Conquer Club

Tell me again why anyone likes this asshole?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/03/417657/santorum-tells-sick-kid-not-to-complain-about-1-million-drug-costs-because-people-pay-900-for-an-ipad/?mobile=nc

A government that takes "compassion" on people and gives them whatever they want for free (to them) can also take it away whenever they choose. Neither the government nor the drug company owes her free medicine. More people need a dose of reality to learn that it is not the government's job to take care of them, no matter what their circumstances are.

True, but I think there's a definite difference between free and fair/affordable in this case of health care.

-rd

Santorum is crazy. He'd be worse than Obama. In this case he has a point about the drug companies. It takes quite a bit of capital to research and develop drugs so there is a legitimate cost associated with them that has to be paid by someone.

If you spent every penny you had to collect, investigate and develop a drug, you couldn't just give it away. How would you eat since you sank every penny you had into it's development.

That said, big pharma is a bunch of azzholes. They've turned doctors into not much more than drug pushers. There are some questions I'd have for the woman though in the article. The drug she has her son on is not meant to be taken forever. It's only supposed to be used for acute disorders and isn't meant to be used as a primary drug nor should it be used long term anyway. It's nasty stuff. The kid must be on other drugs in addition to the one mentioned.

The story doesn't sound right at all. There are some details left out and it's a just hit piece on Santorum. Not that anyone should need any more stories about how obtuse Santorum is.

rdsrds2120 wrote:True, but I think there's a definite difference between free and fair/affordable in this case of health care.

-rd

Did you have to pay for the equipment, materials, and people to make those medicines? Did you have to put in the time and resources to pass FDA and DEA inspections, licenses, patents, years of pilot and clinical trials? Those things aren't cheap and in fact come with a price tag. Why should the manufacturer simply cut down the price of their medicine to make it fair or affordable to the customer when there was nothing fair or affordable about the manufacturing process? The fair price is the price where the manufacturer and supplier can recuperate their costs as well as make some money on the product. Life-saving drugs aren't cheap, so no one can expect them to be handed out for free.

Night Strike wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:True, but I think there's a definite difference between free and fair/affordable in this case of health care.

-rd

Did you have to pay for the equipment, materials, and people to make those medicines? Did you have to put in the time and resources to pass FDA and DEA inspections, licenses, patents, years of pilot and clinical trials? Those things aren't cheap and in fact come with a price tag. Why should the manufacturer simply cut down the price of their medicine to make it fair or affordable to the customer when there was nothing fair or affordable about the manufacturing process? The fair price is the price where the manufacturer and supplier can recuperate their costs as well as make some money on the product. Life-saving drugs aren't cheap, so no one can expect them to be handed out for free.

Basic supply and demand? If they want to sell any at all, it has to be within scope of consumer purchase. There are other means to make it cost less, too. Subsidies are one example on the company's end, and on the consumer's end there could be some type of financing available.

Also, I haven't suggest that they be free once. Please quit going to that extreme

-rd

patches70 wrote:Santorum is crazy. He'd be worse than Obama. In this case he has a point about the drug companies. It takes quite a bit of capital to research and develop drugs so there is a legitimate cost associated with them that has to be paid by someone.

If you spent every penny you had to collect, investigate and develop a drug, you couldn't just give it away. How would you eat since you sank every penny you had into it's development.

That said, big pharma is a bunch of azzholes. They've turned doctors into not much more than drug pushers. There are some questions I'd have for the woman though in the article. The drug she has her son on is not meant to be taken forever. It's only supposed to be used for acute disorders and isn't meant to be used as a primary drug nor should it be used long term anyway. It's nasty stuff. The kid must be on other drugs in addition to the one mentioned.

The story doesn't sound right at all. There are some details left out and it's a just hit piece on Santorum. Not that anyone should need any more stories about how obtuse Santorum is.

basically all that needs to be said. agree 100%

patches70 wrote:Santorum is crazy. He'd be worse than Obama. In this case he has a point about the drug companies. It takes quite a bit of capital to research and develop drugs so there is a legitimate cost associated with them that has to be paid by someone.

If you spent every penny you had to collect, investigate and develop a drug, you couldn't just give it away. How would you eat since you sank every penny you had into it's development.

That said, big pharma is a bunch of azzholes. They've turned doctors into not much more than drug pushers. There are some questions I'd have for the woman though in the article. The drug she has her son on is not meant to be taken forever. It's only supposed to be used for acute disorders and isn't meant to be used as a primary drug nor should it be used long term anyway. It's nasty stuff. The kid must be on other drugs in addition to the one mentioned.

The story doesn't sound right at all. There are some details left out and it's a just hit piece on Santorum. Not that anyone should need any more stories about how obtuse Santorum is.

Furthermore, we have to examine the organizations beyond the capitalist institution--notably the FDA, and all the regulations which control the production, development, and release of new medicine. These are responsible for the high costs in producing medicine, so it's not something as simple as "give subsidies, force down prices" (as rds mentioned earlier). That would probably solve some immediate problems in the short-run, but it would definitely create more problems in the long-run (esp. systemic problems, which would be difficult to remove).

The high costs shouldn't be surprising since the FDA exerts a monopoly granted by the government on the certification of drugs.

The whole system needs to be revamped in order to provide cheaper drugs, but nearly all politicians don't have the will to do so. There's the issue of lobbying and vested interests which reinforce the status quo.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patches70 wrote:Santorum is crazy. He'd be worse than Obama. In this case he has a point about the drug companies. It takes quite a bit of capital to research and develop drugs so there is a legitimate cost associated with them that has to be paid by someone.

If you spent every penny you had to collect, investigate and develop a drug, you couldn't just give it away. How would you eat since you sank every penny you had into it's development.

That said, big pharma is a bunch of azzholes. They've turned doctors into not much more than drug pushers. There are some questions I'd have for the woman though in the article. The drug she has her son on is not meant to be taken forever. It's only supposed to be used for acute disorders and isn't meant to be used as a primary drug nor should it be used long term anyway. It's nasty stuff. The kid must be on other drugs in addition to the one mentioned.

The story doesn't sound right at all. There are some details left out and it's a just hit piece on Santorum. Not that anyone should need any more stories about how obtuse Santorum is.

The whole system needs to be revamped in order to provide cheaper drugs, but nearly all politicians don't have the will to do so. There's the issue of lobbying and vested interests which reinforce the status quo.

Certainly, the system could (?) be fixed. But until then it's the system we have and because people don't understand they get into the positions of the woman in the article. Not necessarily through any fault of her own (or her son's) but what she controls, that is her attitude, is rooted in a misunderstanding of how these drugs come into existence in the first place. For her to lament "It's too expensive, fix it!" is rather short sighted and frankly ignorant.

For people to be provided free drugs* means that those who labored to bring those drugs to market get nothing. Those who administer the drugs get nothing. Even doctors, nurses, pharmacists and drug company executives have families to house, feed and provide for. People rarely seen anything past their own selves. This includes everyone, even the poor woman in the article.

Such is life.


*EDIT: I'm not saying you were implying that "free" drugs as an option, but rather commenting on the mentality of people who think such things should be provided for free as if it's the individual's right to take the labor of others at no cost to themselves. There is no such thing as free drugs, someone has to pay for it and those who want the "free" drugs don't realize that they are paying for it in the end one way or another.

Night Strike wrote:A government that takes "compassion" on people and gives them whatever they want for free (to them) can also take it away whenever they choose. Neither the government nor the drug company owes her free medicine. More people need a dose of reality to learn that it is not the government's job to take care of them, no matter what their circumstances are.

Perhaps you could read the article, as nobody is talking about "owing her free medicine".

As well, you talk about reimbursing for the costs. If it wasn't for the absolute ridiculousness of health care insurance, NOBODY would be buying their drug...the only way anyone can afford it is because health care insurance spreads the cost of it amongst all of their policy-holders. That's not the free market working.

At any rate, kudos to Mr. Santorum. It's about time people realize that medical care isn't a right, it's a privilege only to those that can afford it. This is societal Darwinism at its finest. Eventually, the only people in America will be the extremely wealthy, as God intended.
Thank God for Rick Santorum! Just ask yourself 'What Would Jesus Do?'. The answer is 'Buy an iPad and push that little kid off a bridge.'

“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

When I read something like this, I think yea he's in the drug companies back pocket. Of course, undoubtedly so are the other guys in the race, on both aisles. If anything though, at least Santorum isn't double talking, saying he wants to get prices down with no real intention of doing it.

Also, these drug politics are not new. In the 90's Gore was Clinton's Africa ambassador and he threatened law suits and trade embargos against impoverished countries making patented American knock-off drugs (for treating AIDS) and selling em for pennies and "robbing" big pharma of their benjamins. When the WHO ruled that saving the people from an epidemic was legal, only then did Gore/Clinton relent.

Night Strike wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:True, but I think there's a definite difference between free and fair/affordable in this case of health care.

-rd

Did you have to pay for the equipment, materials, and people to make those medicines?

'
Tax payers DO pay for most medical research.
We don't get the patents, because the law prohibits it, but we do fund the research.

Night Strike wrote: Did you have to put in the time and resources to pass FDA and DEA inspections, licenses, patents, years of pilot and clinical trials?

WE, not the company pay for those inspections, administration of license and patents. Often we helped fund the clinical trials as well.

Night StrikeThose things aren't cheap and in fact come with a price tag. Why should the manufacturer simply cut down the price of their medicine to make it fair or affordable to the customer when there was nothing fair or affordable about the manufacturing process? [/quote]
A. the manufacturer did not pay for those things fully.
B. Its called humanity and compassion. Our country can do better than that.
C. What Woodruff said.
[quote="Night Strike The fair price is the price where the manufacturer and supplier can recuperate their costs as well as make some m[quote="Night Strike wrote:oney on the product. Life-saving drugs aren't cheap, so no one can expect them to be handed out for free.

yeah, because sick people have all the time and energy they need to comparison shop, are not about to just listen to their doctor and follow his reccomendations. Becuase we absolutely have a free and open drug system in this country... NOT!!!

patches70 wrote:[
For people to be provided free drugs* means that those who labored to bring those drugs to market get nothing. Those who administer the drugs get nothing. Even doctors, nurses, pharmacists and drug company executives have families to house, feed and provide for. People rarely seen anything past their own selves. This includes everyone, even the poor woman in the article.

Such is life.


*EDIT: I'm not saying you were implying that "free" drugs as an option, but rather commenting on the mentality of people who think such things should be provided for free as if it's the individual's right to take the labor of others at no cost to themselves. There is no such thing as free drugs, someone has to pay for it and those who want the "free" drugs don't realize that they are paying for it in the end one way or another.

Except, the ones who have that attitude are not the sick people, its the stockholders and administration of these supply companies and medical insurance companies... with the insurance companies by far the worst.

Not to mention, you can firmly put some blame on all the healthy young 20-30 somethings who are proclaiming that they "should not have to pay for insurance they don't need". They may not need it right now...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

patches70 wrote:[
For people to be provided free drugs* means that those who labored to bring those drugs to market get nothing. Those who administer the drugs get nothing. Even doctors, nurses, pharmacists and drug company executives have families to house, feed and provide for. People rarely seen anything past their own selves. This includes everyone, even the poor woman in the article.

Such is life.


*EDIT: I'm not saying you were implying that "free" drugs as an option, but rather commenting on the mentality of people who think such things should be provided for free as if it's the individual's right to take the labor of others at no cost to themselves. There is no such thing as free drugs, someone has to pay for it and those who want the "free" drugs don't realize that they are paying for it in the end one way or another.

Except, the ones who have that attitude are not the sick people, its the stockholders and administration of these supply companies and medical insurance companies... with the insurance companies by far the worst.

Not to mention, you can firmly put some blame on all the healthy young 20-30 somethings who are proclaiming that they "should not have to pay for insurance they don't need". They may not need it right now...

Exactly, patches. The above is a great example of a person who doesn't get it. It's zero-sum, black-and-white for her. Of course, it's the evil corporations that are responsible! Never mind the role which legal and political institutions have played. The outcome is solely the fault of these big bad corporations.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

patches70 wrote:[
For people to be provided free drugs* means that those who labored to bring those drugs to market get nothing. Those who administer the drugs get nothing. Even doctors, nurses, pharmacists and drug company executives have families to house, feed and provide for. People rarely seen anything past their own selves. This includes everyone, even the poor woman in the article.

Such is life.


*EDIT: I'm not saying you were implying that "free" drugs as an option, but rather commenting on the mentality of people who think such things should be provided for free as if it's the individual's right to take the labor of others at no cost to themselves. There is no such thing as free drugs, someone has to pay for it and those who want the "free" drugs don't realize that they are paying for it in the end one way or another.

Except, the ones who have that attitude are not the sick people, its the stockholders and administration of these supply companies and medical insurance companies... with the insurance companies by far the worst.

Not to mention, you can firmly put some blame on all the healthy young 20-30 somethings who are proclaiming that they "should not have to pay for insurance they don't need". They may not need it right now...

Exactly, patches. The above is a great example of a person who doesn't get it. It's zero-sum, black-and-white for her. Of course, it's the evil corporations that are responsible! Never mind the role which legal and political institutions have played. The outcome is solely the fault of these big bad corporations.

Solely? Perhaps you should read her post again.

Oh shit, I change "solely" to "primarily," and my post is fine. Her criticism on corporations still is "zero-sum and black-and-white." My main point of her overlooking the means of the current outcome still holds true. She fits that category. Here she is blaming companies ("as the worst") or youngsters, when she should also include the role of the political and legal institutions. But she doesn't, thus her view is incomplete which leads her to an erroneous conclusion.

Thank f*ck I live in a country free of idiots like Santorum.

Shame on you Night Strike for defending a bigoted, heartless and immoral man. Would you gladly die should you be unwell and unable to afford the medicine that would surely save your life?

People have a right to be treated with the best healthcare possible regardless of how rich they are.

pmchugh wrote:People have a right to be treated with the best healthcare possible regardless of how rich they are.

At whose cost?

Also, favorite Santorum gif:



-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

pmchugh wrote:People have a right to be treated with the best healthcare possible regardless of how rich they are.

At whose cost?

Also, favorite Santorum gif:



-TG

By best possible, I mean equal amongst all.

Night Strike wrote:A government that takes "compassion" on people and gives them whatever they want for free (to them) can also take it away whenever they choose. Neither the government nor the drug company owes her free medicine. More people need a dose of reality to learn that it is not the government's job to take care of them, no matter what their circumstances are.

Is that your reason why you like Santorum?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh shit, I change "solely" to "primarily," and my post is fine. Her criticism on corporations still is "zero-sum and black-and-white." My main point of her overlooking the means of the current outcome still holds true. She fits that category. Here she is blaming companies ("as the worst") or youngsters, when she should also include the role of the political and legal institutions. But she doesn't, thus her view is incomplete which leads her to an erroneous conclusion.

MY views are distorted? Seems like my comment was in response to someone claiming that only the companies were solely paying for research and therefore have no obligation to taxpayers. They are blatantly NOT. I also said compassion should matter in our country.

I made no further claims in that post, despite your protests.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:At whose cost?

Everyone can pay for everyone else.

pmchugh wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

pmchugh wrote:People have a right to be treated with the best healthcare possible regardless of how rich they are.

At whose cost?

Also, favorite Santorum gif:



-TG

By best possible, I mean equal amongst all.

Give it time__ I'm sure the care will be equally shitty for all. That's best baby!

ViperOverLord wrote:Give it time__ I'm sure the care will be equally shitty for all. That's best baby!

While the NHS isn't perfect it still delivers equal and relatively high quality health care and has been doing so for 64 years. How much more time should we give it?

natty_dread wrote:Everyone can pay for everyone else.

And what if I refuse to pay?

-TG