|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jun 27, 2017 4:11:44 GMT
I keep hearing that we need universal health care because we can't have a system run by for-profit companies. But I don't understand how that's the choice. Either we buy the drugs, or government buys them for us.
Government is a terrible customer. See the military industrial complex, which wouldn't even exist. It's much easier to sell one big bundle to one big buyer. You get lobbying and bribery. The government would buy more drugs than we would, at lower quality, and higher price. Bribe us and they get the loss for our discount. The population has distributed power. The government has concentrated power. This is best case scenario assuming honest mistakes in good faith. Imagine if we had universal health care right now. We'd all be paying for Ivankacillin.
A specific example, government stocks a supply of anthrax vaccines for every man woman and child. They are continually replenished, aka wasted. The same thing even happens to yearly flu shots. There are also often two levels of vaccine quality. One made with mercury as a preservative, and one more expensive without that requires refrigeration. This is not publicized. Most people are not aware, and not for lack of advertising. Vaccine manufacturers have commercials on TV, just not for us to buy, since government has already done that. Did they buy the right kind?
There's a tradeoff that comes from enforcing minimum standards. Many people want higher standards, which are made more expensive. Very few people can afford to pay for private school on top of paying for public school too. Minimum standards replace the broad economic spectrum with discrete intraversable classes of wealth. And that's the way the rich like it.
I've also heard people argue that health care is so important that Big Pharma deserves to be rich. This is a degenerate view. No one says "we need to force people to conserve energy because I know they won't do it on their own" without knowing deep down that the price is paid in the utility bill. Artificial scarcity is the domain of aristocrats.
Discuss:
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 27, 2017 4:27:13 GMT
I keep hearing that we need universal health care because we can't have a system run by for-profit companies. But I don't understand how that's the choice. Either we buy the drugs, or government buys them for us. Government is a terrible customer. See the military industrial complex, which wouldn't even exist. It's much easier to sell one big bundle to one big buyer. You get lobbying and bribery. The government would buy more drugs than we would, at lower quality, and higher price. Bribe us and they get the loss for our discount. The population has distributed power. The government has concentrated power. This is best case scenario assuming honest mistakes in good faith. Imagine if we had universal health care right now. We'd all be paying for Ivankacillin. A specific example, government stocks a supply of anthrax vaccines for every man woman and child. They are continually replenished, aka wasted. The same thing even happens to yearly flu shots. There are also often two levels of vaccine quality. One made with mercury as a preservative, and one more expensive without that requires refrigeration. This is not publicized. Most people are not aware, and not for lack of advertising. Vaccine manufacturers have commercials on TV, just not for us to buy, since government has already done that. Did they buy the right kind? There's a tradeoff that comes from enforcing minimum standards. Many people want higher standards, which are made more expensive. Very few people can afford to pay for private school on top of paying for public school too. Minimum standards replace the broad economic spectrum with discrete intraversable classes of wealth. And that's the way the rich like it. I've also heard people argue that health care is so important that Big Pharma deserves to be rich. This is a degenerate view. No one says "we need to force people to conserve energy because I know they won't do it on their own" without knowing deep down that the price is paid in the utility bill. Artificial scarcity is the domain of aristocrats. Discuss: Surely if we as individuals buy them then some people could not afford them? I am not convinced that the anthrax example is a good one, the vaccine would have to be stored and updated regardless of who was in control, so there is waste anyway. I agree that big pharma does not deserve to be rich simply because health care is important, but in a capitalistic society that is what is going to happen to successful pharma whether they deserve it or not. I can't remember the guy, but the one who bought a vaccine and then upped the price by 400%, surely if the government were the purchaser they could do something about that, is that not a good reason to put it all in the hands of the government? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 27, 2017 19:41:26 GMT
Probably not... but, judging from the amount of money they spend on lobbying to prevent it... it seems that they think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 27, 2017 19:59:30 GMT
I keep hearing that we need universal health care because we can't have a system run by for-profit companies. But I don't understand how that's the choice. Either we buy the drugs, or government buys them for us. Government is a terrible customer. See the military industrial complex, which wouldn't even exist. It's much easier to sell one big bundle to one big buyer. You get lobbying and bribery. The government would buy more drugs than we would, at lower quality, and higher price. Bribe us and they get the loss for our discount. The population has distributed power. The government has concentrated power. This is best case scenario assuming honest mistakes in good faith. Imagine if we had universal health care right now. We'd all be paying for Ivankacillin. A specific example, government stocks a supply of anthrax vaccines for every man woman and child. They are continually replenished, aka wasted. The same thing even happens to yearly flu shots. There are also often two levels of vaccine quality. One made with mercury as a preservative, and one more expensive without that requires refrigeration. This is not publicized. Most people are not aware, and not for lack of advertising. Vaccine manufacturers have commercials on TV, just not for us to buy, since government has already done that. Did they buy the right kind? There's a tradeoff that comes from enforcing minimum standards. Many people want higher standards, which are made more expensive. Very few people can afford to pay for private school on top of paying for public school too. Minimum standards replace the broad economic spectrum with discrete intraversable classes of wealth. And that's the way the rich like it. I've also heard people argue that health care is so important that Big Pharma deserves to be rich. This is a degenerate view. No one says "we need to force people to conserve energy because I know they won't do it on their own" without knowing deep down that the price is paid in the utility bill. Artificial scarcity is the domain of aristocrats. Discuss: When you have a system as large and monolithic as the NHS, yes, the pool of potential patients is larger but prices are far lower, since the bargaining power is far greater. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 27, 2017 20:31:51 GMT
I keep hearing that we need universal health care because we can't have a system run by for-profit companies. But I don't understand how that's the choice. Either we buy the drugs, or government buys them for us. Government is a terrible customer. See the military industrial complex, which wouldn't even exist. It's much easier to sell one big bundle to one big buyer. You get lobbying and bribery. The government would buy more drugs than we would, at lower quality, and higher price. Bribe us and they get the loss for our discount. The population has distributed power. The government has concentrated power. This is best case scenario assuming honest mistakes in good faith. Imagine if we had universal health care right now. We'd all be paying for Ivankacillin. A specific example, government stocks a supply of anthrax vaccines for every man woman and child. They are continually replenished, aka wasted. The same thing even happens to yearly flu shots. There are also often two levels of vaccine quality. One made with mercury as a preservative, and one more expensive without that requires refrigeration. This is not publicized. Most people are not aware, and not for lack of advertising. Vaccine manufacturers have commercials on TV, just not for us to buy, since government has already done that. Did they buy the right kind? There's a tradeoff that comes from enforcing minimum standards. Many people want higher standards, which are made more expensive. Very few people can afford to pay for private school on top of paying for public school too. Minimum standards replace the broad economic spectrum with discrete intraversable classes of wealth. And that's the way the rich like it. I've also heard people argue that health care is so important that Big Pharma deserves to be rich. This is a degenerate view. No one says "we need to force people to conserve energy because I know they won't do it on their own" without knowing deep down that the price is paid in the utility bill. Artificial scarcity is the domain of aristocrats. Discuss: Surely if we as individuals buy them then some people could not afford them? I am not convinced that the anthrax example is a good one, the vaccine would have to be stored and updated regardless of who was in control, so there is waste anyway. I agree that big pharma does not deserve to be rich simply because health care is important, but in a capitalistic society that is what is going to happen to successful pharma whether they deserve it or not. I can't remember the guy, but the one who bought a vaccine and then upped the price by 400%, surely if the government were the purchaser they could do something about that, is that not a good reason to put it all in the hands of the government? Martin Shkreli, and it wasn't 400%, it was over 5400%. He bought the anti-malaria vaccine, Daraprim, and raised the price from US$13.50 per pill to US$750 per pill. He was then issued a subpoena to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives and refused to answer any questions. The very next day he used Twitter in a very Trump-like fashion to insult the House of Representatives. They deserve to be insulted but this guy has zero standing to be the one doing the insulting. He was later banned from Twitter for being a Blade-level pervert. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 27, 2017 20:57:31 GMT
Surely if we as individuals buy them then some people could not afford them? I am not convinced that the anthrax example is a good one, the vaccine would have to be stored and updated regardless of who was in control, so there is waste anyway. I agree that big pharma does not deserve to be rich simply because health care is important, but in a capitalistic society that is what is going to happen to successful pharma whether they deserve it or not. I can't remember the guy, but the one who bought a vaccine and then upped the price by 400%, surely if the government were the purchaser they could do something about that, is that not a good reason to put it all in the hands of the government? Martin Shkreli, and it wasn't 400%, it was over 5400%. He bought the anti-malaria vaccine, Daraprim, and raised the price from US$13.50 per pill to US$750 per pill. He was then issued a subpoena to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives and refused to answer any questions. The very next day he used Twitter in a very Trump-like fashion to insult the House of Representatives. They deserve to be insulted but this guy has zero standing to be the one doing the insulting. He was later banned from Twitter for being a Blade-level pervert. Yeah that is him, I love it when the person I assume is crap is even crappier than I could have imagined. He looked like a weasel too. |
|
