Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 41 days in Iraq, or 10 million children insured? Hmmm.... which will I choose?

41 days in Iraq, or 10 million children insured? Hmmm.... which will I choose? (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post


I really don't know. That's why I pointed out the lame source.

It is wikipedia. I could just change it so it says it is socialized medicine.

I mean, that's probably what it meant, i.e. somebody has an opinion it isn't socialized medicine, so that's what they write, complete with a fake source to lure in the gullible.

Ahem.

I disagree with your interpretation. I interpret it as socialized medicine being a social program offered by the government. Like any other social program where you would find a social worker, socialized medicine administrators and dispensers are government workers.

I may have been wrong in thinking that a country has to be 100% public to offer socialized medicine. I'm not sure which countries, if any, do offer 100% government provided health care (with the obvious exceptions of countries that do not have capitalist economies).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I disagree with your interpretation. I interpret it as socialized medicine being a social program offered by the government. Like any other social program where you would find a social worker, socialized medicine administrators and dispensers are government workers.

Why are we trying to interpret an un-sourced statement when we have a sourced one thoughtfully furnished by Chongo?

The wiki article says "Canada is unusual in that the government pays for almost 100% of hospital and physician care". Who are these doctors working for? Let's call a spade a spade.

If you'll forgive my Latin doggrel: quis administrates ipsos administratoris?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Lawyers and malpractice insurance is a big expense, but even bigger is the expense of having to provide service without getting payment from a patient and/or insurance company. Entire billing departments are needed for this sort of thing, which is why EMT workers around here make barely more than minimum wage.
Illegals aliens wouldn't be to blame would they? Naaaaaaa....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why are we trying to interpret an un-sourced statement when we have a sourced one thoughtfully furnished by Chongo?

The wiki article says "Canada is unusual in that the government pays for almost 100% of hospital and physician care". Who are these doctors working for? Let's call a spade a spade.

If you'll forgive my Latin doggrel: quis administrates ipsos administratoris?
It's not unsourced, I just haven't read through the article it is sourcing yet. Besides, my interpretation applies to the dictionary definition that was posted, I think.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 09:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Illegals aliens wouldn't be to blame would they? Naaaaaaa....
Partly, there are a number of factors to account for here. Don't be too quick to apply your simplistic solution/conclusion here.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes.
Very dumb idea.

While it may help drive costs down over time, Canadians spend $300-900/year in their tax dollars for their health care. If $900/year will buy health care that works and many Americans are unwilling to look into these options based on the notion that it will cost too much, I don't see $15,000 as much of a rational improvement as far as what would be required politically to push such a thing through...

Secondly, what does it do to help the millions of Americans that are uninsured?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Partly, there are a number of factors to account for here. Don't be too quick to apply your simplistic solution/conclusion here.

So give us a complete and accurate breakdown OK. I'd like to see your un-simple solution. Perhaps without a condescending attitude?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Very dumb idea.

While it may help drive costs down over time, Canadians spend $300-900/year in their tax dollars for their health care. If $900/year will buy health care that works and many Americans are unwilling to look into these options based on the notion that it will cost too much, I don't see $15,000 as much of a rational improvement as far as what would be required politically to push such a thing through...

Secondly, what does it do to help the millions of Americans that are uninsured?
What effect to the possible fake drugs play in the costs? They don't have anything as convoluted as the FDA to 'make sure' of the quality of our placebos.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So give us a complete and accurate breakdown OK. I'd like to see your un-simple solution. Perhaps without a condescending attitude?
My point was that there aren't simple solutions or simple causes, but there are prominent and important causes as I've already accounted for.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
What effect to the possible fake drugs play in the costs? They don't have anything as convoluted as the FDA to 'make sure' of the quality of our placebos.
Why did you even bother responding to my post if you wanted to say something so tangential? If this is related, please tie the two together... I don't understand the point of your post.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Illegals aliens wouldn't be to blame would they? Naaaaaaa....
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Partly, there are a number of factors to account for here. Don't be too quick to apply your simplistic solution/conclusion here.
I live in a border state that has ER rooms that are filled with illegals getting their primary care. Go to Douglas or Nogales and you will see what I am talking about.

Hilary wants to give a $5000 baby bond for every child born in the U.S. (est 20B a year). I can see them lining up to cross into the U.S. already. They will come over, use the E.R., fill out the paperwork and collect 5K, and go home, while we get stuck for the medical bills from the unpaid E.R. services.

As far as I am concerned that is the same as shoplifting, stores include the cost of theft into the prices of their merchandise, so in the end we all pay. Hospitals and doctors have to recoup the money they lose from treating illegals, and we are the ones that pay in increased fees.

WorldNetDaily: Illegal aliens threaten U.S. medical system

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Cristobal Silverio emigrated illegally from Mexico to Stockton, Calif., in 1997 to work as a fruit picker.

He brought with him his wife, Felipa, and three children, 19, 12 and 8 – all illegals. When Felipa gave birth to her fourth child, daughter Flor, the family had what is referred to as an "anchor baby" – an American citizen by birth who provided the entire Silverio clan a ticket to remain in the U.S. permanently.

But Flor was born premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator and cost the San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, oldest daughter Lourdes married an illegal alien gave birth to a daughter, too. Her name is Esmeralda. And Felipa had yet another child, Cristian.

The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding for the family. Flor gets $600 a month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. While the Silverios earned $18,000 last year picking fruit, they picked up another $12,000 for their two "anchor babies."
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
further down in the article:
While politicians often mention there are 43 million without health insurance in this country, the report estimates that at least 25 percent of those are illegal immigrants. The figure could be as high as 50 percent.

Not being insured does not mean they don't get medical care.

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985, hospitals are obligated to treat the uninsured without reimbursement.


"Government imposes viciously stiff fines and penalties on any physician and any hospital refusing to treat any patient that a zealous prosecutor deems an emergency patient, even though the hospital or physician screened and declared the patient's illness or injury non-emergency," says the report. "But government pays neither hospital nor physician for treatments. In addition to the fiscal attack on medical facilities and personnel, EMTALA is a handy truncheon with which to pummel politically unpopular physicians by falsely accusing them of violating EMTALA."
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why did you even bother responding to my post if you wanted to say something so tangential? If this is related, please tie the two together... I don't understand the point of your post.
The Canadian method of acquiring medicines and methods of 'quality control' seem to produce cheaper medicines. Does this figure into the lesser costs they pay, or are we just talking the personnel costs?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The Canadian method of acquiring medicines and methods of 'quality control' seem to produce cheaper medicines. Does this figure into the lesser costs they pay, or are we just talking the personnel costs?
No, it doesn't.

Medicare doesn't cover drugs (as you would know if you read the Wikipedia page I provided: Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). This is not factored in to tax dollars.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I live in a border state that has ER rooms that are filled with illegals getting their primary care. Go to Douglas or Nogales and you will see what I am talking about.

Hilary wants to give a $5000 baby bond for every child born in the U.S. (est 20B a year). I can see them lining up to cross into the U.S. already. They will come over, use the E.R., fill out the paperwork and collect 5K, and go home, while we get stuck for the medical bills from the unpaid E.R. services.

As far as I am concerned that is the same as shoplifting, stores include the cost of theft into the prices of their merchandise, so in the end we all pay. Hospitals and doctors have to recoup the money they lose from treating illegals, and we are the ones that pay in increased fees.

WorldNetDaily: Illegal aliens threaten U.S. medical system


http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
further down in the article:

Chongo: clearly illegal immigration is putting a strain on the health care system, but so are other things, as is illegal immigration putting strain on other resources in our society. Illegal immigration is a much larger problem that needs a much broader solution. It is not exclusively a problem facing health care.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It's not unsourced, I just haven't read through the article it is sourcing yet.

I'm specifically referring to the quote "it is not 'socialized medicine'", the quote you provided as relevant proof of your statements. That sentence isn't sourced.


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Besides, my interpretation applies to the dictionary definition that was posted, I think.

Well, provide some evidence.

So far,

1) You've given an un-sourced statement from Wiki.
2) Glossed over that the root word of "administer" is administrate.
3) Claimed health care has to be 100% government controlled to qualify as "socialized medicine" even though the definition makes no such statement, but...
4) The Wiki article you provided says "Canada is unusual in that the government pays for almost 100% of hospital and physician care.", yet that still doesn't qualify.

There has also been a (somewhat obnoxious) implication throughout all this that we are too dumb to look past the "red scare" and actually have a problem with "socialized medicine" because we have a problem with it.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the issue is that you are just fine with "socialized medicine".
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 05:41 PM
 
Most people who know what it is are 'fine with socialized medicine'.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Very dumb idea.

While it may help drive costs down over time, Canadians spend $300-900/year in their tax dollars for their health care. If $900/year will buy health care that works and many Americans are unwilling to look into these options based on the notion that it will cost too much.

I don't think you understand the problem people are having. Americans are unwilling to look into those options because they are public. They are willing to have more expensive health care to keep it private.


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Secondly, what does it do to help the millions of Americans that are uninsured?

Admittedly, he's fuzzy on that, but I'm interested in what the best plan is, which may mean modification from what is presented. This seems like an excellent idea for those who pay taxes, for those who don't, bolt on whatever "socialized medicine" program you want.

As I said, there are some things that only socialist policy can accomplish, but it needs to butt the hell out of things that can be accomplished by other means.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Most people who know what it is are 'fine with socialized medicine'.

Well, am I using an incorrect definition? I'm not fine with it.

Others seem to be fine yet have problems with the definition.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't think you understand the problem people are having. Americans are unwilling to look into those options because they are public. They are willing to have more expensive health care to keep it private.
Yes, that's exactly right - people would rather get critically ill, go bankrupt and die than get world class healthcare from the PUBLIC SECTOR. I certainly would. If I was a rabid lunatic, that is.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, am I using an incorrect definition? I'm not fine with it.

Others seem to be fine yet have problems with the definition.
What do you think it is?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Yes, that's exactly right - people would rather get critically ill, go bankrupt and die than get world class healthcare from the PUBLIC SECTOR. I certainly would. If I was a rabid lunatic, that is.

So, you're going to go bankrupt and die if you have $15,000 to pay for your insurance?

Pay attention.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:03 PM
 
People without insurance, or who loose their job-related health insurance through being sick can easily be bankrupted by medical bills and be unable to afford care.

Pay attention.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm specifically referring to the quote "it is not 'socialized medicine'", the quote you provided as relevant proof of your statements. That sentence isn't sourced.





Well, provide some evidence.

So far,

1) You've given an un-sourced statement from Wiki.
2) Glossed over that the root word of "administer" is administrate.
3) Claimed health care has to be 100% government controlled to qualify as "socialized medicine" even though the definition makes no such statement, but...
4) The Wiki article you provided says "Canada is unusual in that the government pays for almost 100% of hospital and physician care.", yet that still doesn't qualify.

There has also been a (somewhat obnoxious) implication throughout all this that we are too dumb to look past the "red scare" and actually have a problem with "socialized medicine" because we have a problem with it.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the issue is that you are just fine with "socialized medicine".

Lost interest in picking this apart... Maybe I was wrong about the semantics here, but I do get the sense that politicians are using this term in a very calculated way to invoke red scare.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't think you understand the problem people are having. Americans are unwilling to look into those options because they are public. They are willing to have more expensive health care to keep it private.





Admittedly, he's fuzzy on that, but I'm interested in what the best plan is, which may mean modification from what is presented. This seems like an excellent idea for those who pay taxes, for those who don't, bolt on whatever "socialized medicine" program you want.

As I said, there are some things that only socialist policy can accomplish, but it needs to butt the hell out of things that can be accomplished by other means.

There is room for both, and I don't want these ideas discarded because of politicians thinking about this in binary terms. Again, I point to Canada as an example of a hybrid system. I'm not saying that we should create a carbon copy of Canada's system, but looking at Canada is a good way to remember that we can find room for both. Besides, we actually already have both, 40+% of Americans are covered under American Medicare.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
People without insurance, or who loose their job-related health insurance through being sick can easily be bankrupted by medical bills and be unable to afford care.

Pay attention.

I don't see how having a plan for the people not in this situation, means there is no plan for the people in this situation.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
People without insurance, or who loose their job-related health insurance through being sick can easily be bankrupted by medical bills and be unable to afford care.

Pay attention.
Ditto for people covered under insurance that have their claims denied.

Don't know how often that happens, but I'm sure it does more often than it should.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't see how having a plan for the people not in this situation, means there is no plan for the people in this situation.
Neither do I, what is your point?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't see how having a plan for the people not in this situation, means there is no plan for the people in this situation.

The point is Guliani's problem treats symptoms and not root causes, and doesn't even treat all of the symptoms (i.e. what to do about the millions of Americans that are not covered at all and put great strains on our economy and medical infrastructure).

The root cause ignored are high, extremely inflated costs all round. Just throwing more money at the problem while not examining why these costs are so inflated is wrong headed. Costs are inflated for a number of reasons, chiefly being (AFAIK, in no particular order):

- strain on ER rooms and infrastructure from those with no insurance, or from those that simply can't afford to pay their bills causing hospitals to make up for their loss elsewhere

- medical institutions having to hire entire billing departments, creating overhead

- illegal immigration (as said earlier, this may be solved as a byproduct from addressing the larger problem adequately and effectively)

- insurance companies denying claims, forcing costs to be absorbed elsewhere

- malpractice lawsuits

- possibly lack of regulation and FDA greed


I'm sure there are more reasons that could be listed here... What we need to do is gut this stupid system and fix ALL of it, not just put a pretty dress on a turd.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There is room for both, and I don't want these ideas discarded because of politicians thinking about this in binary terms...

...is a good way to remember that we can find room for both.

I haven't said there isn't room for both, but you're proposing to make the division in a completely different way.

Canada makes the slice vertical: everyone's health care is directly dependent on a government program to one extent or another. I want to make the slice horizontal: everyone below a certain income is on a government program.

There's a reason behind this. I want as much health care to stay private as possible because it maintains the profit motive. This is what causes medical procedures to get better, the fact you can become insanely rich doing it.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:30 PM
 
I don't completely disagree with you, but there is no evidence that the profit motive causes medical procedures to get better.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Neither do I, what is your point?

Because (it seems to me) you were trying to point out a bug in the plan (the situation where people lose their insurance), when the plan isn't trying to address that issue.

The plan is for people with incomes. People without incomes are on a different plan.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I don't completely disagree with you, but there is no evidence that the profit motive causes medical procedures to get better.

Dude. Profit makes everything better.

Go get some and you'll agree.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I do get the sense that politicians are using this term in a very calculated way to invoke red scare.

While the argument can be made that your motives are "nicer", I don't see the semantic campaign you are waging as any less calculated.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:53 PM
 
Subego: what medical procedures do you think in a system like Canada's are not profitable? Are you talking about the potential for medical breakthroughs - wonder drugs and the like? If so, how is medical research paid for in this country, and who becomes rich?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Subego: what medical procedures do you think in a system like Canada's are not profitable? Are you talking about the potential for medical breakthroughs - wonder drugs and the like? If so, how is medical research paid for in this country, and who becomes rich?

If you're going to capitalize my name like that, I hope to god you aren't wearing pants.

As to the question, it's really broad. Off the cuff, I'd say that the people who get rich from wonder drugs are executives and shareholders.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you're going to capitalize my name like that, I hope to god you aren't wearing pants.

As to the question, it's really broad. Off the cuff, I'd say that the people who get rich from wonder drugs are executives and shareholders.
So how would this change? Don't forget, think globally - as you as a hypothetical executive would be able to sell your product to any customer in any country in the world.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Dude. Profit makes everything better.

Go get some and you'll agree.
Erm, I do hope you're not seriously suggesting that introducing profit motives into any system will automatically make the outcomes for all involved better, since that is obviously not true. Markets work well in some areas, but healthcare is a very difficult one, where markets have traditionally failed. Fire services don't generally get better with profit motives either.

Please try to think a little before you post.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Erm, I do hope you're not seriously suggesting that introducing profit motives into any system will automatically make the outcomes for all involved better

No, silly. It makes the outcomes better for the people who profit.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So how would this change?

Uhh, how would it not change. Don't most American drug companies have America as their primary market?

You want me to think globally. You socialize things here I pick up my company and move to Dubai.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Uhh, how would it not change. Don't most American drug companies have America as their primary market?

You want me to think globally. You socialize things here I pick up my company and move to Dubai.
Why would American drug companies not be able to sell drugs to Americans? If we copy this aspect of Canada, Canada's drug companies are private. Medicare does not cover drugs.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No, silly. It makes the outcomes better for the people who profit.
Right, I thought that's what you meant. So not for the people needing healthcare then?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Uhh, how would it not change. Don't most American drug companies have America as their primary market?

You want me to think globally. You socialize things here I pick up my company and move to Dubai.
Right, because there are less than a tenth of the population in SA as the US. Great move for your company.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Right, I thought that's what you meant. So not for the people needing healthcare then?

Well, I would say it profits someone needing healthcare if they need a procedure that wouldn't exist if someone wasn't prompted to invent it.

As for the people who can't afford healthcare, which part of "everyone below a certain income is on a government program" are you having trouble comprehending?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, I would say it profits someone needing healthcare if they need a procedure that wouldn't exist if someone wasn't prompted to invent it.
I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't think you understand even the basics of healthcare economics. Go read a book, or something, and come back when you can talk about this subject with some kind of coherence. It insults everyone when you just prattle on like that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Right, because there are less than a tenth of the population in SA as the US. Great move for your company.

If you are going to focus on international sales, why would you base your location on the size of the market? You base your operations in the country that gives you the best incentive package.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I don't mean to sound rude

Sure you don't.

So you find the idea of "everyone below a certain income is on a government program" to be prattle?

P.S. You're not really a fan of capitalism, are you?
( Last edited by subego; Oct 9, 2007 at 08:14 PM. )
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
P.S. You're not really a fan of capitalism, are you?
You see, there you go again. As if that kind of statement was remotely relevant to the discussion we're having.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you are going to focus on international sales, why would you base your location on the size of the market? You base your operations in the country that gives you the best incentive package.
I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about a company wanting to market products or services to the US as part of a global strategy. Giving up the largest market in the world sounds like a lame business plan.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
You see, there you go again. As if that kind of statement was remotely relevant to the discussion we're having.

[emphasis added]

The "?" generally implies a question, not a statement.

Edit: and, as the fundamental argument is one of capitalist vs. socialist philosophy, it's a completely relevant question.
( Last edited by subego; Oct 9, 2007 at 09:08 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2007, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about a company wanting to market products or services to the US as part of a global strategy. Giving up the largest market in the world sounds like a lame business plan.

How does moving mean giving up the market? It only means that a market was once national for you is now international.

Likewise, I'm not sure what you think makes the U.S. the "largest" market. It's obviously not population, otherwise China would be the largest market. Our market is large because of its profitability. If you make it less profitable, that is equivalent to reducing the size of the market.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2