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

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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.

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

[/quote]

Not at all. It was a nice, civilized discussion from a poster who started a thread with a very politely worded position and question. I’m fine with that. You have a tendency to make every thread you touch detonate into an e-war, and I don’t like that.

82

[quote]orion wrote:
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 pharmaceutical products.

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

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypochondriacs 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.

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.

[/quote]

Actually the nouveau riche in places like Japan, China, India etc are another new market for these types of products making the US market even less important (relatively.)

83

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
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 pharmaceutical products.

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

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypochondriacs 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.

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.

Actually the nouveau riche in places like Japan, China, India etc are another new market for these types of products making the US market even less important (relatively.)[/quote]

Ja, relatively.

But you cannot take out a few million customers out of a market without shrinking it.

84

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Economies of scale and scope. Odds.

Seriously. Go to school.

85

[quote]orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
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 pharmaceutical products.

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

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypochondriacs 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.

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.

Actually the nouveau riche in places like Japan, China, India etc are another new market for these types of products making the US market even less important (relatively.)

Ja, relatively.

But you cannot take out a few million customers out of a market without shrinking it.
[/quote]

Of course not but that goes for any of the constituent countries. There is nothing special about the United States of America’ns in that equation.

86

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
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 pharmaceutical products.

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

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypochondriacs 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.

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.

Actually the nouveau riche in places like Japan, China, India etc are another new market for these types of products making the US market even less important (relatively.)

Ja, relatively.

But you cannot take out a few million customers out of a market without shrinking it.

Of course not but that goes for any of the constituent countries. There is nothing special about the United States of America’ns in that equation.[/quote]

You mean except the fact that rich old people are concentrated there?

I am sorry, but I think this is rather important.

If the number of rich people is concentrated it makes for easier and cheaper treatment and research.

87

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:First, Bush did not shrink the government, he expanded it.

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

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[…]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
[/quote]

Excuse me, you brought up that the Bush government was “eager to privatize anything they could get their hands on”.

In reality they expanded government.

So how eager could they have been?

Then, and you seem to miss this, you live in an at least semi free market. That means that you are perfectly free to implement workers self management in any one of your companies. Some companies already are cutting out whole management layers and let “the workers” decide, some with great success. So, go on and may your kibbutz prosper.

Also, these governments did not happen to have famines, they experienced famines while trying to build a socialist utopia. That is really the problem with central planning, if one farmer fucks up, no big deal, if a central planner fucks up, famine.

And to your last point:

You did experience the internet revolution, did you not?

Where were Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Youtube 20 years ago?

They all started with nothing but a good idea and are billionaires now, so where is this monopolization happening and lack of opportunity happening? Sure its not easy to build a company from scratch but that is why the rewards must remain with those who build and run them.

In fact there is a debate in management literature whether companies beyond a certain size even remain manageable. It could well be that economies of scale only work to a point and then the ever growing bureaucracy swallows any additional gains.

Finally the main point that you surely must have missed:

So, if I clear a field, plant some crops, build an irrigation system, tend to them, harvest them and make something out of that crops that is useful they are not mine?

Everyone else has the same claim to these goods as me?

Because that is what you claim when you claim that private property does not exist.

88

…and Boom goes the dynamite!

excellent post Orion

89

[quote]orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
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 pharmaceutical products.

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

Bollocks, there are plenty of rich hypochondriacs 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.

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.

Actually the nouveau riche in places like Japan, China, India etc are another new market for these types of products making the US market even less important (relatively.)

Ja, relatively.

But you cannot take out a few million customers out of a market without shrinking it.

Of course not but that goes for any of the constituent countries. There is nothing special about the United States of America’ns in that equation.

You mean except the fact that rich old people are concentrated there?

I am sorry, but I think this is rather important.

If the number of rich people is concentrated it makes for easier and cheaper treatment and research.

[/quote]

They are just as concentrated in Japan, or India or in Europe for that matter. Again, there is nothing special about the Americans.

In fact, quite a lot of research budget for companies such as J&J or P&G are going into products specifically designed for countries like India such as skin whitening face creams etc.

90

I agree Cockney. But I think this talk of whether the US is the sole arbiter of pharm research or not (it’s not, but it might be the biggest pharm “playground” for companies in general to do trials --including non US based companies) misses the point of the thread.

The point was that the private control of the pharm industry leads to greater innovation and efficiency than the feds controlling pharm companies. the OP’s question was “why couldn’t we just keep the researchers and replace all the management with gov’t men–I don’t think productivity or innovation would go down”.

I think it is very plain that that is a false idea.

91

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I agree Cockney. But I think this talk of whether the US is the sole arbiter of pharm research or not (it’s not, but it might be the biggest pharm “playground” for companies in general to do trials --including non US based companies) misses the point of the thread.

The point was that the private control of the pharm industry leads to greater innovation and efficiency than the feds controlling pharm companies. the OP’s question was “why couldn’t we just keep the researchers and replace all the management with gov’t men–I don’t think productivity or innovation would go down”.

I think it is very plain that that is a false idea.[/quote]

Oh hell yeah, nationalising Pharma would be about the most stupid thing that any government could do.

92

I don’t understand how government is capable of taking over healthcare while still being able to offer the same quality of product today, but for everyone. What I mean is, the goverment can supposedly cover everyone, without negatively impacting accessibility, R&D, cost, quality, and choice. Heck, some believe it can do some–if not all–of those better. If governments really could pull off something of this magnitude, with such an essential industry, why aren’t some supporters of single payer health-care supportive of a central planned economy, period? Is there some magical quality in the Med/Pharm industry?

93

But the government is not talking about taking over pharmaceuticals, they are talking about expanding the funding for healthcare, that is all. Unless I am seriously missing something.

94

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
But the government is not talking about taking over pharmaceuticals, they are talking about expanding the funding for healthcare, that is all. Unless I am seriously missing something.[/quote]

You are missing that there is no such a thing as “that is all” in an economy.

People are not rocks, they react.

95

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
But the government is not talking about taking over pharmaceuticals, they are talking about expanding the funding for healthcare, that is all. Unless I am seriously missing something.[/quote]

My understanding was that Pharm was used as example out of both “Health Care & Drug Companies.” Anyways, we are debating a public option in the US, which is nothing more than an incremental trojan horse for single payer healthcare. This isn’t really debateable as even proponents of the public option (including Obama) have stated this is the course it would set us on.

96

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
But the government is not talking about taking over pharmaceuticals, they are talking about expanding the funding for healthcare, that is all. Unless I am seriously missing something.[/quote]

“Expanding the funding?”

Why, Obama says his plan won’t cost anything extra: no indeed, his health care plan will reduce costs.

(Now, it’s up to you as to whether you think he is telling the truth or not.)

97

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But the government is not talking about taking over pharmaceuticals, they are talking about expanding the funding for healthcare, that is all. Unless I am seriously missing something.

“Expanding the funding?”

Why, Obama says his plan won’t cost anything extra: no indeed, his health care plan will reduce costs.

(Now, it’s up to you as to whether you think he is telling the truth or not.)
[/quote]

You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies. Not that I think that is what will happen.

98

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies. [/quote]

How does the government measure efficiency since it cannot rely on system of profits and losses?

By definition every penny they spend is a loss and therefore must reduce efficiency.

Your above statement is just political jingoism.

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies.

How does the government measure efficiency since it cannot rely on system of profits and losses?

By definition every penny they spend is a loss and therefore must reduce efficiency.

Your above statement is just political jingoism.[/quote]

OK deep breath, now read the whole of what I wrote. You can increase spending and cut costs and get a net gain. I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN THOUGH.

100

I do not believe for a second that he can reduce costs with this healthcare plan, let alone not add to the deficit.