Medical Drugs in Short Supply - Who to Blame?

[LittleWyvern]

Actually, I would guess that my positive vew on human nature more closely resembles yours than it would seem. I think where we differ, is that I understand the deceptive comfort provided by that tiny innocent looking word "if". The comfort is a lie.

Yes indeed, if everybody was educated properly, if there was an appropriate curriculum for everybody, and if everybody had the chance, then everything would be all better.

Those "if"s are just that - hypothetical idealistic constructs. They are not reality. Go work on your "if"s - I'll probably join you if you come up with a way. In the meantime, I will fight your attempts to take money from my family to pay for someone else.

Well, certainly they're hypothetical. It seems like your saying that because my situation is hypothetical it's deceptive. I don't think I understand: I was just proposing a plan that was opposing yours, and following through the logic of the plan to determine a probable outcome. I don't know how I could have made it more logical than that. Just because I used the assumption "if it worked" means it's deceptive: that's the only way I (or you, with "if it doesn't work") could have a premise to begin with.

Either way, I think giving people chances makes sense even if you're just thinking about your own money. Wouldn't helping people get out of welfare and become functioning members of society benefit society more than condemning them to their fate (i.e. via refusing to fund programs that aims to achieve that goal)? Sure, it cost money to do that, which seems like a paradox, but I would argue that the return on investment (the people contributing to society/the economy, for instance) would be far more than the initial investment. :)

John Doe is making a joke out of it - but yes indeed - my wife can't afford to go to college because of our high medical bills. We have insurance, and will still be out almost $7000 this year. She desperately wants to go back - but we don't make enough money to cover both health costs and tuition. Now you want to take more of it. That is an assault on the financial health of my family, and I will fight you. I will fight you at the ballot box, and on forums of public discourse like this board.

Goodness, did I ever say that I wanted to forcibly take money from your family? That would be absurd (what kind of person do you think I am?)!

To make it more clear, my arguments are much wider in scope. I'm talking about an entire society, and arguing that helping the poor can be profitable. I have said nothing about the implementation of that plan, and I have not suggested that I want to rob you. If you care, I don't think contributions to this sort of plan should be mandatory and I haven't even argued for any sort of payment plan. I am only arguing theory.

Think about what I'm actually saying (and the scope of what I'm saying) before you start accusing me of robbery.

[NeuroTypical]

It seems like your saying that because my situation is hypothetical it's deceptive.

Oh - let me make clear. You're not being deceptive at all. That tiny word "if" manages to dupe just about everybody. It makes things sound so good, even though they're not feasable. It makes stuff sound easy when it's not. Yes indeed, if things were different in a better way, then things would be better. When dealing with that tiny word, the devil is always in the details.

I have no problem with you.

Goodness, did I ever say that I wanted to forcibly take money from your family? That would be absurd (what kind of person do you think I am?)!

Sorry - I assumed (I guess incorrectly) that you would be using tax to achieve these ends. And taxation, as much as we don't like to think about it, is the forcible taking away money from people. It's only voluntary to the point where I can move somewhere else if I don't like it. It's not robbery, it's taxes.

But you were for making it voluntary? Cool. Redesign society all you like. I'll even help you if I can support the outcome you're looking for.

[Sali]

What would happen, is my wife eventually doesn't qualify for her $1200/month prescription, (or it's no longer available except through illegal channels if HoosierGuy gets his way), and she dies within a few years. Or maybe she's shuffled off to a less-effective treatment. Her quality of life suffers. Assuming the govt program is about as well put together as it can be, someone else's wife could then go to college.

Another indisputable fact: No matter how cool Canadian healthcare is, there are lots of ferries that run wealthy sick people across Lakes Erie and Ontario. They're coming from Canada, and floating into Buffalo for treatment, not the other way around. Moving the US to a more Canada-like system will kill that off pretty well.

Why would your wife eventually not qualify? In England, medical care is not dished out on how healthy, unhealthy or how old you are. It is there for everyone. It's not a case of you can have this medicine for so long and then we will take it away.

I personally cannot speak for Canada, I have not lived there. All I know is in England, if you want the treatment 'now' you have the option to purchase it or opt for private medical insurance. So you can have all the treatment you want immediately. As in the US, If you can afford it, it's there. Unfortunately there are those that cannot afford it due to circumstances beyond their control, they will be looked after. Of course you will always have slackers in any society. But there are always those that are innocent due to circumstances not of their own making that do need the help.

I personally would rather pay a little extra on taxes, have a peace of mind that my medical needs and those of whom I love will be taken care of. It's not an argument of Government for me. Let's take the Government out of education, police force etc etc. It's all one and the same IMO. I probably hold this opinion as I have lived and experienced life in a different country and find it hard to understand the American viewpoint sometimes. Contrary to some opinions over here, (and I'm not talking every American or even the majority), the world is not falling apart outside of America. I'm really not attacking America here, I really do struggle with understanding the viewpoint and I really do try. When I lived in England I felt every bit as free as I do here, even with Government run programmes such as healthcare.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Sali

[LittleWyvern]

Oh - let me make clear. You're not being deceptive at all. That tiny word "if" manages to dupe just about everybody. It makes things sound so good, even though they're not feasable. It makes stuff sound easy when it's not. Yes indeed, if things were different in a better way, then things would be better. When dealing with that tiny word, the devil is always in the details.

I have no problem with you.

Sorry - I assumed (I guess incorrectly) that you would be using tax to achieve these ends. And taxation, as much as we don't like to think about it, is the forcible taking away money from people. It's only voluntary to the point where I can move somewhere else if I don't like it. It's not robbery, it's taxes.

You must understand: I'm a computer scientist, so my method of thinking is "design good theory first, work out implementation later." I never start on implementation until I have the theory solidly defined.

[Just_A_Guy]

In fact, it seems to be a similar wait to see a specialist here in the US as it is in England. My son has been waiting for a few months to see an Endocrinologist. Please try not to buy into all of the horror stories, as they are really not reality. There are deficiencies in both systems.

Fair enough. But I'd point out that in a true market-based health care system, there are other options. For example: my wife needed a consultation with an endocrinologist a couple of months ago. We made an appointment, got a couple hundred bucks together, and voila! It was all done within a week.

A major problem in the US is that, to the extent that we've let health insurers take over, we've gotten away from true market-based health care. Health insurers don't really have to compete--they insulate themselves behind state lines, or tinker with their plans in such ways as to make them difficult to compare with similar plans from other providers. Meanwhile, they (in conjunction with our dear government) use their power to impose de facto price ceilings on health care providers. The providers, in turn, must turn to the ever-shrinking base of cash-paying patients in order to collect the revenue necessary to remain in business; so that a direct payor may pay $275 for a service that Medicaid only bills at $75 and an HMO bills at $100, but whose true market value would be $150. The result is that the people realize that paying cash for medical services is a fool's game and jump onto the government or HMO bandwagon, thus cutting provider revenues even more and raising the price of care for the dwindling pool of schmucks who still insist on paying cash.

One wonders how it would have affected our system had we opted for a little more truth-in-advertising regulation and a lot more honest-to-gosh trust-busting, instead of setting up another unfunded entitlement program.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Blackmarch]

Yesterday CBS News ran a story on how some very important medical drugs in the U.S. are in extremly short supply and in some cases patients can not even recieve the life saving drugs to fight diseases including cancer.

A life and death wait for cancer medications in short supply - USATODAY.com

Across the country, thousands of Americans like Norris are being confronted with shortages of Doxil and dozens of other medications that are forcing them into less-effective treatments or no treatment at all. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the number of drug shortages has nearly tripled over the past six years, rising from 61 in 2005 to a record 178 last year.

Every story about this issue says there are many reasons why we have these shortages. One of the reasons is that some companies are refusing to make drugs because they are making enough of a profit.

Why shouldn't the U.S. government step in and do something about this? The U.S government should take over the production of those drugs and sell them at prices that people can afford. I don't know about you but I can't can't deny a woman or man dying from Leukemia or some other disease.

You mean like with medicare? That doesn't make you pause for a second?

at most what the government should do is provide incentives for people to get into that business.. however that means $$$ - slight problem here we're trying to pull back Gov spending (supposedly).