I need to get my head examined if I voluntarily give money to something but am opposed to having my money taken involuntarily for something else? In the case of a donation I can see where my money is going. I can choose which group I give it to and if it is being used in a way I approve of. In an involuntary system it doesn't matter if I approve, if I find waste, or if I think that the way it is used isn't correct. If the system goes further to tell me how I can use the resources I am paying for it becomes even worse. I have now gone from spending money in amounts and ways that I see fit to having no say in either situation.
Debating the housing bubble collapse is for another thread. But, I prefer to look at the freedom in the health care industry that has kept me alive for 32 years anyway. I prefer to look at an experimental device that my doctors are currently receiving training to place in me that only exists because the private company that created it saw, as my doctor put it, enough desire for it to be profitable. Keep in mind that what this device is fixing already has a fix, but this device will be less invasive, cheaper, and improves quality and longevity of life. Now, I can thank the private industry or wish for a public system that would tell me to just wait for a heart transplant as my quality of life deteriorates to the point where I sit in a hospital bed hoping the right person dies in time. As it is now I have to thank the government for setting aside ten years of testing to give me a humanitarian exemption. How much faith do I have in our greedy, evil, horrible, private system? Enough that I will allow them to place a device in my heart that hasn't gone through the rigorous testing usually required by the government.
Perhaps you don't understand the US Constitution enough to realize that these are not the same government as the federal government, by law. To discuss this opens up a large door to constitutionality. To make it simple: The federal government has a specific list of powers. Health care is not part of them. And it is explicitly written that those not specifically enumerated to the federal government or denied to the states is the responsibility of the states. So, yes, the health requirements in businesses are regulated, by localized governments who actually understand local needs. And to delve in a bit deeper, they also are there to regulate the safety of things that the average person cannot safely determine for themselves. I can't take a tour of the kitchens to determine if proper cleanliness standards are being met without risking safety issues to myself and other patrons. I can determine if I feel I need to go to the doctor and choose my doctor on my own. Heck, I can even allow cost to play a factor on if and where.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to some of the Republicans running for president, or even to some of the libertarian leaning GTP members. We have a list of federal departments that we think should be eliminated.
I have no clue what you are on about. I assume you can quote Danoff. It should be noted that even in our private system there is still access to everyone regardless of if they can afford it. But then again, if you just get the news soundbites you would be led to believe that 35 million Americans could die of heart attacks in the streets and no doctors would care.Not everyone knows the importance of the health care system yetIt's sad to hear Danoff say if you can't afford it, too bad.
This is important because it is an issue that stands between you and your understanding of how health care works.
you
Are we curing cancer or eliminating it altogether? Cancer isn't like small pox or the polio where you can kill off the foreign agent causing it. Cancer is your cells going rogue. At best we can reduce the risk of that happening, but we can not eliminate it because it isn't a foreign body. The cure for cancer will always be needed, always be used, and it won't guarantee the person who takes it won't get cancer again unless it is taken as some form of maintenance drug. I would hazard a guess that a cure for cancer would be more profitable over time than any treatments right now.
Didn't you read my post you quoted?A cure isn't going to carry an entire industry for a sustained period of time unlike treatment.
me
me
A greater incentive has now been turned into never making an attempt to cure something.
It cost around $40,000 on average to treat cancer by the way. It would be a pretty expensive pill, shot, or whatever to cover all the profit that is made in that $40,000.
Let me simplify it so you won't be confused:A greater incentive has now been turned into never making an attempt to cure something.
Considering that whoever finds the cure gets to take $40,000 per patient away from their competitors and convert it into whatever profit they will earn, it becomes worth more than just straight dollars and cents. It becomes about market share, licensing costs to other companies that will also make it, and having brand recognition for you. Add in that the facilities where it was researched and study get to then claim that they are the cancer center that helped cure cancer, increasing their patient flow, and you have profitability through synergy that goes way beyond $40,000 per case.
A single surgery will not profit as much as years of treatment. Especially considering cost for palliative care for someone whose cancer has mets is almost $2m per year.
I know a few would profit from a cure. But billions are made per year from treatment.
Stem cells being injected into a heart of a patient suffering from CHF will never cost as much as sustained treatment for years on end. And this has been proven.
While it is true, I avoid those examples because it sets off all the "greedy capitalists" rants and is a bit unrealistic. After you breakdown all the synergy ways the person who cures cancer will benefit in business you can see that they will likely make well beyond $200,000 per treatment while never charging more than about $1,000 on a customer level (and for those who think that still sounds expensive, I have ~$1200 worth of injection blood thinner in my medicine cabinet, which comes to about one week's worth, and is generic brand).
It will profit the surgeon more. And as the surgeries will need to be done on new patients almost daily, it profits the surgeons a lot. Pharma vs Surgeons is a fun bit of jousting. Surgeons can fix it right now, but it has all kinds of risks of complications. Pharma is safer and easier, and the costs are spread out, but you are still most likely sick. But they will constantly try to find a way to make their service a greater value (aka better option) to the patient.
You don't think that whoever cures cancer won't make billions per year from it? They will make money from people who don't need the cure just because they are the ones that created the cure. The synergy possibilities for whoever cures cancer are insane.
Stem cells can't fix me, as CHF is just a symptom of a far more serious issue(s). Let me give you a hint: Someone has to die for me to have my cure.
And? If everyone was to profit instead of one surgeon there would be a greater incentive.
I don't know what is wrong with your heart, but there are ways of making hearts stronger without anything but stem cells. A one time treatment that allows the heart to pump 40% more blood instead of years of treatment is obviously better and cheaper in the long run. If everyone saved money from this process there would be more research in this area.
me
Not for the surgeon.
Yes, this is a fairly new treatment process that gained FDA approval (completion of Phase III clinical trials) in 2010. However, those are for use in cases where healthy tissue became damaged. My tissue was never healthy. Bits and pieces are in the wrong place, not acting as they should. I had to have surgery as a child to live. Stem cells would either A: Create more bad tissue or B: Create good tissue that doesn't work with the structure of my heart.
Lets say it saves $1 billion. Now, if everyone gets that $1 billion then it is cut up into pieces among all the health care professionals. That is great, unless you are the guy who spent the last ten years performing studies and trials to see the guy that barely passed medical school get the same check you do for your effort. But if that $1 billion is saved by just the guy who put in the effort he not only feels accomplishment and maybe get an award from his co-workers, but society rewards him as well by improving his financial standing, cutting book deals, putting him on TV, and generally turning him into a minor celebrity. Now, I would think recognition both financially and publicly is a nice incentive to work harder. And the people who are better at it have more incentive when their recognition isn't being doled out to everyone.
