|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/4/2009 7:25:56 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 347
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano23
Liza, I don't think she was saying there's something wrong with giving money for those, but that their money should not come from what patients should have to pay for care.
If we don't have research, how are we going to find cures? Documenting medical records digitally (ecommerce) will save loads of money in the long run via unnecessary paperwork (ie looking in one central location for the same info) and unneccessary dictation. It also cuts down on mistakes (typed vs hand written documents). Who pays for this?
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/4/2009 7:28:43 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, this is the number that is provided by MANY sources. Please provide another if you disagree with it.
I just did.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/4/2009 7:29:52 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If we don't have research, how are we going to find cures? Documenting medical records digitally (ecommerce) will save loads of money in the long run via unnecessary paperwork (ie looking in one central location for the same info) and unneccessary dictation. It also cuts down on mistakes (typed vs hand written documents). Who pays for this?
Good question; let me give you a little hint - the government isn't going to pay for research the way the free market has.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/4/2009 7:59:44 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 347
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If we don't have research, how are we going to find cures? Documenting medical records digitally (ecommerce) will save loads of money in the long run via unnecessary paperwork (ie looking in one central location for the same info) and unneccessary dictation. It also cuts down on mistakes (typed vs hand written documents). Who pays for this?
Good question; let me give you a little hint - the government isn't going to pay for research the way the free market has.
And they drive up costs so much that 48 million + Americans can't afford it either. They drive up the costs so much that MOST people have to pool their money and get health insurance.
Wonder why that is? Well, how bout let's start with the patent laws. Pres Obama wants to lower it from the whopping 12 years. Now just why on earth would a company want to prevent another from producing equipement, drugs if it would help more people, lower their costs? I think it's pretty darn right mean, evil to want to corner the market on healthcare.
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/4/2009 8:01:50 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 347
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Well, this is the number that is provided by MANY sources. Please provide another if you disagree with it.
I just did.
You didn't provide a link of your source, Jack.
Here's one that puts the number of Americans without health insurance at 87 million:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/4/2009 9:45:01 PM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 737
Status: offline
|
quote:
Now just why on earth would a company want to prevent another from producing equipement, drugs if it would help more people, lower their costs? I think it's pretty darn right mean, evil to want to corner the market on healthcare.
This argument, could be made for everything; Grocery stores("making people pay for food, when they're hungry") Auto manufacturers, dealers ("people need transportation, and you make a profit from it!"), Bill Gates ("you made everyone include Internet Expl..." wait. That really did happen). Everyone goes into business to provide a service... and to make an (evil) profit.
_____________________________
"Jehovah has power enough without borrowing from our puny arm. Peace, ye unbelieving thoughts, be still, and know that the Lord reigneth." -C.H. Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/4/2009 10:38:05 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 347
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: its_GO_time
quote:
Now just why on earth would a company want to prevent another from producing equipement, drugs if it would help more people, lower their costs? I think it's pretty darn right mean, evil to want to corner the market on healthcare.
This argument, could be made for everything; Grocery stores("making people pay for food, when they're hungry") Auto manufacturers, dealers ("people need transportation, and you make a profit from it!"), Bill Gates ("you made everyone include Internet Expl..." wait. That really did happen). Everyone goes into business to provide a service... and to make an (evil) profit.
The huge, glaring difference, though, its_GO_time, is that this, healthcare, is a service that affects peoples <and those of their family> health, their longevitiy, their well-being, their lives.
I have no qualms with the <mostly> rest of corporate America doing this in other service fields, but when it comes to people's health - NO WAY, it is greed at the expense of others health, and, yes, that is evil, imho.
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 1:09:59 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 587
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: its_GO_time
This argument, could be made for everything; Grocery stores("making people pay for food, when they're hungry") Auto manufacturers, dealers ("people need transportation, and you make a profit from it!"), Bill Gates ("you made everyone include Internet Expl..." wait. That really did happen). Everyone goes into business to provide a service... and to make an (evil) profit.
There is nothing wrong with making a profit but what I look at is how one makes a profit. A business model that relies on the government to grant you monopolies (patents) in order to make a profit and maintain the status quo is a business model that the government should not encourage.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Wonder why that is? Well, how bout let's start with the patent laws. Pres Obama wants to lower it from the whopping 12 years. Now just why on earth would a company want to prevent another from producing equipement, drugs if it would help more people, lower their costs? I think it's pretty darn right mean, evil to want to corner the market on healthcare.
Yes, our patent system is completely broken. Unfortunately, some rich and powerful entities apparently benefit from it (at the expense of everyone else), and since these entities contribute a lot to presidential campaigns our broken patent system doesn't appear to be going anywhere.
quote:
... over 130 manufacturing companies located in the United States urging the administration to shelve patent reform. In the letter, the parties clearly articulate their concerns about patent reform “proposals” that have been floated and the perceived consequences to manufacturing employment and competitiveness.
...
It appears that the manufacturing letter may be the first salvo to remind President Obama of the strength of support he received from labor and the manufacturing sectors.
Patent Reform Opponents Send Letter to President Obama
Also see
quote:
...our elected officials have caved in to what the big pharma companies wanted and agreed to a new plan that would give a twelve-year monopoly on these sorts of "biosimilars."
...
The two congressional reps who pushed this through were Representatives Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton.
...
... a quick look over at OpenSecrets.org shows that (take a guess...) the single largest contributor to Eshoo's election campaigns has been (yup) pharmaceutical companies. Oh, and they've already been the largest contributors to her 2010 re-election campaign.
Biologic Drugs Likely To Get Separate 12-Year Monopoly Protection Beyond Patents
It's very sad how the government does not represent what's best for the general public, they represent what's best for special interest groups.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Good question; let me give you a little hint - the government isn't going to pay for research the way the free market has.
The government already funds a lot of research and development.
(2008 grants)
Discretionary Grants by
Major Activity Type
Grant Type Awards Dollars
quote:
Research 43,624 $20,016,959,903
Top Research Programs
CFDA Program Name OPDIV Awards Dollars
quote:
93.855 Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation Research NIH 4,531 $2,406,013,821
93.837 Heart and Vascular Diseases Research NIH 4,187 $2,129,236,406
93.859 Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research NIH 4,525 $1,617,313,849
http://taggs.hhs.gov/AnnualReport/FY2008/discretionary/by_major_activity.cfm
Note that pharmaceutical corporations spend more on marketing and advertising than they do on R&D.
http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
and if pharmaceutical corporations really have a problem funding research and development for drugs why do they apparently have no problems funding their lobbying efforts.
Look at
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i
Which industry ranks the highest in lobbying funding? You guess it, pharmaceuticals.
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $1,687,927,909
Look how much they spent in 2007
Total For Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $225,586,454
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=H04&year=a
and 2008
Total For Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $236,002,031
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=2008&lname=H04&id=
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/5/2009 1:19:44 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 1:24:11 PM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 556
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
More discontent among average people.
I was going to post this in the "Whats The Rush Obama" because a guy delivered an ultimate zinger in here thread but it got closed.
The guy asks about Obama taking 6 months to pick out a dog for his kids but wants healthcare bill passed in three weeks???
That, people, is as good a Leno writes em!
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=14915016
_____________________________
Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 2:30:56 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 912
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
The huge, glaring difference, though, its_GO_time, is that this, healthcare, is a service that affects peoples <and those of their family> health, their longevitiy, their well-being, their lives.
I have no qualms with the <mostly> rest of corporate America doing this in other service fields, but when it comes to people's health - NO WAY, it is greed at the expense of others health, and, yes, that is evil, imho.
Peace and God bless,
I think the rationale for patents is made by looking at where we'd be without patents.
One of my friends pays $100/day for a leukemia drug. On the one hand, you could say he's getting gouged to the tune of $37K/year by a drug company. On the other hand, you can say that that drug company essentially saved his life; if he had contracted leukemia ten years ago, he would be dead today. Such a drug might not have been developed with shorter patents.
I will say that perhaps the best way to cap healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP is to put caps on the costs of certain treatments. This way, the ridiculously expensive treatments won't get developed as fast and we can save some money.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 3:10:38 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The government already funds a lot of research and development.
Yes; I said, "the government isn't going to pay for research the way the free market has. " - if you remove the current amount such companies get from selling their products on the free market, then the government is wholly responsible funding such research - which means even more cost to the government, though it will never match the funds research companies have available now for research and development.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 3:20:30 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 587
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
if you remove the current amount such companies get from selling their products on the free market
Patents have nothing to do with the free market, patents are anti - free market. They're a form of government regulation. I'm all for free markets but that includes far fewer patents with much shorter lifespans. Why should a company innovate if it already has a government monopoly since innovation doesn't help its market share any.
And the reason why these corporations are spending so much on lobbying is because they're getting something in return. What they're getting in return are government regulations/bills/funding that favor them and that's a distortion of the free market. Again, I'm all for free markets but that includes not having a government that distorts the free market by giving into the lobbying efforts of special interest groups.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 3:30:04 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Patents have nothing to do with the free market, patents are anti - free market. They're a form of government regulation. I'm all for free markets but that includes far fewer patents with much shorter lifespans. Why should a company innovate if it already has a government monopoly since innovation doesn't help its market share any.
And the reason why these corporations are spending so much on lobbying is because they're getting something in return. What they're getting in return are government regulations/bills/funding that favor them and that's a distortion of the free market. Again, I'm all for free markets but that includes not having a government that distorts the free market by giving into the lobbying efforts of special interest groups.
Of course they are getting something in return; but their profits are the result of producing products that the entire world buys.
And patents are essential to free markets; if I am not going to get paid for my intellectual property and research, what incentive would one have to put in the long hours and years of education that are required to make one effective at it?
But reforming the way drug companies do business is another issue; it doesn't require the government to take over health care, which it can't afford to do anyway. If you are worried about wasteful spending then the last entity you want to put in charge of something is the federal government.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 3:44:33 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 587
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
And patents are essential to free markets;
How is a government sanctioned monopoly a free market?
quote:
if I am not going to get paid for my intellectual property and research, what incentive would one have to put in the long hours and years of education that are required to make one effective at it?
This assumes that people can't get paid for their research without patents.
quote:
But reforming the way drug companies do business ... doesn't require the government to take over health care, which it can't afford to do anyway. If you are worried about wasteful spending then the last entity you want to put in charge of something is the federal government.
I'm not disagreeing with this. but what we have now is not even close to a free market. What we have now is a system where lobbying efforts are used to distort the free market in favor of special interest groups at the expense of everyone else.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/5/2009 3:52:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 4:06:23 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
How is a government sanctioned monopoly a free market?
Last I checked there was more than one drug company out there.
quote:
This assumes that people can't get paid for their research without patents.
I would be willing to consider a better system, provided it respects intellectual property rights.
quote:
I'm not disagreeing with this. but what we have now is not even close to a free market. What we have now is a system where lobbying efforts are used to distort the free market in favor of special interest groups at the expense of everyone else.
I would also be interested in the means by which interest groups would communicate with government policy makers in ways that don't include lobbyists.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 4:11:09 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 587
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
How is a government sanctioned monopoly a free market?
Last I checked there was more than one drug company out there.
The definition of a patent is a government sanctioned monopoly.
quote:
I would be willing to consider a better system, provided it respects intellectual property rights.
So if having no intellectual property is a better system that produces more innovation, more aggregate output, at a cheaper price then you would not be willing to consider it?
quote:
I would also be interested in the means by which interest groups would communicate with government policy makers in ways that don't include lobbyists.
As individuals they can vote just like the rest of us. Their will shouldn't be given priority over the will of the masses like this.
When these corporations complain that research and development is too expensive they lose credibility when they spend so much money on lobbying.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/5/2009 4:30:42 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 4:46:31 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The definition of a patent is a government sanctioned monopoly.
No it's not - it's the recognition that people ought to get paid for their original ideas the way they get paid for anything else they produce, nothing more.
quote:
So if having no intellectual property is a better system that produces more innovation, more aggregate output, at a cheaper price then you would not be willing to consider it?
Well, intellectual property exists whether we have a patent system or not; whether or not one gets paid for one's property is what I am concerned with.
quote:
As individuals they can vote just like the rest of us. Their will shouldn't be given priority over the will of the masses like this.
Lobbyists, for good or ill are an extension of free speech; if you want to reduce the money spent on Washington, then you have to reduce the money spent in Washington; reducing one form of access will merely create other forms of access.
quote:
When these corporations complain that research and development is too expensive they lose credibility when they spend so much money on lobbying.
They aren't just lobbying congress for R&D monies; indeed, I would say that is probably the least of their concerns.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 5:09:52 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 587
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
The definition of a patent is a government sanctioned monopoly.
No it's not -
A patent grants an entity exclusive rights to either sell a product or to sell rights to the product. In other words, it grants a monopoly to a specific entity. It's a government sanctioned monopoly.
quote:
it's the recognition that people ought to get paid for their original ideas the way they get paid for anything else they produce, nothing more.
No one is saying people shouldn't get paid for what they produce, generic drug companies get paid for what they produce without patents. You are assuming that monopolies are necessary for people to get paid for what they produce.
quote:
They aren't just lobbying congress for R&D monies; indeed, I would say that is probably the least of their concerns.
They're lobbying for free market distortions.
quote:
Lobbyists, for good or ill are an extension of free speech; if you want to reduce the money spent on Washington, then you have to reduce the money spent in Washington; reducing one form of access will merely create other forms of access.
This doesn't diminish my point that their complaints regarding the expense of research and development lose credibility when they spend so much money on lobbying.
I am not saying they can't have their free speech but we should vote fore representatives who would pay less attention to their lobbying efforts (and if they get less market distortion from their lobbying efforts then they would spend less on lobbying since spending elsewhere would be more beneficial) and more attention to what's best for the general public. More of their lobbying money should go to research and development.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/5/2009 5:20:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 5:19:11 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
A patent grants an entity exclusive rights to either sell a product or to sell rights to the product. In other words, it grants a monopoly to a specific entity. It's a government sanctioned monopoly.
It grants exclusive rights to an inventor for a limited time to profit from something they invented, provided they make the invention public. Obviously no one would have the right to sell something that doesn't yet exist - and their is no incentive for such things to exist if there is no reward in inventing them.
And incidentally; it's a principle enshrined in the Constitution, so it would take some doing to eliminate it.
quote:
No one is saying people shouldn't get paid for what they produce, generic drug companies get paid for what they produce without patents. You are assuming that monopolies are necessary for people to get paid for what they produce.
Generic drug companies get paid for reproducing that which others have developed after the patent expires. So the originator of the drug, the one who pays for the R&D, the testing, the marketing, and the manufacturing of the drug incurs most of the costs; then after the drug is proven and shown to be profitable, generics step in - which is good, but they don't create new drugs.
So in a very real sense, generic drug companies depend on patents as well.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 5:24:38 PM
|
|
|
ruserious
Posts: 83
Joined: 7/10/2009
Status: offline
|
What I think hasn't been mentioned here is that all private healthcare and pharmaceutical companies that are publicly or privately traded have a commitment to its shareholders first and foremost. The bottom line indicates whether they are upgraded or downgraded, the interest they are charged to borrow, and how many more investors they can attract. That's number one. Not to mention the salaries and bonuses of the executives. These entities are profit driven. So of course they are going to cut here and trim there, deny here and refuse there. They are trying to improve their bottom line so they can get more money. In this microcosm of the greater economy, the gap between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. That's a pure capitalist system. More and more people are being dropped from the rolls of healthcare. And due to spiraling costs, in part to feed that bottom line, people are becoming bankrupt after trying to pay expenses not paid by their plans. I'm in favor of a public option because it removes that for-profit tendency of a private institution. I can guarantee you if there was a benefit to a healthcare or pharmaceutical company to do things better and cheaper, it'd be done by now and we wouldn't need healthcare reform.
I agree that there needs to be a cap on lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 5:24:43 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 587
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
It grants exclusive rights to an inventor for a limited time to profit from something they invented, provided they make the invention public.
It grants a monopoly. Exclusive rights = monopoly
As far as a limited time, I would say that the current system grants patent monopolies for much too long. A limited time should be an average of 5 years, 7 should be the absolute max.
quote:
and their is no incentive for such things to exist if there is no reward in inventing them.
Again, this assumes that intellectual property is the only means for rewarding inventions.
quote:
So the originator of the drug, the one who pays for the R&D, the testing, the marketing, and the manufacturing of the drug incurs most of the costs
A: The government often incurs much of the cost through grants.
The government often funds R&D that pharmaceutical corporations can then benefit from.
B: Pharmaceuticals spend more on marketing and advertising than they do on R&D.
C: If the issue is that it costs too much perhaps these corporations should spend less on lobbying and marketing and advertising and use some of that money for R&D.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/5/2009 5:32:42 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 5:26:40 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 587
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ruserious
What I think hasn't been mentioned here is that all private healthcare and pharmaceutical companies that are publicly or privately traded have a commitment to its shareholders first and foremost.
This neglects the whole purpose of economies and markets and trade. The whole purpose of these tools is to produce goods and services in order to increase aggregate output and reduce scarcity, their commitment to investors and shareholders should only exist to the extent that it serves this primary purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 5:32:29 PM
|
|
|
ruserious
Posts: 83
Joined: 7/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ruserious
What I think hasn't been mentioned here is that all private healthcare and pharmaceutical companies that are publicly or privately traded have a commitment to its shareholders first and foremost.
This neglects the whole purpose of economies and markets and trade. The whole purpose of these tools is to produce goods and services in order to increase aggregate output and reduce scarcity, their commitment to investors and shareholders should only exist to the extent that it serves this purpose.
Well their business models suck. Because people are becoming health-poor. Just like someone who is house-poor. All they have money for is healthcare and nothing else. The whole system is inefficient and has turned to rationing just as some people here are afraid of a social health plan will do. so, what did they do with all that money? I poured over 30,000 into private healthcare over 15 years and still had to pay part of a $9,000 surgery. To me, that's grossly inefficient. Healthcare reform has been on the table for over 25 years. And in those 25 years nobody took it upon themselves to improve the system? It's getting worse and the private institutions could care less. Take the money and run.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 5:33:49 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
It grants a monopoly.
It grants a limited right to benefit from one's invention; it doesn't keep people from making other inventions - a monopoly is an exclusive industry, not a product. If I write the Pina Colada song, it doesn't mean I have a monopoly on Pina Colada songs - or getting caught in the rain.
quote:
Again, this assumes that intellectual property is the only means for rewarding inventions.
Well, no, it assumes in it's 600+ year history, I have yet to hear of a better one.
quote:
A: The government often incurs much of the cost through grants.
Government grants for specific drugs are a minute percentage of the costs to develop and test drugs. Plus the government gets tax revenues from drugs sold.
quote:
B: Pharmaceuticals spend more on marketing and advertising than they do on R&D.
So? It's their money to spend.
quote:
C: If the issue is that it costs too much perhaps these corporations should spend less on lobbying and marketing and advertising and use some of that money for R&D.
Well, again, the generalized idea you have about grants is minute both in terms of the total monies spent on R&D, and the money gained in terms of employment and taxes.
of course this point is irrelevant to the patent issue.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 8/5/2009 5:42:53 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 587
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
It grants a limited right to benefit from one's invention;
Mono = single
polein = seller.
Monopoly = Single seller. It stands for a single seller. Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Notes_and_references
Or
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly?r=75
Any time you have a single seller you have a monopoly. A patnet is a government sanctioned monopoly.
quote:
it doesn't keep people from making other inventions -
I suppose if you define the market as broadly as you want you can argue that we're in a state of perfect competition.
quote:
a monopoly is an exclusive industry, not a product.
It can be either or, as long as you have a single seller, be it of a product or industry, etc... you have a monopoly. A patent is a government sanctioned monopoly.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
