Forums | MacLife

The New Guy wrote:

obtuse wrote:

I have a hard time criticizing the capitalist motivations of drug companies (at least on this issue.  The refusal to allow generic drug production in africa is another story).  I think the major problem with drug manufacturers is the direct to consumer advertising, which does work to drive up costs.  Virtually everyone who got a prescription for one of the cox 2 inhibitors (vioxx, etc) should have been taking advil instead.  There was no additional pain reduction benefit from the fancy drugs over the over the counter drugs.  But because people saw the ads and bugged their doctors, they got the fancy drug.

But you would agree that the capitalist motivations of drug companies do not serve to promote research into medications that help small segments of the population.

I'm not sure I would agree with this.  Certainly there are companies like Pfizer (the Microsoft of the pharma world) who are not looking to deliver innovate products to small segments of the population. 
But if you look past the marketing giants, there are companies such as Wyeth (closer to an Apple of the pharma world) that invests much more heavily into research and targeting specific markets that the big boys don't want any part of.  They don't have nearly the market share, and are not mentioned daily on CNBC, but they do OK regardless. 

As you mentioned earlier, their products end up costing a bit more since they are having to fund true R&D as opposed to just buying new DDC's from smaller companies.

The New Guy wrote:

obtuse wrote:

I have a hard time criticizing the capitalist motivations of drug companies (at least on this issue.  The refusal to allow generic drug production in africa is another story).  I think the major problem with drug manufacturers is the direct to consumer advertising, which does work to drive up costs.  Virtually everyone who got a prescription for one of the cox 2 inhibitors (vioxx, etc) should have been taking advil instead.  There was no additional pain reduction benefit from the fancy drugs over the over the counter drugs.  But because people saw the ads and bugged their doctors, they got the fancy drug.

But you would agree that the capitalist motivations of drug companies do not serve to promote research into medications that help small segments of the population.

Until you've tried to console a ten-year old who was crying because he didn't want to die, or until you've seen a wonderful, smart, happy kid go from walking to standing to being in a wheelchair full time in under three months and the health insurance company standing by denying funding for a power wheelchair, you can't begin to understand my outrage. That someone, somewhere is profiting from the pain and suffering of my 12-year-old brother-in-law is sickening.

The profit comes from trying to help your brother-in-law.  Capitalist motivations and all are the way we deal with an imperfect world of scarce resources and non-altrustic people.  I'd rather be served by a company competing against others to serve me than a government that gains almost nothing and loses money when I seek its medical help.

charon wrote:

The profit comes from trying to help your brother-in-law.  Capitalist motivations and all are the way we deal with an imperfect world of scarce resources and non-altrustic people.  I'd rather be served by a company competing against others to serve me than a government that gains almost nothing and loses money when I seek its medical help.

Then why did they *deny* his wheelchair claim until just a few weeks ago? Why are they continuing to *deny* any help for my mother-in-law to buy a van and build a ramp so she can take him places? And why do are CEOs getting paid millions of dollars a year when that money could go to help people like my little brother?

I would rather sickness be treated as a net loss to the economy by having socialized health care than a net gain for the economy under a capitalist system.

Whenever someone gets cancer, the GDP goes up. Is that ethically correct?

[MA] Flying_Meat wrote:

i've been looking for 3+ years now, so maybe you don't have a grasp of reality. i'm not intending to insult you steyr. but just think about something other than the "easy" answer.

Answers are easy to those who are in college and aren't yet confronted with real life issues. Get a job... just wait. Reality is a lot different once you get out of school. Good luck with that.

isaly wrote:

Steyr's hooked up with some kind of gov. health care deal so he can be smug.

So am I but you don't see me being a dick.

The New Guy wrote:

charon wrote:

The profit comes from trying to help your brother-in-law.  Capitalist motivations and all are the way we deal with an imperfect world of scarce resources and non-altrustic people.  I'd rather be served by a company competing against others to serve me than a government that gains almost nothing and loses money when I seek its medical help.

Then why did they *deny* his wheelchair claim until just a few weeks ago? Why are they continuing to *deny* any help for my mother-in-law to buy a van and build a ramp so she can take him places? And why do are CEOs getting paid millions of dollars a year when that money could go to help people like my little brother?

You don't think this will happen where the government is the provider?  No system is perfect.  But I'd rather have a system where I can punish and avoid a health care provider who does me such a disservice.  It's the same principle that generally applies to markets. 

The New Guy wrote:

I would rather sickness be treated as a net loss to the economy by having socialized health care than a net gain for the economy under a capitalist system.

Sickness is a net loss under capitalism.  The gains that accrue to health providers are more than outweighed by the harm suffered by the person who's ill and everyone who relies on him (e.g., his employer, his family).  That's why, under our capitalist system, people have been constantly getting healthier to the point that life spans have about doubled in the past century.

If what you're saying is that you want health care providers not to profit from the sickness of others, then you are basically endorsing a system where providers make no money from improving people's health.  That won't work out well.

The New Guy wrote:

Whenever someone gets cancer, the GDP goes up. Is that ethically correct?

First, how do you know that?  Buying medical services ups the GDP, but if you're incapacitated then you'll do less work, which lowers the GDP.  Second, what exactly would be unethical about this?  GDP is just a measurement, and a crude one at that.    Third, this would hold true under socialism as well.

Last edited by charon (2005-02-21 5:57 pm)

Freezer mac wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I feel for you FM. You might want to talk to your doc or the pharmaceutical company that makes that drug. They might be able to help you out with free or reduced cost.

And what about other people in his boat? The pharm company can't give everyone a discount, because they have to make a profit. And god forbid they lose revenue...

if you make less than 150% of the poverty level, you might be eligible for low cost/free medications through your doctor/clinic/hospital.

God help anyone who makes 151% of the poverty level

I'm moving to smurfing Canada.

The New Guy wrote:

Freezer mac wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

And what about other people in his boat? The pharm company can't give everyone a discount, because they have to make a profit. And god forbid they lose revenue...

if you make less than 150% of the poverty level, you might be eligible for low cost/free medications through your doctor/clinic/hospital.

God help anyone who makes 151% of the poverty level

I'm moving to smurfing Canada.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Farmerkev wrote:

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Oh! Ouch! That hurt! You're so mean. I totally wasn't expecting that.

</sarcasm>

obtuse wrote:

charon wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

What if the choice is receiving help from "a government that gains alomost nothing and loses money" or no help at all?

You mean, because the person's too poor?  Then I'd favor, for example, subsidizing that person's health care expenditures before making the government the actual service provider.

No one is proposing making the government the service provider.  The most liberal plans involve just having the government take over health insurance, and not health care.

I'd say the same thing.  Especially considering that given how comprehensive health insurance is (though see freecat's post), controlling the insurance gives the government power to determine who gets provided what health care.

charon wrote:

You don't think this will happen where the government is the provider?  No system is perfect.  But I'd rather have a system where I can punish and avoid a health care provider who does me such a disservice.  It's the same principle that generally applies to markets.

When you have a preexisting condition or an insurance company comes up with some reason to deny you, you aren't going to be in a position to "punish" any provider by going to the competition. You will be marked as a bad risk and you'll have to pretty much accept what little you can get.

In this case your economic man model is just so much academic claptrap.

isaly wrote:

charon wrote:

You don't think this will happen where the government is the provider?  No system is perfect.  But I'd rather have a system where I can punish and avoid a health care provider who does me such a disservice.  It's the same principle that generally applies to markets.

When you have a preexisting condition or an insurance company comes up with some reason to deny you, you aren't going to be in a position to "punish" any provider by going to the competition. You will be marked as a bad risk and you'll have to pretty much accept what little you can get.

In this case your economic man model is just so much academic claptrap.

This isn't at all a failure of the insurance market qua providing insurance (or even if it is in some sense, it can be dealt with by paying for people's very-high premiums).  The problem here is that you want insurance to function as welfare.  Having a preexisting condition is quite a legitimate reason not to provide coverage, in my book.

But if you're just talking about insurance companies who lie, I can't see why another company would refuse to cover you simply because another one lied to avoid making a payment that was due.  That's just turning away business for no good reason.  However imperfect competition is, even in conjunction with legal remedies, it's better than dealing with a legal monopoly.

Last edited by charon (2005-02-22 3:04 pm)