Huckabee opposes health insurance for people with pre existing conditions...

[sgreger1]

Major pharmaceuticals are scaling down research. Instead it is increasingly being done by risky startups who are then bought out if they succeed. The majors are playing the roles of middle men, and are one of the reasons why drugs are expensive.

Research should not be at the whim of capitalism.

Lol at you bro. Research works better when profit is involved. See "cold war" for evidence of this. Research fails when gov does it, thats why the military relies on private contractors, so they can actually get something done.

[Bigblue1]

My doctor put me on Hormone Replacement Therapy for menopausal hot flashes, but my hair was falling out by the handfuls and I was having chest pains. I think I'd rather have hot flashes than go bald and have a heart attack, so I stopped taking it. I DO NOT trust drug companies, or doctors. That's sad....

And this is the part, that either no one realizes or no one wants to talk about. Stupid diagnosis and over medication. And this goes for everybody who wants to cure the common cough. It's bullshit. I watched my dad whittle away because of cancr, or was it the treatment for cancer? Hears the thing folks, we waste more money in this system trying to resurrect the living dead to their detriment for no god dam good reason besides the drug companies who will continue to put out shitty drugs cuz it makes them money and does not one thing for the patient. We spend way to much on what if's and the pharma co's own the whole deal. Pharmaceutical companies are one of the worst scurges we have in America at this point. When was the last time they did anything revolutionary? I know they cured impotence, so where's the cure for cancer? assholes.......

[rollinred]

Capitalism requires regulation because of wonderful anti-competition constructs such as price leadership. Companies are more than happy to work together to drive uniform price increases and collapse competitors which don't play along. They do that regardless of government regulation.

And good drugs that used to be created? I don't trust companies to do expensive proper testing of future drugs on their own. The FDA requires extensive testing so crap like thalidomide doesn't happen again.

Your argument about uniform price increases actually proves my point. There would not be this possibility if there was less government regulation. This regulation results in oligopolies. Since there are only a few companies in this field they are able to manufacture prices. If there was less government regulation smaller companies would start appearing and offering at much lower prices for certain drugs. Everyone beats the "big company" dead horse all the time. The reason for oligopolistic markets is government regulation.

I like to discuss things and not rustle feathers when possible because it creates a better means for everyone learning and hearing others ideas... but I have to rustle a feather here even though I don't want to. Your arguments are so typical of mainstream that it honestly shows me you haven't studied this beyond what is in the media. If you had some new information to prove your points I would be interested in listening but I have heard your statements every day on NBC, CNN, and the like. They simply are talking points for a political ideology. Now if you were talking in a true economic sense and reasoning we may be able to get somewhere.

It is this mentality that is holding us back. It is the consumers responsibility to determine whether a drug is the right thing for them. If I have a disease that is incurable a doctor may recommend a new drug that just might help. I will research the drug and determine fore MYSELF if it is right for me. If I have no choice I will use it.

If a drug company creates a drug that is harmful, there is no ****ing way for the FDA to know about it until it has already done harm anyway. The FDA does nothing but regulate competition and goodwill out of the industry. How the hell did America survive for hundreds of years without the FDA? How did they survive without government run health care?

Answer is easy... they made decisions for themselves. If a doctor offered a drug or way of cure, they decided for themselves if it was appropriate.

I don't understand this ideology that health care is a persons right... it is not at all. Health care with drugs and hospitals is a very recent innovation. No one is obligated to receive it just because they are a human. That is the problem with this argument. 100 years ago this was not an issue because people payed the doctor. The doctor was not regulated by the government. Care was cheap and affordable for most people. Capitalistic drug manufacturers came along and made these chemicals that helped people live longer or cure diseases. The government saw this and just couldn't let it happen without having a piece of the pie. They regulated because it gave them control over the people. Now they are doing the same with your doctor. Treating the doctor like a drug, regulating so that they can control you even further.

The first thing I ever think about when I hear people talk about needing universal health care and the such is what they would be like in times where there were no modern necessities. Begging people for a piece of meat because they wouldn't work for it themselves or take the time to grow their own food. Really at that time it was "Darwinism" that took over if you know what I mean. Yet now days the same people that are whining about not being able to take care of themselves are the ones that advocate Darwinism. Ironic I know.

[rollinred]

And this is the part, that either no one realizes or no one wants to talk about. Stupid diagnosis and over medication. And this goes for everybody who wants to cure the common cough. It's bullshit. I watched my dad whittle away because of cancr, or was it the treatment for cancer? Hears the thing folks, we waste more money in this system trying to resurrect the living dead to their detriment for no god dam good reason besides the drug companies who will continue to put out shitty drugs cuz it makes them money and does not one thing for the patient. We spend way to much on what if's and the pharma co's own the whole deal. Pharmaceutical companies are one of the worst scurges we have in America at this point. When was the last time they did anything revolutionary? I know they cured impotence, so where's the cure for cancer? assholes.......

Bigblue....

Sorry to hear about your father, cancer is a tough thing to watch progress in a loved one. My grandfather recently passed away to its wickedness.

Your post is interesting because it honestly made me cheer out loud at one point and shocked me at others because you completely contradicted yourself.

I completely agree with people being over medicated and diagnosed. Honestly, a society with advil, tylenol, ibprophen, and the like that is used for killing pain has a serious problem with basic coping skills. I have not taken a "pain reliever" but maybe 3 times in the last 10 years. Not that it is related to your topic, which is doctor prescribed drugs, it is the OTC drugs that prove our societies problem. It isn't about drug companies pushing medication, or doctors over prescribing drugs. It is all about our societies ideas that a chemical will solve our problems.

Honestly, there is a vast majority of our society that goes to a doctor for a cold, sneeze, caugh, etc. and if the doctor told them "go home and rest" they would be LIVID. They expect when going to the doctor that they will get something that will cure the problem faster than letting it run its course. If I were a doctor I would simply give people what they really came here for... a drug. Its not the doctors fault, rather the patients.

Now don't take it wrong because in your Dad's case, terminal illness, drugs are pushed to a limit they should not be. But why is this... because of the doctor? or the pharmaceutical company? Nope.

It is because of the patient or their family. Doctors are not giving drugs out because they make money. Hospitals don't buy drugs because the make money. The doctors that treat terminal or serious illnesses are generally paid by a hospital which is directly connected to the government already. No amount of system changing would change the price or the amount of drugs already being given. The issue here is that the family often will not let go of the inevitable; therefore, they demand that everything possible be done to save or prolong their loved one. The doctor therefore becomes conditioned by the grieving families to do everything in his ability to prolong the life. Even though the doctor knows he can not possibly save this person he will try, or face consequences.

I agree that pharmaceutical companies are not doing their job right now, but all of it is hand-in-hand with the government. Mainly the FDA and liberal regulatory mentalities that have shut down competition and stopped the progression of drug development. If we did not have any regulation we would have been much closer if not at the point of a cancer stopping drug that would save millions because there would be thousands more companies that feel they would be able to make a profit creating something people actually need. Profits by companies are the best thing a country can have. Good things make the highest profits. But when companies are regulated they choose to simply follow the profits and not reinvest in R&D. If there was less regulation they would be free to try experimental drugs on cancer patients that would die anyway. But they can't do that now. They can only test new drugs on cells removed from a body or on other life forms such as rats or monkeys.

Trust me, if I am a dead man walking because of cancer, I want them to try every experimental drug they have even if they kill me. But it isn't possible for them to do so because of regulation.

[Bigblue1]

Not sure I agree with most of your post. A lot of what you posted, to me, Is Chicken or the egg. IMO people have been conditioned to want a pill to fix everything. Have you watched tv lately probably 20% of commercials are schilling some drug........

[rollinred]

Not sure I agree with most of your post. A lot of what you posted, to me, Is Chicken or the egg. IMO people have been conditioned to want a pill to fix everything. Have you watched tv lately probably 20% of commercials are schilling some drug........

That is part of what I was saying, that when people go to the doctor they go there because they want a pill. Sure the doctors give it to them, but what would you do. Tell them to go home and sleep it off? Sure that is maybe that would be just as effective, but these people come there for a reason, to get a drug, that is what they want, not for the doctor to tell them "go home".

I blame this problem more on the patient than doctors themselves. They see an add and basically won't leave unless the doctor signs the prescription. As long as it is not going to threaten the persons life they are going to give it to them.

[dreed2]

OK, maybe someone has, and maybe we "are" on the right track (sort of)...

http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_ble...th_care_system

Thanks for sharing that link! Great article.

[dreed2]

And this is the part, that either no one realizes or no one wants to talk about. Stupid diagnosis and over medication. And this goes for everybody who wants to cure the common cough. It's bullshit. I watched my dad whittle away because of cancr, or was it the treatment for cancer? Hears the thing folks, we waste more money in this system trying to resurrect the living dead to their detriment for no god dam good reason besides the drug companies who will continue to put out shitty drugs cuz it makes them money and does not one thing for the patient. We spend way to much on what if's and the pharma co's own the whole deal. Pharmaceutical companies are one of the worst scurges we have in America at this point. When was the last time they did anything revolutionary? I know they cured impotence, so where's the cure for cancer? assholes.......

I saw my father, mother, grandmother, and grandfather all die of cancer (not to mention others in my family). My father, near the end of his losing battle, told me that he wouldn't mind all the treatments they were putting him through if any of them would cure him, but none of them would. He knew it was all for nothing. That's why I told his doctor to give him enough painkillers to make him comfortable when my dad was hallucinating and ripping all the tubes out of his body from the extreme pain he was in. His doctor told me that to do that might kill him. I told him that was OK, and personally gave his doctor permission to give him enough medication to make him comfortable, even if it killed him. It did. He died the next day, but at least he died comfortably instead of dying in excruciating pain. That's the way Dad would have wanted it, and I hope my children would do the same for me if I was in that kind of pain.

[spirit72]

sgreger, you seem to contradict yourself. Capitalism good, but you want single payer? There are a lot of variants of single payer as far as services, but they're all single payer from the govt. as far as I know, which isn't very capitalistic.

Yeahhhhhh, no.

Canada does it, and as much as we like to make fun of them here in the States, they're not commies.

Neither is the UK, which is basically the birthplace of Capitalism. Neither is France, believe it or not. They've all socialized healthcare to great benefit for their nations. Nor Sweden, nor Norway, and so on....

It works far too well in far too many nations for the U.S. not to seriously consider either adopting a similar system, or adapting it in a way that would work well in the U.S., which admittedly has a far greater population than any of these.

The only things standing in the way are vested interest on the part of providers and insurers, and the current political climate, which equates 'Government Program' with 'Communism'.

There was a time in the U.S., not all that long ago, where we had managed to take the few bits of socialist theory that actually CAN work pretty well in a free, Capitalist society, but it's really all been downhill since Reagan.

[Bigblue1]

That is part of what I was saying, that when people go to the doctor they go there because they want a pill. Sure the doctors give it to them, but what would you do. Tell them to go home and sleep it off? Sure that is maybe that would be just as effective, but these people come there for a reason, to get a drug, that is what they want, not for the doctor to tell them "go home".

I blame this problem more on the patient than doctors themselves. They see an add and basically won't leave unless the doctor signs the prescription. As long as it is not going to threaten the persons life they are going to give it to them.

I just went back and re-read my first post and I didn't say anything against doctors. I was all against Big-pharma. Not trying to nit pick, but I did not get how I "contradicted" myself like you said. Now I think I know. You read DR. not Big pharma.........Which is clearly what I said.

[sgreger1]

I saw my father, mother, grandmother, and grandfather all die of cancer (not to mention others in my family). My father, near the end of his losing battle, told me that he wouldn't mind all the treatments they were putting him through if any of them would cure him, but none of them would. He knew it was all for nothing. That's why I told his doctor to give him enough painkillers to make him comfortable when my dad was hallucinating and ripping all the tubes out of his body from the extreme pain he was in. His doctor told me that to do that might kill him. I told him that was OK, and personally gave his doctor permission to give him enough medication to make him comfortable, even if it killed him. It did. He died the next day, but at least he died comfortably instead of dying in excruciating pain. That's the way Dad would have wanted it, and I hope my children would do the same for me if I was in that kind of pain.

And that was the right (and human/humane) thing to do. It gets to a point where you are just turning them into a zombie, and they are nothing but an animated shell of themselves, living in perpetual pain. Usually after a while they have come to peace with the fact that the end is near, and when that time comes they are hopefully prepared. No need to prolong pain for no reason. Hell, maybe it's not even all over when you die, maybe there's another reality beyond. And if not, it's no loss anyways, it may just turn black.

[sgreger1]

Yeahhhhhh, no.

Canada does it, and as much as we like to make fun of them here in the States, they're not commies.

Neither is the UK, which is basically the birthplace of Capitalism. Neither is France, believe it or not. They've all socialized healthcare to great benefit for their nations. Nor Sweden, nor Norway, and so on....

It works far too well in far too many nations for the U.S. not to seriously consider either adopting a similar system, or adapting it in a way that would work well in the U.S., which admittedly has a far greater population than any of these.

The only things standing in the way are vested interest on the part of providers and insurers, and the current political climate, which equates 'Government Program' with 'Communism'.

There was a time in the U.S., not all that long ago, where we had managed to take the few bits of socialist theory that actually CAN work pretty well in a free, Capitalist society, but it's really all been downhill since Reagan.

Exactly. I am a pretty die-hard anti-government capitalist in many ways, but I am not so blinded by my politics to not notice that the rest of the world has at least a "working" system, while we are falling behind. This is america, and we are supposed to be exceptional. We become that way through innovation and being the best, not by just saying we are the best when things are quite obviously underperforming.

Socialized healthcare is traditionally government run, though the most successful systems such as the swiss system involves a highly regulated (almost to the point of nationalization) insurance system. Basically insurance companies must provide everyone a basic package, and they cannot profit off of it. Everyone must buy at least that. The insurance companies however maintain a profit because they sell "better" (supplemental) coverage to those who can afford it. It's like everyone gets basic cable, but if you want HBO you gotta pay for extra.


I don't care about anyone's debate here, because it works and that is the end of it. Like spirit said, it works so well in so many places that it would be sheer arrogance to not consider it just because the french and canadians are doing it.

[sgreger1]

I just went back and re-read my first post and I didn't say anything against doctors. I was all against Big-pharma. Not trying to nit pick, but I did not get how I "contradicted" myself like you said. Now I think I know. You read DR. not Big pharma.........Which is clearly what I said.

You guys are both right, it is a combination of both of those problems. I would argue in favor of blue however, since I feel that the pharma companies pushing it so hard is what caused this overmedicated society in the first place. Doctors just see that people want pills to fix them and therefore have formed a business model around that. The pharma companies then notice this, and come assist the Dr's in using that "take 2 see me in the morning" business model, since it is for their benefit. Meanwhile, society is too busy living life to read up on anything and they expect that these professionals we pay LOTS of money will be working for our best interest. But instead it's devolved into a situation where the drug companies are telling you you want a pill, and then when you go to the Dr the doctor immediately gives you the pill you want.


I am not saying all pills are bad because some pills really truly are revolutionary and have had a serious impact on people living longer lives, or better lives. Anti-allergy medication for example does wonders for my family. But this idea of "a pill for every ailment" is stupid, because half the time the pills are just treating the side effects of the other pills you are on. And plus, pills are TERRIBLE for your kidneys man for real, it's worse than smoking crack.

[raptor]

I am not saying all pills are bad because some pills really truly are revolutionary and have had a serious impact on people living longer lives, or better lives. Anti-allergy medication for example does wonders for my family. But this idea of "a pill for every ailment" is stupid, because half the time the pills are just treating the side effects of the other pills you are on. And plus, pills are TERRIBLE for your kidneys man for real, it's worse than smoking crack.

Yep.

Not to mention pill overuse has rendered a lot of antibiotics worthless.

[raptor]

Your argument about uniform price increases actually proves my point. There would not be this possibility if there was less government regulation. This regulation results in oligopolies. Since there are only a few companies in this field they are able to manufacture prices. If there was less government regulation smaller companies would start appearing and offering at much lower prices for certain drugs. Everyone beats the "big company" dead horse all the time. The reason for oligopolistic markets is government regulation.

Without government intervention, what is there to prevent price leadership? We already have large enough, nation-wide corporations that could easily cooperate with each other and absorb competitors which choose not to play along, as I said previously. I don't see how government regulation exclusively causes such to happen.

If a drug company creates a drug that is harmful, there is no ****ing way for the FDA to know about it until it has already done harm anyway. The FDA does nothing but regulate competition and goodwill out of the industry. How the hell did America survive for hundreds of years without the FDA? How did they survive without government run health care?

Likewise you're beating the "big, controlling government" drum. Are you saying that there shouldn't be some sort of drug regulatory agency which ensures that new drugs go through the proper testing procedures? Otherwise we'd still be at the turn-of-the-century mindset with cocaine-laced tonic cure-alls.

The question you don't address is a question of trust. Drug companies spend a ton of money on both research of new drugs before going through testing. Many, many drugs don't see the light of day because once thoroughly studied the side-effects outweigh their intended effect. Of course, this means large potential losses if a drug fails in Phase 3 clinical trials.

Are you willing to trust that a company's drug is deemed safe through their own internal investigations despite a large potential conflict-of-interest? This is why the FDA exists. It exists so your meat is safe to eat, so the drugs you're taking have known, documented side effects that don't outweigh their benefits. Placing trust in a product without an unbiased third-party stamp-of-approval is placing trust in those cocaine tonics to cure everything.

I will research the drug and determine fore MYSELF if it is right for me. If I have no choice I will use it.

Are you willing to understand your own metabolic processes which clinical researchers spend years studying? Impossible. Even researchers don't know the full extent of every drug interaction given the diversity of our species. You need to place trust in those who have studied the biochemistry of life instead, and I would place faith in a non-profit third party (in this case, the FDA) over a company trying to turn a profit after years of drug development.

The first thing I ever think about when I hear people talk about needing universal health care and the such is what they would be like in times where there were no modern necessities. Begging people for a piece of meat because they wouldn't work for it themselves or take the time to grow their own food. Really at that time it was "Darwinism" that took over if you know what I mean. Yet now days the same people that are whining about not being able to take care of themselves are the ones that advocate Darwinism. Ironic I know.

Because as humans we have been able to mostly control natural selective process. We aren't animals. It should be our goal to control selection so that as a whole humans don't have to endure the suffering that every other species experiences.

And to answer your point about my personal mindset, no I don't regurtitate talking points of whatever our media tells us these days; I don't even watch what you would probably term the "liberal media". Although it is depressing that you seek to label my own bias instead of discussing arguments I've made with something more intelligble than "big government bad".