Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
It's true that single-payer systems spend less money, but they also deliver less health care. Proponents, when they aren't trying to obscure this issue, insist that only non-essential care is being denied or delayed. And by definition, anything really expensive just happens to be unnecessary: like Avastin.
In single-payer systems, it's not that simple. Canada actually outlaws paying cash for anything covered by Medicare. Although a Canadian court ruled that this was a human rights violation. Considering that the only other place this is illegal is North Korea, it's amazing it took a court that long to figure it out.
In Britain, you can pay cash for whatever you want, but you risk eligibility to have your condition treated by the NHS if you do.
But yes, the poor are better off with single-payer. The primary victims of single-payer, at least in comparison with the US, are the elderly, since the system doesn't like to waste resources on people who are close to death anyway.
CARPE DIEM: Life Expectancy Higher in US than UK at Age 65+
The writer makes the good point that these "compassionate" health care systems are great until you get old and actually need medical care most. And waiting times also hurt the elderly most, because it's not like they have a lot of time to wait.
Companies spend more on advertising than they do on development.
The Truth Behind Drug Ads - ABC News
That does not include the money spent on managed care material, health care provider marketing, trade shows and promotional banquets (where pharma companies basically pay doctors to use their drug in clinical trials). In fact consumer, advertising is a tiny fraction of their overall marketing and promotion costs. The patients matter less to them than the doctors who will recommend the drug.
EDIT: I posted that the industry spent 200 billion. This was a typo. I meant to approximate to 20 billion and that is also a little high. They spend Approx 12.7 billion per year but it does not include the managed care numbers which is actually expensive to develop because rules changes frequently and these "access to care" materials always need to reflect the latest in changes to state codes so my 20 billion figure may be closer than I thought. Apologies to the forum for the inaccuracy.
Last edited by TomBlaze; 05-22-2011 at 08:25 AM.
Big Pharma Money Spent on Marketing Exceeds Drug Development Costs
Take a look at this. They spend more money on promotion than they do on development. Who do you think pays for that in the end?........US!
http://healthfreedoms.org/2009/06/11...drug-mark-ups/There is quite a bit of difference between the money spent on R&D and marketing. If we exclude direct-to-consumer marketing, of the U.S. $57.5 billion, CAM estimates that 80% of this money is spent on physicians. This means that, with 700,000 practicing physicians in the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry spent nearly U.S. $61,000 in promotion per physician! It is interesting to note that according to the U.S. census the real median household income (2003) was $43,318.
Is Kefauver right?
While knowing that the pharmaceutical industry spends nearly U.S. $57.5 billion on marketing and U.S. $31.5 billion on R&D, those that believe the industry is promotion based, and not entirely altruistic as the industry claims, have some proof to this claim. How can we continue to pump money into, and grant legislation to, an industry that would rather hide the truth than be honest? How far are we from formally proving Kefauver's other claims to be true? Whether or not we can all agree on the pharmaceutical industry's place in our society – no industry should go fifty years without ethical restrictions, while claiming they are the champions of society.
Learn more: Big Pharma Money Spent on Marketing Exceeds Drug Development Costs
I was being very kind with my 2000% mark-up. I did not realize that is was this criminally tainted.Celebrex 100 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60 Percen t markup: 1,712%
Claritin 10 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71 Percent markup: 30,306%
Keflex 250 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88 Percent markup: 8,372%
Lipitor 20 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37 Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80 Percent markup: 4,696%
Norvasec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14 Percent markup: 134,493%
Paxil 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60 Percent markup: 2,898%
Prevacid 30 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01 Percent markup: 34,136%
Prilosec 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97 Cost of general active ingredients $0.52 Percent markup: 69,417%
Prozac 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $247.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11 Percent markup: 224,973%
Tenormin 50 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13 Percent markup: 80,362%
Vasotec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $10237 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20 Percent markup: 51,185%
Xanax 1 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024 Percent markup: 569,958%
Zestril 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89 Cost of general active ingredients $3.20 Percent markup: 2,809%
Zithromax 600 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19 Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78 Percent markup: 7,892%
Zocor 40 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63 Percent markup: 4,059%
Zoloft 50 mg Consumer price: $206.87 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75 Percent markup: 11 ,821%
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." Romney Campaign
Are we chumps who pay too much? Sure we are, becasue for a great many of us a large portion of the cost has been hidden by payments insurance makes. Folks seldom complain about the $1500.00 dollars in costs the insurance company pays out when they only have to pay $10.00 out of their own pocket.
I swear I don't hate rich people, most of them have gotten that way through doing great service to all of us and deserve every penny. It's the elitist fucks who think it makes them better than everyone, and that anyone poor or even middle class who gets sick should just dutifully die so there's more for them
Last edited by John Drake; 05-22-2011 at 05:31 PM.
Most people have insurance. Sometimes liberals confuse me. If it's truly about the needs of the many over the needs of the few, then socialized medicine is a bad deal. If it's about favoring the poor over everyone else, then yeah, it makes sense.
The system is fucked up. It has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative. This has everything to do with criminality. Basic human needs should not be profitable, they should be government-owned as in owned by the tax-payers.
And what is "most people"? Are the 45 million who don't enough to have any concern over? Or should we just let them all die?" If it's truly about the needs of the many over the needs of the few, then socialized medicine is a bad deal. If it's about favoring the poor over everyone else, then yeah, it makes sense."
Besides, this is all moot... The major problem about non-socialised medicine is that IT DOESN'T PAY THE DOCTOR TO CURE YOU, BUT ONLY TO CARE FOR YOU WHEN YOU'RE SICK. So it's in his financial interest to keep you sick for as long as he can. Even if this means you die eventually you still almost always make him more money than if he cures you
Cancer is the best example of this, why do you think it's risen so EXACTLY since Doctors began controlling the entrance to their own profession, and thus guaranteeing themsleves huge fees, in 1912?
Last edited by John Drake; 05-23-2011 at 06:13 AM.