TheAgitator.com
85 Responses to “Morning Links”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
White House Deputy Counsel Cassandra Butts?
Uhh huh huh huh huh…
So if people had died from an overdose of the hoeopathic medicine that would have proved it works? Well I guess if you’re dead you won’t be sick anymore. Well, I’ll never learn to think outside the box.
The basis of homeopathy is that it isn’t the substance contained in the pills, it’s the message that the pills send your body.
Messages with no substance.
That’s why I refer to Obama as the homeopathic president.
From the homeopathy article:
“Each pillule is a tiny sugar pill dabbed with a drop of a homeopathic remedy, produced through “infinite” dilution – the process whereby a solution is diluted to the point where no molecules of an active component are likely to remain.”
The one guy took 80 of these “pillules”. Now I’m no scientist, but I’m fairly certain that if you took that kind of dosage of any “real” medicine, the effects would likely be nil as well.
I’m not saying we should start treating cancer with brocolli extract, but this stunt is fairly pointless.
Zero, the main underlying “theory” of Homeopathy is that the more you dilute something, the stronger it becomes. Seriously.
Haha, yeah I’m far from a homeopathic medicine nut, but this little charade was completely meaningless. First of all, I’m not sure how one could overdose on something that doesn’t exist (“no molecules of an active component are likely to remain”), no matter what the chemical.
More importantly, I don’t see how proving a lack of toxicity is the same thing as proving a lack of effectiveness. Most homeopathic medicines are worthless because they’re ineffective; what their level of toxicity has to do with that isn’t at all clear to me. I guess a medicine doesn’t “work” unless it can kill you?
Zero, the main underlying “theory” of Homeopathy is that the more you dilute something, the stronger it becomes. Seriously.
Uhhhh, oh. Haha. OK.
Still think my second point stands though. This stunt was as worthwhile as the idea of homeopathic medicine.
Any medication that’s effective is going to have negative side-effects, especially if taken in huge doses. If you can guzzle an entire bottle of medicine without consequence, that’s pretty strong evidence that that medicine has no therapeutic benefit.
Yeah fair enough, although there are plenty of therapeutic substances that can be classified as non-toxic (cannabis for one). Of course it’s true that a massive dose would clearly manifest itself in myriad physiological ways even in the absence of toxicity, so your point is taken.
“Why does time pass more quickly as we get older?”
I always thought it was because the amount of time passing is smaller relative to the amount of time previously passed. When you are 6, the previous year was 1/6th of your life, which is a big chunk. When you are 40, the previous year was only 1/40th of your life, which is 6.7 times less.
I listen to Living Color’s Cult of Personality almost everyday. It’s applicable to every head of state.
The comments about parliamentary systems makes me wonder if the GOP would have removed Bush from office once they realized he was destroying their chances of keeping the majority. It also makes wonder if a parliamentary system is more condusive to third parties…
One Canadian coming to America for a particular surgery does overwhelm every other positive argument about Canadian health care, for sure. Totally.
The province is called Newfoundland & Labrador.
That is all.
Sam
Except that the Canadian in question is a Provincial Premier (= State Govenor) and, as a group, the Provincial Premiers are prone to boasting that the Canadian Health Care System is the ‘best in the world’. (Except, of course, when it’s their own asses in the bedpan.)
@ #11 | Mattocracy |
I read that as paramilitary. It also makes sense that way.
Aresen,
And the Canadian system still might be the best in the world in aggregate, depending upon how you want to measure things. It’s just that in this particular case, it apparently wasn’t. But does the American system become preferable, simply because of this?
But Sam,
The fact that it is the leader of such a place, where, you say the medical care is better than ours, means nothing to you?
I don’t think his behavior can be so easily be shunned, as having no meaning. The fact that you do not think this report “overwhelms” the benefit of socialized medicine, it clearly shows that their style of medicine is still found to be wanting. It still is a verifiable fact that the migration, of the rich, from Canada, for our type of medical care, occurs.
It might, just, point out that there is truth about the claim that the waiting times affect care. The fact that, when the rubber hits the road, the rich Canadians are traveling to our country, to reap the benefits of our style of health care.
But, our health care is not completely free of government intrusion, either. I think a person, like Ron Paul, would have a better idea what to do about fixing the outrageous rise of health care costs in our country. But who, in our country, wants to listen to doctors, when politicians can make the decisions for us all, doctors and patients? Most politicians (lawyers) are very ignorant, about medical care, in our country, when it comes down to it. Very few have the medical degree or health care experience that allow them to make the judgments that, constantly, interfere with the delivery of our medical care.
At least, I am helping decrease this cost! I don’t practice medicine anymore! I am, presently uninsured, too.
But, unlike many of my previous patients, I will not show up at a doctor’s office, looking for (or defrauding, or stealing, to get) free care. (I had, too many, patients who just walked out without paying.) That is probably why, everyone pays, first, in this country’s medical care facilities, in today’s environment.
I still think, as I thought Libertarians did, that medical care is not a right! Did those people have a right to steal from me, by not paying? I always paid my employees, even in the bad times!
Sam
I will only point out that the option of going to the US is not, by and large, available to the average Canadian, who must endure long wait lists for even life-saving surgery. For heart surgery, such as Williams is getting, the wait ranges from 3 months to over a year, depending on the province. Note that Canada does have some world class facilities, it is just that Canadians have to wait a long time to get into them. Death by waitlist is fairly common.
Wealthy Canadians frequently go to the US not for better care, but faster care.
I can confirm that time speeds up when you get older. I went through a period of depression for a few years when I was younger and really didn’t care much about life. But, now I’m happier than ever and I see life as a party and, like all parties, the end will come long before I’m ready to leave. And it pisses me off to know that my life will be ending about the time I finally learn how to do it right.
On another note, the pictorial record of someone growing up reminds me of Jock Sturges who made a career out of photographing naked women throughout their lives. While this has landed him in hot water with federal and state governments (because, as we all know, anyone who takes a naked picture of someone underage is a subhuman predator deserving of intense torture and summary execution), over the long term he has created a photographic record of some of his subjects that extends from the time they were first born, until their became pregnant themselves. It’s quite fascinating to see that kind of anatomical evolution in any form other than an illustration in a science book.
One Canadian coming to America for a particular surgery does overwhelm every other positive argument about Canadian health care, for sure. Totally.
And one Canadian coming to America for a particular surgery is the only argument against Canadian health care (or government-run health care in general) that has ever been posited on this blog or elsewhere. Totally.
Typical Democratic voter: “If Obama breaks one more promise, I won’t vote for him next time around. And this time, I really mean it.”
Standard Disclaimer: Republicans are no different.
I’d say that seeing a top, cardiac specialist isn’t generally an option for your average American either.
By any reasonable standard, the health care system in Canada — taken as a whole — is far superior to the one we have in the US. That doesn’t mean there aren’t parts of the US system that far outstrip anything they have up north.
But it’s important to understand that Canada isn’t just some hockey-loving version of the USA. It’s not as wealthy and much much more rural than we are. That informs their health care options as much as their single payer insurance does.
For example, Newfoundland And Labrador is a big, sparsely populated province way the fuck up north. It’s about the size of Montana with the population of Wyoming. Their biggest city has roughly the same number of people as South Bend, Indiana. Probably not a lot of hot-shot doctors are really looking to ply their trade in such a place.
What I know is that when I was a young mother, I had plenty of time to do the housework, take care of the kids, pay bills, shop, cook meals, take care of flower beds, spend some quality time with my friends during the day, with the kids in the late afternoon (after school) and with my husband at night, and still read a book in a couple days (when I was working I could read a book a day, but I couldn’t do some of the other stuff like visit friends, but I partied at night and still got the essentials done).
Today, in my mid 60′s, I’m lucky if I get to completely read a book in a month (tho I think that has more to do with reading other stuff on the computer than anything else), I never have time to go visit friends, the amount of housework or yardwork I can get done in the same amount of time is about half what it used to be (and I’m in very good physical shape). A month flies by like a week used to. It’s very annoying.
For example, Newfoundland And Labrador is a big, sparsely populated province way the fuck up north. It’s about the size of Montana with the population of Wyoming. Their biggest city has roughly the same number of people as South Bend, Indiana. Probably not a lot of hot-shot doctors are really looking to ply their trade in such a place.
And yet for some reason, the Provincial Premier didn’t go to one of the large cities in Canada where there are more doctors and presumably some “hot-shot” doctors.
Chuchundra
There are research-level cardiac facilities in Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. There are also very high quality facilities in most other provinces.
Williams could have got the surgery in one of the research level facitlites, if he had been willing to wait in line like the peasants on whom, together with the other members of the boss class, he forces to enjoy the benefits of a single payer system.
Most provinces, including Newfoundland, FORBID for-profit hospitals that operate outside of the single payer system.
I had always assumed time passes faster with age because of the lack of new memorable experiences. As a kid, most things are new; later on in life most people get into ruts.
I can also confirm that patience tends to get shorter with age – a link that takes as long as that one to load I’ll kill before getting a chance to look at it.
It does look bad that a Canadian official would come here for health care, but let’s be careful not to draw too much from this. It is no question that we(America) have some of the best medical specialists in the world. For example, I live right down the street from a hospital where Dr. James Andrews(world famous sports Dr.) practices. However, I don’t think you can make generalizations about the state of health care in either country based on a few outliers. You can argue the case on other criteria, though. All that really happened is this guy had the means to see a specialist that happened to practice in the U.S. I know some will say, but the average Canadian can’t get the same care. What makes it the average Canadian’s right? We can’t all drive Bentley’s and we can’t all get the best health care..
I’ll probably get some negative Karma for this, but oh well I feel it’s relevant.
I’m pretty sure that wealthy businessmen and powerful politicians in this country also skip out on the hoops that the peasantry need to jump through to get medical care. I’m pretty sure that most F500 CEOs don’t spend a lot of time on the phone with their HMO trying to figure out which doctors are in their plan.
If your argument is that the US health care system is better for the rich and powerful, I won’t disagree with you.
Let me go on record as saying that I will vote for Obama the next time around even if he has 666 stenciled to his forehead.
I don’t give a damn that CSPAN didn’t cover the health care debate.
After seeing his performance in Baltimore it is obvious to any objective person that he is so far above everything the Republicans have to offer both from both the intellectual and maturity standpoints that it is not even debatable.
The Republican party is a god damned clown posse. Liars and hypocrites each and every one of them.
I will vote for Obama one more time. And then there is a very good chance that I will never vote again.
The United States’ health care system is a release valve for the problems in other systems. I can’t wait till we convert to single payer and all the new drugs, techniques and hot shot doctors are not available to others. The are sucking our tit and telling us we are fools for it. Think about the heavy lifting we do for the rest of the world in this respect. We live the reality so they can live the dream.
Chuchundra
The point is not that the rich and powerful get it better.
The point is that Williams, as a Provincial Premier, is part of the system that forbids the option of private insuance to the majority of Canadians.
Wow, no one could have predicted that a system that rations quality and quantity of care according to wealth, would be attractive to wealthy people.
# 29
The Republican and Democrat parties are god damned clown posses. Liars and hypocrites each and every one of them.
Fixed it for you.
Aresen,
Death by waitlist might be fairly common (I’d love to see the numbers). But if that’s going to be the gist of your argument – that Canadians can’t have everything they want, whenever they want – how do you turn around and endorse the American system? Or are you alleging that as things currently stand, Americans can have everything they want, whenever they want? I don’t think you’re arguing that. I think you have another way that you’d like to see tried, which is fine.
But the argument isn’t between the magical third way that you’re proposing and Canada. The argument is between health care as it currently exists in America and as it currently exists in Canada. Or at least, that’s how it started per Radley’s implication by posting this story in the first place.
The federal level politicians, and often times the state level ones too, have their own health care system set up by them and paid for by us. And you serve 1 term and get the service for life. I can’t find the link that documents this, but it shouldn’t be too hard to find.
Sam
The relative merits of the two systems has been argued ad nauseum.
The point I am making is about Williams’ hypocrisy, as I implied in my reply to Chuchundra at 2:03 PM.
“Ms. Dunderdale wouldn’t say where in the U.S. Mr. Williams is seeking treatment.”
Since it’s a cardiac procedure, and he’s coming to the US for it, and he’s coming from the northeast, it’s a good bet he’s down the street from me at the Cleveland Clinic.
Homeopapthy –
If you really wanted to test an overdose of the homeopathic remedy, each person should buy a bottle, then take zero pills. That way they are at their maximum “potency” (based on dilution).
Perhaps we are overdosing everyday by not taking them – that’s way Americans are in such poor health.
I also think the thing about the Canadian governor is a bit of a cheap contribution to the health care debate unless the sole purpose is to say that the guy is a hypocrite (which may very well be true).
However, all that doesn’t mean that there isn’t something very wrong with the way health care is handled in the United States. If the claim is that the Canadian system wouldn’t work in the United States then I absolutely agree. Their system is set up for very different needs and based on a very different view of what the government should do. While I am no supporter of the current legislation passed by either the House or Senate, one thing I am certain of is that neither bill proposes to set up the same system they use in Canada (or Britain, or wherever for that matter) in the United States. Suggesting otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Not to be too critical of Mr. Balko (who I generally hold in a high regard) but I think those sorts of simplistic criticisms are below you. You posted an excellent article a few months ago with recommendations on how to improve health care in America, which were consistent with libertarianism, which I thought was great. My main point here is that you don’t need to be an advocate of a single payer health system to realize that something is very wrong with how we currently operate. The United States is indeed home to some of the best health care in the world for those who happen to be in the position to afford or attain it but it is also home to some of the most shameful medical outcomes and gross wastes of resources in the industrialized world.
My favorite theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, has a great piece on time and our changing sense of its passage as we age.
Our internal clocks change, slowing down. Our perception, therefore, is that the world around is moving faster and faster.
It’s cool stuff!
dueling anecdotal evidence:
Radley has one provincial Premier that opts for U.S. care as he can afford the best specialist in the world.
I offer you “thousands” of Americans that can’t afford meds in the U.S. and have to go to Canada or Mexico.
By the busload, thousands of American seniors are crossing over into Canada and Mexico to stock up on the one valuable commodity they can’t seem to find at home – affordable prescription drugs.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/162/13/1869
Aresen,
Again, you can simultaneously believe that something is the best in the world (as many Canadians apparently do believe about their own health system) and still find it wanting. You’re also free to claim that Aresen is doing for himself what he forbids others from doing, except that I don’t believe he has forbidden anybody from seeking treatment outside of Canada if they can afford such a thing.
Do you genuinely believe that supporting something in aggregate, like a socialized system of medicine, forces the individual to not act in their own best interest when a particular situation such as this one develops? Does your own support of American medicine preclude you from getting stem-cell treatment elsewhere should the need arise and the treatment not be available within America’s borders?
Liberals seem to think that intentions, and often even expressed intentions are what matter.
Obama says he is not going to lobbyists, yay
Obama hires lobbyists, irrelevant
I want to help the poor in the third world by improving work conditions, yay
The poor in the third world have to go back to the back breaking labor they had left because the factory is no longer profitable to run, irrelevant
I want to help poor people by raising the minimum wage, yay
The unskilled and unprivileged are no longer able to get jobs, irrelevant
I want to help the poor by controlling rents, yay
There are no longer apartments to live in, irrelevant
RE Canada premier.
I fail to see how him coming here has anything to do with “the system”. It’s him coming to see a “specialist.” Two very different terms.
Guido,
The relationship is that “the system” is not good enough to have a “specialist” for him.
Hey, Bronwyn, I’m jealous. I want to have a favorite theoretical phsycist, too!
I guess that means I’d have to read some books by theoretical phsycists. Hmmm. I’m not so jealous anymore.
Sam
The point is that the average Canadian does not have the option to buy private insurance – which the average American does have. Yes, it is expensive to buy it, but the American has that option, where the Canadian doesn’t. If Williams were just a rich person going to the US to avoid the wait list, I would have no problem with it. If private insurance coverage were available for Canadians to buy coverage that would enable them to pay for expensive procedures, I would have no problem with it. But Williams is part of the group of people who are denying Canadians the option.
Guido
As noted in my post at 1:25 PM, there are specialist facilities in Canada. Williams is just not willing to go through the wait list that he helps impose on the rest of the people.
Let us now list the things* government control improves.
Someone shut those crickets up.
*Blowing shit up doesn’t count.
http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-02-02/news/feds-phony-us-marshal-from-hemet-made-it-into-sd-airport-with-prisoner
Makes no sense. We all know that if someone has a badge around their neck and claims to be a law officer, they are and you have to do everything they say.
***Death by waitlist might be fairly common (I’d love to see the numbers). But if that’s going to be the gist of your argument – that Canadians can’t have everything they want, whenever they want – how do you turn around and endorse the American system? Or are you alleging that as things currently stand, Americans can have everything they want, whenever they want? I don’t think you’re arguing that. I think you have another way that you’d like to see tried, which is fine.***
Exactly. We have death by little or no care at all. An occasional trip to the emergency room (since they can’t turn you away) is not a health care plan for the uninsured. I know a little bit about that, since I was one of them for about 5 years and went into bankruptcy over a mountain of medical debt. (btw, all of you now get to help pay for that. Sorry, but that is a fact of bankruptcy that Libertarians ignore. We all pay for the care one way or another)
Michael Chaney: Yep, you do what the guy in the ‘Federal Agent’ t-shirt tells you, and get a plane ride out of the country!
I don’t mind the idea of health care being an entitlement.
I think you should be entitled to as much health care as you can pay for.
This is the point that always gets me the “Coldest bastard in the discussion” prize. The big elephant in the room during any discussion of health care, that nobody wants to talk about, is that there *is* a value system of determining who gets care. It’s called “How much can you afford?”
There is no denying that the amount of health care available is a finite good. Demand outstrips supply for this good, so there needs to be *some* sort of system that evaluates and prioritizes those who wish to get that good. So how do you come up with this evaluation criteria? Things that are frequently used are: Stage and degree of illness, time spent waiting for care, prognosis of successful treatment. But another factor that is ignored, or even outright rejected, is the value of a person to the world.
And you know what makes a pretty good indicator of value of a person to the world? That’s right: How productive they are, and how much money they have. That’s why rich people get things first, because they’ve got the money to back them up.
You know what else? I think it’s pretty stupid to try to take a signal like that completely out of the system, and treat everyone as if they have the same value to the world. Yeah, it makes me the elitist jerk, but if I can’t afford something, why do I deserve to get it? And why should I get it over someone who can afford to pay more for it?
People have been dying for hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe soon, that will stop thanks to treatments affordable for the poorest people. Until then, pricing is a good thing to include in a value system for who deserves the limited good.
***Things that are frequently used are: Stage and degree of illness, time spent waiting for care, prognosis of successful treatment. But another factor that is ignored, or even outright rejected, is the value of a person to the world.***
Utilitarian eugenics. The ultimate “zombie” value system that refuses to die. Obviously, Paris Hilton deserves to live more than me or my kid.
Down that road lies armed revolt, ultimately, if taken to its logical conclusions.
btw, all of you now get to help pay for that. Sorry, but that is a fact of bankruptcy that Libertarians ignore. We all pay for the care one way or another.
Bankruptcy is anti-Libertarian, since it violates the sanctity and liberty of contract.
There is no denying that the amount of health care available is a finite good. Demand outstrips supply for this good, so there needs to be *some* sort of system that evaluates and prioritizes those who wish to get that good.
You’re not going far enough with your thinking. It’s not just about evaluating who ought to be provided with the scarce good, it’s about making sure that the good exists in the first place.
If medical care is consistently provided to those who cannot afford it, then one of two things happens: either more productive individuals must be looted to fund that care, or the staff who provides the care (including those at removes, such as the people who make the machines used in the care) will be forced to seek gainful employment. In other words, doctors have to eat, and that food has to be paid for either by their patients or by innocent bystanders- or else you have no doctors.
I’m a Canadian living in the US at the moment. I have lived with both health care systems and I’d take the Canadian every single time.
The main are 2 main differences between the Canadian and American systems.
1) In Canada there is 1 tier of service. You can’t jump the line for treatment if you are rich. We have some of the most advanced medical research hospitals in the world, we don’t lack the skills or the technology but we do indeed lag behind in the numbers. We can only serve so many people because there are only so many specialists and so many medical machines.
2) Payment method. Everyone in Canada pays for health care through higher taxes. When I was in Canada I was paying about 4-6% more in taxes in the tax bracket I am in. There are advantages and disadvantages to this.
The advantage for Canadians is with the single payer system, essentially the government is ordering everything in bulk and gets lower prices both through volume purchases from drug companies and through strong arm tactics. For example if you want to sell this product in Canada you will charge XX dollars or you can go to hell.
The disadvantages occur if you are rich or if you are a drug company or a doctor. There is a hard cap on what you are going to earn if you are a doctor or a drug company. If you are rich, you are certainly subsidizing the less wealthy people.
The main reason I’ll always take the Canadian system is that I don’t constantly live in fear of job loss. Losing a job in Canada is an inconvenience. Losing a job in the US can either kill you or leave you in debt for life.
We can only serve so many people because there are only so many specialists and so many medical machines.
Who decides how many of those things there will be? What criteria do they use to make that decision? What are the consequences if the numbers decided on are not appropriate to the amount of care demanded or the societal value of that care? How can the societal value of a given healthcare solution be accurately evaluated by any mechanism other than a market?
simplifying our tax code would have an impact on health care- allowing people with health savings accounts to designate non-family members (girlfriends, boyfriends, neighbors, charities, etc) as beneficiaries would allow some to address the lack of coverage. A person could use the savings account to pay the deductible on a high-deductible plan. This would allow some to fix their health coverage issues on their own, without govt intervention.
This is just one obvious example.
There are so many EASY things we could do to fix our own health coverage issues, if bureacratic burdens were lifted.
Or losing a job in the US can be the kick in your ass that you need to realize you were doing something that was not productive and valued by society. At that point, you can find something else to do that would be more productive.
I abhor the pressures which so tie health ‘insurance’ to jobs. They are terrible forces which limit everyone. I abhor the health ‘insurance’ racket that we have, which distorts prices and availability. But those are different discussions. But health ‘insurance’ shouldn’t be the reason you’re afraid of losing your job. You should be afraid of losing your job because you or your company have no customers or are doing something badly.
And further, perhaps people *should* be more scared of being unproductive members of society. Perhaps people who are unproductive *should* face severe hardships. Perhaps people who are unproductive should *not* have the option of (basically) mooching off of the productive, those who aren’t really given a choice of whether they want to provide for a bunch of people who vote themselves comforts.
So that’s an argument for working to get “health insurance” and “employment” divorced from each other.
Who decides how many of those things there will be? What criteria do they use to make that decision? What are the consequences if the numbers decided on are not appropriate to the amount of care demanded or the societal value of that care? How can the societal value of a given healthcare solution be accurately evaluated by any mechanism other than a market?
Medical professionals decide who needs the health care most based on the needs of the patients. If the medical devices such as MRI’s are not numerous enough for a stretch of time, the Canadian government does often pay for patients to get procedures done in the US until we can get enough machines to handle the flow.
Are there finite resources? Yes. Do some people fall through cracks in the system? Yes. Is it better than a market system? In my opinion, yes.
Everyone who ever argues a market solution to me never explains to me how their solution is better for those who can’t afford the market.
I say your average citizen in Canada is much better off than your average citizen in America when it comes to health services. I don’t have statistics to back up my claim unfortunately.
So that’s an argument for working to get “health insurance” and “employment” divorced from each other.
There’s no such beast in the US. Health care costs in the US are out of touch with reality. This is your main problem.
I’m asthmatic. I need 2 inhalers all the time. In the US if I don’t have insurance an albuterol inhaler will cost me about $90, a flovent inhaler will cost me about $130. This is a constant monthly cost for me. Since I have good benefits where I work, My monthly cost gets knocked down to $80 ($40 dollar copay for each item, I’ll skip my doctor visit copay costs).
In Canada an albuterol inhaler is $9 a flovent inhaler is $30. Prescription drugs are not free, that is the cost if you have no insurance. The market price of the drugs. If I had insurance through work odds are I’d pay for $20 worth of medication for the year then the rest would be covered.
Utilitarian eugenics. The ultimate “zombie” value system that refuses to die. Obviously, Paris Hilton deserves to live more than me or my kid.
Okay, here’s what the egalitarians (for lack of a better term) aren’t understanding in this debate… When Paris Hilton pays gobs of money to get treatments, her money ultimately funds new treatments and makes existing treatments more affordable for everybody else. A poor person today has far better medical care than Andrew Carnegie had 100 years ago. In the short term, yes, it’s unfair that the wealthy can pay for better treatment. It’s also unfair that the rich get better food and fancier vacations. However, in the long term, market health care fuels the industries that bring us tomorrow’s innovations which benefit us all.
Oh, and Wavemancali, you have your low “market” prices for meds because you’re free-riding off of the U.S.
@ClubMedSux
Yes, on some meds, no on others.
Market price tends to spike when you take into account it means asking the question, “How much will you pay to stay alive.”
Once a drug is in mass production I have a severe ethical attack when it comes to the cost/profit ratio.
Profit is just that… profit. When you’ve paid your overhead and made up your original research cost on a particular drug, it’s fairly obscene to maximize profits on something people need to live.
If you had insurance through work, you’d pay $500+/month to get that “benefit”. Pay me $500/month and I’ll buy your inhalers for you. Think about it.
The problem here is again government meddling that keeps the free market from doing its job.
If you had insurance through work, you’d pay $500+/month to get that “benefit”. Pay me $500/month and I’ll buy your inhalers for you. Think about it.
The problem here is again government meddling that keeps the free market from doing its job.
It’s not as if inhalers are the only drug I may need that year. Insurance is a protection against the “what if’s” that the world throws against us, or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
It’s supposed to be a responsible pool of people who get together and throw a certain amount of money into a collective pot for a specific purpose. Take car insurance for example. I pay about $300 a month for 2 cars. My insurance agent is supposed to take that money throw it into a pool with the thousands of other customers and cover their liabilities. A mean average of liabilities each year should dictate the rates that we as a collective need to pay each month. I have no problems if the insurance company making a decent profit off the process as long as they don’t go belly up the day before I need something out of the pot that I have put into all these years. I do have an issue if they make an obscene profit.
In the years that I have paid car insurance I’ve put approximately $58,000 into the pot. I’ve taken out about $10,000. The insurance company didn’t make $48,000 from me. Insurance is that dreaded socialist structure that America fears. Other people have benefited from my excess $48,000 and I’ve benefited in the peace of mind that If the shit hits the fan, I’m covered.
Yeah, this whole idea that just because you’re rich you should be entitled to more stuff is crap. In my system, the richer you are, the more of your stuff we would take and the poorer you are the more stuff you get from rich people.
Ok? Now, let’s all go out and vote.
Candidate A: I promise to give you stuff for free.
Candidate B: I promise to give you stuff for free.
Candidate C: I promise to let you spend your own money.
Try to guess which choices represent the two mainstream parties?
You don’t have to be rich to be greedy. Wanting what the rich have is greedy, too.
Wavemancali, the problem with your use of out of pocket expenses is that neither what you pay in Canada or what you pay in the US is anywhere close to what anyone would pay if the price weren’t distorted all to hell. It’s distorted by every country except the US strongarming drug manufacturers to cut prices, sometimes even below marginal production prices.
Another distortion is the idea that any kind of ‘insurance’ pays for a fixed cost. You yourself admit that the inhalers are a fixed cost. So it’s not insurance, it’s a prepayment and subsidy plan: you pay part of it, and other people subsidize part of it. If you pay for ‘insurance’, then you prepay a portion of it.
On top of that, the development and overhead costs of production don’t magically disappear when something is in ‘mass production’. They can be spread out over time, but that just makes each incremental one go down a small amount. So your ‘ethical concerns’ are BS, because you have no clue what production costs are, nor how much development they’re amortizing, nor how much future development they’re funding.
Wunder, I haven’t read his books, I watch him on my teevee.
#50 Celticdragonchick
You make excellent points.
I find it ironic that Radley titled the health care piece so perfectly: “Newfoundland, Canada premier turns to terrible U.S. health care system for heart surgery.” This is completely true, of course, since the U.S. health care system is terrible, in that it does an unimaginably (at least to a civilized mind) poor job of allocating health care to those who need it. If one is fortunate enough to be able to pay for or otherwise procure health care in this system at its highest provisional levels it offers excellent performance, good enough to be worth traveling here to obtain. But supposing that one is not, say, a foreign state premier, then one is left to deal with the gross inadequacies of this terrible system. The only saving grace I have found in that is my unfailing ability to reduce my foreign friends and in-laws to tears whenever I recount my experiences within the terrible U.S. health care system to them (or at least those who believe me; a good many are simply unable to accept that a country claiming to be civilized would subject its people to a system such as we have).
Canada has 1/10th the population of the US, so it should come as no suprise that there are some specialists available in the US that aren’t available in canada. Of course that sort of subtle analysis is beyond most libertarians.
@Bobzbob
Actually that’s a logical fallacy. At 1/10th the population we also need 1/10th of the doctors as well. We have great specialists, like I said we have world class research hospitals and research teams and specialists, we just don’t allow them to have an open ended wage like the free market of the US does allow.
This is one of the drawbacks I listed. Doctors that get in it for the money are going to gravitate toward the US market.
The reason your inhalers are so expensive is because CFC based inhalers were banned. Which is silly, since the amount of CFC from asthma inhalers has an utterly negligible impact on the environment. Oddly enough, this happened just in time to allow everyone involved to patent new style inhalers and keep prices high.
Aresen,
Does the Canadian government official coming to America for treatment going to pay for it with insurance? Because you seem miffed that this man won’t let other Canadians buy insurance. Are you saying he has his own? Because to read the story, he’s in the same boat as every other Canadian, and he’s merely proposing to pay out of pocket for treatment elsewhere. So he isn’t getting “special” treatment – he’s getting the same treatment as everybody else and paying for extra, elsewhere. I’m not sure I understand the objection to that.
@#66
I’ll need convincing that this is being done…and then I’ll take the position that it is NOT obscene. Profits are being maximized on a surprisingly small percentage of sales (I realize “small” is my opinion). People are still unaware of just how robust financial assistance programs are thru drug companies. Of course, there’s no way to appease every supporter of welfare and communism out there with free drugs. If you did, you wouldn’t have profits…and we know:
Maximization of profits enable new drugs to be created. Capitalism is about competition, inspiration of invention, and efficient allocation of resources. Where else is that more important than medicine? BTW, maximization of profits has as much to do with managing expenses as it does with setting prices.
If you think today’s biochem companies are making killer profits, invest in the publicly traded ones. But, you’ll be disappointed…and you’d get better ROI investing in the war industry (those are some killer profits).
But this is just economics and has no place in a political discussion.
Hold on there, egghead. Can someone explain what he said to me?
#33
As long as the United States is a country it will have a President and as long as it has a President that President will be a Democrat or a Republican.
Barack Obama is a very intelligent man trying to make the best of a very bad situation. I do not consider him a Republican or a Democrat.
And the Republicans are obstructionists who vote against things that they sponsored to score political points.
As John Cole once said, “they have become a party of grifters, birthers and flat earthers”
In 2012 I will proudly vote for Barack Obama.
Maybe the country would be better off without laws or taxes but I just don’t see that happening in my lifetime and I am only 8 years younger than you.
It’s the promise of big profits that make companies takes the risks and spend the money on the research to develop the drugs to begin with. And it’s going to be the promise of profits that brings additional suppliers into the market that will force the price down (assuming we’re talking about a truly free market, of course).
Businesses have no moral obligation to give something away for less than market value. And customers have no right to expect businesses to give them something for free (which is what selling below market amounts to).
There is no end to those willing to impose some moral obligation on businesses to forgo profits in the name of charity. If people really want companies to sell their products for less than they can get for them, then I suggest they actually buy controlling interest in the company after which they can cut profits down as much as they want. That way their charity is actually coming out of their own pockets instead of someone else’s. With all the millions people out there righteously clamoring for lower profits in the name of social responsibility, there should be no problem rounding up enough of them to take over a few drug companies.
Of course, when it’s coming out of their own pockets, people aren’t quite as interested in being charitable.
It’s easy to be charitable with other people’s money.
@Dave Krueger
I Karma’d you up, I like your argument but I’ll ask you this in turn:
When do you support imposing morality or ethics?
If we didn’t do it at times we’d still have slavery, women would not have the vote, we’d live in a might is right society.
I’m not against profits, I’ve repeated it several times, I’m against obscene profits. I very much support the system that allows exclusive rights to drug manufacturers for a specified period of time before generic can be made.
I’m not asking for below market value drugs, I’m looking for a profit cap.
Another question for you, this time to a hypothetical situation:
You are a water merchant. It costs you 80 cents for a bottle of water, you charge $1.60 for a bottle of water.
If a man dying of dehydration comes to your door with only a dollar are you going to turn him away to die for the lack of 40 cents?
I don’t see equal rights for everyone as being a matter of ethics or morality. In fact, I’m not sure I even believe in morality as anything more than a mechanism for one group to impose its will on another group when logic and reason aren’t on their side.
Society benefits when everyone is free. I think that can be proved with almost mathematical certainty. So, the more you have, the better. When you make laws that punish murder, it makes people freer. When you make laws that take property from people, you’re making them less free.
You’re focusing in on too narrow a set of circumstances. I am, of course, free to be charitable and give the man water. Americans (individually and as corporations) are among the most charitable people on earth. But, what really matters is how the guy got into the state he’s in. If I’m living in a country where productive people are routinely robed of their income by government (or gangs, assuming they are not the same thing), the man is probably just one of millions who are dying of thirst and hunger. If, on the other hand, I live in a free country where people are encouraged to be productive (by being allowed to keep their income), that man will be an anomaly in an otherwise wealthy society, so I could freely give him water knowing that it wouldn’t result in an avalanche of others like him suddenly showing up asking for their “fair” share.
I don’t see equal rights for everyone as being a matter of ethics or morality. In fact, I’m not sure I even believe in morality as anything more than a mechanism for one group to impose its will on another group when logic and reason aren’t on their side.
I completely disagree with you on this point. There is nothing logical or reasonable about equal rights for everyone, it is entirely about ethics and morals.
Society benefits when everyone is free. I think that can be proved with almost mathematical certainty. So, the more you have, the better. When you make laws that punish murder, it makes people freer. When you make laws that take property from people, you’re making them less free.
Capping profits doesn’t take your property it limits the amount that you can take from another. I compare it to the limits on interest that lenders can charge on a loan before it is considered usury.
If capping profits doesn’t take your property, then I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if government capped how much you could sell your house for. After all, that’s not really taking your property, it’s just limiting how much you can take from another.
As for the question of ethics and morals, I think I’ll just let my statement stand. Everyone benefits when everyone is free to be as productive (and as rich) as they can be.
@Dave Kreuger
We differentiate among business sectors all the time when it comes to rules and regulations.
I’m not proposing profit caps on everything, just things that represent life or death to people. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, obviously some will disagree.