POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[HellHound]

I'd rather live in a socialist country because of the greater safety nets in case something bad happens to me (lost my job, injury, etc) than here in America. I wouldn't live under communism though, that's for sure. I don't want to have to choose between being bankrupt and jobless, or having some kind of illness or health problem for a long period of time

[Ad Bot]

[Cappytaino]

I'd rather live in a socialist country because of the greater safety nets in case something bad happens to me (lost my job, injury, etc) than here in America. I wouldn't live under communism though, that's for sure. I don't want to have to choose between being bankrupt and jobless, or having some kind of illness or health problem for a long period of time

I lived in Switzerland growing up, and I have quite a few stories about the amazing healthcare system.

Obviously, this is entirely anecdotal, but bear with me;

When I was younger, I fell off of a stool and cut my face up on a glass table. I was bleeding pretty badly from the side of my face and we were obviously concerned and rushed to the hospital. It took me 9 hours of waiting to have a doctor, and they didn't even stitch my face up. They told us to come back tomorrow because it wasn't life threatening. Once the doctors heard that we were Americans (and realized we had money to pay them), they COMPLETELY changed their tune, offering to treat me then and there, because there was more money in it for them.

The reason we left Switzerland in the first place was because my mother had grown a malignant tumor and was on a waiting list to see a specialist, but because of her age, the wait was expected to be 9 to 18 months. We picked up and moved back to the US and treatment was started within the week. God only knows what could've happened if it were allowed to grow and potentially metastasize for another year. Did it cost more than it would have in Zurich? Certainly. But the treatment she received was top notch and quick, and she's been in remission for years now.

I don't disagree that healthcare is ludicrously priced in the US for people who don't have insurance, but that's more a result of industry lobbying and corruption which needs to be reigned in. The price of private healthcare in Switzerland is crazy as well, but the point I want to make is that the quality of service in the US is uniformly stellar in comparison to the variable experiences we had in Switzerland (which were many more than just those two, but those are the most effective at demonstrating my point)

[SeventhSandwich]

I don't disagree that healthcare is ludicrously priced in the US for people who don't have insurance, but that's more a result of industry lobbying and corruption which needs to be reigned in. The price of private healthcare in Switzerland is crazy as well, but the point I want to make is that the quality of service in the US is uniformly stellar in comparison to the variable experiences we had in Switzerland (which were many more than just those two, but those are the most effective at demonstrating my point)

It isn't just lobbying and corruption though - the basic principles of market economics are the reason why healthcare is so expensive. Lots of life-saving medications are patented and held by single owners who have no incentive not to price-gouge people. This exists independent of how much it costs to get something through drug approval, since the price set by a monopolist is just going to be a function of the cost of producing the pill and how much people will pay for it.

The reason why everyone pays less for healthcare outside of the United States can be summed up a couple ways. The obvious one is that people in India pay less because their currency has far less purchasing power, meaning consumer demand is lower and providers are forced to set lower prices. In other countries, there are socialized healthcare systems, or the government just aggressively regulates the prices that providers can set. We can't control one of these things, and the other two involve more regulation rather than less.

I don't know why your mother had to wait so long for life-saving medical treatment. I know very little about Switzerland's health system, but I'm reading that it's based on compulsory enrollment in private insurance, so I don't know why your provider put her on a wait-list.

[Cappytaino]

It isn't just lobbying and corruption though - the basic principles of market economics are the reason why healthcare is so expensive. Lots of life-saving medications are patented and held by single owners who have no incentive not to price-gouge people. This exists independent of how much it costs to get something through drug approval, since the price set by a monopolist is just going to be a function of the cost of producing the pill and how much people will pay for it.

The reason why everyone pays less for healthcare outside of the United States can be summed up a couple ways. The obvious one is that people in India pay less because their currency has far less purchasing power, meaning consumer demand is lower and providers are forced to set lower prices. In other countries, there are socialized healthcare systems, or the government just aggressively regulates the prices that providers can set. We can't control one of these things, and the other two involve more regulation rather than less.

I don't know why your mother had to wait so long for life-saving medical treatment. I know very little about Switzerland's health system, but I'm reading that it's based on compulsory enrollment in private insurance, so I don't know why your provider put her on a wait-list.

My mother is older; at the time she was in her late 50s. As far as I can tell, younger people are given higher priority for certain treatments/specialists.

[SeventhSandwich]

My mother is older; at the time she was in her late 50s. As far as I can tell, younger people are given higher priority for certain treatments/specialists.

This happens to some extent in the United States too. stufftier plans have worse triage systems for illness. Buy a nice enough plan and they'll cover acupuncture with no co-pay. Have a terrible plan and they'll charge you a $300 co-pay to get an abscessed tooth removed.

I don't know the details of why they delayed your mom's treatment. For some cancers (like p-spot cancer), waiting and watching is a safe gamble. But I'm guessing that wasn't the case since you had to leave the country.

[Mr Queeba]

corporate lobbying really stinks

[Cappytaino]

corporate lobbying really stinks

The market being forgeted-with in general sucks

It isn't just lobbying and corruption though - the basic principles of market economics are the reason why healthcare is so expensive. Lots of life-saving medications are patented and held by single owners who have no incentive not to price-gouge people. This exists independent of how much it costs to get something through drug approval, since the price set by a monopolist is just going to be a function of the cost of producing the pill and how much people will pay for it.

Monopolies in general are cancerous and destructive regardless of the industry. Such monopolies prevent the market from functioning properly. What really sucks is that generic medications (which in many cases could replace the very expensive name-brand ones functionally for a much lower price) are often either not approved by the FDA or widely available for purchase (thus putting pressure on the monopoly to either adjust their price or lose customers and money)

I agree with you that the healthcare system is forgeted, but I don't think it's necessarily the fault of the free market. As you said, patents on medication artificially remove competition from the market and allow the price gouging to happen and monopolies to form in the first place. If the market can't act due to lack of competition, of course there will be issues. I don't know what would be the least intrusive way to fix this, however.

[Nonnel]

name one system where you, a healthy, fit-for-work human being, don't starve by not working

communism would label you a social parasite
capitalism wouldn't pay you
all forms of anarchy would just directly have you starve

Don't get me wrong, everyone who's fit to work should work. I'm talking specifically about when there's no other option but jobs that underpay, which is pretty much all of them if you're not a college graduate.
IMO everyone should still have access to free soup kitchens and stuff like that tho. It's a basic necessity and some people just fall on hard times.

I agree with you that the healthcare system is forgeted, but I don't think it's necessarily the fault of the free market. As you said, patents on medication artificially remove competition from the market and allow the price gouging to happen and monopolies to form in the first place. If the market can't act due to lack of competition, of course there will be issues. I don't know what would be the least intrusive way to fix this, however.

Don't allow patents on medication would be a good start

[Cappytaino]

Don't allow patents on medication would be a good start

This is a very slippery slope to go down.

On one hand, restricting patents on medication would allow more competition to be introduced into the market

But on the other hand, restricting patents would lead to lower incentive for research and development because at the end of the day, pharmaceuticals are an industry like any other. The incentive for R&D is mostly financial.

I don't disagree that patents certainly can do a lot of harm with regards to price inflation of medication, but at the same time they're one of the larger protectors of the incentive for investors. Without capital from investors, where are you going to get all the money to develop new drugs?

[Nonnel]

This is a very slippery slope to go down.

On one hand, restricting patents on medication would allow more competition to be introduced into the market

But on the other hand, restricting patents would lead to lower incentive for research and development because at the end of the day, pharmaceuticals are an industry like any other. The incentive for R&D is mostly financial.

I don't disagree that patents certainly can do a lot of harm with regards to price inflation of medication, but at the same time they're one of the larger protectors of the incentive for investors. Without capital from investors, where are you going to get all the money to develop new drugs?

That's true. Maybe give five years or so before it goes public domain so they can get a head start?

[Cappytaino]

That's true. Maybe give five years or so before it goes public domain so they can get a head start?

Patents usually last 20 years from the filing date, so perhaps shortening the term of that to 5 years for pharmaceuticals could be very beneficial. The incentive for R&D is still mostly there, but it doesn't allow for two decades of a monopoly on vital medications, particularly things like insulin with a captive customer-base (diabetics have to buy it or die)

This demands on the elasticity of the good, however. Things like Insulin or certain cancer medications are relatively inelastic (their demand won't really decrease much if price increases), and would be more a measure to protect the consumer from price gouging.

[Kearn]

Don't allow patents on medication would be a good start

>spend a billion dollars of private investment on the development of a drug that will improve the lives of thousands or millions of people
>not allowed to have a limited period of time to be the sole profiteer to recoup the investment and produce payoffs for the people who took the risk by investing in a venture highly liable to fail and produce nothing

ok

[Nonnel]

read a little further down the page

[SeventhSandwich]

I don't disagree that patents certainly can do a lot of harm with regards to price inflation of medication, but at the same time they're one of the larger protectors of the incentive for investors. Without capital from investors, where are you going to get all the money to develop new drugs?

So if we switch to a single-payer system, we get to keep the profit incentive for investors and pharmaceutical companies, people get healthcare, and the only downside is that we'll be paying more taxes for something that benefits society more than 99% of the stuff we spend federal income tax on.

sounds like a pretty good deal to me

[Kearn]

boy considering the government alone already spends more money on healthcare per capita than almost every other country in the civilized world you'd think we'd already be there huh