Debates
04 Dec 08
10 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"You could produce the required drugs for $100 annually, easily"
That's not the instrinsic cost. You could produce the required drugs for $100 annually, easily. The cost is that high merely because the US government freely allows pharmaceutal companies to exploit patients and form cartels.
Could you show me the digits on that?
GRANNY.
10 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869You are a maniac. I shall never understand how some people can take a compliment and turn it into an insult.
Ha! Back Pedalling again are you? " Well said" is what you replied to my cranking head rant. Now you say you didn't agree with that. Which way is it LIAR? You'd make a good politician. You know how to spin lies after the fact. You even said words to the effect that 'see, we can agree on some things"
So now you've changed your mind and disagree? I kiss Viet ...[text shortened]... he planet.
Craw on back to the vile dust from whence you sprung. Douche!
GRANNY.
YOU made a comment about the government "not having enough money for old farts" in a context of disapproval. I concurred with that sentiment. This is very simple---for MOST people---to compreehend. So think hard, accept the compliment in the spirit it was given, and MOVE ON.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by spruce112358That is one of the conumdrums of socialized medicine. They promise 100% health care to everyone, but there are not adequate resources to give everyone everything.
NICE, the organization that determines whether health care options are cost-effective in the UK has decided that $22,750 is the maximum it will pay to extend someone's life by 6 months, with a whole year worth $45,500.
As I calculate it, then, a baby expected to live 75 years is worth $3,412,500, while someone who is 30 with the same life expectancy ...[text shortened]... t a 70 year old only $227,500.
Doesn't this somehow say that old people are "worth less"?
So instead of markets, and people restricting their own usage, according to what they can afford, bureaucrats and agencies have to find means of limiting what they will pay.
Normally, this will impact the elderly the most as a very high percentage of the medical care most people use is in the final years of their life. If government can devalue the elderly, it is only a step away from euthanizing them.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869I'm no fan of the pharmacuetical industry, but the cost of making pills is the final step in a very expensive process.
"You could produce the required drugs for $100 annually, easily"
Could you show me the digits on that?
GRANNY.
Pharma brings to market only a small fraction of the medicines that they research, and often tens to hundreds of millions of $ are used researching drugs that never are brought to market.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAIDS is largely spread by known actions which can be avoided.
That's not the instrinsic cost. You could produce the required drugs for $100 annually, easily. The cost is that high merely because the US government freely allows pharmaceutal companies to exploit patients and form cartels.
In the US, if you can afford the cocktails which may extend your life, in most places you still can't use marijuana to stem the nausis which is often caused by the medicines.
There are bassackward policies all over the world, but the socialized distribution of health care increases neither the quantity, nor quality provided. Giving away drugs which someone invested to produce, may solve a current problem, but is may convince investors not to fund research for future cures.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by spruce112358The whole conccept is obscene. There cannot be a price "put" on a life, whether it be 70 years or 70 days.
NICE, the organization that determines whether health care options are cost-effective in the UK has decided that $22,750 is the maximum it will pay to extend someone's life by 6 months, with a whole year worth $45,500.
As I calculate it, then, a baby expected to live 75 years is worth $3,412,500, while someone who is 30 with the same life expectancy ...[text shortened]... t a 70 year old only $227,500.
Doesn't this somehow say that old people are "worth less"?
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignIt increases both quantity and quality, check the facts. Once again it seems reality and libertarism don't mix.
AIDS is largely spread by known actions which can be avoided.
In the US, if you can afford the cocktails which may extend your life, in most places you still can't use marijuana to stem the nausis which is often caused by the medicines.
There are bassackward policies all over the world, but the socialized distribution of health care increases neit ...[text shortened]... y solve a current problem, but is may convince investors not to fund research for future cures.