you rattled off something about governments not even being able to grow food, and were completely content to let your argument rest on one little…not even anecdote. But as soon as someone pulls out an actual study, you cry about it not being rigorous enough.

I come here from time to time to remind you idiots that you’re still idiots. I don’t care to stay here and make 50,000 responses to each individual idiot.

70

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
This thread was all civil and stuff and then McCarter showed up spewing his bullshit. I much prefer to talk to someone who’s at least polite, like spetsnaz. [/quote]

“I prefer to talk to someone who doesn’t call me on my bullshit.”

71

[quote]orion wrote:
It is really not so much about where the stuff is researched and produced but if there is a market somewhere.

Right now that research is driven by rich Americans that can and will shell out for expensive pharmceutical products.

If that markets disappears for some reasons medical research is dead, because this market ultimately finances it.
[/quote]

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypercondriacs in Europe driving the research as well. Obviously the US is a driving force for this kind of thing but even without it the drugs companies would be making great money.

72

[quote]Unaware wrote:
orion wrote:
It is really not so much about where the stuff is researched and produced but if there is a market somewhere.

Right now that research is driven by rich Americans that can and will shell out for expensive pharmceutical products.

If that markets disappears for some reasons medical research is dead, because this market ultimately finances it.

Bingo! Everyone else gets to ride the U.S. coat tails. If it weren’t for the american health care system the drug industry would undergo massive contraction.

Everyone in England should be vehemently against a nationalised US healthcare system.[/quote]

How will a nationalised US healthcare system effect big pharma? All it means is that it will be your tax dollars paying for the treatments instead of the money coming out of people’s pockets directly. In fact, if healthcare becomes more available, more drugs are sold and the pharmaceutical companies make even better money to plough back into research.

73

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
If big business is so stable, innovative and efficient, how the fuck did this whole mess come about…and fannie mae and freddie mac don’t fucking count, because…they were privatized, the government back-up which they did eventually get were implied not explicit.

All the big financial firms more or less crumbled because they were based on bullshit, and had a sizeable proportion of mismanagement and solitaire players as any other organization.

Maybe, I’m a communist, but I honestly do not believe individuals who work for private business and individuals who work in non-business organizations, and governments have any great difference in productivity.

It really comes down to the individuals in the organization, and the motivation they have within themselves. For the most part, people who just ‘want a job,’ be it degree’d or fastfood…suck. The world is driven by creators, be they artisans, creative finance people, web developers, devoted construction workers, whatever.[/quote]

Actually it was government policies pressuring the granting of subprime loans that allowed this to happen. ‘Affordable housing’ and all that. It goes without saying that normally people without much money are not trusted with paying back big loans.

In the creation of this clusterfuck I am sure there are plenty of less than patriotic individuals in the government and among the companies, which is another problem.

74

[quote]valiant knight wrote:Actually it was government policies pressuring the granting of subprime loans that allowed this to happen. ‘Affordable housing’ and all that. It goes without saying that normally people without much money are not trusted with paying back big loans.

In the creation of this clusterfuck I am sure there are plenty of less than patriotic individuals in the government and among the companies, which is another problem.[/quote]

Actually, it was the securitization of mortgages that was mainly to blame. There was no pressuring banks to make loans. They didn’t care if people could pay them back. They weren’t their problem after they sold them.

75

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:1) Federal agencies audited federal agencies and found they did a better job than provate contractors.

No conflict of interest there I guess.

Not when it’s the Bush Administration, eager to privatize anything they can.

So a heavily biased study concluded that one kind of government involvement is superior to another and that counts as critique off the free market system?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. There’s still a government, so it’s not “technically” a free market, and thus it doesn’t count. Nice schtick you’ve got there: set up an impossible standard that no real economy will ever meet, and then counter any argument against the free market with “that’s not a free market.” I’m just a little tired of this bullshit. It’s dishonest and it’s boring.

Furthermore, you rattled off something about governments not even being able to grow food, and were completely content to let your argument rest on one little…not even anecdote. But as soon as someone pulls out an actual study, you cry about it not being rigorous enough.

You have a form of drive by posting that really contains little or no substance at times, so you cab hardly blame other people if they do not react to what is not there.

I come here from time to time to remind you idiots that you’re still idiots. I don’t care to stay here and make 50,000 responses to each individual idiot.

[/quote]

First, Bush did not shrink the government, he expanded it.

Second, I said that there is no real different between government and government contractors. Both lack real competition, so they do not operate in a free market. In no way shape or form did I imply that not even a semi free market would be vastly more efficient than government programs. A bound, gagged and blinded three quarter socialism is better than socialism.

Then, the famines took place in Russia, Ukraine, China, Cambodia and North Korea. Oh, that’s right, I forgot. There’s still a government, so it’s not “technically” socialism, and thus it doesn’t count. Nice schtick you’ve got there: set up an impossible standard that no real economy will ever meet, and then counter any argument against socialism with “that’s not socialism.” I’m just a little tired of this bullshit. It’s dishonest and it’s boring.

Well if you want to remind us that we are idiots you have to do better than attacking strawmen, ignoring any evidence that proves you wrong and insist that your point of view is so self evidently the right one that you do not need to make it.

I really think there is only one cure for you:

You must open a business.

That slaps socialism and some misguided notions about the nature of man out of you so quickly you would not believe it.

76

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
It is really not so much about where the stuff is researched and produced but if there is a market somewhere.

Right now that research is driven by rich Americans that can and will shell out for expensive pharmceutical products.

If that markets disappears for some reasons medical research is dead, because this market ultimately finances it.

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypercondriacs in Europe driving the research as well. Obviously the US is a driving force for this kind of thing but even without it the drugs companies would be making great money.[/quote]

For now yes.

You ignore though the function of luxury goods and the role the rich play through conspicuous consumption.

No single payer system would pay for expensive drugs when only a few have them , the rich however would if it becomes their problem.

Once the drug is developed though it basically is free to be produced by anyone after 20 years.

That worked for cars, computers, electricity and I-pods and yet for pharmaceutical products it would not?

77

[quote]orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
It is really not so much about where the stuff is researched and produced but if there is a market somewhere.

Right now that research is driven by rich Americans that can and will shell out for expensive pharmceutical products.

If that markets disappears for some reasons medical research is dead, because this market ultimately finances it.

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypercondriacs in Europe driving the research as well. Obviously the US is a driving force for this kind of thing but even without it the drugs companies would be making great money.

For now yes.

You ignore though the function of luxury goods and the role the rich play through conspicuous consumption.

No single payer system would pay for expensive drugs when only a few have them , the rich however would if it becomes their problem.

Once the drug is developed though it basically is free to be produced by anyone after 20 years.

That worked for cars, computers, electricity and I-pods and yet for pharmaceutical products it would not?
[/quote]

Yes but there are as many or more rich consumers in Europe as in the US. Obviously if you take the US out of the equation there is less money but the same would be true of Europe.

78

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
It is really not so much about where the stuff is researched and produced but if there is a market somewhere.

Right now that research is driven by rich Americans that can and will shell out for expensive pharmceutical products.

If that markets disappears for some reasons medical research is dead, because this market ultimately finances it.

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypercondriacs in Europe driving the research as well. Obviously the US is a driving force for this kind of thing but even without it the drugs companies would be making great money.

For now yes.

You ignore though the function of luxury goods and the role the rich play through conspicuous consumption.

No single payer system would pay for expensive drugs when only a few have them , the rich however would if it becomes their problem.

Once the drug is developed though it basically is free to be produced by anyone after 20 years.

That worked for cars, computers, electricity and I-pods and yet for pharmaceutical products it would not?

Yes but there are as many or more rich consumers in Europe as in the US. Obviously if you take the US out of the equation there is less money but the same would be true of Europe.[/quote]

I do not insist on American rich people, but those are the people who those drugs are created for now.

As long as there are not more Chinese rich people, hooray for American rich people.

79

So what? Reagan grew the government as well, and I don’t think anyone would accuse him of being biased against the private sector.

I set up an easy criterion–workers’ self-management. Try again.

Just a moment ago, you were all too ready to let the entire argument rest on the fact that a few governments had, in the past, experienced famines. Therefore, government is bad! And it’s good enough. I give you a study, and it’s not good enough. Read your last paragraph over again.

[quote]I really think there is only one cure for you:

You must open a business.

That slaps socialism and some misguided notions about the nature of man out of you so quickly you would not believe it.
[/quote]

Far from it, it merely reinforces what socialists have to say about uneven competition and the tendency of capitalism toward monopoly. It does however, contradict one of your key tenets, the ability of any startup, with a little saavy and drive, to compete with anybody, so flatly repudiated by reality.

80

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:Actually it was government policies pressuring the granting of subprime loans that allowed this to happen. ‘Affordable housing’ and all that. It goes without saying that normally people without much money are not trusted with paying back big loans.

In the creation of this clusterfuck I am sure there are plenty of less than patriotic individuals in the government and among the companies, which is another problem.

Actually, it was the securitization of mortgages that was mainly to blame. There was no pressuring banks to make loans. They didn’t care if people could pay them back. They weren’t their problem after they sold them.[/quote]

And why would our glorious government allow such an environment in the first place?
A quote should be illustrative. From Reuters October 13, 1999:

[quote]The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership in underserved groups. ‘We need to push into these underserved markets as much as we can,’ said David Glenn, president and chief operating officer of Freddie Mac.
[/quote]

Bloomberg News March 12, 2008:

There’s plenty more which will not be difficult to find online.