Why should healthcare not be a right?

[goaliebob99]

People oppose heath care as a right. Why? Every citizen should be entitled to free health care, as it is our duty to ensure the highest quality of health care to our fellow citizens. Im not saying force someone to the doctor, but if they want to go, then it should be free.

[cybok0]

Or at least affordable.

[msmith198025]

People oppose heath care as a right. Why? Every citizen should be entitled to free health care, as it is our duty to ensure the highest quality of health care to our fellow citizens. Im not saying force someone to the doctor, but if they want to go, then it should be free.

Bob, no healthcare is free anywhere. Someone is paying for it, and that someone would be us.

[Derwin0]

Healthcare is already a right. E.R.'s are required to take anyone, regardless of ability to pay.

As for being free, it's never free. As was said, someone has to pay for it.

As for it being gov't run, sorry, I have relatives in Canada who already deal with that, and I don't want any part of it.
My father-in-law has been on a knee replacement waiting list for almost a year already. My wife's grandmother finally got her gall bladder removed after 3 months of waiting.
If it was "free", the high quality of care would evaporate.

[cybok0]

Bob, no healthcare is free anywhere. Someone is paying for it, and that someone would be us.

IMO one of the main problems with healthcare is the price for prescriptions. The same drug is cheaper in Canada than here.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

A right?
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

I am not seeing it.

[Derwin0]

A right?
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

I am not seeing it.It's in the same amendment as abortion. ;)

[fallout2600]

A right?
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

I am not seeing it.

That's was my exact reply...beat me to the punch...

[Bob Haller]

private insurance should be available

a safety net coverage for everyone else.

ERs are required by law to treat everyone, trouble is ER is the most expensive kind of care

[vurbano]

Because this isnt the socialist states of AMerica yet? When it is free and a "right" you won't want it. The good doctors will leave.

[vurbano]

Every citizen should be entitled to free health care, as it is our duty to ensure the highest quality of health care to our fellow citizens. . Our duty? Not mine. Show me where it is my responsibility. If you want the worst health care on the planet then make it "free". Your proposal will destroy it and violate what you yourself say is our responsibility. What's next with you? A "Free food" thread for everyone? "Free housing"??? Havent you learned that this sort of communism doesnt work? Its been proven time and time again.

[Blackhitachi]

Our duty? Not mine. Show me where it is my responsibility. If you want the worst health care on the planet then make it "free". Your proposal will destroy it and violate what you yourself say is our responsibility. What's next with you? A "Free food" thread for everyone? "Free housing"??? Havent you learned that this sort of communism doesnt work? Its been proven time and time again.:bravo-009:


IMO one of the main problems with healthcare is the price for prescriptions. The same drug is cheaper in Canada than here.
:bravo-009:

[goaliebob99]

Because this isnt the socialist states of AMerica yet? When it is free and a "right" you won't want it. The good doctors will leave.

Take a look at Cuba My friend where they have very good doctors and all citizens are given free heathcare. Just because the government is paying for it doesn't mean its a bad thing.

[goaliebob99]

Our duty? Not mine. Show me where it is my responsibility. If you want the worst health care on the planet then make it "free". Your proposal will destroy it and violate what you yourself say is our responsibility. What's next with you? A "Free food" thread for everyone? "Free housing"??? Havent you learned that this sort of communism doesnt work? Its been proven time and time again.


When I said our duty, I said it as in a generalization as a nation. Thats right about the responsibility part as you have no responsibility for anything or care to be responsible, other than tearing down this great nation. There are certain limitations of how things need to be applied, If communism doesn't work then why does it still thrive on parts of this planet? While I do believe in democracy, I do believe there are certain aspects such as free health care that should be given to a citizen as a right. I don't think the state should pay for everything, but the cost does need to be reduced. There are free food programs out there already for the needy and low income as well as housing. Its called food stamps and section 8. Shows how much you know about our "communism" state as you would call it. :mockery-056:

[msmith198025]

Again bob, there is no such thing as free health care. We will have to pay for it

[goaliebob99]

Again bob, there is no such thing as free health care. We will have to pay for it

Yes you are right, through taxes ect ect.

[msmith198025]

Yes you are right, through taxes ect ect.

Yes. I dont know about you bob, but my taxes are high enough as is. If we offer "free" healthcare to everyone they are sure to go up. Why not take that money that we would pay and get your own private health insurance? You would more than likely get far better healthcare.

[Bear Paws]

IMO one of the main problems with healthcare is the price for prescriptions. The same drug is cheaper in Canada than here.That's why there are no drug companies innovating new drugs in Canada.

[Skyhi]

I'm not sure we want to make free health care a protected right, but I think there is at least a moral obligation that people receive necessary health care.

I don't think our current system is completely broken. Most people are covered. People living in poverty can get medicaid (a good use for taxpayer money) and the middle class/wealthy can usually afford their coverage.

The problem is the working poor....people who make too much to qualify for medicaid and not enough to afford coverage. If it were up to me, this group of people would receive a graduated (depending on income), refundable tax credit. Yes, in a way this is wealth redistribution, but that is what taxes do....

[Madtown HD Junkie]

I'm not sure we want to make free health care a protected right, but I think there is at least a moral obligation that people receive necessary health care.

I don't think our current system is completely broken. Most people are covered. People living in poverty can get medicaid (a good use for taxpayer money) and the middle class/wealthy can usually afford their coverage.

The problem is the working poor....people who make too much to qualify for medicaid and not enough to afford coverage. If it were up to me, this group of people would receive a graduated (depending on income), refundable tax credit. Yes, in a way this is wealth redistribution, but that is what taxes do....

that seems to be a pretty accurate take. I think everyone should receive health care, I just have a problem with giving it to people who do nothing yet expect everything.

[msmith198025]

I'm not sure we want to make free health care a protected right, but I think there is at least a moral obligation that people receive necessary health care.

I don't think our current system is completely broken. Most people are covered. People living in poverty can get medicaid (a good use for taxpayer money) and the middle class/wealthy can usually afford their coverage.

The problem is the working poor....people who make too much to qualify for medicaid and not enough to afford coverage. If it were up to me, this group of people would receive a graduated (depending on income), refundable tax credit. Yes, in a way this is wealth redistribution, but that is what taxes do....


Well said

[fallout2600]

I'm not sure we want to make free health care a protected right, but I think there is at least a moral obligation that people receive necessary health care.

I don't think our current system is completely broken. Most people are covered. People living in poverty can get medicaid (a good use for taxpayer money) and the middle class/wealthy can usually afford their coverage.

The problem is the working poor....people who make too much to qualify for medicaid and not enough to afford coverage. If it were up to me, this group of people would receive a graduated (depending on income), refundable tax credit. Yes, in a way this is wealth redistribution, but that is what taxes do....

:thumbup:

[Blackhitachi]

I'm not sure we want to make free health care a protected right, but I think there is at least a moral obligation that people receive necessary health care.

I don't think our current system is completely broken. Most people are covered. People living in poverty can get medicaid (a good use for taxpayer money) and the middle class/wealthy can usually afford their coverage.

The problem is the working poor....people who make too much to qualify for medicaid and not enough to afford coverage. If it were up to me, this group of people would receive a graduated (depending on income), refundable tax credit. Yes, in a way this is wealth redistribution, but that is what taxes do....
Why do you hate AMERICA!?:05: Communist!!:mockery-056:

No really great post!:thumbup:

[BrianMis]

When I said our duty, I said it as in a generalization as a nation. Thats right about the responsibility part as you have no responsibility for anything or care to be responsible, other than tearing down this great nation. There are certain limitations of how things need to be applied, If communism doesn't work then why does it still thrive on parts of this planet? While I do believe in democracy, I do believe there are certain aspects such as free health care that should be given to a citizen as a right. I don't think the state should pay for everything, but the cost does need to be reduced. There are free food programs out there already for the needy and low income as well as housing. Its called food stamps and section 8. Shows how much you know about our "communism" state as you would call it. :mockery-056:

What makes those programs free? If those programs were free, my paycheck would have been much fatter today.

[BrianMis]

Take a look at Cuba My friend where they have very good doctors and all citizens are given free heathcare. Just because the government is paying for it doesn't mean its a bad thing.

1. Good doctors as long as your last name is Castro.

2. The only reason the government has money to pay for anything is because they take it from us.

[froggigger]

The health care system would be fine if government had kept out of it. They are the reason it's such a mess today. We don't need "free" health care. We need government to get out of it and let the market fix the problem.

[cybok0]

That's why there are no drug companies innovating new drugs in Canada.

It's the same drug companies, they just make us pay more because our government doesn't put a limit on how much they can charge for the drugs.

[fallout2600]

They is definitely need for reform...another thing adjusting the price of prescriptions is the cost drug companies pay in silly lawsuits...

[cybok0]

They is definitely need for reform...another thing adjusting the price of prescriptions is the cost drug companies pay in silly lawsuits...

I agree, but not only drug companies, add tobacco and guns to that.

[fallout2600]

The other reason for high prescription cost is the fact that a drug company can patent the drug and generics can't be release until the patent expires...It goes against capitalism if there is NO competition to drive the prices down!!

[cybok0]

The other reason for high prescription cost is the fact that a drug company can patent the drug and generics can't be release until the patent expires...It goes against capitalism if there is NO competition to drive the prices down!!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I shouldn't have to pay $30 every month for my wife's insulin.

[Skyhi]

They is definitely need for reform...another thing adjusting the price of prescriptions is the cost drug companies pay in silly lawsuits...

What are these silly lawsuit you speak of? Certainly not the wrongful death lawsuits filed against Merck for marketing and agressively promoting Vioxx - - a drug which they *KNEW* placed patient's at risk for heart attacks...

[froggigger]

The other reason for high prescription cost is the fact that a drug company can patent the drug and generics can't be release until the patent expires...It goes against capitalism if there is NO competition to drive the prices down!!

Repealing patent laws would lead to the dismantling of a lucrative industry that just happens to save lives. Without patents, there would be no compensation for the millions spent jumping through FDA hoops. Without patents, manufacturers who are forced to file mandatory disclosures would have their formula taken by others and the price would fall to some marginal price. Sounds good on the face, but it removes any incentive to research new drugs since costs can't be recovered.

Add to that the costs of redundant testing and retesting that could not be absorbed by future revenue streams. The streams are already extremely uncertain thanks to the arbitrariness of the FDA's process. Then there are antitrust laws that effectively prevent companies from cooperating on research, or maintaining prices, or sharing markets.

As usual, though, it was government that made patents necessary in the first place. Most of the reasons why pharmaceutical patents are necessary are themselves due to some form or the other of government intervention. Drug regulations, antitrust, government funding, government mandates, regulations to regulate the regulations which are dependent on other regulations. We have ended up with a rat's nest of laws buried within the medical industry, a medical industry that has been dominated by ever increasing state controls. Along with confusion about liabilities and court precedent, it's no wonder health care in general is seriously diseased.

[froggigger]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I shouldn't have to pay $30 every month for my wife's insulin.

You're right. You're wrong. Why should someone else be forced to pay for it?

[Blackhitachi]

Repealing patent laws would lead to the dismantling of a lucrative industry that just happens to save lives. Without patents, there would be no compensation for the millions spent jumping through FDA hoops. Without patents, manufacturers who are forced to file mandatory disclosures would have their formula taken by others and the price would fall to some marginal price. Sounds good on the face, but it removes any incentive to research new drugs since costs can't be recovered.

Add to that the costs of redundant testing and retesting that could not be absorbed by future revenue streams. The streams are already extremely uncertain thanks to the arbitrariness of the FDA's process. Then there are antitrust laws that effectively prevent companies from cooperating on research, or maintaining prices, or sharing markets.

As usual, though, it was government that made patents necessary in the first place. Most of the reasons why pharmaceutical patents are necessary are themselves due to some form or the other of government intervention. Drug regulations, antitrust, government funding, government mandates, regulations to regulate the regulations which are dependent on other regulations. We have ended up with a rat's nest of laws buried within the medical industry, a medical industry that has been dominated by ever increasing state controls. Along with confusion about liabilities and court precedent, it's no wonder health care in general is seriously diseased.

Well i know in my family i advocate preventative methods!! There is alot of so call pork fat that can be trimmed down in the health care system. When someone is in the hospital and a towel is charged to the insurance fifty buck or what ever!

[froggigger]

Well i know in my family i advocate preventative methods!! There is alot of so call pork fat that can be trimmed down in the health care system. When someone is in the hospital and a towel is charged to the insurance fifty buck or what ever!

The high cost is government's fault, too. It wasn't this way until government decided it needed "fixing".

[fallout2600]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I shouldn't have to pay $30 every month for my wife's insulin.

I totally agree, I'm not for the high prices...I'm just giving reasons for them.

[fallout2600]

What are these silly lawsuit you speak of? Certainly not the wrongful death lawsuits filed against Merck for marketing and agressively promoting Vioxx - - a drug which they *KNEW* placed patient's at risk for heart attacks...

Not in the case of Merck, they were in the wrong...but don't let the Merck example overshadow all the others, their are thousands of lawsuits in every state stacked against the drug companies...Its a legit reason why brand name prescriptions are so expensive.

[fallout2600]

Repealing patent laws would lead to the dismantling of a lucrative industry that just happens to save lives. Without patents, there would be no compensation for the millions spent jumping through FDA hoops. Without patents, manufacturers who are forced to file mandatory disclosures would have their formula taken by others and the price would fall to some marginal price. Sounds good on the face, but it removes any incentive to research new drugs since costs can't be recovered.

Add to that the costs of redundant testing and retesting that could not be absorbed by future revenue streams. The streams are already extremely uncertain thanks to the arbitrariness of the FDA's process. Then there are antitrust laws that effectively prevent companies from cooperating on research, or maintaining prices, or sharing markets.

As usual, though, it was government that made patents necessary in the first place. Most of the reasons why pharmaceutical patents are necessary are themselves due to some form or the other of government intervention. Drug regulations, antitrust, government funding, government mandates, regulations to regulate the regulations which are dependent on other regulations. We have ended up with a rat's nest of laws buried within the medical industry, a medical industry that has been dominated by ever increasing state controls. Along with confusion about liabilities and court precedent, it's no wonder health care in general is seriously diseased.

Well said. :thumbup:

[vurbano]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I shouldn't have to pay $30 every month for my wife's insulin.

Why should I have to pay for it? I didnt marry her.

[cybok0]

You're right. You're wrong. Why should someone else be forced to pay for it?

I'm not saying the government should pay for it, I'm saying the prescription companies shouldn't charge the outlandish prices that they do.

[cybok0]

Why should I have to pay for it? I didnt marry her.

Look at post #41.

[Blackhitachi]

I'm not saying the government should pay for it, I'm saying the prescription companies shouldn't charge the outlandish prices that they do.I would rather help chip in for that then pay for a war and rebuilding of another nations problems.

[cybok0]

I would rather help chip in for that then pay for a war and rebuilding of another nations problems.


:bravo-009:

[vurbano]

I'm not saying the government should pay for it, I'm saying the prescription companies shouldn't charge the outlandish prices that they do.
Got a problem with capitalism? If I made the drug I would charge as much as I could get.

[cybok0]

Got a problem with capitalism? If I made the drug I would charge as much as I could get.


But only in the United States will you get all the money, every other country puts a limit on how much you can charge.

There is the problem, only the United States is willing to let their citizens pay more for a drug than other countries.

[froggigger]

But only in the United States will you get all the money, every other country puts a limit on how much you can charge.

There is the problem, only the United States is willing to let their citizens pay more for a drug than other countries.

So if price controls are enacted, how will the drugs be distributed? What if someone wants a certain drug, is willing to pay a certain amount, and finds a willing seller. The transaction is mutually beneficial and in no way affects any other person. After the transaction, what does society do? Is the buyer now a criminal? The seller? Should they go to jail or be fined?

Any way you look at it, an attempt to regulate the drug market is an infringement on the liberties of both buyer and seller. Plus, this regulation must be enforced or it is meaningless. This means government must force consumers and sellers to not do something they want to do, and have the means to do. The worst part is that anyone who breaks the rules will have to be treated as a criminal.

Is it just lip service when freedom is advocated in one breath and a peaceful citizen is treated as a criminal in the next?

[cybok0]

So if price controls are enacted, how will the drugs be distributed? What if someone wants a certain drug, is willing to pay a certain amount, and finds a willing seller. The transaction is mutually beneficial and in no way affects any other person. After the transaction, what does society do? Is the buyer now a criminal? The seller? Should they go to jail or be fined?

Any way you look at it, an attempt to regulate the drug market is an infringement on the liberties of both buyer and seller. Plus, this regulation must be enforced or it is meaningless. This means government must force consumers and sellers to not do something they want to do, and have the means to do. The worst part is that anyone who breaks the rules will have to be treated as a criminal.

Is it just lip service when freedom is advocated in one breath and a peaceful citizen is treated as a criminal in the next?

You think way too much, why would the government enforce a person to buy a drug they don't want? What does it matter if a person with money or a person who doesn't want the same drug?

Drugs will be distributed the same way as it is now. Why would it be different?

You must really like to spin things, nothing but the price would change.

[Bear Paws]

I'm not saying the government should pay for it, I'm saying the prescription companies shouldn't charge the outlandish prices that they do. In that price You also have to pay for the 1000 drugs that failed during research before they got one that worked. . Because if there where no failures there wouldn't be any successful drugs. Its called research, development, and trials. All you would have is the current crop of drugs and no new ones coming out. Unless the government did the reshearch manufacture and distribution. You know.... like the DMV, Amtrackless, Postal Service, Boarder security, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Congress, and the public school systems.
Do you remember the USSR? They came here for most of their drugs. They bought the Patents and licenses from us for them to manufacture over there. Why was that?? . Because their government ran the medical and medicine system.

Speaking of not thinking something through.

[cybok0]

OK, whatever, I'm tired of arguing.

[froggigger]

You think way too much, why would the government enforce a person to buy a drug they don't want? What does it matter if a person with money or a person who doesn't want the same drug?

Drugs will be distributed the same way as it is now. Why would it be different?

You must really like to spin things, nothing but the price would change.

Read what I said again. You misread it. Government would prevent a person from buying what he wants, not forcing him to buy what he doesn't want.

Truth is not spin. It's easy to say government should cap prices, but the hard part is looking ahead to judge the consequences. The government's track record doing this is abysmal. Government has no business telling any business what to charge for their products. If a consumer determines that a drug price is excessive, he can protect himself from the high price by not buying the drug. There is no right to buy a drug for less than a manufacturer is willing to sell it any more than there is a right to buy a car for less than the dealer wants to charge.

The ultimate result of price controls is shortages. It simply becomes unprofitable to produce enough drugs to meet the rising demand that the artificially low prices create. Then, research suffers because it becomes less profitable to invest the umpteen millions of dollars necessary to discover or create new drugs and bring them to market.

So why can countries like Canada cap prices? They are free-riding on the backs of Americans. The US market is free from price controls so drug companies can recoup the enormous R&D costs while still being able to sell drugs in price-controlled countries at lower cost. If price controls are imposed in the USA, the house of cards will come tumbling down.

That's what happens when one doesn't think a problem through and takes the easy way by advocating the "feel good" position that just sounds so darn good. :augentreher:

[cybok0]

Read what I said again. You misread it. Government would prevent a person from buying what he wants, not forcing him to buy what he doesn't want.

Truth is not spin. It's easy to say government should cap prices, but the hard part is looking ahead to judge the consequences. The government's track record doing this is abysmal. Government has no business telling any business what to charge for their products. If a consumer determines that a drug price is excessive, he can protect himself from the high price by not buying the drug. There is no right to buy a drug for less than a manufacturer is willing to sell it any more than there is a right to buy a car for less than the dealer wants to charge.

The ultimate result of price controls is shortages. It simply becomes unprofitable to produce enough drugs to meet the rising demand that the artificially low prices create. Then, research suffers because it becomes less profitable to invest the umpteen millions of dollars necessary to discover or create new drugs and bring them to market.

So why can countries like Canada cap prices? They are free-riding on the backs of Americans. The US market is free from price controls so drug companies can recoup the enormous R&D costs while still being able to sell drugs in price-controlled countries at lower cost. If price controls are imposed in the USA, the house of cards will come tumbling down.

That's what happens when one doesn't think a problem through and takes the easy way by advocating the "feel good" position that just sounds so darn good. :augentreher:

http://www.sonicbabble.com/forums/showpost.php?p=945&postcount=50

[msmith198025]

I am not for price controls, but I can see Cys side of this. I do not have to buy these overpriced drugs. Try to see it from there. Yes, they do it because people will pay, but what choice do we have? Are there other options for you and your wife Cy?

[cybok0]

Nope....well I guess there is....she could stop using it and die.

[froggigger]

Nope....well I guess there is....she could stop using it and die.

I'm not trying to be harsh. My wife had a stroke in 2002 and she takes a handful of drugs night and day that aren't cheap. Even with insurance it is still a good chunk of change out of pocket every month. It's easy to blame the drug companies for the prices because they are the ones on the front lines, and they do share some of the blame at times. Government, however, is the main problem, but they are rarely blamed because their involvement is mostly hidden from the consumer. Unfortunately, it's what has gotten us to where we are today and more of it is not the answer.

If health care and drugs become "free", the only way to control costs will be rationing. I don't want some government bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Washington making life or death decisions for me, you, or anyone else. Let government take over completely and that is exactly what the end result will be.

[cybok0]

I'm not trying to be harsh. My wife had a stroke in 2002 and she takes a handful of drugs night and day that aren't cheap. Even with insurance it is still a good chunk of change out of pocket every month. It's easy to blame the drug companies for the prices because they are the ones on the front lines, and they do share some of the blame at times. Government, however, is the main problem, but they are rarely blamed because their involvement is mostly hidden from the consumer. Unfortunately, it's what has gotten us to where we are today and more of it is not the answer.

If health care and drugs become "free", the only way to control costs will be rationing. I don't want some government bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Washington making life or death decisions for me, you, or anyone else. Let government take over completely and that is exactly what the end result will be.

I have never said make them "Free", I feel the prices could be cut down. If I didn't have insurance the insulin would be over $100, but I'm lucky and have insurance, not good but better than nothing.

But lets look at senior citizens, they only get so much from SS, if they weren't lucky/smart enough to have a retirement account, most of their money goes to prescriptions.

I'm not saying to give everyone welfare, I don't believe that, but prices shouldn't be so high that people who live paycheck to paycheck can live just a little better.

I do think people who work and has been with that job for over a year, but can't have insurance with their job, then they should be giving the opportunity for health care, not free, they would have to pay a monthly premium like most people do. The better the insurance, the more it costs.

I also think that if they don't want the insurance, that is fine, but if they have to go to the hospital, doctor or needs pills, they will have to pay the full amount, no free rides.

It's like having the protection plan for D*, you don't have to have it, but if something goes wrong, don't complain to D* when they charge you hundreds of dollars to fix your problem.

[froggigger]

I have never said make them "Free", I feel the prices could be cut down. If I didn't have insurance the insulin would be over $100, but I'm lucky and have insurance, not good but better than nothing.

But lets look at senior citizens, they only get so much from SS, if they weren't lucky/smart enough to have a retirement account, most of their money goes to prescriptions.

I'm not saying to give everyone welfare, I don't believe that, but prices shouldn't be so high that people who live paycheck to paycheck can live just a little better.

I do think people who work and has been with that job for over a year, but can't have insurance with their job, then they should be giving the opportunity for health care, not free, they would have to pay a monthly premium like most people do. The better the insurance, the more it costs.

I also think that if they don't want the insurance, that is fine, but if they have to go to the hospital, doctor or needs pills, they will have to pay the full amount, no free rides.

It's like having the protection plan for D*, you don't have to have it, but if something goes wrong, don't complain to D* when they charge you hundreds of dollars to fix your problem.

I totally agree that drug prices are too high. What I don't understand is why the main culprit behind the high prices is rarely held accountable. Prices are high in large part to onerous government policies ranging from the FDA to the tax code. Then you have senior groups that push for government to use its coercive power to force lower prices with price ceilings and such. They ignore the long-term effect of undermining the incentive to develop new drugs which, arguably, is more important than forcing down prices for current drugs. Since a major share of new breakthrough medicines originate in the USA, the negative effect would be huge. Government has created the current mess and more government will only make it worse. Drug prices would be lower if they were market-driven, not government mandated.

[cybok0]

I totally agree that drug prices are too high. What I don't understand is why the main culprit behind the high prices is rarely held accountable. Prices are high in large part to onerous government policies ranging from the FDA to the tax code. Then you have senior groups that push for government to use its coercive power to force lower prices with price ceilings and such. They ignore the long-term effect of undermining the incentive to develop new drugs which, arguably, is more important than forcing down prices for current drugs. Since a major share of new breakthrough medicines originate in the USA, the negative effect would be huge. Government has created the current mess and more government will only make it worse. Drug prices would be lower if they were market-driven, not government mandated.

See I blame the drug companies, government and people who do useless law suits.

It needs to be overhauled, granted they need research to make better drugs, but let generic drugs come in sooner.

Maybe let the government fund the research, then raise prices on tobacco, yes I use tobacco, or something like it to make up the costs.

[msmith198025]

See I blame the drug companies, government and people who do useless law suits.
It needs to be overhauled, granted they need research to make better drugs, but let generic drugs come in sooner.


That hits the nail on the head IMO

[cybok0]

That hits the nail on the head IMO

Too many greedy people, I use tobacco, if/when I die of cancer, I told my wife not to sue the tobacco company.

It's my fault I use it, I know it's bad, it's my choice.

[Bear Paws]

Too many greedy people, I use tobacco, if/when I die of cancer, I told my wife not to sue the tobacco company.

It's my fault I use it, I know it's bad, it's my choice. Greed is demanding someone give you something they own just because they have it and you don't. Drugs, medical care, TVs, or anything else is not a right. Just as you have no right to have drugs, cures or TVs that have NOT been invented or discovered yet. Invented or not its not community property.

The only rights you have to something is that which you created or paid a price for, determined by free market forces. If a drug for a incurable disease has not invented yet can you still demand it? Well the same thing applies if its not available to you if you can't afford it. It doesn't belong to you. You go without. The next thing your going to be demanding is organs be harvested by mandate to give to others because theirs failed.

Just because someone invented, discovered, or has something through their creativity or ingenuity doesn't give anyone the right to their products just because the inventor put it up for sale.. If its too expensive you don't buy it and the seller doesn't sell it. You go without.
No different than government helping you steal food just because your hungry, regardless if someone has excess or not. What incentive would one have to grow more food if it was merely confiscated. And what incentive would you have to pay for it.

[cybok0]

Greed is demanding someone give you something they own just because they have it and you don't. Drugs, medical care, TVs, or anything else is not a right. Just as you have no right to have drugs, cures or TVs that have NOT been invented or discovered yet. Invented or not its not community property.

The only rights you have to something is that which you created or paid a price for, determined by free market forces. If a drug for a incurable disease has not invented yet can you still demand it? Well the same thing applies if its not available to you if you can't afford it. It doesn't belong to you. You go without. The next thing your going to be demanding is organs be harvested by mandate to give to others because theirs failed.

Just because someone invented, discovered, or has something through their creativity or ingenuity doesn't give anyone the right to their products just because the inventor put it up for sale.. If its too expensive you don't buy it and the seller doesn't sell it. You go without.
No different than government helping you steal food just because your hungry, regardless if someone has excess or not. What incentive would one have to grow more food if it was merely confiscated. And what incentive would you have to pay for it.

Geez Bear, you must really don't like my opinions;), The difference is that if someone is poor, they can get everything you mentioned for free.

So if you think everything is fine how it is, well that's good, more sick people will find ways to get on welfare, which will make more Americans more dependent on the government, your taxes will go up but the drug companies will keep on making more money.

If the doctor prescribes a certain drug, then people do have a right to it, in today's world though some people can't afford them then they die. Is that what you want, people to die when there is something to save them? Do you think only the rich have the right to be kept alive and the poor needs to die?

It's funny how you bring up organ harvesting when only the rich can afford to buy them from the black market.:rolleyes:.

[Bear Paws]

Geez Bear, you must really don't like my opinions;), The difference is that if someone is poor, they can get everything you mentioned for free.

So if you think everything is fine how it is, well that's good, more sick people will find ways to get on welfare, which will make more Americans more dependent on the government, your taxes will go up but the drug companies will keep on making more money.

If the doctor prescribes a certain drug, then people do have a right to it, in today's world though some people can't afford them then they die. Is that what you want, people to die when there is something to save them? Do you think only the rich have the right to be kept alive and the poor needs to die?

It's funny how you bring up organ harvesting when only the rich can afford to buy them from the black market.:rolleyes:. Because your opinions are founded in socialism.. or worse communism. It is brazen envy rooted in the misguided fundamental belief that what those with more than you don't deserve it or should share with you because somehow they took some of yours to get theirs. Yet conversely you don't believe what you have was at the expense of someone with less than you and you feel no shame for having more than others because its "yours" ...like you want to make those with more feel.. You certainly have no shame advocating taking from others if your the recipient so long as they had more.. A liberals view is the rich are those that earn more than you.. regardless how much that is..that they should share their fruits of their labor with you and others until they are below you, but... that communal sharing stops with you...doesn't it?.

The drugs, or organs for that matter, don't belong to you. What gives you the right to take them from the owners. That is larceny, theft or what ever you want to call it. You are the government, because you think you have the "Right" to what someone else owns you guys keep voting for these miscreants in government.
That's why the poor get everything free. No one, rich or poor has the right to anything you or I have. You can't afford it or its not available ...you die. Just as if the "miracle" drug hadn't been invented yet. You have the right to life but not the right for me to keep you alive. That's my decision.

What you guys fail to understand is that eventually the government will be taking from you too to give to those poorer than you. They may go after the "rich" (richer than you" now but it eventually will come after you when the threshold of rich is ground down to your level from government confiscation. Look closely, its happening now..

I know.. There was a time I hardly paid any taxes and only the millionaires paid 90% of their earnings. You could do a lot with the 100,000 left then.
Today when a million won't buy shit, yet all of a sudden 200,000 that someone worked all their life to get to is rich and get hosed for 60-65% by the time everything is done and said.. Make no mistake... Your next. After all by your theory the poorer than you are entitled to what you have too..

Eventually when everyone is poor, who and what will you confiscate from them then? Their life, when thats all that is left, so you may live?? Who will decide that?? Maybe after 40 years old you are to old to let live in that kind of society.. .When everyone is equally poor. Ask North Korea or the former USSR or China.

[froggigger]

Because your opinions are founded in socialism.. or worse communism. It is brazen envy rooted in the misguided fundamental belief that what those with more than you don't deserve it or should share with you because somehow they took some of yours to get theirs. Yet conversely you don't believe what you have was at the expense of someone with less than you and you feel no shame for having more than others because its "yours" ...like you want to make those with more feel.. You certainly have no shame advocating taking from others if your the recipient so long as they had more.. A liberals view is the rich are those that earn more than you.. regardless how much that is..that they should share their fruits of their labor with you and others until they are below you, but... that communal sharing stops with you...doesn't it?.

The drugs, or organs for that matter, don't belong to you. What gives you the right to take them from the owners. That is larceny, theft or what ever you want to call it. You are the government, because you think you have the "Right" to what someone else owns you guys keep voting for these miscreants in government.
That's why the poor get everything free. No one, rich or poor has the right to anything you or I have. You can't afford it or its not available ...you die. Just as if the "miracle" drug hadn't been invented yet. You have the right to life but not the right for me to keep you alive. That's my decision.

What you guys fail to understand is that eventually the government will be taking from you too to give to those poorer than you. They may go after the "rich" (richer than you" now but it eventually will come after you when the threshold of rich is ground down to your level from government confiscation. Look closely, its happening now..

I know.. There was a time I hardly paid any taxes and only the millionaires paid 90% of their earnings. You could do a lot with the 100,000 left then.
Today when a million won't buy shit, yet all of a sudden 200,000 that someone worked all their life to get to is rich and get hosed for 60-65% by the time everything is done and said.. Make no mistake... Your next. After all by your theory the poorer than you are entitled to what you have too..

Eventually when everyone is poor, who and what will you confiscate from them then? Their life, when thats all that is left, so you may live?? Who will decide that?? Maybe after 40 years old you are to old to let live in that kind of society.. .When everyone is equally poor. Ask North Korea or the former USSR or China.

:respect-040:

[vurbano]

That said I would gladly pay my 30 bucks a month for my wife's drugs with a smile on my face knowing that the alternative is the government confiscating my paycheck and giving me an allowance to live on in a house that I do not own but they have directed me to go live in.

[Derwin0]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I shouldn't have to pay $30 every month for my wife's insulin.
Bad example to use. $30/month is pretty low for a prescription.
I pay more than that for the Claritin I take for allergies.

As it is, the high prices that are charges when a new medication comes out, are used to pay for the research into that medication, and the dozens of others that the company researches that are failures.

The medical patent system is in place to allow the companies to get there money back for the research and testing performs, prior to the patent expiring and other companies taking advantages and producing the medication at cost.

Without being able to make that money back, the company wouldn't fund the research in the first place, and the medication would not exist.

[vurbano]

I pay more than that for the Claritin I take for allergies.



I buy the Walmart Brand Loratadine.

[Derwin0]

I buy the Walmart Brand Loratadine.Unfortunately they don't make a children's chewable version for my daughter, so I have to buy the name brand for her.

[vurbano]

the pill is tiny.

[Skyhi]

Bad example to use. $30/month is pretty low for a prescription.
I pay more than that for the Claritin I take for allergies.

As it is, the high prices that are charges when a new medication comes out, are used to pay for the research into that medication, and the dozens of others that the company researches that are failures.

The medical patent system is in place to allow the companies to get there money back for the research and testing performs, prior to the patent expiring and other companies taking advantages and producing the medication at cost.

Without being able to make that money back, the company wouldn't fund the research in the first place, and the medication would not exist.

This is a huge myth that has been perpetuated by the drug companies and accepted as fact by the public. If you're ever really bored, I've linked to an article on the subject.

There's no doubt that R&D is expensive, but it is not as expensive as the pharma companies claim. They spend almost as much in marketing as they do in research......its disgusting.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:32eznLV0QjwJ:www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF+drug+company+myths&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Derwin0]

This is a huge myth that has been perpetuated by the drug companies and accepted as fact by the public. If you're ever really bored, I've linked to an article on the subject.

There's no doubt that R&D is expensive, but it is not as expensive as the pharma companies claim. They spend almost as much in marketing as they do in research......its disgusting.
So? Marketing is needed to get the word out. Maybe not as much, but getting the word out means more are sold, thus funding the next generation of drugs.
They still spend a lot of money in R&D, which you admit is expensive.
Don't they have a right to make a profit? If not, then they won't perform any of the R&D that is needed to make the drugs.
Also, don't forget that each successful drug also pays for several others that weren't successful.

[Derwin0]

the pill is tiny.Yes, but at $30/month I'm not going to fight that battle. It worth more than $1/day to not have the fight with my young daughter and give her something she likes taking.

[Skyhi]

So? Marketing is needed to get the word out. Maybe not as much, but getting the word out means more are sold, thus funding the next generation of drugs.
They still spend a lot of money in R&D, which you admit is expensive.
Don't they have a right to make a profit? If not, then they won't perform any of the R&D that is needed to make the drugs.
Also, don't forget that each successful drug also pays for several others that weren't successful.

They don't need to market to the public....we can't buy the drugs w/o a prescription....their marketing should be to doctors only.

[vurbano]

They don't need to market to the public....we can't buy the drugs w/o a prescription....their marketing should be to doctors only.
I buy Claritin without a prescription. Tylenol too.,

[Skyhi]

I buy Claritin without a prescription. Tylenol too.,

We're discussing prescription drugs.

[vurbano]

We're discussing prescription drugs.you didnt specify and I believe you can buy many online without a legitimate prescription.

[froggigger]

This is a huge myth that has been perpetuated by the drug companies and accepted as fact by the public. If you're ever really bored, I've linked to an article on the subject.

There's no doubt that R&D is expensive, but it is not as expensive as the pharma companies claim. They spend almost as much in marketing as they do in research......its disgusting.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:32eznLV0QjwJ:www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF+drug+company+myths&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Public Citizen is a Ralph Nader special interest group. It's hardly an unbiased group. Government is the main reason prices are so high. Government is also the reason the entire medical system is screwed up.

[vurbano]

I think greedy hospitals have a hand in those costs too.

[froggigger]

I think greedy hospitals have a hand in those costs too.

Sure they do but greed is hardly the reason. You can blame Medicare and their RBRVS formula for the most part. It largely drives prices in the managed-care market, which then affects prices overall.

[vurbano]

Sure they do but greed is hardly the reason. You can blame Medicare and their RBRVS formula for the most part. It largely drives prices in the managed-care market, which then affects prices overall.
I think they are structured to bankrupt people. Everyone focuses on drug costs? I think hospital stays are far worse.

[Bear Paws]

This is a huge myth that has been perpetuated by the drug companies and accepted as fact by the public. If you're ever really bored, I've linked to an article on the subject.

There's no doubt that R&D is expensive, but it is not as expensive as the pharma companies claim. They spend almost as much in marketing as they do in research......its disgusting.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:32eznLV0QjwJ:www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF+drug+company+myths&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Who the hell decided that free market does not apply to drug manufactures. I don't give a rats tail if how and to whom they market too. Its none of my business (nor yours unless your a shareholder) . Its their property and can damn well do what they think is in their best interest. They are not, REPEAT... not.. in the business to make you happy. No more than Kellogg or Toyota. They are in the business to make money. If they invent a drug that THEY think is better than yours then they have every right in the world to tell everyone and anyone they please however they choose. AND add the price of marketing to the retail price. .

If they can sell a drug at the price they deem profitable and marketable then its their prerogative just as it is for a competitor to invent a as good or better drug and undercut them. Just because they have a patent on a drug does not mean they have a exclusivity or patent on the disease its meant to cure or medicate. Anyone can and often do come out with competing drugs in a short while.

Who the hell decided to take away a companies rights to free market enterprise just because they make drugs instead of Slap Choppers. What they make doesn't belong to you until you buy it....if you want to...They don't owe you... Its called free market competition. Get used to it.. We used to live in the United States of America..... Once...http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/boese014.gif

[Blackhitachi]

I think they are structured to bankrupt people. Everyone focuses on drug costs? I think hospital stays are far worse.:respect-040:

[Bear Paws]

I think they are structured to bankrupt people. Everyone focuses on drug costs? I think hospital stays are far worse. The encroaching Liberalization of government is structured to bankrupt you. To take away you independence and anonymity.

When I was a kid we could afford doctors and hospitals,....and we where poor. My parents paid the hospital for my birth out their own pockets. Same with teeth, tonsils, hooping cough, measles and chicken pox, .....and stitches, hernia operation and a cancerous tumor on his lip my dad had.. Did I say we where poor. Of course we didn't know it and lived just fine.
.
Do you know the one medical procedure price that is coming down to where practically everyone can afford it. Lasik eye surgery., Why???

[froggigger]

The encroaching Liberalization of government is structured to bankrupt you. To take away you independence and anonymity.

When I was a kid we could afford doctors and hospitals,....and we where poor. My parents paid the hospital for my birth out their own pockets. Same with teeth, tonsils, hooping cough, measles and chicken pox, .....and stitches, hernia operation and a cancerous tumor on his lip my dad had.. Did I say we where poor. Of course we didn't know it and lived just fine.
.
Do you know the one medical procedure price that is coming down to where practically everyone can afford it. Lasik eye surgery., Why???

I know why I know why! :Shh:

[froggigger]

Who the hell decided that free market does not apply to drug manufactures. I don't give a rats tail if how and to whom they market too. Its none of my business (nor yours unless your a shareholder) . Its their property and can damn well do what they think is in their best interest. They are not, REPEAT... not.. in the business to make you happy. No more than Kellogg or Toyota. They are in the business to make money. If they invent a drug that THEY think is better than yours then they have every right in the world to tell everyone and anyone they please however they choose. AND add the price of marketing to the retail price. .

If they can sell a drug at the price they deem profitable and marketable then its their prerogative just as it is for a competitor to invent a as good or better drug and undercut them. Just because they have a patent on a drug does not mean they have a exclusivity or patent on the disease its meant to cure or medicate. Anyone can and often do come out with competing drugs in a short while.

Who the hell decided to take away a companies rights to free market enterprise just because they make drugs instead of Slap Choppers. What they make doesn't belong to you until you buy it....if you want to...They don't owe you... Its called free market competition. Get used to it.. We used to live in the United States of America..... Once...http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/boese014.gif

Very good points. Government picks the winners and losers instead of letting the free market sort it all out, which used to work very well. They make profit a dirty word when it comes to drug manufacturers and such, but when lawyers make outrageous profits from litigation against these same companies it's business as usual.

[Skyhi]

Very good points. Government picks the winners and losers instead of letting the free market sort it all out, which used to work very well. They make profit a dirty word when it comes to drug manufacturers and such, but when lawyers make outrageous profits from litigation against these same companies it's business as usual.

When plaintiffs are awarded significant damages (very rare), the drug companies have usually been grossly negligent in bringing a dangerous product to market. You should thank the lawyers for being a built in watchdog that keeps the pharma cos. honest.