|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you like to trade healthcare systems? |
| Yes, I'm not from the US, but I'll trade my country's system for that of the US. |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| Yes, I'm from the US, but I'd like to trade systems with another country. |
|
47% |
[ 18 ] |
| No, I'm not from the US and I'd keep my healthcare before trading to the US one. |
|
34% |
[ 13 ] |
| No, I'm from the US, but I'd rather keep my healthcare than trade for another country's system. |
|
13% |
[ 5 ] |
| I like to complain about not enough poll options. Purple is a fabulous color. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 38 |
|
| Author |
Message |
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Actually Existing Capitalism: back in the USSA posted by Roobin
A strange kind of funk often descends on people, be they from the left or right of the political spectrum. Many people hold to the equation that state activity = socialism. What seems so obvious can suddenly become bizarre and endlessly confusing. People like Barack Obama, Winston Churchill and Gordon Brown are transfigured into revolutionaries. We end up with not just the workers state but also the degenerated workers state, the deformed workers state and the transitional genocidal workers state.
Its interesting how many historical forms capitalism has had to pass through, how many surrogate regimes it has had to use in order to survive. Capitalism has rarely existed in the form it was supposed to.
There was less of a problem in ancient and feudal civilisations as political and economic power was more or less the same thing. Kings and emperors conquered land and took tribute. Capitalists are people who manage the process of commodity production. At their beginning especially they were actively involved in the production process.
This created a problem we are familiar with today. It is impossible to work and rule. Unlike the working class, which must forcibly redistribute wealth in order to maintain its rule (and in the process undo all class distinctions) the bourgeoisie had the luxury of being able to accumulate wealth within the Ancien Regime.
The bourgeoisie created representative systems of its own within the old regime, along with an army of paid intellectuals, representatives and advocates. It was even able to bring the intellectuals of the old classes over to its cause. An example: during the rise of capitalism the British aristocracy was recruited into the vanguard of capitalist development, in particular to the armed forces and government.
The development of capitalism in Western Europe the 19th century saw wealth accumulated at steeper and faster rates. The need for greater resources, more labour and bigger markets sent capital across the globe. Wherever it set down it transformed the local economy into a commodity economy.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/11/actually-existing-capitalism-back-in.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP
Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
People from the socialized medicine countries all feel safe and smug until the day they actually face a major, life-threatening illness that is only treated adequately in the USA.
This is BS porpaganda fed to you by your insurance company money backed media outlets. You're so used to the wool being pulled over your eyes you don;t even know when it;s happening anymore.
Then, if they are wealthy, they board the quickest flight for America and get the best treatment available in the world - as tens of thousands of people from every socialized medicine country do every year. And of course, we see very often that it is the high level government leaders and officials of these countries who lead this midnight run for the best health care.
If they are poor, they sing their national anthem - and die.
Nonsense.
But, since most of these poor bastards have been educated and lied to by their home governments, taught not to question the lies and propaganda they've been fed in the government indoctrination centers (mislabled as "schools") that they were forced to attend in their youth, they are blissfully ignorant that better medical care is available elsewhere.
Erm, pot calling kettle if ever I've heard it HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
Seriously, you must watch Michael Moore's 'Sicko' asap and get yourself educated so you cans top making a fool of yourself on internet forums lol.
And finally - we 'socialist' countries (such as the UK) have private healthcare for the rich you idiot, it's called BUPA. The ignorance, the ignorance, oh how it hurts my poor head!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guess which country......
Waiting list waiting lists:
| Quote: |
1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care. Another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts
Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: 2/3 of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml |
Hospitals that actually harm your health:
Malnourishment:
And here, it says that 85 new drugs were launched in the US between 1998 and 2002. During that time, only 44 of those drugs were launched in Europe. Why? Government rationing to save money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
And here, it says that 85 new drugs were launched in the US between 1998 and 2002. During that time, only 44 of those drugs were launched in Europe. Why? Government rationing to save money. |
Europe is actually better at producing new medicines but it makes much sense for them to launch new drugs in the US because the US is a bigger more lucrative market for doing so. Anyway I wonder how many of those so called new drugs launched in the US weren't just newer versions of other preexisting drugs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
Europe is actually better at producing new medicines |
No, it isn't. The US is by far and away the world's leader in medical R&D.
In 2000, the federal government dedicated $18.4 billion to it, compared with only $3.7 billion for the entire European Union
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=3643529
| Blade wrote: |
| Anyway I wonder how many of those so called new drugs launched in the US weren't just newer versions of other preexisting drugs? |
Spending billions on investment into R&D only to churn out newer versions of preexisting drugs sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh really?
| Quote: |
Europe leads global drug discovery: Study
Published: Monday 31 August 2009
New data shows that Europe is ahead of the United States in pharmaceutical research productivity, contrary to conventional wisdom, argues Professor Donald W. Light in an article published recently in the journal Health Affairs.
on Donald Light, a visiting professor at Stanford University, claims a "re-analysis of data" from of new drugs released between 1982 and 2003 "contradicts the claim that US drug firms overtook European firms in pharmaceutical innovation".
This view goes against arguments that a fragmented patent market and duplication of research are holding back EU competitiveness in the area of research and development (R&D) (EurActiv 10/03/09).
There have also been concerns about anti-competitive practices by big pharmaceutical groups stifling the innovation and competitiveness of drug research in the sector (EurActiv 17/01/0 .
The share of drug-related R&D funding in the US and Europe has changed markedly over the last few decades, Light argues. In 1990, Europe accounted for half of total spending on R&D in Japan, the United States and Europe, whilst America spent a third. By 2000, America's share had increased to 48%, whilst R&D funding in Europe had decreased to 37%.
However, this change in spending has not been reflected by a greater quantity and quality of drug discoveries in the US, maintains Light. In terms of productivity, measured by the number of new drugs discovered in proportion to funding, Europe shows "greater and increasing research productivity," whilst overall US productivity has declined. He adds that in America in particular, many of the new drugs brought onto the market had little added medical value over existing medications: "In short, commercial success is often distinct from therapeutic importance."
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/europe-leads-global-drug-discovery-study/article-184974
|
| Quote: |
| Blade wrote: |
| Anyway I wonder how many of those so called new drugs launched in the US weren't just newer versions of other preexisting drugs? |
Spending billions on investment into R&D only to churn out newer versions of preexisting drugs sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy. |
Not really, as long Americans are prepared to over pay for their medications then how can they fail? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
Oh really?
Europe leads global drug discovery: Study
Published: Monday 31 August 2009
New data shows that Europe is ahead of the United States in pharmaceutical research productivity, contrary to conventional wisdom, argues Professor Donald W. Light in an article published recently in the journal Health Affairs.
on Donald Light, a visiting professor at Stanford University, claims a "re-analysis of data" from of new drugs released between 1982 and 2003 "contradicts the claim that US drug firms overtook European firms in pharmaceutical innovation".
This view goes against arguments that a fragmented patent market and duplication of research are holding back EU competitiveness in the area of research and development (R&D) (EurActiv 10/03/09).
There have also been concerns about anti-competitive practices by big pharmaceutical groups stifling the innovation and competitiveness of drug research in the sector (EurActiv 17/01/0.
The share of drug-related R&D funding in the US and Europe has changed markedly over the last few decades, Light argues. In 1990, Europe accounted for half of total spending on R&D in Japan, the United States and Europe, whilst America spent a third. By 2000, America's share had increased to 48%, whilst R&D funding in Europe had decreased to 37%.
However, this change in spending has not been reflected by a greater quantity and quality of drug discoveries in the US, maintains Light. In terms of productivity, measured by the number of new drugs discovered in proportion to funding, Europe shows "greater and increasing research productivity," whilst overall US productivity has declined. He adds that in America in particular, many of the new drugs brought onto the market had little added medical value over existing medications: "In short, commercial success is often distinct from therapeutic importance."
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/europe-leads-global-drug-discovery-study/article-184974
|
Total crap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Article wrote: |
He adds that in America in particular, many of the new drugs brought onto the market had little added medical value over existing medications: "In short, commercial success is often distinct from therapeutic importance."
|
This is an especially important point that really doesn't get enough attention. If a drug company develops a new drug, but said drug doesn't actually outperform other drugs, then said drug is nothing more than a way for the drug company to possibly seize market share from other drug companies by aggressively marketting said drug, despite it's lack of real comparative benefit.
I understand in the Libertarian model, all that matters is economic performance, but for most of us there are other details to consider. I don't care how much of a profit a drug company turns if they're not actually putting a better product on the market. Ultimately, the money they use to develop drugs comes out of our pockets, so if those drugs aren't quantitatively superior, then they're simply being wasteful. But I guess unlike goverment waste, corporate waste isn't worth commenting on.
| Sergio wrote: |
| Spending billions on investment into R&D only to churn out newer versions of preexisting drugs sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy. |
Not if you do a good job marketting said drugs it isn't. And if there's something the drug industry is good at, it's marketting, especially since they've got a nice two-pronged attack going, targetting both doctors and patients. Drug companies don't have to produce better drugs, they just have to convince us they're better. And let's face it, with regards to drugs customers are credulous fools and doctors are vulnerable to drug company provided incentives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Article wrote: |
He adds that in America in particular, many of the new drugs brought onto the market had little added medical value over existing medications: "In short, commercial success is often distinct from therapeutic importance."
|
This is an especially important point that really doesn't get enough attention. If a drug company develops a new drug, but said drug doesn't actually outperform other drugs, then said drug is nothing more than a way for the drug company to possibly seize market share from other drug companies by aggressively marketting said drug, despite it's lack of real comparative benefit. |
So what? If they are spending their own money, then who cares? If the drug companies are accepting govt subsidies (which I'm sure they probably are) then they are their own worst enemy and have to acquiesce to the "public good."
| Quote: |
| I understand in the Libertarian model, all that matters is economic performance, but for most of us there are other details to consider. I don't care how much of a profit a drug company turns if they're not actually putting a better product on the market. Ultimately, the money they use to develop drugs comes out of our pockets, so if those drugs aren't quantitatively superior, then they're simply being wasteful. But I guess unlike goverment waste, corporate waste isn't worth commenting on. |
How does it come out does it come out of our pocket? If they are a purely private entity (which I suspect they are not), then they can spend money as they see fit. If they want to spend 6 trillion on foot powder that is 2% better at curing tinea then it is their prerogative to go nuts.
| Quote: |
| Sergio wrote: |
| Spending billions on investment into R&D only to churn out newer versions of preexisting drugs sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy. |
Not if you do a good job marketting said drugs it isn't. And if there's something the drug industry is good at, it's marketting, especially since they've got a nice two-pronged attack going, targetting both doctors and patients. Drug companies don't have to produce better drugs, they just have to convince us they're better. And let's face it, with regards to drugs customers are credulous fools and doctors are vulnerable to drug company provided incentives. |
If you have a better system I'm all ears. Unfortunately central planning was discredited in the 30s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| So what? If they are spending their own money, then who cares? If the drug companies are accepting govt subsidies (which I'm sure they probably are) then they are their own worst enemy and have to acquiesce to the "public good." |
Companies don't spend their own money. They spend our money. Just like the government, all their money ultimately comes from common citizens. Their wasteful spending simply raises the cost of all drugs. According to your principles, a new drug company should arise to stop this, by ceasing the wasteful, purely self-enriching spending at the cost of the common consumer. Back in reality, industries like pharmaceuticals have a huge cost of entry, and once you've paid the price to enter the field, it's in your interest to join in preying on consumers instead of trying to fix the system.
In some industries -- like electronics, automobiles, etc -- this isn't so bad. If we don't want to play their game, we can simply decide not to pay at all. Because of this, there's no real need or justification for government intervention; if you feel like the company is trying to take advantage of you, you can simply refuse to do business with them, and if you feel like all the companies are trying to take advantage of you, you can simply choose not to buy any product at all. When it comes to things like pharmaceuticals and health care, though, the average man has much less real choice. Choosing not to do business with pharmaceutical companies simply because they're corrupt could result in a significant loss of health.
Now, your next move as a grunt in the "Business is Always Right Army" is to say, "Ah but you see! The companies are providing a life-protecting product! As such, their profits are justified!" But this, my good man, is exactly why the government must be involved. The common man is in no position to negotiate when his health is on the line, even if the prices he's being charged are truly unjust. He requires a champion. Unfortunately to date, said champion has been in the pocket of the pharmaceuticals industry. That needs to change.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| How does it come out does it come out of our pocket? If they are a purely private entity (which I suspect they are not), then they can spend money as they see fit. |
It comes out of our pocket because their operating expensives are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and unlike products like cars or electronics, consumers can't realistically be expected to haggle. Further, the cost of entry into the pharmaceuticals industry is so high that you'd be insane to squander such an investment by reforming the system, by providing better service at the cost of lower profits. Every incentive is for you to join in current practice, and as Libertarians like to say, humans are incentive driven creatures. When the natural incentives of the business place become harmful to society -- as they sometimes do -- we must correct them.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If you have a better system I'm all ears. Unfortunately central planning was discredited in the 30s. |
My current suggestions would be limited to a number of reforms that would improve the system for the customer rather than an overall reconstruction. One example would be the total illegalization of any incentives or gifts given by pharmaceutical companies to doctors. This practice is wide spread, and distorts the market for pharmaceuticals substantially. This alone bears a sizeable portion of the responsibility for new drugs which aren't actually better still becoming economic successes, and it needs to stop. Doctors should be prescribing medication based purely on their informed judgment, not based on pharmaceutical company incentives. Would that really be so bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
